This is precisely why the RCC has not affirmed this fifth Marian dogma, although in 1950 the other four Marian dogmas were dogmatized.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's not what "Co-Redemptrix" means.
There may be good and valid concern and criticism over this particular Marian idea; but it would be deeply erroneous to charge that Mary is on equal level with Christ. Catholics, like all other Christians, affirm the preeminence and supremacy of Jesus Christ as God and Lord, Savior of the world.
A Catholic who said Mary was equal with Christ would be a heretic in the eyes of Roman Catholicism.
-CryptoLutheran
Jesus never sinned. Neither did severely handicapped people. Nor little babies. Yours is a misinterpetation.
Yes, my brother. Mary had no other children, another misinterpretation.
Realize the Bible was not originally written in English, study the meanings of the words. If you don't want to go to the trouble find at least similar statements in the Bible and see if those statements all mesh with your interpretation.
Do you really want to go into the Protoevangelion of James? There is some really interesting stuff in it, much of which is silly and some of which is heretical.
My brother, there is no error. Take Genesis 14:14, in the Bible (even in the KJV) Abram refers to his "brother" yet this "brother" has two different parents.Perhaps you can explain to us why every Catholic (not to mention all other) translation of the Bible into English refers to these individuals as the "sisters" and "brothers" of Jesus Christ in all five of the Gospel passages. If, in fact, they were not, you might think that at least one translation would correct this error, would you not?
I was posting information as a source to a tradition. It is a very early source & within its pluses or minuses, it provides testimony of certain beliefs held by early Christians & still held by many. I am not trying to persuade anyone to accept it but it can at least provide perspective as to how certain beliefs formed. If it was written centuries later, then it would not hold much value. It is strongly possible that it is someone’s secondary & inferior, but sincere, recount from James the step brother of the Lord in which the original was lost in the persecutions of Nero.
My brother, there is no error. Take Genesis 14:14, in the Bible (even in the KJV) Abram refers to his "brother" yet this "brother" has two different parents.
Hebrew and Greek are two entirely different languages in about every sense. Hebrew is relatively simple, especially in its vocabulary, such that many words carry multiple meanings. Greek, on the other hand, is extremely sophisticated, especially in its grammatical development. Because Greek has more verb tenses than English, for example, the translators have difficulty conveying the precise meaning of many verbs. Greek is also very precise in its vocabulary, especially regarding human relationships. Whereas Hebrew has only one word that can be translated as love, Greek has three.
If the gospel writers were aware that the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ were not the actual children of Joseph and Mary, then why did they not tell us? They had five specific instances in which they could have clarified the issue, but they did not.
Um, nope. No one reading this thing is going to believe that James actually wrote it. My guess is because Jesus didn't beam out of Mary Star Trek style.I was posting information as a source to a tradition. It is a very early source & within its pluses or minuses, it provides testimony of certain beliefs held by early Christians & still held by many. I am not trying to persuade anyone to accept it but it can at least provide perspective as to how certain beliefs formed. If it was written centuries later, then it would not hold much value. It is strongly possible that it is someone’s secondary & inferior, but sincere, recount from James the step brother of the Lord in which the original was lost in the persecutions of Nero.
Right, if it’s the main source of Marian ideas, I think that’s a problem. It’s not even critical whether the book itself is the source. Presumably it reflects mythology that had developed in parts of the early church. I would expect that, to be credible, we’d want a better foundation for beliefs.That said, there is a wealth of information from the ECFs and other early sources which is not only erroneous, but heretical, yet which various groups and individuals hold to be true because of the age. A popular example is the recent interest in the Book of Enoch.
in any event we are both in agreement that the PoJ is an extraneous resource which is hardly entirely reliable and is open to scholarly debate.
Is there salvation without Mary?
is she the mother of our salvation?
our hope?
This presumes that there would have been a need to do so. There are a lot of details in the Gospels for which the Evangelists spend no time whatsoever going into further detail about. That's because the Gospels aren't biographies in the modern sense of the term, they are Gospels. The only reason why Jesus' siblings get brought up at all is to establish narrative context for what Jesus said and did.
We should temper our expectations of what information the biblical writers saw fit to mention; they weren't writing with the assumption that two thousand years later we'd be reading these texts and guessing about certain details. They wrote these texts in the particular historical circumstances of their own time, addressing the things they believed necessary for their own purposes. Why doesn't Mark mention Jesus' birth? Well that wasn't part of the story of Jesus that Mark was trying to focus on.
So we should ask: Is there any reason why the Evangelists should need to say whether or not Jesus' siblings were or weren't Mary's children? If these were the children of Mary, and this was known by the Christian communities already, then there's no reason for the Evangelists to bring it up if there's no reason to do so; and conversely, if these were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, and this was known by the Christian communities already, then there's no reason for the Evangelists to bring it up if there's no reason to do so.
This is all to say that using the silence of the Evangelists as evidence of a particular proposition here requires an a priori assumption of the conclusion: If I already have decided that these are Mary's children, then the silence of the Evangelists just means that we should assume these were Mary's children. If I have already decided that these are the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, then the silence of the Evangelists just means that we should assume these were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
So what we are left with is: We don't know. At least not from Scripture alone. Scripture doesn't provide us with these answers. And, since Christians treat the Church's received tradition with varying degrees of deference, the simple antiquity of the tradition provides sufficient support of this view. That is, tradition favors the side that these are not other children of Mary, thus these are not blood-siblings of Jesus at all, but children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Or, alternatively, in the West the view that these were probably cousins gained a great deal of traction.
Is that tradition correct? Well, how we answer that then gets into bigger conversations about things such as tradition and ecclesiology. But it still doesn't really get us any closer to a definite biblical answer to our inquiry, because Scripture still remains quiet on the subject.
-CryptoLutheran
Um, nope. No one reading this thing is going to believe that James actually wrote it. My guess is because Jesus didn't beam out of Mary Star Trek style.
19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither art thou going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Art thou of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not thy wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit. And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen strange things -- because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth -- a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
Infancy Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (Roberts-Donaldson translation)
No, when the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible one requirement was that all text had to comply with Catholic teaching--if any text contradicted Catholic teaching it was rejected. Remember the Catholic Church was thriving before one word of the New Testament was written. During the Protestant reformation when new religions were formed those religions dropped parts of Catholic teaching. Luther, for example, was able to get some but not all of the books he wanted dropped from the Bible. He was unsuccessful with Revelation, which very much describes the Catholic mass. Many times declarations of Catholic teaching occur because some heresy takes place. That does not mean that is when the teaching began, it may need emphasis or clarification on what we know and don't know. For example, we know Mary was assumed into Heaven, but whether she died has been a matter of some discussion.That is an interesting, if dangerous, theological premise. Just because something is not stated or clarified in the Bible hardly means that it is true. For example, the writers of the New Testament mentioned precious little about Mary. For reasons known only to them they decided that the historical record of her platonic relationship with Joseph was irrelevant, as was her immaculate conception, as was her assumption into heaven - even though similar doctrines relative to Jesus Christ found full expression. Thus, the RCC has determined to read into scripture a wide range of dogmas and doctrines which are essential for the salvation of its members. These are unique to the RCC and have escaped the notice of all other branches of Christianity being, at the very best, adiaphora.
When, however, the clear reading of the Bible contradicts RCC dogma then the RCC is committed to dismissing the Bible in place of its own dogma. If only the Gospel writers had not mentioned those pesky brother and sisters of Jesus Christ, it would have been so much simpler for the RCC to develop its dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary and to confirm that all sexual intercourse is inherently sinful.
incorrectalthough in 1950 the other four Marian dogmas were dogmatized.
It's not necessary to go on at length extolling the virtues of Mary. We all know that she was a special person and chosen out of all humans to be the mother of Jesus. There is no way to minimize the wondrous and unique nature of that development, even if someone set out to do so.
Also, she is not God. You don't think she is. We don't think she is.
The question, however, is whether or not she should be approached in prayer AS IF she actually IS God.
Hello, Maria. By the way, were you having some difficulty getting your previous post to appear as intended? It looks like you just forgot to put the [/quote] notation at the end of the part you were quoting. It's easily edited when that happens.Dear Albion.
Having prayed over just leaving this thread or posting a reply to you. I'm sending this reply to you.
I was saddened by your post as I was by Sparta's also. Since you are a "Facilitator", I expected more than a certain type of "correction" on your part. You seem to assume that a devout Catholic who loves our Blessed Mother as God certainly has shown His love for her, is approaching Mary as if she were God.
I don't know how you would purport to know such a thing, to judge that others are improperly approaching Mary and the saints. Only God knows what are in the hearts of his children. Leave the judging to Jesus, consider that Jesus may tell you it was you who improperly treated the saints. Catholics believe that those in Heaven are alive, that we may ask of them as we do in one of our oldest prayers, Psalm 103: "Bless the LORD, all you angels, mighty in strength and attentive, obedient to every command. Bless the LORD, all you hosts, ministers who do God's will. Bless the LORD, all creatures, everywhere in God's domain. Bless the LORD, my soul!"SOME people, and not necessarily Roman Catholics, DO in fact approach Mary (and St. Jude and other saints) in prayer in a way that needs to be reserved for God alone. That doesn't mean that they think Mary or any other saint is actually the equal of God, but when those are the sentiments, the words that are used in prayer, and it's defended in a post here, then it's right of us to point out that this is a wrongful practice.
he doesn't. It is easy to say untruths, impossible to back them up. This is what we all are witnessing. It is not the first time, it won't be the last.I don't know how you would purport to know such a thing, to judge that others are improperly approaching Mary and the saints.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?