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

[Kendy]

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?

Well, that’s certainly true. I found since I have been participating in these discussions that it is often important to define terms clearly before you can communicate.

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.

Well, I certainly want to understand why it is important to catholics. The stuff about consecration and the ark of the covenant is enlightening. I can’t say, I am sold, but I now know how the church defends its practice, which is helpful.

Kendy

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Della:

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.

Please continue as I am interested in finding out.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Kendy:

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.

As well, may I ask why (sincerely,…and I mean that) it is so important to the church to declare Mary’s Immaculate conception? Or do I need to post that on another (the other) thread?

 

[St.Eric]

Della:

I have to ask this of our Protestant brethren who are so determined to prove to us that Mary had other children:

Della,

Does this mean that you are related by blood/genetics to all protestants? You did use the word, brethren!

 

[MariaG]

Kendy:

Well, I certainly want to understand why it is important to catholics. The stuff about consecration and the ark of the covenant is enlightening. I can’t say, I am sold, but I now know how the church defends its practice, which is helpful.

I found this helpful.
From Scripture Catholic

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

malachi_a_serva:

Kendy:

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.

As well, may I ask why (sincerely,…and I mean that) it is so important to the church to declare Mary’s Immaculate conception? Or do I need to post that on another (the other) thread?

Quick answer?

Because it is important to understanding Christ more fully.

Mary’s gift of the immaculate conception was not for her, but because of whom she was to bear in her womb.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MamaSusie]

You want a litmus test for the validity of Mary’s position? Ask her for anything within God’s will…you’ll get it. How’s that for proof? Have faith, believe even if you don’t understand, and test her! She invites you to, as does God, “And please test me in this says the Lord of Hosts if I will not open the windows of Heaven and pour out a blessing on you until there is more than enough.” You are invited to seek, to test, and to witness the outcome. No sense in wondering what Mary is when you can let her show you!

I get hung up on the semantics too. I’m too science-minded. Try “feeling” it; try having a relationship with her; try telling her you’re confused…I think you’ll get the clarity you need. As a child, did you mother not teach you if you asked? Did she show you how to do things over and over again, lovingly, until you understood? You can expect the same of Mary, and she hopes that you will.

 

[Della]

malachi_a_serva:

Please continue as I am interested in finding out.

Sure, and I think Kendy might be interested too.

For the loooooooooong version go to this link: The Virgin Birth of the Catholic encyclopedia.

But to summarize:

It means that Jesus truly was the son of Mary, and not merely appearing to be human or was merely an embodied spirit, and this relates to the fact that he came into the world through nature without destroying Mary’s integrity, her natural body, but rather consecrated her body by reason of his presence.

There were those, especially Helvidius, who argued that Jesus wasn’t fully human and fully divine. St. Jerome (the same person who investigated the writings of the early Church to determine which were inspired Scripture and which weren’t) argued against Helvidius, defending Mary’s perpetual virginity in order to prove Helvidius wrong.

We see by this that Mary’s perpetual virginity supports Christ’s divinity as well as his full humanity. This teaching was believed by all the major reformers including Luther and Calvin who also defended it because it supported the theology of the two natures of Christ.

So, we see that the Church did not arbitrarily teach this in order to make something of Mary that she is not (such as a goddess), but to answer those who were questioning the very nature of Christ himself.

 

[Della]

St.Eric:

Della,

Does this mean that you are related by blood/genetics to all protestants? You did use the word, brethren!

LOL! No, but I was one once, and the Church teaches that all those baptized with the trinitarian baptism of the Church are Christians who are connected to the Church, if imperfectly. But, that’s another topic for another thread.

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

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

No, it reflects the Church’s respect and reverence for the things of God. It reflects the Catholic understanding of the meaning of consecration, which is based on Scripture—look at the Old Testament to see how God instructs the Jewish people to make things holy by setting them aside for God.

Mary is NOT some kind of “demi-goddess”, and to suggest that she is any kind of “goddess”, demi-or full, is blasphemous. The Catholic Church is so careful of this that it uses different Latin words (Latin does not change like English) to describe the different “levels”, so to speak, of worship and or veneration. Mary is a creature. However, she is the “type” of all humankind, what human beings were meant to be: so full of God’s grace, so receptive to His will, that she “magnifies” the God who made her. She is glorious because she is open to God, who alone is the source of her glory. She doesn’t get in the way of God’s will, but is his “handmaiden”, so God comes through her. She’s also the “type” of the Church.

 

[Kendy]

Sherlock:

No, it reflects the Church’s respect and reverence for the things of God. It reflects the Catholic understanding of the meaning of consecration, which is based on Scripture—look at the Old Testament to see how God instructs the Jewish people to make things holy by setting them aside for God.

Mary is NOT some kind of “demi-goddess”, and to suggest that she is any kind of “goddess”, demi-or full, is blasphemous. The Catholic Church is so careful of this that it uses different Latin words (Latin does not change like English) to describe the different “levels”, so to speak, of worship and or veneration. Mary is a creature. However, she is the “type” of all humankind, what human beings were meant to be: so full of God’s grace, so receptive to His will, that she “magnifies” the God who made her. She is glorious because she is open to God, who alone is the source of her glory. She doesn’t get in the way of God’s will, but is his “handmaiden”, so God comes through her. She’s also the “type” of the Church.

Okay…

 

[Sunniva]

JMJ Theresa:

The references to brothers and sisters interpreted as kinsman of the same generation never bothered me. I studied Anthropology as an underclassman and this system of kinship is actually fairly common in tribal societies. I think we have to be careful about reading the scripture from our American twenty-first century worldview.

The thing that I like about all the references to Jesus’s family is that he obviously was surrounded by extended family growing up. I’m sure that Mary, despite having only one perfect son, had a house filled with children. I can just imagine, “Mary only has that one kid,” the kinswoman would think. "Hey, James, go over and play with Jesus. He’s a good influence on you. Take your little brothers, I need to make some bread."

Also, for James, I wonder how Jesus prepared him during his childhood for his later apostleship. How did his kinspeople view the Holy Family–they surely would have noticed the virtue and extraordinary love of the family? I look forward to knowing these things in the next world (God willing and I persevere).

Bolded by me.

I can just see that scene rolling like a film before my eyes. I was married to a Pakistani for many years and I did live in Pakistan for two years in addition to visit that country several times. (That is a separate story altogether).

First of all we must remember that the Bible is translated from other languages into English, Norwegian etc. We are living, thinking and acting out of our own cultural context. We can’t therefore assume that what is written in the Bible can be culturally translated into our own cultural understanding.

Jesus and the disiples lived in another world, time and culture than our western culture. My former husband’s mother have 7 sisters. We in the west would say that they are his aunts. But he call them his mothers. He say mom to them like he say mom to his biological mom. Does that mean that they are his real moms. No, but in his culture it’s a sign of respect and love to call his aunts for mothers.

He calls his uncles fathers. His numerous cousins he call brothers and sisters. He doesn’t distinct between his cousins and his biological siblings when talking to or about them. That may seem strange to us in the west, but it’s perfectly normal for some cultures around the world.

Several of my former husband’s mothers (aunts) lived in extended families. They had houses that was situated around a large yard. There the kids who some were biological siblings and some were cousins grew up together. They considered themselves to be sisters and brothers to each other. The scene you describe with James being sent over to play with Jesus while James’ mom makes bread is a scene I have seen several times.

“Go over and play with your brother Ahmed while I do the laundry”. Brother Ahmed is actually cousin Ahmed.

 

[Kendy]

I also don’t get this “full of grace” thing the way the RCC interprets it. Does that mean that she is not capable of sinning? That she never sinned? I think this was part of another thread?

Anywho, if God is capable of making her “unfallen” why not just do that for everyone. And please, don’t say that God can do what he wants because I think that just avoids the issue. If God can just make Marie “full of grace” no need for the cross, then it seems pretty aweful that he didn’t do it for everyone. We could be avoiding all this suffering— death, war, sickness, but God just decides not to? Why? I don’t think it’s blasphemous to wonder. Then again, I probably don’t understand what you mean by full of grace.

Kendy

 

[VociMike]

Kendy:

Anywho, if God is capable of making her “unfallen” why not just do that for everyone. And please, don’t say that God can do what he wants because I think that just avoids the issue. If God can just make Marie “full of grace” no need for the cross, then it seems pretty aweful that he didn’t do it for everyone.

Do you really believe that God is incapable of doing what you suggest? That He cannot control His own creation?

Of course God could do things the way you describe. He also could have saved us in a different way than becoming incarnate and suffering and dying. Rather than bemoan that everything is so hard, ponder why He does things the way He does. Ponder what lessons He is trying to teach us, and what kind of beings He is trying to mold us into.

 

[Kendy]

Do you really believe that God is incapable of doing what you suggest? That He cannot control His own creation?

Well, I think God has some limitations, like God cannot lie because it’s not in His nature. I don’t fully understand how Adam and Eve sins implicates us, but it seems to me that their sin unleaches something into creation that God can’t/won’t reverse just by snapping his fingers because it might have greater implications. Just like with lying, there might be instances where it would be more expedient for God to lie, but it would have greater undesirable implications, like contradicting God’s nature.
**
Of course God could do things the way you describe. He also could have saved us in a different way than becoming incarnate and suffering and dying. Rather than bemoan that everything is so hard, ponder why He does things the way He does. Ponder what lessons He is trying to teach us, and what kind of beings He is trying to mold us into.**

Well, I don’t recall bemoaning anything. I am trying to figure out how catholics explaining God making Mary sinless by just willing to be so, but goes through the trouble of making His Son suffer to redeem the rest of us. Since you apparently don’t find this difficult to fathom, then you will have no trouble explaining it to me .

Kendy

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

I also don’t get this “full of grace” thing the way the RCC interprets it. Does that mean that she is not capable of sinning? That she never sinned? I think this was part of another thread?

She was free of original sin, yet she had free will. Think of her as the new Eve, but one who chose a tad more, umm, shall we say, wisely, out of obedience to God. Also, please use the term “CC” here: the Eastern Catholic churches also honor Mary and maintain her perpetual virginity—it’s not just the Roman Rite. So do the Orthodox, for that matter…Also, the apparition at Lourdes provided an affirmation of the Immaculate Conception as well.

Kendy:

Anywho, if God is capable of making her “unfallen” why not just do that for everyone.

Only one person gave bore and gave birth to Christ. We are all called, however, to bear Christ within us.

Kendy:

And please, don’t say that God can do what he wants because I think that just avoids the issue. If God can just make Marie “full of grace” no need for the cross, then it seems pretty aweful that he didn’t do it for everyone.

But Mary needed the Cross, the Saviour, just like everybody else. A common way of illustrating this is to give the example of a pothole in road that we fall into: we are saved because God sent us Jesus to give us a rope to climb out with. Mary was saved before she fell in. In both cases, saving was necessary.

Kendy:

We could be avoiding all this suffering— death, war, sickness, but God just decides not to? Why? I don’t think it’s blasphemous to wonder. Then again, I probably don’t understand what you mean by full of grace.

Kendy

That simply gets into the “problem of evil”. That’s a whole different subject, and one that will probably not give the definitive answers you want. Why does God do what he does, when he does it, and with what methods? Now we’re back to faith: do you trust God’s wisdom? I do, whether I am able to grasp it or not.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Jesus did not speak English. The Evangelists didn’t write English.

Everything you all (we all) are reading is a translation. Translations vary all over the place, even when they are faithful translations.

So, before finding fault with an English translation, do some research with the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts.

 

[Kendy]

She was free of original sin, yet she had free will. Think of her as the new Eve, but one who chose a tad more, umm, shall we say, wisely, out of obedience to God. Also, please use the term “CC” here: the Eastern Catholic churches also honor Mary and maintain her perpetual virginity—it’s not just the Roman Rite. So do the Orthodox, for that matter…Also, the apparition at Lourdes provided an affirmation of the Immaculate Conception as well.

What apparition at Lourdes?

Only one person gave bore and gave birth to Christ. We are all called, however, to bear Christ within us.

I don’t see how this answers my question.

That simply gets into the “problem of evil”. That’s a whole different subject, and one that will probably not give the definitive answers you want. Why does God do what he does, when he does it, and with what methods? Now we’re back to faith: do you trust God’s wisdom? I do, whether I am able to grasp it or not.

I don’t want you to get into the problem of evil necessarily but we may have. I do trust the wisdom of God. I also trust that God is logical and not arbitrary. This doesn’t seem wise, logical, and it seems very arbitrary. But more importantly, it is the wisdom of the cc that I am questioning. So, I am afraid I trust the wisdom of God and the church and I don’t need to explain it is not helpful to us doubting Thomases.

Kendy

 

[BeluvdLily]

As a former Protestant and current RCIA student, I had trouble with this in the beginning too. However, as another poster said, I will sometimes just take things on faith respecting the knowledge of a Church that goes back to the time of Jesus and everytime I later come to accept and believe these teachings. I do not want to rely on my own limited understanding and God seems to help me understand.

One thing I have thought is that perhaps the authors of the Bible did not feel compelled to spell it out that the Blessed Mother was always a virgin as it probably seemed so very obvious to them. Wasn’t this an accepted idea from way back?

I believe they never even thought about people considering otherwise. They would probably never have dreamt that people would be reading these writings in 2000 years and not have their frame of reference and scope of understanding or that they would need to spell out that Mary was always a virgin. To them it probably seemed common sense. They also had no idea that sola scriptura would come into play.

Amie

 

[VociMike]

Kendy:

Well, I don’t recall bemoaning anything.

OK, bemoaning comment withdrawn.

I am trying to figure out how catholics explaining God making Mary sinless by just willing to be so, but goes through the trouble of making His Son suffer to redeem the rest of us. Since you apparently don’t find this difficult to fathom, then you will have no trouble explaining it to me .

Prepare then, to be disappointed.

Would all of this make sense to you if Mary had been a sinner? Would you then fully understand why God became incarnate, suffered and died? I know I wouldn’t.

Beyond that, there is really no Catholic pronouncement that says Mary had to be without sin. The Church simply teaches what has been revealed to her.

I do have some opinions on the matter of why God created Mary sinless and kept her so (with her cooperation). I believe, for one thing, that just as Jesus had a perfect divine Father, so the Father desired that Jesus have a perfect human mother. I also believe that God uses Mary to give us an example of human perfection (Christ is perfect, of course, but His perfection is divine perfection since He is a divine Person). Mary shows us what we were all destined to be. She shows us the pinnacle of God’s material creation. In showing this to us, she becomes a part of God’s final revelation as given in Christ.