The Virgin Mary

[Ginger2]

Quote Lily, “the very lack of people calling their OWN mothers ‘mother’ is sufficient evidence that it was rare to do so”

Maybe this is because there is no instance of someone speaking directly to his mother. So the “lack” is not evidence of etiquette at all.

 

[Ginger2]

I looked it up Lily,

You said “…when the Apostles spoke to Mary they almost certainly called her ‘woman’ as He did, why would they do differently?”

Rom 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us

They called her Mary, not “woman”

 

[LilyM]

Quote Lily, “the very lack of people calling their OWN mothers ‘mother’ is sufficient evidence that it was rare to do so”

Maybe this is because there is no instance of someone speaking directly to his mother. So the “lack” is not evidence of etiquette at all.

Really? Jesus is never recorded as having spoken directly to his mother? He certainly is, several times. He always refers to her as ‘woman’ if anything. So it IS evidence of Jesus’ practice indeed.

And the lack of men speaking to their mothers is evidence in itself - they probably didn’t EVEN address them frequently in public, as ‘mother’ or anythig else! But it’s beside the point.

What we’re looking for is not whether or not they did so, but HOW they did so on the occasions they did. And from the evidence it’s clear that ‘mother’ was out, or Jesus would’ve used it at the Wedding of Cana where it was just the two of them if no-where else.

 

[LilyM]

I looked it up Lily,

You said “…when the Apostles spoke to Mary they almost certainly called her ‘woman’ as He did, why would they do differently?”

Rom 16:6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us

They called her Mary, not “woman”

Paul was writing to the Christians of Rome. Mary the mother of Jesus never was in Rome. She’s not the Mary he’s referring to. In any event he’s not directly addressing this other Mary. And he’s calling her by her first name, not calling her ‘mother’.

 

[Ginger2]

Excuse me but a Catholic used this verse: Rom 16:6 “Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us” to “teach” me about Mary.

That is why I used it. If Catholics believe it was the Virgin Mary then I should be able to used it to make my point also. But maybe it is just one Catholic who thinks that. It makes it difficult to discuss when you can’t find uniformity.

And how do you know Mary was never in Rome? The lack of them mentioning she was not in Rome must surely imply she was.

Lily said, “Jesus is never recorded as having spoken directly to his mother?”

I think you know I meant besides Jesus. If I am wrong then name the verse where someone other than Jesus addresses his mother. That will be proof that calling your mother “woman” was common place in those days.

 

[LilyM]

Excuse me but a Catholic used this verse: Rom 16:6 “Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us” to “teach” me about Mary.

That is why I used it. If Catholics believe it was the Virgin Mary then I should be able to used it to make my point also. But maybe it is just one Catholic who thinks that. It makes it difficult to discuss when you can find uniformity.

And how do you know Mary was never in Rome? The lack of them mentioning she was not in Rome must surely imply she was.

If a Catholic did use that verse from Romans as a reference to Mary the mother of Jesus then they were misreading it. I don’t take your reading of scripture as representative of everything your denomination teaches, since every denomination will have people in it who misunderstand its teachings. So you should know better than to use the ‘a Catholic told me xyz therefore that’s what all Catholics believe’ line.

I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on the mistake yourself. It’s an obvious one. Firstly Mary is always referred to as the mother of Jesus when she is referred to. Secondly she is referred to as living with John for the rest of her life, and you and I both should know John never went to Rome. Traditon is that he first went to Ephesus in Turkey and later ended up on the Greek island of Patmos. He never went to Rome, so neither did Mary.

And you and I especially know that there were many Marys in the Gospels. It stands to reason there would be in the rest of the New Testament as well.

Lily said, “Jesus is never recorded as having spoken directly to his mother?”

I think you know I meant besides Jesus. If I am wrong then name the verse where someone other than Jesus addresses his mother. That will be proof that calling your mother “woman” was common place in those days.

I know no such thing about what you meant. Thanks for the clarification. We can see what Jesus’ practice was, of course, and knowing something of His character can make educated guesses as to why He behaved as He did.

 

[Ginger2]

Lily, I did notice the mistake. After the Pentecost Mary seems to disappear from Scripture.

Still there is not one reference to anyone, other than jesus, addressing his mother. So, how do you know everyone was calling their mothers “woman”

Also, you did say calling your mother “mother” would be the equivalent of a grown man calling her mommy.( post #784 )

You’ve go to admit that sounds funny in light of the many times Jesus the words “my mother”

Or many I’m just over-tired and getting silly.

 

[Good_Fella]

What proof do you have they were “inspired (Holy Spirit) teachings” and not just the sentimental opinions of those men (not even the writers themselves claim any Apostolic origin or divine inspiration)? That’s the challenge, G. Are you up for it?

It appears you haven’t read my above posts in which I provide you the scriptural and historical evidence you seek. These posts are part of the ones I’m sending you to demonstrate your faulty set of criteria. I’ll get back to you on your heretical views concerning the hypostatic union in Christ. Fundie errors stem from disgraceful theology. By the way, I’m still awaiting biblical proof from you that God was obligated not to preserve Mary free from original sin at the first moment of her conception. Are you still searching? You do claim, don’t you, that the truth can only be found in Scripture, that the bible alone is sufficient? So find the passage before you reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps the deposit of faith also includes Sacred Tradition. There is enough scriptural evidence to show that God chose to preserve Mary free from original sin. I intend to acquaint you with these passages in due course, but first we will concern ourselves with the dogma of Mary invoked as Mother of God.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[passioncrosslov]

Really? Jesus is never recorded as having spoken directly to his mother? He certainly is, several times. He always refers to her as ‘woman’ if anything. So it IS evidence of Jesus’ practice indeed.

And the lack of men speaking to their mothers is evidence in itself - they probably didn’t EVEN address them frequently in public, as ‘mother’ or anythig else! But it’s beside the point.

What we’re looking for is not whether or not they did so, but HOW they did so on the occasions they did. And from the evidence it’s clear that ‘mother’ was out, or Jesus would’ve used it at the Wedding of Cana where it was just the two of them if no-where else.

‘Woman’ at the time and culture meant a ‘highly respected’ woman, not just any ordinary woman. Highly respected because she bore the Son of God, therefore, she is the instrument that God has chosen to manifest His redemptive mystery. If this is not so, why did He not call Mary Magdalen ‘woman’ but ‘Mary’ at the empty tomb of His resurrection? However, I’m not a theologian, so someone with greater knowledge could verify me.

Here is a quote from another thread. I like to think of it this way:

Totally agree on the Virgin Mary’s position. Since it is the only norm to become a human being is through being born by a human being, a child bearer (woman), God chose to be incarnated, conceived, and born by this particular woman. It could be by any other woman if He so chose, but the point is because He had chosen this particular path to come to us, he had chosen a particular woman. He had to prepared her from the very first beginning of His Redemptive Plan. This was why she was preserved from even the slightest defilement: paraphrasing from a priest’s homily, “If you were God [perfect in every way], how would you like to create your mother?” That made her virtues, particularly humility, even more radiant, because she knew that only by God’s grace, she is who she is, the Mother of God [the Son], and all other titles that we addressed her. Can we see how humble this creature is and through her humbleness, God’s majestic presence radiates through her?QUOTE]

 

[apophasis]

It appears you haven’t read my above posts in which I provide you the scriptural and historical evidence you seek.

I read your posts. You just keep regurgitating Catholic dogmas and call it proof.

I’ll get back to you on your heretical views concerning the hypostatic union in Christ.

You do that. But then don’t just regurgitate more Catholic dogma. Prove to me where I’m actually heretical.

By the way, I’m still awaiting biblical proof from you that God was obligated not to preserve Mary free from original sin at the first moment of her conception. Are you still searching?

You’re still waiting and I’m not searching. You’re the one making the assertion of Mary’s IC and God’s obligation. You’re the one obligated to prove it. You don’t tell someone to prove a negative.

There is enough scriptural evidence to show that God chose to preserve Mary free from original sin. I intend to acquaint you with these passages in due course, but first we will concern ourselves with the dogma of Mary invoked as Mother of God.

I doubt very much you’ll present any Scripture I haven’t seen before. This is not the first time I’ve debated these issues with Catholics on this forum and others. But do me a favor and show me where it is ACTUALLY taught. Not some passage you spiritualize or allegorize and read your dogma into it. Have some respect for both yourself and me.

 

[Good_Fella]

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?

Third, another faulty criterion on which you base your unbelief in Catholic Marian doctrines is ‘sola scriptura’. In order for us to prove that these doctrines are true, we must present literal and explicit writings from the Bible. For you Sacred Tradition holds no authority as part of the deposit of faith; nothing that exists in the traditional teachings of the Church can serve as explicit revelation if a teaching isn’t obviously clear to begin with in the written texts. Yet the scriptures prove that the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ is false:

To begin, Scripture never says anywhere that the Bible is the sole authority for God’s Word. On the contrary, Scripture mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone refutes the Protestant theory of ‘sola scriptura’. Those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important (Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15); Jesus commanded his apostles to “preach”, not write, and only three apostles actually wrote. The others who did not write were no less faithful to Jesus because he gave them no directive to write. Jesus did not intend the Bible to be the sole authority of faith (Mk 16:15); Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and he is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings (they) have received.’’ Luke writes to confirm the oral teachings the faithful have already received (Lk 1:1-4); Jesus did (spoke) many other things not written in the scriptures (Jn 20:30; 21:25). These things have been preserved in the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the deposit of faith although they have not been written. Who knows what Jesus said to his apostles about his mother that was to be kept silent. The first century Christians had already produced frescoes in the catacombs depicting Mary as the Mother of the Church, the Mother of Christ, and Mediatrix. How were these beliefs formed and communicated if not through the Bible which was not yet completed by that time?

Jesus commissioned Peter and the Apostles to institutionalize his visible Church by purveying the word and sacraments. He did not appoint them to write the NT texts. And he gave his apostles and through them their successors the authority to interpret the word of God. The faithful need help in interpreting the scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leaders to teach the Church (Acts 8:30-31; Heb 5:12). Peter resolved the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision in the Council of Jerusalem without appealing to Scripture (Acts 15:1-14); a prior letter written to the Church (Archdiocese) in Corinth was equally authoritative but not part of the NT canon .Paul again appealed to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians ( 1Cor 5:9-11; Acts 17:28); Paul commended the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, not Scripture alone ( 1Cor 11:2); Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us.” How could the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source if, at the same time, oral revelation was given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is only one authority (the Bible) while allowing two sources of authority: Scripture and Tradition (1Thess 2:13) ; Paul wanted to see the Thessalonians in person and supply what was lacking in his letter. His letter was not enough (1Thess 3:10); Paul instructed us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the scriptures about obeying the Bible alone ( 2 Thess 3:6); Paul said apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he said nothing about all apostolic traditions being committed to the Bible, as you have said ( 2 Tim 2:2).

Interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Hence, it must be a ‘public’ interpretation of the One Holy Apostolic Church. The divine Word needs a divinely appointed interpreter to preserve the divine truth and thereby Christian unity of faith ( 2 Pet 1:20). The scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction ( 2 Pet 3:16). Jesus did not promise that he would send his Holy Spirit to lead each Christian to infallibly interpret the scriptures. A divided Protestantism confirms what our Lord meant. It’s time for you to hurl your ‘sola scriptura’ theory over a cliff. :yup: It is unable to even challenge the truth and validity of the Church’s Marian doctrines. :nope:

I will expose another faulty criterion of yours in my next post, before replying to what you had said about the hypostatic union: ‘sola fide’.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

I read your posts. You just keep regurgitating Catholic dogmas and call it proof.You do that. But then don’t just regurgitate more Catholic dogma. Prove to me where I’m actually heretical.
You’re still waiting and I’m not searching. You’re the one making the assertion of Mary’s IC and God’s obligation. You’re the one obligated to prove it. You don’t tell someone to prove a negative.I doubt very much you’ll present any Scripture I haven’t seen before. This is not the first time I’ve debated these issues with Catholics on this forum and others. But do me a favor and show me where it is ACTUALLY taught. Not some passage you spiritualize or allegorize and read your dogma into it. Have some respect for both yourself and me.

You are the one who is denying the Immaculate Conception. Your belief in ‘sola scriptura’ demands that you show us where in the scriptures we are wrong. Unless you can prove the Church wrong by referring to the scriptures and appealing to Church history, keep quiet. And forget about appealing to the false doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’. It’s a Protestant myth which the Catholic Church has soundly refuted.

The scriptures and history are against you whether you believe it or not. You pick and choose whatever you want to believe. That’s essentially what a divided Protestantism is. Besides, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and has existed for 2000 years. The onus is not on the Church to prove anything to 25,000 Protestant denominations that have popped up in the past 500 years. How can you understand what we believe when you don’t even know what to believe in among yourselves? Give us a break with this “proof” trash.

The scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. ( 2 Pet 3:16). Look what has happened to Protestantism.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Ginger2]

ricmat,

I began reading the article you referenced, but didn’t get very far.

It says, "It was the responsibility of the groom’s family to ensure there was enough food and drink for all the guests. …

…Mary is the first to notice the impending disaster. She alone is aware of what is about to unfold, and she brings this crisis to the one person who can solve the problem: Jesus."

Mary cannot be the first to “notice”. Think about it.

 

[Ginger2]

ricmat,

The article states: “Mary in heaven continues to notice our needs before we do”

The Bible says, "… for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Mat 6:8)

 

[guanophore]

Proof???

As soon as I figure out how to prove the existence of God, I will get right on to that! I am not sure that matters of faith can be “proven” apo. You receive the NT on faith. there are elements that attest to it’s value, but you accept them as a Christian. Non-Christians do not accept the NT as the inspired and infallible word of God, and there is no way to “prove that” to them. It is based on our faith. In the same way, Catholics accept the Sacred Oral Traditions and the Magesterium of the Church as authoritative on the same level.

 

[Axion]

ricmat,

The article states: “Mary in heaven continues to notice our needs before we do”

The Bible says, "… for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Mat 6:8)

Protestant logical fallacy of false Contradiction.

The paragraphs do not contradict.

Compare: My aunt notices my needs before I do.

My uncle know what I need before I ask him.

NO CONTRADICTION. See?

 

[Ginger2]

Sheesh

 

[ricmat]

ricmat,

I began reading the article you referenced, but didn’t get very far.

It says, "It was the responsibility of the groom’s family to ensure there was enough food and drink for all the guests. …

…Mary is the first to notice the impending disaster. She alone is aware of what is about to unfold, and she brings this crisis to the one person who can solve the problem: Jesus."

Mary cannot be the first to “notice”. Think about it.

Hi Ginger2. I admit not reading all the previous posts in the thread, but with so many posts…

I believe that the author’s intent was to say “Mary was the first attendee (other than Jesus, obviously) to notice the problem.”

As I mentioned, the article wasn’t specifically about what you were discussing in the thread, but was related in a different way. I thought that all the readers of the thread might find the article interesting. I’m glad that you took the time to try and read it, since it gives some insight into the relationship between Mary and Jesus as the Catholic Church sees it.

ricmat,

The article states: “Mary in heaven continues to notice our needs before we do”

The Bible says, "… for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Mat 6:8)

Of course the Father (and Son, and Holy Spirit) know what we need before we ask. It doesn’t say “The Father, and absolutely nobody else knows our needs before we do.”

So there can’t be 2, or 3, or 10 or 100 in heaven who know our needs before we do?

Since heaven is outside of time, those in heaven can look into our past, present, and future simultaneously. They can all know our needs before we do.

The article is quite good and not long. Don’t get hung up on this issue. Incidentally, Dr. Sri has written a lot of good stuff, and I recommend his works in general.

PS - I admire your persistence

 

[JoeyWarren]

aye, she is a tenacious one…

 

[Ginger2]

ricmat: “So there can’t be 2, or 3, or 10 or 100 in heaven who know our needs before we do?”

Only if God informs them.

“Since heaven is outside of time, those in heaven can look into our past, present, and future simultaneously. They can all know our needs before we do.”

Only if God allows them.

“The article is quite good and not long. Don’t get hung up on this issue.”

I did finish the article.