Today's Mass Readings (The fall of man / Mary's Yes / Mary wasn't planning on having sex with Joseph after marriage)

[Peter_J]

Yeah, the time limits on editing don’t work so well for my type now, proofread later posting style

 

[distracted]

And these are all fantastic points that I certainly have thought about. But let’s flip it the other way. Why are siblings mentioned in scripture if there were none? Why is the Greek word adelphous used which means from the same womb and also means blood relative when referring to brothers after addressing the mother? Such as saying Jesus mother and brothers. This never means cousin or general relative in the Greek. There are words for relative and cousin in Greek. Why are they not used to make it clear Jesus had no siblings? Also how do we know they weren’t at the crucifixion? Maybe they were but the Gospel writers decided not to tell us. Or maybe they weren’t in which case them not having the decency to come prompted Jesus to entrust Mary to John’s care. Ever think of it that way??

The biggest question is if Mary never had sex and never had any other children then why isn’t scripture completely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the case? If the church is going to create doctrine’s of Faith around this then scripture should be very clear. The fact is it’s not. You have to put a twist to the words and imply the things you are implying to arrive at the Roman Catholic Church’s conclusion.

I think there’s a big difference between saying the Church’s official position on Mary is this and then saying that it’s a required belief. It has no impact on salvation either way and I certainly know plenty of Roman Catholics, myself included that do not believe it.

Anyway it’s all good discussion which I certainly enjoy. Incidentally I noticed you were from Alabama. Would you be a Tide fan or Tiger fan?

GOD Bless

i don’t know Greek or Hebrew… as most people who read the Bible don’t…

does one have to have a master’s degree in languages to understand the Bible? Or to understand that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church? It just stands to logic (forgetting about Scripture for the moment)… that God would want ONE Church… and it also follows, logically, that God would want everyone in that Church (idealistically)… and that one can believe everything that Church teaches (seeing as how its from God and all)… It stands to reason that God would protect His Church from teaching error. There have been times in the history of the Church when a certain pope was getting ready to teach error & some “weird” thing happened to prevent him… (etc, etc.)… God protects his Church from the hands of erring/fallible men. Jesus promised this (St. Mt 16:18)… the gates of Hell will NOT prevail against His Church…

Do you dare argue with the Church???

 

[distracted]

I agree. Scripture does speak on this and I’m not sure where exactly. Paraphrasing, it says that Mary did not have relations with Joseph until the birth of Jesus. Pretty clear.

it also says somehwere about a woman who “did not have children until the day she died.”

So… did she have children AFTER she died???

Pretty clear, huh?

 

[distracted]

It doesn’t specifically say that she did, or that she didn’t, beyond the much debated verse in which someone tells Jesus that his mother and brothers are waiting outside.

i think Jesus makes that verse clear when he says that anyone who does the will of the Father is his brother, sister, mother, etc… I am sure He knew that in the future people would wonder about that… verse

I’m willing to accept that a vague Greek word might have been used that could have meant another familial relation besides brother…there are a lot of Greek words like that, from what I understand, and they are the reasons for the supposed “contradictions” in the Bible.

Jesus didn’t speak Greek. He spoke Hebrew/Aramaic… and there is no Hebrew word (or wasnt’ then) for cousin…

I definitely believe in the Virgin Birth, I accept Mary as the mother of all Christians, and I am perfectly comfortable and happy to honor her as I would my biological mother. Honestly…I really don’t think it is that big of an issue as to whether she had marital relations with her husband

or not. I think it is a big deal because, for one thing, there is that passage about how people are always marrying and giving in marriage but those who are worthy of … (the resurrection…?) do not marry… that is not to say marriage is a bad thing… but frankly, i feel that most marriages these days are NOT ordained by God… If a person waits for “the one God wants” he/she will be undoubtedly waiting for a long time, or at least that has been the case with me… God does not want abusive marriages… which is what i would undoubtedly have right now if i had married ANY (and i mean ANY) of the men i have “fallen in love with” in the last several yrs… Marriage is NOT something one should do without God’s total approval… I dare say most people don’t wait for god very long… when making or trying to make that decision… they usually let their feelings (etc) rule…
(In other words, what is so great about sex, particularly in light of how difficult it is to maintain a healthy/wholesome/holy marriage?)

If she wasn’t, she was married, so it’s no sin. I just don’t think it is really that big of a deal.

actually, i think sex, even “healthy” sex in marriage IS an occassion for sin… not because sex itself is bad but just because human beings are sinners… & sex is notorious for distancing people from God and his holiness…

 

[distracted]

Well if I said that I couldn’t drive my car until my broken leg heals, what would you say about that? I have a commercial driver’s license so it is quite obvious that I drive. Just as with Mary, she was married to Joseph and there is nothing in the Scriptures to make us doubt that they didn’t have a normal sex life after Jesus was born. In fact there is much more to support the idea that they did have a normal marriage than to attempt to refute it. Ths is what I see clearly.

Mary was immaculately conceived… and gave herself to God as a temple virgin… which is why she was so surprised about having a child… She had NO intentions of ever having sex… and if she HAD had sex with Joseph, that would have been a distraction from her love for God… therefore, that alone would be reason for her not doing so…

But more important than that, the Church (the ONE Church) God instituted on Earth says that she was a perpetual virgin. You cn argue with that all you want… I am not going to…

I feel sorry for those who do not believe / cannot put their faith in ONE Church… they must seem very lost… and, objectively speaking, thye are…

 

[distracted]

, would’ve assumed Gabriel was talking about an imminent event here.

makes no difference… Mary was planning on marriage and yet was surprised by the angel telling her she would conceive…

i feel you are complicating matters… to support your ready-made doctrines…

 

[hadassahjones]

To the claim of distracted regarding “you non-Catholics” I would reply that I actually am a Catholic–in the process of becoming one, anyway, and I have no doubts I will be baptized at Easter and become a full-fledged member of the Church. I do believe that the Catholic is the true Church founded by Christ, and, as I’ve said before, I believe in the veneration of Mary as the Blessed Mother of Jesus.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that says that Mary did or did not have relations with Joseph. Find me a Scripture, with reference, and I’ll go look it up. That’s not to say that I couldn’t accept that it’s true that she didn’t. There’s many things in the Catholic Church that are not in Scripture that I accept.

The word in the verse regarding Jesus’ supposed “brothers” is Greek, while Jesus absolutely spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. That is the reason for the confusion in that area, and I’ve read this on several Catholic websites.

If Mary were a consecrated temple virgin, she would not have married. They absolutely did not marry. No temple virgin in Biblical or medieval history ever married. If she had been such, the others in the temple would have helped her raise her son.

I don’t refuse to accept Church teaching on this, but I’m playing the other side, so to speak, so as to get a concrete explanation as to how this fits in with the history and society of the times.

 

[LilyM]

Mary understood the conception as something that would happen in the immediate future, not the distant. Otherwise why would she go to visit Elizabeth right away?

Because Elizabeth was six months pregnant, she and Zechariah were both elderly - they needed help, so Mary went to help them!

Besides which, don’t you think Mary, having been told this by the angel as a sign of reassurance to herself, would at least be curious enough to go and see for herself that the Angel had spoken truth and that Elizabeth really WAS pregnant? Not everyone takes angels at their word - Zechariah didn’t.

 

[Peter_J]

… I actually am a Catholic–in the process of becoming one, anyway, and I have no doubts I will be baptized at Easter and become a full-fledged member of the Church.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that says that Mary did or did not have relations with Joseph.

Well not explicitly – which indicates to me that the Apostles did not wish to make it a dogma of the faith. But, that does not mean that later generations are prohibited from making it a dogma.

 

[Peter_J]

Because Elizabeth was six months pregnant, she and Zechariah were both elderly - they needed help, so Mary went to help them!

Right. We know, in fact, that Mary went immediately, and then stayed there until Elizabeth gave birth.

 

[SIA]

Mary was immaculately conceived… and gave herself to God as a temple virgin… which is why she was so surprised about having a child… She had NO intentions of ever having sex… and if she HAD had sex with Joseph, that would have been a distraction from her love for God… therefore, that alone would be reason for her not doing so…**You are ascerting alot here, none of which can be proven at all. Why would Mary not wish to have relations with the man she was married to? There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that she would not wish to have sex with him. **

But more important than that, the Church (the ONE Church) God instituted on Earth says that she was a perpetual virgin. You cn argue with that all you want… I am not going to… I will and so do millions of other Christians

I feel sorry for those who do not believe / cannot put their faith in ONE Church… they must seem very lost… and, objectively speaking, thye are…

Don’t feel sorry for me. i believe in the one true trinitarian God, not a man made church who claims to be larger than God.

 

[adstrinity]

Who was it that I answered? I still would like to see some references of sorts.

 

[ellammcg]

** i believe in the one true trinitarian God, not a man made church who claims to be larger than God.**

I may be missing one, but as I recall, there is no Christian religion that makes the claim to be larger than God. Also, belief in the trinity is essential criterion for any religion that claims to be Christian in nature.

 

[distracted]

To the claim of distracted regarding “you non-Catholics” I would reply that I actually am a Catholic–in the process of becoming one, anyway, and I have no doubts I will be baptized at Easter and become a full-fledged member of the Church. I do believe that the Catholic is the true Church founded by Christ, and, as I’ve said before, I believe in the veneration of Mary as the Blessed Mother of Jesus.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that says that Mary did or did not have relations with Joseph. Find me a Scripture, with reference, and I’ll go look it up. That’s not to say that I couldn’t accept that it’s true that she didn’t. There’s many things in the Catholic Church that are not in Scripture that I accept.

The word in the verse regarding Jesus’ supposed “brothers” is Greek, while Jesus absolutely spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. That is the reason for the confusion in that area, and I’ve read this on several Catholic websites.

If Mary were a consecrated temple virgin, she would not have married. They absolutely did not marry. No temple virgin in Biblical or medieval history ever married. If she had been such, the others in the temple would have helped her raise her son.

I don’t refuse to accept Church teaching on this, but I’m playing the other side, so to speak, so as to get a concrete explanation as to how this fits in with the history and society of the times.

If you believe the RCC is the Church Christ esablished then you can trust what it (officially, dogmatically) teaches… If you cannot, then i am not sure you should become Cahtolic… yet…

I mean… that is part of being Catholic…

Like you said… not all the Church teaches can be found explicitly or even implicitly in the Bible… but the Church does not just pull doctrine and dogma out the air… I don’t know the reasons why the Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin… but i believe what the Church teaches and it makes sense that she was… I don’t know why she was planning on having a celibate marriage with Joseph… but from her remarks in that passage (where the angle comes to her) it is indicated that that was the case… none of us was there… but that’s why we need a Church we can trust…
Why even have a Church at all if you cannot trust it in all (officially taught) things???

 

[distracted]

Don’t feel sorry for me. i believe in the one true trinitarian God, not a man made church who claims to be larger than God.

hmm… i’ve been Cathlic all my life and have never heard THAT one… never heard the Church claim to be larger than God…

If the Church were man-made… well, for one thing, it would have fallen by now… God knows, its had plenty of attackers…

The Cathlic Church is the only one that is NOT man made…

So maybe you should start questioning the non-Catholic church you go to … (so called… since, technically ther is only ONE Church… )

 

[hadassahjones]

In my Psych 101 class we learned that temperament consists of traits that you are born with…they are unchangeable.

One of mine happens to be that I want an explanation for what someone tells me is true. I realized when I began discussing this that someone(s) would tell me that it is true because the Catholic Church says it is true and it is infallible, but I’m simply not made that way—I can’t simply think “well, they said it is true, so it must be”. Nor do I think that I should be excluded from an entire church system which I feel strongly about (and only a few months into my conversion, I might add) and have never felt so in any non-Catholic church before, simply because I disagree with one of their dogmas.

As I’ve said before, I’m not unwilling to accept this teaching. But I cannot accept it without proof beyond “well, the Catholic Church says so”. I’m simply not fashioned that way, and I cannot change that. And I can’t say I wish it were otherwise, because if I simply accepted what the ones in authority said at the time, I would still be under my zealot evangelical father’s thumb, and would never have come to the Catholic faith at all.

 

[LilyM]

In my Psych 101 class we learned that temperament consists of traits that you are born with…they are unchangeable.

One of mine happens to be that I want an explanation for what someone tells me is true. I realized when I began discussing this that someone(s) would tell me that it is true because the Catholic Church says it is true and it is infallible, but I’m simply not made that way—I can’t simply think “well, they said it is true, so it must be”. Nor do I think that I should be excluded from an entire church system which I feel strongly about (and only a few months into my conversion, I might add) and have never felt so in any non-Catholic church before, simply because I disagree with one of their dogmas.

As I’ve said before, I’m not unwilling to accept this teaching. But I cannot accept it without proof beyond “well, the Catholic Church says so”. I’m simply not fashioned that way, and I cannot change that. And I can’t say I wish it were otherwise, because if I simply accepted what the ones in authority said at the time, I would still be under my zealot evangelical father’s thumb, and would never have come to the Catholic faith at all.

I’m sure St Thomas thought exactly the same - ‘I need proof and that ain’t ever going to change’. I’m sure he changed quick smart when Jesus told him it was more blessed to believe without seeing - physically or intellectually.

You’ve been offered a heck of a lot more than ‘the Catholic Church says so’.

You’ve been offered logical reasons - it’s simply illogical for Mary to ask the question to Gabriel about how she was going to conceive - if she was expecting to consummate her marriage and have the resulting babies. Her answer implies very strongly that she never intended to have sex with Joseph.

And scriptural reasons - every place that God dwells is both utterly pure and untouchable, and sanctified to Him alone - the Ark of the Covenant being the first and foremost example.

Remember the Holy of Holies in the Temple? Only the High Priest could enter. The burning bush - where Moses had to take off his shoes? Bethel, where Jacob merely had a DREAM about God, became a holy place by that fact.

Well Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant - she bore God Himself within her. Any who tried to touch her when she had thus been permanently sanctified to God would sin as did Uzzah who touched the Ark.

Mary’s body is made a living Temple, a Holy of Holies, by His presence in her womb - one where only Jesus the High Priest might enter. No husband, no other children.

 

[John1]

In my Psych 101 class we learned that temperament consists of traits that you are born with…they are unchangeable.

One of mine happens to be that I want an explanation for what someone tells me is true. I realized when I began discussing this that someone(s) would tell me that it is true because the Catholic Church says it is true and it is infallible, but I’m simply not made that way—I can’t simply think “well, they said it is true, so it must be”. Nor do I think that I should be excluded from an entire church system which I feel strongly about (and only a few months into my conversion, I might add) and have never felt so in any non-Catholic church before, simply because I disagree with one of their dogmas.

As I’ve said before, I’m not unwilling to accept this teaching. But I cannot accept it without proof beyond “well, the Catholic Church says so”. I’m simply not fashioned that way, and I cannot change that. And I can’t say I wish it were otherwise, because if I simply accepted what the ones in authority said at the time, I would still be under my zealot evangelical father’s thumb, and would never have come to the Catholic faith at all.

I have been a member of the RCC for several years now. The RCC is a wealth of information about the early Christians and the debates that have gone on since the beginning of Christianity. I believe in the Bible and the oral traditions. Like you, I have a hard time with the answer “this is what the Church has always taught and believed” when I try to ask questions. Usually when I try to ask a question about anything that has been said, I’m immediately ridiculed as being a fundamentalist and belittled with some assertion that my questioning is a result of my own pride. I don’t know if your experience will be the same as mine, but just remember that we are to worship the Father through His Son Jesus Christ and God wants us to worship Him in truth and in spirit. Our religion is Christianity and all Christians are our brothers and sisters, but remember that not everyone that calls themselves Christians are in fact Christians. Since we can’t know anothers heart, we can only decide for ourselves if their actions agree with the teachings of Christ. I’ve found that folks in some of other denominations also react with a degree of hostility if you question their doctrines. The One common denominator for all Christians is Jesus Christ, the Only begotten Son of the Father. I realize that you probably already do this but, pray always, asking God to lead you into all Truth through His Holy Spirit. Listen to your Christian brothers and sisters, but keep your guard up against false teachings, or incorrect understandings of some teaching or tradition. I like to remember that God is God, and man is man. God understands man, but man has a hard time understanding God.

 

[SIA]

hmm… i’ve been Cathlic all my life and have never heard THAT one… never heard the Church claim to be larger than God…

If the Church were man-made… well, for one thing, it would have fallen by now… God knows, its had plenty of attackers…

The Cathlic Church is the only one that is NOT man made…

So maybe you should start questioning the non-Catholic church you go to … (so called… since, technically ther is only ONE Church… )

I have heard it said more than once that the Catholic church speaks for God here on earth. I cannot marvel enough at that kind of arrogance and misinformation that a statement such as this makes.

 

[ellammcg]

I’ve found that folks in some of other denominations also react with a degree of hostility if you question their doctrines.

I have also found that to be quite common (and not just in matters of religion). If I find myself becoming hostile over a question, it is usually because I have some doubt about the matter.