Lo and Behold... a debate

[desertwoman]

The thing that gets me with her not having any other children is because she is married.

Wouldn't she be obligated to fullfill her maritial role? Or was she barren after carrying our Lord?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 28 2006, 09:10 PM']Wouldn't she be obligated to fullfill her maritial role?  Or was she barren after carrying our Lord?
[right][snapback]926244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The marital role does not necessitate sexual intercourse unless the spouse (here St. Joeseph) "requests" it. St. Joseph, while her husband, respected her as the Ark of the New Covenant, etc... and so both remained celibate in their marriage.

[HisChild]

She was also consecrated to the Lord, from the time she was a little girl. She could have taken that pretty seriously. And because St Joseph was such a wonderful and holy Jewish husband, I'm sure he took that just as seriously.

[Era Might]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 27 2006, 10:35 AM']I think I'm also still trying to understand Mary being the New Ark.  Does this also mean that she is the New Eve?
[right][snapback]923555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes!!!

This is probably the most ancient Patristic treatment of Mary, as the new Eve. It was drawn out from St. Paul's characterization in Romans of Jesus as the new Adam.

St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp, who in turn was taught by St. John the Apostle, wrote in the late second century:

[quote]The knot of Eve's disobedience was loosened by Mary's obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith.[/quote]

In the same way that Eve was first tempted, and said no, leading to the sin of Adam, Mary was the first to say "yes", leading to the birth of Christ. This is why it was fitting for Mary to be preserved from original sin. She was to be the mother of all the spiritually living, those reborn with the divine life of God, whereas Eve, because of her disobedience, was the mother of all the dead, those deprived of God's divine life.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Era Might

[desertwoman]

Hey everyone, sorry I havent responed to all the questions as of yet, but I"m really enjoying the book Hail, Holy Queen (even the title makes me start singing the song from Sister Act and then I pop in the movie).

I'll be out of town for a minute, so I shall return and the book will be finished.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Mar 31 2006, 06:13 AM']Hey everyone, sorry I havent responed to all the questions as of yet, but I"m really enjoying the book Hail, Holy Queen (even the title makes me start singing the song from Sister Act and then I pop in the movie).

I'll be out of town for a minute, so I shall return and the book will be finished.
[right][snapback]929511[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Take your time. If you rush these things you will skip over important parts.

[Tarcisius]

Has anyone read Miravalle's book about the 5th Marian Dogma, Id like to know what everyone thought.

[desertwoman]

Hey folks. Still learning and mediating on the subject at hand.

I actually started to pray to Mary, but I feel guilty in a sense. I've even been talking to a priest and some friends about the issue. Her is a convo we had.

One of the other issues that I'm having problems discerning it the immaculate conception. How can she be sinless?
[b]It is not so much about Mary as it is about God. From a theological basis, could God be conceived in a womb of sin? But more importantly on a scriptural basis, the angel Gabriel declared unto Mary: "Hail Mary, full of grace" indicating that she was full of grace and without sin. And she remained to be perpetually virgin "up until" the time the Gospel was written. Many Protestants think that means that she was a virgin "until that time" but that doesn't mean that she lost her virginity after "that moment." When someone asks, "has your infant sinned," we know that an infant is not able to sin as an infant and is prone to sin but, if we answer "not yet" does not mean that we know for a fact that the infant will sin or will not sin either. For all we know, the child could die before reaching an age of committing sin. When it comes to Mary, the Apostles - except maybe for John - did not see much of Mary. But at the time of the Gospel being "said" (it was written much later), she had remained a virgin and it was not likely that the Mother of Jesus Christ would have had another husband after Jesus died, rose, and ascended. It is important that Mary was without sin when she was conceived or Jesus would have been conceived in a sinful womb.
She would have passed this sinfulness on to Jesus. That is also why we believe that she remained sinless from her birth. We believe that her parents must have been good people - not sinless - but good so that they merited the gift of a sinless child as well as being able to raise a child who would not sin and grow up to become the Mother of God.
[/b]
I understand the logic that she is highly favored among women and that for our Lord to be born into this world he had to come through a vessel that is pure (I guess this is where the typology of Mary being the ark of the new covenant comes in to play).

But what happens after Jesus is born? How come she didn't have any other children and wouldn't she be forsaking her marriage vows with Joseph for not consummating the marriage? Plus, her accession into heaven I haven't read anywhere. I know that accession happens (i.e. Enoch and Elijah) to us , but wouldn't it be written or mentioned in the Bible as well?

[b]Can you imagine any man wanting to have Mary as his wife having "become" the Mother of Jesus Christ, the founder of a great following, even God Himself? The other "brothers" of Jesus were more likely to have been what we call "cousins" as they did not have this term. Elizabeth was a "relative" as they did not have the tendency to differentiate siblings from close cousins who lived in the same community as other members of the larger family. But Elizabeth lived away from Mary's family. As far as consummating the marriage, it was God's Will that Joseph take Mary & Jesus in order for Jesus to be in the line of David and, thus, be called "Son of David." Her Assumption into Heaven is not a matter of salvation but rather a teaching that the body of Mary being sinless would not know decay. One of the Psalms which is more about Jesus says: "For you will not leave my soul among the dead, nor let your beloved know decay." The Lord having spared her soul from sin also spares her sinless body from the decay of death which is the wages of sin which does not apply to her.[/b]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1002783' date='Jun 10 2006, 10:17 PM']I understand the logic that she is highly favored among women and that for our Lord to be born into this world he had to come through a vessel that is pure (I guess this is where the typology of Mary being the ark of the new covenant comes in to play).

But what happens after Jesus is born? How come she didn't have any other children and wouldn't she be forsaking her marriage vows with Joseph for not consummating the marriage?[/quote]
i don't think we can know for sure [i]why[/i] she remained a virgin, we just know that she did. there is a tradition which says that Joseph was late in years when he was betrothed to Mary, so sexual relations may not have been an option. others say that Mary gave her entire self to the Lord, so Joseph respected her singular devotion. it could have also been that mary remained a virgin so that her life could be a constant testament to the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth. as far as forsaking your marriage vows, paphnutius said earlier in the thread that, as long as the husband never demands to collect on his right, she is not negligent for refraining. also, as i understand it, the marriage was thought to be consummated once the man took the woman into his home, which Joseph surely did.........they just never had sex once that happened.


[quote]Plus, her accession into heaven I haven't read anywhere. I know that accession happens (i.e. Enoch and Elijah) to us , but wouldn't it be written or mentioned in the Bible as well?[/quote]
well, to be more theologically precise, we should refer to her "assumption" into heaven. the word "ascension" (and perhaps "accession" as well) implies a rising into heaven by one's own power. this is what Jesus did. he ascended into heaven. however, mary was assumed into heaven. we use this word instead b/c it implies being raised by another, which is what we believe. mary did not rise body and soul into heaven by her own power, but was instead raised into heaven by the Son.

as for the evidence from scripture, first note that the concept of the assumption is not anti-biblical. we will all experience the resurrection of the Body when Jesus comes again (cf. [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+5%3A28-29§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]John 5:28-29[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+6%3A39-40§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]6:39-40[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+11%3A24-25§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=6&NavCurrentChapter=6"][b]11:24-25[/b][/url] and [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Corinthians+15§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=15&NavCurrentChapter=15"][b]chapter 15[/b][/url] from 1 Corinthians to name a few). likewise, Mary was not the only one to experience this before the second coming. as you pointed out, Enoch ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+5%3A24§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]Gen 5:24[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Heb+11%3A5§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=5&NavCurrentChapter=5"][b]Heb 11:5[/b][/url]) and Elijah ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Kings+2%3A11-12§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=heb&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]2 Kings 2:11-12[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Mac+2%3A58§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ki&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2"][b]1 Mac 2:58[/b][/url]; [url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Sirach+48%3A4%2C9§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=48&NavCurrentChapter=48"][b]Sirach 48:4,9[/b][/url]) were assumed into heaven. Paul suggests that a third man may have been as well ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=2+Corinthians+12%3A2-3§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2co&NavGo=12&NavCurrentChapter=12"][b]2 Cor 12:2-3[/b][/url]) and Matthew speaks of "many bodies of the saints" who were raised from the tomb after Jesus' resurrection ([url="http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mat+27%3A52-53§ion=0&version=rsv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=11&NavCurrentChapter=11"][b]Mat 27:52-53[/b][/url]). so, the principle is scripturally sound. we have left only to answer the question, "did this happen to Mary?"

as far as explicit references go, this can be neither confirmed [i][b]nor denied[/b][/i]. i find nothing in scripture, explicit or otherwise, that condemns the teaching. what i do find, however, are several verses that seem to point to it, at least implicitly [from the RSV, unless otherwise noted]:

[b]Psalm 45:9[/b] daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.

[b]Psalm 132:8 [/b]Arise, O LORD, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.

[b]Isaiah 60:13[/b] The glory of Lebanon shall come to you, the cypress, the plane, and the pine, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

[b]Song of Solomon 3:6 [/b]What is that coming up from the wilderness, like a column of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the fragrant powders of the merchant?

[b]So 8:5 [/b]Who is that coming up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?

[b]Rev 11:19-12:1[/b]
[b]19 [/b]Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. ....
[b]1 [/b]And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars

i acknowledge full well that the surface intention of these verses is not to support the Assumption. however, even the NT writers themsevles, when quoting the OT, were fond of seeing in various passages a meaning not originally intended by the author. the messianic verses in particular are treated this way. look at them ([url="http://scripturecatholic.com/messianic_prophecies.html"][b]here[/b][/url]). you'll notice that the majority of them were first about a king, or some holy object, or a prophet speaking about himself. but the NT writers saw them as pointing to Christ.

and so it is w/ these verses about Mary. though on the surface they speak of other things, the Church sees in them certain forshadowings about Mary's assumption. why? b/c just as the NT writers saw in the OT what they believed about Christ, the Church sees in the OT what she believes about Mary. Her beliefs come from the Sacred Deposit she has received, and the ECF's testify to this

of course, you may then wonder why a more explicit reference is not given. i think this is actually quite understandable. why? well, for one, mary was probably still alive when most of the NT was written! (so, of course, they wouldn't have known how her life ended). also, the writers of the NT were concerned primarily with faith in Jesus Christ and in recording the events of his life. actually, the deaths of many holy NT men and women are not recorded. for example, it is only from tradition that we know that Peter was crucified upside down. the nature of the deaths of the majority of the apostles is not recorded in Scripture. we cannot expect Scripture to record explicit statements beyond its breadth and intended purpose. it is simply not meant to be a catechism, which is why we also draw from the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

i hope that answers your questions.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[desertwoman]

So is this the reason why Tradition is important instead of sola scriputra?

[mortify]

Peace,

You guys have given some wonderful responses. I'm not so technical but I've always found the teachings on Mary reasonable. If God planned on saving mankind by dawning our flesh and rescuing us from sin and death personally He would certainly plan His entrance into the world. His flesh was from the flesh of a Woman already living. Even before Christ was in the womb she was already full of grace! The most blessed among women. All of His beauty, His complexion, the color of His eyes and hair came from her. She nursed the infant God, taught Him to speak, and with her He grew in wisdom. Ordinary woman? Just a vessel? Impossible.

Now I suspect those who diminish the role of Mary do so out of sincere reverance for God. Perhaps they think honoring this wonderful Woman is nothing short of diverting attention from Christ. The reality is, we are honoring God by honoring what He did to that special woman. Think of God as an artist, and people calling his most magnicificent painting "ordinary," wouldn't you please Him by acknowledging His awesome work? Or think of Him like a loving Parent, who smiles and gets happy when His daughter is praised.

We do nothing other than please God and asking for intercession pleases Him, says so in the bible! Now, if Christ is the mediator, why would we pray for eachother? Why would I ask you to pray for me? Wouldn't i be making you out to be a mediator? And yet, this pleases Christ because we are acting out of fraternal love for one another. We are acknolweding our weakness and need for help. When I ask Mary, and this is what prayer to a saint really is, nothing more than asking them to pray for you, I'm telling God that I am unholy and so I ask someone who IS Holy to pray for me. I can assure you, our prayers here on earth are nothing like those who pray to God in His presence.

Don't be afraid to ask those who are Holy to pray for you. We're all part of the communion of saints. A big family of brothers and sisters helping eachother get to heaven, even those who passed on are helping us, the battle never ends.



Peace in Christ

[jswranch]

Christians [u]need and use [/u] devotions to the BVM today in the same way the Jews needed and used the Ark of the OT.

[desertwoman]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1007243' date='Jun 17 2006, 06:16 AM']
Christians [u]need and use [/u] devotions to the BVM today in the same way the Jews needed and used the Ark of the OT.
[/quote]


Besides Catholics, who else does this?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1006766' date='Jun 16 2006, 09:14 AM']
So is this the reason why Tradition is important instead of sola scriputra?[/quote]
yes Tradition helps us to interpret Scripture. Afterall, Scripture came out of the Tradition of the Church and continues to rest in it. Tradition also helps us to discern what is true where Scripture is silent, or speaks only implicitly.


[quote name='desertwoman' post='1007264' date='Jun 17 2006, 09:46 AM']
Besides Catholics, who else does this?[/quote]
the Eastern Orthodox venerate Mary. some High Anglicans may as well. believe it or not, traditional Protestantism did too (the initial Reformers all venerated Mary), but the majority of Protestantism today has forsaken that particular bit of their heritage. Muslims also hold Mary in high esteem, which has actually effected the conversion of many of them to Catholicism.