The nature of Mary

[tango]

I'm trying to understand just what people believe regarding Mary (the one who gave birth to Jesus).

I gather some people believe she remained a virgin for her entire life, and that references to "brothers of Jesus" referred to what we might now refer to a "brother in Christ" in that they were part of God's family but not blood relations as we understand it today. Others seem to believe that Mary was without sin.

I don't understand why it's important whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born. The virgin birth was a miracle, and it seems that whether or not she abstained from sex after being married seems irrelevant to the miracle that was the virgin birth. To me it seems like being miraculously healed of something and then regarding the miracle of being of lesser significance because I went to a doctor to get something else treated at a later date.

The concept I really don't understand is the idea that Mary was without sin. If the idea is that Mary had to be without sin so she could give birth to the Savior how could her mother have given birth to a sinless child unless she, too, was without sin? And that leads to a chain that ultimately requires Eve to be without sin, which we know not to be the case. Also, if Mary was without sin, what would have stopped her from giving herself to save mankind, thereby saving her son from having to go through with it?

Mary was obviously highly favored even if the reasons aren't made clear. The angel said to her "Rejoice, highly favored one" (Luk 1:28), and it's not as if being chosen to conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit and give birth to the promised Messiah is the kind of everyday event you forget about by the weekend. What creates the transition from "highly favored" to practically divine?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The 'brethren' of our Lord are very likely relatives but not siblings born of Mary and that is what the perpetual virginity says about them. As for the reason, Mary is God's spouse for the purposes of bringing God into the world. That relationship never changes hence the theology is far deeper than merely saying she never 'knew' a man. And Mary is called "full of grace" rather than merely "highly favoured". Of course the grace with which Mary is filled is God's grace.

As for the immaculate conception and Mary's involvement with sin; the teaching of the Catholic Church is that Mary was born without the stain of original sin and that she lived a chaste and perfect life as a human being. This is not exactly the same as being sinless. It does mean that she did not sin. Christ was without sin, it seems that Enoch may have been without personal sins, and possibly Job too. Each has a good report from the mouth of God. Mary as the theotokos (mother of God) also has a good report but more from the Church and holy Tradition that from a direct statement of holy scripture.

The theology of the immaculate conception does not imply that Mary's parents were without sin, they are usually regarded as saints so one presumes that they lived godly lives and taught Mary to do the same, and this blessing may well go back through many generations yet without requiring any of the ancestors to be sinless.

 

[Josiah]

I think Mary should be honored, esteemed and loved because of...
1. Her great, great faith and obedience, Her great willingness and service
2. Her role in "salvation history" as the Mother of the Savior
3. She is loved by Jesus, whom we love.


IMO, loving and respecting a person MANDATES that we tell the truth about that one - not gossip or lie, however innocently or piously. My Catholic teachers taught me that gossip is a very serious sin and that gossip is the spreading of normally personal, private information about a person to which we personally don't have confirmation. When Catholics spread very personal things about Mary.... and then document they have NOTHING to REMOTELY suggest it's true, this TO ME indicates a rather profound disrespect for Our Lady. IMO, this is more disturbing when it is told as DOGMA - a matter of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible (as Catholics do), I have less of an issue when it is presented as simply an ancient, common OPINION as in "it has been believed.... said."


I'm okay with "Mary - Mother of God" in the sense of Jesus being God and Mary being His Mother. But I find the title (especially in the Roman Catholic form) to be problematic and easily (and understandably) misunderstood (I prefer the Orthodox, Eastern expression since it's more clear, less likely to be misunderstood) ... the best way to present this would be to say, "Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God Incarnate." Same theology, less likely to be misunderstood.


I don't DENY any of the CURRENT Marian DOGMAS of the individual RC Denomination.... but I don't generally embrace them as the DE FIDE DOGMA that the individual RC Denomination now claims for such (1870, 1904, 1950). I'm okay with them as pious opinion (view NEITHER confirmed or denied by Scripture but with strong, broad historic embrace) but to be Catholic, one must embrace them as DOGMA - which became just one of the reasons integrity mandated I leave that denomination, especially since it not only could NOT remotely show that these things are true - AS MOST IMPORTANCE POSSIBLE, MOST CERTAINTY POSSIBLE but not as true AT ALL, in fact what disturbed me most is no Catholic teacher seemed to give a rip whether any of it was true or not, truth being NOWHERE on their "radar" whatsoever (specially where Mary was concerned.... see above point about love/respect).


I think most Protestants now focus too little on Mary, I think the RCC now focues way too much on Her (and often for the wrong reasons).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[king of the unknown]

Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

If Mary was truly without sin then this statement is false.

There may be some reason idea that circumvents this problem but I don't know it.

In Matthew 8:10 it say "When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, 'I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.'"

If Jesus doesn't lie then Then the centurion had more faith then his own mother.

Of course we have the right to believe what we choose. It is one of things that makes us special to God.

At the end though it really doesn't matter. What really matters is the believe in God and Jesus. Outside of that we are all brothers and sisters. We are made to love each other and work together. We all think differently and we all have different beliefs. This isn't a flaw. God made us this way so that we can do what we were made to do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

If Mary was truly without sin then this statement is false.

There may be some reason idea that circumvents this problem but I don't know it.

In Matthew 8:10 it say "When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, 'I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.'"

If Jesus doesn't lie then Then the centurion had more faith then his own mother.

Of course we have the right to believe what we choose. It is one of things that makes us special to God.

At the end though it really doesn't matter. What really matters is the believe in God and Jesus. Outside of that we are all brothers and sisters. We are made to love each other and work together. We all think differently and we all have different beliefs. This isn't a flaw. God made us this way so that we can do what we were made to do.

If Romans 3:23 worked the way that your post's line of reasoning suggests then The Lord Jesus Christ, Enoch, and Job would all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Of course the Lord Jesus Christ did not sin and holy scripture affirms that but something rather similar is said of Enoch and of Job so clearly Romans 3:23 has exceptions and the Church's holy Tradition teaches that Mary is among the exceptions.

 

[king of the unknown]

If Romans 3:23 worked the way that your post's line of reasoning suggests then The Lord Jesus Christ, Enoch, and Job would all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Of course the Lord Jesus Christ did not sin and holy scripture affirms that but something rather similar is said of Enoch and of Job so clearly Romans 3:23 has exceptions and the Church's holy Tradition teaches that Mary is among the exceptions.

What is said about Job and Enoch exactly?

I have never heard about them being considered for that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What is said about Job and Enoch exactly?

I have never heard about them being considered for that.

Job is called perfect by God.

Enoch is said to have walked with God and to have pleased him so he was taken (presumably to heaven) by God.

Here are the passages:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 1:8 KJV)

And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Genesis 5:22-24 KJV)

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Hebrews 11:5 KJV)

Enoch pleased the Lord, and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations. (Sirach 44:16 KJV)

But upon the earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth. (Sirach 49:14 KJV)​

 

[king of the unknown]

Job is called perfect by God.

Enoch is said to have walked with God and to have pleased him so he was taken (presumably to heaven) by God.

Here are the passages:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 1:8 KJV)

And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Genesis 5:22-24 KJV)

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Hebrews 11:5 KJV)

Enoch pleased the Lord, and was translated, being an example of repentance to all generations. (Sirach 44:16 KJV)

But upon the earth was no man created like Enoch; for he was taken from the earth. (Sirach 49:14 KJV)​

Interesting, thank you for that information.

I will say I don't agree with those ideas but to each his own. I am not here to argue about beliefs just in case other people come by that they would understand that there are different points of view on subjects.

I feel that the major points we all agree on such as Jesus Christ and the Bible as the word of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Interesting, thank you for that information.

I will say I don't agree with those ideas but to each his own. I am not here to argue about beliefs just in case other people come by that they would understand that there are different points of view on subjects.

I feel that the major points we all agree on such as Jesus Christ and the Bible as the word of God.

You may be jumping the gun. Your bible very likely has only 66 books in the table of contents while mine has 73 so we probably don't agree on the bible in quite the way that your post suggests.

 

[king of the unknown]

You may be jumping the gun. Your bible very likely has only 66 books in the table of contents while mine has 73 so we probably don't agree on the bible in quite the way that your post suggests.

Are those extra book taking away from the truth of the 66? Are the contradicting them? Are they replacing them?

I don't think so. I understand a lot of belief are different but the core of Christianity is "Christ like"

As long as we believe in the same God we are brothers fighting the same battles against the same evil.

If my shield is round and yours is square that doesn't mean we are on opposite sides.

If we fight amongst ourselves then how can we stand against evil?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are those extra book taking away from the truth of the 66? Are the contradicting them? Are they replacing them?

I don't think so. I understand a lot of belief are different but the core of Christianity is "Christ like"

As long as we believe in the same God we are brothers fighting the same battles against the same evil.

If my shield is round and yours is square that doesn't mean we are on opposite sides.

If we fight amongst ourselves then how can we stand against evil?

Stick around and read some of the posts about Catholic beliefs and you will see that some, perhaps many, here think very differently from you on the matter of the Catholic Church.

 

[king of the unknown]

Stick around and read some of the posts about Catholic beliefs and you will see that some, perhaps many, here think very differently from you on the matter of the Catholic Church.

I sorry if you feel like you constantly have to defend yourself from other people. I know personally I think your guys really get the worst stereotyping of any group of Christian.

I don't think God ever wanted the church to be the way it is today. Broken and hurt. I think some day we can stop all the child stuff and be adults about our beliefs.

I think just being a Christian turns us into targets for evil. It is a sad day when we forget the greatest commandment in favor our pride.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I sorry if you feel like you constantly have to defend yourself from other people. I know personally I think your guys really get the worst stereotyping of any group of Christian.

I don't think God ever wanted the church to be the way it is today. Broken and hurt. I think some day we can stop all the child stuff and be adults about our beliefs.

I think just being a Christian turns us into targets for evil. It is a sad day when we forget the greatest commandment in favor our pride.

I would like almost nothing better than for the folk who tell me what I allegedly believe to take the time and trouble to read what the Catholic Church teaches rather than ransacking Catholic documents for "juicy quotes" to throw around as proofs of how wicked Catholicism is. And yes, I do get rather a lot of folk telling me what the Catholic Church allegedly teaches and almost always getting it seriously wrong.

 

[king of the unknown]

I would like almost nothing better than for the folk who tell me what I allegedly believe to take the time and trouble to read what the Catholic Church teaches rather than ransacking Catholic documents for "juicy quotes" to throw around as proofs of how wicked Catholicism is. And yes, I do get rather a lot of folk telling me what the Catholic Church allegedly teaches and almost always getting it seriously wrong.

I think we all have experienced that in one way or another. You probably experienced it more then I.

Maybe you should start a thread called misunderstanding about Catholicism?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think we all have experienced that in one way or another. You probably experienced it more then I.

Maybe you should start a thread called misunderstanding about Catholicism?

I beat you to it. Have a look in the Catholicism subforum here.

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?332-Information-for-the-curious-and-the-wise

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?333-The-Faith-of-Our-Fathers-a-link-to-a-very-valuable-and-very-readable-book

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?335-Dogmas-There-s-something-about-Mary

 

[king of the unknown]

I beat you to it. Have a look in the Catholicism subforum here.

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?332-Information-for-the-curious-and-the-wise

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?333-The-Faith-of-Our-Fathers-a-link-to-a-very-valuable-and-very-readable-book

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?335-Dogmas-There-s-something-about-Mary

Thank you I will have to read up on it if I have the time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thank you I will have to read up on it if I have the time.

Aside from me and maybe some other Catholics on this forum you may be the first to read them.

 

[tango]

Sorry, I posted a thread and then dropped the ball on checking back on it.

The 'brethren' of our Lord are very likely relatives but not siblings born of Mary and that is what the perpetual virginity says about them. As for the reason, Mary is God's spouse for the purposes of bringing God into the world. That relationship never changes hence the theology is far deeper than merely saying she never 'knew' a man. And Mary is called "full of grace" rather than merely "highly favoured". Of course the grace with which Mary is filled is God's grace.

Isn't it speculation either way, whether the siblings of Jesus were metaphorical (cousins, or what we would now call "brothers and sisters in Christ") or biological siblings (or at least half-siblings, given they would have a human father) does it actually make any difference? If, after marrying Joseph, the two of them produced children in the traditional manner is it really a problem? Arguments about taking a second spouse clearly don't apply because the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife, which it wouldn't have done if that would have caused issues with the metaphorical divorce and remarriage.

As for the immaculate conception and Mary's involvement with sin; the teaching of the Catholic Church is that Mary was born without the stain of original sin and that she lived a chaste and perfect life as a human being. This is not exactly the same as being sinless. It does mean that she did not sin. Christ was without sin, it seems that Enoch may have been without personal sins, and possibly Job too. Each has a good report from the mouth of God. Mary as the theotokos (mother of God) also has a good report but more from the Church and holy Tradition that from a direct statement of holy scripture.

How can a person be born without original sin, life a perfect life without sinning, and then be anything other than sinless?

The theology of the immaculate conception does not imply that Mary's parents were without sin, they are usually regarded as saints so one presumes that they lived godly lives and taught Mary to do the same, and this blessing may well go back through many generations yet without requiring any of the ancestors to be sinless.

I'm not quite getting this whole "immaculate conception" idea. What exactly is the Catholic church teaching there?

 

[Josiah]

The 'brethren' of our Lord are very likely relatives but not siblings born of Mary

Your theorizing about what is more or less "likely" is not confirmation that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible that MARY HAD NO SEX EVER. IF the RCC taught, "it seems most likely that Mary remained a virgin" we'd probably not be discussing this, but as we all know, the RCC does not teach anything remotely like what you suggest. Your continued attempt to distance yourself from the DOGMAS of your denomination seem interesting.... if you are so uncomfortable with what your denomination teaches as bold, dogmatic facts of greatest importance possible, greatest certainty possible, something to divide Christians and His church over, then perhaps you should rethink your denominational affiliation?




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The 'brethren' of our Lord are very likely relatives but not siblings born of Mary and that is what the perpetual virginity says about them. As for the reason, Mary is God's spouse for the purposes of bringing God into the world. That relationship never changes hence the theology is far deeper than merely saying she never 'knew' a man. And Mary is called "full of grace" rather than merely "highly favoured". Of course the grace with which Mary is filled is God's grace.

As for the immaculate conception and Mary's involvement with sin; the teaching of the Catholic Church is that Mary was born without the stain of original sin and that she lived a chaste and perfect life as a human being. This is not exactly the same as being sinless. It does mean that she did not sin. Christ was without sin, it seems that Enoch may have been without personal sins, and possibly Job too. Each has a good report from the mouth of God. Mary as the theotokos (mother of God) also has a good report but more from the Church and holy Tradition that from a direct statement of holy scripture.

The theology of the immaculate conception does not imply that Mary's parents were without sin, they are usually regarded as saints so one presumes that they lived godly lives and taught Mary to do the same, and this blessing may well go back through many generations yet without requiring any of the ancestors to be sinless.

Your theorizing about what is more or less "likely" is not confirmation that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty ...

This reply deals only with the underlined text in the second quote above.

The phrase "very likely" refers only to the the statement that "The 'brethren' of our Lord are very likely relatives" the second clause in the first sentence of the first quote above is not subject to speculation. Mary was not the mother of any human being except the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the consistent testimony of holy scripture when it refers to Blessed Mary as "the mother of Jesus" and eschews ever saying of the Blessed Virgin that she was the mother of anybody else.