Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[patricius79]

The Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. She loves each person so much. It is so sad that we would doubt her Immaculate nature or her Perpetual Virginity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. She loves each person so much. It is so sad that we would doubt her Immaculate nature or her Perpetual Virginity.

Okay, in heaven you believe that there is a King, Jesus, and a Queen, Mary. Now we have Mary's spouse, the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit the Prince Consort of the Queen, like Philip is to Queen Elizabeth II? That still leaves God, the Father, somewhere outside of the picture.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. She loves each person so much. It is so sad that we would doubt her Immaculate nature or her Perpetual Virginity.

I find it heartbreaking that instead of accepting the simple beauty of Mary's God given humanity, we insist on guilding His lily by assigning miraculously divine attributes to her. He loves each one of us so much, why must we invent reasons to give her what belongs to God?
Heartbreaking.

 

[patricius79]

St. Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

St. Athanasius was one of the greatest defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity in history. He is one of the greatest heroes in Christian history.

 

[Albion]

St. Athanasius

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

St. Athanasius was one of the greatest defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity in history. He is one of the greatest heroes in Christian history.

...and representative of the extent to which folkish legends had affected Christian thinking by his time (300+ years after Christ's church was founded).

 

[patricius79]

You can keep luck and Sola Ecclesia, as well as the delusion that an administrative declaration of unity that glosses over serious loyal opposition, is unity.
Your first sentence is a denial of reality and then you try and say the invisible church you say doesn't exist, is the visible one fractured by denominations.
You vacilate from complete falsehood to impossible fantasy.
Do continue.

It's true that many Catholics reject Catholic teaching. But it's pretty easy to find out what the one, historic Church--the source of the N.T. Canon--has always taught and still teaches.

As I understand it, Protestantism began in the 1500s. And even then Luther and Calvin believed that Mary is Ever-Virgin. Calvin even said that the arguments against this doctrine are very foolish and un-Biblical.

I respect those that disagree because God loves us all infinitely, but I know that Mary is Ever-Virgin, and find it very sad that so many people don't honor the one, uniquely-holy woman through whom God entered the world.

I love the Virgin Mary, and I know that I can only love Christ to the extent that I love her.

 

[Albion]

I love the Virgin Mary, and I know that I can only love Christ to the extent that I love her.

I'm sure that a lot of your readers will be sorry to read such a bleak confession.

 

[justinangel]

Conceive means pregnant with child.
Bear the child (give birth) means to bring forth, birth, travail.

The virgin conceived and bore a son. She was a virgin at His conception and remained a virgin till His birth.

The verse has nothing to do with her state thereafter. But we know Christ opened the womb, thus virginity ended at His very normal human birth in the normal way.

The Hebrew verb yalad means to bring forth, give birth, or beget. It does not mean "to travail" or go into labour in this passage. The word is used in this sense when a statement is being qualified or an extenuating distressful circumstance is being referred to at the time of delivery. Isaiah 7, 14 is an unqualified statement.

And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.
Genesis 35, 16

And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
Genesis 38, 27

And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her.
1 Samuel 4, 19

The Hebrew word harah can mean either conceive (become pregnant) or be pregnant (with child). Isaiah means "to become pregnant". The Septuagint, which Matthew cites in his gospel (1:23) to show that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, verifies this.


"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive (παρθένος) in the womb, and shall bring forth (τέξεται) a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel."

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ·
Isaiah 7, 14 [Septuagint]

The meaning of the Greek word εννοώ is "to conceive" strictly in the sense of "becoming pregnant" or "cause to be pregnant". Hence, Isaiah isn't prophesying that a virgin shall be pregnant and travail (undergo distress when giving birth). Your distortion of God's word is lamentable, having proceeded from your personal tradition. Time to stand down.

The verse has to do with the two events: the conception and birth of Jesus. The conception of Jesus was virginal, since Mary's womb hadn't been opened by the seed of man. The act of Mary giving birth was virginal, since Christ hadn't opened his mother's womb when he was born. Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth as well as his conception. The gate remained closed when Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus. A normal birth cannot be virginal just as a normal conception cannot be. The virgin conceived and brought forth a son miraculously.

Isaiah (66: 7) also prophesies that the virgin shall give birth to her offspring before going into labour or travailing. Thus there can be no pain and afterbirth.

The Hebrew OT

Before she travailed (ta hil), she brought forth (ya-la-dah); before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
[KJV]

Before she was in labour, she brought forth; before her time came to be delivered, she brought forth a man child.
[DRB]

PAX

 

[Standing Up]

The Hebrew verb yalad means to bring forth, give birth, or beget. It does not mean "to travail" or go into labour in this passage.

Didn't say it did. What I said was:

Bear the child (give birth) means to bring forth, birth, travail.

The gate remained closed when Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus.

We already know you prefer RC dogma rather than what scripture says. We also already know you prefer the Tradition from the PoJames of a birth from Mary's side so she retains the afterbirth, rather than the tradition from apostles.

 

[justinangel]

I don't buy that. If she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, I don't see your, "boo Holy Spirit mentality." Please stop.

At the time of the Annunciation Mary and Joseph were legally married, but their marriage wasn't solemnized and consummated yet. It's no coincidence that God chose a virgin to be the mother of His Son. The union between the Holy Spirit and Mary would have been profane unless it carried with it the divine blessing of a marriage, albeit in a mystical sense. What you fail to see is that God does not violate what He has instituted. Please reconsider.

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Genesis 2, 21-24

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 19, 4-6

God chose Mary because she and her spouse Joseph hadn't come (lain) together. If they had, God would have then separated them and consequently violated His own precepts. Surely, if God commands that no man or woman should separate what He has joined, He won't do what He has commanded us not to do without contravening His own goodness and righteousness.

The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'"
Luke 1, 35

No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 23, 2

In ancient Hebrew society, a child born out of wedlock was regarded as profane, since the union between the man and the woman was considered unholy. As a result, these offspring were forbidden to enter the place of worship. If the union of begetting a child between the Holy Spirit and Mary wasn't redolent of a marriage, in principle Jesus couldn't have preached in the temple from the age of twelve without desecrating the place being a bastard child. Moreover, the angel couldn't have declared that the child born of Mary will be holy; since outside the context of marriage, Jesus would've been born of a union which God Himself has forbidden. The truth is that if Mary and Joseph had in fact come (lain) together after Jesus was born, as the result of the Holy Spirit and Mary being joined together, their marital relations would've become an adulterous affair before God. The Hebrew euphemisms for conjugal relations which Luke employs clearly indicate that the union between the Holy Spirit and Mary was redolent of a marriage no less than the covenantal relationship between YHWH and Israel was.

Joseph was chosen to act as Jesus' guardian and stepfather, for it would have been problematic for Mary to conceive and bear a son outside of wedlock. Neither Mary nor Jesus should have to suffer such a disgrace. Hence, God chose a virgin rather than a young woman who had already consummated her marriage and may have already had a daughter of her own so that she would be his own bride and possession. The new Eve's desire ought to be morally only for her true spouse whose dominion she is under (cf. Gen 3:16). St. Paul teaches that a married man or woman is divided because he or she is concerned to please a spouse whereas an unmarried person or virgin is “anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit” (1 Cor 7:34).

Various translations of Luke 1, 27 have Mary “betrothed” or “espoused” to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation. Either term means that the couple were legally married, although their marriage hadn’t been formally solemnized yet. Mosaic law provided a two-part marriage ceremony. It began with the betrothal or espousal (kidushin) in which Joseph would have given Mary a marriage document and a token of monetary value, usually a ring. In Jewish practice, this is the central moment of the initial wedding ceremony at which time a contract is signed making the couple legally married. Thus when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, she was Joseph’s wife. But during this stage of their marriage the couple were forbidden by Mosaic law to cohabit together in the husband's home. Now the second part of their marriage would have followed a year after the first wedding ceremony. By this time Joseph was expected to be able to provide for Mary. And if both were happy with each other and remained faithful to each other, the second and final wedding ceremony (nisuin) would solemnly take place. The ketubah was the focal point of the second wedding ceremony. After the ketubah was signed by Joseph and the two witnesses, and presented to Mary, the marriage was solemnized. Assured of her marital rights, and in accord with Mosaic law, Mary could now move into her husband’s home.

“Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife.”
Matthew 1, 20

In the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, the prepositional phrase “to take home as your wife” reads paralambano gunaika. This means that Joseph was instructed to take his lawful wife home as planned without implying that they musn't normally cohabit in their home. There was no need for the angel to tell Joseph that he shouldn’t be afraid to “come (lay) together” with his wife (bo-e-lei-ha imma) or “lay with” her (vai-yish-kav imma) (Gen. 30:3, 16-17), since the couple had already agreed on having a chaste marriage (cf. Lk 1:34). But Joseph should know that their marriage was still valid before God for the reason that they shall not have conjugal relations and any children of their own following Mary’s conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Thus he mustn’t be afraid to formally solemnize the marriage (nisuin) in fear of violating the divine law.

To be continued.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

I don't buy that. If she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, I don't see your, "boo Holy Spirit mentality." Please stop.

To continue.

Matthew 1, 18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
[KJV]

Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.
[NAB]

The original Greek word for the phrases which I have highlighted in bold is sunerchomai. In light of 1:20, and the institution of marriage in Judaism, what Matthew is saying to his Hebrew audience is that Mary was found to be with child before the second marriage ceremony (nisuin) took place - upon which Joseph was able to take his legally married wife Mary into his home to live or "cohabit" with her, and she was permitted by Mosaic law to "accompany" her husband into her home. What Matthew is not saying in contradiction to 1:20 and in contravention of the sacred Tradition of the Church is that Mary was found with child before she had "conjugal relations" with Joseph.

Unfortunately, many Protestants regard 1:18 as a proof-text against the Catholic dogma of the PVM. The Greek word does refer to "conjugal co-habitation" which implies sexual relations between husband and wife, but Matthew does not contradict himself in his narrative. What is errant is this particular super-imposed Protestant interpretation of the text. In any event, it is no coincidence that God didn't send his angel to young woman who had already consummated her marriage with her lawful husband or planned to have conjugal relations with him and have children together in their home.

“Again I passed by you and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of your cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you; you became mine,” says the Lord.
Ezekiel 16, 8

Ruth intended to have conjugal relations with her lord Boaz when she replied: “I am your handmaid Ruth. Spread the corner of your cloak over me (“cover me with your shadow”), for you are my next of kin” (Ruth 3:9). Rabbinic scholar and Hebrew convert Brother Anthony Opisso, M.D., tells us that the word “cloak” (tallith), literally “wing” (kannaph) is derived from the word tellal, meaning “shadow”. Jesus referred to Israel as his bride when he said: “How many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen gathers her children under her wing” (Lk 13:34). So what Ruth meant was she would not have sexual relations with her lord only as his servant. As a chaste and religiously devout Jewish woman, Ruth refused to lay with her lord Boaz unless they were morally joined as husband and wife.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Didn't say it did. What I said was:

Bear the child (give birth) means to bring forth, birth, travail.

We already know you prefer RC dogma rather than what scripture says. We also already know you prefer the Tradition from the PoJames of a birth from Mary's side so she retains the afterbirth, rather than the tradition from apostles.

Incredible!

What I do know is that you're in a state of denial, albeit the exegetical support I've shown for the Catholic dogma which you choose to ignore. I've clearly shown you what Scripture says, which isn't what you presume it says without any exegetical support whatsoever. Call it wishful thinking on your part.

"Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3,2,1 (inter A.D. 180/189)

PAX

 

[Standing Up]

"Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3,2,1 (inter A.D. 180/189)

PAX

justinangel: The act of Mary giving birth was virginal, since Christ hadn't opened his mother's womb when he was born.

scripture Luke 2:22-23: And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him [Jesus] to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As [according as, agreeable to the fact] it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

 

[patricius79]

The Hebrew verb yalad means to bring forth, give birth, or beget. It does not mean "to travail" or go into labour in this passage. The word is used in this sense when a statement is being qualified or an extenuating distressful circumstance is being referred to at the time of delivery. Isaiah 7, 14 is an unqualified statement.

And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.
Genesis 35, 16

And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.
Genesis 38, 27

And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her.
1 Samuel 4, 19

The Hebrew word harah can mean either conceive (become pregnant) or be pregnant (with child). Isaiah means "to become pregnant". The Septuagint, which Matthew cites in his gospel (1:23) to show that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, verifies this.


"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive (παρθένος) in the womb, and shall bring forth (τέξεται) a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel."

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ·
Isaiah 7, 14 [Septuagint]

The meaning of the Greek word εννοώ is "to conceive" strictly in the sense of "becoming pregnant" or "cause to be pregnant". Hence, Isaiah isn't prophesying that a virgin shall be pregnant and travail (undergo distress when giving birth). Your distortion of God's word is lamentable, having proceeded from your personal tradition. Time to stand down.

The verse has to do with the two events: the conception and birth of Jesus. The conception of Jesus was virginal, since Mary's womb hadn't been opened by the seed of man. The act of Mary giving birth was virginal, since Christ hadn't opened his mother's womb when he was born. Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's birth as well as his conception. The gate remained closed when Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus. A normal birth cannot be virginal just as a normal conception cannot be. The virgin conceived and brought forth a son miraculously.

Isaiah (66: 7) also prophesies that the virgin shall give birth to her offspring before going into labour or travailing. Thus there can be no pain and afterbirth.

The Hebrew OT

Before she travailed (ta hil), she brought forth (ya-la-dah); before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
[KJV]

Before she was in labour, she brought forth; before her time came to be delivered, she brought forth a man child.
[DRB]

PAX

Don't get prideful, but you know a lot more than the rest of us. I love that passage in Isaiah about how before the Mother of God was in labor, she brought forth; before her time came to be delivered, she brought forth a man child.

It makes sense that the Mother of God, the New Eve, would be sinless and therefore not subject to labor pains. It doesn't make sense to think that the birth of Christ, our God, would involve pain or the loss of physical virginal integrity.

 

[justinangel]

justinangel: The act of Mary giving birth was virginal, since Christ hadn't opened his mother's womb when he was born.

scripture Luke 2:22-23: And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him [Jesus] to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As [according as, agreeable to the fact] it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

First, it isn't written in the law that Jesus himself shall actually open his mother's womb. Second, as I've already pointed out, v.23 can be paraphrased: "Every firstborn male shall be called holy to the Lord." Within the context of the prescription of the law the phrase "open the womb" means the first male issuance. You must know that in Jewish practice this particular rite applied only to the firstborn male, who was dedicated to God's service. According to your interpretation, Mary would have also presented her other male offspring James, Judas, and Simon, if in fact they were hers. But this was not the Jewish practice. Not every male offspring was consecrated to the Lord in this ceremonial fashion. Sorry, but this isn't a proof-text against Catholic belief in the virginitas in partu.

"Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal."
Exodus 13, 2

The law of the Lord says, "If a woman's first child is a boy, he must be dedicated to the LORD."
Luke 2, 23 [NLT]

"Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord."
[NIV]

"Every firstborn male will be dedicated to the Lord."
[HCSB]

"Every firstborn son is to be designated as holy to the Lord."
[ISV]

"Every firstborn male will be set apart to the Lord."
[NET Bible]

"Every firstborn boy is to be set apart as holy to the Lord."
[GWT]

"Every male that is the first born of his mother shall be called holy to the Lord."
[WBT]

PAX

 

[justinangel]

It makes sense that the Mother of God, the New Eve, would be sinless and therefore not subject to labor pains. It doesn't make sense to think that the birth of Christ, our God, would involve pain or the loss of physical virginal integrity.

A built in component in the mother's ritual impurity is the symbolic responsibility of bringing another sinner into the world. So it makes even less sense to think that Mary gave birth to a potential sinner when Christ was born. It was Eve who gave birth to Cain. Mary was chosen by God to bring forth only the new Adam who came to reconcile the world with God and regenerate mankind. Mary certainly is the spiritual mother of all the living who are reborn in Christ through water and the Spirit.

For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.
Romans 8, 29

PAX

 

[justinangel]

There is also no doubt that the sideral theory of the birth of Jesus Christ argues substantially against His incarnation as a human being.

The Son of God became man by being conceived in the womb - not by being born. Does our overshadowing by the power of the Most High theory substantially argue against his being genuinely human?

PAX

 

[justinangel]

You can keep luck and Sola Ecclesia, as well as the delusion that an administrative declaration of unity that glosses over serious loyal opposition, is unity.
Your first sentence is a denial of reality and then you try and say the invisible church you say doesn't exist, is the visible one fractured by denominations.
You vacilate from complete falsehood to impossible fantasy.
Do continue.

To continue, there have been factions, dissensions, and theological differences of opinion in the Catholic Church ever since apostolic time, albeit the existence of a central apostolic teaching authority and universal doctrinal unity. These factions within the nascent church and there on aren't independent denominations which speak for themselves and answer only to themselves. The Judaizers and Ebonites, for instance, were held accountable for their false teachings to the apostles and those whom they appointed to share in the divine office. In the first millennium there was just one visible magisterium. The ecumenical councils which were convoked in the wake of heresies attests to that fact. Dissenters like Arius and Nestorius had to stand in judgment before the fathers of the councils. They refused to recant and were excommunicated from the Church. In Protestantism there are tens of thousands of independent corporate entities which hold different essential doctrines under their own individual magesteriums. If members of one denomination can no longer believe in any of the teachings of their denomination, they can hop to another one which appeals to their religious sensibilities while remaining in Christ's one invisible Church according to the Protestant definition of the Church. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches don't see it this way. These two churches exist in the state of mutual excommunication from the one visible Apostolic Church founded by Christ and his Mystical Body.

Anyway, you might find a large group of nuns gathered from all over the western world at St. Peter's Square protesting and demanding female ordination to the priesthood but, nevertheless, they all believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, as defined by the 4th Lateran Council, and in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary as defined by Pope Pius lX and Pope Pius Xll. Protestants cannot agree on how to define Christ's presence in the consecrated bread and wine or on whether the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice or only a memorial of Christ's death. Further, there are Protestants who believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and her Assumption, while there are many who don't as a matter of pious belief. The essential meaning of the original Greek word for heresy is "picking and choosing what to believe". This has always been unacceptable for members in the one Catholic Apostolic Church, but it's the norm in Protestantism. Here we have not only faction and dissension within single denominations, but actual splintering under one cloak of invisibility (physically divided but spiritually and mystically united) which began in the so-called reformation period. There is a big difference.

"He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters."
Luke 11, 23

The Church is called Catholic (universal)

"All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished."
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155)

The Church is Visible and One

"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'"
Cyprian, On Unity, 6 (A.D. 251)

The Church is the Infallible Rule of Faith

"But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples…For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24 (A.D. 180)

The Church is Hierarchical

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaens, 8 (c. A.D. 110)

PAX

 

[justinangel]

I find it heartbreaking that instead of accepting the simple beauty of Mary's God given humanity, we insist on guilding His lily by assigning miraculously divine attributes to her. He loves each one of us so much, why must we invent reasons to give her what belongs to God?
Heartbreaking.

I find it heart breaking that you define the simple beauty of her humanity as being sinful. Mary is indeed a lily, but in the words of the prophet, she is a "lily among thorns".

As the lily among thorns, so is my darling among the daughters."
Song of Solomon 2, 2

καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Luke 1, 42

The expression “blessed among women” is a Hebraism which literally means “blessed are you above all other women” (Eve). We have an example in Judith 13, 18: And Uzzi′ah said to her, “O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to strike the head of the leader of our enemies.” The Hebraic expression implicitly exalts Mary above Eve for reasons we shall see. We should also notice the parallel structure of verses between Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Judith. It is safe to assume that the evangelist intends to say Mary’s blessed state shares a same likeness with that of her divine Son, as foreshadowed in the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. To understand what he means by Mary being blessed we must examine the particular Greek word he employs to describe Mary’s state. It isn’t the same word Luke uses in 1:45 which is makaria (μακαρία). The word that the evangelist chooses to use here is eulogemene (Εὐλογημένη). This word is used on only one other occasion in the NT, and that being with reference to the Kingdom of Heaven: “Blessed (eulogomene) be the kingdom of our father David that cometh: Hosanna in the highest” (Mk. 11:10). Eulogemene is derived from the verb eulogeo (εὐλογέω). Luke is evidently drawing a parallel between Mary and the Kingdom of God to explain how it is that the mother of our Lord is blessed together with her divine Son. Obviously Mary’s blessed state is intended to mean much more than having been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus and having cause to be happy because of this divine favour. It has to do with her personal affinity with him in a spiritual and mystical way.

Luke also writes: “The kingdom of God is within you” (17:21). The Greek word for “within” is entos (ἐντός) which can mean either “inside” (within) or “among” (in the midst of) the subject. This word originates from the preposition en (ἐν) which is “in”. Since Luke is typifying Mary as the kingdom of God in his description of her being individually and personally blessed, the former meaning is applicable here, and it has to do with her interior state which resembles that of her divine Son’s in his humanity. This becomes more apparent to us by looking at the following passages: ‘Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in (en) you?’ (1 Cor. 3:16); ‘Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”‘ (Jn. 2:19). Thus Elizabeth is pronouncing Mary blessed for the quality of her soul that enabled her to put her faith in God and trust in His goodness and mercy. Her kinswoman is truly blessed for having the Spirit of God dwell within her, whose sanctifying grace has made her pure as her divine Son is pure in his humanity (cf.1 Jn. 3:3).

As a partaker of the divine nature, Mary is free of all the corruption in the world caused by dark human desires (2 Pet. 1:4). By the light of the Spirit who dwells within her, divinity shines in her soul. Indeed, Mary's soul proclaims and magnifies the glory of the Lord (cf. Lk 1:46). Sanctification is a supernatural quality of the soul. The beauty of the purity of her divine Son in his humanity is reflected in her created divine image through the grace of God. By Mary’s love for God and humanity, the divine quality of her soul shines forth. The inner core of her being is undefiled and resembles the inherent righteousness of her divine Son in his humanity. In her blessed state she sees the God whom she desires within her, as she gazes upon herself when she pronounces her Canticle of Praise in the Gospel. In her state of the fullness of grace she finds that the Lord she longs to see face to face is inside her. The glory of God radiates her soul with its light as her soul proclaims His glory. The kingdom of God “is neither here nor there” but within Mary. She is with the Lord as fittingly as she should be in his work of redemption – at total enmity with Satan and the powers of darkness that rule the world within God’s providence.

It is no coincidence that the original Greek word eulogeo also occurs seven times in the Gospels with reference only to Jesus. We find it in the second clause of Luke 1:42 and in Mark 11:9: ‘And they that went before and they that followed, cried, saying: Hosanna, blessed(eulogemenos) is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.’ The blessed state of the kingdom of heaven shares in the likeness of the blessed state of the Lord: “full of grace and truth” (Jn.1:14). ‘And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou above all women’ (Lk. 1:28).

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.”
Theodotus of Ancrya

PAX

 

[Rick Otto]

I find it heart breaking that you define the simple beauty of her humanity as being sinful.
PAX

That is a perverse interpretation of my assertion, sir.

To sign it off with PAX is typical irony, thank you.

All to exhibit a lengthy zenith of hyper romantic eisegesis, exercising mother obsession and reproductive phobia.
Stay classy.