K
Kendy
Guest
So, wouldn’t Mary’s parents have to be born without original sin? And then their parents, etc.
Kendy
Kendy
Teaching of the Catholic Church I am having trouble with...that make me doubt others
- Status
W
wpr
Guest
You’v e hit the nail on the head here. Only the Gospel writers were writing with the intention of instruction of the faithfull and with the mind to preserve the life of Christ. Yet even so, none suggested to encompass all of Christ’s teaching. In fact, read John 21:24. The Apostle John says quite the contrary.
Nowhere does the NT Scripture “self certify” as a sort of catechism. Rather, Christ started a Church! Christ never instructed the Apostles to write down His teachings or the Gospel. Was our Lord so short sighted?
Rather, He instructed the Apostles to build His Church and promised the Holy Spirit would be with them.
So how does this relate to Marian doctrine? Without any admission that Marian doctrine is not biblical (I do not concede that point). The Church is within it’s Christ given power to define/refine doctrine.
As for me, I see no difference between St. Peter telling us he had a vision that told him God wanted the Gentiles to hear the Gospel and the Church later clarifying the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity and Imaculate Conception. Incidentally, as Della has put so well, this doctrine actually supports Protestant belief as well.
I wonder if my wonderful sola scriptura Evangelical friends were around in AD 35 (or so) if they would have demanded that the Apostle Peter prove from Scripture that the Gospel is not limited to the Jews?
My next question, naturally, is… "so when exactly did Christ change his directive for the Apostles to build His Church to a new directive demanding NT Scriptural proof?
D
Della
Guest
No.
God chose to save Mary before she was born because she alone was to be Jesus’ mother.There are two ways you can save someone. The first way is the way you and I are being saved, after the fact of our birth in original sin. This is like rescuing a person after he fell through the ice. But, Mary was saved before she was born by the merits of the redemption her Son was to gain for us all on the cross. This is like pulling someone back from going out onto the thin ice.
But, this isn’t so odd as it may sound. All the saints of the OT were also saved by reason of their faith in God that looked forward to the coming of the Messiah. No one in history has been saved or will be saved apart from the redemption of Christ on the cross.
God wanted a New Eve to bear his Son, the Second Adam into the world. He created her pure and undefiled in order to be fit to be the Mother of God (the Theotokos as the Greek puts it–the Christ-bearer). That’s why he did it, not just to honor her or make her into a goddess, although we honor her more than any other holy person because of her perfect obedience and faith. As St. Elizabeth put it, “Blessed is she who has believed what the Lord has told her.” And Mary herself declared, “The Lord has done great things for me” realizing that truly no other person in history had been granted the high privilege she had–to be made fit to bring the Christ, the Son of God into the world.
P
Photini
Guest
I just wanted to jump in and say thank you for all these wonderful questions and excellent answers! As a revert trying to study my Catholic faith, I have learned SO MUCH here! Having moved in evangelical circles off and on for the last decade (before coming back to the Church), I admit some of the Marian teachings have been difficult for me-- but you dear folks are really helping me to understand and appreciate our Blessed Mother even more.
Thank you again!
In Christ’s love,
Photini ><>
My conversion story thus far (it’s a doosey):
Discovering the True God
Thank you again!
In Christ’s love,
Photini ><>
My conversion story thus far (it’s a doosey):
Discovering the True God
S
Sherlock
Guest
Oh, I know—and of course belief in private revelation is never obligatory. I thought, since this is a pretty well-known apparition and Kendy was raised Catholic, I figured she would at least know that one. I was trying to recall it to her memory where it might be helpful (maybe not). But since she’s apparently never heard of it, we’ll just drop it. And you’re right: the Ark of the Covenant is more helpful; the meaning of consecration, etc.With respect… The reference to Lourdes was, IMHO, almostguaranteed to cause more problems than it solved…
I mean, I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, & I believe that she was immaculately conceived, & the best I can do is maintain a polite http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif skepticism as to whether the words of the apparition were/ were notactually real…
For someone who has never even, perhaps, heard of Lourdes, it is simply confusing. (After all, even Catholics are under no obligation to believe in private revelations…even when said revelations support CC doctrines. ).
The material in the Bible about the Ark of the Covenant is, perhaps, the best proof–again,
God bless.
S
Sherlock
Guest
The belief that Jesus started a Church is both logical and Scriptural. That that Church is the Catholic Church is also logical and Scriptural. This in contrast to the “invisible church” concept which is not Scriptural and, because of its inherent relativism, is opposed to absolute truth: how logical is that when Christ is Absolute Truth?I also think it’s funny that so many people are saying, “the church says therefore I believe it so there” on this issue since I have found you guys (people on this forum) to be generally to be good at defending yourselves with logic and scripture so far
Kendy
All of this brings up an important point: discussions about “proving” Catholic doctrines in various areas may be sort of interesting, but is without foundation. Your time would be better spent examining just why it is that the Catholic Church claims to be the Church that Jesus founded.
T
Tom
Guest
Cath.orProtes.?:
Mary was under a vow of virginity, as she says in Luke chapter 1, Joseph is told of this vow in Matthew chapter 1, he is also instructed to take her into his house while under this vow of virginity. Now read Numbers chapter 30, if a man takes a woman into his house under a vow and he allows this vow he may never make her break it.
W
wpr
Guest
**
We believe that God gave everything we need in the scriptures.
I know that you would be amazed at how close our beliefs really are.
Thanks.**
This belief in sola scriptura is non- biblical. It may be for another thread, but nowhere does the NT Scripture self declare adequacy for teaching the faith. In fact, exactly the opposite is asserted.
It would behove many to study the nitty gritty details of how the NT Canon was discerned. On what basis do you hold the NT Scriptures as God-breathed? What is your definition of “inspired”? Why do we have the Canon that we have?
That being said, it has been more than adequately shown in this thread that Catholic Marian doctrines are rooted in biblical truth. Many of my fellow brothers/sisters have already made clear The Church did not discern Marian doctrines for no reason, or without biblical basis, or from thin air. Study the early heresies as Della pointed to earlier for the basis.
I am sorry to be abrupt, but having come from a Protestant background I know for a fact that these issues are glossed-over without basis. Your Pastor is simply not being forthright or is ignorant of the background. He/she should better plead ignorance rather than teach something without basis.
This “non” biblical stuff I hear I find quite ironic in that “faith alone” , “OSAS”, and “sola scriptura” are not taught in the bible. That is unless you twist the words like pretzel.
We believe that God gave everything we need in the scriptures.
I know that you would be amazed at how close our beliefs really are.
Thanks.**
This belief in sola scriptura is non- biblical. It may be for another thread, but nowhere does the NT Scripture self declare adequacy for teaching the faith. In fact, exactly the opposite is asserted.
It would behove many to study the nitty gritty details of how the NT Canon was discerned. On what basis do you hold the NT Scriptures as God-breathed? What is your definition of “inspired”? Why do we have the Canon that we have?
That being said, it has been more than adequately shown in this thread that Catholic Marian doctrines are rooted in biblical truth. Many of my fellow brothers/sisters have already made clear The Church did not discern Marian doctrines for no reason, or without biblical basis, or from thin air. Study the early heresies as Della pointed to earlier for the basis.
I am sorry to be abrupt, but having come from a Protestant background I know for a fact that these issues are glossed-over without basis. Your Pastor is simply not being forthright or is ignorant of the background. He/she should better plead ignorance rather than teach something without basis.
This “non” biblical stuff I hear I find quite ironic in that “faith alone” , “OSAS”, and “sola scriptura” are not taught in the bible. That is unless you twist the words like pretzel.
L
Lapsed
Guest
What a fantastic thread! I just finished reading all of it and a thought occurred to me.
The special grace that God extended to Mary in her Immaculate Conception is one of the more troublesome aspects through this thread.
I’m considering the fourth commandment to honour our parents. What greater honour could God give to His mother than to make her the first benificiary of His redeeming sacrifice? He did this by applying the merits of His sacrifice to the entirety of her life, from the moment of her conception forward, making the mother of His unique Son unique among all of humanity.
God keeping His own commandments as only He can.
Not an argument, just a thought.
The special grace that God extended to Mary in her Immaculate Conception is one of the more troublesome aspects through this thread.
I’m considering the fourth commandment to honour our parents. What greater honour could God give to His mother than to make her the first benificiary of His redeeming sacrifice? He did this by applying the merits of His sacrifice to the entirety of her life, from the moment of her conception forward, making the mother of His unique Son unique among all of humanity.
God keeping His own commandments as only He can.
Not an argument, just a thought.
Z
Zooey
Guest
It’s a good one! It reminded me of something I read in one of Archbishop Sheen’s books, years ago.
He was discussing this topic, & he told a story about the artist James Whistler–he of “Whistler’s Mother”. Someone admired the painting & remarked on it to Whistler, who replied, “Well, you know how it is, you want to make your Mum as beautiful as possible”.
Then, Bishop Sheen said:
“Who is the only Person who ever made His own mother??”Smart man, as well as saintly!!
L
luvthelight
Guest
kendy, i hope i can help. this is the best way i understand it.
on mary being immaculate. now the average son or daughter wishes the best for their parents right? we love them, learn from them, trust them. now imagine you are God. you get to CREATE your mother, from the beginning of time. now why in the world would you create a woman who is less than perfect? she is being trusted with raising and teaching the most important life on earth. God isn’t going to choose someone who is sinful like the rest of us. i think someone mentioned this before - she is the new eve. eve of genesis gave us death, mary gives us another shot at life. with her role in God’s plan we get a perfect human to emulate, to look to for guidance. she is our spiritual mother, the one to ask for help.
on the virgin birth. place yourself in mary’s position. a devout jew, you have begun to prepare for your wedding, which is only a short time away. now an angel appears to you and says - you will bear a son. now stop, without analyzing the issue - what would your assumption be? of course - that the son would come AFTER your marriage, but mary wants to know how she will have a son without ‘knowing a man’.
on mary being immaculate. now the average son or daughter wishes the best for their parents right? we love them, learn from them, trust them. now imagine you are God. you get to CREATE your mother, from the beginning of time. now why in the world would you create a woman who is less than perfect? she is being trusted with raising and teaching the most important life on earth. God isn’t going to choose someone who is sinful like the rest of us. i think someone mentioned this before - she is the new eve. eve of genesis gave us death, mary gives us another shot at life. with her role in God’s plan we get a perfect human to emulate, to look to for guidance. she is our spiritual mother, the one to ask for help.
on the virgin birth. place yourself in mary’s position. a devout jew, you have begun to prepare for your wedding, which is only a short time away. now an angel appears to you and says - you will bear a son. now stop, without analyzing the issue - what would your assumption be? of course - that the son would come AFTER your marriage, but mary wants to know how she will have a son without ‘knowing a man’.
K
Kendy
Guest
Well, thanks for trying, but Sherlock might be right. This is a hard pill and perhaps, the only way to swallow it is to accept the church’s authority to begin with…
Kendy
C
CARose
Guest
This is a great point, LuvTheLight, one I’ve raised with others before (didn’t bring it up here though, so thanks for doing so.) If she hadn’t planned on remaining a virgin, if she weren’t a consecrated virgin from before her wedding, being told you’re going to have a kid seems like a “Duh…” pronouncement. But, instead she’s like, “how can it happen?” I don’t think she was ignorant of how a child is conceived, as she goes straight to the point by stating she knows not man. But, she’s engaged (betrothed actually, a more formal step in the Jewish culture).
Kendy, I know it’s tough stuff if you’re not ready to hear it. Spend some time with scripture on this one. Ask Christ to help you know the Truth about His mother, even if it’s a difficult teaching. Eventually, you’ll know for certain, as he always answers the prayer of a righteous man. You could even take it to Mary, start by asking Jesus to let you know immediately if this is in anyway inappropriate, and then ask Mary to assist you in better knowing the truth of her Son and all he left behind for humanity to know about God.
Also, you might want to take a look at scripture, again to the Old Testament for foreshadowing of the Queen Mother role that Mary has in Heaven. This is seen in I believe (I may have the details wrong) both King David and King Soloman, who raised their mothers to the role of Queen Mother. These women were not royalty in their own right, but merely by virtue of the fact that they bore the King. They are asked to serve the court in the role of intercessor for the subjects of the kingdom. Subjects brought their petitions to the Queen, who then granted favors through the sovereinty of their sons, the King. It is only through the King that these petitions can possibly be granted, and yet the mother hears them and assists these subjects of the kingdom.
Just something more to perhaps ponder,
CARose
C
Cath.orProtes
Guest
Hello everyone, wow am I learning allot. This above scripture quote has yet to be explained. Does anyone have an opinion? Authoritative or not?
S
St.Eric
Guest
Cath.orProtes.?:
If we take the words of Christ right before he dies on the Cross, he says to John: Son, behold your mother, mother behold your son…" Christ is officially giving Mary to the world as the Mother. Therefore, he would be an alien unto his mother’s children since his mother’s children would be all of mankind…
C
Cath.orProtes
Guest
Yes that sounds rational. Who would be “my brethren” that he becomes a stranger to then?
Sorry just asking.
S
St.Eric
Guest
Cath.orProtes.?:
The answer would be: to the vast majority of mankind on this planet who do not beleive that he is the Messiah…i,e. the gate to salvation is narrow indeed…
Z
Zooey
Guest
Cath.orProtes.?:
For example, v. 5 of the same Psalm says: “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee”… OK, I think we can all agree that this verse, emphatically, does not apply to Jesus Christ, who was sinless, & far from foolish!!
What we have here, is a case of what we (meaning Methodists!..don’t know what Catholics call it…) call “double fulfillment”. Part of the Psalm refers to the immediate fulfillment in the time the Psalm was written, part is a prophecy for the future. Not every word of this Psalm applies to Christ! (As, see, v. 5, discussed above).
Now, if one is determined to
“prove” that Mary had other children…(Though, like others here, I cannot understand why some of my Protestant brethren are sohttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif obsessed with doing so), then I suppose you just declare, “this is a verse that proves Mary had other children”…But, the fact is, that it does no such thing; it proves **only **that the Psalm’s author had a mother who had other children…quite a different matter…
(Furthermore, as has been pointed out, Mary had other spiritual children…beginning with St John the Evangelist, & continuing down to, well…to :yup: us!!)
The author of the Psalm was a type of Christ; he was :nope: not like Christ in every particular…something that even those on the oppsite side of this discussion are going to have to admit, if only because the Psalmist was not sinless!
It is important to look at this Psalm, like any Scripture, in context…
For example, v. 5 of the same Psalm says: “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee”… OK, I think we can all agree that this verse, emphatically, does not apply to Jesus Christ, who was sinless, & far from foolish!!
What we have here, is a case of what we (meaning Methodists!..don’t know what Catholics call it…) call “double fulfillment”. Part of the Psalm refers to the immediate fulfillment in the time the Psalm was written, part is a prophecy for the future. Not every word of this Psalm applies to Christ! (As, see, v. 5, discussed above).
Now, if one is determined to
“prove” that Mary had other children…(Though, like others here, I cannot understand why some of my Protestant brethren are sohttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif obsessed with doing so), then I suppose you just declare, “this is a verse that proves Mary had other children”…But, the fact is, that it does no such thing; it proves **only **that the Psalm’s author had a mother who had other children…quite a different matter…(Furthermore, as has been pointed out, Mary had other spiritual children…beginning with St John the Evangelist, & continuing down to, well…to :yup: us!!)
The author of the Psalm was a type of Christ; he was :nope: not like Christ in every particular…something that even those on the oppsite side of this discussion are going to have to admit, if only because the Psalmist was not sinless!
M
mlchance
Guest
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.
K
Kendy
Guest
Well, it’s good to know I have made a lot of enemies.
Kendy
- Status