Question

[Pleural]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1415960' date='Nov 7 2007, 10:21 PM']As we Catholics believe Mary, being the most pure bearer of Christ the Redeemer, had no incontinency, and Joseph fully respected Mary's unique role, there is no defrauding involved whatsoever.[/quote]

You use that term as if you consider sex to be a medical condition...
In any case, scripture is clear that 'defraud' in the quoted passage means 'abstain from/deprive of sexual relations'. That is a universal interpretation which comes directly from the verse and its context.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1415960' date='Nov 7 2007, 10:21 PM']You are here disregarding the absolutely unique role of Mary in bearing Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and treating Mary as just any woman, and the Holy Family, as just any regular run-of-the-mill family. (As if Jesus was just any ordinary run-of-the-mill kid)
The divine conception of Jesus Christ was utterly unique, and so was the Holy Family.[/quote]

I am doing no such thing. You put forward straw men and knock them down as if you consider this a game.
When you say "just any woman" (and so on), you are trying to paint me as someone who claims that Mary is just an average woman, and using the fact that the average "any" woman does not dedicate her life to service of God. However, I said no such thing. Mary was no "ordinary" woman, as is clear from scripture:
[quote]And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.[/quote]

Please stop slandering me by claiming that I believe otherwise.

It is your opinion, not mine, which would denigrate Mary, making her not "any woman", but indeed below the average married woman who has at least some respect for her role as wife and her obligations to God and her husband.

[quote post='1415960' date='Nov 7 2007, 10:21 PM']Using your logic here, you might as well accuse Mary of sinning because she conceived a child out of wedlock![/quote]

Whose logic are you using? It's certainly not mine. It's yours. It is completely opposed to what I have been saying and the logic I am using.
Conceiving a child is not a sin. Fornication [b]is[/b] a sin which can lead to conceiving a child out of wedlock. In such a case, the sin was the fornication, which Mary clearly did not do.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1415960' date='Nov 7 2007, 10:21 PM']The Protoevangelium is not considered Scripture nor infallible; you are missing the point here. The point of citing the Protoevangelium is that it shows that Mary's perpetual virginity was an ancient Christian tradition which can be found in some of the earliest Christian writings, and was also affirmed by various Early Church fathers, none of whom denied it.
The denial of Mary's divinity is a protestant innovation which started many centuries later.

And your claim about the Protoevangelium "directly contradicting the bible" regarding the cave/manger is silly and absurd. It is an ancient tradition that Christ was born in a cave that was used as a manger (this was in fact a common practice in the area at that time.) There is only contradiction there for those who want to make one.[/quote]


No, I'm not missing the point with the Protoevangelium. You are. The point is that the Protoevangelium was created to spread heresies and other lies. Even the authorship the Protoevangelium ascribes to itself was a lie. We cannot trust something which is so full of deception as a source of any sort of doctrine, let alone history.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1415960' date='Nov 7 2007, 10:21 PM']And while the Fathers may disagree regarding the virginity of Joseph, they are in unity regarding Mary's virginity.
The evidence shows that Mary's virginity was an established belief in the Early Church, and we hear no reliable Christian voices in denial of this belief.[/quote]

Again, wrong -- you are ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
Even the simple fact that Jerome's treatise on the subject was named "against Helvidius" speaks against your claim of universal agreement on the idea.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote]Well, that's a new one: "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text"
Splitting this post into two...[/quote]

I didn't realize there are a limited number of quoted blocks.

[quote]It seems our posts are getting longer and longer.
Unfortunately, you've left many of my points completely unanswered. Please re-read my previous post
as well as this one and respond to the points I've made, rather than re-hashing the same things you've already said...[/quote]

I as well as others have answered and countered all of your arguments. concerning the"brothers or sisters of Jesus" and Blessed Mary remaining ever-virgin has and will never be difficult to prove.

I have posted scripture in which the Apostle Peter gave up everything, including his wife [b]"after"[/b] the calling [b]for the sake of the kingdom of God. [/b]

[quote]Ah, remember that your Roman Catholic church tells you that you are not qualified to interpret scripture? Why are you trying to do so here? Clearly you misinterpret this scripture if you take it as support for your doctrine of Mary's virginity until death.[/quote]

Ah, What I proclaim is in union with what the Church has taught and I am not interpreting scripture unto myself, as the many protestant denominations do, as you do. What I have posted does support that continence is [b]not[/b] forbidden or a sin, and it[b] does[/b] support Blessed Mary remaining ever-virgin, in her relatioship with Joseph.

[quote]Tell me, do you believe that all married Catholics should leave their husbands or wives? Should all Catholics leave
their parents and abandon their children? Should they use the name of Jesus to try to justify their behavior in doing so?[/quote]


And to answer your question, no, we are not "all called" to leave everything; house, wife and children..etc.. to follow God. [b]Yet,[/b] as we can see Peter has done so.

[quote]There are some things you need to learn about reading and interpreting scripture.
For one thing, look at the context of what you quoted. At least read the whole quote.[/quote]

Do you deny this? [b]In context,[/b] Peter has clearly given up everything, including wife.

Of course, Peter would have not left his wife and children out in the cold, he surely would have made provisions to have his wife and children taken care of, as a man of God.

The scriptures that you posted attempting to prove that it is wrongful to give up everything for the kingdom of God, does not hold water, for Jesus states that there will be instances when one is [b]"called"[/b] and will give up everything, including relations with their husband and or wife to do God's will, as shown.

That is why the bible teaches that those who feel a calling to serve the God, would do better not giving in marriage.

Paul stated "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;[b] but [/b]the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; [b]but [/b]the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

"Not all can accept this word, [b]but[/b] only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; [b]some, because they have "renounced" marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11 [/b]

Continence and or celibacy is not a great sin or is it unbiblical if you are called by God, most especially again, in the case of Mary and Joseph.

As we know Mary gave her [b]full consent [/b]to do the God's work. , "Behold, I am the [b]handmaid [/b][b]of the Lord. [/b]Let it be done to me according to Your word" (Luke 1:38).

[url="http://wordbytes.org/ministry/handmaid.htm"]http://wordbytes.org/ministry/handmaid.htm[/url]

The Holy Spirit is married to Mary in a spiritual manner as the Spirit impregnated Blessed Mary. She is the Handmaid of the Lord.

Joseph knew that once God "overshadowed" Mary, she no longer belonged to him as his wife in the full sense.

Yes, the Holy Spirit has "overshadowed" Blessed Mary. Yes, I have emphasised this, and I will reiterate this, as you seem to think that this is an everyday occurance.

The virgin birth has been deemed since the beginning!

Mary answered the [b]"call fo the Lord" [/b]with a[b] "yes."
Again..


Luke 18:28-30:

28 And Peter said, "Lo, we have left our homes and followed you." 29 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who [b]has left house or wife [/b]or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

Peter then replies..

Matthew 19:27-29:

27 "Lo, we have left everything and followed you. [b]What then shall we have?" [/b]
28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[b]29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. [/b]

Your attempts to prove that those who enter a covenant as Peter and his wife, just as Mary and Jospeph would be "committing a great sin," by not having relations, are put to rest, and false, as we can see there are [b]"exceptions" [/b]to a couple refraining from coming together, for the sake of doing God's work, for the kingdom of God.

Mary's and Joseph's role is clear, from the beginning--Mary from the beginning had [b]"a calling,"[/b] and Joseph after the angel appeared to him, [b]knew [/b]of his[b] role [/b]and calling to[b] serve[/b] God and his SON.



QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM)
So, be your reasoning, after I give birth to my child I am no longer the carrier of my child, the mother of my child? After the child leaves my body, I have no connection to my child? My child carries my DNA and the child and I are always part of one another. even after birth. Mary will always be the Mother, The Ark of the New Covenant, who carried and gave her DNA to the 2nd person of the Trinity.
The analogy does not fail, only by your reasoning.

[quote]No, that's simply not true. If you give birth to a child, you are no longer the "carrier" of that child, as that child has left your body. You are the one who has carried that child, but no longer do. That child is an independent life which God has created. Your child is not a part of you in any literal sense. Of course, if you raise the child and love him then you have a "connection" to that child, but it is not a physical connection, and a "connection" is not at all the same thing as physically containing that child.[/quote]

God was specific in that the tabernacle would consist of[b] gold within and without, pure in substance.[/b] Just as in that a tainted flesh of the womb of Mary would be an [b]unsuitable[/b] dwelling place of the Lord; the word that became flesh, we all would agree.

The womb of Mary is the tabernacle of the Lord. and [b]will always [/b]be the tabernacle of the Lord. Scripture states that only the high priest of the Jewish church was allowed to enter into the tabernacle, in following this..it goes..., Jesus is OUR HIGH PRIEST, and JESUS "alone" could only grace the tabernacle with His holy presence. The tabernacle, her womb was made [b]ONLY [/b]for the SON of GOD, the Word that became flesh.

Again, Mary deems herself handmade to the Lord. In Jesus time, a handmade is a pledge to keeping themselves[b] a life long virgin.[/b]

QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM)
The Holy Spirit has OVER SHADOWED Mary, in every way and form, like never before, it is a MIRACLE and she has been consecrated, set apart for God and only to serve GOD, in every way and form.

Mary's whole being belongs to the Father the SON and the Holy Spirit and as prophecied, a SWORD would pierce her soul too, as Saint Simeon, spoke to Mary and Joseph.

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."
Pleural,

You cannot deny that Mary and Jesus are so interconnected, as Mother and Son, and that Blessed Mary's life is CONSECRATED and SET APART to serve the FATHER, the SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT.

It is not a stretch, and not my desire to wring meaning from Saint Simeon's prophecy. For Blessed Mary, as a mother to the SON of GOD, was united to her son as she had to watch his AGONIZING death to the end.

Yes, a sword did too pierce Mary's soul, as it pierced HER SON'S--united till the end.

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

It is written.



[quote]You already quoted that. And you still haven't even bothered trying to explain how how believe it supports your opinion. You mentioned that she had to watch her son's death. Well, she was there. If you acknowledge that that that is the explanation of Simeon's words about a sword, then what does that have to do with virginity? Nothing.[/quote]

Yes, she was there...from the beginning till the end of her son's life. It has everything to do with her [b]calling[/b] and role as to serve the father, the[b] SON [/b]and the HOLY SPIRIT.

[quote]Don't you realize that saying that Mary served God in "every way and form" does not mean that she was always a virgin? Of course she served God through her marriage to her husband. One way of doing that is accepting and respecting what God created and set aside for marriage, not rejecting as you would have Mary to do.[/quote]

When Mary answered the CALL, she gave her [b]"YES"[/b] [b] her whole being [/b]to the FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT.



QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM)
Also, are you aware in the Jewish law, if a man was committed,to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her.

QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
What was the law if this happened....the man had to put her away privately and or to put her to death. We know Joseph did not do this.
I did not ignore the fact that Jospeh intended to one of the things that is required by the law. It is a given.

I have noticed that you did not refute the Jewish law; if a man is betrothed, to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her.


[quote]If that last bit is accurate, then it deals with the usual case where a woman becoming pregnant by another was proof that she had defiled herself by committed fornication. Mary did not do that. We've already been over this, also. Also note, that as I said and as you agreed with, Joseph intended to do just that -- to put Mary away and thus obviously to not have relations with her. It was only because of direct instruction from God that Joseph changed his mind and accepted Mary as his wife.[/quote]

Of course Blessed Mary was not defiled, she was bearing the seed of the Holy Ghost, her seed belongs to the Holy Ghost. The point again is that her womb, the tabernacle belongs to GOD and GOD alone.

QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM)
Mary has been CONSECRATED by the HOLY GHOST, 'overshadowed' 'impregnated' and intimately touched by the HOLY GHOST to BEAR "HIS"SON.

This is exactly why Mary remained ever virgin. She belongs only to the FATHER the SON and the HOLY GHOST.


[quote]Again, stretching the words 'consecrated', 'overshadowed', etc. to attempt to make them fit your opinion. You can't re-define them to mean what they do not.

Again, the situation with Moses and the Iraelites was temporary. And thank you for acknowledging that my case is in agreement with Scripture. I'd hope that that would be enough to make you stop repeating unscriptural arguments which have been soundly refuted, though, and to stop twisting scripture to fit your beliefs...[/quote]

Plerual, again Mary and Jospeh had a "calling" to serve the Lord and to do his will and they said [b]"yes"[/b] to this call. Their calling was to do the will of GOD, first and foremost. Yes, they were husband and wife but not the true sense. Mary as the Lord's handmade and Joseph as Jesus and Mary's protector, in every way and form.

Your insistance and arguments of Mary having other children and Joseph committing [b]"a great sin"[/b] by not having relations do not hold water, as scripture does prove that there are "exceptions" to the marriage covenant.

That in itself should be enough to stop and make you rethink what you believe and why you believe it.

When you do, Pleural, you too will be on your way [b]HOME[/b] to the[b] FULLNESS of TRUTH.

1 Timothy 2

4 God who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.




[/b]

Edited November 8, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1416001' date='Nov 8 2007, 12:03 AM']You use that term as if you consider sex to be a medical condition...
In any case, scripture is clear that 'defraud' in the quoted passage means 'abstain from/deprive of sexual relations'. That is a universal interpretation which comes directly from the verse and its context.[/quote]
"Incontinency" in the sense used in this Biblical translation (Douhay-Reims) means inability to control one's sexual appetites. As Mary was conceived without original sin (though I'm aware this is something else you probably deny), this would not be an issue for her and Joseph.
"Defraud" is used in the sense of denying one what is rightfully his/hers.
But as Mary had the unique role of the Christ-bearer and spouse of the Holy Spirit, consecrated entirely to God, she would not demand sex from Joseph. Nor vise-versa, as Joseph respected Mary's unique and sacred role.

[quote]I am doing no such thing. You put forward straw men and knock them down as if you consider this a game.
When you say "just any woman" (and so on), you are trying to paint me as someone who claims that Mary is just an average woman, and using the fact that the average "any" woman does not dedicate her life to service of God. However, I said no such thing. Mary was no "ordinary" woman, as is clear from scripture:
Please stop slandering me by claiming that I believe otherwise.

It is your opinion, not mine, which would denigrate Mary, making her not "any woman", but indeed below the average married woman who has at least some respect for her role as wife and her obligations to God and her husband.
Whose logic are you using? It's certainly not mine. It's yours. It is completely opposed to what I have been saying and the logic I am using.
Conceiving a child is not a sin. Fornication [b]is[/b] a sin which can lead to conceiving a child out of wedlock. In such a case, the sin was the fornication, which Mary clearly did not do.[/quote]
You are implying that the Holy Family was no different than any other family in that the ordinary rules of marital relation would apply to her and Joseph. No other woman would have her unique and most sacred role as Mother of God and Christ-bearer, so this was not like an ordinary marriage. Marriage is about more than just sex - St. Joseph's role was to be as protector of Mary and the Christ-child, and earthly foster-father to Jesus Christ.

St. Paul was obviously not addressing Mary and Joseph in his letter to the Galations, and no other woman would ever be Mother of God, so your use of 1 Galations to "prove" Mary's perpetual divinity false is faulty and bogus.

[quote]No, I'm not missing the point with the Protoevangelium. You are. The point is that the Protoevangelium was created to spread heresies and other lies. Even the authorship the Protoevangelium ascribes to itself was a lie. We cannot trust something which is so full of deception as a source of any sort of doctrine, let alone history.
Again, wrong -- you are ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
Even the simple fact that Jerome's treatise on the subject was named "against Helvidius" speaks against your claim of universal agreement on the idea.[/quote]
Saying the Protoevangelium was "created to spread heresies and other lies" is your own assertion, which you have yet to prove. And claiming the authorship was a "lie" shows you are unfamiliar with how authorship was credited in those days. People writing down traditions such as this would generally not give their own names to the text. The authors were likely disciples of St. James handing down traditions passed from him. The work is not canonical, and thus not infallible, and subject to error, but this is different from being a work of deception in which everything contained therein must be rejected as false. The Protoevangelium asserts the divinity of Christ, yet you would not dismiss that doctrine on this account.
(And, ironically, it was the same Church that you reject as being built on lies and deception that gave us the Canon of Scripture in the first place, and decided which books were divinely inspired and which were not - but that's a whole other discussion.)

Helvidius was a heretic (long forgotten to history), and Jerome is a Father of the Church, as well the man who gave us the original translation of the Bible into Latin. He is obviously a man quite familiar with Sacred Scripture (to put it mildly), and quite frankly, I'd trust his insight on matters pertaining to Scriptural interpretation much more than I'd trust your own.

[Socrates]

[accidental double-post]

Edited November 9, 2007 by Socrates

[Pleural]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1416428' date='Nov 8 2007, 11:19 PM']so your use of 1 Galations to "prove" Mary's perpetual [b]divinity[/b] false is faulty and bogus.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying this critical point of Catholic theology.

[cmotherofpirl]

especially since Catholics have never considered Mary divine...

[MIKolbe]

Good point, CMom...

It never ceases to amaze me how many non-catholics simply assume this or refuse to believe me when I advise them to the contrary. I mean, I am kinda in the unique postion to know what I actually believe.

I was at a wedding for my sister-in-law, and somehow the altar call or witnessing part of the 'worship service' had a young man sitting next to me asking me if I had accepted Jesus into my heart. I answered in the affirmative, and added that i had accepted him on my tongue and in my stomach and in my soul; at which point he asked if i was Catholic. I said yes, and he proceeded to 'warn' me not to worship Mary. At which point I offered him my Miraculous Medal, and suggested he read and pray on John 2:5.

He was just sure I worshipped Mary, though he did not even know me.

[cmotherofpirl]

I really get annoyed when people try to tell me what I believe and why. The sheep comment drives me to hysteria, considering how when you get 2 catholics together you always have 3 opinions...

[Pleural]

Hey -- he said it, not me.

[MIKolbe]

you lost me.

explain.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1417738' date='Nov 11 2007, 04:30 PM']Thanks for clarifying this critical point of Catholic theology.[/quote]
Oops! That was supposed to read "Mary's perpetual [b]virginity[/b]."
That'll teach me to try to type after 11:00 pm!

[cmotherofpirl]

thats what happens when you stay up past your bedtime...

[Socrates]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1417987' date='Nov 11 2007, 11:22 PM'] thats what happens when you stay up past your bedtime...[/quote]
Thank you, Mom.

["Kyrie eleison"]

"...Catholics have long revered her, but now Protestants are finding their own reasons to celebreate the mother of Jesus."
Here are some excerpts of the article:

[url="http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_bible.htm#Catholics%20beleive%20Mary%20is%20the%20new%20Ark%20of%20the%20Covenant"]Visit My Website[/url]

...Beverly Gavena, a [protestant] professor of New Testament literature at Princeton, has portrayed Mary as the victim of[b] "a Protestant conspiracy of silence: theologically, liturgically and devotionally" [/b]

... Most Protestants can identify with the experience of Kathleen Norris, an author who has writen of her upbringing ... [b]"We dragged Mary out at Christmas ...and...packed her safely in the crèche box for the rest of the year. We...denied [her] place in Christian tradition and were disdainful of the reverence displayed for her, so public and emotional, by Catholics[/b]."

...In a shift whose ideological breadth is unusual in the fragmented Protestant world, a long-standing wall around Mary appears to be eroding. It is not that Protestants are converting [b]... rather a[/b][b] growing number of "Christian thinkers" who are neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox have concluded that their 'various traditions' have 'short-changed' her in the very arena in which Protestantism most prides itself: the careful and full reading of Scripture. (Time Magazine cover story March 21, 2005, pg. 48-55) [/b]

Catholics think it is unbiblical to assume Mary's special ministry ended when Jesus was born. The Bible shows that Mary was very active in the life of the Church after Jesus was born and even after He died.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among many other things are they short changed....

Edited November 12, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"

["Kyrie eleison"]

I was once on Budge's board and I couldn't believe that the posters believed that Jael was more blessed than Mary the mother of Jesus.

Judges 5:24

"Most blessed of women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Most blessed is she of women in the tent.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)



They would rather pay respects to Jael than to Blessed Mary, they wanted nothing to do with Mary.