M
Teaching of the Catholic Church I am having trouble with...that make me doubt others
- Status
R
richbansha
Guest
This is all very interesting and mind bending. So much so that Mary’s perpetual virginity had bothered me for years. I thought I might share with you what finally put my mind at rest and let me fully accept the CC teaching.
Theology notwithstanding, it only makes sense that Mary’s conception was immaculate and that she is perpetually virgin, because God knew any other circumstance would be unacceptable to the people of the first century. The Holy Spirt could have picked some strumpet on the street and purified her retroactively to carry Jesus. But if the Holy Spirit had done so then nobody would have believed what the bastard of some slovenly trull had to say. The Good News would never spread. The teaching must be correct because if it were not, the Gospel would have been rejected out of hand.
Theology notwithstanding, it only makes sense that Mary’s conception was immaculate and that she is perpetually virgin, because God knew any other circumstance would be unacceptable to the people of the first century. The Holy Spirt could have picked some strumpet on the street and purified her retroactively to carry Jesus. But if the Holy Spirit had done so then nobody would have believed what the bastard of some slovenly trull had to say. The Good News would never spread. The teaching must be correct because if it were not, the Gospel would have been rejected out of hand.
D
Della
Guest
Originally Posted by mlchance
Nonsense. Martin Luther accepted that Mary was Ever Virgin and was without sin. John Calvin accepted that Mary was Ever Virgin (unsure of his stance on the Immaculate Conception). Neither of them accepted the Church’s authority, and Luther would be likely to curse a blue streak at you for suggesting otherwise.
– Mark L. Chance.
Well, it’s good to know I have made a lot of enemies.
Kendy
I don’t think that someone who is letting you off the hook (your statement that you would have to accept Church authority, a “hard pill to swallow” in order to believe in the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception) can be said to be an enemy.
Of course, we Catholics would like you to accept Church authority, but as I said early on, these teachings are about Jesus much more than they are about Mary in that they support teachings about his nature that heretics had questioned. And, that this is just as important to Protestants as it is to Catholics for that reason. Remember?
Nonsense. Martin Luther accepted that Mary was Ever Virgin and was without sin. John Calvin accepted that Mary was Ever Virgin (unsure of his stance on the Immaculate Conception). Neither of them accepted the Church’s authority, and Luther would be likely to curse a blue streak at you for suggesting otherwise.
– Mark L. Chance.
Well, it’s good to know I have made a lot of enemies.
Kendy
I don’t think that someone who is letting you off the hook (your statement that you would have to accept Church authority, a “hard pill to swallow” in order to believe in the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception) can be said to be an enemy.
Of course, we Catholics would like you to accept Church authority, but as I said early on, these teachings are about Jesus much more than they are about Mary in that they support teachings about his nature that heretics had questioned. And, that this is just as important to Protestants as it is to Catholics for that reason. Remember?
D
DaveBj
Guest
Here are the results of my research:
There are 346 occurrences of the Greek word adelphós in the NT (brother, sister, brethren, sistern, etc.).
Of these, 16 (4.6%) are references to the “brothers of Christ.” That leaves 330.
There are 60 (17.3% of the total) that are definite references to sibling relationships (Simon the brother of Andrew, James the brother of John, etc.). That leaves 270.
There are 17 references (4.9% of the total) where it is unclear if the reference is to a sibling relationship or a different relationship (the beam in your **brother’s ** eye, how many times should I forgive my brother, etc.).
That means that 253 of the occurrences of adelphós in the NT (73.1% of the total) refer to a non-sibling relationship, in contradiction to those who say that the word can only mean someone who came from the same womb.
The “etymological fallacy” (the error of assuming that a word can only mean what it originally meant) had been mentioned in these forums before. To find more about this error, see bartleby.com/68/98/2298.html or google “etymological fallacy”.
DaveBj
G
Gareth
Guest
Hi
Reading this thread has taught me a lot more, I started another thread Mary Ever Virgin, so this particularly relevent to my question also.
I can now accept: Mary Ever Virgin at a pinch it was a struggle but I managed it. I can even accept that Mary remained intact during the birth of Our Lord.
Yesterday I got ‘Handbook for Todays Catholic’ a good reference guide with the catecism. it states ‘with the exception of Mary and Jesus everyone is born with original sin’ (pg 36 ). Now I have to ponder this and consider and pray and ultimately decide wether to accept this or not…
What strikes me about all this, is how hard it would be to convince a complete unbeliver, not a protestant but an agnostic, to accept first Christ, then Mary… and here’s the rub, accepting Mary isn’t really required to save your soul is it? It isn’t Mary (and I uphold her as unequaled amoung all created beings) who saved us, it was Jesus Christ our Lord. Who also saved Mary herself.
Cheers
Gareth
ps. Thanks Kendy for keeping this thread so lively, you have a Fan.
Reading this thread has taught me a lot more, I started another thread Mary Ever Virgin, so this particularly relevent to my question also.
I can now accept: Mary Ever Virgin at a pinch it was a struggle but I managed it. I can even accept that Mary remained intact during the birth of Our Lord.
Yesterday I got ‘Handbook for Todays Catholic’ a good reference guide with the catecism. it states ‘with the exception of Mary and Jesus everyone is born with original sin’ (pg 36 ). Now I have to ponder this and consider and pray and ultimately decide wether to accept this or not…
What strikes me about all this, is how hard it would be to convince a complete unbeliver, not a protestant but an agnostic, to accept first Christ, then Mary… and here’s the rub, accepting Mary isn’t really required to save your soul is it? It isn’t Mary (and I uphold her as unequaled amoung all created beings) who saved us, it was Jesus Christ our Lord. Who also saved Mary herself.
Cheers
Gareth
ps. Thanks Kendy for keeping this thread so lively, you have a Fan.
W
wpr
Guest
Hello Kendy,
Mark was kidding. Did you know Martin Luther had an aweful disposition. Mark was vaguely refering to Martin’s habit of verbally (via letter) ripping the hide off his detractors.
S
Sherlock
Guest
I think that it is important to establish that Jesus founded a visible Church, with the power to loose and bind. Without that authority, all is relative, and everyone simply has their own particular version of truth. Once it is understood that the Church is the guardian of truth and does not simply make it up out of whole cloth, then one is in a more open frame of mind to examine why it is that the Church teaches what she does about Mary. So, you’re putting the cart before the horse here. Start with the Church.
If you get Mary wrong, you will ultimately get Jesus wrong. I have often thought that Protestants who downplay Mary do so at the expense of the magnificence of God; the importance of consecration; and the awesome-ness of the Incarnation. Sure, that may not be “required” to save your soul, but why would someone settle for a child’s faith and not grow in love and awe of God?
N
NonDenom
Guest
Hi
Wrong, Jesus said in John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Getting Jesus right is the only way to salvation.
Why is it that catholics think that if we don’t hold Mary up as high as we do Jesus, then we miss out the things that God has to offer. It’s actualy the opposite of that, if I have one child that I’m able to dedicate all of my time to and then we have another child I will have to divide my time between the two. You may not like it when we say it, but when you pray to Mary, you are taking away time that you can spend talking to God. When you focus on Mary you are taking away time that you could spend focusing on God.
I think that Mary wants us to give all praise and honor to her Son and not her. Mary is not selfish, and what Mother who is so proud of her Son, would not want him to get all the glory?
In Him and Only Him.
M
mlchance
Guest
Time you spend responding to messages on this board is time you could spend talking to God; therefore, it is time wasted.
Therefore, in order for you to be honest and virtuous in ways you insist Catholics are not, I imagine there will be no further communication from you hereabouts.
– Mark L. Chance.
N
NonDenom
Guest
Hi
Wrong again, my posting here is doing the work of the Lord and no one else. I am here to try and help you to see the truth, it was commanded by Jesus himself for us to do.
In Him and Him Only.
H
hurst
Guest
Everyone in her line of ancestors is special and part of the fulfillment of God’s promise to send the redeemer. That is why there is a special blessing that was passed down, from Adam to Noah to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And then it was kept in the Ark of the Covenant. And then it can be said to have been given to Mary’s father. Her parents conceived Mary in a miraculous manner fitting to the blessing of God passed down for thousands of years since the time of Adam and Eve. This can be seen as the source of the Immaculate Conception.
I praise God for fulfilling His promise, and I thank all Mary’s ancestors for participating with hope in our redemption.
hurst
H
hurst
Guest
Rather, we hold Mary up as high as we can in order to give Jesus even higher praise - for Mary is the one giving it to Him for us.
This is the crux of the issue - division! You are in an economy of scarcity. But God works the opposite way. The more we give, the more we receive.
Rather, we multiply our efforts, for now we have one who knows and loves God more to speak for us and with us.
Your view, again, seems inclined towards an economy of scarcity, and seems to be suitable for a selfishness seeking its own gain. You want something from God, and feel hindered if anyone else is in the way… ?
But what about your charity? What about what you are giving to God? Would you then say Mary is in the way of you giving more to God? What folly! We can give more to God by going to Mary. We can offer more love, more care, more humility, more obedience. God will be more pleased if we have Mary present our praise, thanksgiving, petition, and love to God through Jesus, Whom she loves and knows so well.
Will you claim that to be able to obey God, you must only “focus on God”? Yet, He commands us to honor our parents. Don’t you think that requires our attention somehow? Don’t you recall this passage:
Mark 7:9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother; and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die. 11 But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban, (which is a gift,) whatsoever is from me, shall profit thee. 12 And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother, 13 Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.
We have been given Mary as our spiritual mother in the order of grace, which is much greater than a natural mother. Do you think our attention towards her will upset God?
I would rather assert that your lack of it will upset God.
Secondly, how do you explain how you focus on the Father, when you are paying attention to Jesus? Jesus taught us to pray to His Father.
Why then do you make your case against Mary by preferring Jesus? If focusing on Jesus does not detract from the Father, then how can focusing on Mary detract from Jesus?
You would have better argued that we all should only focus on the Father. But then you approach the actual position of the pharisees, who were scandalized that a man should be considered as God. Doesn’t the focus on Jesus offend God, who is pure spirit? Is it not idolatry and blasphemy? Such are Protestant accusations against Catholics who venerate Mary.
The Catholics fulfill what God said: “The humble shall be exalted”.
You said it yourself. If you really believe this, then why is it so hard to entrust your prayers to her? To entrust your whole self to her? Surely she wishes to praise and honor Him more than you. Why not seek her to help you give better honor to Jesus than you can by yourself?
The praise we give her includes that of praising her love and faithfulness to Jesus. We honor her sorrows whereby she accepted the sufferings consequent to being the mother of One so persecuted. We honor her joys and glories, too. I could say much more, but this should suffice to show you the appropriateness of trusting her more than ourselves, and to enlist her assistance in praising and loving God.
hurst
S
St.Eric
Guest
You may not like it when we say it said:
S
Sherlock
Guest
I agree; therefore to get Jesus right, it helps to get his Mother right. If you get Jesus wrong, you’ll also get Mary wrong: get Mary wrong, you get Jesus wrong (or at least diminished). Nor does your quote (which I of course agree with) disprove my contention whatsoever.
You’re forgetting who is the parent in your analogy. WE are the children, God is the parent. God CAN handle more than one of us, and He is honored when His creatures are honored. It’s not either/or. To use your analogy: which parent is given greater honor, one whose many sons and daughters give honor and glory to Him, and also honor those who have excelled at doing the same, or the parent who has one child who ignores the accomplishments of others in the service of his parent, preferring to keep the parent to themselves? Isn’t a King honored by the glory of his court?
You may not like to hear it, but your being on this forum is time taken away from talking to God. You might not like to hear it, but spending time with your spouse is time taken away from talking to God. Asking others to pray for you is time taken away from talking to God…you get my drift. Sorry, but that particular (and well-worn) “argument” is so ludicrous you lose credibility by repeating it.
That’s right! Mary always leads us to her son. And Jesus, like a good son, honors his Mother and is honored when she is honored.
M
mlchance
Guest
G
Gareth
Guest
Hi All,
Some interesting points have been made and many of them seem to make sense… but this:
hurst:
The type of prayer shouldn’t be the same I would say…
That’s the thing that strikes me coming from a protestant background. To Protestants prayer is the same as worship, as they don’t pray for the dead, or to any being outside of Father and Son (who are one). But if prayer is viewed as a method by which we communicate with spiritual beings and God then… I guess
Praying for intercession of saints, does seem to have some validity… as another poster said we all ask others to pray for us, and of one thing I am certain, Mary is a risen saint…
confusing…
Some interesting points have been made and many of them seem to make sense… but this:
Jesus is part of the Trinity Mary Isn’t! If Jesus is God, then praying to Jesus is the same as praying to God, often when I pray, I might spontanously address one or another, this is because the two are one and by the prescence of the Holy Spirit we exist within them…
The type of prayer shouldn’t be the same I would say…
That’s the thing that strikes me coming from a protestant background. To Protestants prayer is the same as worship, as they don’t pray for the dead, or to any being outside of Father and Son (who are one). But if prayer is viewed as a method by which we communicate with spiritual beings and God then… I guess
Praying for intercession of saints, does seem to have some validity… as another poster said we all ask others to pray for us, and of one thing I am certain, Mary is a risen saint…
confusing…
H
hurst
Guest
True, strictly speaking. But Jesus is not equivalent to the Holy Trinity. How then does one “divide” their attention without unduly “offending” the most important person (that is, if we follow the logic of NonDenom).
But praying to Jesus is not the same as praying to the Father. There are three distinct persons in the One God. We are to pray to the Father. But we all agree that praying to Jesus does not offend the Father…
Jesus took flesh from Mary. They are the same flesh, though distinct persons. Jesus is grateful to Mary for her “yes”. Do you think Jesus, Who emptied Himself, is going to be offended for us paying attention to Mary (knowing Mary gives all to Him)?
We exist within them. Ok, so then Mary exists within them also, yes?
True, they are not the same. It is different praying to Mary than praying to God, because Mary is like the moon reflecting light, whereas God is the light. But both have a will to answer prayer.
Good insight. For Catholics, prayer does not equal worship, although we pray during worship. We pray to Mary and others, but no Mass is offered to Mary. But with Mary and the saints and the whole Church, we offer (in the Mass) the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, to the Father.
The term “pray” is used in the legal system towards others besides God, so it is not a new concept to “pray” to someone besides God. Also, the term “worship” did not always itself refer to God, but also had a milder meaning of honor towards various rulers etc.
hurst
S
Sherlock
Guest
Good point. English does change, and referring to certain people as “Your Worship” as was done, or using the word “pray” in the sense of “ask”, did not imply that those so addressed had divine powers. That is why the Church uses Latin, which changes very little (not being a “living” language). “Latria” is the term for the worship due God and God alone. “Dulia” is the term for the veneration and honor accorded to the saints. “Hyper-dulia” is the term used for Mary.
G
Gareth
Guest
I’ve come to at least one conclusion. I could be swayed either way on this and many other items… and have already been convinced of some things I never would have considered accepting.
But the reason it’s confusing is because I’m trying to accept or reject all these different items individually and directly, so I’m going to save myself the trouble.
I’m going to investigate for myself wether the Roman Catholic church is the ‘True chruch’ or if you like is the 'c’atholic church. If this is demontrated to me then I will accept everything else. This is all that remains.
My burden is thus lightened!
Cheers Gareth
But the reason it’s confusing is because I’m trying to accept or reject all these different items individually and directly, so I’m going to save myself the trouble.
I’m going to investigate for myself wether the Roman Catholic church is the ‘True chruch’ or if you like is the 'c’atholic church. If this is demontrated to me then I will accept everything else. This is all that remains.
My burden is thus lightened!
Cheers Gareth
W
wpr
Guest
Hey NonDenom,
I take it you do not have any children? To make such an analogy is frankly absurd. I have 4 children. I was concerned when I heard my wife was pregnant with our second that I could not possibly love a child anymore than our first.
However, any parent can tell you, by the grace of God, your heart is expanded! Beyond a shadow of a doubt I love our first the same as our second, third, and fourth.
By the way. I’m a convert to the RCC. I saw what you said about holding Mary up as high as Christ. It’s funny to me at this point. Do you know anyone Catholic? Maybe you should ask them before you make absurd assumptions. (Or were you just being sarcastic?)
PS. Have you made any progress on the History of how the NT Canon was formed?
- Status