Who is Mary?

mindlight · Sep 13, 2020

narnia59 said:
Again, sexual relations between married people is a good thing. It's not the choice between a good or bad thing, it's the choice between a good thing and perhaps an even better thing.

From this passage in Revelation "It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb" (Revelation 14:4), St. Augustine writes "The Lamb walks the way of virginity. Follow him there, you virgins, for on this count you follow him wherever he goes....The masses of the faithful, unable to follow the Lamb to this blessing, will rejoice with you, but they will not be able to sing that new song which is for you alone."

Augustine had a chequered past with sex and his journey led him to complete renunciation. Paul also was a confirmed bachelor. Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church that mirrors Christs own relationship with the church and so having sex in marriage is not defiling or unchaste.

Just as the old covenant has "typologies" that point us to the new, within the new there are those signs that point us on to heaven. Consecrated virginity is one of those signs, for there will be no marriage in heaven. They are the "firstfruits" of our redemption.

Jesus speaks of this when he say that there are those who will make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heave (Matthew 19:12).

While it would be unusual from married people to take that route, St. Paul certainly doesn't seem it to be an impossible thought. "36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)

If there ever was a person who would perhaps be "firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed," I think St. Joseph would be the one. And if there were ever a "firstfuit" of our redemption, then I believe that would be Mary.

It is true we will not have sex in our glorified states. There is a strong tradition to suggest that Joseph did not have normal marital relations with Mary and that seems to have been an early interpretation of the bible passages. Josephus's proclamations about James being the brother of Jesus might be either false or distracting as he could have been a half brother. Some people are called to completely renounce sex. Whether Mary was such a consecrated virgin , married to Joseph only for the protection and provision marriage provides is possible. In that context a virgin birth was not an intrusion and a special sign of Gods favour. But the silence of the earliest church fathers and scripture on this is quite deafening

mindlight · Sep 13, 2020

dzheremi said:
¿Porque no los dos?

^^^ This is the standard format for the intercessory prayers (Copto-Arabic Hiteniyat) prayed in the Coptic Orthodox tradition. As you can see and hear, they are prayers directly address to God: "Through the prayers of ____ (saint's name; it will always start with the Theotokos St. Mary, as there is no saint greater than her), O Lord, grant us the forgiveness of our sins."

Thanks for sharing, the list of people asked to pray for the intercessor included Mary, Archangels and Orthodox saints and popes.you are right the prayers all end with God as the focus,also the communality of the prayers is important. But I wonder if Mary , even glorified, would be able to process so many millions of requests and it seems a major distraction to her enjoyment of heavenly bliss to be so distracted by affairs of this world. Why would Christ inflict such a role on his mother when he was more than capable of handling the requests himself?

mindlight · Sep 13, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
Ok but we know that the protoevagelium of James wasn’t written until around 140AD which would make James being the older step brother of Jesus we’ll over 140 years old when it was written. I think the protoevangelium of James is a false apocryphal writing.

It is not written in an apocryphal style but rather as,if an historical account. But it is pseudobiographical cause James was dead when it was written. So it is a fabrication even if based on Orthodox traditions. How ever well meaning the actual authors intent it is neither canonical nor in list of Deuterocanonical books

mindlight · Sep 13, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
Paying to Mary & the saints is from what I can see more of a trusting that they are alive and well and able to offer prayers of supplication for others much like we would ask any living person here in this world to pray for us. In that situation we could also just pray directly to God ourself but many people do ask friends and family for prayers of supplication. So I see it as a kind if exercising that faith that Mary and the saints are very much alive and well, although I have personally never done it myself.

Understood, but only God can actually answer the prayers

mindlight · Sep 13, 2020

prodromos said:
When people make this statement, I have to wonder if they ever ask anyone to pray for them?
The Scripture states that the fervent prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective. Humility would have us consider ourselves the worst of sinners so while we always do pray directly to God, we don't consider our own prayers to be that of righteous men so naturally we ask the prayers of those whom God has revealed to be righteous.

The latter two we believe, the former denies Mary's virtues and sets her apart from the rest of humanity. This we do not ascribe to.

The humility factor is a good argument to ask for prayer as is the two witness view that where 2 or more are gathered together....

mindlight · Sep 13, 2020

FenderTL5 said:
here

True that had already been said

mindlight · Sep 13, 2020

narnia59 said:
My only purpose here is to provide the Scriptural basis that these teachings are not contrary to Scripture as some profess, and there is indeed evidence within Scripture that they are true.

You have to remember that Catholics are not Sola-Scriptura. If one tends to rely on Scripture alone and their interpretation, I think the most that can reasonably be concluded is as you seem to have here -- Scripture does not contradict these teachings but one may or may not conclude they are true based on Scripture alone. But in reality, that conclusion has no bearing on whether or not they are actually true or important. It is the teaching authority of the Church that is soundly evident in Sacred Scripture that provides the final determnination for me that they are actually true and therefore important to accept with faith.

I understand this and Anglicans have stood in continuity with the strongest Catholic traditions as aides to understanding what scripture meant. From these I am inclined to accept the Assumption, that Mary never had sex, the Virgin Birth, the Theotokos, but the Immaculate conception and prayers to Mary are a step too far for me

narnia59 · Sep 13, 2020

mindlight said:
Augustine had a chequered past with sex and his journey led him to complete renunciation. Paul also was a confirmed bachelor. Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church that mirrors Christs own relationship with the church and so having sex in marriage is not defiling or unchaste.

I think I've very much agreed that sex within marriage is a good thing.

But we also have to ask ourselves the question -- why in preparation for the Israelites to meet God at the foot of Mt. Sinai were they told to refrain from sex? For this one time, brief encounter they were to abstain.

An encounter that compares in no way to the experience of Mary when "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" and then carried God within her womb for nine months, then nursed him and cared for him as his mother for 30 years. She was in the presence of God every day. If the Israelites had to abstain from sex in order to meet God at Mt. Sinai for a one-time, brief encounter and Mary and Joseph had God living in their home with them, maybe we should have an understanding that even this "good thing" was set aside for something better.

mindlight said:
It is true we will not have sex in our glorified states. There is a strong tradition to suggest that Joseph did not have normal marital relations with Mary and that seems to have been an early interpretation of the bible passages. Josephus's proclamations about James being the brother of Jesus might be either false or distracting as he could have been a half brother. Some people are called to completely renounce sex. Whether Mary was such a consecrated virgin , married to Joseph only for the protection and provision marriage provides is possible. In that context a virgin birth was not an intrusion and a special sign of Gods favour. But the silence of the earliest church fathers and scripture on this is quite deafening

I'm not sure what you consider "early" but I think anything that pre-dates the New Testament canon of Scripture and the dogma of the Trinity qualifies as early.

As I mentioned earlier, if your aim is to rely on Sola-Scriptura and how you interpret things, then I think your most reasonable answer to the question would be you don't know.

Albion · Sep 13, 2020

narnia59 said:
As I mentioned earlier, if your aim is to rely on Sola-Scriptura and how you interpret things, then I think your most reasonable answer to the question would be you don't know.

Not "we don't know" so much as "We haven't been given to know, therefore there cannot be a doctrine about it."

BNR32FAN · Sep 13, 2020

mindlight said:
It is not written in an apocryphal style but rather as,if an historical account. But it is pseudobiographical cause James was dead when it was written. So it is a fabrication even if based on Orthodox traditions. How ever well meaning the actual authors intent it is neither canonical nor in list of Deuterocanonical books

Well in my opinion the author lost his credibility in the opening statements when he claimed that the writing was written by James when James was already dead. If he wasn’t accurate about who the actual author was then how can we be sure he was accurate about anything else in his writing?

BNR32FAN · Sep 13, 2020

mindlight said:
Understood, but only God can actually answer the prayers

Absolutely which is why they are prayers of supplication or intercession. I’m not aware of any church that teaches that Mary or the saints have any actual power themselves to grant prayer requests.

Albion · Sep 13, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
Absolutely which is why they are prayers of supplication or intercession. I’m not aware of any church that teaches that Mary or the saints have any actual power themselves to grant prayer requests.

Indeed they do! Although the claim is always that the prayers simply ask for intercession with God, there are all sorts of examples of prayers printed in church publications and used by members in which Mary or some other saint is said, in the text of the prayer, to have the power on their own volition to grant the request.

Naturally, an alibi would be that they have it only because God delegated it to them, but that hardly changes the facts in any significant way and is totally without any Scriptural backing in any case.

BNR32FAN · Sep 13, 2020

Albion said:
Indeed they do! Although the claim is always that the prayers simply ask for intercession with God, there are all sorts of examples of prayers printed in church publications and used by members in which Mary or some other saint is said, in the text of the prayer, to have the power on their own volition to grant the request.

Naturally, an alibi would be that they have it only because God delegated it to them, but that hardly changes the facts in any significant way and is totally without any Scriptural backing in any case.

I wasn’t aware of this can you provide some examples?

Albion · Sep 13, 2020

BNR32FAN said:
I wasn’t aware of this can you provide some examples?

Yes, but I'll have to do some looking in the files.

narnia59 · Sep 13, 2020

Albion said:
Not "we don't know" so much as "We haven't been given to know, therefore there cannot be a doctrine about it."

If you adhere to sola-Scriptura I'm sure that is accurate.

narnia59 · Sep 13, 2020

Albion said:
Indeed they do! Although the claim is always that the prayers simply ask for intercession with God, there are all sorts of examples of prayers printed in church publications and used by members in which Mary or some other saint is said, in the text of the prayer, to have the power on their own volition to grant the request.

Naturally, an alibi would be that they have it only because God delegated it to them, but that hardly changes the facts in any significant way and is totally without any Scriptural backing in any case.

Catholic teaching is that God is always the primary cause who often works through secondary causes.

This is why St. Paul can say that he became all things to all men so that he might "save" some (1 Corinthians 9:22) and we have the good sense to know that Scripture doesn't mean that Paul is our savior. He is simply the secondary cause that God (the primary cause) is working through to save people.

Or why when we read in the book of Acts that Paul "healed" a man (Acts 27:8) we have the good sense to know that Scripture doesn't mean that Paul was the source of the healing. He was simply the secondary cause that God (the primary cause) is working through.

And why when we read that somebody prayed to St. "x" and they answered their prayer or "healed" someone, we have the good sense to know it's not meant by that the saint was the source of the healing or the answer to the prayer. They were simply the secondary cause that God (the primary cause) is working through. But since Scripture finds it appropriate to speak in those terms I see no grounds to find fault in those who also do. Your claim that there is "no Scriptural backing" is false.

Albion · Sep 13, 2020

narnia59 said:
Catholic teaching is that God is always the primary cause who often works through secondary causes.

Even if true, a church cannot authorize and publicize prayers that state the opposite and use that as an excuse.

narnia59 · Sep 13, 2020

Albion said:
Even if true, a church cannot authorize and publicize prayers that state the opposite and use that as an excuse.

Please provide a prayer that states a particular saints was the primary cause and source of a healing.

jamiec · Oct 12, 2021

1) Parents: Joachim and Anna a barren woman - based on tradition. a descendant of David?

She was a human being, therefore she must have had human parents. even if those were not their names.

But I know of no reason to think that she was a descendant of David. As far as I can see, both the Gospel genealogies of Christ trace his descent through Joseph, and not through the BVM.

2) Immaculate conception : so she was born without sin - tradition and Catholic doctrine 1854

Agreed. BTW, it was doctrine before 1854 - that was the year it was defined to be a dogma. A small detail, but a not unimportant one.

3) Virgin conception of Jesus by Holy Spirit - Matthew and Lukes gospel, Council of Nicea 325

Agreed.

4) Bore Jesus in her womb leading to her description as the God bearer (Theotokos) or Mother of God as others emphasise - Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) 431 refuted Nestorius who said she was only birth giver of Christ not God

Agreed. The BVM is in the fullest sense (obviously not the cause, but) the human mother of the Divine Word. If the Crucifixion is God really & truly suffering & dying, the Virginal Conception is really & truly God being conceived in the womb of a virgin, to be really & truly the God-man.

5) Virgin after birth process ie hymen did not break - Constantinople 553

6) Bore other children after Jesus - Josephus mentioned Jesus had a brother James, The bible apparently mentions brothers and sisters. But Catholics suggest these were half brothers from Josephs previous marriage or cousins.

I think she had other children. That would make for better dramatic tension. And I think it makes better sense of the texts.

7) Was present during Jesus ministry - mentions in Temple when a child, in Wedding Feast of Canaan, at cross, in room before Pentecost

Agreed

8) Died in Israel or Ephesus - conflicting traditions

No opinion on where, but it seems likely that she died.

9) Assumed into heaven. Revelation 12:1;5-6 "woman clothed with the sun" - Catholics 1950

There is Biblical precedent, so, agreed. But I don’t think Rev 12 is relevant.

10) Visitations and miracles through history. Are these real?

As to 10, I don’t know of any antecedent reason why there cannot possibly be God-sent apparitions of the BVM. That does not imply that every single claim of an apparition must be true. But as regards the principle of the thing, I don’t see a problem.

concretecamper · Nov 24, 2021

BNR32FAN said:
I wasn’t aware of this can you provide some examples?

Albion said:
Yes, but I'll have to do some looking in the files.

Who is Mary?

Who was Mary? Choose the one nearest to your own view

Mary was immaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin, assumed in heaven and the Mother of God

Mary was a blessed woman and a great example to us all and the Mother of our Lord

Mary was just another woman

Other, Please explain

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Regular Member

Facilitator

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Facilitator

He’s a Way of life

Facilitator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

I stand with Candice.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency