The Importance of Mary in Catholicism

[moondweller]

Well…there is a saying that action speak louder than words…so, if you are not required to do anything…is there anything that you would voluntarily do that would show how you are treating Mary as blessed among all women?

How I am treating her as blessed? Mary doesn’t live here anymore. I count her as blessed because of what was spoken TO her and what was fulfilled THROUGH her two thousand years ago. For this reason Mary herself said all generations will “count” her blessed. Mary’s soul exalted the Lord, and her spirit rejoiced in God her Savior (Lk 1:46,47). She didn’t exalt herself nor rejoice in herself. She said from now on all generations will count me blessed, not from now on all generations will exalt me.

It is also said that treat others as you would like them to treat you…so if what you are stating about Mary, how you are treating her…would you not expect Jesus to treat you the same you are treating her Mother? What I mean is, would you not expect your words to come back to you at the time of your judgement?

Which “judgment” is that?

 

[po18guy]

If I grow closer to God through Jesus, and closer to Jesus through Mary, is there someone I can go through to get closer to Mary? Some way to grow deeper in our life in Mary?

It’s interesting, If you replace the word Jesus with the Father, and Mary with Jesus, you get something that I think Moondweller would agree with.

"With Mary as our model, teacher and guide we become the kind of Christian God wants us to be. With and through Mary we become more and more like Jesus. "

Also, please stop saying “Without Mary there is no Jesus” because it is a foolish, endless (cyclical) argument. There is no point in speculating because we cannot know God’s mind and we cannot know alternative universes or however you want to look at it. It’s really frustrating to moondweller (as well as most Protestants I would imagine) so, with 1 Cor 8:13 in mind, could you stop?

I remain amazed at the doctrinal deterioration in Christendom, given the veneration which both Luther and Calvin had for Mary. How do you explain this?

 

[moondweller]

I remain amazed at the doctrinal deterioration in Christendom, given the veneration which both Luther and Calvin had for Mary. How do you explain this?

Allowing the Scriptures their proper place and importance. It’s not called doctrinal “deterioration,” it’s called doctrinal “reformation.” You teach what the Scriptures teach. You don’t exceed what is written.

 

[po18guy]

How I am treating her as blessed? Mary doesn’t live here anymore. I count her as blessed because of what was spoken TO her and what was fulfilled THROUGH her two thousand years ago. For this reason Mary herself said all generations will “count” her blessed. Mary’s soul exalted the Lord, and her spirit rejoiced in God her Savior (Lk 1:46,47). She didn’t exalt herself nor rejoice in herself. She said from now on all generations will count me blessed, not from now on all generations will exalt me.Which “judgment” is that?

What bible translation are you using? The Douay-Rheims (circa 1609), the JKV (circa 1611) and even the oh-so-anti-Catholic NIV (circa 1978) all have Luke 1:48 as “Call me blessed”. Her blessing came from God, yet you decline to “call” her blessed. Odd.

 

[po18guy]

Allowing the Scriptures their proper place and importance.

All according to your personal opinion.

It’s not called doctrinal “deterioration,” it’s called doctrinal “reformation.” You teach what the Scriptures teach. You don’t exceed what is written.

And, just where does the bible say that? With so much of your doctrine being opinion, why do you assume that your opinion is correct?

 

[kepha1]

Pass It On #11

An Ordinary Woman and Mother of God

by Catherine Doherty

Consider Mary as she really is. Everybody glorifies Our Lady. Of course she is to be glorified. She is the Mother of God. But I would like to tell of her ordinary life. There are many women like me who feel that she is so high up that nobody can touch her. It is true that she is high up, but she is also very ordinary.

What did she do all day? I imagine she washed and scrubbed and cleaned. She was married to a carpenter. She wasn’t a big shot in Nazareth. Nazareth was a small town. Joseph wasn’t a big shot, just a carpenter. She tended to her husband and Son, especially when he was small. She cooked, she scrubbed and she washed and wove and attended to the garden and did the laundry. Our Lady was the first person who really knew how to do the will of God in its minute details.

I revel in her normality because she is ordinary and at the same time extraordinary. It was an ordinary household and that is a most fantastic thing. Our Lord chose for his mother a working woman; that’s what she was, a working woman.

She got up in the morning, and on some days of the week carried the laundry to the pool. The women of Nazareth must have come to her constantly because she was who she was. She must have kept, not a cookie jar, but the Eastern sweets that all the Eastern people love, and children must have come to her.

I think of her in realistic terms, but I also think of her as the woman with the power to stand silently under the cross of her Son, and in some sort of an incredible way, I understand that at that moment she became the mother of all humanity, for whom he died.

She’s the woman of speech and she’s the woman of silence. She’s stronger than an army in battle array and as weak with God as only a woman can be. She dusted and she cleaned. And she cooked and she knew how to weave. She wove his seamless garment. Her life was a sea of small things so infinitely small that they’re almost not worth mentioning. The corn had to be ground, her house swept, the meals prepared; day after day the Mother of God did those things.

con’t…

 

[kepha1]

From her we can learn the quality of listening, and of taking up the words of others as well as the words of God, holding them in our hearts until the Holy Spirit cracks them wide open and gives us the answer as he did to her as her Spouse.

You asked me to explain who Our Lady is. You could say that she’s the gate. She’s the gate to the way to the Father, because it is through her that Christ came to us and it is through her that we return to him.

Who is Our Lady? A woman like you and me. She is someone to whom my heart goes out all day and who is with me as a friend, and with whom I can talk.

We all should talk about her Son. For you see, she changed his diapers and he drank her milk, and she kissed his boo-boos away like any woman does to a toddler. He scratched himself, so she kissed it away. He went, and he fell and he got up and he grew up, and she probably said, “Eat your porridge,” and she probably said, “Don’t forget your sandals. It’s wet.”

Who has lived with God as Mary has lived with him? To whom can we go and find out that he is really a man? From whom shall we know the Incarnation better than from the woman who carried him in her womb nine months?

How can anyone talk about throwing out devotions to Our Lady? Do you want to throw out the woman who was pregnant with God and who will never lead you away from him but always to him?

We think of her as the queen of the angels, and queen of the universe, which she is. But you see, God was a carpenter and she was a house-wife. And God is in heaven and he still has calloused hands in his glorified body. And she, who also has been assumed into heaven and has a glorified body, still has hands that show she was just a working woman. She is all things to all people because she is the mother of mankind.

How can we not love her? How can we not go to her, run to her? She has the secret of everything, now that she is where she is. And when we worry about some kind of a mystery or have a hang-up on something or other in spiritual matters, why don’t we go to her? She’ll say, “Oh relax, kiddo. Let us sit down and talk.”

What a strange thing it is that God chose her. Because she is the gate through which he came to us, she is the gate wide open for us to go through to him.

Adapted from Bogoroditza by Catherine Doherty​

madonnahouse.org/publications/passiton/index.html

 

[kepha1]

HOLY MASS ON THE SOLEMNITY
OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
St. Thomas of Villanova Parish, Castel Gandolfo
Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In his great work “De Civitate Dei,” St Augustine says once that the whole of human history, the history of the world, is a struggle between two loves: love of God to the point of losing oneself, of total self-giving, and love of oneself to the point of despising God, of hating others. This same interpretation of history as a struggle between two loves, between love and selfishness, also appears in the reading from the Book of Revelation that we have just heard.

Here, these two loves appear in two great figures. First of all, there is the immensely strong, red dragon with a striking and disturbing manifestation of power without grace, without love, of absolute selfishness, terror and violence.

At the time when St John wrote the Book of Revelation, this dragon represented for him the power of the anti-Christian Roman Emperors, from Nero to Domitian. This power seemed boundless; the military, political and propagandist power of the Roman Empire was such that before it, faith, the Church, appeared as a defenseless woman with no chance of survival and even less of victory.

Who could stand up to this omnipresent force that seemed capable of achieving everything? Yet, we know that in the end it was the defenseless woman who won and not egoism or hatred; the love of God triumphed and the Roman Empire was opened to the Christian faith.

The words of Sacred Scripture always transcend the period in history. Thus, not only does this dragon suggest the anti-Christian power of the persecutors of the Church of that time, but also anti-Christian dictatorships of all periods.

We see this power, the force of the red dragon, brought into existence once again in the great dictatorships of the last century: the Nazi dictatorship and the dictatorship of Stalin monopolized all the power, penetrated every corner, the very last corner. It seemed impossible in the long term that faith could survive in the face of this dragon that was so powerful, that could not wait to devour God become a Child, as well as the woman, the Church. But also in this case, in the end love was stronger than hate…

continued at zenit.org/article-20333?l=english

 

[Church_Militant]

Allowing the Scriptures their proper place and importance. It’s not called doctrinal “deterioration,” it’s called doctrinal “reformation.” You teach what the Scriptures teach. You don’t exceed what is written.

The problem for you is that the Word of God nowhere says that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the its pages. Hence, what you demand is itself an unscriptural position and no Christian need comply with it.

It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

Sacred Tradition, however is very evident in the New Testament.

Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.
Tradition? No way!

So since your demands are not valid arguments versus Marian beliefs and as that is all you have, you suffer an http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel, That is not Romans 6:23 by the way. I have no clue where it is but I know it is somewhere in Romans because I have seen it.

You’re right–it’s Romans 3:23. Romans 6:23 is the “wages of sin” verse. It was late…

It does say “all have sinned”. Where does that leave Jesus? He is man.

Jesus isn’t included because he was God. God can’t fall short of His own glory. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” excludes Jesus by definition. Further, Paul explicitly says elsewhere that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21) and so the explicit “exception clause” I mentioned is in fact in scripture for Jesus–but NOT for Mary.

According to your idea, He sinned also. What about in Psalm 14:3 when it mentions “not one does what is right”? Yet, the very next psalm (15) talks about doing what is right. Exaggerations, hyberboles… They are in the Bible too.

Yes–I quite agree about hyperbole/exaggeration–it can be in scripture. But in the context of Romans, do you really think Paul is using hyperbole or exaggerating? If you’re wrong about that, you’re really wrong. The consequences could be disastrous for misinterpreting Paul in order to force him into compliance with a later theological tradition that contradicts apostolic teaching. Consider the entire argument Paul is making. Both categories of human beings–Gentiles and Jews–are under God’s condemnation. But the one who is in Jesus–whether Jew or Gentile–is under no condemnation (Romans 8:1).

I’m perfectly willing to brainstorm ideas for who Paul might not envision under the category “all.” Perhaps he doesn’t mean “all without exception,” but only “all without distinction.” But the exceptions–if there are any–have to be argued, not assumed.

Since Paul elsewhere refers to Mary (though not by name) in connection to Jesus’ birth (“born of woman” Galatians 4:4) and utterly fails to mention anything about the that woman being immaculately conceived, you’ll understand why I remain skeptical. After all, had it ever even occurred to Paul that Mary was without sin and that this was a truth worth communicating to the church, this would have been the perfect place to do so. It’s the one place Paul discusses Jesus’ birth, all he has to say is “born of woman.” With a couple of strokes of the pen, he could have said in passing, “born of a sinless woman,” without detracting one iota from the point he was making. But it seems it had never even occurred to Paul that Mary was conceived without sin and went on to live a life free of actual sin. That’s Paul’s point about there being “none” who do good. We all break God’s law. The law points out our sin and puts in stark relief how far we fall short of God’s perfect standard. Since Paul dwells on that point so often, one would think that if there had been an exception to that rule other than Jesus himself, he would have surely mentioned it.

 

[StTommyMore]

You’re right–it’s Romans 3:23. Romans 6:23 is the “wages of sin” verse. It was late…

Jesus isn’t included because he was God. God can’t fall short of His own glory. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” excludes Jesus by definition. Further, Paul explicitly says elsewhere that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21) and so the explicit “exception clause” I mentioned is in fact in scripture for Jesus–but NOT for Mary.

Yes–I quite agree about hyperbole/exaggeration–it can be in scripture. But in the context of Romans, do you really think Paul is using hyperbole or exaggerating? If you’re wrong about that, you’re really wrong. The consequences could be disastrous for misinterpreting Paul in order to force him into compliance with a later theological tradition that contradicts apostolic teaching. Consider the entire argument Paul is making. Both categories of human beings–Gentiles and Jews–are under God’s condemnation. But the one who is in Jesus–whether Jew or Gentile–is under no condemnation (Romans 8:1).

I’m perfectly willing to brainstorm ideas for who Paul might not envision under the category “all.” Perhaps he doesn’t mean “all without exception,” but only “all without distinction.” But the exceptions–if there are any–have to be argued, not assumed.

Since Paul elsewhere refers to Mary (though not by name) in connection to Jesus’ birth (“born of woman” Galatians 4:4) and utterly fails to mention anything about the that woman being immaculately conceived, you’ll understand why I remain skeptical. After all, had it ever even occurred to Paul that Mary was without sin and that this was a truth worth communicating to the church, this would have been the perfect place to do so. It’s the one place Paul discusses Jesus’ birth, all he has to say is “born of woman.” With a couple of strokes of the pen, he could have said in passing, “born of a sinless woman,” without detracting one iota from the point he was making. But it seems it had never even occurred to Paul that Mary was conceived without sin and went on to live a life free of actual sin. That’s Paul’s point about there being “none” who do good. We all break God’s law. The law points out our sin and puts in stark relief how far we fall short of God’s perfect standard. Since Paul dwells on that point so often, one would think that if there had been an exception to that rule other than Jesus himself, he would have surely mentioned it.

It can also be postulated that the “all” does not necessarily mean “all.” For example, another proof-text used by evangelicals is Romans 5:12:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned –

But we know that dealt does not pass to all men! We know this because of Scripture:

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.

(Hebrews 11:5)

And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

(2 Kings 2:11)
Of course these are two very notable individuals. But then again, so is the Blessed Mother!
There is yet another text I must show you:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.

(1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
In this last text it is not even notable individuals but those in Christ, that is, in a state of grace, at the final day to greet the Lord and accompany Him to the final victory.
In addition to these texts, simple logic demonstrate that “all” does not mean “absolutely all.” Do infants sin? No? Well if “all” means “absolutely all” then you must also believe that infants have personal sin. Although the Scriptures do not explicitly contain the Truths about Mary, neither are they contrary to the Holy Writ.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Although the Scriptures do not explicitly contain the Truths about Mary, neither are they contrary to the Holy Writ.

I think we can agree that “all” can admit of exceptions, which is why I distinguished between “all without exception” (quantitative all) and “all without distinction” (qualitative all.) But that doesn’t leave the door open for just anyone. We still would have to determine who is/is not a plausible exception. Infants–those incapable of sin due to retarded mental faculties–such as these probably go without saying. But Mary is neither an infant nor of diminished capacity. She is one who can say, “I rejoice in God my savior,” which surely implies that she thought of herself as needing salvation from something. The question, therefore,is whether or not Mary is a plausible “exception” to the “all have sinned” clause in Romans. She almost certainly is not an exception that Paul would have entertained since she is an adult Jew who knows the demands of the law.

I appreciate that you admit that scripture does not explicitly spell out all the Catholic Marian dogmas. But when you say they are not contrary to scripture, you err. To say Mary is without sin is to contradict scripture’s teaching that all have sinned since no explicit exception for Mary is mentioned. I would also say that the idea of her perpetual virginity almost certainly contradicts the plain and most probable sense of scripture that portrays Mary as virginal only “until” she gave birth to Jesus and that clearly envisions Jesus’ siblings as Mary’s own children. The probability that the gospel writers thought of these children as coming from the womb of some other mother or that Mary remained a life long virgin after (and even during!) the birth of Jesus is virtually nil. Far more likely is that these ideas come from the post-apostolic church and have been read back into scripture. When arguments have to be made to the effect that “X is a dogma we can hold because it doesn’t contradict scripture,” we’re in big trouble.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Miguel,
I will be back on later. In the meantime, Miguel you presented a reasonable case but I do have answer… Unfortunately I have to leave and it is too long. Paul did claim Jesus did not sin but my argument still stands because he said “all have sinned.” I will elaborate later. Hopefully.

Moondweller,
Why do you skip my objections and questions? I already answered your argument (if you could even call it that). Thanks for skipping about 80 percent of my argument though. It shows a lot. I never said Gabriel asked or even had to ask. But still, Blessed Mary Queen of Heaven consented. Everybody believes something and consents. At first she believed the angel but was confused about the logistics of the operation and she was hesitant to consent. Then she consented. No way around it. Nobody is saying Gabriel asked for it; you are saying we did in order to try to win the argument. Truth wins. You do not. Neither do I. Truth does. Stop asking asking us to provide exacts in Scripture. I could ask you to provide “Scripture only,” “no venerating Mary allowed,” “Heaven is a vault that God does not let anybody intercede,”… It is pointless though because I am changing the words around to win. Mary consented. That is the end of it. Nobody asked her to but she did it anyway because she believed. She consented because she believed it. Next topic. Answer ALL my objections instead of picking out a sentence and change it around. You might actually understand the Church and/or convert if we stuck with a little reason.

 

[StTommyMore]

I think we can agree that “all” can admit of exceptions, which is why I distinguished between “all without exception” (quantitative all) and “all without distinction” (qualitative all.) But that doesn’t leave the door open for just anyone. We still would have to determine who is/is not a plausible exception. Infants–those incapable of sin due to retarded mental faculties–such as these probably go without saying. But Mary is neither an infant nor of diminished capacity. She is one who can say, “I rejoice in God my savior,” which surely implies that she thought of herself as needing salvation from something. The question, therefore,is whether or not Mary is a plausible “exception” to the “all have sinned” clause in Romans. She almost certainly is not an exception that Paul would have entertained since she is an adult Jew who knows the demands of the law.

I appreciate that you admit that scripture does not explicitly spell out all the Catholic Marian dogmas. But when you say they are not contrary to scripture, you err. To say Mary is without sin is to contradict scripture’s teaching that all have sinned since no explicit exception for Mary is mentioned. I would also say that the idea of her perpetual virginity almost certainly contradicts the plain and most probable sense of scripture that portrays Mary as virginal only “until” she gave birth to Jesus and that clearly envisions Jesus’ siblings as Mary’s own children. The probability that the gospel writers thought of these children as coming from the womb of some other mother or that Mary remained a life long virgin after (and even during!) the birth of Jesus is virtually nil. Far more likely is that these ideas come from the post-apostolic church and have been read back into scripture. When arguments have to be made to the effect that “X is a dogma we can hold because it doesn’t contradict scripture,” we’re in big trouble.

Mary, as Mother of God, Theotokos is a plausible exception. She was chosen specifically by God to bear the Incarnate Word, the Divine Logos. The Immaculate conception (the Saving of the Blessed Mother from Original Sin) was absolutlely necessary. The Ark of the New Covenant had to be absolutely pure to bring Her Savior and Creator into the world. How can purity be brought forth from impurity. The only way around this is to fall into Nestorianism, which is dangerous as it calls for an extrisic, rather than intrinsic unity of the Divine and Human natures of Christ.

 

[EricFilmer]

How about sticking to the TEXT and showing me where Gabriel asked for Mary’s consent? How bout it, Eric?

I have already done this. So, just to put all this together in one tidy post: there are two main reasons why I state that “Gabriel asked for Mary’s consent”.

A) In Luke 1:26-38, the Angel Gabriel presented God’s plan to Mary in a manner that hinged on Mary’s consent. This is in accordance with what I stated concerning the ways, generally speaking, in which consent is sought (Post #144, example #2). That material can be accessed with this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7298349&postcount=144 So the text of Luke, and the text alone, concretely supports my position. I will also add that so far you have said nothing in refutation of my material in Post #144.

B) I have asked you repeatedly to tell me, according to your interpretation, what would have happened if Mary had said, “Let it NOT be done unto me…” You have not yet answered this question. It is obvious that from your perspective, there is no way the outcome can be an acceptable result. Here is why:

Proposition: Suppose Mary had said, “Let it NOT be done unto me…” What could feasibly be predicted as the result?

Possible Outcome #1: If the Incarnation within Mary would happen anyway, then God would commit a serious crime against her, because it is a serious crime to impregnate a woman against her will. I explained why in the bottom of Post #109, as can be accessed by this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7294675&postcount=109
At this time I will make slight correction to the original example: the man should be saying, “My boss has chosen you to be the mother of his son” (rather than “my son"). I can see no distinction between the fundamental moral issue presented in my kidnapped woman example with your statements that Mary was not asked for her consent. Moreover, you have been repeatedly invited by me to explain the distinction, but so far have not done so.

In the past you have admitted that Mary has freewill (Post #153) and you highly objected to your interpretation being considered a kind of rape (Post #115). So, I think it is safe for me to presume that, as far as you are concerned, Possible Outcome #1 is unacceptable.

Possible Outcome #2: The Incarnation within Mary would not have happened. What does this mean? Consider that Gabriel announced to Mary that she was chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. If she then said, “Let it NOT be done unto me…”, and she did not become the mother of the Messiah, then that means that God’s plan hinged on her consent. Obviously, as far as you are concerned, this is an unacceptable conclusion. After all, you have been arguing against Mary’s consent for several days now.

Possible Outcome #3: There is no third possible outcome. Mary would either be the mother of the Messiah or not.

Conclusion: From a Christian perspective, there is no way God would commit a serious crime against Mary. Hence, Possible Outcome #1 must be rejected as false. The only other realistic outcome is #2. Therefore, the only possible way of addressing the stated Proposition is to conclude that Mary’s consent was sought in order for the plan of God to be enacted, and God’s plan hinged on whether or not she consented.

Based on everything I have said in this post, there is no way that your statement that Mary did not give her consent to the plan of God can be correct. If you disagree then you will have to clearly refute my reasoning herein. “Clearly refuting”, means a point-by-point rebuttal of my material in this post, as well as the relevant material indicated from Posts #109 & 144.

If you keep asking me to “Show you where it says in Scripture that Gabriel asked for Mary’s consent” (or some variation of it) then I am going to keep referring you to this post until you successfully refute it.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
this is exactly the problem. Moondweller denies that man has free will

Really? So now you agree with Catholics that man can choose to be saved or not saved? What happened to your belief that man’s eternal destiny (heaven or hell) is predestined for him?

Quote:
You see, the reason he is so vehemently denying Mary’s consent is that he understands that if Mary actually had a choice, then free will is proven and his theology is in ashes.

So was there merit in Saying “yes” to God on her part?

I deny the whole notion of “the consent of Mary” simply because it’s not there. Mary’s response was one of belief to what was spoken to her and would be fulfilled through her (Lk. 1:45).

Her response was to consent. It wasn’t to say “no” and it wasn’t neutral either.

You deny what the Scriptures actually reveal because you must vehemently protect your Mariology. I don’t blame you, it’s vital to your religion. One might say, without it there is no Catholicism.

Its there in scripture. Mary was chosen by God to be the virgin mother of Jesus. She was called full of Grace by the Angel… All men will call her blessed. what more is required?

Quote:
" May it be done to me according to thy word" clearly states consent to anyone who understand the English language.

Its more than that. It says " may it be done…" Not " I understand"

Quote:

You are quibbling over words, not concepts. The balance is between mercy (forgiving your sins) and justice (holding you accountable for your sins). You clearly are wholely on the side of mercy in your statement. Grace, by the way, is defined in Catholicism as God’s life within you.

Quote:
He will tell you that men were predestined for heaven or hell, but that’s really meaningless operatively, because its all about believing Jesus will save you if you believe that he will.

What has this got to do with anything. Being saved (freed from sin) happens at baptism and again everytime we go to confession. Going to heaven IS without a doubt, a future event.

Quote:
The problem for Moondweller, ultimately is that he doesn’t balance God’s Mercy with Justice

So we’re back to what I said, are we not. You don’t balance mercy with justice. You bank on God’s mercy and ignore the truth of God’s justice.

 

[mgoforth]

What is Catholicism without Mary? IOW, is there a Catholic faith without Mary?

Hi moondweller,

I just came across your post today, but I’m unsure what to make of these questions… What exactly do you mean by “without Mary”? Are you asking whether the Catholic Church would exist if she had not been born at all, or something else?

Thanks!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Miguel,

The argument about the word “until” has many pitfalls and you have fallen into at least one. Until does not mean anything. If somebody told his/her significant other that he/she will love them until their death, that assumes nothing. Even then, why would Mary and Joseph not have relations and then after they give birth to GOD, start having relations? This question deserves an answer. The word “until” is certainly misleading. Trust me. I know it is. But it does not assume anything like non-Catholics wish it to be. “I will practice my trumpet until I win a competition.” Will I stop after the competition? Not a chance. Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. I do not see why anybody would even have a problem with it. It does not contradict Scripture like you wish it to be. It is actually backed by Scripture and faith-illumined reason. Something can be implicit and be dogma. The Trinity is certainly implicit. Actually, it is more implicit than Perpetual Virginity.

And another thing… We are not at all claiming Mary did not need a savior. She needed it just as much as all of us on here. But, by the grace of God and through the merits of Jesus Christ, she was preserved from sin at her conception in order for the plan of salvation to become fulfilled. None of this contradicts Paul because one exception in “all have sinned” is Jesus because He is full of grace and another exception is Mary because she too is “full of grace.” Those are the only two that are mentioned as being full of grace. Unless it is by chance, it is certainly worthy of being an exception.

Your last sentence is probably right. That would certainly be bad. But, the Church does not do that though so what is your point? All doctrine is backed by Scripture, whether explicitly or implicitly, and Tradition (another thread).

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel,

The argument about the word “until” has many pitfalls and you have fallen into at least one. Until does not mean anything.

Until means “until the time when” in the Greek and when the verb in the main clause is negated, as it is in Matthew 1:25 (“did not know her”), then the implication is that the action does take place subsequent to the action in subordinate clause (“until she bore a son”). This is the implication in nearly very case this construction is used. Are there exceptions? There can be since, by itself, an “until” clause does not necessarily imply continuing action after the main verb. Context more than anything else is the determining factor. In the case of Matthew 1:25, however, both normal usage and context conspire to create the overwhelming probability that Matthew simply assumed (if not actually knew for sure) that Mary went on to have normal marital relations with Joseph.

If somebody told his/her significant other that he/she will love them until their death, that assumes nothing.

Right–doesn’t mean that we’ll stop loving them after they die. But notice that your example has an affirmative in the main clause, i.e., “will love”. In Matthew 1:25, the main verb is negated, not affirmed: “Did not know her” This usually expects that the action does take place subsequent to the action in the subordinate clause, “until she bore a son.” But this is just a general grammatical principle. Language is fluid and dynamic and does not always follow the “rules” that grammarians detect in every single case. It is possible that Joseph never had relations with her. But it’s highly unlikely that he did not given the phraseology and given the presence of siblings in Jesus’ family without qualification.

Even then, why would Mary and Joseph not have relations and then after they give birth to GOD, start having relations? This question deserves an answer.

They didn’t have relations because Mary was already pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit and so that prophecy about being “born of a virgin” (Is 7:14) would be fulfilled. Once fulfilled, why wouldn’t they have gone on to have normal relations since they were married?

And another thing… We are not at all claiming Mary did not need a savior. She needed it just as much as all of us on here.

I know Catholics claim this. That’s not what I’m disputing. But why did she need a savior if she had no sin? That’s the part that doesn’t make any sense since Jesus died to save sinners. His passion makes propitiation and atonement for our sins. He paid the ransom that frees those enslaved to sin. If Mary was sinless from conception, it’s hard to see how she needed Jesus’ sacrifice at all. Just saying that God applied its merits beforehand doesn’t really solve the problem.

None of this contradicts Paul because one exception in “all have sinned” is Jesus because He is full of grace and another exception is Mary because she too is “full of grace.”

Paul’s exception for Jesus is spelled out explicitly: “He knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21) and implicitly because Jesus is God. God can’t fall short of is own glory and so “all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God” has to exclude Jesus. But it doesn’t have to exclude Mary and probably doesn’t. Mary is never called, “full of grace,” (that’s a mistranslation) and even if it weren’t, how do we know that “full of grace,” means “conceived without sin”?

 

[EricFilmer]

Until does not mean anything. If somebody told his/her significant other that he/she will love them until their death, that assumes nothing.

Correct. And I would like to “take this ball and run with it a bit.”

In English, the use of the word “until” can mean different things…

Example #1: “Until” can imply a future change. If I say, “I will not eat spaghetti until I lose 30 pounds,” the implication is that I intend to eventually start eating spaghetti. The word “until” serves to indicate the requirement that is set for me before I can pile on the pasta.

Example #2: “May God be with you until we meet again.” This does not imply that I want God to stop being with you after we next meet. So here there is no indication of a future change.

To see this second example used in Scripture, we can turn to 2Samuel 6:23 - “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” Obviously, she did not have children after she died.

In terms of Matthew 1:25, many Protestants see the use of “until” along the lines of Example #1 while Catholics see it as Example #2.

The Greek word Matthew used (which is translated in English as “until”) is έως, and it seems that its usage is even more restricted than in English. According to the Ignatius Bible Commentary’s elaboration on this word, “This conjugation is often used (translated “to” or “till”) to indicate a select period of time without implying change in the future. Here Matthew emphasizes only that Joseph had no involvement in Mary’s pregnancy before Jesus’ birth.”
-Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2000), 18.

This same Greek word, έως, is used in the LXX’s version of 2Samuel 6:23 (as I cited above) as well as the following:

John 9:18 - “The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until (έως) they called the parents of the man…” As we see in reading the entire section of John 9:13-34, the people continued to disbelieve after the parents arrived. So here, “until” does not indicate a future change.

1Timothy 4:13 - “Till (έως) I come, attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, to teaching.” Obviously, Paul does not want Timothy to stop doing such things after he arrives. Once more, there is no indication of a future change.

So the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not a contradiction of Scripture, but only a contradiction of certain people’s interpretation of Scripture. The same can be said of all Sacred Tradition.