The Virgin Mary

[jabelltulsa]

I bring up Scripture and you reply with “here we have a break in our communication?” How strange that sounds to me. But still, Jabell, you avoided my question.

I’ve lost you … what Scripture passage did you bring up from this response?

Further, if you question is, “Why didn’t Jesus appear to Mary first?”, then I have to say that this is a silly question. I could easily say, “Why did Jesus wait so long to bring His Church back from error”, as you assert. Can these questions be answered? No.

The comment of the break in our communication should not sound strange to you. You speak from private interpretation, and I speak from centuries of Church teachings. Your interpretation says that since Christ didn’t appear to Mary first, then she wasn’t special. The Gospels point out how special she was - no interpretation needed.

There’s no correlation between the two at all. How in the world did you come up with that???

Because you state that:

The parent/child relationship is uniquely earthly. There is absolutely no Scriptural indication that such a relationship continues on into eternity.

So, you are saying that Christ did not continue to be Mary’s son, because He departed the Earth. If parent/child relationships no longer exist, then why is God called Our Father?

Gotta go to bed … talk at ya tomorrow.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve asked before What essential piece of info, concerning salvation, is missing from Scripture?

The answer has been “correct interpretation” but the Scriptures say they don’t need outside interpretation to be understood.

Acts
17:10-12 ….carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

Act 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

You are right, what the scriptures need is INSIDE interpretation to be understood. They need to be taken in context, and that context is Catholic.

The verses you cite here are about Jews, and the OT. they had their Sacred Oral Tradition to help them. It was the same Sacred Oral Tradition that Jesus and the Apostles used,and was passed by them into the church.

 

[guanophore]

I did a Bible study with a woman that didn’t believe Jesus was God. She used Scripture to prove Jesus denied being God.

Through Bible study I cross referenced NT and OT verses. I also read the preceding and following verse to put back in content the claims of this women. We prayed before and after each meeting

In less than a month, this woman’s mind was opened to the Scriptures and accepted Jesus Christ as her lord and savior.

How is it that she was able to understand these things without the RC explanations?

What you did was a Catholic thing to do. No one ever said it had to be Roman!

 

[guanophore]

Jabell, do you not find it at least a bit curious that after Christ’s bodily resurrection it is not recorded anywhere that He appeared to Mary personally? If we are to understand (as you say), by the Scriptures, how extraordinarily, special Mary was to our Savior (some here go so far as to claim that He is even eternally grateful to her for allowing Him to able to fulfill His redemptive work), then why isn’t it recorded that the very first person He appeared to was Mary? Wouldn’t a Son, supposedly so devoted to His grieving Mother naturally appear FIRST to her? Yet we read of no such personal encounter.

I do find it curious. I also wonder if, the reason Mary was not present in the Garden, was because she knew her Son was already risen, and that He did not need spices. If He did appear to her privately, she may not have spoken to anyone about it, because she learned very early to keep such things private:

Luke 2:19
9 But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.

Luke 2:51
and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

She would know that her testimony would not be legal, and it was the men who needed to bear witness.

The parent/child relationship is uniquely earthly. There is absolutely no Scriptural indication that such a relationship continues on into eternity.

I will have to ponder this. It seems such a strange and novel notion to me that I am not even sure where to start with it. To me, it seems completely opposite, and scripture speaks throughout of “fathers” and “ancestors”. Scripture speaks of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being alive, and being the ancestors of the living. It seems to me that there is no scriptural indication that such a relationship stops!

Jesus Himself graciously severed His earthly mother/son relationship with Mary when just before His death He said to her concerning John, “Woman, behold your son.” And He said to John, “Behold, your mother!” He didn’t say “Behold My mother.” The son relationship He had with Her via the virgin birth ended with His death. Her care was put into the hands of another.

Catholics see this oppositely (imagine that!). This is where Jesus allows all His followers to participate in relationship with His mother. Instead of severing, we see Him extending!

All of the Marian opinions held by men are based on the assumption that the parent/child relationship is eternal (or they never really gave it any thought).

I do admit that I never gave any thought to the contrary.

Therefore, it is taught that Christianity is at its core a Mother/Child religion (not unlike most ancient, pagan religions). That one of the primary reasons the Son of God incarnated was to gain an earthly mother to escort back to heaven with Him.

This seems like an absurd conclusion to me.

Jesus knew He had a Kingdom, and that Jerusalem’s King was coming to her on the colt. He knew what the Israelic customs were about the mother of hte king.

 

[guanophore]

Instead of complaining that protestants don’t accept the authority of the RC,

The authority is not “roman” but apostolic. Anyway, it was not a complaint, but an observation. You deny the Authority that Christ appointed. that’s what it means to be “Protestant”. Protesting the Authority.

why not witness from Scripture - alone.

Because that is not how Jesus and the Apostles did it.

re: Acts 8:30-31

There is nothing wrong with teaching. But we need to teach from Scripture, according to Scripture.

This is a thinking error. “According to scripture” in this context really only means how the reader understands what is being read. This is precisely why the Scriptures should not be separated from the sacred tradition from which they emerged.

Like I did in order to be sure we teach truth and not opinion. When we share our opinions we should also be clear that it is opinion.

Chapter 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly,

All teachers that were accepted by the Church were those specifically commissioned by the Apostles and their successors. For one to be recognized as a teacher, one must be unified with the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ.

 

[apophasis]

Protestantism isn’t the Catholic Church, laddie

I fully agree. The universal church is neither “Protestantism” or “Catholicism.” It’s the body/bride of Christ, made up of all true believers called out from each successive generation since Pentecost to this present day.

History and the scriptures are not on your side. Most of your doctrines are unbiblical, ie, dispensationalism, predestination, sola fide, sola scriptura, sola Christo, sola gratia. Why do you keep asking for proof. I told you that you are begging the question asking us to give proof according to your faulty set of criteria. Let it rest, and study the right history books.

What’s the “faulty criteria?” If it’s true it should be quite simple for you to prove. But you seem to be having a terrible time of it. What does that say?

 

[guanophore]

Church Father have made contradictory statements.  I have spoken with Catholics who defend their statements using quotes from Church Fathers, - even tho those statements may not be supported in the CC, but then when I quote one back, they tell me that was his personal opinion or he didn't mean it literally.

What you don’t seem to understand is that there is a unified doctrine of faith. Yes, we do see some of ECF expressing it and other fathers do not. But we do not derive our doctrines from the fathers, but from Jesus and His Apostles. The fathers that are not consistent with that divine deposit of faith are not “catholic” in their beliefs.

As a matter of fact, we have Catholics in this forum debating with each other.

The lack of understanding or acceptance of the Doctrine, whether by one of the early fathers, or by someone here on this forum, should not be confused with the official Teaching of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I fully agree. The universal church is neither “Protestantism” or “Catholicism.” It’s the body/bride of Christ, made up of all true believers called out from each successive generation since Pentecost to this present day.What’s the “faulty criteria?” If it’s true it should be quite simple for you to prove. But you seem to be having a terrible time of it. What does that say?

It says that you do not accept the Apostolic Authority that Christ appointed to oversee the flock. Since you reject that authority, nothing can be “proved” to you. What is puzzling to me is that this is the same authority that compiled and canonized the scriptures, which you hold are authoritative.

 

[apophasis]

Do you think that the identification of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant somehow takes away from the mercy seat? In what way is Mary not Christocentric?

Do any of the N.T. writers refer to Mary as the ark of the New Covenant? Did you read the chapter in Hebrews which I referred you to? Is the teaching there about Mary or Christ?

Actually, this is not entirely true. Although there are Latin teaching that the Orthodox don’t share, they do share most of the Marian doctines. There is nothing specifically Roman about them. We hold them because they are part of the Apostolic Tradition, in the East and the West.

You took me out of context. Jabelltulsa got those dogmas from the RCC.

No teacher would have been accepted if what they taught was not part of the Apostolic Tradition.

Too subjective.

Apo, there is only ONE CHURCH. Jesus did not found “churches”. One Body. One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism.

Actually Jesus is “building” (present tense) His church (Matt. 16:18). It is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20). All true believers (the redeemed) are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ which is the Church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18, 24). And, yes, there is only one church, one body, but from the beginning they who make up this one church/body met in many different, local churches. Paul even addressed letter to them.

 

[Good_Fella]

Qoute Good Fella, “He is dependent on us to faithfully accept and freely respond to his will in love.”

Then how is God effected by those who deny Him? Are unfaithful? Hate Him?

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

God is not controlling us like puppets. Rather God is in control. We have freewill, but no power to effect God’s plans by what we do.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

Paul is referring to the story in Exodus in which Moses interceded on behalf of a disobedient and idolatrous people. He is objecting to disciples of his who question the righteousness of God who decided to be merciful to those who deserved punishment for their sins. But Paul is not telling us that God chose to be lenient just because he is in full control and can do what he wants. He is saying that God may withold his just wrath if his leniency will serve a higher and just cause. God would not be God if he denied his own precepts of justice and truth. If Moses hadn’t mediated on behalf of the Jews, God may have destroyed his chosen people. God relented because Moses reminded him of his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to establish and multiply their descendants. Also, he had promised Adam and Eve that he would send the Messiah into the world to redeem mankind through his chosen people. God showed mercy to the rebellious Israelites to bring his salvific plan to fruition. Perhaps he could have broken his promise to them if he had wanted to, but he didn’t want to out of fairness to the Patriarchs and our first parents. Moses reminded God of his original covenant which should be kept in spite of the infidelity of his chosen people. And Moses influenced God’s decision. This story is a lesson in the value of intercessory prayer. Prayer is meaningless, if the supplicant has no power to influence God’s will. Conditional prophecies would be totally irrelevant if our actions were predetermined by God. In his essence, God is absolutely independent and his existence is not contingent upon our existence. But in his relation to us, God is relatively dependent and influenced by our supplications to him. God took advantage of a rebellious people to demonstrate his justice and mercy, but also to show us he keeps his promise. Meanwhile, God did not determine that his chosen people should rebel against him, but he took advantage of the situation brought about by the people themselves. I believe we should be grateful to Moses for having reminded God of his commitment or covenant, just as we should be grateful to Mary for having accepted God’s invitation to cooperate with him in bringing his salvific plan to fruition. God knew how Mary would respond to the angel Gabriel, but this does not mean that Mary could not have said no. If she had refused God, then our Saviour would not have come into the world, although God had spared the Israelites for this reason.

Let’s look at this from an opposite perspective. We could ask ourselves: "What about the Jews who were slaughtered at the foot of Mt.Sinai? What about the ones whom God did not show mercy? What about the ones who were hardened in their sins? Pharhoah’s heart was hardened, but not literally hardened by God, just as God did not directly harden the hearts of his own people against him. Pharhoah was already slaughtering Jews before God intervened to take advantage of the situation. And the Israelites had already chosen to make and worship a golden calf. Since the time of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God, he has had to intervene because of what we have chosen to do. God did not write the current play, but he does direct it. Originally, he had written a play, and it was a good and perfect one which took place in the garden of Eden. But the principal actors spoiled the script. Their free acts of disobedience ruined God’s original plan. We owe Mary credit where credit is due, for she took the initiative proposed by the divine author to rewrite the script as it was meant to be written by God at the moment of creation.

Please refrain from firing anymore volleys of scriptural verses one after another in response to this reply. I don’t have the time to write sermons.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Do any of the N.T. writers refer to Mary as the ark of the New Covenant?

Apophasis, do any of the New Testament writers refer to the Holy Spirit as God? They had no definitive understanding of the Trinity at the time. And the apostles could not have literally written with a full understanding that Mary was “immaculately conceived”, for the concept of original sin was not formulated at that time. Implicit truths concerning Mary take time to unfold. This is why Jesus commissioned his apostles to form his Church, not write a Bible, and await more that is coming through the Spirit. Meanwhile, you keep ignoring Mary’s relevance as revealed in the Old Testament. The apostles did not write any of those books. Church doctrine is not formed by strictly referring to the New Testament.

A: Can you give us one reason why any of the apostles would write about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant? This truth hadn’t been revealed to them yet. Their apostolic successors would be granted that divine privilege by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers have taught us these truths about Mary in one apostolic accord, as their writings show, so we are not talking about human opinions. These divide a faith, as is historically evident since the 16th century.

Did you read the chapter in Hebrews which I referred you to? Is the teaching there about Mary or Christ?You took me out of context. Jabelltulsa got those dogmas from the RCC.Too subjective.Actually Jesus is “building” (present tense) His church (Matt. 16:18). It is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20). All true believers (the redeemed) are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ which is the Church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18, 24).

A: Too subjective. An abstract generalization with no substance. More erroneous and fallible interpretations of Scripture.

And, yes, there is only one church, one body, but from the beginning they who make up this one church/body met in many different, local churches. Paul even addressed letter to them.

A: Those different churches were united in one faith. The Protestant churches are divided in faith. They only unite to gang up on the Catholic Church. Or haven’t you noticed by now.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Ginger2]

Guanophore, stop twisting my words. Or read a little slower so that you comprehend what has been written.

Or perhaps your problem is that you are not even reading my posts, but responding with your psychic powers. In which case I would suggest you need more practice.

Good Fella,

The statement was made that God is dependent on us. I say He is not. Your comments are really out of context concerning the discussion.

I just read two pages of posts -mostly responding to things I have not said.I think this dialog has spread out too far.

 

[Ginger2]

Originally Posted by Ginger2
why not witness from Scripture - alone.

Quote Guanophore
Because that is not how Jesus and the Apostles did it.

First, since Jesus is God, I don’t think he needed to anything or anyone else to teach.

Second, Jesus did teach from Scripture:

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

[Ginger2]

Originally Posted by Ginger2
why not witness from Scripture - alone.

Quote Guanophore
Because that is not how Jesus and the Apostles did it.

First, since Jesus is God, I don’t think he needed to anything or anyone else to teach.

Second, Jesus did teach from Scripture:

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Ginger said: How very sad this thread has become.

Surely Catholics don’t believe God is depends on any human for anything?

It’s called FREE WILL Ginger.

Maybe you should read the Bible a bit more, and find those instances where God is depending on humans and the humans let’s him down so he has to send his messengers to make some course corrections.

Also find those passages where GOD is repentive and sorrowful about things…

 

[JoeyWarren]

God doesn’t “depend” on us to help Him do His work; rather, He shares his work with us. We are co-workers with God.

What if Mary had said “NO!”

Maybe depend is not a good choice of words. God on occasion has been known to send Angels to for a better lack of a term to “Make some course corrections”

God sent an Angel to Joseph to make a course correction.

God sent an Angel to the Magi for a course correction.

God sent an Angel again to Joseph to make a course.

God could have easily overridden Joseph and the Magi’s free will and made them do his bidding and therefore consequently removing the Middle Man (Angel) from the equation.

But God let Joseph and the Magi retain some aspect of free will and let them make their own decisions on the information provided by the Angels.

 

[Ginger2]

Joey,



God knows what is in our hearts. He already knows whether we will say yes or no before He asks anything of us.

But saying “no” will not change God’s plan. Do you think God was surprised that Jonah said “no” and tried to hide from Him?

God knew Mary would agree. But if she had not, He would have known that before asking, also.

So, I will take this opportunity to bring the discussion back to the original question. If Mary committed even the slightest sin, it would have no impact on the prophesy that would be fulfilled thru Christ Jesus.

Everything would have gone off just as God had planned.

 

[Good_Fella]

I fully agree. The universal church is neither “Protestantism” or “Catholicism.” What’s the “faulty criteria?” If it’s true it should be quite simple for you to prove. But you seem to be having a terrible time of it. What does that say?

First, you deny Apostolic Succession in the face of scriptural and historical proof. You believe that apostolic authority died with the New Testament apostles, and so the popes and bishops have no divinely ordained authority to teach Marian doctrines with infallibilty.

The Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son then to the apostles (Lk 22:29); Jesus as the Son of man states that his authority is not his own, but from God, and he will transfer this authority to other men (Jn 7:16-17); Jesus says, “He who receives anyone who I send, receives me.” He who receives the apostles, receive Christ. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, reject Him ( Jn 13:20); the apostles have divinely appointed authority (Jn 17:18; 20:21); the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Holy Spirit share Christ’s ministry and authority (Pet 2:25); the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word “foundation” shows that the apostolic faith does not die with the apostles, but carries on through succession ( Eph 2:20).

Authority is transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination: The first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority by the ‘laying on of hands’ (Acts 1:15-26). Only the Catholic Church can historically demonstrate an unbroken lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and therby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority. A successor of Judas. The authority of his ‘bishopric’ is respected notwithstanding his sin. The necessity of having apostolic succession was understood by all (Acts 1:20); literally “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His Resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority (Acts 1:22); apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown. (The Church Fathers, Popes and Bishops have taught Marian doctrines with the authority given by Christ himself.) (Acts 6:6); even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a “legitimate” successor of the original apostles (Acts 9:17-19); apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands. This authority must come from the acting Catholic bishop (Acts 13:3); the apostles and newly ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church (Acts 14:23); preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles (Acts 15:22-27); Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and has sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee ( 2Cor 1:21-22); Paul calls his position a “divine office”. An office has successors. It does not terminate with the apostles’ deaths. The teaching of the apostles continue in the Catholic Church until Christ returns in glory. (Col 1:25, cf. Heb 7:23); Paul uses the word ‘episcipoi’ (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that this meant his office would continue after Paul’s death with those who would succeed him (1Tim 3:1); Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on of hands. The charism of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately (1Tim 5:22); Paul again reminds Timothy of the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands ( 2 Tim 1:6); at the end of Paul’s life, the apostle charges Timothy with his divine office. We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop ( 2Tim 4:1-6); God’s intention to transfer His authority to successors is clear ( 2Tim 2:2). The teaching authority of the Catholic Church continues after the death of the New Testament apostles. Jesus would never leave us spiritually orphaned. Whoever knows God listens to the apostles and those whom they have appointed (1 Jn 4:6). This is the way we discern truth and error - not by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves or by having apostolically unordained ministers interpret the scriptures for us. I’m running out of room, so I’ll continue to show you in my next reply how faulty and groundless your criteria for proof actually is. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**So, I will take this opportunity to bring the discussion back to the original question. If Mary committed even the slightest sin, it would have no impact on the prophesy that would be fulfilled thru Christ Jesus.

Everything would have gone off just as God had planned.**

But Ginger, part of what God had planned was that
the Mother of the Savior, the “Woman” whose seed would conquer Satan the Serpent, would HERSELF be at total enmity with the Devil. She herself would be the Mortal Enemy of the Father of Lies and Sin, not just her seed, but her too.
So if Mary sinned, the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 really would not have come to a final fulfillment, because the part about the Woman who (virginally) gives birth to the Seed, would not herself also have been the total Mortal Enemy of the Father of Lies and of Sin. This is one reason why all the early church fathers who wrote about Mary, all called her the “New Eve.”
We didn’t just pull these beliefs out of a hat.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Ginger2]

Jay,

Are you not satan’s enemy. Yet, you are a sinner.

Genesis 3:15 is mistranslated the Pope said so. Are you at odds with the infalible teaching of the Pope?