The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[Miguel_Sastre]

For the purposes of our discussion, what does matter is that Paul’s phrase, “all have sinned”, has been shown to have possible meanings OTHER THAN literally “all”; consequently, this passage of scripture cannot be used to disprove the Immaculate Conception.

I still disagree. While we both agree that “all” can admit of exceptions, we still don’t know that it does. It is possible that Paul really did mean “all without exception.” But it is also possible that he meant “all without distinction,” as in “both Jews and Gentiles,” which is to say, “all of humanity in general.” We can argue for plausible exceptions such as infants and those of diminished capacity. But we also have to argue why Mary would be an exception.

Catholic apologists generally seem to be content to argue that, “if infants are excepted, then so is Mary.” But that’s a huge leap in logic. Yes, I suppose the IC gets its foot in the door if we can show why Paul may not of necessarily have included every single human being under the rubric of “all have sinned.” But the IC still can’t get through the door until more evidence is produced. So often Catholics have to argue from the most unlikely possibility to the conclusion, “You see–scripture doesn’t slam the door on that idea–it’s still a possibility.” But such arguments only show how weak the case is for a biblical defense of those doctrines.

That’s why most apologists inevitably base the doctrine on appeals to magisterial authority: “We know she’s a perpetual virgin and immaculately conceived because Rome says so.” But that’s only as convincing as is the case for Roman infallibility–which in my view–is even weaker than the case for the Marian dogmas.

 

[Jenny4Him]

See post #218 for the scriptural proof you deny.

You are right. But one thing; you miss the entire point of the Ark of the Covenant and back to your apples to oranges scenario again. All that study or copying for nothing relevant. What was the purpose for the Ark of the Covenant in the OT? How does that remotely bring the Biblical Mary to mind?

The purpose for the Ark of the Covenant was to symbolize (God’s) Elohim’s visible throne and meeting place for and with God’s people. (Lev. 16:2, Num. 7:89; Ex. 25:22)

“And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of Elohim (God) is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and Elohim (God) himself shall be with them, and be their Elohim." Rev. 21:3

Thanks for the effort; I do recognize & appreciate your efforts unless you just copied it from somewhere, but I assume you put-forth your own effort and that is worthy of some respect in my opinion even if you did not get it right; at least you made an effort.

 

[Jenny4Him]

Actually it is quite easy. First, since all of you separated brethren are insisting on Scriptural evidence, then Sola Scriptura is very pertinent to this thread. Sola Scriptura, asI understood it when I was an IFB, was that all matters of doctrine and practice must be found in the Bible. I cannot prove a negative, so all you have to do is provide one verse that establishes Sola Scriptura. Scripture does speak highly of tradition handed down from the Church (1 Thess 2:15)

Nice try; start a different thread.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

. Anyway, “until” could not care less whether the clause is negated or affirmed. It does not matter. You rightly stated that “until” in the Greek literally means “until the time when” but the time has nothing to do with negation or afirmation. I would know. It took me 5 semesters of English 101. Now, I write quite a bit. “Until” means just that, “until”. There is no saying what happens after whether affirmed or negated.

Again we’re dealing with probabilities, rather than absolutes. In Greek, a negated verb in the main clause usually expects subsequent action in until clause. Are there exceptions? Yes. All you have to do is look at a “heos hou” clause (or any other word that means “until” --there’s not great difference in meaning between them) to see that, in the vast majority of the cases, the action of the main verb, when negated, does imply subsequent action in the main clause. I can’t quote it now, but did read this in a standard greek grammar when I took Greek. But you don’t need to be a greek student or even a have a grammar to figure that one out. Just look at all the “until” clauses in the New Testament and screen out all the ones in which the main verb is negated. Then just read the passage in context. In vast majority of the cases, you’ll see that the natural reading is that the action does take place after.

Jesus had no siblings.

Sure he did. In order to conclude otherwise, you have to insist on the most unlikely reading for “brothers and sister” possible, and then give a plausible explanation for why Mary would remain a virgin and why those called “brothers and sisters” aren’t Mary’s children, especially when we read about them with Mary. I’m not saying that it is impossible for the Catholic view to be true. I’m just saying its unlikely. If a Protestant wants to take the Catholic view–that’s fine with me. It’s a debatable theological opinion and is clearly based on the most unlikely and implausible of readings. But in Catholicism it’s not a debate. It’s a settled matter of dogma and those who disagree are anathematized for doing so.

[Qutoe]And you did not answer my question about why they would have had relations AFTER the birth. I was not talking about during her pregnancy nor did I imply it.

Yes, I did. They [Joseph and Mary] were married. So it makes sense that they would have normal marital relations.

I will answer your question in hopes that you will answer mine. They did not have normal relations because they were not a normal couple. Normal couples do not have God as their children.

In your opinion. But I think you need more than mere opinion/conjecture to assert this which such confidence.

Mary needed to be saved from sin. Jesus came to save us from sin, right? Mary was SUBJECT to sin but was preserved from it by the merits of Christ, her Son. Saying God applied merits beforehand is enough for the argument and is not contrary to Scripture. God is eternal, not temporal. He can do stuff like that. He sees all times all the time (if that even makes sense).

As I said before, I know that the Catholic church teaches that Mary needed a savior. I’m not denying that. But what I am denying is the logic for saying she did. Since Christ died to save sinners, atone for sin, etc., it’s difficult to understand the basis for saying Mary needed a savior since she had no sins to be atoned for.

Saying that Jesus did not sin because He is God is SO wrong.

He did not have a sinful human nature because He is God.

How is “full of grace” a mistranslation? My Bible actually says, “favored one.”

[Sigh] Really? If “full of grace” was the right translation, then that’s what your Bible would say. But it’s not, which is why it doesn’t say it. Jesus is “full of grace” and so is Stephen. Do believe Stephen was immaculately conceived? If not, why not? He is “full of grace” according to scripture.

I am just curious though. All Scriptures aside, what is the big deal about the doctrines of Mary: veneration, honor, intercessions, virginity, sinlessness, the Assumption, etc…? Non-biblical reasons… We are currently engaged in the biblical arguments. I have yet to see why some people are disgusted by the doctrines of Mary. I am not saying you are disgusted but you do seem passionately against it. Moondweller and Calvin are the most disgusted by it than I have ever seen.

I’ll get back to you on this…gotta run.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

If you say so; but that is obviously not true…but have it your way. God won’t see it as you do-I am certain of that. You were not able to refute the fact that Mary called Jesus her Savior while in her womb; which I can’t imagine anyone who calls themselves a Christian could dispute that the Savior mentioned in the Bible is the One who saves the lost sinner. Nor can anyone dispute that Mary called Jesus her Savior. So you have an obvious contradiction and where there is one there are usually several, which I have a feeling that I will soon discover this.

There are two ways to save someone from falling into a well.

1. Someone falls into a well. Someone else comes up and pulls the guy out.
2. Someone is about to fall to a well, when somebody notices and prevents him from falling into it.

As you see, in both instances someone was saved from falling into a well by somebody else. Just as it is with Mary, she was saved from being stained by original sin in the first place by Jesus’ death and resurrection as a special grace from God.

Or are you denying that God lives in the Eternal Present, wherein all of time is the same for Him?

And have you watched the video I posted,

youtube.com/watch?v=0aU18v-tl8I

and can you deny any of it?

God bless!

 

[EricFilmer]

Because you simply refuse to receive the simplicity of the text. All your arguments are constructed on and around extrabiblical sources.I’ll up that. I’ll give you two: (1) Gabriel never asks Mary, “Will you…?” (2) Luke 1:45 “And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

As you and anyone else clearly can see concerning my material in Post #186…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7301714&postcount=186

…I am basing my arguments entirely on the text of Luke 1:26-38. I have examined what the full body of text says, and I have examined the moral ramifications of your interpretation. An evangelical Bible scholar who believes in Sola Scriptura would have no problem accepting what I stated in Post #186.

There you have it, my friend. Straight from the original source.

We are both using the original source: Luke. What we are debating is interpretation. You pronounce your interpretation as the correct one and mine as false, and yet you have not backed this up with anything even closely resembling a scholarly approach. I however, have, demonstrated your interpretation is false. Once again (as always) this took place in Post #186, which you are continuing to dodge.

Where in Scripture does it say that Elizabeth was giving a full account of all the elements of the encounter between Mary and Gabriel? Where in Scripture does it say that Elizabeth’s statement is suddenly a theological discourse for the entire Doctrine of the Incarnation? It was a greeting, not a theological check list of what is and is not doctrinal. But that is how you are trying to use it.

For example, here is your basic approach.
Did Mary believe?
“Let’s check Luke 1:45 (and only Luke 1:45)…Yes, Elizabeth clearly said that Mary believed.”

Did Mary consent?
“Let’s check Luke 1:45 (and only Luke 1:45)…No, Elizabeth said nothing about “consent”, so there is no way Mary could have consented!”

You are drawing conclusions way beyond what is supported by the text.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Now dance around it all you want but you can’t change it just because you don’t like it.

The only one dancing around here is you. After all, over and over again you refuse to provide a point-by-point rebuttal of my material in Post #186. Rather, your “scholarly” argument against my interpretation of Luke is basically this, “Here’s Luke 1:45 - It teaches us everything we need to know about the interaction between Mary and Gabriel. Plus, it teaches this at face value, so I don’t even have to explain why. My interpretation is God’s own, and if you can’t see it then you’re missing it because you’re stumbling over the simplicity of it. And by the way, even though it is incredibly simple, I can’t provide a quote from a single Scripture scholar or theologian who agrees with me.”

So that’s not dancing around, huh?

And what about you giving me excuse after excuse after excuse as to why you won’t attempt to refute what I presented in Post #186?

That’s not “dancing around” either, huh?

You might upload ten pages of posts…

Who needs to upload “ten pages of posts”? I easily refuted your interpretation in TWO simple ways in Post #186.

…but you won’t change those two simple facts.

Let’s look at those “two simple facts”. Well, I already addressed the second one (Luke 1:45) so now I will address the first:

1

) Gabriel never asks Mary, “Will you…?”

So you’re saying that consent is always sought through the use of making a “Will you…?” statement??? As I clearly demonstrated in Post #186 (actually, in its link to Post #144: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7298349&postcount=144), there is more than one way a person can seek consent, and therefore the exclusion of an interrogative statement (such as “Will you…?”) does not automatically rule out the possibility of consent being sought. Once again, I clearly demonstrated this as part of my material in Post #186, and so far you have done nothing to refute this, or anything else therein.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

It’s not “blessed is she who consented…” (while God waited in the wings holding His breath in anticipation), but rather, “blessed {is} she who believed…what had been spoken to her.”

Are you saying that “blessed” here means that she is, at that moment, the mother of Jesus? As I pointed out a while ago, the message describing the Incarnation is future tense – it hasn’t happened yet. She was told she was already chosen to be the mother of the Messiah (past tense) but was not yet pregnant with the Messiah ("The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you”). So there was clearly a delay between the formulation of God’s plan and its activation. What happened during the delay? The consent of Mary.

Gabriel is a “messenger” (angel) of God, not a liaison.

So what are you saying here? That because the translation of the word angel is “messenger”, angels act only as messengers and not liaisons?

1. Angels act as liaisons for the simple fact that humans on earth cannot behold the full glory of God without dying. So an angel is both.
2. Generally speaking, aren’t messengers also sent to ask questions on behalf of those who send them? Of course. For example, concerning the account of the centurion in Luke 7:3, “When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come heal his slave.” (emphasis added)
3. There is no uniform presentation of angels in the Bible. Sometimes they are presented as being distinct from God, but at other times they seem to be manifestations of God. In other words, an encounter with an angel is sometimes described in the Bible as a theophany (i.e., a manifestation of God the Father among humans on earth, being perceptible to the senses of humans).

For example (and I’m cutting & pasting this from forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3310758&postcount=12
* Genesis 16:7-14. The Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar. The Angel speaks as God in the first-person, and in verse 13 Hagar identifies the visitor as God.
* Genesis 22:11-15. The Angel of the Lord appears to Abraham and, again, refers to God in the first-person.
* Genesis 31:11-13. The Angel of God speaks to Jacob in a dream and tells him “I am the God of Bethel”.
* Exodus 3:2-4. The Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in a flame in verse two, and God speaks to Moses from the flame in verse four.
* Numbers 22:22-38. The Angel of the Lord meets the prophet Balaam on the road. In verse 38, Balaam identifies the Angel who spoke to him as God.
* Judges 2:1-3. The Angel of the Lord appears to Israel and identifies Himself as God.
* Judges 6:11-23. The Angel of the Lord appears to Gideon. In verse 14 the Angel refers to Himself as God; in verse 21 the Angel allows Gideon to sacrifice to Him as to God, and in verse 22 Gideon fears for his life because he was in the presence of God.
* Judges 13:3-22. The Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah and his wife, and, in verse 22, is identified as God.

Therefore, Gabriel seeking consent from Mary on behalf of God can essentially be the same thing as God directly seeking this consent. But regardless of whether or not this consent was sought by God in a direct or indirect fashion, the fact remains that consent was sought, as I demonstrated in Post #186. The presence of an angel in no way disqualified this.

And speaking of Post #186, here is your latest excuse why you didn’t give me a clear, point-by-point refutation of that post:

All your arguments are constructed on and around extrabiblical sources.

Of course, as I said at the start of this current post, my arguments are biblical, and it is also worth noting that you did not prove that my arguments are extra-biblical. If my arguments come from an “extra-biblical source” then cut & paste a quote from me (from Post #186 or any of my other material that it links) that clearly shows me basing my argument on a source other than the Gospel of Luke.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Nice try; start a different thread.

It’s already done, here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=515287

However, if you do not want to tackle Sola Scriptura, then you cannot use it here, i.e. you cannot use the Bible as the “sole source of truths regarding to faith” for your arguments, because in a debate, each side have to agree first on what are the given truths that their arguments are going to base on.

So unless you want the discussion to stall, please answer StTommyMore’s questions.

Thank you and God bless.

 

[Jenny4Him]

Sola Scriptura is relevant to this thread because it is constantly being held up as the standard for validating doctrine by the original poster as well as others.

And that quote just makes you the latest person to use a Sola Scriptura statement. If you make statements like “The Scripture doesn’t teach that”, and a Catholic responds with “So?” then the concept of Sola Scriptura is naturally going to be addressed as part of this thread’s discussion.

But in terms of your suggestion of handling the topic of Sola Scriptura in another thread, that has just happened in a new thread started by one of this thread’s participants:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=515287

Let me put it this way; you can violate the rules but I won’t. You are a Catholic in a Catholic forum and I am not as of yet.

 

[Jenny4Him]

Which does not at all specify the fact, (which the Catholic Church teaches) that the Blessed Virgin was saved by Christ’s sacrifice, but that it was applied to her at conception because of her unique place in the plan of salvation.

If the ark of the Covenant was pure and so holy that to touch it was death, then how much more so would be the ark of the New Covenant wherein was carried the incarnate Son of God?!

Even your own scriptural citation lends itself to the idea that Mary was immaculately conceived.If this is true, (and we know it is!) then Our Lord is speaking of His mother (and possibly others) as one of those righteous who were already saved.

Maybe that is how Joseph died; he touched Mary.

 

[Jenny4Him]

+JMJ+

Jenny4Him, please watch this,

youtube.com/watch?v=0aU18v-tl8I

and tell us how the Church contradicts what the Scriptures truly say about Mary.

The more I learn about Scripture and the teachings of the Church, the more I can see that the “contradictions” between the two are actually not. Maybe in time, if you try to understand the teachings of the Church and what the Church understands about the Bible, you will find that, too.

God bless!

Honestly; I would love to answer that in all of its fullness, but you would not be able to handle the truth and I would be kicked out of here for violating the rules. If you want to discuss this, then send me a private message and I will give you my email address.

Actually I came here for that reason and already on a simple and clear topic of Mary; the contradictions between Catholic teaching and Biblical record is obvious; so now I am real interested in learning about what the Catholics teach on how one is going to get to heaven on some other thread. If it is anything like this, then there is no way I would convert.

 

[Jenny4Him]

As I stated to Miguel, I honestly don’t see what the issue is here. The title “Ark of the Covenant” is a poetic comparison between Mary and the Old Testament Ark. Your example is a poetic comparison between your husband’s boat and Noah’s ark. So what? The Catholic Church has no doctrines which are directly founded upon Mary’s title as Ark of the Covenant. For example, we don’t say that the reason she is immaculately conceived is specifically because she is called Ark of the Covenant. If no Catholics ever called her this, there would still be a Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Such a title we give her need not be anything more than a poetic comparison. There is an actual scriptural basis for calling Mary the Ark of the Covenant, as others have demonstrated in this thread with posts and links, but there doesn’t even need to be. I really fail to see why any Christian should object to Mary being called the Ark of the Covenant for the simple fact that her womb was the dwelling place for God among humans, as was the Ark of the Old Covenant. If Protestants don’t want to call her that, then fine. But are you saying that Catholics ought not to?

Not it is not; not even remotely.

 

[EricFilmer]

Let me put it this way; you can violate the rules but I won’t. You are a Catholic in a Catholic forum and I am not as of yet.

Exactly what rule is being violated?

 

[Jenny4Him]

Jenny,
Saying the Church contradicts Scripture does not make it true as most non-Catholics think. You must provide proof. Mary calling Jesus a Savior does not mean she was a sinner. It just means she needed to be saved. In this case, it was from sin. We all fell into the hole from sin but God brought us back out of the hole. Mary was kept by God from falling into it. Hence, she still needed a Savior. Mary said, “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” This seems to imply that she had a savior already. That Savior was God.

At least, you admit your understanding of Catholic teaching is limited. Most non-Catholics will not admit that much. Anyway, the Church Magisterium authoritatively teaches FROM Sacred Tradition, which is written (Scriptures) and oral. It is not either/or; it is both/and. We need something to teach (Magisterium) and we need something to teach from (Sacred Tradition). It would certainly be impossible for them both to be divine authorities if they were in conflict. You are absolutely right! BUT they are not in conflict. You have the burden of proof.

And this discussion thread does not prove that the Church has conflicts with Scripture. It just proves that non-Catholics are vehemently against Catholic teaching and Catholics will defend (albeit sometimes in a harsh manner)their Church. The only conflict in this discussion is between Catholics and non-Catholics, not between the Church and the Bible. I would not defend the Church if she contradicted the Bible… And I was atheist. As an atheist, I always knew one of three religions were right: Atheism, Catholicism or Judaism. Now I have complete certitude that the Church is right. People can deny all they wish. I do pray that Protestants come home soon though. Mary’s intercessions have helped me bring some Protestants to the Church through RCIA. Mary helps you too. Marian dogmas are not just a bunch of words that fit with another bunch of words (Bible); they are a part of life. She is there for us, Catholics and non-Catholics. That, my friend, is the Truth. Take it or leave it. Either way, she will still be praying for you up in Heaven, along with your loved ones (and everybody else’s) who are up there praying for you. Why is it so bad that souls are intercessing for us in heaven? Especially Mary?!

The proof is in the thread; I can’t make what is obvious to me obvious to you. I am very knowledgeable concerning the Word of God and there is great contradiction here concerning all this extrabiblical revelation concerning Mary.

 

[StTommyMore]

Let me put it this way; you can violate the rules but I won’t. You are a Catholic in a Catholic forum and I am not as of yet.

SS is very relevant. Before a reasonable debate can be conducted, the participants must set ground rules. As Catholics we object to limiting support to the Scriptures alone because that is in itself not a Biblical concept. We are just asking for an end to the hypocrisy. We refuse to submit to the stricture of Scripture alone until you can prove it is Scriptural.

 

[Jenny4Him]

As it so often does.
Perhaps, but I think it’s a matter of enlightenment as to whom one deems as a human authority, under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

Catholic teaching is not at an equal level or “authority” with scripture. That implies two different authorities. The Church is the servant of the scriptures. If the Catholic Church had no authority to preserve, proclaim, teach and interpret the scriptures, then the scriptures would become subservient to lexicons, concordances, and interpretation by mere human scholarship. That is a form of Pelagianism (a works alone heresy).

Should we trust the interpretations of Augustine or Jimmy Swaggart, the teachings of the Council of Ephesus or the pronouncements of Dave Hunt? Should we be guided by the prayer and worship practices of Christians in the first three centuries who were the closest to the New Testament Church or the prayer-and-worship routines of thousands of denominations?
Nowhere in scripture is the authority to teach given to unordained individual believers. But some Protestants have to believethat because if they cannot be infallible, they think that no one else can be either. Submission to authority really becomes a question of humility, doesn’t it?

I found this with a simple Yahoo search: seems you are incorrect according to your own church’s teaching.

82. As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’ [DV 9.]–Catechism of the Catholic Church, (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

 

[EricFilmer]

Not it is not; not even remotely.

So there is not even a remote poetic comparison between the Ark of the Old Covenant and Mary???

Did you even bother reading Randy Carson’s Post #218???

Well, for you and everybody else reading this thread, here is the link for Randy’s material…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7303780&postcount=218

People can read that for themselves and see if they agree with your statement that one cannot make even a REMOTE poetic comparison between the two.

 

[Jenny4Him]

Because you simply refuse to receive the simplicity of the text. All your arguments are constructed on and around extrabiblical sources.I’ll up that. I’ll give you two: (1) Gabriel never asks Mary, “Will you…?” (2) Luke 1:45 “And blessed {is} she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

There you have it, my friend. Straight from the original source. Now dance around it all you want but you can’t change it just because you don’t like it. You might upload ten pages of posts but you won’t change those two simple facts. It’s not “blessed is she who consented…” (while God waited in the wings holding His breath in anticipation), but rather, “blessed {is} she who believed…what had been spoken to her.”

Gabriel is a “messenger” (angel) of God, not a liaison.

**
Who is the most blessed among women in all of Scripture according to God?**
“Most blessed of women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Most blessed is she of women in the tent.” ** “in the tent” = among the Jews; Mary was a Jew. ** --Judges 5:24

Judges 5:24-31{4 the rest of the story)
And in context; you will understand why she has this title. What should happen now MoonD?

(Edited)

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Moondweller,
You claimed in a post yesterday that you beleived Mary had free will. So, why wouldn’t that free will apply here?

So was there merit in her decision to believe?

Quote:
Was she or was she not free to accept the role of Mother of Jesus? From her own words from scripture, isn’t it clear that she took on this role willingly and that it was not forced on her? No where do we see her complain, do we?

We’re just going to have to disagree on this. To me, She clearly consents. You are blinded to this.

Quote:
As for Gabriel asking for Mary’s consent - you are right that scripture does not record it being asked as a question. But that doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t consent.

Not at all, She clearly concents. Whether Gabriel asked for Consent is irrelevant.

Quote:
Its like someone telling you that you won the lottery. You still need to accept it, even though it is assumed by the messenger that acceptance is a foregone conclusion.

Agreed that my analogy wasn’t perfect, They never are. But look, we’ve explained it to using scripture as well but as long as you put yourself as the arbiter of everything so there will be no resolution. You can deny the truth all you want. But in the end, Mary clealry consented to being the Mother of the Lord. She was not coerced against her will nor was she ambivalent. Do you deny this…