There's something about Mary.......

[PilgrimToChrist]

This always bugged me too. Their having sexual relation afterward is certainly not a sin but actually celebrating the blessing of marriage God gave them, the purity of the act within the marriage between the two people God joined together. To remain celibate seems the opposite to me. I see plenty of scripture indicating they did, indeed, have sexual relation afterwards. And there is no reason why they would not have.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Matt 1:18 (ESV)

24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matt 1:24-25 (ESV)

Okay, you've quoted showing that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ. Now quote the one where it says that she lost her virginity to Joseph.

I'm sure the above scriptures have been posted and different viewpoints given on them, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to read every post in all these pages. It seems pretty clear to me just from those two in the beginning of Matthew.

You don't have to read all of the threads, most of them are pretty much the same. But if you don't understand what the Church has taught for 2,000 years then you will simply remain in ignorance and instead "lean on your own understanding" of what you think Scripture says.

Suffice to say, you haven't discovered some shocking new passage in Scripture that was long lost. It was the position maintained by the heretic Helvidius, notably opposed by St. Jerome in his work on the Virginity of Mary: Against Helvidius (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary). As I quoted earlier (I believe in this thread), even all of the major Protestant reformers (e.g. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Cranmer) called Helvidius a "idiot" or a "fool" for supposing such a thing, Cranmer even calls it an addition contrary to Scripture and says that anyone who proposes such a thing is a member of the Antichrist.

So you might do well to actually listen to the majority viewpoint before you simply declare something true based on your own personal opinion.

 

[clint25n]

But Mary did choose to accept God's proposal.

Mary was obedient, but that is not why we can go to Heaven as you stated. God knows the future and if she wasn't going to be obedient, He would have chose another.

And, woah rape? What are you talking about, lol?

I find it curious that you believe that Mary had to sin before Jesus could save her. So if God wants to save someone, they have to commit some sin first? God then demands that people sin? You blaspheme.

I'm not saying that Mary had to sin. We all have sinned. The point was that Mary is a human being, a sinner, and needs forgiveness like us all. I was trying to show you that you are elevating a human too high.

Only God is worthy of divine worship (latria), plenty of people are worthy of our respect and praise (dulia). The Blessed Virgin Mary, as the highest of all of God's creation, is worthy of exceptional praise above everyone else (hyperdulia).

Yea, but you pray to her, and you think she is omnipotent. That's a little more than some minor praising wouldn't ya say?? There is one mediator between man and God and that person is Jesus Christ, not Mary or any Saints.

Keep in mind, every time an angel was even bowed down to, they told them that only God was worthy of worship and to please rise.

You say that you don't worship Mary, but that fact is, you do.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Catholics, Orthodox, and well any and all Christians, have zero issue with marital intimacy. The problem as you pointed out yourself is when it is done outside marriage. Joseph and Mary were betrothed, not married. There is a world of difference between the two. Not even getting into the fact that Mary is the new Eve as well as the new ark of the covenant, and Joseph would have been a complete fool to even think of having sexual intercourse with her, on it's face the accusation of their being intimate is equal to accusing the Mother of God of fornication. Now seriously, can you not understand from that perspective why people get all up in arms when this nonsense gets trotted out?

I do not know of any Christians who believe that Joseph and Mary had intercourse prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, After all, scripture plainly states that Joseph did not know (have intercourse) with her until after the birth of Jesus.

The issue, simply stated, is why it is such an essential dogma for Catholics and Orthodox that Mary and Joseph never, even once, had intercourse after Joseph knew Mary (an oxymoron if ever there was one)? If marital intimacy is perfectly acceptable behavior within the marital state, then why is it that Mary's sinlessness hinges so strongly upon her perpetual virginity?

 

[bbbbbbb]

For the same reason why I might get worked up at someone who called my biological mother a harlot. I don't take kindly to people lobbing ignorant slander at my Heavenly Mother either.

If someone were to note that my parents had more than one child (myself) and commented on that fact, that would not mean to me that they were calling my mother a harlot. It would simply imply that my parents engaged in intercourse during their marriage to produce my siblings. I honestly do not understand how one can conclude that any marital intimacy between Joseph and Mary following the birth of Jesus can be considered to be fornication - unless one thinks that they never did get married at all and that their relationship was some sort of odd sham engagement, which leads me to - - -

There are two questions here: Were Mary and Joseph even married? (Catholics say yes and call it a celibate "Josephite marriage", Orthodox note that at no point was it mentioned that they ever got married after they were betrothed and refer to Joseph as "the Betrothed"). The second is: Whether they had children after Jesus? (The theoretical opinion that they had relations without bearing children is not really found, that I know of).

I am quite aware of the Catholic view of the "marriage" of Joseph and Mary which, according to Catholic theology, would be grounds for annulment today. Assuming that a marriage was effected but never consummated, the burden of proof lies with those who claim it was never consummated. If children resulted from that consummation, then there would be proof of the consummation (as per the five passages in the three gospels which state that Jesus had brothers and sisters). Even without progeny, the marriage could still have been consummated, so that proof that it was not consummated is virtually impossible apart from some sort of divine revelation (which finally came in 1950).

In a nod to my Anglican past, I will quote here from Thomas Cranmer's Remains:

So Cranmer says that the Fathers believed that the words of the prophet Ezekiel applied to the Blessed Virgin "under pain of damnation." Cranmer calls those who teach that "our Lady had other children by Joseph ungodly, rash and wicked members of Antichrist." Now, that's pretty harsh. At least I haven't called anybody Antichrist yet...

Martin Luther also remarks regarding Helvidius:

John Calvin:

So it is not just an issue for Catholics and Orthodox. It's an untenable position and something which is used to sully the name of the Holy Virgin.

As I pointed out in my previous post, Protestants respect these as the pious opinions of other Christians, even as I respect the pious opinions of others, such as yourself, on a range of disputable matters. We do not, however, raise these opinions to the level of indisputable dogma.

Well, actually it is dogmatic for Catholics, which means that it is considered a necessary part of the faith and denial of it would be heresy ("Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" -- CIC 751)

You are absolutely correct about that.

The matter is of a much higher importance than the integrity of relics because it is Mariological, which means that it is Christological. It was those who wanted to assault the divinity of Christ who denied the virginity of His Mother. Though the modern-day neo-antidicomarianites do not deny the divinity of Christ, why it has become a popular teaching is unknown to me. Which is why I asked why it is important for those who deny the virginity of Mary to proclaim such matters unreservedly, regardless of 2,000 years of Church history and their own Protestant past.

As I stated above, the issue is not the virginity of Mary in the conception and birth process of Jesus Christ, but the dogma of her perpetual virginity following His birth.

Neither do Catholics. Intimacy within Holy Matrimony is not only not sinful, it is a sacramental, just like blessed candles and holy water -- it confers Grace.

That is why I find this dogma to be problematic on several levels.

It can be your "opinion" as long as you recognize that you are going against what Jesus, St. Paul and St. John say about (intentional) virginity.

Jesus also had some interesting things to say about eunuchs, although I doubt that any Church advocates castration at present (although it was practiced by some churches in the past). Paul also had some very positive comments about marriage and family life as did Jesus and John.

No one has said it would be sinful for Mary and Joseph to have relations (apart from the idea that her virginity was related to a vow, of course, which then would be sinfully breaking that vow -- the presence or absence of a specific vow is adjunct to the dogma), assuming they were even married.

I think you have stated that your church does believe they were married. I am unaware that Mary ever made any vow of perpetual virginity. However, you are correct that the absence of presence of a specific vow is adjunct to the dogma.

There is a difference between something that is a sin and something that it is better not to do. Reasonable and balanced eating of food is not the sin of gluttony; yet it is better to fast. Sex, when in the context of marriage and not perverted or to excess, is not the sin of lust; yet it is better to be celibate.

Yet, St. Paul enjoins married couples to come together after a period of abstinence (I Cor. 7:5). Thus, he never advocates total abstinence from intercourse within a marriage even as he never advocated total abstinence from eating. If it is better to be celibate then one should not be married. However, if one is married it is better not to be celibate within the marriage.

Christ is, of course, not referring to literal eunuchs (castrated men), but rather to those who choose to remain celibate. Let us compare Christ's words to those of the prophet Isaiah:

Originally Posted by Is 56:3b-5

And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant: I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish.
​

Originally Posted by 1Cor 7:7-9

For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one has his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.​

​

Well, Jesus said that some men were born eunuchs, some were made eunuchs by men, and other made eunuchs by themselves. I think that is quite explicit. Everyone is born celibate, but only a rare few are born without proper genitalia. One cannot make another man celibate, but one can castrate him. One can, indeed, choose to become celibate, but that choice is foregone if one decides to marry.

Marriage is certainly better than the sin of fornication but celibacy is higher still.

If that is the case, then all true Christians would be celibate, would they not?

So marriage is not a sin, as some Gnostics falsely asserted. But celibacy is a higher state than marriage. Marriage is a sacrament and intimacy a sacramental, yet celibacy imparts more Grace than marriage because it is deeper intimacy with God.

That is Catholic theology, not biblical theology. One can argue that Ghandi was more spiritual because of his frequent fasting than Mother Theresa who apparently did not fast as often, However, I personally think Mother Theresa was far more spiritual than Ghandi.

Jovinianus (d. 405) abandoned the monastic life and started preaching against asceticism, teaching a multitude of heresies. We know him through St. Jerome's refutation:

He taught:
* That a virgin is no better as such than a wife in the sight of God.
* Abstinence is no better than a thankful partaking of food.
* A person baptized with the Spirit as well as with water cannot sin.
* All sins are equal.
* There is but one grade of punishment and one of reward in the future state.

Nice example, but because one heretic embraced a false view of this issue hardly means that all heretics held it or that one cannot fail to be a heretic and yet hold error. There are certain doctrines with which Christians disagree without holding each other to be heretics. For Protestants this is one.

I have heard all but the third on this forum and I could probably find examples of the third if I looked, it is a form of Christian perfectionism, similar to Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification.

Read Jerome's refutation. As for me, I have to be up to go to Mass in about 4 hours >.<

Happy Sunday!

I had an excellent Sunday and trust that yours was good, as well. Thank you for your excellent response.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dear bbbbbbb, you state this:

I'll try and answer your question. Firstly, denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary denies that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary at the Annunciation. God was Incarnate at that moment in time of a Virgin, just as He said. To deny this creates a denial in the mind of the person thinking about it that could take them out of His hand. It is His glory to show men how He came into the world to redeem us from our sins. Some go on and on thinking about it and living it and wind up blaspheming Him by blaspheming His Mother. I think that some who do so show how quickly they turn into church hoppers looking for some other place to spread their denials of God around and some I've watched stayed atheistic till the day they died. It is a sin that leads to other sins some of which you may never escape the consequences of. God died for it all. Bring you confusion to a Confessional soon. Perhaps if you can do that, God can heal you disbelief.

Peace and all good,

Gail

Dear GailMc,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As our good friend, Anglian, has pointed out this road has been well-traveled on these forums before.

I think the principal difficulty you face is conflating Perpetual Virginity with Virginity. Nobody here denies that Mary was a pure and chaste virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit and that she remained so until after His birth. It is the belief that she remained a virgin following her "marriage" to Joseph that is problematic.

Do you believe that Mary would have sinned had she and Joseph engaged in marital intimacy following the birth of Jesus? If so, do you believe that married couples also engage in sin when they have intercourse with each other?

Would your mother be blasphemed if I believed that [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] she and your father, who were rightly married, engaged in intercourse so that the result was yourself? I assuredly do not consider your own mother to be in the least bit immoral or ungodly in this aspect of her life, nor do I hold any lower view of Mary whether or not she and Joseph, as a married couple following the birth of Jesus, also engaged in what is a pure and holy act of marital intimacy.

 

[Anglian]

Dear GailMc,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As our good friend, Anglian, has pointed out this road has been well-traveled on these forums before.

Indeed, but if one believes in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed then one believes she was a Virgin. If one believes in the Councils of the Church, then according to Ephesus 431 she was a perpetual Virgin. If one holds thes ethings one holds orthodox belief. If one does not, one holds unorthodox belief.

peace,

Anglian

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed, but if one believes in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed then one believes she was a Virgin. If one believes in the Councils of the Church, then according to Ephesus 431 she was a perpetual Virgin. If one holds thes ethings one holds orthodox belief. If one does not, one holds unorthodox belief.

peace,

Anglian

Thank you for your explanation. I think there is a distinction between Catholic belief and Orthodox belief on this issue. For a variety of reasons, it was believed by the Catholics that an infallible ex cathedra pronouncement on the issue was necessary, so it was made in 1950. Thus, as pilgrimtoChrist and GailMc have correctly stated, the Catholic Church teaches that one's salvation hinges upon this dogma (along with other dogmas, of course). For the vast majority of Protestants, this dogma is not at all salvific and the result has been a variety of pious opinions, none of which, ironically, have divided Protestants from each other although, as we well know Protestants have found more than enough over which to divide.

 

[Anglian]

Thank you for your explanation. I think there is a distinction between Catholic belief and Orthodox belief on this issue. For a variety of reasons, it was believed by the Catholics that an infallible ex cathedra pronouncement on the issue was necessary, so it was made in 1950. Thus, as pilgrimtoChrist and GailMc have correctly stated, the Catholic Church teaches that one's salvation hinges upon this dogma (along with other dogmas, of course). For the vast majority of Protestants, this dogma is not at all salvific and the result has been a variety of pious opinions, none of which, ironically, have divided Protestants from each other although, as we well know Protestants have found more than enough over which to divide.

Indeed, and you are correct.

This is the reason I referred to two things that the RCC and the OCs agree on - the Creed and the second ecumenical Council.

Only those who dissent from these things actually deny the perpetual Virginity of Our Lady.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Musa80]

Indeed, but if one believes in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed then one believes she was a Virgin. If one believes in the Councils of the Church, then according to Ephesus 431 she was a perpetual Virgin. If one holds thes ethings one holds orthodox belief. If one does not, one holds unorthodox belief.

peace,

Anglian

Not to nitpick but ever-virgin came from the Fifth council at Constantinople. Ephesus 431 is where Theotokos was upheld.

 

[Anglian]

Not to nitpick but ever-virgin came from the Fifth council at Constantinople. Ephesus 431 is where Theotokos was upheld.

Nits duly and correctly picked. Thank you for the correction.

peace,

Anglian

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Mary was obedient, but that is not why we can go to Heaven as you stated. God knows the future and if she wasn't going to be obedient, He would have chose another.

Then the other woman would have been the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven, then she would have been the one written about in the Scriptures. But Christ came in the fullness of time, to a Mother specifically predestined from creation of the universe to be the Mother of God. Yes, she had free will in the matter, but how could she have said "no"? She was the Immaculate handmaid of the Lord! Of course, she would give her fiat. Speculation about what might have happened if she had said "no" is just mere intellectual exercise and has no real purpose. Through a free choice, a virgin brought sin into the world by listening to the serpent; through another free choice, a virgin was the one to conquer sin by crushing his head.

And, woah rape? What are you talking about, lol?

You said:

Mary was not voluntarily doing the will of God by becoming pregnant and giving birth to Jesus. She had no choice.

Sounds more like another god:

I'm not saying that Mary had to sin.

Actually, you said that Jesus could not have been her savior until she had sinned. That God could not have protected her from corruption. That He must allow her to be corrupted in order to heal her.

We all have sinned. The point was that Mary is a human being, a sinner, and needs forgiveness like us all.

Actually, there are millions of people who are not guilty of any personal sin. All the millions of babies murdered before they are even born have committed no wrong in their entire lives and that goes for all children up to the age of accountability -- they are guilty of no personal sins.

We are all corrupted through Adam's Original Sin:

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

But Original Sin is not guilt of sin. We cannot be called guilty of Adam's sin:

The soul that sinneth, the same shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son

Thus prior to committing a personal sin, someone is not guilty of any sin. If they die before committing a personal sin, they have lived a life free from sin.

S 2. Minor, ante plenum septennium, dicitur infans et censetur non sui compos, expleto autem septennio, usum rationis habere praesumitur.

A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is considered not responsible for oneself. With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason.
...
Can. 99 - Quicumque usu rationis habitu caret, censetur non sui compos et infantibus assimilatur.

Whoever habitually lacks the use of reason is considered not responsible for oneself and is equated with infants.

So that means that those under seven are not responsibly, or at least not fully responsible for their actions, because they lack an ability to reason morally. This is something that children have to learn slowly. In addition, those who are developmentally disabled or have severe mental health issues may never be fully able to reason morally. People are guilty in accordance with their responsibility in the matter.

The purpose of this is not to show that Mary was innocent because she was six years old or because she was insane, but rather to show that there are millions of people who live and die free from the guilt of sin. Thus it doesn't make someone inhuman or superhuman before they sin.

Someone said recently on another that saying that Mary was a virgin and never had sexual relations with Joseph makes her a goddess. I couldn't quite grasp the logic of that one but it did remind of the anime/manga "Loveless", in which virgins have cat ears and tails which disappear when they lose their virginity:

So saying that Mary is a virgin and without personal sin does not make her not human. Eve was a virgin and without sin in the Garden until she took that fateful bite.

Like Eve, Mary did not contract Original Sin. Eve didn't because the first (human) sin hadn't occurred yet so there was nothing to contract. Mary didn't because God protected her from contracting it and kept her free from corruption. That doesn't make Eve more than human, that doesn't make Mary more than human. Jesus Christ didn't contract Original Sin, that certainly doesn't make Him not human.

So in no way is saying that Mary was without the corruption of Original Sin nor the guilt of any personal sin, (or being a virgin), make her anything but human. Indeed, all those things apply to Our Lord and if it makes Him not human, then the Docetists were right!

I was trying to show you that you are elevating a human too high.

Don't complain to me, complain to God, it's His fault!

Yea, but you pray to her,

Well, of course I pray to her. My mother asked me if I had a patron saint, I am not named after a saint (I love my name, it's beautiful but I don't get a name day ;_; ) and I have never grown close to any saint except Our Lady. I am enraptured in the beauty of her soul and her love. She is more my mother than my biological mother, she helps me and cares for me and gives me strength and comforts me. I quoted Martin Luther earlier (or in another recent thread), saying how that if he had as many tongues as there are flowers and blades of grass he would not be able to say what it means to be the Mother of God. With apologies to Wesley, we might echo the words of that great Protestant hymn, "O for a thousand tongues to sing..."

Mary is the brightest star in the sky, the perfect masterpiece, and all the other saints I can revere and pray to and be interested in their lives and their writings but they are all darkness in comparison with the brightness of she who is the moon and the morning star. All human things find their fulfillment not only in Our Lord but also in Our Lady. She is womanhood -- the only woman to ever be both Mother and Virgin -- and humanity writ large. The only time I really invoke anyone else's name if I pray that they help me understand the book they have written or it is their feast day or a pass a statue of them and I give a little, "St. ______, pray for me!/ora pro nobis!" or like in the Litany of the Saints.

I remember we did the Litany of the Saints at the vigil for All Saints' Day in my Anglican community and a Protestant was in attendance (if it was who I am remembering it was, he's a Baptist). He prayed with us in the other prayers but when it came time for the Litany, he chose to leave the room. He said that he wasn't sure whether it was right or wrong, but he didn't feel comfortable participating. He returned for the rest of the prayers.

If people aren't comfortable with praying to saints or don't really understand it, then that's alright, they just need to feel more comfortable being social with those in Heaven But there's nothing wrong with reverencing and asking for the prayers of those in Heaven. I am happy living in a house not only with a home altar but in my Anglican community, we used to have icons in nearly every room. It is wonderful to be constantly reminded of the great cloud of witnesses which surround and watch over us and to pray for their blessings.

So yes, of course, I pray to Mary and Mary prays for me to Her Divine Son. Is there any better presentation of a prayer to God than one which is related to Him by His own Mother?

and you think she is omnipotent.

I am not sure what you mean by "omnipotent" here. I am going to go to the extreme and understand that you really are referring to omnipotence -- the ability to do absolutely anything (not contrary to their nature -- e.g. God cannot sin by the very definition of God).

What did Ahazerus say to Queen Esther?

What dost thou desire should be given thee? and for what thing askest thou? although thou shouldst ask the half of my kingdom, thou shalt have it.

Now, it is not a stretch to read the King as God, Vashti as Eve and Esther as Mary. The woman who refused the king is cast out but the woman who refused the king nothing and neither does he refuse her. So too does Mary, the immaculate humble servant of God, not refuse Him anything but gives of her whole self to Him, withholding nothing, and God offers her anything she desires, up to half His kingdom. The half of the kingdom which is given to the Queen is Mercy, reserving Justice for Himself. Observe that almost no one has ever referred to Mary as "regina justitiae" as Christ is "rex justitiae" (Heb. 7:2), yet we proclaim her as "regina misericordiae" quite often. Compare to the opening phrase of the hymn, "Salve Regina, mater misericordiae". So Mary is the Queen of Heaven, specifically as Queen of Mercy.

Observe the relationship between King Solomon and his mother:

And Adonias, the son of Haggith, came to Bethsabee the mother of Solomon. And she said to him: Is your coming peaceable? He answered: It is peaceable. And he added: I have a word to speak with you. She said to him: Speak. And he said: You know that the kingdom was mine, and all Israel had preferred me to be their king: but the kingdom is transferred, and has become my brother's: for it was appointed him by the Lord. Now therefore, I ask one petition of you; turn not away my face. And she said to him: Say on. And he said I pray you speak to King Solomon (for he cannot deny you anything) to give me Abisag, the Sunamitess, to wife. And Bethsabee said: Well, I will speak for you to the king.

Then Bethsabee came to King Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand. And she said to him: I desire one small petition of you; do not put me to confusion. And the king said to her: My mother ask, for I must not turn away your face.

Now, it doesn't turn out very well for Adonias but that was his own fault. The point is that Adonias asked Bethsabee [Bathsheba] to ask her son, King Solomon a favor for him. Solomon respects his mother and she sits on a throne at his right hand. Solomon says he will not refuse his mother anything.

So, for who can it be more true that she can "Ask, and it shall be given you"? Jesus tells His disciples:

For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.

So who has faith more perfect than Mary, the mustard seed of faith which landed on her good ground, cultivated by God and protected from stones, weeds and devils? To Mary then it must be true that nothing shall be impossible for her, that everything she asks for is according to the perfect will of God and that He does not ever refuse her requests. Thus it is not blasphemous to call Mary "omnipotent" in a sense, as St. Alphonsus Liguori explains:

Mary, then, is called omnipotent in the sense in which it can be understood of a creature who is incapable of a Divine attribute. She is omnipotent, because by her prayers she obtains whatever she wills.

(Cont.)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

(Cont.)

That's a little more than some minor praising wouldn't ya say??

I would never say "minor praising" for the masterpiece of God's creation! If I went to the Louvre, would I give "minor praise" to any of the works there? How infinitely greater than is the Mother of God than a piece of canvas or a chunk of stone? There is no confusion between the creator and the created in art -- nobody thinks that David is Michelangelo or that the Mona Lisa is Leonardo da Vinci, that would be insanity. If I travel to the Grand Canyon or Niagra Falls or climb Mt Everest, can I not appreciate and praise God for the magnificence of His creation? Would you call the Grand Canyon a ditch, Niagra Falls a creek or Mt Everest a molehill? No. In praising Mary and seeking to understand all the details and boundless glories of His perfect creation, the Temple of God, the Ark of the Covenant, we praise God. For indeed, when God the Holy Spirit praised Mary through the mouth of St. Elizabeth, Mary praised God all the more. Mary keeps nothing for herself, the Temple cannot distract from God, the Temple is for God, the Temple is holy. How much love and praise is given to the Jewish Temple in Scripture? How much more is necessarily given to the Living Temple?

There is one mediator between man and God and that person is Jesus Christ, not Mary or any Saints.

You misread St. Paul and set that line in contradiction to many others. Here is the passage:

For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.

Now where does it say that the only person who can pray is Jesus? Certainly not, we are commanded to pray. St. Paul constantly asks for the prayers of the Church and St. James says,

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

So we are told to pray for one another that we might be saved. So that is what we do. We are constantly asking people to pray for us, to storm Heaven with our petitions. In no way does prayer, including intercessory prayer, diminish any role of Christ because that is not what St. Paul is talking about when he says that Christ is our sole Mediator because he says, "Who gave Himself a redemption for all". Christ is the sole Mediator of Redemption, not the only person who can pray to God!

In fact, let's read from the beginning of the chapter:

I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times

St. Paul precedes that line by asking people to pray for others, especially for those in power. So certainly it is an insanity to suggest that he then contradicts what he just said and says that nobody should pray for anyone else because it would be an attempt to usurp Christ as the sole Mediator between God and man. That is ridiculous!

St. Paul is most certainly not saying that we should not pray for one another, nor even of the distinction that we should not ask other people to pray for us, as he does himself:

Pray without ceasing. ... Brethren, pray for us.

For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may run, and may be glorified, even as among you; And that we may be delivered from importunate and evil men; for all men have not faith. For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may run, and may be glorified, even as among you; And that we may be delivered from importunate and evil men; for all men have not faith.

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name. And do not forget to do good, and to impart; for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained. Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things. And I beseech you the more to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.

We should always pray for one another and ask others to pray for us. It does not impugn Christ's status as the Mediator of Redemption to pray for one another, God forbid!

Keep in mind, every time an angel was even bowed down to, they told them that only God was worthy of worship and to please rise.

I don't know about "every time". I can only think of one time.

And I, John, who have heard and seen these things. And after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel, who shewed me these things. And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God.

This also happens between St. Peter and Cornelius:

And it came to pass, that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet adored. But Peter lifted him up, saying: Arise, I myself also am a man.

Yet elsewhere,

The Hospitality of Abraham:

And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near him: and as soon as he saw them he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground.

It's not the bowing which is the issue, it's according Divine status to a human being. Lots of cultures bow, look at the Japanese or Chinese. The issue is that St. John mistook the angel for God, probably because of the brillance of the glory with which he shone.

Look at what the Iconians did:

And when the multitudes had seen what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice in the Lycaonian tongue, saying: The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury: because he was chief speaker. The priest also of Jupiter that was before the city, bringing oxen and garlands before the gate, would have offered sacrifice with the people. Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying, and saying: You men, why do you do these things? We also are mortals, men like unto you, preaching to you to be converted from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all things that are in them:

Nobody who reverences those in Heaven confuses them for gods, nor believes that what they do is of their own power, it is rather God's working in them and through them which we reverence. The Garden is not the Gardener (which would be more insanities), but we praise the Gardener by praising His Garden. We show our love for God when we show our love for His friends and seek God's favor by imitating them and asking for their guidance and prayers. Everyone needs heroes.

You say that you don't worship Mary, but that fact is, you do.

It depends on what you mean by the word "worship" since it is often used in profane usage as well. "Worship" is "Worth-ship", it is saying that someone is worthy and accords them a high status. So if we call a magistrate "Your Worship", there is no confusion that we are calling them God but rather that we are respecting their position.

When Catholics, Orthodox, or Anglicans say that we do not worship Mary or the saints or angels, we do not mean it in that sense but in the sense in which you are using it -- according Divine honors to a creature (whether human or angelic). English does not have a good distinction between reverence given to people and the worship given to God, Latin as well is feign to give us a good word, so we turn to the Greek (the first language of the Church), which distinguishes between latria as worship given to God and dulia as worship or reverence given to people. It would be blasphemy to give divine worship to a creature, but it is good and pious to give them respect and veneration. More than anyone else, the highest of all creatures, the Blessed Virgin Mary, deserves our praise and veneration in a particular way, which is why we distinguish again that particular reverence paid to Our Lady with the term hyperdulia.

The purpose of Mary is Christ and thus the purpose of our devotion to Mary is a truer devotion to Christ.

Ad Iesum per Mariam!
To Jesus through Mary!

 

[MamaZ]

If you would direct all this devotion to Christ and Him alone How glorified God would be. To magnify a human being saved the same way as every man woman and child is a little upsetting..

 

[Anglian]

If you would direct all this devotion to Christ and Him alone How glorified God would be. To magnify a human being saved the same way as every man woman and child is a little upsetting..

If you would realise that our devotion is directed to Christ through His mother, as well as to Him directly, you might be less upset. Indeed, if you would stop criticising others for doing things you don't understand, they would also get let upset and there'd be a deal more love around here, perhaps?

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

I do not love my husband through his mother. So no that does not help me with the explaination above.

 

[Anglian]

I do not love my husband through his mother. So no that does not help me with the explaination above.

But then you aren't worshipping your husband as the second person of the Trinity, and his mother did not give birth to the Saviour of the world, so the analogy won't really get you there, I guess.

If you have never asked anyone else to pray for you, you probably won't get to first based, but if you have, think about it that way

peace,

Anglian

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I do not know of any Christians who believe that Joseph and Mary had intercourse prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, After all, scripture plainly states that Joseph did not know (have intercourse) with her until after the birth of Jesus.

Ebionites. They denied the Virgin Birth.

The issue, simply stated, is why it is such an essential dogma for Catholics and Orthodox that Mary and Joseph never, even once, had intercourse after Joseph knew Mary (an oxymoron if ever there was one)? If marital intimacy is perfectly acceptable behavior within the marital state, then why is it that Mary's sinlessness hinges so strongly upon her perpetual virginity?

Mary's sinless doesn't hinge upon it (assuming, of course, she didn't take a vow of virginity). But it is part of Mary's [holiness. My ex-fiance (who was female then, and is now female-to-male transsexual) and I wanted to have sex in or near a (Catholic) church as some sort of sacrilege. We never did but we did perform some other outrageous sacrilegious acts, of which I won't go into detail here but echoes a certain infamous scene in "The Exorcist". We did all sorts of things, we were into the BDSM (sadomasochism) "scene" and would go to big house "play parties" (counting the whole night, over 100 people) of our friends who were professional dominants (pro-dom/me, dominatrix) where there would be all sorts of things going on that I wouldn't mention here. Suffice to say, that I picked up booklet at Church a couple weeks ago on making a good confession and under the sexuality heading, I was just going down the list saying "check, check, check" -- I don't think there is any perverse sexual sins there I haven't committed and hadn't committed before I was even 20.

So my point is not to disgust you with my teenage sex life but rather that it is unseemly for sexuality to be attributed to Mary. Certainly, most people's sex lives are a little more "plain vanilla" than mine and there are certainly both sinful and non-sinful sexual acts. But even if they never committed a sexual sin, it is still sacrilegious.

I wanted to have sex in a Church because I wanted to commit a blasphemous, sacrilegious act. How much more of a sacrilege would it be to have sex with the Living Temple of God? It's not just a mere historical fact that we're arguing, that Mary and Joseph didn't have any children after Jesus (which Helvidious stupidly asserts), but a defense of the honor of our Queen and Mother as the Holy Temple.

So when you throw mud at God's Holy Temple and deride her and call her a sinner and impugn her virginity, all in the name of praising God, certainly we can get upset. You are not ignorant simply of factual history but you blaspheme when you say that Mary and Joseph had sex. She is the Mother of God, Daughter of the Father, Spouse of the Holy Spirit. My life is full of some of the most heinous, perverse sins you can even think of (haven't murdered anybody yet though....) but Mary, Mary is Holy, chosen of God to be His Mother and Queen. Assigning to her any sort of sin or corruption or even marital relations is repulsive to the very role that God gave to her. So in doing so, you are not only being ignorant of fact but offensive to God.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

If you would direct all this devotion to Christ and Him alone How glorified God would be. To magnify a human being saved the same way as every man woman and child is a little upsetting..

Well, Mary was not saved in exactly the same way that everyone else was, though still by the Cross. We were saved by being pulled out of the pit, she was saved by never falling in.

Mary's soul magnifies the Lord. When we give praise and honor to God's Masterpiece, His Holy Temple, His Garden, His Mother, we give all the more praise to God. Taking my analogy before, it is as though you say we should ignore the Mona Lisa and deride it so we could focus on Leonardo da Vinci more. When we are enraptured in the Mona Lisa, we are enraptured in da Vinci. When we give praise, honor and love to God's Temple, we give praise, honor and love to God -- the two are not in conflict or competition. But when people call the Temple of God ugly and broken and corrupt, thinking that in doing so, they are praising God, they are sorely mistaken. God is worshiped in and through His Temple, that is the purpose of the Temple.


Ad Iesum per Mariam!
To Jesus through Mary!

 

[Livindesert]

Ebionites. They denied the Virgin Birth.



Mary's sinless doesn't hinge upon it (assuming, of course, she didn't take a vow of virginity). But it is part of Mary's [holiness. My ex-fiance (who was female then, and is now female-to-male transsexual) and I wanted to have sex in or near a (Catholic) church as some sort of sacrilege. We never did but we did perform some other outrageous sacrilegious acts, of which I won't go into detail here but echoes a certain infamous scene in "The Exorcist". We did all sorts of things, we were into the BDSM (sadomasochism) "scene" and would go to big house "play parties" (counting the whole night, over 100 people) of our friends who were professional dominants (pro-dom/me, dominatrix) where there would be all sorts of things going on that I wouldn't mention here. Suffice to say, that I picked up booklet at Church a couple weeks ago on making a good confession and under the sexuality heading, I was just going down the list saying "check, check, check" -- I don't think there is any perverse sexual sins there I haven't committed and hadn't committed before I was even 20.

So my point is not to disgust you with my teenage sex life but rather that it is unseemly for sexuality to be attributed to Mary. Certainly, most people's sex lives are a little more "plain vanilla" than mine and there are certainly both sinful and non-sinful sexual acts. But even if they never committed a sexual sin, it is still sacrilegious.

I wanted to have sex in a Church because I wanted to commit a blasphemous, sacrilegious act. How much more of a sacrilege would it be to have sex with the Living Temple of God? It's not just a mere historical fact that we're arguing, that Mary and Joseph didn't have any children after Jesus (which Helvidious stupidly asserts), but a defense of the honor of our Queen and Mother as the Holy Temple.

So when you throw mud at God's Holy Temple and deride her and call her a sinner and impugn her virginity, all in the name of praising God, certainly we can get upset. You are not ignorant simply of factual history but you blaspheme when you say that Mary and Joseph had sex. She is the Mother of God, Daughter of the Father, Spouse of the Holy Spirit. My life is full of some of the most heinous, perverse sins you can even think of (haven't murdered anybody yet though....) but Mary, Mary is Holy, chosen of God to be His Mother and Queen. Assigning to her any sort of sin or corruption or even marital relations is repulsive to the very role that God gave to her. So in doing so, you are not only being ignorant of fact but offensive to God.

Sex between a husband and wife is not a repulsive act but is the beginning of the creation of life. I do not see how that would blaspheme Mary at all.

 

[Musa80]

So when you throw mud at God's Holy Temple and deride her and call her a sinner and impugn her virginity, all in the name of praising God, certainly we can get upset. You are not ignorant simply of factual history but you blaspheme when you say that Mary and Joseph had sex. She is the Mother of God, Daughter of the Father, Spouse of the Holy Spirit. My life is full of some of the most heinous, perverse sins you can even think of (haven't murdered anybody yet though....) but Mary, Mary is Holy, chosen of God to be His Mother and Queen. Assigning to her any sort of sin or corruption or even marital relations is repulsive to the very role that God gave to her. So in doing so, you are not only being ignorant of fact but offensive to God.

And this is exactly what I was getting at on page one, though not in such clear words. As expected, I was completely ignored. People's attachment to their pet heresies seem to have that affect. Hopefully, your very nicely stated post will not be ignored as well.



P.S. Don't dwell on past sins. You're not alone. Before my first confession I was handed a list of the ten commandments and told to use those as a starting point to anything I had on my conscious. I just handed them back and said "Yes"