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

[Kendy]

CARose:

Well, if you go back to the Ark of the Covenant again, you recall that it was Holy, unblemished. You’ve also learned that in the old covenant that God could not exist in contact with evil. How then do you explain, if Mary wasn’t born without sin, that she was capable of carrying Christ in her womb. Remember, this was before his crucifixion, so she couldn’t simply pray the sinners prayer for salvation, there had to be another mechanism to bring her right with the Lord in preparation for carrying Christ within her, as we, through baptism have the Holy Spirit reside within us.

It’s already been stated on this thread that she was saved from her sin by God applying the salvation of Christ to her before she was conceived. As Catholics, we believe that since Christ is God, and God is eternal, outside of time, therefore his sacrifice is outside of time. If it happened outside time, it can be applied either before or after it’s occurance in time. This is what applies to Mary.

CARose

That makes sense. So, Christ’s sacrifice is still necessary but get applied 33 years before it happens. So, she gets an early baptism? Ok, if that’s what you are saying. It’s not a bad theory. I will think about it.

Kendy

 

[CARose]

Kendy:

I agree with the things you said in the first paragraph about her consent and risk, but I am not sure where you are going with it.

Exactly towards you next point, what was the nature of the relationship between Mary (or Marie) and the Holy Spirit?

Kendy:

Now, as for her relationship with the Holy Spirit. I have a hard time calling it a marriage in the traditional sense. I think the Holy Spirit caused her to bear Jesus, but calling her the spouse of the spirit raises, for me at least, that demi-goddess issue I brought up earlier.

(FYI, I’m biting my tongue to not be offended by your insistance of referring to our devotion to Mary as being demi-goddess in nature, perhaps I’ll address it later.) Take a moment and reflect on the fact that in the time of Christ (and as continues to be taught by the Catholic Church) sex outside of Marriage is absolutely forbidden, so conceiving a child outside marriage would be an abomination of the intended nature of humanity. Certainly God wouldn’t contradict His own natural law by allowing His son to be born out of wedlock, when the laws of Marriage were so important in the teachings of Christ.

Kendy:

And Mary’s response is not irrelevant. Her willingness to accept God’s call is noteworthy. Is there a specific thing you think that I should et out of this that I am not getting.

I think so. I think that what we have in Mary is a woman who was specially created by God with the Grace necessary to the position for which she was intended. She was created without Original Sin so that she might choose, with the benefit of no concupecense (sic?) (the predisposition to sin, brought on by the persistent stain of original sin) to not sin and accept God’s Will.

She is the New Eve, the mother of all humanity.

Another thing I flashed on, when meditating on Mary and her significance in our lives is that while on the cross, Christ gave her to his beloved disciple, as his mother. We are all called to follow the example Christ lived while he was a man on earth. We know that he followed all the commandments, even though, as God, he was above the law. We see how he obeyed his parents after being seperated from them at the temple. He returned with them and lived a hidden life for nearly 20 more years, merely because His mother told him to return home. And then, when she interceded for the couple in Cana, he accepted her request to provide wine for the wedding feast. And yet, she did so understanding to whom she was speaking. She merely requested that the servants, as she asks of us “Do what he asks”. She doesn’t tell us what to do, she asks us to follow her son. As with any good Jewish mother, she loves her son and desires that all know of his Glory.

CARose

 

[reen12]

quote: VociMike

If Mary had other children (sons, in particular), then Jesus would never, could never, have given her over to the care of John when He was on the cross. Such an action would have gone against Jewish law and custom, and would have torn Mary’s (and Jesus’) family apart. Jesus would never have put Mary in the position of having to choose to disobey Him or else leave her other children.

Say! That’s pretty good. Never thought of it that way.

Thanks, :tiphat:

reen12

 

[CARose]

Kendy:

That makes sense. So, Christ’s sacrifice is still necessary but get applied 33 years before it happens. So, she gets an early baptism? Ok, if that’s what you are saying. It’s not a bad theory. I will think about it.

Kendy

Almost, and yet even better than that. She was even spared the Stain of Original sin which is called concupescience. It is our predisposition to sin, part of our fallen nature, a consequence of Original Sin.

We know that sin seperates us from God, Mortal Sin seperates us Mortally. Mary could not have sinned and still carried Christ, for she would have been seperated from God through her own actions. She preceded baptism, she preceded salvation. She was saved in advance of her personal fall.

CARose

 

[Kendy]

(FYI, I’m biting my tongue to not be offended by your insistance of referring to our devotion to Mary as being demi-goddess in nature, perhaps I’ll address it later.)

Kendy: First, I don’t mean to offensive, but I can’t address your concerns without being honest about why Marian Theology makes me uncomfortable. At least, we are both uneasy about Mary being a demi-goddess.

Take a moment and reflect on the fact that in the time of Christ (and as continues to be taught by the Catholic Church) sex outside of Marriage is absolutely forbidden, so conceiving a child outside marriage would be an abomination of the intended nature of humanity. Certainly God wouldn’t contradict His own natural law by allowing His son to be born out of wedlock, when the laws of Marriage were so important in the teachings of Christ.

Kendy: Not sure where you are going with this. I am not saying that Jesus had a human father out of wedlock. Are you saying that Mary must be married to be Holy Spirit? If that is what you are saying, I am going to need to explain how she is the only human bein who has this unique relationship without being some kind of demi-goddess. I mean no offense, but serious stumbling block for me.

 

[CARose]

reen12:

quote: VociMike

Say! That’s pretty good. Never thought of it that way.

Thanks, :tiphat:

reen12

Right Reen,

It’s really significant that Christ gave over the care of Mary to John! This not only points out the impossibility of their being siblings (would God have had his Son born into a disfunctional family that wouldn’t care for their own mother, I think not), but also shows the importance of our accepting her as our Spiritual Mother.

CARose

 

[Kendy]

CARose:

Almost, and yet even better than that. She was even spared the Stain of Original sin which is called concupescience. It is our predisposition to sin, part of our fallen nature, a consequence of Original Sin.

We know that sin seperates us from God, Mortal Sin seperates us Mortally. Mary could not have sinned and still carried Christ, for she would have been seperated from God through her own actions. She preceded baptism, she preceded salvation. She was saved in advance of her personal fall.

CARose

Oh, perhaps, you should have quit while you were ahead

Ok, so, she is born in a pre-fall state. I am sorry, but I am back to why not just create all of humanity in a pre-fall state. Maybe, you can’t answer this, and that’s fine. But I find it all very unsettling.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

CARose:

Right Reen,

It’s really significant that Christ gave over the care of Mary to John! This not only points out the impossibility of their being siblings (would God have had his Son born into a disfunctional family that wouldn’t care for their own mother, I think not), but also shows the importance of our accepting her as our Spiritual Mother.

CARose

Isn’t Sarah our spiritual mother? I always thought that that was what “you have become her daughters meant.”

Kendy

 

[CARose]

God needed a perfect mother for his perfect son. Nothing less would do, any more than less than the best materials could be used in making the ark of the covenant.

CARose

 

[CARose]

Kendy:

Isn’t Sarah our spiritual mother? I always thought that that was what “you have become her daughters meant.”

Kendy

She foreshadows Mary.

CARose

 

[NonDenom]

Hello everyone. In reading my catechism and then my Catholic Bible (The New American Bible) I came across scripture that I cannot reconcile with the Church’s teachings. These then makes other teachings suspect (in my mind).

1. Mary’s Ever Virginity. Yes I read the comments in the Library. To me, it does not clearly reconcile the following:

Matthew 1:25: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. The notes say: The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it. However, from my point (and I realize I am but a mortal with limited knowledge and wisdom) but if there were no relations that need all be said. The verse would look like; "He had no relations with her. (Period) She bore a son and named him Jesus. The “until” serves no purpose (in my mind) unless there was “relations”, as it would serve as clarifying “when” there were relations and that being not until Jesus was born. Does not Jesus say that he is not the author of confusion?

Matthew 13: 46-50: While he…his mother and his brothers appeared outside… someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside…

Matthew 14:55: Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us?

Mark 6:3: Is he not…and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

Luke 8:19-21: Then his mother and his brothers came…“Your mother and your brothers are standing outside…”

John 7:3: So his brothers said to him…and 5: For his brothers did not believe him.

Acts 2:14…and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

Galatians 2:19…, only James the brother of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 9:5…as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Luke 2:7:and she gave birth to her firstborn son…

I guess where I am is, I know the Catholic response…I cannot reconcile it with what I read. And it troubles me.

Hi
I don’t know why Mary’s being ever virgin is such a big deal to Catholics. Why would it spoil or hurt Mary to have sex with her Husband after the birth of Christ. Making love to your Wife is a wonderful gift from God, as is having Children. Why would God deny Mary that satisfaction of having other Children? especialy when he knew she would lose Jesus on the cross. This is just one of many things that is not in scripture, but believed by the church.
Thanks

 

[CARose]

NonDenom:

Hi
I don’t know why Mary’s being ever virgin is such a big deal to Catholics. Why would it spoil or hurt Mary to have sex with her Husband after the birth of Christ. Making love to your Wife is a wonderful gift from God, as is having Children. Why would God deny Mary that satisfaction of having other Children? especialy when he knew she would lose Jesus on the cross. This is just one of many things that is not in scripture, but believed by the church.
Thanks

Asked and answered on this thread. Read through the posts and then ask a more specific question. I’m sure someone will be willing to address your question if you show you’ve done some homework, such as reading the thread you’re posting to.

CARose

Sorry about the brusk tone. But, please, be respectful with your enquiries.

 

[Zooey]

Dear NonDenom:

Indeed, both asked & answered, but you might want to do a little reading in your Bible about the Ark of the Covenant; this is the best way that I know to begin to understand this subject.
God bless.

 

[mastda]

I hope I am not hijacking this thread but I did not want to start a new thread for a very simple question. It is direct to NonDenom. Why do you call yourself non denominational when a non denominational church is really just another denomination?

 

[TNT]

4. Original Sin is passed by propagation, not imitation. That is it passes into humanity by way of reproduction.

Kendy: But since Marie was born of human parents how did the orginal sin skip her? Everything you said depends on this, I think.
God intervened…for the sake of His Tabernacle…His New Covenant Ark.
Was it necessary for Mary to have more children?
Was God in her womb and for 30 years in her near constant presence of Almighty God, not sufficient for either her or Joseph?
If it was NOT necessary, then why does anyone insist that she did?
The ancient Church never taught that she did.
The Bible never says anyone but Jesus was the child of Mary.

What say you?

Kendy: I say it that it was not necessary for her to have children, but since she was married to Joseph, one* might *think that they did…unless you accept all the other things you mention. That’s what married people do.
And, one might think she didn’t.
Jerome’s friends (395ad) convinced him to write a reply (to someone in your position), which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus,Justin Martyr … Helvidius (one who is in your position) was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent American times.
If she had children, it would not in anyway diminish her in anyway not does it seem obvious to me that this would be an insult to Jesus.
I never said it would.

Growing up, I always wondered about the passages in the bible where it was said Jesus’s brothers wanted to speak to Him since I was taught that she was always a virgin. While I have heard your explanations for this, I think they avoid the most obvious conclusion— that his bothers were indeed that.
Of course, you are correct.
For example:
Gen 14:14 Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan.
Gen 11:26 And Thare lived seventy years, and begot Abram, and Nachor, and Aran. 27 And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot.
**
Makes perfect sense to me.**

Lastly, I am not particularly invested in her virginity or the lack thereof since I don’t think the absence of virginity would make her unholy in anyway.
I never said it would.**
Nor do I think her virginity makes her more Holy.**
**Of course not. How could she get “more Gratia Plena”??
** Kendy

 

[St.Eric]

Alright. My 2 cents then I am unsubcribing from this thread…it has gotten…too…repetititive.

Mary- (a)she was preserved from sin at the moment of conception by GOD/Jesus/the Holy Spirit, ie, the triune God. Jesus wipes out our sins after we are born, God chose to wipe out Mary’s at the moment of conception and preserve her form sin throughout her life. GOD DID IT FOR HER. SHE DID NOT DO IT ON HER OWN. SHE IS NOT A GODESS!!! SHE WAS SIMPLY SHOWN FAVOR. Remember the words of Gabriel “Hail full of grace!” Not even Paul was given that honor.

(b) she is the ark of the new covenant, and therefore has to be pure and remain pure. Look at the previous posts regarding consecration. 'nough said.

(c) It makes sense that Joseph did not have relations with her. I am a male. And I cannot fathom having sex with the mother of my God. The profunditiy of this would stick with me for a lifetime.

(d) I have a hard time beleiving if Christ really had blood brothers and sisters that they would not have preserved the family tree and we would have Christ’s great great great great great great great great great nephew or niece on Oprah or Dr. Phil. Don’t you find it suspicious that there is no record of Mary’s body/grave site and/or the bodies of Christ’s suposed brother’s and sister’s? After all, we know where Peter is and John is, etc.

(e) Mary is a favored creature by god (someone had to be) not to be worshiped but venerated. She is the mother of God and therefore had to be preserved from sin in order for God to reside within her. She is not a godess, she IS the mother of our GOD. And after all, she WAS the FIRST Christian! She beleived before any of us and raised him into a man. How can she not enjoy a special relationship with him?

 

[Zooey]

St.Eric:

Alright. My 2 cents then I am unsubcribing from this thread…it has gotten…too…repetititive.

Mary- (a)she was preserved from sin at the moment of conception by GOD/Jesus/the Holy Spirit, ie, the triune God. Jesus wipes out our sins after we are born, God chose to wipe out Mary’s at the moment of conception and preserve her form sin throughout her life. GOD DID IT FOR HER. SHE DID NOT DO IT ON HER OWN. SHE IS NOT A GODESS!!! SHE WAS SIMPLY SHOWN FAVOR. Remember the words of Gabriel “Hail full of grace!” Not even Paul was given that honor.

(b) she is the ark of the new covenant, and therefore has to be pure and remain pure. Look at the previous posts regarding consecration. 'nough said.

(c) It makes sense that Joseph did not have relations with her. I am a male. And I cannot fathom having sex with the mother of my God. The profunditiy of this would stick with me for a lifetime.

(d) I have a hard time beleiving if Christ really had blood brothers and sisters that they would not have preserved the family tree and we would have Christ’s great great great great great great great great great nephew or niece on Oprah or Dr. Phil. Don’t you find it suspicious that there is no record of Mary’s body/grave site and/or the bodies of Christ’s suposed brother’s and sister’s? After all, we know where Peter is and John is, etc.

(e) Mary is a favored creature by god (someone had to be) not to be worshiped but venerated. She is the mother of God and therefore had to be preserved from sin in order for God to reside within her. She is not a godess, she IS the mother of our GOD. And after all, she WAS the FIRST Christian! She beleived before any of us and raised him into a man. How can she not enjoy a special relationship with him?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Alfie:

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).

This might be significant if the word “mother” was always used in Scripture in the strict sense of the female parent. However, Scripture sometimes uses “mother” or the equivalent “who bore” to refer to a remote female ancestor. Through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord said to the people of Israel:2 Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many. (Isaiah 51:2)All that can be said for certain is that Scripture is ambigous enough on the point of Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus that Scripture alone will not suffice to prove the matter either way. If we want to know the truth of the matter, we must rely on that instutition set up by Christ to be the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church of the living God, to guide us.

 

[mlchance]

Kendy:

Marian theology defends why Marie should be treated as some kind of demi-goddess.

Only in the minds of those ignorant about Marian doctrines.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[kevb]

It might have already been mentioned, but many scholars believe Joseph was a widower before taking Mary for his wife and already had children of his own.