What Can We Say About The Virgin?

[Tomster]

Mary and God the Son

In relation to the Son of God, Mary fulfilled the obligations and possessed the rights of a true mother. Like every other mother - and more than any other mother, for Jesus was of her alone - she formed of her own substance the substance of her Son, she continued herself in Him. And, after having given human existence to Him who created the world, she fed with her milk Him who gives food to all creatures, she dressed Him who clothes His angels with light and the lilies of the field with their raiment, and she carried in her arms Him who bears up the universe. Even more, she commanded the Sovereign Master of heaven and earth, for, true Mother that she was, she exercised a real authority over Him. As true Mother, she also guided His human education and little by little led the Son of God to the full developement of all His faculties. But above all, she loved Him, she loved God, with a maternal love.

And because Mary is truly Mother of God, God her Son fulfilled all the duties of a filial devotedness to her: He obeyed her, He venerated her, He helped her, and, above all, He loved her; He loved her with a unique, a filial, love.

Early authors sometimes called Mary the “Spouse of the Word,” for various reasons: 1. All faithful souls, especially virginal souls, love to call themselves the spouses of Jesus, because they give themselves entirely to Him alone. The Virgin of virgins would therefore be His spouse par excellence. 2. It was through Mary that, in a way, a marriage between the Word and human nature was accomplished at the moment of the Incarnation. 3. Mary is the new Eve beside the new Adam, Jesus Christ. 4. She is the type of the Church, the immaculate spouse of Christ.

Since it would seem contradictory to call the Virgin both Mother and the Spouse of Jesus, she is rarely given this latter title. Nowadays, she is generally called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tomster]

Mary and the Holy Spirit

Mary became the Spouse of the Holy Spirit in virtue of the divine motherhood, for it was by the operation of the Holy Spirit that she conceived Jesus. It is true, of course, that the entire Holy Trinity co-operated in the miracle which rendered her fruitful; but this work is attributed by appropriation to the Holy Spirit because it is above all a work of love and the Holy Spirit is the expression of the love of the Father and of the Son. Nor does this co-operation of the Father and the Son in the production of the humanity of Jesus lessen in any way the action of the Spirit. It is perfectly correct to say as we say every day in the Apostles’ Creed: “Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,” and therefore, to salute Mary with the title of Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Pope Leo XIII himself in one of his encyclicals, calls Mary “the immaculate Spouse of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Tomster]

Mary, Extrinsic Complement of the Most Holy Trinity.

In raising Mary to the dignity of Mother of God, the three Divine Persons have established between the Blessed Virgin and Themselves relations of an incomprehensible sublimity; but, by this same motherhood, Mary procures to the Divine Persons a new and utterly unique glory. And so she has at times been called “the complement of the Most Holy Trinity.” The expression “complement of the Holy Trinity” is perhaps a bit ambiguous. It could imply that the Holy Trinity require a complement and that the Blessed Virgin is like a forth person in the divinity; but if we say extrinsic complement, any such suspicion will be removed.

Not, of course, that anything whatsoever is lacking to the adorable Trinity, for intrinsically - that is to say, in Himself - God is infinite, complete, infinitely perfect, and infinitely happy. But extrinsically - in the glory and the love which come to the Holy Trinity from without and in Its action ad extra - Mary brings to It a very special co-operation, as an instument, not as a principal cause.

In virtue of the divine motherhood of Mary, the Father acquires a real authority over the Son, who is His equal in nature and perfections. From this incarnate Son, He receives marks of respect, submission, and abandonment, a homge of adoration and love superior to those which are offered to Him by all creatures combined.

He hears this Son proclaim: “My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) He sees Him offering the only sacrifice worthy of God. “In coming into the world, He [Christ] says: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted to me: in holocausts and sin-offerings thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Behold, I come . . . to do thy will, O God.” (Hebrews 10:5-7) He knows that this Son is unceasingly occupied in revealing His Father to men, in inviting them to abandon themselves to Him in compete confidence, and to pray to Him every day: “Our Father, who art in heaven.”

And men, for their part, understand this Father better since through Mary they have known His Son, and they feel instinctively that this heavenly Father is truly their Father when they see their own heavenly Mother close to Him.

 

[guanophore]

Hello Friends,
Observing4Grace;1974436:

If Mary can come in an out of heaven, does this mean she’s given the power to walk enter hell and preach salvation?

Someone with better knowledge than I will have to answer this one. I know that Mary comes and goes by the will of God, and I cannot say I understand how that happens. I do know the why of it, because everywhere she has been and everything she says always points to Christ. Why he has ordained that she should continue to evangelize from the other side, I don’t know. Is it the same as Moses and Elijah appearing to Jesus during the transfiguration? I don’t think Mary would need to enter hell to preach, since Jesus already has done that.

I’m not trying to offend Catholics by any means, (that’s why I over looked this carefully) but there hasn’t been any lights shed on these questions. My assumption is that, unlike the Mary of the New Testament whereas she’s portrayed:

**-Insignificant in role, shortly after the birth of Jesus
-Unknown about her life after Jesus’ resurrection, her teachings and his death
-To have very little significance Jesus’ teachings
-Not treated as a superior or equal to Jesus
-Had other kids **

The Mary Catholics portray is almost treated like a goddess. No wonder why protestants say they worship her, these titles imply as if she were. QUOTE]

It will probably be difficult, starting out with the presupposition that it is “sheer nonsense” to grasp this point of teaching. I did not read to the end of the thread, either, so probably there are better answers here than mine. However, you are proceeding from an inadequate foundation. Much of our understanding of Mary come from the early writings of the Fathers and the teachings of tradition. If you are not willing to be open to what the earliest Christians understood and practiced about Mary, then it will never make any sense, because the biblical accounts are comparatively thin. It is like the word trinity, not found in the Bible, but expounded and understood by the early Fathers.

Now, don’t go thinking we’re idiots here but if strangers came and witnessed to a Catholic event where they might:

**-Parade around with a small statue of Mary
-Bow their knees to Mary
-Use the beads to meditate and call upon her for assistance on scriptures
-Make Holy Days Consecrated to the virgin
-Carry a picture around her house **

Someone will eventually conclude that they (the Catholics) actually do worship Mary. Even if they stopped and explained it, I’m sure it still amounts to idolatry because they make claims about Mary which seems as if she were a God. She’s without sin, ever virgin, didn’t have other kids, knows our hearts, I could keep adding because there’s a whole book that speaks as if she were. (For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, please read the glories of Mary by St.
Alphonsus Liguri)

This is a common misconception. I think it only can be cleared up with a proper understanding that our views about Mary have come out of Christology,a nd our understanding of who He is.

I don’t know how we protestants could be wrong about this but I can assure you that this is sheer nonsense. Is it possible for you to show me other convicting evidences that this isn’t worship. I would also like you (Catholics) to show me where in the NT do we also see the classification of worship in such circumstances as yours? Parker

I can understand why protestants misunderstand our reverence as worship. As a cradle Caholic who defected to protestant circles, I had to work very hard to overcome these prejudices. I think, in the end, what made the difference for me, in addition to reading what the Fathers wrote, was developing a relationship with Jesus’ mother on my own. I suggest you ask Jesus if he wants you to have a better relationship with her, and what it might be like. Make your own list of titles, to start with, about what you believe. Can you agree that she is the Mother of God? Can you believe all the other things that are written about her in scripture? that is a good place to start. Are you able to call her Blessed among Women?

 

[Tomster]

Mary’s divine motherhood gives the Son a new existence, an existence in the order of time. Thanks to this motherhood, the Son can render to His Father that homage of submission, adoration, gratitude, and reparation which His divine nature would not allow Him to offer. This homage is real since it comes from an inferior nature, and yet is infinitely acceptable since it is offered by a Divine Person.

With regard to men, the divine motherhood has made the Son the “beloved of humanity.” If it is towards the Son rather than to the Father or to the Spirit that our thoughts, affections, and wills are directed; if it is to the Son, Spouse of souls, that virgins feel impelled to consecrate their purity; if it is to the Eucharistic Son that the ardent prayers of thousands of innocent children and thousands of loving souls of all ages and conditions are directed; if it is near the Son, the consoler, strength, and life, that the suffering, the fatigued, the discouraged find haven; if this Son is the center of our souls, the center of religion, and the center of humanity, does He not owe it to the divine motherhood?

Because of the divine motherhood, the Holy Spirit, sterile as far as the divine processions are concerned, becomes fruitful with regard to the Son, by contributing to the production of His body. He makes of this Son the great Adorer of the Father and the Well-beloved of humanity; and He receives over the Son an authority to which this Son submitted Himself during His whole life, as the Gospel suggests: "Then Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit . . . The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath annointed me . . . " (Matthew 4:1 & Luke 4:18)

With regard to men, the Holy Spirit exercises a similar fruitfulness through Mary, since together with her He engenders, strengthens, and brings to its perfection the life of Jesus in souls.

By her nature Mary is infinitely removed from the divinity. But by her motherhood (though we must not forget that even here there is between God and her all the distance that separates the principal agent from the instrument) has she not been introduced, in a sense, into the very family of God and placed next to the adorable Trinity, as an ancient hymn expresses it:

Rejoice, Virgin Mother of Christ;
Rejoice, O most faithful Virgin,
Over the fact that you alone have deserved
To enjoy so high a dignity,
Because your station is closest to
that of the Holy Trinity.

 

[guanophore]

(veneration of the saints) ]I know that also but it turns them into idols. …However if you put this into a whole, it turns into worship regardless if they it’s not…
… my point is that if you take all the elements together of what I listed it becomes a form of worship even though the person is dead. Do you get the picture?

No, I am not getting the picture. How is it that you cannot honor someone without turning them into an idol? Do you not perceive the difference between who is human, and who is divine? Also, I don’t understand why you think the saints are dead? Who are all those people mentioned in Heb. 12:1-2? How does it encourage us to persist in the faith if the “cloud of witnesses” is dead, and not alive? I think you need to argue this point with Jesus, he is the one who is saying you are wrong.

34 And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.” Luke 20:34-40

Mark 12:27
27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."

Look, I’m not a misinformed Protestant here. I’m well aware of these terms but the church needs to prove where does the Bible make exceptions on the merits of the first commandment, let alone the existences and different types of venerations. Do you get the idea I’m trying to tell you?

Parker

On the contrary, Parker, you most certainly are a misinformed Protestant! you are misinformed on a number of points.

1. 
   You seem to think that the Bible is the final authority, rather than the Church
   
   You are NOT well aware of the terms, since you do not seem to be able to perceive the difference between human and divine persons
   
   You don’t seem to realize that the first commandment does not have any “merits” that are imputed to created beings
   
   A person is either at worship, or not. Worship requires intellectual and spiritual assent. If a person is venerating (honoring) they are not worshipping.
   

   (veneration of the saints) ] it turns into worship regardless if they it’s not…

   ???
   
   You do not understand the observations of scripture. Mary said “all generations shall call me Blessed”. Until you can say "the Blessed Mother of God’ from your heart, your heart is not speaking from scripture.
   
   You do not understand that veneration happens in scripture
   

   Honor doesn’t mean erect statues, claim she can hear prayer and summon a list of titles to her name.

   What makes you think not? Don’t you think Mount Rushmore honors the fathers of our country?

 

[Church_Militant]

[SIGN]Well said G![/SIGN]

 

[Observing4Grace]

Another Non-Catholic Protestant misconception. No they are not turned to idols. To understand Saints and Mary, one must understand the Communion of Saints. We, saints on earth, are in communion with the Saints in heaven, who are with God and his angels.

**No, I’m not misunderstanding the communion of the saints. I’ve been with through this. The communion with the saints who are spiritually alive through Christ cannot be communicated upon. Even with the evidence the church offers doesn’t hold enough water. So what else is there to say. **

We do not ask saints the same adoration that we Catholics give to God alone.

Latria, Dulia, hyperdulia…where’s that in the Bible? Are you telling me there’s suppose to be one? What examples can provide from scripture that were are to do this?

The saints who died in Christ are not dead. We are Alive in Christ.

**Spiritually that is. **

Heb. 12:1 - we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses, our family in heaven. We are not separated. The “cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) refers to a great amphitheatre with the arena for the runners (us on earth), and many tiers of seats occupied by the saints (in heaven) rising up like a cloud. The “martures” are not mere spectators (“theatai”), but testifiers (witnesses) who testify from their own experience to God’s promises and cheer us on in our race to heaven. They are no less than our family in heaven.

**I have no idea how you manage to get this conception out of a single verse. You put your focus on a single verse where the rest of the chapter lacks your support. Tell me, how is it that someone like me who has read Hebrews about a dozen times has never gotten the notion of what you explained and your “heavenly” analogy? Not one in my lifetime have I ever heard such a far fetched interpretation in my life. Surely, you’re not expecting me to buy into this are you? **

1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 1:7 - we are called to be saints. Saints refer to both those on earth and in heaven who are in Christ. Proof:

Acts 9:13,32,41; 26:10; 1 Cor. 6:1-2; 14:33; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1-2; 13:13; Rom. 8:27; 12:23; 15:25,26, 31; 16:2,15; Eph. 1:1,15,18; 3:8; 5:3; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; 4:22; Col 1:2,4,26; 1 Tm 5:10; Philemon 1:5,7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jude 1:3; Rev. 11:18; 13:7; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6;18:20,24; Rev 19:8; 20:9 - in these verses, we see that Christians still living on earth are called “saints.”

You can use that as the “proof” text to support the doctrine. However, as you may recall, these people who Paul is addressing ARE ALIVE, NOT DEAD. If you can demonstrate that this isn’t true. It’s understandable. This is not the case.

You lack Catholic theology and understanding. You insist on beliefs we do not practice.

**I do insist it because what you offer as evidence doesn’t hold water. Why? Because the proofs you offer are full of holes. **

You are still misinform because you do not understand the meaning of the Communion of Saints. Catholics believe we are One Body in Christ just as St. Paul said in his Epistles.

How does one body mean we can do the same function as that of the other?

When we ask for intercessory prayer, we ask them to pray for us. Just as I ask my fellow Catholic or Christian to pray for me.

You can do that with the saints on earth. However they can’t hear you because they’re dead, physically. Though they’re alive spiritually, it doesn’t mean they can hear you.

1 Tim 2:1-2 - because Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), many Protestants deny the Catholic belief that the saints on earth and in heaven can mediate on our behalf.

**Notice the switch of words you’re using, “mediate” and “intercede”. You’re acting like they’re the same when obviously the definitions are different.

Mediate: to bring about (an agreement**, accord, truce, peace, etc.) as an intermediary between parties by compromise, reconciliation, removal of misunderstanding, etc.

Intercede: to act or interpose in behalf of someone in difficulty or trouble, as by pleading or petition: to intercede with the governor for a condemned man.

Now tell me, which one are you going to stick with? Because saints certainly cannot do both. <Who’s the one who doesn’t understand theology now?> BUMP

But before Paul’s teaching about Jesus as the “one mediator,” Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people.

**Stop with the word play, they carry different meanings. **

I can go on to refute your false misconception about Mary and the saints. If you are want to discuss this further.

I do have a school life, you know. I can’t go further but since I noticed the differences you make and the kind of word play you do, this is the focus on the subject.

 

[Observing4Grace]

Are you familiar with the typography between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

**I am but then again, you need evidence that makes your case valid. **

The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament within it contains the Tablets of the Ten Commandments of God or the Word of God.

True, it’s a given.

Mary is the type of Ark because during the first 9 months of Jesus here on earth, she was a living Ark because she contain within her the Mana, Bread of Life, Jesus, the Lamb of God.

**The box also contained other things but it doesn’t mean it implies Mary is the Ark. **

Finally, just before the vision of the New Eve in Revelations 12, we read “and the temple of God saw opened in heaven, and there was seen the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail” (11:19).

**Still, how does Ark of His Testament say Mary? **

Now remember; the Bible was not written in chapter and verse; that was added in the twelfth century A.D.

**What are you talking about here? **

When St. John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; he wrote about one right after another as a continuous thought. The appearance of the Ark here immediately precedes the appearance of the Woman, the Mother of the Christ Child; and we saw above that the Woman is Mary. This also indicates a relationship between the Ark and Our Lady.

**I’ve read the so called “proof” texts of the Mary being referred to the woman. However the rest of the chapter doesn’t make sense. These events can’t be referred to Mary because these events didn’t happen yet because it takes place in the future. How does she fit into an event that already happened? **

 

[Zooey]

Heb. 12:1 - we are surrounded by a great glory cloud (shekinah) of witnesses, our family in heaven. We are not separated. The “cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) refers to a great amphitheatre with the arena for the runners (us on earth), and many tiers of seats occupied by the saints (in heaven) rising up like a cloud. The “martures” are not mere spectators (“theatai”), but testifiers (witnesses) who testify from their own experience to God’s promises and cheer us on in our race to heaven. They are no less than our family in heaven.

**I have no idea how you manage to get this conception out of a single verse. You put your focus on a single verse where the rest of the chapter lacks your support. Tell me, how is it that someone like me who has read Hebrews about a dozen times has never gotten the notion of what you explained and your “heavenly” analogy? Not one in my lifetime have I ever heard such a far fetched interpretation in my life. Surely, you’re not expecting me to buy into this are you? **

Actually, O4G, no I don’t expect you to buy into it. I http://bestsmileys.com/sad/10.gif hear your anger, & your bitterness. I hear that you so http://bestsmileys.com/sad/10.gif
dislike & resent anything that:nope: disagrees of your own version of reality, that you :nope: refuse to even consider that you might be wrong.
But you see, I have to witness to what my Bible tells me is true. I have to speak up, when Jesus’ own beloved mother is being attacked, because she is my mom, too. He gave her to me, when he was dying on the cross of Calvary to save poor ornery sinners like me.
And He gave her to you, too…Even knowing that you would attack her & try to besmirch her, He did it just the same…He’s like that.

 

[Zooey]

Now remember; the Bible was not written in chapter and verse; that was added in the twelfth century A.D.

**What are you talking about here? **

The chapters & verses were not in the originals. They were added in the 12th Century A.D.
O4G, if you don’t even know the history of the Bible, how can you expect to understand it??

 

[Mannyfit75]

Observing4Grace:

I am but then again, you need evidence that makes your case valid.

I base my answers on logic and the the Christian understanding of the relationship between the OT and NT.

A Christian in the first century would identify the woman clothed with the sun as Mary. I noticed that when I first read Revelation the end of Revelation 11 and the start of Revelation 12.

True, it’s a given

There is an uncanny resemblance between the Ark of the OT and the NT. Did not Ark of the OT contain the Word of God? Yes. Did Mary in her womb carried the Word of God for a period of 9 months. Yes. No one can approached the Ark and anyone who does dies, only High Priest Can.

Since Mary is the type of Ark, she too must be pure because God will it. To say that she cannot be immaculate would be to degrade the divinity of Jesus Christ since Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh. True God and True Man!

How God, the Father allow someone impure be the Mother of His Son? To claim that would be put Jesus lower than the Ark of the OT.

You have a problem with Mary being Immaculate, its not the Church you have a Problem with. You have issues with Jesus Christ Himself.

Still, how does Ark of His Testament say Mary?

Because she carried Jesus in her Womb. The Word made flesh. I already explain this. I don’t need to explain himself further.

What are you talking about here?

The original Book of Revelation did not have Chapter or verses when it was written. The monks added those so they use chapter and verses to refer to Scripture.

So if you read the Book of Revelation without the verses, a Christian of the first Century would understand the Ark in the passage is Mary.

I’ve read the so called “proof” texts of the Mary being referred to the woman. However the rest of the chapter doesn’t make sense. These events can’t be referred to Mary because these events didn’t happen yet because it takes place in the future. How does she fit into an event that already happened?

Because the Book of Revelation is can be interpreted both literal and symbollically. If you read it in the literal sense, you can identify the Dragon as Satan, the Male Child as Jesus, the woman clothed with the Sun as Mary.

Events of the Book of Revelation have occured. They are not written in chronological order. Since one chapter mentioned a crucified Lord. And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified. Rev 11:9. This place is Jerusalem since it is where Christ was crucified. I also like to note that not of Revelation is fulfilled since Jesus had not return, nor have the Anti-Christ come.

We still await for those days.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Observing4Grace:
Grace, you come here to understand the Catholic understand of our faith right? You don’t have to believe it, but at least try to understand it.

I know there Protestants here who understand it and have no issues. If you truly understand Catholicism, you would have no objection as to why we believe that praying to the saints is part as a communion. That is why we pray and ask for their intercession.

We do not put the saints and Mary above Jesus Christ himself. That is due to him alone. The intercessions of the Saints and Mary are in union with God not without Him. The saints and Mary cannot do anything with their own power but rely on God. They mediate on our behalf.

I also like to add that Jesus himself converse with Moses during the transfiguration of Jesus. This is the same we when we pray to the saints. We ask them to pray for us, nothing more.

I pray that you try to understand this like Zooey here who is not a Catholic.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I want to thank all of you who responded to this thread.
I am writing a “Lifetime Achievement Award” Speech on Mary for my Speech Comm class.
This thread gave me a lot of fabulous ideas!

Pax Christi!

 

[guanophore]

To call Jesus the Ark of the New Covenant would be to imply that He Himself was not the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and therefore not the Savior Son of God./

I cannot tell which of these quotes are yours, and which were from the person you were responding to, so if I mess it up, just correct me. The other poster stated that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Are you saying that Jesus himself is the Ark? How are you defining Ark? Also, what do you think was carried in the Ark?

I see that you recognize that Catholics place the teaching of the church highly, and that nothing is taught by the church is contradicted in the bible, and vice versa. However, you say that you do not find Mary Queen of Heaven in the Bible?

Prove that Mary is conceived without sin and how all those titles attain to her.

I think this will be impossible to do for you, Observing, because you do not accept the testimony of those to whom it has been proven.

Honor doesn’t mean erect statues, claim she can hear prayer and summon a list of titles to her name. Parker

Since when? Why did they pull down that statue of Saddam Hussein, if not to dishonor him after he was vanquished. Why not leave it up? Because having his statue there honors him!

Mary can hear our prayers, just as all the saints in heaven can. However, Mary did not “summon a list of titles to her name”. She is too humble for that! What handmaid of the Lord would behave in such a manner? No, the titles were given to her by those that honor her, and through her, honor her Son, who has more titles than can be counted!

[/QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

I applaud your pastor but not you because it’s certain that in order for me to say that I’m making these terms up is to deny what Matthew 12:46-48 says:

“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?”

Again, I cannot tell for sure whose comments are whose, so if I mix it up, just let me know. What you are saying is that your understanding is limited, and that you cannot imagine or accept an alternative. Did you know that early tradition teaches that Mary was a very young maiden, given to Joseph, a man old enough to be her father? And that Joseph already had children, among them “James, the brother of the Lord”?

I know a family where the grandmother was having children the same time as the mother. So the 18 year old that I know has “uncles” who are 14 and 16. The mother is not around, so the grandchildren stay with the grandmother, and their “uncles” who are younger. they are all raised like brother and sisters. Although this is strange to my own tradition of customs, it is easily understandible to me that Jesus would have grown up with brethren in his home that were "siblings’ (there is no aramaic word for that) who were older than himself.

 or even Matthew 13:55, saying:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

Now we can argue over the word adelphos taking another meaning to the text but the authors are quite specific word to make a distinction. If Mary had no other children, Matthew would’ve used the word “suggenes” or if it was spiritual brethren (I highly doubt the words themselves imply it) the text would hint to the notion of this meaning it. But because the bretheren are in the possesive, the only option is to say that Jesus really did have brothers and Mary isn’t the perpetual virgin.

This may be unrelated, but I wonder why it is so important to you to “prove” that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? I suspect that this comes down to “proving” that Catholic teaching is in error, and that the Catholic church is not scriptural, and therefore, in error. So here is my question for you. where did your bible come from?

"Adelphos" is another notion that one is to be born of the two same parents. In this case it's Mary.

Why Mary? Why could they not belong to Joseph from a previous marriage? How do you know Joseph’s wife didn’t die in childbirth, and that one reason he took Mary was to help care for the motherless infant?

You either have to have a good explanation how adelphos doesn't mean what it says. There are other meanings like fellow believers but since the word is in the possesive, you and your fellow apologists got some explaining to do.

First of all, adelphos is a greek word, and since the story is of Aramaic origin, and Aramaic does not have words to distinuish “cousin” from “stepbrother” or “sibling” it would be hard to “prove”. Secondly, Catholics do not require “proof” on matters of faith that have been handed down by the Apostles. We receive the teachings by faith. Since you have rejected the apostolic teaching that is not contained in the bible in front of you (which is probably incomplete anyway, since some of the books have been removed) it will not be possible to “prove” to you anything!

Anyone who claims that she had other children is not basing it on scripture, but on human tradition.

Here is another common error made by Protestants. It is the inability to distinguish the human tradition from sacred tradition. You are right, our claims are based more on tradition than upon scripture, but since you reject the sacred traditions, they will avail you nothing.

Anyone who happens to say she remained a perpetual virgin is contradicting history, jewish custom, scripture and therefore is basing the doctrine on human tradition.

Since you are asserting such implausible things, then I say the burden is upon you to “apologize” for them. Show me how Mary remaining a virgin is contradicting history? Show me where it contradicts Jewish custom? Show me the human tradition!
I would say you have your work cut out for you!

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I am giving a speech tomorrow, and we had to do a Lifetime Achievement Award, and I chose to do Mary and her role as “The Ark of the New Covenant”
Please tell me what you think?​

Even with many women giving birth outside of marriage, maintaining single parent households, and even lesbian and gay couples adopting or having children, even in today’s world, there is still a stigma attached to being a single mom. Look at yourself now, could you be a single parent? Now, take yourself back two thousand years. Now the consequences of single motherhood are graver, even deadly. Now, what if this single motherhood was miraculous? Even with all of this against her, one woman, Mary, said yes.
“Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word” the Gospel of (Luke 1:38).

Mary the Mother of Jesus is a woman who is not talked about a lot outside Catholic circles. As a Catholic, I have spent a bit of time researching and learning about the Mother of Jesus Christ. I find her to be the most perfect example of a Jewess and a Christian. She was a woman not afraid to hear the plan God had for her and say “Yes”. She fully knew the rules of her society. She knew the ramifications of her answer. Her survival, as a woman pregnant not to her betrothed, rested on the trust and love of her husband. Even with this, she said “Yes”. And because she gave this answer, the Savior of the World was born. For this reason, that Mary took it upon herself to bear the Son of God, I think she is worthy of a Lifetime Achievement Award.

There is no question that Mary bore Jesus, Emmanuel, the Son of God and the Christ. And Jesus is the Pascal Lamb, the most Perfect Sacrifice. Jesus, the Christ, in his Life, Death and Resurrection, completed the Covenant formed with Abraham many generations before Him. Jesus gave us the Law we are too live by, He is the Bread of Life, and He is the ultimate High Priest. Thus, Christ IS the New Covenant. But how does this Covenant with His people affect Mary, His Mother? This affects Mary because she is the Ark of the New Covenant.

As Ark of the New Covenant, Mary carried, within her, the promises of God to His people. As the Ark of the Covenant carried the tablets of God’s commandments, as the Ark of the Covenant carried the Manna from Heaven, as the Ark of the Covenant carried the rod of Aaron, so did Mary carry all of these things within her, during her pregnancy.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The Word was God. Within her, Mary carried God. And just as God gave Moses the commandments that God’s people should live by, Jesus, the Word, gave us commandments, as well: “LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND” (Matt 22:37) and to “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Matt 22:39)

“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written 'He gave them bread out of heaven to eat. Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst” (John 6:31-35) “"I am the bread that came down out of heaven” (John 6:41).

Lastly, the Ark of the Covenant carried the rod of Arron, the sign of the high priest. How does this relate to Jesus? Christ alone gave us the sacrifice of the New Covenant Jesus is the Pascal Lamb. Just as the lamb was slain to protect the firstborn in Egypt, just as countless blemish-less lambs were slaughtered to recount the Passover story, to continually renew the covenant with Abraham with God, and to atone for the sins of the nation.
The rules of the Passover stipulate that the sacrificial lamb is to be prepared in certain ways and that “nor are you to break any bone of it” (Ex12:46) Conversely, John 19:32-36 tells us that “the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.
For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.”

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Rest of the Speech​

Thus, Scripture has been fulfilled that Jesus is the Pascal, Sacrificial Lamb, slaughtered to save all. However, only the High Priest may offer the offerings to God to atone for the sins of the people. In offering Himself as the Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus is simultaneously acting as the High Priest, giving the Sacrifice to God.

With these passages, I am sure that can see that Jesus is the New Covenant. All of these proof, simultaneously shows that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. In her pregnancy, she contained all of this. Jesus Christ IS the New Covenant. Just as David “was dancing before the Lord with all his might” (2 Sam 6:14) when the Ark of the Covenant returned to Israel, so did John the Baptist: “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy” (Luke 1:41-44)
Even in-utero, John the Baptist recognized the unborn child in Mary’s womb as the incarnate Word of God, and as the fulfillment of prophesy and as the New Covenant.

Because of her singular role in giving birth to, and raising the Saviour of the world, Mary deserves a lifetime achievement award. She deserves more so, because she knew the prophesies and teachings of her people. She knew that in saying Yes, she was taking on the Son of God, the Savior of the World. She knew that her Son would redeem the world. She knowingly gave herself to God to become the Vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant, so that her Son might live, preach, die and be Resurrected to save the world.

 

[Tomster]

O4G,

Perhaps this might help you in regards to Mary and the Trinity.

In God everything is common to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity with the exception of those properties which are radicated in the relative opposition between the Persons. Thus all the operations of God in regard to creatures are common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How then is it true that the Incarnation, or the assumption of a human nature, is peculiar to the second Person of the Blessed Trinity? The answer is seen if we distinguish a twofold aspect of the hypostatic union. This may be regarded actively, that is, as a divine operation whereby God creates a human nature and unites it to a divine Person; and in this sense the work of the Incarnation is common to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. But it may also be considered passively, that is, in its term, inasmuch as the divine Personality is communicated to the human nature assumed; and in this sense the Incarnation is proper to the Son of God, since He alone made that humanity his own by giving to it his own distinct Personality. To illustrate this point the Fathers use the analogy of three men combining to clothe one of themselves. As St. Thomas Aquinas puts it: “The three Persons operated to unite humanity to the one Person of the Son.” (S. Theol. III, Q.1, art.1, ad 1)

 

[Observing4Grace]

Again, I cannot tell for sure whose comments are whose, so if I mix it up, just let me know.

**For certain, they are mine comments. **

What you are saying is that your understanding is limited, and that you cannot imagine or accept an alternative.

**No, what I’m saying here is that we cannot play on an imaginative notion of what scripture says if it’s not originally what the context is saying. **

Did you know that early tradition teaches that Mary was a very young maiden, given to Joseph, a man old enough to be her father? And that Joseph already had children, among them “James, the brother of the Lord”?

So? And am I suppose believe that “James” the brother of our lord is a step brother? I highly doubt that Mary decided to live the rest of her life as a virgin. There wouldn’t be any reason for her to Mary if she decided that.

Although this is strange to my own tradition of customs, it is easily understandible to me that Jesus would have grown up with brethren in his home that were "siblings’ (there is no aramaic word for that) who were older than himself.

Your insistence on the Aramaic context of Matthew implies either that you know what it means or not. Since Matthew is translated in Greek, not Aramaic, for the most of manuiscripts, you’re going to have to show how early was the first text and whether or not it was written in Aramaic. Besides the point, just because Aramaic doesn’t have a word for brother doesn’t mean the text will not make distinction.

This may be unrelated, but I wonder why it is so important to you to “prove” that Mary was not a perpetual virgin?

**It isn’t for me. I’m not the one who’s enforcing the beliefs. **

I suspect that this comes down to “proving” that Catholic teaching is in error, and that the Catholic church is not scriptural, and therefore, in error.

**I’d rather say apostate instead of “in error” because she does depart from original teachings. **

So here is my question for you. where did your bible come from?

**My Bible, you mean THE BIBLE. There are poor translations (i.e. World Translation, Mormon Bible etc.) doesn’t mean make mines mine actually. **

Why Mary? Why could they not belong to Joseph from a previous marriage? How do you know Joseph’s wife didn’t die in childbirth, and that one reason he took Mary was to help care for the motherless infant?

Why bother to go beyond the text?

First of all, adelphos is a greek word, and since the story is of Aramaic origin, and Aramaic does not have words to distinuish “cousin” from “stepbrother” or “sibling” it would be hard to “prove”.

**See my previous response. **

Secondly, Catholics do not require “proof” on matters of faith that have been handed down by the Apostles.

**Well I’m not the one that insists that this actually happened or force all Catholics to believe it. **

We receive the teachings by faith. Since you have rejected the apostolic teaching that is not contained in the bible in front of you (which is probably incomplete anyway, since some of the books have been removed) it will not be possible to “prove” to you anything!

**Insulting the Protestant Churches because they don’t have an apocrypha doesn’t make your teachings true. Even if we had the apocrypha, I highly doubt it’d contained the rest of the teachings the Church Assumes. However, the reason why the Apocrypha is removed is because the books don’t hold any doctrinal authority or Biblical inspiration from a KNOWN AUTHOR. Historically, yes they make great books but nothing further. It’s also been said that Augustine rejected the books also. **

Here is another common error made by Protestants. It is the inability to distinguish the human tradition from sacred tradition.

**No, no, no. I’m making fair distinctions based on what’s given. Since you regard these oral teachings as sacred, there should be some scriptural back up. The proof texts the church provides for the mere purpose of defending the doctrines hold no water. What’s there to say, insist it’s still sacred tradition? **

You are right, our claims are based more on tradition than upon scripture, but since you reject the sacred traditions, they will avail you nothing.

**No, I want SOUND scriptural evidence. There isn’t any that hold water or isn’t full of holes. Therefore, it’s man-made. **

Since you are asserting such implausible things, then I say the burden is upon you to “apologize” for them. Show me how Mary remaining a virgin is contradicting history? Show me where it contradicts Jewish custom? Show me the human tradition!
I would say you have your work cut out for you!

**You need to answer my questions first. Besides, I need to get to the other posts.

Parker **