Teaching of the Catholic Church I am having trouble with...that make me doubt others

[edward_george]

Matthew 13:54-56…"And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

And if you consult the chapter before that, you see that

46 As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 **For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.
**

And apparently, we have to do the will of the Father to be Christ’s brethren–not just believe in him…

-ACEGC

 

[RCCDefender]

Kendy:

I am not convinced that she remains permanently the spouse of the Holy Spirit…
Kendy

If you are someone’s spouse, how do you become their spouse no more? Through death? Through divorce? Through desertion?

The Holy Spirit never died, did not divorce himself from her, and could never desert her.

More tomorrow…

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

I am sure they were awed. I don’t mean they took the birth of Jesus very lightly. However, I suppose doing the time that Jesus was in her womb it would have been inappropriate,

“Inappropriate”?!!!

Kendy:

but I am not sure how this works once he is no longer in her body. I am not convinced that she remains permanently the spouse of the Holy Spirit…

Consecration is PERMANENT.

Kendy:

I hope I am not being antagonistic. I don’t mean to be. I just find it very strange. Marian theology is, for me, the hardest thing to believe in the catholic church.

You’re not alone. I’ve read conversion stories by former Protestants who say that they accepted Marian doctrines only “on faith” because they were already convinced of the authority claims of the Church. Sort of, “I don’t understand this at all, but I’m along for the ride because I trust your authority”, only to realize the beauty and depth of Marian doctrines at a later date. It helps to think of the court of heaven as, well, a court. God’s magnificence is not diminished but is rather magnified (“my soul magnifies the Lord”…) by the glory of his retinue.

 

[Della]

Alfie:

Here are a few more passages that prove that Mary had other children.

Matthew 13:54-56…"And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

A prophecy about Christ in Psalm 69, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children (vs. 8).

None of the brethren of Jesus mentioned anywhere in the NT is called the son of Mary except Jesus. There is only one Son of Mary, Jesus the Son of God.

As for this verse from Psalms, it is not a reference to Christ’s immediate family as you suppose but a reference to his being rejected by the people of Israel. No prophecy of the Messiah tells us such specific details about Christ’s immediate family, except that he would be “born of a virgin,” which is all they needed to know. If it were so important to give such details why is there no mention of Joseph and his role, as well?

 

[FCEGM]

Kendy:

I am sure they were awed. I don’t mean they took the birth of Jesus very lightly. However, I suppose doing the time that Jesus was in her womb it would have been inappropriate, but I am not sure how this works once he is no longer in her body. I am not convinced that she remains permanently the spouse of the Holy Spirit… assuming that it was she was to begin. I hope I am not being antagonistic. I don’t mean to be. I just find it very strange. Marian theology is, for me, the hardest thing to believe in the catholic church.

Consider the original Ark of the Covenant: It was set aside specifically for the purpose of containing. . .a pot of manna, Aaron’s rod and the tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Now, should the Ark be touched (remember what happened to anyone who dared touch it?) and opened and the contents removed, what faithful Jew would dare to place therein anything else but what God ordained it should contain?

It has always seemed to me that those who have such difficulty understanding the sacredness of the person of Mary have a diminished understanding of the Incarnation.

 

[Alfie]

edward_george:

And if you consult the chapter before that, you see that

And apparently, we have to do the will of the Father to be Christ’s brethren–not just believe in him…

-ACEGC

Matthew 12:46-50 is just pointing out that not even his dearest family members believed or understood him.

John 7:5…“Neither,” says John, “did his brothers believe him”

 

[edward_george]

Matthew 12:46-50 is just pointing out that not even his dearest family members believed or understood him.

How do you get that? He says rather explicitly that “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my mother and my sister and my brother.” How do you make this passage mean what you say it means?

-ACEGC

 

[Kendy]

RCCDefender:

If you are someone’s spouse, how do you become their spouse no more? Through death? Through divorce? Through desertion?

The Holy Spirit never died, did not divorce himself from her, and could never desert her.

More tomorrow…

I think there was a part there about “if she ever was.” You miss quoted me :tsktsk:

Kendy

 

[Sherlock]

FCEGM:

Consider the original Ark of the Covenant: It was set aside specifically for the purpose of containing. . .a pot of manna, Aaron’s rod and the tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Now, should the Ark be touched (remember what happened to anyone who dared touch it?) and opened and the contents removed, what faithful Jew would dare to place therein anything else but what God ordained it should contain?

It has always seemed to me that those who have such difficulty understanding the sacredness of the person of Mary have a diminished understanding of the Incarnation.

Yes, well put.

 

[SydLake]

RCCDefender:

It would mean she violated her consecration as a Temple Virgin.

You’ll no doubt flame me for saying that, but that’s all I will say for now.

The whole Temple virgin thing has a few holes. first they were from the elite and so being betrothed to a commoner like Jos. would be taboo. Also she must ahve broken her vows to travel around with jos before they were married. And then she broke them to follow her son etc. etc.

It may have been a “nice” explanation for her status as a virgin, but there is no evidence for it anywhere.

Peace

 

[Della]

Alfie:

Matthew 12:46-50 is just pointing out that not even his dearest family members believed or understood him.

John 7:5…“Neither,” says John, “did his brothers believe him”

This still doesn’t say that Jesus’ mother was their mother. In Israel at the time anyone from cousins to stepbrothers to blood brothers, to memebers of one’s own tribe or even just another Israelite was called one’s brother. This verse doesn’t at all say that Mary had other children, only that Jesus had “brothers,” but what actual relationship they had with him we do not know, except that none of them were children of Mary.

 

[Della]

I have to ask this of our Protestant brethren who are so determined to prove to us that Mary had other children: If having other children makes no difference to you in how we regard Mary why in the world would it matter to you if she didn’t have other children? Why would it be so terrible if she did remain a virgin? Why should you care if Mary and Joseph were intimate or not? What’s so important about this issue that you feel the need to make a big magilla out of it? I mean, from a Protestant’s theological point of view? What would Mary having other children teach us about Christ’s nature that supports our traditional understanding that he is fully God and fully man?

 

[Alfie]

Della:

This still doesn’t say that Jesus’ mother was their mother. In Israel at the time anyone from cousins to stepbrothers to blood brothers, to memebers of one’s own tribe or even just another Israelite was called one’s brother. This verse doesn’t at all say that Mary had other children, only that Jesus had “brothers,” but what actual relationship they had with him we do not know, except that none of them were children of Mary.

The word cousin is used when talking about Elizabeth being related to Mary. Why isn’t Elizabeth called a sister?

 

[Kendy]

Della:

I have to ask this of our Protestant brethren who are so determined to prove to us that Mary had other children: If having other children makes no difference to you in how we regard Mary why in the world would it matter to you if she didn’t have other children? Why would it be so terrible if she did remain a virgin? Why should you care if Mary and Joseph were intimate or not? What’s so important about this issue that you feel the need to make a big magilla out of it? I mean, from a Protestant’s theological point of view? What would Mary having other children teach us about Christ’s nature that supports our traditional understanding that he is fully God and fully man?

I take it you mean me? Maybe not, because I haven’t been determined to prove anything.

But as a protestant, I have no great interest in proving that she had other children.I think there’s evidence that she did and little evidence that she did not. It would not be terrible if she did remain a virgin. The only thing that matters for us is how Jesus was conceived.

Kendy

 

[Della]

Kendy:

I take it you mean me? Maybe not, because I haven’t been determined to prove anything.

I wasn’t thinking of anyone in particular, no, but why defend the “Mary had other children” position at all if it doesn’t matter?

But as a protestant, I have no great interest in proving that she had other children.I think there’s evidence that she did and little evidence that she did not. It would not be terrible if she did remain a virgin. The only thing that matters for us is how Jesus was conceived.

Kendy

If so, why do you think the Catholic Church sees it as important that Mary remained a virgin? Truly. Do you know why?

 

[VociMike]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Matthew 1:25: He had no relations with her until she bore a son…

This brings up a question. What is the point of Mary’s virginity at all? To suggest that it was only, or primarily, to “prove” that Jesus was conceived of God is really an odd answer, because Mary’s virginity was not something that anybody could have first-hand knowledge of, making it a very poor proof to unbelievers.

 

[Kendy]

Della:

I wasn’t thinking of anyone in particular, no, but why defend the “Mary had other children” position at all if it doesn’t matter?

If so, why do you think the Catholic Church sees it as important that Mary remained a virgin? Truly. Do you know why?

Oh, I hate it when I am asked a question that I don’t have a nice answer to. Well, I think Mary being a virgin lends itself to what I perceive as the catholic church’s obsession with her. Marian theology defends why Marie should be treated as some kind of demi-goddess.

Kendy

 

[Della]

If so, why do you think the Catholic Church sees it as important that Mary remained a virgin? Truly. Do you know why?

Oh, I hate it when I am asked a question that I don’t have a nice answer to. Well, I think Mary being a virgin lends itself to what I perceive as the catholic church’s obsession with her. Marian theology defends why Marie should be treated as some kind of demi-goddess.

Kendy

Don’t worry, I didn’t expect you to say anything else considering you don’t understand Marian theology beyond what you’ve heard in your Protestant denomination. If I’m wrong about this, please tell me so.

No. The Church isn’t interested in making Mary into a goddess. The Church is only interested in one God at a time–the triune God.

The reason Mary was declared very early on to be ever-virgin was to safeguard the lineage and divinity of Christ, her Son. It has next to nothing to do with honoring her, but rather honors her only as a side issue.

Now, what you need to understand is what forces were in and outside of the Church at the time this teaching was declared that moved the Church to teach the necessity of Mary’s status as a perpetual virgin.

If you don’t know this and can’t explain it, then you truly do not know why the Church declared this teaching to be true. Do you know about these things? They are just as theologically important to you as a Protestant as to us Catholics, believe it or not.

 

[Kendy]

**Don’t worry, I didn’t expect you to say anything else considering you don’t understand Marian theology beyond what you’ve heard in your Protestant denomination. If I’m wrong about this, please tell me so. **

I have never heard a sermon in a protestant church about Marian theology. In fact, I have never heard an anti-catholic sermon in any of the protestant churches I have been in. Ever! Yes, I realize there are vitrolic anti-catholic pastors out there. But in general, we really spend a lot less talking about catholics then you imagine. I came to that conclusion on my own when I was catholic.

**No. The Church isn’t interested in making Mary into a goddess. The Church is only interested in one God at a time–the triune God. **

It just doesn’t appear that way to outsiders.

**The reason Mary was declared very early on to be ever-virgin was to safeguard the lineage and divinity of Christ, her Son. It has next to nothing to do with honoring her, but rather honors her only as a side issue.

Now, what you need to understand is what forces were in and outside of the Church at the time this teaching was declared that moved the Church to teach the necessity of Mary’s status as a perpetual virgin.

If you don’t know this and can’t explain it, then you truly do not know why the Church declared this teaching to be true. Do you know about these things? They are just as theologically important to you as a Protestant as to us Catholics, believe it or not.**

I am not claiming to know why the church thinks it is important. You asked why I thought it was important to the catholic, and I told you my gut reaction.

Kendy

 

[Della]

I have never heard a sermon in a protestant church about Marian theology. In fact, I have never heard an anti-catholic sermon in any of the protestant churches I have been in. Ever! Yes, I realize there are vitrolic anti-catholic pastors out there. But in general, we really spend a lot less talking about catholics then you imagine. I came to that conclusion on my own when I was catholic.

Well, I really didn’t mean that kind of hearing about Marian theology in Protestant churches–nothing so negative as that. I only meant that since Protestant churches teach very little about Mary, it isn’t surprising that they don’t understand Catholic teaching about her.

Della:

No. The Church isn’t interested in making Mary into a goddess. The Church is only interested in one God at a time–the triune God.

It just doesn’t appear that way to outsiders.

That’s too bad, because that’s not the reality. What people think they see and what is really happening is often not the same thing. Especially when each group has a different definition of words such as worship, honor, veneration, etc. Yes?

I am not claiming to know why the church thinks it is important. You asked why I thought it was important to the catholic, and I told you my gut reaction.

Kendy

Ah, I see. Okay. But, do you think it important that you do understand or have any idea why I said it is important for Protestants just as much as it is for Catholics? Because it is important to all Christians–it truly is.