Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

[/color]


Thus, the "Protestant perspective" is to be silent on this, just as Christ and God's Scripture are.


.

But Mary wasn't silent: she reported this to Gabriel, and Luke made record of it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If Christ came to save all don't you think that his mother who is his closest relative through his incarnation is already protected????

Ah, then to you it doesn't matter WHAT is said about Her. Okay. Obviously you disagree with the RCC that says it's HERESY to deny that Mary Had No Sex Ever, and it's fine with you that people tell the most horrible of offensive lies about your mother, your spouse, and yes above all Our Lady - because "she's protected." Okay. Gotcha.

You are continuing to prove the point of my post (if you read it).





.

 

[Thekla]

There is a great deal of personal detail in the Bible, especially in the OT. Much of it could be considered "unpleasant". Hosea's marriage/s, which I have mentioned. The deep pain experienced by the prophets. And details of the intimacies of marriage as described of many (including an entire OT book). Perhaps a reading of the OT is in order; the lives of the Matriarchs and the Patriarchs are there exposed and recorded for posterity. Do we think they would exchange their privacy for relationship with God, and their role in the history of salvation ?

 

[narnia59]

Ever more diversions...

I am not the one who inserted commonalities with the LDS into the discussion…..interesting you think it is ‘relevant’ when you discuss for your purpose, and a ‘diversion’ when others do.

 

[narnia59]

Wrong. I have bent over backwards on this, stating that I'll let YOU establish what is and is not authoritative. The Catholics indicated that Scripture is: okay, they permit noncatholics to look to Scripture so obviously they regard Scripture as authoritaitve. Now, you don't recognize denominational Tradition as Authoritative when I use it, so clearly you don't regard that as Authoritative - okay, I won't either then. You don't recognize my interpretation of verses, OT and NT as Authoritative so obviously you don't regard individual (or denominational) interpretation as Authoritative - okay, so I won't either. I'm just following the Catholic's lead, allowing Catholics to state what is and is not Authoritative. It has been made clear as can be that denominational traditions, interpretations and declarations are not Authoritative (you reject such consistently) and I'll abide by that same rubric - which means your denomination's traditions, interpretations and declarations are not authoritative. Fine. So, I think that leaves us with Scripture and history. You don't have any Scripture (just your own denomination's INTERPRETATION of it), so that leaves us with history. But you don't seem to have anything there either, not within centuries of Mary's death. But, I'm OBVIOUSLY supremely patient and I AM waiting. Again, I'll accept ANY Authority that YOU regard as valid for other Christians, I don't know how to be more fair. Or generous.

Fair and generous would be not ‘playing with words’ the way you do. Here’s your logic.
1) We can determine the Catechism is authoritative for Catholics (even though not for you), and it says you can’t spread rumors.

2) The dogma of the ever-virginity of Mary qualifies as a rumor, because even though Catholics consider church councils to be authoritative, I don’t.

3) Catholics contradict themselves because since by my definition of what is authoritative and their definition of what a rumor is, they spread rumors about Mary.

Fair would be examining two Catholic teachings to see if they're in conflict, not your views and a Catholic teaching to determine if Catholic teachings conflict. I suppose that’s too much to ask?

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by narnia59

But I would have to ask does it really make it ‘okay’ to say things you have said are unloving and hurtful towards Mary simply because one thinks they are true based upon their own standard of what defines truth?
​

No.

Then take up your issue with Matthew and Luke.

If you think there is a significant POSSIBILITY for hurt, pain or offense if one billion people told the rest of the world as a matter of highest importance how often you have sex with your spouse - and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thereby in question, then there is a significant POSSIBILITY for the same toward Mary. And frankly, I love Mary a lot more than I love you (take nothing negative there, I love her more than I love me, too). What I've been saying is that there is a POTENTIAL for pain, I've never remotely stated that it DOES hurt or offend Her.
.

You’ve consistently stated that you believe she could have been ever-virgin and have no position on the matter. So assume for a moment she was. There certainly must have been a reason. So while we’re ‘speculating’, let’s also consider the POSSIBILITY that there is also a significant POSSIBILITY for hurt, pain or offense if billions of people tell the rest of the world that reason wasn’t important at all. No consequence worth noting – didn’t really matter in the great scheme of things. What I’m saying is that there is a POTENTIAL for pain – I’m not remotely stating that it DOES hurt or offend her.

So, since you do indeed love Mary so, I’m sure that POSSIBILITY must be of equal concern to you as well? But just not enough to get off the fence I assume?

 

[narnia59]

You are willing to accept it as sufficient substantiation and authorization that those spreading the story say it's true. Ironically, this is a rubric you consistent reject and yet you are defending it above all else. Okay. Defending that seems of utmost importance to you. The sacred heart of Our Lady is more important to me.

Here again, let’s not even so subtly ‘knock’ those who would believe that church councils are authoritative by defining such as ‘those spreading stories’, and then continue with the implication that your concern for Mary is therefore greater…. I’ve asked you before, and I will continue to ask… please respect the standards of others as to what constitutes authoritative even if you disagree. And please do not judge the concern of others for Mary by your self-defined standard of what is ‘most caring’.

 

[narnia59]

[/color]

Ah, then to you it doesn't matter WHAT is said about Her. Okay. Obviously you disagree with the RCC that says it's HERESY to deny that Mary Had No Sex Ever, and it's fine with you that people tell the most horrible of offensive lies about your mother, your spouse, and yes above all Our Lady - because "she's protected." Okay. Gotcha.

You are continuing to prove the point of my post (if you read it).





.

How can you say these things are lies one minute and then claim to have no position the next?

 

[narnia59]

So CJ, it seems your theology is that one in heaven can experience hurt, pain and offense? Since your authority is Scripture, can you point out where that is taught?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Please explain then how Mary's response makes any sense at all? She obviously knew how one conceives a child (by knowing a man), and assumes this is what the angel is referring to (knowing a man). It is clear she assumes this is the method of conception the angel is talking about. The angel tells her she will conceive a child in the future. You say she was betrothed to a man she was planning in the near future to 'know'. If that is the case, she would have logically assumed the angel was speaking about conceiving a child with the man she was about to 'know'. The fact that she is currently a virgin has no implication at all to the conversation as you interpret it, so why was that her response?

uh, no. that is not how it reads.

"you're going to have a kid."
"pardon? I'm a virgin."

the angel didn't give a timeline. The angel said, you're going to have a child. pardon me for pointing out the obvious: walk up to an engaged woman. (one who isn't going to have sex with her husband until after marriage, for sake of arguement.) tell her she's going to have a kid.
take a picture of the puzzled look on her face.

you are forcing a meaning that doesn't exist.

That must be a Lutheran Dogma, because the CC has no such Dogma.


Peace

really. Funny, that sounds awfully like dishonesty.

since we know the dogma of PV exists, and that really just means "Mary had no sex ever."

splitting hairs, and half truths aren't proving any points for you, bud. Yes, we know the dogma isn't called "the no sex for Mary" dogma. it means exactly the same thing.

the foolishness boggles the mind.

I have never sneered at the LDS, so please stop making such accusations.

whether you haven't or not is irrelevant. I said Catholics do. And they do.

Since you and CJ seem so adamant about bringing them and 'similarities' into the discussion however, let's remember your own views which are consistent to theirs –

lets see if they are.

the Holy Spirit failed to keep the gates of hell from prevailing against the church,

nope... don't believe this.

it fell into apostasy

nope... don't believe this.

and you are now the reformed, restored, however you want to say it church Jesus established,

nope.... don't believe this.

whether you believe it is visible or invisible, and with the absolutely infallible understanding of what is authoritative revelation.

nope... don't believe this.

4 strikes. gave you one more than usual.

Fair would be examining two Catholic teachings to see if they're in conflict, not your views and a Catholic teaching to determine if Catholic teachings conflict. I suppose that’s too much to ask?

let's be honest. Catholic teachings don't regularly conflict. They are either completely unrelated, or fall under the "this is the teaching" and "the proof is because we say it's true."

when you have zero accountability, anything can be true without conflict.

 

[Uphill Battle]

reposted, because it when completely ignored:

Originally Posted by lionroar0

CITED TEXT:

Lumen gentium 57
This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother.(288) This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it,(10*) when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword would pierce the mother's soul, that out of many hearts thoughts might be revealed.(289) When the Child Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the things that were His Father's business; and they did not understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed kept these things to be pondered over in her heart.(290)
NOTES
288) Cf. Lk. 1, 41-45.
289) Cf. Lk. 2, 34-35.
290) Cf. Lk. 2, 41-51.
Supplementary Notes (*) (10) Cfr. Conc. Lateranense anni 649, Can. 3: Mansi 10, 1151. S. Leo M., Epist. ad Flav.: PL S4, 7S9. - Conc. Chalcedonense: Mansi 7, 462. - S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.

Don't see the word sex there either.

Peace
​

your hair splitting is wildly amusing.

of secondary note, you notice how they quote scripture for so many parts of this statement, but fob it off on some supplementary notes when they get to the key point? (what you bolded in red.) No greater evidence that there is no biblical reason to believe in PV exists than this! Thank you for posting it. They reference scripture three times in the passage, for other points. If they had any scriptural basis for what you put in bright red underline... they'd have put it in. They would have fallen over each other to write it in there. There is NO reason they would not.

it.
doesn't.
exist.


(despite reposting, I have serious doubt that a satisfactory explaination can be made for this.)

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by narnia59

Please explain then how Mary's response makes any sense at all? She obviously knew how one conceives a child (by knowing a man), and assumes this is what the angel is referring to (knowing a man). It is clear she assumes this is the method of conception the angel is talking about. The angel tells her she will conceive a child in the future. You say she was betrothed to a man she was planning in the near future to 'know'. If that is the case, she would have logically assumed the angel was speaking about conceiving a child with the man she was about to 'know'. The fact that she is currently a virgin has no implication at all to the conversation as you interpret it, so why was that her response?
​

uh, no. that is not how it reads.

"you're going to have a kid."
"pardon? I'm a virgin."

the angel didn't give a timeline. The angel said, you're going to have a child. pardon me for pointing out the obvious: walk up to an engaged woman. (one who isn't going to have sex with her husband until after marriage, for sake of arguement.) tell her she's going to have a kid.
take a picture of the puzzled look on her face.

you are forcing a meaning that doesn't exist.

Um, it is exactly how it reads. The angel didn't say 'you are going to have a child' as you've paraphrased, which leaves the meaning open that Mary may have already conceived, which would then make sense that she would ask "how, since I am a virgin". The angel said -- you will conceive. No question that Mary is not currently pregnant, no doubt that the angel is speaking of future conception, and even though Mary is betrothed to Joseph she is confused as to how this future conception is going to occur, because she is a virgin.

NIV – “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.”
"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

NAS "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.” Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

ASV And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

ESV And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. And Mary said to the angel, How will this be, since I am a virgin?

NKJV And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"

KJV And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

 

[narnia59]

let's be honest. Catholic teachings don't regularly conflict. They are either completely unrelated, or fall under the "this is the teaching" and "the proof is because we say it's true."

when you have zero accountability, anything can be true without conflict.

And who are you accountable to for your beliefs?

 

[Uphill Battle]

an immediate future. it isn't some pie in the sky by and by type of statement. Only one who has to support a doctrine regarding Mary's lack of sex would have to read it any other way.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And who are you accountable to for your beliefs?

scripture. but then, you knew that.

 

[narnia59]

scripture. but then, you knew that.

Not a surprising answer, but I personally would have said God. To state that anyone has 'no accountability' denies that all are subject to and accountable to God, and will be judged accordingly though.

 

[narnia59]

an immediate future. it isn't some pie in the sky by and by type of statement. Only one who has to support a doctrine regarding Mary's lack of sex would have to read it any other way.

I thought you just said the angel didn't give a 'timeline'. Now you say oh, it's 'immediate'.

Sorry, but it's a clear reference to a future conception. If I were an engaged young woman waiting to have sex until marriage, and somebody told me that 'you will have a baby', I would never have responded, "How will that happen -- I'm a virgin". Only one who has to deny a doctrine regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary would have to read it any other way.

 

[Uphill Battle]

yes, I'm accountable to God. Don't try to twist what I'm saying.

basically put, you have beliefs, that rest on "because we say so." that lacks accountability.

but we're getting off topic.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I thought you just said the angel didn't give a 'timeline'. Now you say oh, it's 'immediate'.

Sorry, but it's a clear reference to a future conception. If I were an engaged young woman waiting to have sex until marriage, and somebody told me that 'you will have a baby', I would never have responded, "How will that happen -- I'm a virgin". Only one who has to deny a doctrine regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary would have to read it any other way.

no, you might respond "maybe."

or you might respond "what business is it of yours?"

you wouldn't say "yeah, I know."

when I say the angel didn't give a timeline, that means that there was no prophetic "you will do this sometime in the future."

you're going to conceive and have a kid.

Mary's answer is exactly as it should be.

 

[narnia59]

yes, I'm accountable to God. Don't try to twist what I'm saying.

basically put, you have beliefs, that rest on "because we say so." that lacks accountability.

but we're getting off topic.

No I don't. You have no basis for that statement at all.