The not so virgin Mary

[YADA]

Well, if someone is called a couple’s “last born child”, and nothing else is said about it, then I think we could reasonably conclude that “last but not only” is implied.

Not so, however with “first born”. “First born” leaves open the possibility that the couple has had – or will have – additional children, but doesn’t imply it.

My cousin Michael was my Aunts 'first born child"

He was also her “only son”

He essentially was her only “born” child …

My uncle raised him as his son but biologically they were unrelated though my uncle married my aunt 2 months before his birth …

My aunt and uncle adopted three girls … so their family was comprised of four children …

Mike was the first born child whether or not my aunt ever had another child …

My eldest brother was my mother and fathers first born child who was followed by 3 other children.

My husband was his mother’s first born child even though he never had any silings …

First means just that - first … it has no other meaning nor implication … it does not mean others followed nor does it mean they did not … it means simply [and more particularly in the jewish understanding] the first to open the womb …

It is a farce to impose the addition of other children in the future much like forcing the meaning of until [or til] to reflect or impose restrcition on future events … it is pure fiction

 

[Canto]

That tells you to pay attention to it.

Do you pay attention to it?
If you’ve paid attention to it, can you then ingore what is says?

Tradition is from God handed down via the apostles and through the Church

Luke Ch 1

1 Since many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us,
2 as they have **handed them down **to us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
3 it seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 that you may know the truth of those words in which you have been catechised.

It doesn’t tell you where it comes from.

Where do St John’s epistles come from?
They never claim inspiration
They never mention his name
How do we know they (and the other books) should be part of the NT?
How do we know that they are inspired?

If your answer is the Holy Spirit
Whom did the Holy Spirit tell?

Throughout the history of Christianity, there has been much contention among people over the NT canon, people who would claim to be guided by the Spirit.

If the Spirit can protect written Tradition (the Bible) from error why not oral Tradition?

 

[GodIsGracious]

Diana,

You can go around saying, “Just sayin’” all you want and think you’re “calling it like you see it,” which may be true. But don’t ever forget that when YOU call it like YOU see it it is more of an indicator of YOU and it’s not always what’s so. Especially in this case.

Further, you are constantly taking what someone says and twisting it around. Again, more of an indicator of how you are twisting what you see and read to your world view.

Also, yes, sweetie, you DID compare yourself to our Blessed Mother when you tried to compare Mary crying at the cross with your story about you crying for your kid undergoing some sort of treatment. It is clear that you think nothing of her other than she brought Jesus Christ into the world (which is HUGE right there) and then went about her business as nothing more than any other human being.

Until you can cease twisting words around to suit your own twisted and base world view, actually LISTEN to what other people say then “dialog” with you is nothing more than dialog to a brick wall.

To continue with the pig pen analogy, I remember what a friend told me once and am saying now it as a reminder to myself: “Do not wrestle with a pig. The pig likes it, and you get dirty.”

Just sayin’.

 

[sail1993]

It is true that we can argue this until the cows come home. I for one stand firmly behind my belief of Mary as “ever virgin”. As a Catholic I rely not only on scripture but on the writings and visions of the saints.

 

[dianaiad]

Do you pay attention to it?

Well, yes and no, actually. Since I am Christian (LDS type) I am always interested in what people have interpreted scripture to mean over the years. However, since I am LDS and not Catholic, my interest isn’t quite as theologically tied to it as yours is.

If you’ve paid attention to it, can you then ingore what is says?

How am I ignoring it?
Canto;5278347:

Tradition is from God handed down via the apostles and through the Church

Luke Ch 1

1 Since many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us,
2 as they have **handed them down **

to us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
3 it seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 that you may know the truth of those words in which you have been catechised.

Oh, thank you for posting this. I can’t imagine a more perfect example of the disparate points of view we have going on here.

I look at the above posts and see scripture. That is, something God wanted written down for the edification of His followers. The revelation/inspiration and the writing made Luke a prophet by definition.

Now he was writing about gathering information from eyewitnesses and about things that everybody believed. However, he ALSO stated that he personally had a 'perfect understanding of all things from the very first" (KJV) and was writing not only from eyewitness statements, but from his own knowledge. He then sets forth the story of the birth of Christ.

I do not see “Tradition.” I don’t see “oral tradition.” I see a deliberate gathering of data and a specific intent…inspiration, revelation…scripture.

Whenever God wants to teach us something new, or expand upon something old, or to structure a different matter in the church, and men understand it and write it down, it is scripture. It MUST be–and it is held to be equal to scripture written by ancient prophets. Why not? God is timeless, and when He speaks through His prophets, we should pay attention. Paul was no less a prophet than Moses, y’know.

Now it seems to me that y’all are putting your early Saints and leaders into the same category; giving them the same respect that you do scripture; making Tradition your Doctrine and Covenants, in effect. (The Doctrine and Covenants is the book the Mormons accept as on going scripture for today; turn this idea around, and you would call it OUR 'Tradition." )

The difference being that we openly admit that it is equal to older scripture in effect upon our lives. It seems to me, during this conversation, that y’all are saying the same thing about Tradition, but backing off from saying that it is equal to scripture.

Well, if it is, fine…that’s a very different idea; all those statements from your early leaders can then be quoted, and your beliefs about Mary’s perpetual virginity make sense. I may not share your belief in their revelations, but at least I can understand where your beliefs come from.

So, what’s the official stand on Tradition? IS it equivalent to scripture? ARE those writers put on the same level as the prophets and apostles of old? Is what they write, in other words, scripture?

Where do St John’s epistles come from?
They never claim inspiration
They never mention his name
How do we know they (and the other books) should be part of the NT?
How do we know that they are inspired?

If your answer is the Holy Spirit
Whom did the Holy Spirit tell?

Throughout the history of Christianity, there has been much contention among people over the NT canon, people who would claim to be guided by the Spirit.

If the Spirit can protect written Tradition (the Bible) from error why not oral Tradition?

Begging the question (which you actually raised, here…) of whether the bible has been protected from error…Johanine comma, anybody?

 

[dianaiad]

Diana,

You can go around saying, “Just sayin’” all you want and think you’re “calling it like you see it,” which may be true. But don’t ever forget that when YOU call it like YOU see it it is more of an indicator of YOU and it’s not always what’s so. Especially in this case.

True. I never said it wasn’t an indicator of me and my problems with the idea. In fact, I think I made that quite clear. I’m not the only one with the problem, though.

Further, you are constantly taking what someone says and twisting it around. Again, more of an indicator of how you are twisting what you see and read to your world view.

Also, yes, sweetie, you DID compare yourself to our Blessed Mother when you tried to compare Mary crying at the cross with your story about you crying for your kid undergoing some sort of treatment. It is clear that you think nothing of her other than she brought Jesus Christ into the world (which is HUGE right there) and then went about her business as nothing more than any other human being.

Because I used an analogy of motherhood that every woman who has ever BEEN a mother would understand…you are quite right. This is brick wall time. I was reacting to the idea that the only reason Mary would be weeping at the foot of the cross was for the people who would refuse to accept her Son as the Savior.

I honor Mary very much; for her perfect obedience and her willingness to accept the probable results of her being found pregnant out of wedlock in order to obey her God and bear His Son. Actually giving birth? I honor all women who have ever done that; we all share in that experience and I don’t think that Jesus’ birth was any more, or less, painful and messy than any other human birth. What I honor her for more than anything is exactly what you are accusing me of ignoring. She did this; she gave birth to the Savior–and then she went on to RAISE Him. To love Him, to teach Him, to protect and guide Him. Almost any woman can give birth; that’s a physical process that doesn’t require any special spiritual qualities.

It took Mary to raise Jesus the Christ, and if you don’t think that she wasn’t affected by the sight of her Son on the cross, in that sort of pain (remember, she knew it was coming…) then you do not honor her at all. You have put her so far outside humanity as to be an icy statue of a woman.

Until you can cease twisting words around to suit your own twisted and base world view, actually LISTEN to what other people say then “dialog” with you is nothing more than dialog to a brick wall.

To continue with the pig pen analogy, I remember what a friend told me once and am saying now it as a reminder to myself: “Do not wrestle with a pig. The pig likes it, and you get dirty.”

Just sayin’.

And you are as gracious as ever, sweetie.

 

[Jesus_123]

It isn’t that “we don’t want to think” otherwise. We just can’t with the knowledge we’ve received through the voice of the Holy Spirit, who speaks what he hears from the One who sent him to guide the Church to all truth (cf.Jn 16:12-13).

We find confirmation of Mary’s vow as a temple virgin in the private revelations granted to Blessed Mary of Agreda, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, and St. Bridget of Sweden.

…Shout for joy, O daughter Zion!
sing joyfully, O Israel!
Be glad and exult with all your heart,
O daughter Jerusalem.
The Lord has removed his judgment against you,
he has turned away your enemies;
the King of Israel is in your midst,
you have no further misfortune to fear.
On that day, it shall be said to Jerusalem:
Fear not, O Zion, be not discouraged!
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty savior.
Zephaniah 3, 14-17

And coming to her he said, "Hail, favored one!
The Lord is with you."
But she was greatly troubled at what was said
and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
Then the angel said to her, "
Do not be afraid, Mary,
for you have found favor with God.
Behold, you will conceive and bear a son,
and you shall name him Jesus."
Luke 1, 28-31

*And Mary said,

• "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;

Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion!
See, I am coming to dwell among you,
says the Lord.
Zechariah 2, 14

• "my spirit rejoices in God my savior.*

Rejoice heartily,
O daughter Zion,
shout for joy,
O daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king shall come to you;
a just savior is he.
Zechariah 9, 9

“For he has looked with favor
on his handmaid’s lowliness.”

But you, O Lord,
will arise and have compassion on Zion,
for it is time to show favor to her;
the appointed time has come.
Psalm 102, 13
The Judeo-Christians of apostolic time perceived Mary as the personification of daughter Zion, Israel, through whom salvation has come to all the nations. They couldn’t have consistently held this notion if they knew Mary had children other than Jesus. Nor could Luke have faithfully referred to the Old Testament in his portrayal of Mary as daughter Zion in accord with Church Tradition.

*This is the word the Lord has spoken concerning him:

"She despises you, laughs you to scorn, **
the virgin daughter Zion***!
Behind you she wags her head,
daughter Jerusalem.2 Kings 19, 21

“I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring
and her offspring.”
Genesis 3, 15
**
Eve is the biological mother of all the living. Mary is the spiritual mother of all those who bear witness to Jesus and keep his commandments, the brothers and sisters of her divine Son (Jn 19: 26-27; Rom 8:29; Rev 12:17).

Up, escape to Zion!
you who dwell in daughter Babylon.Zechariah 2, 11

“The Virgin received salvation so that she may give it back to the centuries.”
Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (ante A.D. 450)

Pax Christu :harp:

What a . . . marvelous. . . collection of Sacred Scripture . . . thanks much!

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return not thither but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
Isaiah 55:10-11
:bible1:

God bless . . .

+ Jesus . . . Mary . . . St. Joseph . . . save souls +

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Holy Spirit
Wonderful Counselor of our God . . .
​

 

[TMC]

It took Mary to raise Jesus the Christ, and if you don’t think that she wasn’t affected by the sight of her Son on the cross, in that sort of pain (remember, she knew it was coming…) then you do not honor her at all. You have put her so far outside humanity as to be an icy statue of a woman.

This excellent point gets at something that troubles me about some Marian claims. Mary is sometimes described as a kind of super-person – not only sinless, but incapable of sinning, feeling no pain or discomfort in pregnancy or childbirth, never doubting her mission, experiencing no anguish over the Son that was taken from her, the husband she lost too soon, or the grandchildren she didn’t have. Mary is admirable and to be revered and emulated not because she was a super-person with special power to be perfect and wonderful, but because she was a real human person who stuck with it through the pain, doubt and despair and was darn near perfect despite not having any special power to sustain her.

The super-Mary is not so inspirational to me. Peasant Mary that made it through all that with the same tools the rest of us have is pretty amazing.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Look, NO ONE on here said Mary was without feeling. NO ONE called her some “super-Mary.” Those are words and terms that come from those who do not give our Blessed Mother the veneration she DESERVES as Christ’s mother and continually try to aply their base human ideas to her.

I called her Extraordinary. Do you need a definion? Would you deny the definition from Merriam-Webster?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary

extraordinary
One entry found.
Main Entry: ex·traor·di·nary
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈstrȯr-də-ˌner-ē, ˌek-strə-ˈȯr-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English extraordinarie, from Latin extraordinarius, from extra ordinem out of course, from extra + ordinem, accusative of ordin-, ordo order
Date: 15th century
1 a: going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary b: exceptional to a very marked extent cof a financial transaction : nonrecurring
2: employed for or sent on a special function or service

Clearly I am using definition 1 for “extraordinary.”

Next, if you want to know what the Catholic church teaches about Mary, you are free to access the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on the Vatican’s website. I am NOT telling you you have to believe this, but you DO have to accept that this IS what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about Mary. Whether you agree, like it, believe, or whatever is inconsequential.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM

Next, if ANYONE thinks I don’t honor Mary, at least I am “dishonoring” by placing her above human beings as the mother of our Lord, Jesus Christ. At least I am “dishonouring” her by acknowledging that she is an exceptional and extraordinary human being. I never said she was devoid of feeling. If I felt that way I could never say that she loves us.

Diana, again, you have crossed the line continuously by twisting my words and what it is I say. Also, if you’re trying to put me down by saying that I have been “gracious,” well, that is, again, you twisting my forum moniker. I have “GOD is gracious.” Please, do pay attention.

I have lost any amount of “graciousness” in this particular thread because I am thoroughly disgusted with the attitudes that people have expressed towards Mary. It’s disgusting. I got nauseated at one point as I followed this thread. But then again, I’ve been “dishonouring” her so why should I care? Well, I care because she is the Mother of God.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

[G]iving birth is a finite thing; it has an end. You get pregnant, you give birth–the baby makes its entrance into the world, and that’s the end of the process. Not “temporary”, in other words, but “accomplished.” As in, done. finished. Completed…After the birth comes the part for which Mary was truly chosen, seems to me; the part where she raises Him as His mother.

I’m not sure I understand your point here? Are you saying that Mary’s role as the Mother of God would somehow have been less fulfilled if she did not also have other children with Joseph? I’m sorry but I simply disagree. What more can someone aspire to than to parent God Incarnate, and why would you come to the conclusion that such a vocation would be incomplete without additional children? I think you can speculate all you want about it, but in the end the Motherhood of Mary was complete with Jesus, and the lack of other children simply does not suggest a lacking in Mary’s experience.

dianaiad:

Why?

Mary’s role has always been understood as the type of the Church - the bride who is both fecund and virginal. Virginal in the sense of her loyalty to God (the spouse) and fecund in the sense that her spiritual children are many. If Mary (type for the Church) had other children then this clear picture of church as both pure and fruitful would be blurred. This is a theological issue that I touched upon before. As a practical matter, what would be the effect of brothers (and sisters) of Jesus not just in the home, but after the Resurrection. Children of Mary and Joseph would be ordinary people tempted to fill the role of their half-brother. Children of Joseph and Mary may also have been placed in a socially awkward situation, being raised in a house where their half-brother was also God Incarnate? Do you really not see the potential for problems with such a scenario?

dianaiad:

Uhmn…while it looks as if He did not condemn it, there’s nothing there that says He commanded it, nor practiced it.

So, who was the wife of Jesus? Are you a Dan Brown fan? I never said He commanded celibacy. You asked for where in the bible is there evidence of the practice. I showed it to you.

dianaiad:

No, sorry…Jeremiah was not told to refrain from taking a wife or having children, period. He was told to refrain from marrying or having children IN THIS PLACE. (Jeremiah 16:12)

Right. He was told to be celibate.

dianaiad:

1 Tim 5:9-12… [does not show celibacy]

Please read 1 Tim 5:9-12 in context with the first five verses. Widows are enrolled where they remain “left all alone” to set her hope on God and continue in supplications and prayers day and night. In opposition, widows who are “self-indulgent” are “dead even as they live.”

dianaiad:

But that Paul was celibate? Yeah…but then Paul was an interesting case indeed. The rest of the apostles were not. Most of them were very married.

Paul was celibate. Thanks for the concession. If “most of the rest” were married are you also conceding that some of the others may also have been celibate? Or do you think they were living in sin? Paul urged celibacy for all full-time ministers - in scripture. Why is this part of the passage conveniently ignored by you?

dianaiad:

Yeah, you did. If you had not, then intimacy with Joseph would not BE such a desecration, would it?

No, I did not equate the concept of all sexual intimacy with an act of defilement. Please check your personal issues with Catholic teaching at the door and read my comments without the preconceptions. I equated the *specific *act of Joseph’s sexual intimacy with Mary as being akin to an act of defiling what you believe to be a very sacred space. I did this in response to your questioning why Catholics have such a “hard time” with speculation by some that Mary had children with Joseph. Please don’t confuse the issue of sexuality in general with the issue of Mary’s sexuality.

Joseph’s act of sexual intimacy with Mary would be a desecration because MARY’s womb is a holy and sacred space created by God especially for the Incarnation - Her womb is blessed … and more sacred than any temple, cathedral or church. Would you not agree?

[continued]

 

[Peter_J]

Put it this way, certainly not a ‘gaspingly horrific thought’ as you said earlier. I wouldn’t be gaspingly horrified if Moses had worn sandals in the presence of the burning bush even when instructed not to by God Himself. Many people disobeyed and disobey God.

However, you and I both recognise that such disobedience would’ve been wrong on the part of Moses. And we infer and conclude, being that Moses was a righteous and faithful servant of God, that he obeyed and took off his sandals - even though (and this is the gaspingly horrific thought - or should be for you) the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that he did take off his sandals!

LilyM, it seems to me that you’re awfully casual about adding to Church teaching. The Council of Trents tells us that Mary was perpetually virgin, but it never says that she had to be by way of obedience to God. In other words, it leaves open the possibility that she herself choice celibacy (just as many monks and nun choose it) over marital relations.

Of course, if the Church decides to define a dogma saying that Mary was required by God to be ever-virgin, and she simply obeyed him, then I will have absolutely no problem accepting that. But my point is that that hasn’t happened, so far.

 

[TMC]

Look, NO ONE on here said Mary was without feeling. NO ONE called her some “super-Mary.” Those are words and terms that come from those who do not give our Blessed Mother the veneration she DESERVES as Christ’s mother and continually try to aply their base human ideas to her.

I called her Extraordinary. Do you need a definion? Would you deny the definition from Merriam-Webster?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraordinary

Clearly I am using definition 1 for “extraordinary.”

Next, if you want to know what the Catholic church teaches about Mary, you are free to access the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on the Vatican’s website. I am NOT telling you you have to believe this, but you DO have to accept that this IS what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about Mary. Whether you agree, like it, believe, or whatever is inconsequential.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM

Next, if ANYONE thinks I don’t honor Mary, at least I am “dishonoring” by placing her above human beings as the mother of our Lord, Jesus Christ. At least I am “dishonouring” her by acknowledging that she is an exceptional and extraordinary human being. I never said she was devoid of feeling. If I felt that way I could never say that she loves us.

Diana, again, you have crossed the line continuously by twisting my words and what it is I say. Also, if you’re trying to put me down by saying that I have been “gracious,” well, that is, again, you twisting my forum moniker. I have “GOD is gracious.” Please, do pay attention.

I have lost any amount of “graciousness” in this particular thread because I am thoroughly disgusted with the attitudes that people have expressed towards Mary. It’s disgusting. I got nauseated at one point as I followed this thread. But then again, I’ve been “dishonouring” her so why should I care? Well, I care because she is the Mother of God.

Who said you were dishonouring Mary? Whose attitudes do you find disgusting and nauseating? Who has denied the Church’s teaching on Mary?

I am a little lost, it seems like we are involved in different conversations, or at least experiencing this conversation differently.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Then why is it such a gaspingly horrific thought for Mary to have engaged in it?

Are you not reading my posts? Mary was set apart from all time and eternity and sanctified for a special purpose - to bear God incarnate in her womb. That sacred place was - I believe with all my Catholic heart - made to remain sacred. As wonderful as human sexuality is (within marriage) it would be inappropriate for Joseph to engage in sexual intimacy with Mary because of this. I think he would have been just fine with this concept, having understood that God makes sacred places that are to be set apart.

dianaiad:

What, that they were married?

NO. That Joseph was married to a woman who was set apart from all women of all time to bear God incarnate, and that to do so God provided special graces including a sanctified womb made free from original sin and any personal sin. That’s what makes their marriage unique.

dianaiad:

It follows naturally. If it is not defiling, then it would not be defiling to Mary. .

Wrong. It is not defiling for the ordinary couple who enter into the sacrament of marriage. Sexuality is a great gift but it can be mis-used - by sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, bestiality, masturbation - etc. It is a gift that can be abused. It would have been an abuse for Joseph and Mary because of Mary’s unique role in salvation history, as described above. Your logic is flawed because you keep pretending that Mary was simply a normal girl who was used by God once and then cast away and forgotten like some temporary receptacle.

dianaiad:

Begging the question here. DID they 'give it up?"

My point was that - assuming they gave it up - there were other graces within their marriage that more than compensated for what you see as some sort of lacking quality. Maybe you cannot imagine a celibate marriage, but you were not Mary and (as far as I know) you’re not the Mother of God.

dianaiad:

Would her life have been made unfulfilling if she had been fully a wife to Joseph and had other children?

She was fully a wife to Joseph. But she was also celibate. Being unable to read her mind, I don’t know how Mary would have felt about having other children. But from a Catholic perspective, it seems to me that in order to have other children both Mary and Joseph (being good Jews) would have understood that it would have taken an act of defiling what God had set aside and made separate, holy and sanctified. The handmaid of the Lord is not capable of such an act IMHO.

dianaiad:

Either marriage and sexual intimacy within it is as blessed as you claim, or it is a defilement.

False dichotomy. See above.

ince when is motherhood a desecration?

It’s not polite to falsely attribute such a conclusion to my post. At NO TIME did I EVER say motherhood was a desecration.

dianaiad:

…I fail to see why such a unique marriage MUST have precluded the very intimacy that blesses most marriages.

Its differences are such that they weigh heavily against the propriety of such intimacy. The historical position regarding her perpetual virginity is clear. The biblical typological evidence is clear. The theological implications are clear. You reject it all, then claim there is no evidence. You arbitrarily exclude the relevant and admissible evidence then claim it is the failing of Catholics.

dianaiad:

Sorry, but if you think that was ad hominem, you have a mistaken idea…

I tried to convey to you on an emotive level what I thought was an analogy you could relate to in response to your request to try to uderstand the Catholic response to your positon. You then accused me of equating all acts of marital sexuality to desecration. You responded to my analogy with a personal attack on what you incorrectly assumed to be a personality flaw inherrent in me (and other Catholics) - i.e. the “eww factor.” You then used this alleged personality flaw of mine as the primary basis for attacking my analogy. In my book that is an ad hominem attack. (Calling me a misogynist would have been more direct, but the effect was the same)

dianaiad:

… why would such a calling require them to live as husband and wife in name only, unless being married in every sense of the word is seen as a desecration?

They were married in every sense of the word. Why is it that you beleive their marriage was somehow “in name only” simply because neither party exercised the right to engage in sexual intimacy?

dianaiad:

And that is the point, I guess, that I am making. The reason, I believe, that Catholics insist that Mary remain virgin all her life is because women who have sex, even with their husbands, are considered to be sinners; sex as sin, even in marriage.

This has never been, and will never be my position, nor is it the teaching of the Catholic Church. This is apparently YOUR set of over-packed baggage. You need to have this issue addressed. Read Theology of the Body and then tell me if you really think this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

dianaiad:

Women as ‘lesser…’ in order for Mary to be respected as a woman, she isn’t allowed to actually be one.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that a woman isn’t “really” a woman unless she is married and has sex? Was Bl. Mother Theresa not a real woman? What about St. Therese? What about all the women who voluntarily gave up their sexuality to serve in a religious vocation? Is their womanhood wasted somehow? I would not dare to presume so.

I do not think so little of women that I see their only path to real happiness and fullfillment as being a mother to many children. But, hey, that’s just my Catholic perspective.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Begging the question (which you actually raised, here…) of whether the bible has been protected from error…Johanine comma, anybody?

The nature of inerrancy is that it applies to the original scriptural texts alone. The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture does not apply to copies and/or translations.

The issue of the Johannine comma raises questions concerning the use of certain translations and the possibility of certain medieval glosses, but does not impede or weaken the doctrtine of inerrancy.

The doctrine of inerrancy of scripture does not protect the world from faulty translations. Protecting scripture is the duty of the Church. With very few exceptions, she has done so capably for the past two millenia.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ServantofChrist]

5 different writers show Mary had other kids…Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 12:46+
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Galatians 1:19
Luke 8:19
Luke 24:10
John 2:12

 

[dianaiad]

The nature of inerrancy is that it applies to the original scriptural texts alone. The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture does not apply to copies and/or translations.

Well, you are correct, of course. The problem is that this position isn’t what people think about when they say that the bible is inerrant. They are referring to modern translations as well.

The issue of the Johannine comma raises questions concerning the use of certain translations and the possibility of certain medieval glosses, but does not impede or weaken the doctrtine of inerrancy.

The doctrine of inerrancy of scripture does not protect the world from faulty translations. Protecting scripture is the duty of the Church. With very few exceptions, she has done so capably for the past two millenia.

Peace,
Robert

Actually, she has.

But there have been changes, and the Johanine comma is a case in point. It’s still there in many translations, even though no scholar–especially no Catholic scholar–claims any veracity for it. It’s still there because it has been there. Never mind that it was a scribal error–or even that it was a deliberate addition by an overzealous monk with no authorization to plunk that extra Trinitarian support in there. It’s been there a long time so Tradition says 'leave it there."

But it’s wrong. It’s a goof.

As in the rest of Tradition, the only support for its presence seems to be–well, that’s how it’s always been done.

My mother taught me how to make bread when I was ten. The recipe was simple and easy to remember, and an important part of it was this: we always made exactly four loaves, no more and no less. True, it was easy to remember the ingredients; a pound of butter, four eggs, four cups of milk, four teaspoons of salt, a cup of sugar…a specific amount of whole wheat flour…easy. However, there were times when I didn’t want to make four loaves; I just wanted two, or even one for rolls. As well, there were times when I wanted eight; Thanksgiving, for instance, or some other large gathering.

Never mind, we did four. Exactly four. I asked Mom why, and she said that this is how her mother taught her; it must be because it the bread didn’t come out well with fewer or greater loaves. Perhaps it didn’t rise correctly. There had to be some good reason for it, anyway, that’s the way it was done and that’s it.

So…that’s the way I did it, for 45 years. A few years ago I was talking to my cousin about stuff, and bread came up. We exchanged recipes…she’s five years older than me. We got to talking about that bread, and I complained about the four loaf problem–and she started laughing so hard I thought she was going to land on her cat.

It seems that the reason we always made four loaves had nothing to do with rising or taste or any of the reasons my mother speculated about. Marian (really, that’s her name, I promise!) found out the reason over twenty years ago.

It seems that great grandmother Stoddard only had one bread pan; it was a commercial bread pan that she got from her father’s bakery, and it had four connected pans. In order to keep from burning and ruining an empty pan, she made exactly four loaves every time she made a batch of bread. On the day that she was able to get separate bread pans, she ceased the practice of the four loaf batch.

But she forgot to tell her daughters that it was ok to make bread in different sized batches. She didn’t have a clue that they didn’t know WHY she did this, so…they followed Tradition.

…and even now when I bake bread I tend to automatically make four loaves, and I smile at the number of years—over sixty–that the women in our family blindly followed Tradition and had no idea why that Tradition was.

If you don’t know what the tradition is based on, you try to find reasons to justify it, as my mother attempted to find reasons to justify the four loaf rule. Many times those reasons don’t come close to fact–my poor mother never once thought of a bread pan limit as a reason. Those reasons may or may not be reasonable, but the minute you start using those reasons to ‘prove’ that the Tradition is ‘true,’ you get into the most classical of fallacies, circular reasoning.

Ah, well.

By the way, Mom laughed herself silly about the breadpans…her own mother never DID know why we 'always made four loaves, dear."

…though Mom admits that she cheated. When she needed to make more bread, she didn’t make a BIGGER batch…she simply made more batches, in multiples of four loaves.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, again, you have crossed the line continuously by twisting my words and what it is I say. Also, if you're trying to put me down by saying that I have been "gracious," well, that is, again, you twisting my forum moniker. I have "GOD is gracious." Please, do pay attention.

If you believe that the sentence “And you are as gracious as ever, sweetie” is an insult, then it can only because you realize that ‘gracious’ was not an accurate term for the words you used. You would be feeling complimented, not attacked, if you weren’t quite aware of your own discourtesy.

I have lost any amount of “graciousness” in this particular thread because I am thoroughly disgusted with the attitudes that people have expressed towards Mary. It’s disgusting. I got nauseated at one point as I followed this thread. But then again, I’ve been “dishonouring” her so why should I care? Well, I care because she is the Mother of God.

At the risk of being a brick wall again, I’m going to try one more time with this.

Only those who believe that having lawful marital relations is somehow shameful believe that engaging in them would diminish Mary or her role as the Mother of Christ in any way.Only those who believe that even marital sexual intercourse is a sin would believe that celibacy was a holier state. It is a fundamental difference in basic world view.

I believe that if engaging in lawful marital relations is diminishing to Mary, then they are to the rest of us, as well; we should all just stop ‘multiplying and replenishing the earth’ and leaving mother and father and becoming one flesh’ so that whom “God put together, let no man put assunder” and start making great furniture and singing “Tis a gift to be simple” at our meetings instead. We should all join convents and monasteries.

…and I’m not being flip here. I’m being serious. Dead serious.

Because I believe this, then quite obviously*** I*** am not dishonoring Mary by believing that there would have been nothing at all wrong with her being a wife, in full, to Joseph and in having other children. It does not dishonor her. It does not mean I think less of her.

YOU might be so dishonoring her if you think she did, but that’s because you believe that marriage is very much less than celibacy in serving God. Again, it is a fundamental difference in world view.

It also means, I believe, that I think better of the role of women and mothers than the early Catholics did, who came up with this Tradition that you follow, and for which nobody has given me a basis.

I think that’s clear,
and it’s enough.

 

[dkeys2001]

Maybe I missed it, but part of the supporting evidence that Mary remained a virgin has to do with Joseph. Joseph we know was a righteous man. Joseph also knew that Jesus was not his own, that Mary was by virtue of “being overshadowed” by the Spirit, was the spouse of the Spirit. As a righteous man Joseph could not then have carnal relations with Mary.

God then instructed Joseph to take Mary in . This would not be a customary marriage. This fits well with the Catholic teaching from the earliest days that Mary was a consecrated Virgin.

This fits in so well with the rest of Catholic ever-consistent teaching .

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not sure I understand your point here? Are you saying that Mary’s role as the Mother of God would somehow have been less fulfilled if she did not also have other children with Joseph?

No. I’m saying that her role as the Mother of God would not have been diminished if she had other children. That’s a slightly different claim.

I’m sorry but I simply disagree. What more can someone aspire to than to parent God Incarnate, and why would you come to the conclusion that such a vocation would be incomplete without additional children? I think you can speculate all you want about it, but in the end the Motherhood of Mary was complete with Jesus, and the lack of other children simply does not suggest a lacking in Mary’s experience.

Ah, but I’m not making the claim here. I’m not claiming that her role would have been incomplete without other children. You are claiming that her role was complete with the birth of Christ, and that any further children would have interfered with it. It’s a definite difference, the two ideas.

****Mary’s role has always been understood

by whom?

as the type of the Church - the bride who is both fecund and virginal. VChildren of Joseph and Mary may also have been placed in a socially awkward situation, being raised in a house where their half-brother was also God Incarnate? Do you really not see the potential for problems with such a scenario?

No…and imagining what it might have been like had there been other children does not mean that it would have been ‘like that.’ To decide that a possible unattractive effect precludes a cause is called a ‘false dichotomy.’ Many other things could have happened, as well–for instance, His brothers and sisters could have been fully supportive of Him, understanding quite well where their place was…or they could have decided not to believe in Him. It was He who said that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country, right? Or if they did have problems, they just had them and disappeared into history. There are many possibilities.

So, who was the wife of Jesus? Are you a Dan Brown fan? I never said He commanded celibacy. You asked for where in the bible is there evidence of the practice. I showed it to you.

But you did not show me where Mary decided to be celibate, or where she was commanded to be so, or where it was decided for her…and it is she we are talking about here, isn’t it?

By the way, as to whether Jesus was married or not…I dunno. I’m leaning toward the…probably not, but certainly wouldn’t get all bent out of shape if He were.

Right. He was told to be celibate.

Please read 1 Tim 5:9-12 in context with the first five verses. Widows are enrolled where they remain “left all alone” to set her hope on God and continue in supplications and prayers day and night. In opposition, widows who are “self-indulgent” are “dead even as they live.”

Paul was celibate. Thanks for the concession. If “most of the rest” were married are you also conceding that some of the others may also have been celibate? Or do you think they were living in sin? Paul urged celibacy for all full-time ministers - in scripture. Why is this part of the passage conveniently ignored by you?

No, I did not equate the concept of all sexual intimacy with an act of defilement. Please check your personal issues with Catholic teaching at the door and read my comments without the preconceptions. I equated the *specific *act of Joseph’s sexual intimacy with Mary as being akin to an act of defiling what you believe to be a very sacred space. I did this in response to your questioning why Catholics have such a “hard time” with speculation by some that Mary had children with Joseph. Please don’t confuse the issue of sexuality in general with the issue of Mary’s sexuality.

But that’s the thing. If they didn’t have an issue with sexuality in general, then the idea of Mary being fully a wife to Joseph wouldn’t be seen as a defilement, even for her special case. She fulfilled all the other physical requirements for motherhood and wifehood; why not this one? Why was she given to Joseph as his wife at all? Surely there were other ways she could have been cared for, had celibacy been the aim.

Joseph’s act of sexual intimacy with Mary would be a desecration because MARY’s womb is a holy and sacred space created by God especially for the Incarnation - Her womb is blessed … and more sacred than any temple, cathedral or church. Would you not agree?

[continued]

During the time of Christ’s presence there? Sure. But after His birth…it was hers. To consider that using it for the purpose that God created it, to multiply and replenish the earth, to join with her husband and be ‘one flesh’ with him in the sight of God…

How is that a defilement of any woman?

As I wrote in another post, I suppose it is a fundamental world view that is very, very different. I do not dishonor Mary by this, y’know, not when I believe that family and marriage are THE most important and holy things in our mortal life–and in our immortal lives, as well.

So for me to believe that she may have (and that’s “may have,’ not 'definitely did” live with Joseph fully as his wife and bear him children is not lessening my respect for Mary. Not even a little bit. I see no desecration in the idea. In fact, I see in that idea further evidence of her obedience to the laws of God.

We are both having problems wrapping our minds around the world view of the other in this one.

 

[mark_a]

5 different writers show Mary had other kids…Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 12:46+
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Galatians 1:19
Luke 8:19
Luke 24:10
John 2:12

Gee, How did we miss that?