Virgin Mary: Question for Catholics

[hasnoname]

...

 

[cubanito]

My mother did not remain a perpetual virgin.

I do not consider her a harlot.

So how exactly is it an insult to say that Mary was a mother by natural means after the birth of Jesus?

JR

 

[LivingWordUnity]

When it talks about blessed Mary in the Bible, it says that Jesus is THE son of Mary. It doesn't say that Jesus is A son of Mary. (Mark 6:3)

When Catholics call Mary the "Blessed Virgin," they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as "virgin," they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the Lord." The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms "brethren," "brother," and "sister." -Catholic Answers

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).


No Word for Cousin


Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ "brethren" saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.


Fundamentalist Arguments


Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.
-Catholic Answers

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The Holy Family


Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages "unnatural" arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

So, if it is established that the "brethren of the Lord" were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ "brothers" who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl" (4:9).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the "brethren of the Lord" as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.
-Catholic Answers

.

 

[cubanito]

Fact: I am the firstborn son of Joseph and Mary, named Jesus (that is my real name).

Can you tell me if I have siblings?

jr

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Fact: I am the firstborn son of Joseph and Mary, named Jesus (that is my real name).

Can you tell me if I have siblings?

jr

Brother, with all due respect, you are trying to project your own personal experience with your parents in a way to superimpose it onto the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I don't know if you have brothers or sisters, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus did.

If we go by the Bible alone, the Bible only tells us that blessed Mary was a virgin who gave birth to Jesus. It doesn't say that blessed Mary ever gave birth to any other child. Anything else is what you are trying to add to what scripture clearly tells us.

But in your case, telling me that you are the firstborn does not tell me whether you have other siblings or that you are the firstborn child to your parents without your parents ever having any other children.

Being the firstborn is only saying that your parents did not have any other children before you were born. It says nothing about whether or not your parents had children after you.

If you tell me that your Mother gave birth to another child after you were born, then I would know that your Mother gave birth to another child after she had you because you told me so.

Just as if the Bible said that blessed Mary gave birth to another child after Jesus, then we would know this. But the Bible does not say that she did.

If blessed Mary had any other children, Jesus would be one of her children and would be called a son of Mary. But the Bible does not say this.

The Bible only says that Jesus is THE son of Mary. (Mark 6:3)

Many people only have only one child and never have another, so I can't assume that your Mother gave birth to more than just you.

I have a brother named Brian and a sister named Jennifer, but between the three of us we each have a different biological Mother.

Brian is my biological brother, but he is not the son of my biological Mother.

Jennifer is my biological sister, but she is not the daughter of my biological Mother.

My sister, Jennifer, is the firstborn of her biological Mother, and her Mother never gave birth to another child.

There was no word for "cousin" in Hebrew or Aramaic at the time the Bible was written.

But the "brothers" of Jesus don't even have to be biological relatives of Jesus because of what Jesus said when he said that his brothers are whoever does the will of the Father.

His "brothers" could have been ones who were disciples and who did the will of the Father, and by that alone, they could be called the "brothers" of Jesus.

Just as you can be called my brother because we are both Christians.

And you and I are brothers of Jesus because we are Christians.

In an even wider sense, all humans are brothers and sisters because we all are children of our original parents, Adam and Eve.

If you use the Bible alone, you can only conclude that blessed Mary only gave birth to Jesus.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

However, I see NOTHING in the Scriptures to support Apostolic succession

My brother JR, here are some verses that are about apostolic succession.

Acts 1:20
Acts 8:18
Romans 10:14-15

This is a bit off topic in this thread, but I could not have given you these Bible verses in the Fundamentalist thread without getting in trouble for it there. It's been my experience that there are some Bible verses that Fundamentalists wish were not in the Bible. I know this because they will either give me a warning or delete my post even when all that I post is the Bible quote with no comments of my own added to it. Ironic isn't it?

 

[cubanito]

Lol

Jr

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Lol

Jr

Jr, this is not related (no pun intended), but I was wondering why FreeinChrist is a Moderator on the Fundy forum and a Moderator on the Liberal Christian forum at the same time. Isn't that a conflict of interest? I don't know why she didn't give an answer to the abortion question. Can someone be a Liberal Fundamentalist?

 

[Pennelope]

Was Mary always a virgin?

Written references to the continual virginity of Mary appear in Christian writings appear as early as the second century. There was no uprising of opinion against that at the time, and it was firmly rooted in Christian teaching by the 5th century or so. During the Reformation, the (at the time) novel approach of sola scriptura caused some debate about the issue, but Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

It's helpful to remember that this belief (along with referring to Mary as Mother of God) don't reflect on Mary as a person nearly as much as they reflect on God's grace, nature and sovereignty. There are plenty of historical instances where a strong call by God's grace led someone to forgo marriage, married couples to decide to live together in celibacy (yes, really), and otherwise show evidence through their whole lives of God having drawn them in a particular way. How reasonable it would be if the man and woman that God chose to provide a family for his Son would have been prepared by him ahead of time and be drawn into his service in a unique way.

 

[cubanito]

as to who's a mod and who's not...

whatever.

As a fundy I so expect to be discriminated against that when a non-fundy takes my side I am surprised.

This answer probably breaks the rules but hey, the rules are pretty much out the window, aint they?

As a response to the "questioning" by the RC on the Fundy thread, I decided to go by the OBOB site and explain to them that I am a Catholic, and so, rather than pretending to dialogue about how Jack Chick is our Pope or some such thinly veiled insult, I would frankly challenge their rules.

excuse me while I shout the following:

ANYONE WHO AFFIRMS THE APOSTLE'S CREED IS A CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!

That is a simple definitional fact that goes back to times more ancient than anyone can document. There is no rational argument with the fact that, "separated bretheren" or not, all Christians belong to ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church.

So of course, the thread gets deleted. Dare anyone suggest that the RCC is not the ONLY possible visible Church of True Christians and the paint peels off from the nasty comments, accusations and threats. Imagine that, I am rude for suggesting that there is but ONE, holy, catholic, apostolic Church and that, as a Christian, I am therefore a Catholic.My offense was claiming to believe the Apostle's Creed and asking to be accepted as Catholic.

The RCC appropiates an ancient title (Catholic), schisms all Christendom by anathemizing anybody who won't kneel to one man, and then I am rude? Is there an honorific title that the RCC has NOT appropiated? Were Chirst a Jewish boy today He's say, "What Chutzpah!"

Now look at my posts for the past year or more. NEVER have I suggested that the RCC as a whole, nor individual RC's are not Christian. This is not because I guard my mouth---that Hippo avatar well describes my approach to CF, and most other things as well. I DO believe that the RCC remains a Christian Church, and have defended that position against other Fundys, who, LEGITIMATELY, seethe with rage at much the RCC does, teaches and also at the actions of many RC on CF.

But hey, whatever, the RCC has the money, they have the numbers and they have the organizational control to impose their will as they see fit, not only on CF, but anywhere they are allowed. I can't blame them alone, like any man-made institution, they are only human. Plenty of non-RC have acted the same when THEY got power....Cromwell anyone?

But until they kick this Hippo off CF, like Luther, he will continue to break much wind.

JR

 

[Concetta]

Jesus THE son of Mary, as opposed to Jesus A son of Mary... Food for thought here:

Back in those times, familial last names were not used. Most men were known as So-and-So, son of FathersName. People don't refer to Him as Jesus the son of Joseph, as Joseph was His stepfather and God is His father. Anyways... He is referred to as the son of Mary instead of as the son of Joseph, and instead of the son of Abigail or Anne or Martha or anyone else. It does not imply that Mary had no other sons. It implies that she was THE Mother of The Jesus, and that she had no other sons named Jesus.

Just my two cents' worth here...

 

[LivingWordUnity]

JR,

I'm a Catholic, and you can debate with me all that you want. I am only limited by time I have to spend doing other things like taking care of my family, working on my job, and sleeping.

I actually got banned from a "Christian" website that was actually a Fundamentalist website that falsely proclaimed itself to represent all of Christianity. I learned very quickly that they were very intolerant of Catholics.

I posted two quotes from the Bible (with no comments of my own added) in a Bible forum on the website, and they deleted my post and banned me and emailed me letting me know that even my family members were banned from the website.

On that website, anyone who is not a Catholic can start any new thread saying anything that they want to in any place on the website. It doesn't matter to them how inaccurate a statement made by someone is, as long as it's not a statement from a Catholic point of view.

Because I posted a Bible quote in the Bible forum, they banned me simply because I am a Catholic.

You said that you consider Catholics to be Christians, but I remember what your conditions are for this. You only consider the cafeteria Catholics to be real Christians.

But did you know that the cafeteria Catholics are the same ones who keep trying to put pressure on the Pope to try to make the Pope say that a sin is not a sin (i.e. homosexual sex, abortion, euthanasia, fetal farming and human embryo destruction in the name of science, human cloning, etc)? Because the Pope continues to preach that these things are Mortal sins, many cafeteria Catholics choose to ignore the teaching authority of the Pope so that they can do their own will.

Ironically, usually the Catholics who are the most faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church are former Protestants, or people who were born Catholic, left the Church, and then became a "revert" back to Catholicism, or something else. I am an example of this, and I know of many others.

If you are open to it, I recommend a book called "Letter and Spirit" by Dr. Scott Hahn. He is a Biblical scholar who is a former fundamentalist who used to be very anti-Catholic. There is another book that I know of that is very good called, "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" by David B. Currie. Another good one is "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by by Thomas E. Woods Jr. And I would also recommend reading books about the lives of Catholic saints.

JR, there are a lot of people who just like you, they fell away from the Catholic Church. But then they reverted. Do you remember the singer from the early 60's named Dion? Do you remember the song, "Run Around Sue"? Dion was on a show that I love to watch called "The Journey Home". He told the story of his life and how he had been led away from the Catholic Church and how he went from one Protestant denomination to the next until he finally came back to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I have to go now before my wife gets too upset about me spending too much time on the computer.

Peace my brother.

 

[cubanito]

Well said, she was honored to be His mother, not the other way around. However, in His town Jesus was indeed known as "the son of Joseph" (jn 6:42), and brother to a bunch of people.

"blessed be the womb that bore you!..." said a woman to Christ.

"No, but rather blessed are those who hear and keep the Word of God." Lk 11:27

Again and again through the Gospel Christ pointedly denies the importance of Mary, even to as never calling her mother, but using the slightly desultory term "woman." It is almost as if Jesus could see the danger in future generations agrandizing His earthly mother beyond her station, which was that of a wonderful, Godly but ultimately flawed human just as much in need of a saviour as all of us.

One hears nothing of Mary in Acts or the Epistles, and can only project an allegrical allusion in Revelations, one that could stand for Israel or whatever, instead of her. How such omission of so great a personage as the Immaculately Conceived Queen of Heaven strains credulity.

You want to believe Mary stayed a perpetual virgin? Fine by me, it is not the most natural reading of Scripture BUT it is plausible. In fact, many Reformers, including Martin Luther did retain the belief in Mary's perpetual virginitty (I'm not 100% sure on Luther). Early on a very plausible explanation for this was promulgated via the "Protenvangilon", a spurious and ridiculous work of fiction that I have read entirely more than once. While the Protenvangilon is absurd, the idea it posits IS plausible. It is possible that Joseph was a widower and Jesus' brothers were half-brothers according to the law. Plausible without a srhed of evidence, but plausible. The RCC position that they were "cousins" or "spiritual brothers" is unsuportable from the Greek.

But I really care little if she stayed a virgin or not.

What I refuse is all the attendant business of "Immaculate Conception" (which means Mary's mother also had a virginal conception), assumption, coronation and so on and so on.

C'mon now, is now Mary Omniscient that she can hear everybody's prayers at once? Has no one seen the pinnacle of theological movies: "Bruce Almighty?" So now instead of the blessed rest promised all believers by Christ, she spends the next few millenia attentive to the supplications of the faithful? Why would you wish such an awful fate for the mother of Christ, that she should not have the rest afforded the meanest Christian?

Did Samuel like it when Saul disturbed his rest?

You venerators of the dead ought have more compassion on the dearly departed and let them R.I.P.

(Remain In Protestantism)

JR

 

[cubanito]

Livingwordofunity, may Jack Chick forgive you for your impiety.

I am shocked, (no indeed, I had to be rescucitated right on the floor of the Doctor's Lounge at Mount Sinai Hospital from whence I write and propped up again at the keyboard), that you have dound an intolerant Fundy site on the web. How could such a thing be?

I have read 2 books by the ex-LIBERAL protestant Hahn and seen his conversion tape. Coming out of liberal protestantism, the RCC is an improvement indeed. I think I'll pass on reading yet another one. You see, I'm the sole income for my tribe of 6 (not counting 3 dogs, a cat, fish and probably a partridge in a pear tree). So I'm modestly aware of time pressures as well. Right now I've a very vivacious lady in ICU at death's door in the ICU and I haven't a clue what's ailing her, nor do the other 6 MD's involved on her case. So yeah, I think I'll pass on yet another book by Hahn, or his cohort (Not by Scripture Alone and several others).

As to "cafeteria Christians." My wife is pro-life, detests the idea of women at the pulpit and so on. She simply will not bow the knee to anyone but Christ, including some man in a pointy hat who decides to call himself infallible when he chooses. If that makes her a cafeteria Christian, then she and I can peacebly eat together at the cafeteria.

It is, however, difficult to eat peaceably with someone who comes and bombards you with questions, some of which are offenses under a thin veil.

That the long and sad history of Roman opression before and after Constantine should have given some a permanent bad attitude, well, I don't think one should hold a grudge for what was done to one's grandparents, so I am sorry you were so treated. I bet you I would get banned from such a site myself soon enough, having the mouth I do.

My objections to the RCC are not extreme, nor are they borne of terminal ignorance, bigotry or hatred. For someone that's completely self-taught on matters of Faith, I think I've spent a fair amount of time educating myself. That some others, either from natural limitations, time pressures, lack of opportunity or just plain laziness are ignorant, what is that to me?

JR, a Catholic by all definitions of ancient Creeds

 

[cubanito]

And yes, I am aware that a partridge in a pear tree was part of a song by the Irish to surreptitiously teach catechism during the long oppresion they suffered.

I do not deny that at times when Protestants have gained political power that they too have gone too far.

Man, it is difficult to thread a needle!

JR

 

[LivingWordUnity]

"blessed be the womb that bore you!..." said a woman to Christ.

"No, but rather blessed are those who hear and keep the Word of God." Lk 11:27

Again and again through the Gospel Christ pointedly denies the importance of Mary, even to as never calling her mother, but using the slightly desultory term "woman."

Did not blessed Mary hear and keep the word of God?

In the Bible, blessed Mary said:

Luke chapter 1, verse 48
"for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

If evil people wanted to kill you because of the attention you are getting, wouldn’t they also want to kill your Mother if she started to attract attention and they knew that she was your Mother? Jesus was protecting her because he didn’t want her to die in the way that he was going to die. If you loved your Mother, wouldn’t you do the same to keep evil killers from noticing her?

"It is almost as if Jesus could see the danger in future generations agrandizing His earthly mother beyond her station, which was that of a wonderful, Godly but ultimately flawed human just as much in need of a saviour as all of us.

Do you mean like the future generations of people who call Mary blessed?

 

[Pennelope]

What I refuse is all the attendant business of "Immaculate Conception" (which means Mary's mother also had a virginal conception), assumption, coronation and so on and so on.

Hi, JR. I'm not going to really respond to most of what you've been saying, but I wanted to point out that the Immaculate Conception is not a belief that Mary was also virginally conceived. What it refers to is that Mary was conceived without sin in God's sovereign application of her Son's death outside of time as we understand it in order to make her pure enough to be God's mother. If you want to think of it poetically, the first Eve had a chance to say yes to God, but she said no. Mary, preserved by God's grace and Jesus' merit (not her own) had a similar chance, and she chose to say yes. In my mind, it drives home the fact that Christ makes all things new.

I really understand the difficulty with Catholic's high regard for Mary, the assumption, coronation, etc. I struggled with that for a long while myself. It helped me to think of it as being reflective of the Lord's greatness, mercy and love shining through someone through being transformed by God's love the way we will all be fully someday.

 

[cubanito]

Please read the very Scriptures you quote: "for He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden." Get it? LOW ESTATE

Some day Mary will freak out how people missed her statements that she was NOT WORTHY.

As to protection, definitely Jesus sought to protect His mother. He commended her to the only male believer who showed up at His crucifixion: John. Fulfilling the commandments to honor His parent to the very end.

But, long after the Resurection, after the supposed ascension of Mary to Heaven, when Jesus gave His last message to John at Patmos, He could have lauded her all over the place. Instead there is no direct mention of Mary at all, only some possible allegorical reference open to all manner of interpretation.

I have NO problem with calling Mary blessed. In fact, blessed are the patriarchs, prophets and good kings of the OT. Blessed be Stephen the first martyr, and so on and so on. Why, blessed be you, Livingword of unity, when you seek honest dialogue.

But show me where, in the whole of the Bible, a good angel, or a prophet of God, or Apostle or anyone of God allows the kneeling and veneration so prominently displayed at the RCC and EO. You can't. I can show you, both in the OT and new, both from the mouths of angels and men, urgent appeals NOT to kneel to anyone but God.

Now, some did kneel, some did worship Jesus, and He allowed it. But then, He, and He ALONE, is worthy.

It is a fact that generations have called Mary blessed. It is also a fact this was something Jesus did not aprove of when voiced in His presence. Perhaps had not so many generations gone beyond the rightful attitude of recognizing that Mary was UNDESERVEDLY blessed, and to crown her Queen of Heaven, Jesus would not have been compelled to speak such about His mother publicly.

Had Christians learned the first commandment aright, and worshiped God ALONE, and not make themselves graven images or split hairs claiming to only "venerate" the creature while all the while kneeling and genuflecting in obvious worship, perhaps then Jesus could have publicly been kinder to His mother. Instead, His only recorded kindness had to be muted, at the very end, when even dying He did not call her mother.

How sad to think that possibly all this inordinate adulation was the very sword that pierced Mary's heart. That those who think themselves to so highly revere her should be unwilling to grant her the common courtesy due all believers tio let them Rest In Piece.

Like much else in this topsy turvy, inside out, die to live universe He created; often the most apparent mercy is the cruelest, and faithful are the wounds of a friend. Think on the fact that it is I who bless Mary by letting her rest, while you seek to heap upon her the troubles that only God can shoulder.

You really ought watch "Bruce Almighty." It might teach you some basic theology.

JR

 

[cubanito]

Hi, JR. I'm not going to really respond to most of what you've been saying, but I wanted to point out that the Immaculate Conception is not a belief that Mary was also virginally conceived. What it refers to is that Mary was conceived without sin in God's sovereign application of her Son's death outside of time as we understand it in order to make her pure enough to be God's mother. If you want to think of it poetically, the first Eve had a chance to say yes to God, but she said no. Mary, preserved by God's grace and Jesus' merit (not her own) had a similar chance, and she chose to say yes. In my mind, it drives home the fact that Christ makes all things new.

I really understand the difficulty with Catholic's high regard for Mary, the assumption, coronation, etc. I struggled with that for a long while myself. It helped me to think of it as being reflective of the Lord's greatness, mercy and love shining through someone through being transformed by God's love the way we will all be fully someday.

Yes indeed! I stand corrected, thank you.

Well, that's about 150,312 people I've misinformed over the past 30 odd years...

JR