Speak lovingly of Mary

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

For a sound reason: Personal theories are entirely unrelated to dogmatic substantiation.

I might have a personal theory that there is life in this solar system other than on Earth. Nice theory. Probably many agree with it. Such has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with substantiating that such is a dogmatic fact. You know that. Thekla knows that. MamaZ knows that. IMHO, it's just another diversion and evasion attempt.


In spite of a Catholic starting this thread, I suspect most Catholics wish it would be closed. I wouldn't even be surprised if they are petitioning Staff to do so. But, IMHO, this question raised by our Catholic friend WarriorAngel gets to the very heart of the issue: Is it distinctively LOVING to spread - as dogma that MUST be believed by all and to deny is to be a heretic whose salvation is in question - how often a couple has sex or not? It does raise the issue of WHY THIS ISSUE and in light of the Catholic Catechism's insistence that to share a report that is not substantiated is a SIN and thus NOT loving, it raising the issue of whether the substantiation offered reaches the level of dogma and is of a nature that the RCC itself accepts from others. Our Catholic friend in this thread got right to the heart of the issue, and it's interesting that this makes some Catholics, well, uncomfortable.

BECAUSE I love Our Mother more than my own earthly mother, I will raise this point anywhere I can - even if this thread is forced by Catholics to close. Respect requires it, IMHO.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

And so you will not even be neighborly and engage others thoughts if it doesnt suit you? You disallow what you will and then insult the other by calling it diversion and evasion. Oh well, I suppose thats your way.

Have you discussed this with a Catholic Priest and/or theologian?

If so, what was said, precisely? If not why dont you do so and report back.

Otherwise, this all seems to be a soapbox.



BD

 

[MamaZ]

if Christ is truly unique, the Theotokos cannot share her flesh, cannot bear another child, without compromising in some fashion the absolute uniqueness of the God-man Jesus Christ.

I could understand this if indeed it was Mary that made Christ unique.. But it wasn't.. Mary sharing her flesh would have no bearing on Christ.. For Christ is not still in her womb.. This is why Joseph kept her a virgin until Christ was born.. Once Christ was born He was indeed the God man.. For The word had indeed became flesh.. The uniqueness was not that Jesus was man.. It was that This man was indeed God.. For the fullness of God resided in Jesus.. He IS God.. Mary was still woman born out of the seed of man.. I have Christ in me through His Spirit and still I am a married woman..

 

[MamaZ]

Mary was the passage of the word to become flesh.. His Holiness was born from Him being part of the trinity..

 

[Thekla]

why would it matter if Mary was pregnant many of times? It takes nothing away from Christ our redeemer.. Gods blessings flow to His People..

Because if the Christ is not unique in all eternity, then the Incarnation is no longer a unique event. We are created in the image of Christ. If Christ is not unique, then neither are we.

The outcome of this distortion is seen repeatedly in Mariology:
1.Mary's marriage must be just like mine (ie, not unique)
2.Mary was not "special"

 

[Thekla]

Mary was the passage of the word to become flesh.. His Holiness was born from Him being part of the trinity..

His Holiness (as one person of the Trinity) is "unique" in person (Son) not essence. But He is unique in every way; there is ONLY ONE God-man. His incarnation/enfleshment is unique. His "flesh" is also unique.

 

[Thekla]

1. Personal theories are not dogmatic substantiation.

2. There is no dogma of Mary Was Pregnant Lotsa Times.




.

Your personal opinions about dogma do not substantiate your critique of dogma.
The science of the matter can be researched on PubMed.
Here is the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

 

[Thekla]

Sorry if it seems so. Actually, I do understand that there is a spirituality connected to Mary and I certainly understand that there are implications attached to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (that marital sex defiles the wife being the one I've heard and read from Catholics most often). But I'm not talking about what IMPLICATIONS people may take FROM the Dogma. I'm talking about the dogma, and I DO wonder why you seem to be working so hard to not do that? I know you believe it true, which I respect, so I puzzles me why you don't want to talk about it?

The spiritual is not limited (as in gnosticism) to the spiritual realm; the Incarnation exhibits this.

I am not avoiding discussing this teaching. It is my impression that you avoid an actual discussion on the matter. It seems you want this stated in "catechism" form. It seems you rely on a sort of "logical certainty". The things of God are not, imo, so reducible.

Friend, IF this dogma was that Jesus Had No Sibs - that would be what the Catechism would say and I expect that would be reflected in the name of the dogma. IF this dogma was about everything associated with Jesus being pure and sinless then that would be the explaination and definition in the Catechism and the name of the dogma would likely reflect that. IF this dogma was about marital sex being dirty and defiling the wife then that is what the Catechism would say about this and that would be reflected in the title (thus, I don't give much credence to the most often made "explanation" for this).

You assume the catechism will state things in a manner that you expect or approve of ... this is hardly a reasonable expectation.

The name of the dogma is "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary." And the Catechism makes clear this is that Mary was a virgin perpetually. I'm puzzled why all the dancing? We all KNOW what the dogma is - I never thought that was even an issue of debate. We all know who Mary is. We all know what Perpetual means. We all know what a virgin is. I'm lost what you are trying to do here. The dogma is what it is - and we all know it. It's what it says. It is what the Catholic Catechism says. Why don't you want to discuss it?

If you are unwilling to engage in or unfamiliar with dialogue, I can see then how you would arrive at this conclusion. Again, you want simplistic answers.

Again , I KNOW (I honestly do!) that ANY teaching can and probably MOST teachings DO have implications. This one is likely no different. And I appreciated hearing some that you and others (mostly the Orthodox here) shared. Thank you! Wonderful and spiritual things!!!!! But these implications are not the dogma, and I have a couple of questions about the dogma. I've raised them repeatedly - one having to do with why it is so important - to the level of dogma - for all the world to know how often Mary had sex (if at all), the other dealing with the issue of substantiation that the RCC (NOT ME) raises. Friend, both of these are much more issues for Catholics since I understand this is not dogma in the EO (yet another thing the CC and EO do not have in common) and I don't know if the EO believes that rumors are correct and loving regardless of substantiation or not, I only know what the Catholic Catechism say, I don't know the EO position on the spreading of rumors.

 

[Uphill Battle]

His Holiness (as one person of the Trinity) is "unique" in person (Son) not essence. But He is unique in every way; there is ONLY ONE God-man. His incarnation/enfleshment is unique. His "flesh" is also unique.

and Mary having children with Joseph after Jesus was born, would not make them God-men.

this seems quite the stretch, Thekla,that the uniqueness of the incarnation is proof that Mary couldn't have had sex.

 

[Thekla]

and Mary having children with Joseph after Jesus was born, would not make them God-men.

this seems quite the stretch, Thekla,that the uniqueness of the incarnation is proof that Mary couldn't have had sex.

It means they would share something of the nature of Christ, the God-man.
This would render Christ "somewhat unique" (sharing something of the nature of the God-man with another or others). "Somewhat unique" is a logical impossibility; something is either unique or not.

 

[Photini]

I For God blesses His people.. He does not withhold blessings of other children and a happy marriage from the People He has chosen..Throughout the OT we see the blessings upon Gods people..

How many Messiahs were born? Only One that I know of. And why does the notion of Mary being Ever-Virgin translate to you that she was unhappy? She had the ultimate blessing. None other can equal it.

 

[katherine2001]

Mary was the passage of the word to become flesh.. His Holiness was born from Him being part of the trinity..

Mary was not just a passage or a vessel. His humanity came from her. If they'd been able to do DNA testing (especially Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from the mother to her offspring)on them, His DNA would have matched hers. He had her genes. Certainly, His divinity came from His Father, but His humanity came from Mary. If He was not both human and divine, then we are not saved. By the way, it is certainly possilbe for humans to become holy, even though they don't have a divine nature. Yes, holiness comes by God's grace, but a person does not have to be part of the Trinity in order to be holy.

 

[katherine2001]

Paul does not hold your theory of Mary here.. Is he not speaking lovinly toward Mary to you?

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Now I notice here that Paul does not say born of the blessed virgin Mother. But born of a woman.

Mary was a woman. Or is a female only a woman if she has had sex? If she hasn't, she's not a woman, even if she is 90 years old?

 

[Philothei]

If God-man's procreation was safeguarded by God by Christ celibacy why would God not safeguard Mary's procreation? It is obvious that God did not "need" Christ's siblings in the world... or it would negate the ONLY SON... idea in the world... How a half brother or sister be of any value to God's plan??? so that is why Mary was ever virgin since there was not in God's plan to do so. Theotokos out of her own choice remained Virgin and since the Bible is moot about her relations with Joseph ....then the most possible case is that out of respect the Bible does not disclose such a issue.


Hope you all do not mind this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4E3ToVNOD4

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Mary was not just a passage or a vessel. His humanity came from her. If they'd been able to do DNA testing (especially Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from the mother to her offspring)on them, His DNA would have matched hers. He had her genes. Certainly, His divinity came from His Father, but His humanity came from Mary. If He was not both human and divine, then we are not saved. By the way, it is certainly possilbe for humans to become holy, even though they don't have a divine nature. Yes, holiness comes by God's grace, but a person does not have to be part of the Trinity in order to be holy.

Greetings!! I hear the Jews might use DNA to determine if one of them is from the tribe of Judah or Levi for the coming Priesthood their Messiah will bring them.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It means they would share something of the nature of Christ, the God-man.
This would render Christ "somewhat unique" (sharing something of the nature of the God-man with another or others). "Somewhat unique" is a logical impossibility; something is either unique or not.

we all share something of the nature of Christ. Humanity.

sorry, this ones really, really silly.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Thekla IT means they would share something of the nature of Christ, the God-man.
This would render Christ "somewhat unique" (sharing something of the nature of the God-man with another or others). "Somewhat unique" is a logical impossibility; something is either unique or not.

we all share something of the nature of Christ. Humanity.

sorry, this ones really, really silly.

What is the Nature of Christ?

Genesis 1:26 And Elohiym is saying "We shall make 'adam in our image, after our likeness"
27 And 'Elohiym is creating the-'adam in image of Him, in image of 'Elohiym He creates/bara' him, male and female He creates/bara' them

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of the Age, this, hath-blinded the minds of the faithless into the no to shine forth to-them the enlightening of the Good-News of the glory of the Christ, who is an image of the God/YHWH

 

[Thekla]

we all share something of the nature of Christ. Humanity.

sorry, this ones really, really silly.

no, not exactly; we are created in the image - we gain our humanity from Him. But this is not the same as the particular uniqueness of the God-man.
(Who is also our creator. Creation is a deliberate act of the will of God. The sharing I describe also undermines the role of creator, making the participation aqcuired through gestation indirect.)

 

[Thekla]

I should add to the previous post:

we are created in the image and AFTER the likeness (the "after" is important here, and occurs in both the LXX and the Masoretic as translated in the Tanach, Stone edition. Note further on in Genesis, Adam's son is said to be in Adam's likeness. This delineation - present in the Hebrew and LXX - posits the image as "general" and the likeness as particular. Adam - likeness - son = human. Adam - image - God, but after the likeness indicates we are not immediately god-like; in Christian theology, we must assent in order to become "like", Christ-like.)

The nature of Christ is distinct from our nature; He is God-man. We are "like" Adam, and in the image of God, but must be Christ-filled to be like Him by participation and adoption by the Father - to become "like" to God.

 

[Philothei]

God could have "rpeserved" and "point out" Christ's brothers and sisters..... and the Bible is moot about their ministry??? I wonder why? Hey I know he says we are all his brohers... So... that would mean that family was not important? NO... as he gave his mother to be "taken care" off by his disciple John... That point is told in the Bible... So that would mean that EV Mary was "alone" from her side of her family and no kids does mean no 'ordinary" marriage with Joseph... since how is it possible fo rChrist to be without "procreation" by God since he was celieband and did not apply to Mary?....

 

[MamaZ]

Mary was not just a passage or a vessel. His humanity came from her. If they'd been able to do DNA testing (especially Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from the mother to her offspring)on them, His DNA would have matched hers. He had her genes. Certainly, His divinity came from His Father, but His humanity came from Mary. If He was not both human and divine, then we are not saved. By the way, it is certainly possilbe for humans to become holy, even though they don't have a divine nature. Yes, holiness comes by God's grace, but a person does not have to be part of the Trinity in order to be holy.

No one has ever said that Jesus was not human and that His humanity did not come from Mary. But Mary was the passage for the Word to become flesh.. Humans have to be born again in order to be Holy.. Born of the Spirit of God.. For there is only one that is Holy and that would be God. All men are born sinners.. This is why Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and we are born of the Spirit of God and are now new creations in Him..Jesus on the other hand was God.. Born into this world.. The word that became flesh..He still is. In fact He is now seated at the right hand side of the Father..