Question about Mary

[GraceInHim]

moved this thread to correct forum.

 

[E.C.]

She lived without sinning and that is no easy feat there.

 

[Robskiwarrior]

cool guys thanks for all the replies - sorry if its in the wrong forum or been posted before was just interested from another post and dont think I have ever asked or seen a post like this (prob coz im looking in the wrong forums )

 

[racer]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to classify you as Nestorian, I misunderstood your statement.

However, although we don't mean that here womb was literally larger than the universe, God cannot be contained by the universe, and yet he was contained, fully, in the womb of Mary.

Not a metaphor...just a mystery.

It's not a mystery. God the Father can not be "restrained" or "restricted" to the universe. But, Jesus the Son (whom we'll all know is God) clearly fit quite snugly in Mary's womb.

Now, why did I use the words "restrained" and "restricted" instead of "contained?" Because you can not put physical, human limits on God. Certainly, when He so chooses He can fill more than the Universe. But, also, since He is God, if He so chooses, He can fit into any space of any size.

So, when one talks about Mary being more spacious than the universe, no matter how poetic or beautiful the speech, she is only this "spacious" metaphorically.

 

[Asinner]

It's not a mystery. God the Father can not be "restrained" or "restricted" to the universe. But, Jesus the Son (whom we'll all know is God) clearly fit quite snugly in Mary's womb.

Now, why did I use the words "restrained" and "restricted" instead of "contained?" Because you can not put physical, human limits on God. Certainly, when He so chooses He can fill more than the Universe. But, also, since He is God, if He so chooses, He can fit into any space of any size.

So, when one talks about Mary being more spacious than the universe, no matter how poetic or beautiful the speech, she is only this "spacious" metaphorically.

The point you are missing is that Mary contained the Manna, like the Ark of the Covenant, without corruption. She contained the Fire, like the burning bush, without being consumed. Mary was chosen for this purpose. Because of her Purity, because of her Humility, because of her Obedience, her Love, her VIRTUE and the Grace she was full of, she did not perish by containing the eternal God in her womb. She was in every sense, perfect, when Christ dwelled in her, and couldn't have been otherwise. She was Eve, before the fall, and what each of us struggles daily to acquire . . . perfection. Only Mary was more spacious than the Heavens. Not I, not you, not anyone else, can claim such a Virtue.

Love,
Christina

 

[Davidnic]

I can't speak for the RCC, but I know that in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the understanding is that the Theotokos (God Bearer/our title for Mary) is honored and venerated for what she became in cooperation with God.

She is never to be worshipped (EVER!), and and she ever lives, we believe, to direct us to God and pray for us that we might be saved. We don't see it as taking away from God.

God is blessed and honored by the lives of his saints.

As a Catholic I'll agree with my brother on this. I'll also add that Mary was open to the will of God. She is an example of how to follow Jesus.

Plus she was close to Christ and suffered much watching the suffering of her Son. Still she went through that and was one of the few at the foot of the cross. She shows us how to accept God's will. Work with it. And remain faithful to it.

Very few in Scripture can say they were faithful from start to finish for our Lord. Mary was and is.

In a basic way. When I was younger a mother let me hold her child and showed me how to do it. In my heart this is what Mary does for those who need it. She can guide us to Christ and be an example on how to hold Him forever.

And to echo my brother above. All proper devotion to Mary leads to Christ.

 

[racer]

The point you are missing is that Mary contained the Manna, like the Ark of the Covenant, without corruption. She contained the Fire, like the burning bush, without being consumed. Mary was chosen for this purpose. Because of her Purity, because of her Humility, because of her Obedience, her Love, her VIRTUE and the Grace she was full of, she did not perish by containing the eternal God in her womb. . . .

Asinner,

I know that flowery speech goes a lonnng way towards expressing the admiration, reverence, and respect we feel towards certain individuals. However, even when speaking of Mary, it's metaphorical language.

Mary did not contain the Manna that was in the Ark of the covenant. She contained Jesus. Jesus said He was the true Manna which came down from heaven, not the Manna "their fathers ate and did perish." That was a different Manna. (one clue that the Ark of the Covenant did not prefigure Mary)

I'll say it again, the speech is beautiful, but metaphorical. Was Mary's womb filled with real fire? No. God chose to manifest Him self in various ways--one way being the burning bush. This is evidence of what I said above, He can fit Himself into any space He so chooses. He can assume any form He so chooses. However, what Mary carried in her womb was the infant Jesus--God's incarnate form. Though, she may have been more pure than you and I, her "womb" was no bigger or smaller--literally.

She was in every sense, perfect, when Christ dwelled in her, and couldn't have been otherwise. . . . She was Eve, before the fall, and what each of us struggles daily to acquire . . . perfection.

Another thing I just don't understand is the insistance that she had to be "pure" and "sinless" to carry Jesus in her womb. That would defeat the purpose of God becoming man. This is one way He chose to show us that even "men" could overcome sin. Did Jesus carry out His earthly ministry being untouched by sin? Did He not perform every human function that all people do? (except marital relations, since He did not get married) Did he not eat, sleep, and suffer all bodily functions that we all do? Did sinful people never touch him? Why then during his formation in Mary's womb, would Mary have had to be sin free?

Only Mary was more spacious than the Heavens. Not I, not you, not anyone else, can claim such a Virtue.

I would never claim to be any where near as virtuous as Mary. But, I think that to know that she endured all that she did being just as human as I and capable of sin, makes what she endured that much more admirable.

God bless!

 

[racer]

And to echo my brother above. All proper devotion to Mary leads to Christ.

I don't necessary agree with your assertion, but I would point out the key term here----"proper" devotion.

 

[Davidnic]

"proper" devotion.

Indeed it is.

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

Asinner,

I know that flowery speech goes a lonnng way towards expressing the admiration, reverence, and respect we feel towards certain individuals. However, even when speaking of Mary, it's metaphorical language.

Mary did not contain the Manna that was in the Ark of the covenant. She contained Jesus. Jesus said He was the true Manna which came down from heaven, not the Manna "their fathers ate and did perish." That was a different Manna. (one clue that the Ark of the Covenant did not prefigure Mary)

Well...just as the Ark held the old Manna...Mary holds the new Manna. We're not saying that Mary is literally the ark of the covenent...but that she was prefigured in the OT. We're in agreement that it is metaphorical language...I think...

I'll say it again, the speech is beautiful, but metaphorical. Was Mary's womb filled with real fire? No. God chose to manifest Him self in various ways--one way being the burning bush. This is evidence of what I said above, He can fit Himself into any space He so chooses. He can assume any form He so chooses. However, what Mary carried in her womb was the infant Jesus--God's incarnate form. Though, she may have been more pure than you and I, her "womb" was no bigger or smaller--literally.

We're not arguing that here womb was literally big enough to contain whole star systems.

That would be silly.

However, the fact remains that she was deemed worthy, by God, to contain the uncontainable within her. That IS literal.

Another thing I just don't understand is the insistance that she had to be "pure" and "sinless" to carry Jesus in her womb.

In the same way that the Tabernacle and the temple had to be purified and consecrated, so the vessel of God was purified. Don't forget, she had to be God's mother...a tall order for ANY woman.

That would defeat the purpose of God becoming man. This is one way He chose to show us that even "men" could overcome sin. Did Jesus carry out His earthly ministry being untouched by sin? Did He not perform every human function that all people do? (except marital relations, since He did not get married) Did he not eat, sleep, and suffer all bodily functions that we all do? Did sinful people never touch him? Why then during his formation in Mary's womb, would Mary have had to be sin free?

It's not so much that she had to be, but that she simply was. Church tradition shows us that she was consecrated from a very early age, and that she demonstrated holiness throughout her whole life. We believe that she was without sin (but not without the potential for sin) because she had wholly consecrated herself to God.

 

[racer]

Well...just as the Ark held the old Manna...Mary holds the new Manna.

Correction . . . Mary held the new Manna--for nine months.

We're not saying that Mary is literally the ark of the covenent...but that she was prefigured in the OT. We're in agreement that it is metaphorical language...I think...

Good, that's kind of what I thought.

We're not arguing that here womb was literally big enough to contain whole star systems.

That would be silly.

Well, like I said, that's kind of what I thought.

However, the fact remains that she was deemed worthy, by God, to contain the uncontainable within her. That IS literal.

That she was worthy to contain Jesus is literal. However, if He (Jesus) were not containable, she would not have been able to do so.

In the same way that the Tabernacle and the temple had to be purified and consecrated, so the vessel of God was purified. Don't forget, she had to be God's mother...a tall order for ANY woman.

The cleansing and purification particulars were nullified by the coming of Jesus. If it were necessary that Mary be pure, then no human would have been allowed to touch Jesus. Sin would not have been allowed to touch Him.

And, even to say that the Tabernacle and the temple had to be purified is to acknowledge that they were not pure to begin with.

It's not so much that she had to be, but that she simply was.

There is no solid, substantiated evidence for this.

Church tradition shows us that she was consecrated from a very early age, and that she demonstrated holiness throughout her whole life. We believe that she was without sin (but not without the potential for sin) because she had wholly consecrated herself to God.

Church tradition is inconclusive. Some fathers believed this way regarding Mary and some did not.

 

[racer]

Well...just as the Ark held the old Manna...Mary holds the new Manna. We're not saying that Mary is literally the ark of the covenent...but that she was prefigured in the OT. We're in agreement that it is metaphorical language...I think...



We're not arguing that here womb was literally big enough to contain whole star systems.

That would be silly.

However, the fact remains that she was deemed worthy, by God, to contain the uncontainable within her. That IS literal.



In the same way that the Tabernacle and the temple had to be purified and consecrated, so the vessel of God was purified. Don't forget, she had to be God's mother...a tall order for ANY woman.



It's not so much that she had to be, but that she simply was. Church tradition shows us that she was consecrated from a very early age, and that she demonstrated holiness throughout her whole life. We believe that she was without sin (but not without the potential for sin) because she had wholly consecrated herself to God.

MDS,

I had typed a whole long response, then lost the web page. If I get motivated later, I'll type it all over again.

 

[PassthePeace1]

MDS,

I had typed a whole long response, then lost the web page. If I get motivated later, I'll type it all over again.

Et tu, racer?

 

[Axion]

There are so many things that are unique to the Virgin Mary.

* She is the Woman Propecied in Genesis 3, Isaiah 7, and Revelation 12, whose seed crushes the head of the serpent.

* She is the woman uniquely to counter the disobedience of Eve, by saying Yes to God, rather than No.

* She was the only one who gave her flesh and humanity to the Son of God,

* She is uniquely to be blessed throughout all generations (Luke 1:48).

* She is the only human in scripture to be named Kecharitomene, that is, Full of Grace.

* Mary was the first human being to receive Christ. Out of the millions of "decisions" made for Christ, Mary's was the first. Therefore, whatever promises the Holy Scriptures hold for us, Mary already possesses.

* If the sacred Scriptures declare that we are all kings (Revelation 1:6), is it so strange that the Church refers to Mary as Queen?

* She is the mother of the Son, therefore the mother of the Church, which is His body.

* If the Holy Bible promised that you and I shall judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3), is it so odd that the Church should sing that Mary is "more honourable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim"?

* If we who are called "holy brethren" (Hebrews 3:1) are commanded to be holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1:15, 16) and are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1), is it so unthinkable that she whose holy body was the recipient of God Incarnate should be called "most holy" by the Church?

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

That she was worthy to contain Jesus is literal. However, if He (Jesus) were not containable, she would not have been able to do so.

Unless it's a Mystery, in which case there is no need to project rationalism onto something that is, by definition, beyond rationalization.

It's not so much that she had to be, but that she simply was. Church tradition shows us that she was consecrated from a very early age, and that she demonstrated holiness throughout her whole life. We believe that she was without sin (but not without the potential for sin) because she had wholly consecrated herself to God.

There is no solid, substantiated evidence for this.

Unless you consider the universal testimony of the early church, as well as both RC and EO churches, to be unsubstantiated...