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

[distracted]

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

actually, what i have found on these forums is that when you question a non-Catholic’s doctrine, they don’t always answer with hostility… they don’t answer at all…

becaue they have no answer…

but then you find them answering other posters… and constantly questioning, questioning… when you would think that… with no argument against most of the RCC’s teachings (once they’re explained), they would just have an awakening and convert…

So i am wondering… why doesn’t this happen more often…?

:coffeeread:

 

[distracted]

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.

i cannot marvel enough at the kind of arrogance it is to say that a Church cannot make such a claim.

If a Church is the one established by God, yet doesn’t say so, it isn’t…

 

[LilyM]

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.

‘Who hears you hears me, who rejects you rejects me’ - by your logic such a statement should never have appeared in the NT, and the Evangelist was ‘arrogant’ for writing it, and the Apostles and Early Christians were arrogant for believing it as they so clearly did.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I realize, I’m sure, that “Catholic” means universal?

 

[distracted]

I realize, I’m sure, that “Catholic” means universal?

huh???

What does this have to do with anything… don’t understand what you are getting at…

 

[OnceUponATime]

To respond to why Mary would need to marry Joseph:
It was actually quite necessary for Mary to be with Joseph. Not only did he serve as her and Jesus’ protector and earthly father, he saved Mary’s reputation.
You have to remember what they did at the time to women who slept around. What did they do to Mary Magdalene? And she never got pregnant… (at least, not from what I know).

 

[hadassahjones]

I understand the importance of tradition in the Catholic Church, but you cannot discount scripture, either.

Matthew 2:25, we read this last night in our wednesday night study at church, but they didn’t expound on it.

“And he did not have relations with her UNTIL after the birth of her son, whom he named Jesus.”

This is out of the New American Bible, which is the Bible used at our Catholic church.

Why would he say until, if they never had relations. If he felt the need to mention this aspect of their life, why not…“and he did not have relations with her at all after the birth of her son, whom he named Jesus.”

Why the use of the word until, which clearly implicates that after Jesus’ birth, they engaged in a normal married life?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The word till, in the Hebrew language, gives us to understand that a thing will not come to pass in time to come: as Michal had no children till her death day, 2Sa 6:23. And in the last chapter of this evangelist: Behold, I am with you till the end of the world.

 

[SIA]

i cannot marvel enough at the kind of arrogance it is to say that a Church cannot make such a claim.

If a Church is the one established by God, yet doesn’t say so, it isn’t…

The arrogance come within the exclusiveness of the statement made in the Catholic church. It just mirrors many other untrue statements it makes exclusively about itself.

 

[Peter_J]

The arrogance come within the exclusiveness of the statement made in the Catholic church. It just mirrors many other untrue statements it makes exclusively about itself.

Well, I don’t believe in Branch Theory. So, logically, after the 1054 schism took place, only one side or the other could be the One True Church. I believe it’s the RCC (although of course Eastern Orthodox will say they are the One True Church).

(Similar logic can be applied to the 16th centuriy schisms as well, but it’s more complicated there since a few different groups left the RCC at about the same time, and then those groups experience schisms of their own.)

 

[distracted]

The arrogance come within the exclusiveness of the statement made in the Catholic church. It just mirrors many other untrue statements it makes exclusively about itself.

God knows how weak we humans are, right? How much we would think things that aren’t true… walk in ways that aren’t godly… aren’t holy… right?

Therefore, He knows we need an infallible Church, right?

Therefore, God, it seems, should institute on Earth an infallible Church… right?

Therefore, we can safely assume that HE DID establish such a Church…

What could be more logical???

 

[distracted]

i forgot to say the main point: That if God established an infallible Church and that Church teaches thus and so, we can safely believe in “thus and so”…

Besides, why is it so hard to believe Mary was a perpetual virgin??

(for one thing, many human beings - even in this day and age - are…

well, OK… maybe not many!!

 

[adrift]

After reading through this thread a few things struck me.

1. Betrothed was not the same as engaged. Marriage was accomplished in two stages. The betrothal constituted a couple as man and wife. The woman would then remain with her family preparing to take over the household of her husband some months later. Mary and Joseph were married but in that part of the marriage where they did not live together. This leads to an other questions.
2. At what point were they in the first part of marriage? Had they just become married or were they closer to the second part of the marriage where Mary would live with Joseph. We can’t know the answer definitively but we can surmise one since Mary left for approximately 3 months or more and when she returned Joseph was told to take his wife into his home thereby completing the marriage.

On the other hand, in the Old Testament annunciations are proclamations of imminent conception, so it is quite sensible the Mary, knowing these OT events, would’ve assumed Gabriel was talking about an imminent event here.

Sarah was told a year before she had a child. If Mary looked to OT she would have assumed a year. A year would coincide with when the second part of marriage would take place. So the question Mary asked does not make sense unless there was a promise of virginity.

 

[adrift]

Not true. Marian devotion did not develop until around the 5th or 6th century. There’s no documentation from the ECFs immediately after the Apostles that supports this.

The first representation of the Virgin Mother with the Child Jesus, a stucco painting in the catacomb of Priscilla, dates from the beginning of the second century about the time of the death of the Apostle John.

St. Ephraem 4th century

In his sixth hymn, say of Mary
Who else lulled a son on her bosom as Mary did? Who ever dared to call her son, Son of the Maker, Son of the Creator, Son of the Most High?

In a later Hymn St Ephraem
(Born at Nisibis, then under Roman rule, early in the fourth century; died June, 373)
represents Mary as Saying: ”The babe that I carry carries me, and He Hath lowered His wings and taken and placed me between His pinions and mounted into the sir”
Warren H. Carroll That building of Christendom Vol 2
page 91

Ambrose of Milan wrote about the virginity of Mary as did Augustine of Hippo

 

[adrift]

Scripture provides evidence of Jesus being an only child.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.