|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 8/9/2005 9:53:43 AM
|
|
|
Heavyd
Posts: 5
Joined: 5/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Lurker
I looked back in the thread and couldn't find the reference so I have edited my last post.
Thanks
D
_____________________________
Remember..without Jesus it is just the blues
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 8/10/2005 12:35:52 AM
|
|
|
milesjesu
Posts: 78
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline
|
In response to the use of Mat 13:55 and the use of "brothers" I thought you all would find this interesting:
Marting Luther:
"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)
John Calvin:
"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned."
Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55
"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity."
Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3)
Ulrich Zwingli:
"I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity."
Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon
Very interesting indeed. Anyone know when it started to change?
Peace,
MilesJesu
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/15/2005 11:16:04 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11512
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
This thread has been dead since August, and I'm about to ask a question in it and bring it back to life. YIKES!
Here are a couple statements, then a question:
Jesus' ancestry going back to David is outlined in Matthew's gospel, and it is through Joseph. Since Jesus was not Joseph's blood child, this is reconciled because Jesus was Joseph's legal heir, therefore he was of Joseph's line.
If Mary had no children after Jesus, that would mean that Joseph's other children had been born before Jesus. Then James or one of the other brothers would've been the legal heir, not Jesus.
Those who hold to Mary's perpetual virginity: how do you reconcile this?
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 1:03:46 AM
|
|
|
GoodME_II
Posts: 364
Joined: 12/15/2005
Status: offline
|
Luke 2:41 is compelling - hard to imagine that if Joseph and Mary were making this trip every year, that Luke would not have also mentioned "and sons" or "and family". Mary would have, at one point, had several little kids in tow to try to make this trip, and probably would have had one on the way at some point. Hard to picture.
John 19:25 - Mary has a sister - another Mary, of Cleophas (and Mary Magdalene makes the Mary "hat trick" - sorry, can't help myself)
Mark 15:47 - Mary the mother of Joseph is Mary of Cleophas (actually its Clopas)
Along with Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18, this makes the "brothers" of Jesus His first cousins (sons of His mother's sister). "Brother" would not have been an improper term by which to refer to these gentlemen in first century Israel.
I find that in spite of the arguments and evidence, people tend to believe here what they like, rather than what they can demonstrate.
I am in the "Virgin Mary" camp.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 12:12:09 PM
|
|
|
lw9
Posts: 1126
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline
|
There's a reason why within the RCC Mary needs to be an eternal virgin. Since the RCC desires to put Mary on a level with Jesus, several things must fall into place before that can be accomplished. One man-made doctrine has to be built on another until the goal is achieved:
1. Mary mediates and saves.
His Holiness Pope John Paul II, March 25, 1987
21 …Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she "has the right" to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary "intercedes" for mankind. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html
Ubi Primum, Pope Pius IX 1849
The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9UBIPR2.HTM
RCC Catechism 969 "Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Message of Fatima: “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my [Mary's] Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. http://www.vatican.va
2. To mediate and save as Christ does, Mary must be like Christ: sinless and an eternal virgin.
RCC Catechism 493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
494 Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace... http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
RCC Catechism 508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception,she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Mystici corporis christi, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII
It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html
RCC Catechism 510 Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38). http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
3. If Mary is sinless and an eternal virgin, see 1.
This is not about the followers of the RCC, but about the teachings. I am very much against the teachings of the RCC because the teachings so blatantly & unashamedly contradict the Holy Bible. I can only hope and pray that the RCC repents and returns to the authority of the Holy Bible.
< Message edited by lw9 -- 12/16/2005 2:52:22 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 4:41:12 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Since the Bible never was "the authority" from the beginning...how can it be turned back to by the body which antedates it, and by whom it came forth in the first place?
Now I'm not going to say every particular of the belief and practice of the Roman communion is correct. But that which she inherited from the pre-schism Church which is affirmed also in all the ancient communions must be received as true despite the fact that it messes with the theological preferences of break away communions that came into existance only a few hundred years ago or less.
1. Mary Saves. Nothing unbiblical here....according to the NT so can any Christian. Of course the context of our saving another is within Christ and by the grace of His Spirit. So if she is part of the Church the same must be true for her as well. And since it is true among us, those who walk closer to God and who serve Him with the greatest faithfulness in the estates to which we are called do the greatest and most productive work in the Kingdom respectively, then it might well be expected that the one person in all History chosen to bear God Incarnate, whom God designated as "Full of Grace" would do well above average in the effective fervent prayer of a righteous "man" department.
2. The "equation" of the op's header asside, there is nothing out of place in the second set of quotes:
Mary is called the Panagia, the all Holy, in the Eastern Church, and is considered to be without stain. Of course that Holiness is also understood to be relative and participatory, not inherant. Basically it means is the best and holiest of all Christians. She is the first and the best of us, espeically chosen by God.
She is the New Eve without dispute, for the ancient prophecy says the seed of the woman will crush the serpant's head. The seed we know is Christ..so the woman must be the Virgin Mary..the second Eve who bore Christ our Lord.
Moreover she did offer Him on Golgotha. This is not explicit in Scripture but it is implicit. Consider at the wedding of Cana, Christ worked the miracle of the wine at her request. At Calvary the crowd jeered and called out to Christ to save Himself...but Mary knowing full well that He could, kept her mouth shut despite the fact that to do so as a mother was like having a sword thrust through her own heart. God gave His only Begotton Son...the Son of God, and the Virgin gave her only begotton Son, the Son of Man. She was the only one He would have even considered to save Himself for, but She did not ask. She gave Him in that moment just as the Father did. This of course does not make her equal to God...but it does show how like Him she had become.
As for being a perpetual Virgin, this is entirely consistant with Scripture and the ancient teaching of the Church. It only conflicts with a latter day Protestant reading and understanding of the Scriptures.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 6:54:43 PM
|
|
|
GoodME_II
Posts: 364
Joined: 12/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lw9
There's a reason why within the RCC Mary needs to be an eternal virgin. Since the RCC desires to put Mary on a level with Jesus, several things must fall into place before that can be accomplished. One man-made doctrine has to be built on another until the goal is achieved:
Interesting.
Mary is the demonstration that there is nothing fundmentally flawed with our non-deity flesh and bones composition that would prevent us from attaining Salvation. Mary is not "on par" with Jesus, who was God humbled and made man for us. She is however the demonstration of love, obedience and charity, and where God's Grace may lead the human person if that person but would yield to that Grace. If Mary had said "no" to bearing Jesus, then what? The Redeemer had to born of a woman - this cooperation in free choice, by design of God, is what makes Mary a person to be modeled and contemplated when examining one's own Spiritual life and choices. She yielded to the will of God and her choice resulted in a Savior for mankind. How important a choice was that? Was it trivial?
The Church did not make Mary sinless. God did. This has been revealed to the faithful through the Faith deposited in the Apostles and passed to us today through the Church.
Nothing can put any 100% human on a level with Jesus. However, I have observed a notion in some Faith practices that there are no "Saints" and that all "non-Jesus" humans are on the same level.
Roman Catholics believe this is simply untrue; history has shown plenty of men and women who in their choices and actions and results, demonstrated the workings of God and the Holy Spirit in their lives - to a much greater degree than these sometimes seem to be working in my life, as an example.
That we reflect on these people and their choices and actions as a model for us to live the Christian life I would think would be smiled upon, not frowned upon, by God, who's Grace allowed these people to make the choices they did.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 10:09:28 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
I've never heard your approach before, and it's a pretty interesting one. I'm not sure that the geneology in Matthew is necessarily talking about who is the heir as much as His family tree, which everyone has whether they're the first born or not.
Matt 1:1 says: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham". Right there you have a youngest son in David. Then it goes on to Jacob who was the second born as well. And Solomon wasn't David's first born.
16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.
So I think it's more about geneology than rightful heirs.
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 10:26:21 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11512
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
That makes sense.
So it doesn't matter if Joseph had older sons - Jesus would still be considered Joseph's son even though he was "illigitimate"?
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 10:45:13 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
I believe "foster son" is the word used. I prefer step-son myself. But otherwise, works for me.
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 10:47:41 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11512
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
I guess my hangup with it is, if Jesus is supposed to be of David's line, there should be some legal way for him to be so. An heir would satisfy this whereas I didn't think a step-son would.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 11:01:57 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
I've wondered about that too. I don't know much about Jewish customs, but it was probably more like adoption, which would give Him full claim of the family line. I think most people in the area believed Jesus was Joseph's biological son, hence "Son of a carpenter".
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 11:21:41 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Thank you for the seasonable subject! 
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 11:30:53 PM
|
|
|
TimL
Posts: 409
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Iw
quote:
ORIGINAL: lw9
There's a reason why within the RCC Mary needs to be an eternal virgin. Since the RCC desires to put Mary on a level with Jesus, several things must fall into place before that can be accomplished. One man-made doctrine has to be built on another until the goal is achieved:
It appears that you either completely misunderstand Catholic Doctrine or intentionally misrepresent it. In no way does the Catholic Church place Mary on a level with Christ. Hopefully, this will clear this up for you. As for man made doctrines, that would be a discussion that would be enlightening to everyone here.
God Bless You Iw
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/16/2005 11:35:37 PM
|
|
|
1lightseeker
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
Hey, waitaminute, in looking up the "carpenter" reference, I came upon:
Mt 13:55 - Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
If they thought Joseph was his bio-dad, then naturally they would think the above were at least His half-brothers. Which fits with the tradition that they were His step-brothers.
_____________________________
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/17/2005 8:30:24 AM
|
|
|
sdaw
Posts: 877
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ta_mosquito
quote:
ORIGINAL: ta_mosquito
Here are a couple statements, then a question:
Jesus' ancestry going back to David is outlined in Matthew's gospel, and it is through Joseph. Since Jesus was not Joseph's blood child, this is reconciled because Jesus was Joseph's legal heir, therefore he was of Joseph's line.
If Mary had no children after Jesus, that would mean that Joseph's other children had been born before Jesus. Then James or one of the other brothers would've been the legal heir, not Jesus.
Those who hold to Mary's perpetual virginity: how do you reconcile this?
Anybody have any answers to this? I am curious.
Dear ta_mosquito,
One does not have to be the oldest to be the heir in God's scheme of things. In fact, the geneology of Christ is replete with the younger son receiving the promise.
Issac over Ishmael
Jacob over Esau
Judah over Reuben, Simeon, and Levi
David over his brothers.
Solomon over his brothers.
On the Feast of St. John of Matha
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/17/2005 10:23:33 AM
|
|
|
lw9
Posts: 1126
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear TimL:
The quotes from the Vatican and RCC Catechism speak plainly for themselves. They are what they are. I understand that we have two completely different perspectives and will not agree on this issue, and that's okay. My purpose for posting was simply allow others to see the teachings of the RCC since they might not have run across these particular ones, and to present the reason why the gradual elevation of Mary through various doctrines such as 'eternal virgin' has occurred.
Thanks, and God bless!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/17/2005 12:06:59 PM
|
|
|
TimL
Posts: 409
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi I
The point I was trying to make is that you are wrong that the Church places Mary on the same level as Christ. That is actually blasphamy and is punishable by excommunication. The teachings of the Catholic Church on Mary are very clear.
CCC 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion......differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration. The litergical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, and "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
So many times here I have seen Catholics charged with the worship of Mary. It can be said a million times and it still will not change the facts. Catholics are prohibited from placing Mary on the same level as Christ.
God Bless You I, Tim
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/17/2005 1:27:18 PM
|
|
|
bridgefin
Posts: 135
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Boca Raton, FL
Status: offline
|
IW9,
quote:
There's a reason why within the RCC Mary needs to be an eternal virgin. Since the RCC desires to put Mary on a level with Jesus, several things must fall into place before that can be accomplished.
There is no reason other that truth and the early Church had no reason to postulate anything other that the truth. They knew Jesus and Mary personally, and would have known if Mary had children other than Jesus and would have told us about that.
Through and including the Reformers there was no debate over this subject. It is only the late comers who have a problem with this. And they need something. They have an axe to grind. They have an objective and that is the tearing down of the Catholic Church. So, please admit that you "need" a Mary who is different from the Catholic understanding so that you can attack the Church.
In Christ, George
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/17/2005 1:38:50 PM
|
|
|
lw9
Posts: 1126
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear TimL:
Oops... I was assuming you were addressing this to me but am not sure. If not, then please disregard the following!
quote:
The point I was trying to make is that you are wrong that the Church places Mary on the same level as Christ.
The problem is that to discuss your above statement any further would be off-topic, and rightfully so because the further proof of Mary's elevated position is found in the RCC doctrines of her mediation, sinlessness, queenship, etc. I'm sorry that I cannot address this right now, but I don't want to get spanked!!  But thanks for your responses!
God bless you!
< Message edited by lw9 -- 12/17/2005 1:41:52 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/17/2005 1:42:06 PM
|
|
|
lw9
Posts: 1126
Joined: 7/22/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Bridgefin:
The proof is in the Bible regarding this issue. The appropriate scriptures have already been pointed out, so I promise not to bore everyone to tears by posting them again since this thread is short so far and it's easy to scroll back and read. We either believe them, or we don't. I simply agree with and stand by the Bible. What I am addressing here is false doctrine, and false is false whether it comes through RCC or any other church. The Bible is the Truth, and that's what I will continue to support and compare all doctrine against.
Thank you, and God bless you!
< Message edited by lw9 -- 12/17/2005 1:53:53 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
