A Question for Catholics

[boughtwithaprice]

I gve your off topic post the treatment it deserved.

How about 1 Kings 18:27?

I would much prefer making light of your polemical attack on the Orthodox Church than waste my time arguing with you.

That is disappointing, but thank you for letting me know who you are
You don’t pay attention to what your Lord tells you to do, yes an argument will be a waste of time. It would be too difficult for you

Equate me with a worshipper of Baal?, great comeback. I am not claiming a different god before you, so no I don’t deserve it

1 John 4:20

I know God loves you as He loves all and died for all. You really need to repent of the attitude

 

[prodromos]

yes an argument will be a waste of time. It would be too difficult for you

And you claim I have an attitude. Good grief.

 

[tall73]

This quote is difficult to find in translation without spending money, but several sites indicate the following:

Basil of Caesarea, Homily on the Holy Nativity of Christ

For "he did not know her" - it says - "until she gave birth to a Son, her firstborn." But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all her purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary's virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery. But since the lovers of Christ do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient. -- St. Basil the Great​

​

Here is the Greek text:​

​

Basil of Caesarea, In sanctam Christi generationem

catholiclibrary.org

Basil of Caesarea, In sanctam Christi generationem

catholiclibrary.org

​

Οὐκ ἐγίνωσκε γὰρ αὐ τὴν, φησὶν, ἕως οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτῆς τὸν πρω τότοκον.» Τοῦτο δὲ ἤδη ὑπόνοιαν​

παρέχει, ὅτι μετὰ τὸ καθαρῶς ὑπηρετήσασθαι τῇ γεννήσει τοῦ Κυρίου τῇ ἐπιτελεσθείσῃ διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, τὰ νενομισμένα τοῦ γάμου ἔργα μὴ ἀπαρνησαμένης τῆς Μαρίας. Ἡμεῖς δὲ, εἰ καὶ μηδὲν τῷ τῆς εὐσεβείας παραλυμαίνεται λόγῳ (μέχρι γὰρ τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν ὑπηρεσίας ἀναγκαία ἡ παρθενία, τὸ δ' ἐφεξῆς ἀπολυπραγμόνητον τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ μυστηρίου), ὅμως διὰ τὸ μὴ καταδέχεσθαι τῶν φιλοχρίστων τὴν ἀκοὴν, ὅτι ποτὲ ἐπαύσατο εἶναι παρθένος ἡ Θεοτόκος, ἐκείνας ἡγούμεθα τὰς μαρτυρίας αὐτάρ κεις.​

​

​

 

[tall73]

That Mary had no other children. Not once in the Bible do any of the pretend brethren or sisters refer to Mary as their mother, nor does anyone else in the entire Bible say that Mary is the mother of one of them.

Some see Psalm 69 as stating that Mary is the mother of one of them:

Psalms 69:7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach;​

shame hath covered my face.​

8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren,​

and an alien unto my mother's children.​

9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;​

and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. (KJV)​

Verse 7 and 9 are connected by the reproaches falling upon him, and the in the midst of that is verse 8 referring to the bretheren, mother's children.

Now it is true that there are verses in this Psalm that do not refer to Jesus. But verse 9 is applied in the NT to Jesus, and is connected to the theme of verse 7. And Jesus' was alienated from His brothers for a time, unjustly.

John 2:17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.” (NKJV)​

​

Romans 15:3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me.” (NKJV)​

​

Augustine, while admitting that verse 8 refers to Jesus, when discussing Psalm 69, applies it differently:​

​

​

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-08. St. Augustine: Exposition on the Book of Psalms - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

​

12. “An alien I have become to My brethren, and a stranger to the sons of My mother” (ver. 8). To the sons of the Synagogue He became a stranger…Why so? Why did they not acknowledge? Why did they call Him an alien? Why did they dare to say, we know not whence He is? “Because the zeal of Thine House hath eaten Me up:” that is, because I have persecuted in them their own iniquities, because I have not patiently borne those whom I have rebuked, because I have sought Thy glory in Thy House, because I have scourged them that in the Temple dealt unseemly: John ii. 15. in which place also there is quoted, “the zeal of Thine House hath eaten Me up.” Hence an alien, hence a Stranger; hence, we know not whence He is. They would have acknowledged whence I am, if they had acknowledged that which Thou hast commanded. For if I had found them keeping Thy commandments, the zeal of Thine House would not have eaten Me up. “And the reproaches of men reproaching Thee have fallen upon Me.” Of this testimony Paul the Apostle hath also made use (there hath been read but now the very lesson), and saith, “Whatsoever things aforetime have been written, have been written that we might be instructed.” Rom. xv. 4. …Why “Thee”? Is the Father reproached, and not Christ Himself? Why have “the reproaches of men reproaching Thee fallen upon Me”? Because, “he that hath known Me, hath known the Father also:” John xiv. 9. because no one hath reviled Christ without reviling God: because no one honoureth the Father, except he that honoureth the Son also. John v. 23.​

​

 

[tall73]

there was kind of a competition on this matter, our virgins are better then your virgins, our religion is religiously & morally superior to your religion. I cannot help but think that this issue developed as a result of this issue.

I think it is fair to say that Jerome, for instance,. was pretty keen on virginity:

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle—the one a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is an Apostle only, John is both an Apostle and an Evangelist, and a prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future. Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest. Matthew as though he were writing of a man begins thus: “The book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;” Luke begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; Mark with a prophecy of the prophets Malachi and Isaiah. The first has the face of a man, on account of the genealogical table; the second, the face of a calf, on account of the priesthood; the third, the face of a lion, on account of the voice of one crying in the desert, Is. xl. 3.“Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.” But John like an eagle soars aloft, and reaches the Father Himself, and says,. John i. 1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God,” and so on. The virgin writer expounded mysteries which the married could not, and to briefly sum up all and show how great was the privilege of John, or rather of virginity in John, the Virgin Mother John xix. was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.​

​

 

[prodromos]

I don't remember the source, but I recall one of the Church Fathers stating (and this is me paraphrasing) that since Mary had fulfilled the highest spiritual calling, bearing God in her womb, why then would she return to the carnal?
For Churches which have a tradition of monasticism, it's easy to see that she wouldn't, but for those Churches that have no such tradition, I guess not so much.

 

[Diamond72]

If Jesus opened the womb of Mary as her firstborn, how can any other children of Mary have been older than Jesus?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine holds that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ. It is one of the four Marian dogmas and is deeply rooted in Catholic tradition and theology.

• Early Church Fathers: This belief was supported by early Christian theologians and Church Fathers such as Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome.
• Councils and Declarations: The doctrine has been affirmed in various Church councils and teachings, including the Lateran Council of 649 and in the writings of Pope St. Leo the Great.

The story is that Mary was raised in the temple. At 12, the young girls rejoiced when they left the temple to get married. Only Mary took a vow of celibacy before God. So the priest paired her with Joseph, who was a widower. His youngest child, James, was 12, and Mary raised James. His older children were already married. They placed his rod before the altar, and it budded as a sign that this was from God.

The idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raised in the temple comes from apocryphal sources, particularly the Protoevangelium of James. This non-canonical gospel, written in the second century, provides details about Mary's early life that are not found in the canonical Gospels.

 

[Valletta]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine holds that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ. It is one of the four Marian dogmas and is deeply rooted in Catholic tradition and theology.

• Early Church Fathers: This belief was supported by early Christian theologians and Church Fathers such as Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome.
• Councils and Declarations: The doctrine has been affirmed in various Church councils and teachings, including the Lateran Council of 649 and in the writings of Pope St. Leo the Great.

The story is that Mary was raised in the temple. At 12, the young girls rejoiced when they left the temple to get married. Only Mary took a vow of celibacy before God. So the priest paired her with Joseph, who was a widower. His youngest child, James, was 12, and Mary raised James. His older children were already married. They placed his rod before the altar, and it budded as a sign that this was from God.

The idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was raised in the temple comes from apocryphal sources, particularly the Protoevangelium of James. This non-canonical gospel, written in the second century, provides details about Mary's early life that are not found in the canonical Gospels.

Catholic dogma comes from the "deposit of the faith" handed down from the Apostles that ended with the death of the last Apostle. We also refer to those teachings as Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Dogma, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, does NOT come from apocryphal writings.
The Church rejected all apocryphal text in choosing the 73 books of the Bible.

 

[Diamond72]

Catholic dogma comes from the "deposit of the faith" handed down from the Apostles that ended with the death of the last Apostle. We also refer to those teachings as Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Dogma, such as Mary's perpetual virginity, does NOT come from apocryphal writings.
The Church rejected all apocryphal text in choosing the 73 books of the Bible.

I am glad you made that clear for us.

Yes, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is indeed considered dogma within the Catholic Church. This means it is a fundamental belief that all Catholics are required to accept. The dogma asserts that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ.

Key Points of the Dogma:​

• Before Birth: Mary conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit without losing her virginity.
• During Birth: Mary miraculously remained a virgin during the birth of Jesus.
• After Birth: Mary remained a virgin throughout her entire life, not having any other children.

 

[prodromos]

Just a small point regarding the Protoevangelion of St James.
The fact that it was written indicates that the tradition regarding the early life of St Mary actually preceded it being recorded. It wasn't written first and then people decided that they liked it and based a tradition on it, rather the tradition was the source of the writing.

 

[FaithT]

I, a Catholic, just found this thread last night and I have a question that I’d like a fellow Catholic to answer…..maybe I should’ve put this on the Catholic subforum. I just read Romans 8:29 where it says …..”For those God forknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Doesn’t that Scripture conflict with our faith? If not, how so?if He was the firstborn among many brothers and sisters that would mean Mary had more children. Correct Or incorrect?

I got this Scripture from a NIV Bible. My Catholic Bible says pretty much the same thing……”firstborn in a large family”.

 

[jas3]

”For those God forknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.”

The brothers there are Christians, not sons of Mary.

 

[FaithT]

The brothers there are Christians, not sons of Mary.

Even though my Catholic Bible says “firstborn within a large family”?

 

[Michie]

From the USCCB:

Romans, CHAPTER 8

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

 

[concretecamper]

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. - Romans 8:29

What a superb honor! For what the only begotten Son was by nature, we have become by grace. Christ in his human nature has become the firstborn of many brethren, even though in his divine nature he remains the only begotten.

- John Chrysostom

 

[jas3]

Even though my Catholic Bible says “firstborn within a large family”?

Yes, the large family being the community of Christians. I don't know which Catholic Bible you have, but here's what the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible says:

"the first-born: Jesus is the eldest brother in the family of faith. As adopted children, we look up to him as the perfect image of Sonship and the perfect example of filial obedience to the Father (Jn 15:10). See word study: First-born at Heb 1:6."

The word study is too lengthy to quote here in full, but here's the most relevant part:

"Prōtotokos (Gk.): "first-born" or "oldest son"... [The establishment of Israel (Ex 4:22), David, and Solomon (Ps 89:27) as "first-born sons" under the Mosaic and Davidic covenants] sets the stage for messianic times, when the Father enthrones his Son as the first-born, priest, king, and heir of all things (Heb 1:2-13; 5:5-6). In union with the First-born, other brothers and sisters in the faith (Heb 12:23) become fellow heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), as well as a royal and priestly people (1 Pet 2:9, Rev 1:6). See note on Rom 8:29."

Even the syntax of Romans 8:29 alone indicates that "brothers" is referring to the elect. "That" in the NIV's rendering of the verse has the sense of "so that something may happen," and is translated in the Ignatius Bible as, "in order that." So the Son has many brethren as a result of Christians being conformed to His image; they are also made to be "sons" of God because they are made into images or likenesses of the Son, and therefore they share the same Father, making them brothers.

 

[FaithT]

Yes, the large family being the community of Christians. I don't know which Catholic Bible you have, but here's what the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible says:

"the first-born: Jesus is the eldest brother in the family of faith. As adopted children, we look up to him as the perfect image of Sonship and the perfect example of filial obedience to the Father (Jn 15:10). See word study: First-born at Heb 1:6."

The word study is too lengthy to quote here in full, but here's the most relevant part:

"Prōtotokos (Gk.): "first-born" or "oldest son"... [The establishment of Israel (Ex 4:22), David, and Solomon (Ps 89:27) as "first-born sons" under the Mosaic and Davidic covenants] sets the stage for messianic times, when the Father enthrones his Son as the first-born, priest, king, and heir of all things (Heb 1:2-13; 5:5-6). In union with the First-born, other brothers and sisters in the faith (Heb 12:23) become fellow heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), as well as a royal and priestly people (1 Pet 2:9, Rev 1:6). See note on Rom 8:29."

Even the syntax of Romans 8:29 alone indicates that "brothers" is referring to the elect. "That" in the NIV's rendering of the verse has the sense of "so that something may happen," and is translated in the Ignatius Bible as, "in order that." So the Son has many brethren as a result of Christians being conformed to His image; they are also made to be "sons" of God because they are made into images or likenesses of the Son, and therefore they share the same Father, making them brothers.

I read it in my NRSV-CE.

 

[Valletta]

I, a Catholic, just found this thread last night and I have a question that I’d like a fellow Catholic to answer…..maybe I should’ve put this on the Catholic subforum. I just read Romans 8:29 where it says …..”For those God forknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” Doesn’t that Scripture conflict with our faith? If not, how so?if He was the firstborn among many brothers and sisters that would mean Mary had more children. Correct Or incorrect?

I got this Scripture from a NIV Bible. My Catholic Bible says pretty much the same thing……”firstborn in a large family”.

Firstborn is special in Jewish culture, it does not indicate there are more children.

 

[tall73]

Just a small point regarding the Protoevangelion of St James.
The fact that it was written indicates that the tradition regarding the early life of St Mary actually preceded it being recorded. It wasn't written first and then people decided that they liked it and based a tradition on it, rather the tradition was the source of the writing.

• Given there is a a conflicting tradition, seeing the brothers not as sons of Joseph from a prior marriage, but as other relatives, how do you reconcile the existence of these two streams, and why do you pick the one that lines up with the proto gospel of James?
• How much of the material in the proto gospel of James do you consider reliable, and how much was addition to what you perceive as an existing tradition?

​

 

[Valletta]

• Given there is a a conflicting tradition, seeing the brothers not as sons of Joseph from a prior marriage, but as other relatives, how do you reconcile the existence of these two streams, and why do you pick the one that lines up with the pro-gospel of James?
• How much of the material in the proto gospel of James do you consider reliable, and how much was addition to what you perceive as an existing tradition?

​

The Word of God, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, tells us Mary was a perpetual virgin. The Word of God does not tell us whether Joseph had any children or for that matter whether he was young or old or previously married. I want to make clear it is not part of Sacred Tradition. Since the Word of God does not tell us whether Joseph was previously married or whether Mary died, opinions of learned Catholics on those subject differ.