Scripture prophesies and prescribes Marian devotion, and a careful reading of the New and Old Testament together shows that Mary is given a pride of place rarely (if ever) found in Protestant denominations. But that is not the end of the story. Protestants examining this evidence will sometimes be intellectually convinced, but will encounter a roadblock: isn’t Marian devotion dangerous? Doesn’t it threaten to interfere with our relationship to Jesus Christ?
That’s a good question to ask, and I would respond to it in three ways.
 |
| Elizabeth Boott Duveneck, Apple Tree Branches (1883) |
First, consider the matter empirically: that is, test the fruits (Matthew 7:16). We can see throughout the history of the Catholic Church, down to the present day, people who burned with love for Christ and who were deeply devoted to His Mother. That is, we see several cases in which Marian devotion seems to have helped, rather than hindered, a Christian’s commitment to Christ. Where do we see cases in the other direction? It’s no good citing nominal Catholics who wear rosaries while shamelessly sinning. All too many nominal Christians (Catholics and Protestants alike) wear crosses while dishonoring the Name of Christ. In those cases, the problem isn’t that a love of Mary got in the way of growth in Christian sanctity: it’s that they don’t have a genuine love for Mary or Jesus, or they wouldn’t mortally sin.
So what we should be looking for is someone who was committed to Christ, but after taking up proper Catholic Marian devotions, lost his faith, or at least, lost his zeal. If such a person doesn’t exist, there don’t seem to be the bad fruit that we would expect from a bad tree. In other words, by the test laid out in Matthew 7:16, it seems that we can say that legitimate Marian devotion is good, since it produces immense visible good, and no visible evil.
By that same token, test the fruits of the virulently anti-Marian crowd. See how well (or how poorly) their anti-Marian views exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23).
The New Testament depicts Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Eve, the Temple Gate surrounding the New Temple, Christ, and the builder of that New Temple. What do all of these images have in common? Two things. First, all of them include purity: the Ark was too holy to even be touched (2 Samuel 6:6-7), Eve was created without original or actual sin, the Temple builder had to have bloodless hands (1 Chronicles 28:3) and no one could pass through the Temple Gate other than the Lord (Ezekiel 44:2-3).
Second, each of them is referential. The Ark is holy because it is where the Lord would come (Exodus 25:21-22). The same is true for the Temple Gate and its builder, since the Temple was filled with the Glory of the Lord (2 Chronicles 5:11-14). And sinless Eve is drawn from, and points back to, sinless Adam (Genesis 2:22-23). In other words, Mary is pure because Christ is Divine, and it is right that the person that Our Lord was physically connected to for 9 months be sinless… particularly given that sin cannot enter the presence of God in Heaven (Revelation 21:27). This includes both external purity (Mary’s perpetual virginity), but more importantly, it includes her internal purity (her immaculate conception and sinlessness).
All of Mary’s life is in relation to her Son. Who among us can say the same?
Revelation 12 has a fascinating depiction of the nature of Satanic attacks. First, here is Rev. 12:1-6, with a heavenly depiction of the Mother of God:
 |
| Woman of the Apocalypse, Hortus deliciarum (1185 A.D.) |
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; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
Her Male Child is Christ, of course. If that wasn’t plain enough from context, the reference to Him ruling with an iron scepter is to Psalm 2:9. Reading Psalm 2:7-9 makes it clear that it’s referring to the Only Begotten Son, and this Psalm is explicitly applied to Christ in Acts 13:33. The dragon is Satan (Rev. 12:9):
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world — he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
And here is how Satan reacts to losing (Rev. 12:13-17):
And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.
So when the devil realizes that he can’t defeat Christ, he attacks His Mother (Rev. 12:13), and out of hatred for her, persecutes the Church, since all of those who hold to the testimony of Christ are her children (Rev. 12:17). To get to Adam, Satan attacked Eve. To get to Christ, Satan attacks Mary.
Understood properly, Jesus and Mary point towards each other, since love is not jealous (1 Cor. 13:4). Mary’s last words in Scripture about Christ are emblematic: “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5). So are Christ’s last words about Mary: “behold, your Mother” (John 19:27). As Revelation 12 shows, it’s the devil who tries to separate Christ from His Mother, and His Mother from the followers of Christ.
So while I understand the hesitation that some Protestants (and even some Catholics) have towards Marian devotion, Scripture presents the continuous tradition of Marian devotion as a positive (Luke 1:48), while Satan is depicted as the one seeking to create a division between Mother and Son, and between Mary and the Church.
The woman of Rev 12 is now here, she is the prophet like unto Moses and Elijah Matt 17:3, Acts 3:21-23, Luke 1:17 delivering the true word John 1:1 from the wilderness to prepare a people for the Lord’s return. God our Father will not put any child of his into a hell fire no matter what their sins and no matter if they repent in this world or not. It never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer 7:31, Jer 19:5. A gift of truth that sets us all free Pro 14:25 is now delivered to the whole world as a witness Matt 24:14. Start here… http://minigoodtale.blogspot.com obey the word Prove all things.
Tell us more val…
In my opinion Marian Devotion is Essestial not dangerous. It is dangerous to NOT have a devotion to Mary. All the Great Saints had a HUGE Devotion to Mary. The Great Alphonsus De Liguori, went as far as to say, if it were not for Mary, he would be dead in his Sins In Hell. Mary only leads Souls to her Son. Abandoning Mary is one step away from Abandoning Christ.
It’s not normal for the world to be submerged in darkness and the Catholic Church to be reduced to little more than background noise. God’s patience was exhausted long before Vatican Council II. Our Lady was sent to La Salette and to Fatima and was ignored, the desperate message hidden. Divine justice demanded that the Church be chastised and in a terrible manner, precisely because it chose a path that distanced itself from Marian devotion. Individual Catholics can still take the initiative, wear the Brown Scapular and pray the rosary daily. A remnant has embraced the Five First Saturday devotion of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary requested at Fatima. But think of the much greater number of souls that labor under the false illusion of ecumenism, religious liberty and a Catholic life largely devoid of Marian devotion. Think of the severe account that will have to be given by Prelates occupying the highest positions in the Church for ignoring Our Lady. Save yourself and turn to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Immaculate Heart of Mary will be your refuge and the way that leads you to God.
” But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God.(23*) Following the study of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgy of the Church, and under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium, let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church…”–Lumen Gentium 67
Whenever idolatrous devotees to Mary are identified (such as the hoards in Mexico, Caribbean, Philippines, etc.) Catholics claim that excessive devotion showed by such pagan so-called “Catholics” arises because these simple people were “not well catechised.”
Doubtless Roman Catholics in areas well-exposed to Bible teaching (from exposure to Protestants!) don’t actually worship Mary as an idol, but Catholics in the developing world actually do – serving as “Christianized” version of a heathen goddess.
Articles like this show that even western Catholics are more concerned about protecting their own questionable traditions than they are in rescuing their more simple co-religionists from heathenish paganism and idolatry.
Mack,
(1) I’ve heard countless times about how Catholics in the places you mentioned are idolaters, but I’m skeptical. This skepticism is borne out of the near-continual “Catholics worship idols” slander that I’ve heard from anti-Catholic Protestants, including yourself. Since I know you’re lying about the Catholics you do know, why should I trust you to give me accurate information about Catholics you’ve never even met? And why should I trust you to give me accurate information on Mexican and Filipino Catholics, when you’re openly racist?
(2) Having said that, let’s assume that there is a problem with Mary-worship in these places. Does that disprove the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary? Not in the slightest. The Catholic Church condemns worshiping Mary just as She condemns rejecting Mary.
If we had to reject every doctrine that was misapplied or misunderstood in a heretical way by those who interpret the Bible falsely, we’d have to throw out the doctrine of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, and basically every other Christian doctrine.
Let’s take the Hypostatic Union as an example. Nestorius argued that since there was a distinction between Christ’s Divinity and Humanity, there are effectively two separate Persons in Christ. For this reason, he refused to call Mary “Mother of God” (Theotokos), opting instead to call her “Mother of Christ” (Christotokos). What he was trying to affirm (the distinction between the humanity and divinity of Christ) was orthodox. The way he went about affirming it was heretical.
The Monophysites argued that since Christ was only One Person, it was proper to ascribe only one Nature to Him. What they were trying to affirm (a rejection of the Nestorian heresy, and a recognition that Jesus Christ is one Person, not two), is orthodox. The way they went about affirming it was heretical.
At the Council of Chalcedon, the matter was settled. The Hypostatic Union, believed in by all orthodox Christians, is that Christ has Two Natures, perfectly united in One Person (but without ceasing to be Two Natures). It affirms what is right in both Nestorianism and Monophysitism, while rejecting their heresies. I’m sure to a Nestorian, it probably looked like a maddening compromise, or an invitation for Christians to fall into Monophysitism (and vice versa for Monophysites). It wasn’t. It was an affirmation of the truth.
Showing that Monophysitism is heretical doesn’t disprove (or even threaten) Chalcedonian Christology. Neither does your criticism. Showing that you can go off-course in one direction doesn’t prove that you can’t go off-course in the other direction.
I.X.,
Joe
Joe,
The same news-media that slanders “racists” promotes abortion and homosexuality and atheism … I happen to believe in both Genesis 10 and Acts 7, and see no contradiction between them both. (i.e., God loves and saves all races by Jesus Christ, yet God wants races to reside in their own distinct separate nations. I am an equal-opportunity critic of all – let everyone acknowledge we are all worms before God.)
Nevertheless, the excessive Marian devotion of third-world Catholics either proves that the “infallible teaching church” is failing to properly teach – or else calls into question the Church’s sincerity in its “veneration versus worship” argument.
Ironically “uncatechized” tribes of early European barbarians had more sense – they received Christ but wouldn’t call Mary “mother of God” and got slandered as “Arians” when they were not. Profession of the Trinity is no virtue to those who use it to shoe-horn Mary into the Godhead (as God’s mother no less!).
Marian fanatics won’t rest until some Pope announces her apotheosis. The “pillar and ground of the truth” placates any noisy group – today they kiss the Koran, tomorrow they deify Mary. I invite you to be a Bible Christian. Or perhaps you like where you are at while ignoring inconvenient facts.
If I’m wrong, God have mercy on me – my ambition was to be consistent and Bible believing.
Mack
Mack,
1) I appreciate your ambition to be correct and Bible believing. I’m more troubled by the amount of confidence you put in yourself. You routinely make claims that apparently no one besides yourself believes: for example, that the Virgin Mary had children by multiple men, that the televangelist Jack Van Impe repeatedly lifts up his NKJV Bible because he may have been “recruited by somebody to make the odd signals to reinforce mind-control on somebody’s behalf,” that there will be two secret Raptures, etc.
There are two possibilities: either you’re the greatest Christian visionary to ever live, single-handedly uncovering doctrines that even the students of the Apostles didn’t know about, or you’re incredibly over-confident in your own abilities. That’s not holy zeal: that’s arrogance.
In your prior comment, you put “the pillar and foundation of truth” in scare quotes. I assume you know that this comes from 1 Timothy 3:15, so my challenge to you is: what church do you look to as the pillar and foundation of truth? Or do you just look inwards, at your own ability to grasp Scripture, conflating that with the will of the Holy Spirit? Hebrews 13:17 calls us to submit to our religious leaders. What religious leaders do you submit to, or are you the head of your own version of Christianity? If you’re going to nominate yourself as a “Bible Christian,” it seems to me that you should at least obey the Bible’s instructions on religious submission.
2) The argument you’re making about Mary ignores the brunt of my response. You claim that “excessive Marian devotion of third-world Catholics either proves that the ‘infallible teaching church’ is failing to properly teach – or else calls into question the Church’s sincerity in its ‘veneration versus worship’ argument.” I don’t see how it does either of those things. Did the existence of Nestorianism undermine the authenticity of the Magisterium, or call into question the sincerity of Her Trinitarian beliefs?
3) Certainly, there is always more that the Church can do by way of catechesis. There are plenty of Catholics who are under-catechized, and we continue to have our work cut out for us. Put simply, there are over a billion baptized Catholics, and it’s an enormous task to see to it that each of them is well-catechized. Often, the Church’s representatives failed in this task. That doesn’t disprove anything the Church actually claims about being the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and She never claims to have the supernatural ability of ensuring people were always well-taught.
4) The Church has never, will never, and can never deify Mary. Rather than seeing the Magisterium as “placating any noisy group,” I see astonishing doctrinal consistency over 2000 years of Church history: far more than any other institution or organization over that same time period, and far more consistency and coherence than we’ve seen in Protestantism’s 500 years. After all, were there any Reformers who hold to the doctrinal positions you hold to on things (like the Rapture, Mary having several husbands, your interpretation of Scripture, etc.)?
I.X.,
Joe
And what is your defense about snake handling cults?
Ms. Catelli-Snake handling cults are generally Baptist. You will have to ask them about your concern. Mr. Quigley, Thank you for confirming once again that Protestants really do not respect women. That is why they continually attack the Mother of God and tossed Judith out of the Bible. Praying for both of you.
Hi Gina –
How does your church’s teaching that Mary birthed Jesus without opening her womb respect women??
“And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)” Luke 2:22-23 (KJV).
And why are approved Roman Catholic Bibles calling Joseph the “father” of Jesus, thus slandering Mary’s virginity entirely?
Catholic Luke 2:33 RSV compare to Luke 2:33 KJV
And how did pope JP2 respect women when he kissed the Koran (http://www.jimmyakin.org/wp-content/uploads/misc/john_paul_ii_quran.jpg) the book that tells men to beat their wives? (Quran 4:34)
Maybe you should research things in the Bible a little bit more before you come to any more wild conclusions.
– Mack
Mack,
You claim that Catholic Bibles calling Joseph the “father” of Jesus “slander[s] Mary’s Virginity entirely,” and that the KJV doesn’t do this. I’d love to see how you get past Luke 2:27 KJV. Or, for that matter, Luke 2:41 KJV.
I.X.,
Joe
And why do you think their being Baptists excuses you? If anyone called a Catholic proves the Catholics are wrong, anyone called a Protestant proves the Protestants are wrong. Especially since they obviously fell into it through accepting the private interpretation of Scripture.
Mack, you said,
The same news-media that slanders “racists” promotes abortion and homosexuality and atheism …
Rather than deny that you are a racist, you justify your belittlement of people whom you don’t know simply on the basis of their genetic heritage? Strange. Have you not read in Scripture:
Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
I happen to believe in both Genesis 10 and Acts 7, and see no contradiction between them both.
There is no contradiction between them.
(i.e., God loves and saves all races by Jesus Christ, yet God wants races to reside in their own distinct separate nations.
I wonder why God did not punish Moses for having a wife of another race? Nor does Scripture say anything about God rejecting the Egyptians which left Egypt and joined with the Hebrews. In fact, God only seems to be angered by the sinful actions of the other nations. Especially by their idolatry.
I am an equal-opportunity critic of all – let everyone acknowledge we are all worms before God.)
That is a Catholic Teaching. And all the more reason why we are united in one body under God. The Church, the Body of Christ.
Nevertheless, the excessive Marian devotion of third-world Catholics either proves that the “infallible teaching church” is failing to properly teach – or else calls into question the Church’s sincerity in its “veneration versus worship” argument.
1. You are not an authority of Catholic doctrine or worship and in no way qualified to judge what is excessive Marian devotion.
2. The Catholic Church is quite clear in its distinction between veneration and worship. The only ones confused on the issue are anti-Catholics who pretend not to understand the teaching for their own reasons.
3. The errors of Catholics do not invalidate the infallibility of any Church Teaching.
4. Your idea that any disciple’s failure to understand a teaching somehow brings into question the sincerity of the Teacher indicts not only the Catholic Church, but every Christian teacher through the ages up to and including Jesus Christ. You even indict yourself since you are here teaching your version of Christianity and I know that I don’t understand how you come up with more than half of your ideas.
cont’d
Mack also said:
Ironically “uncatechized” tribes of early European barbarians had more sense – they received Christ but wouldn’t call Mary “mother of God” and got slandered as “Arians” when they were not. Profession of the Trinity is no virtue to those who use it to shoe-horn Mary into the Godhead (as God’s mother no less!).
Thanks f/or providing this. It gives me an opportunity to compare your beliefs to Scripture and Catholic doctrine to Scripture.
Obviously, you explicitly deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So, what does Scripture say with regard to that question?
Luke 1:43-45
King James Version (KJV)
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
Lets break this down:
1. The word “Lord” is here mentioned two times.
2. In the second instance, it is an obvious reference to God. “Blessed is she who believes that the LORD would fulfill His promises.” That is an obvious reference to God.
3. Therefore, then, what could she possibly have meant when she said, “mother of my LORD”?
4. Since she was inspired by the Holy Spirit to utter these words, she must have meant what is most obvious. Is Jesus, God? Yes. Therefore, the words she uttered could also be translated, “mother of my GOD”.
So, God explicitly teaches us, in His Word, that Mary is the Mother of God. This is what you deny and therefore you deny the outright teaching of the Word of God in Scripture.
Marian fanatics won’t rest until some Pope announces her apotheosis.
Apotheosis? I’m not sure if that is a synonym of Theosis, which is Catholic Teaching regarding us all. All who die in Christ will share in the divine nature:
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
The “pillar and ground of the truth” placates any noisy group –
Your mistaken. If that were so, the Protestants would have been placated long ago as they are the noisiest group ever.
today they kiss the Koran,
Show me where Scripture says it is a sin to kiss a book? If it isn’t a sin, then what is your objection?
tomorrow they deify Mary.
We honor Mary in obedience to the instructions of Scripture.
Luke 1:48
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
I invite you to be a Bible Christian.
Catholics are already Bible Christians. I invite you to be a true Bible Christian and leave behind the errors of the Protestants.
Or perhaps you like where you are at while ignoring inconvenient facts.
I love the Church which Christ established for my salvation. It is you who are ignoring the plain teaching of the Word of God.
If I’m wrong, God have mercy on me – my ambition was to be consistent and Bible believing.
You are wrong. If you do not repent, may God have mercy on your soul:
James 3:1
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
But God has sent you to this blogsite in order that you may learn the Wisdom of His Word through the Teaching of His Church:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
De Maria
Mack, you asked Gina,
mackquigleyDecember 13, 2012 2:17 PM
Hi Gina –
How does your church’s teaching that Mary birthed Jesus without opening her womb respect women??
In a time and culture when women were considered better seen than heard, the glories of Mary, including that of being a perpetual virgin, showed mankind that God holds women in a high regard and that women are valuable contributors to society.
“And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)” Luke 2:22-23 (KJV).
This is a ritual which Mary upheld to fulfill all righteousness. As her Son also did when He was baptized. Neither He nor she had to do it since neither she nor He needed to be purified. But scandal would result if they claimed a special privilege, therefore they submitted to it.
And why are approved Roman Catholic Bibles calling Joseph the “father” of Jesus, thus slandering Mary’s virginity entirely?
Foster fathers are fathers. Do you deny it?
Catholic Luke 2:33 RSV compare to Luke 2:33 KJV
Hm? Then why does the KJV say?
Luke 2:41
King James Version (KJV)
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
Who are these parents? His father and mother?
Also the KJV says:
Luke 2:48
King James Version (KJV)
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Who is this “father” to which the KJV refers? Is the KJV also involved in this conspiracy to make St. Joseph the true father of Our Lord?
And how did pope JP2 respect women when he kissed the Koran (http://www.jimmyakin.org/wp-content/uploads/misc/john_paul_ii_quran.jpg) the book that tells men to beat their wives? (Quran 4:34)
Pope JP2 kissed the Koran in a sign of respect for all Muslims, men and women. The Koran symbolizes this group of people. But the Catholic Church teaches that beating anyone is a sin.
Maybe you should research things in the Bible a little bit more before you come to any more wild conclusions.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
De Maria
If there was any doubt that Mack was really a racist, he uses the N-word in his blog.
If you look at the source code of mackquigley.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/negrobeasts-negrobeat/ for example, you’ll notice the tag in the source code that says “nigger music”
Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.
I don’t know what to say. Except that Black is beautiful.
At least Moses agrees. Num 12:1 KJV
Joe, i liked this article so much I went and bought my lovely wife a replica statue of the pieta…. the blessed Mother and Her Son…. i’ll let you know if my wife liked it !! (I’m sure she will not worship it).
Joe,
Good thing I’m not in that religious cult where free thinking is prohibited. It’s based in Rome, heard of it?
Please ignore everything I say – but you can’t ignore the Bible. Is that arrogance? You’d only think so if you mistook what I said for what the Bible said. If you make that mistake, shame on you, not me.
The Bible says sorcery and enchantment really exist (eg, Ex 7:11, Acts 8:9, Isaiah 47:12, Prov 6:13) – whether Jack Van Impe (“imp” means a devil) uses it is pure speculation. Also, the Bible has a rapture (Rev 14:14-16; Matthew 25:1) and a rapture (2 Thess 2:6-7; 1 Cor 15:52)- if you can reconcile them some other way than one post-trib and other pre-trib, then go ahead. And if you can explain the mystery of James the son of Alphaeus who is Christ’s brother – without changing the text – then go ahead. Ignore me every time – but the Bible says what it says.
Why do you concern yourself so much with Mary while avoiding a Bible-based study of her? Isn’t that rather ridiculous?
We can thank Reformers for any Bible doctrine that stamps out men’s traditions – including the reformers’ traditions. Traditions are fine unless the Bible says otherwise. Why should snake handling cults shock people more than Roman Catholics whipping themselves or crucifying themselves??
Let the Pope sit in this special little seat and acknowledge the supremacy of the King James Bible over everything – then we will have something worthwhile to unify around.
That sordid bigot Leo X attacked Martin Luther and cut his church off from the work of God – which continued elsewhere. Romanism went on to enacted the ludicrous “anathemas” in the Council of Trent – cutting itself off completely from Bible Christianity. Luther wrote to the German princes that in view of Rome’s manifest failure to lead the flock of God, it was necessary that fellow Christians – who are all priests – appoint their own bishops. He was exactly right – 2 Tim 2:2.
Of course, “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) isn’t a sarcastic title when applied to saved believers under Christ’s head – but it is when applied to Romanism under the pope’s head. In that very chapter, 1 Timothy 3, Paul says Bishops should be married. So please forgive me if I involuntarily snicker when somebody calls Rome the “pillar and ground of the truth.”
You aren’t aware of the “co-redemptrix” lobby? Once they get their way you will then have ample opportunity to “explain” how this didn’t deify Mary, like you explain so many other “consistencies” from 313 AD until the present.
Remember your loyalty must be first and foremost to holy scripture. If you think God doesn’t allow his people to be tested by a corrupt religious leadership run by the devil, then you need to re-read the lessons taught in the Old Testament.
Mack
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh Mack. If you are in the rights and have the truth, then why do I see little fruits of the Holy Spirit come out within your posts? Where is your charity, gentleness, peace, etc?
What do you mean “And if you can explain the mystery of James the son of Alphaeus who is Christ’s brother – without changing the text – then go ahead.” Do you consider using the original Greek “changing the text”?
You are consistently and charitably explained the truth, and what/why the Catholics believe, but you seem so stubborn.
Many of your arguments have been addressed many times and are just really silly.
For example, ” In that very chapter, 1 Timothy 3, Paul says Bishops should be married.” Should is not must, is it?
Mack, could you answer some questions for me?
Can you show me in the Bible where it says our loyalty must be first and foremost to holy scripture?
Does your denomination/religious affiliation remember the Lord’s supper every time you gather for worship (cf. “Do this as often as you do it, in remembrance of me.”
Do your confess your sins to one another?
Do you believe that certain people have received the Holy Spirit and have the power to bind and loose sins?
Do you have Elders anoint people who are sick (Epistle of James)?
Do you believe objects that holy people touch can have miraculously curative properties (Peter’s shadow, Paul’s handkerchief in Acts).
If not, why not? These are all Catholic things but they’re in the Bible. So if you don’t do them or believe in them, why not?
Our loyalty belongs first and foremost to The Holy Trinity and to the Church founded by the Second Person of that Trinity as described in the Bible. It was foretold in the Old Testament and brought to fruition in the New Testament. The fact that certain *people* within that Church have been less than perfect changes nothing. The “reformers” certainly were not perfect, neither are their descendants. Only Jesus because He is God, and His Mother, by the special Grace of God, are perfect. Father Luther had mental health problems. Poor Leo X was stuck with trying to deal with them and preserve the unity of the Church at the same time. By the way, Luther, it is said, died in full Communion with Holy Mother Church, and believed that he had always been a good and faithful Catholic.
Hi Taylor,
Scriptural loyalty: Mark 7:7 KJV; Col. 2:22 KJV; 1 Tim. 4:1 KJV; 2 Tim. 2:16-17 KJV; 2 Tim. 4:4 KJV; 1 Cor. 3:19 KJV; Prov. 13:13 KJV; Psalm 119:158 KJV; Isaiah 8:20 KJV; psalm 138:2 KJV; 1 Thess 2:13 KJV; Acts 17:11 KJV; Psalm 119:105 KJV; Luke 8:11 KJV; Luke 4:4 KJV; Proverbs 30:6 KJV; 1 Peter 1:23-25 KJV; 1 Peter 2:2 KJV; Heb. 4:12 KJV; Rev. 19:13 KJV; Eccl. 8:4 KJV; Jer. 15:16 KJV.
Had Communion about a month ago — we don’t reject a scriptural communion that is only in remembrance.
James does not says “sins” but “faults” -“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another…” James 5:16 KJV. When you are in the confessional, does the priest confess back to you?? Faults are between people, sins are transgressions against God. “let God alone hear you.” said John Chrysostom.
No Roman Catholic priests were present in John 20:23 KJVso don’t worry about it. If you want your sins forgiven go directly to Jesus Christ – 1 John 1:9 KJV & 1 John 2:1 KJV.
If you offend your local Church by a sin (both against them and God), then repent and the leadership must forgive you and welcome you back. cf. 1 Cor 5:13 KJV& 2 Cor 2:7-10 KJV. But if leadership kicks you put wrongfully, ignore them and go elsewhere: see 3 john 1:9-11 KJV.
Everyone who is saved has the Holy Ghost “…if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9 KJV.
James wrote to Jewish tribes (Js 1:1 KJV) and fails to mention the atonement by the blood of Jesus Christ. The author James is therefore most likely the one who died in Acts 12:2 KJV before the disciples learned of Acts 15:9-11 KJV. Much of James is written for the great tribulation period (compare Matthew 25:40 KJV).
Signs and wonders authenticate to the Jews because “the Jews require a sign” 1 Cor 1:22 KJV. Moses also did them: Exodus 4:9-10 KJV. “Acts of the Apostles” is full of early Church’s authenticating signs and wonders pursuant to Mark 16:17 KJV, “these signs shall follow them that believe…” After the apostles are gone, so are the signs and wonders – we are left with the Bible.
Those claiming to be apostles today are liars: “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” Rev 2:2 KJV… because they can’t show the signs and wonders: “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” 2 Corinthians 12:12 KJV.
Wicked men reject the Bible and follow experiences – God will allow them to be deceived by the devil’s false miracles (John 5:4 KJV; 1 Kings 22:22 KJV; Ex. 7:11 KJV; 2 Thess 2:11-12 KJV). A few devilish miracles at a shrine can enslave millions away from God.
Bible Christians reject Roman Catholicism because its system is not sound Bible doctrine. Keep prayerfully studying the scriptures and you will eventually come to the same conclusion.
Mack
PS: You attack me as being uncharitable in my posts. I am not attacking you, Joe, or anybody else – just your system of belief. Bible believers aren’t lickspittle vacillators who coo out unctuous apologies for what we believe. You need to stop using your “feelings” as a Holy Spirit geiger counter. Charity “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6 KJV). Do you?
Unfortunately, Mack, by saying that “Bible believers aren’t lickspittle vacillators who coo out unctuous apologies for what we believe,” you ARE in fact being uncharitable and attacking myself, Joe, and any other Catholics defending the Faith.
Furthermore, you use such fluff in your commentary that it really distracts from what the text actually says. For example, No Roman Catholic priests were present in John 20:23 KJVso don’t worry about it.”–when the text says when YOU forgive…so who is Our Lord talking to?
Lastly, it is hard to debate with someone who seems so set on using the KJV–and some random person who, to my knowledge, our Lord didn’t specifically give interpretive authority to.
It’s hard for me to take your “I am not attacking you […] just your system of belief” stance seriously, when you’ve lambasted “Shameless Popery’s ignorant toadies” as “glib fanatics ever explaining away and excusing the unscriptural traditions of Rome with specious arguments and appeals to prejudice and to their church’s authority,” while the “lazy subscribers only look at the pretty pictures and don’t bother to read.”
In any case, for all your bluster, I note that you’ve failed to provide answers to any of my direct questions. I’ll ask them again and number them, so you won’t overlook them:
(1) “In your prior comment, you put ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’ in scare quotes. I assume you know that this comes from 1 Timothy 3:15, so my challenge to you is: what church do you look to as the pillar and foundation of truth? Or do you just look inwards, at your own ability to grasp Scripture, conflating that with the will of the Holy Spirit?”
(2) “Hebrews 13:17 calls us to submit to our religious leaders. What religious leaders do you submit to, or are you the head of your own version of Christianity?”
(3) “Did the existence of Nestorianism undermine the authenticity of the Magisterium, or call into question the sincerity of Her Trinitarian beliefs?”
To that list, I’d like to add a few, related to testing the fruits:
(4) The challenge that I suggested for anyone seeking to “test the fruits” of Marian devotion is to find “someone who was committed to Christ, but after taking up proper Catholic Marian devotions, lost his faith, or at least, lost his zeal.” Can you do this?
(5) Am I to read your above comment about to mean that even if we can show Marian apparitions producing documented miracles, you’ll just write these off as “the devil’s false miracles”?
(6) What evidence (if any) could possibly convince you that Catholics are right in their reading of Scripture on Mary, and that you’re wrong? If you don’t mind me saying so, you seem to have pretty well insulated yourself from any Christian correction.
I.X.,
Joe
Bible believers aren’t lickspittle vacillators who coo out unctuous apologies for what we believe.
Even when you’re handling snakes?
Mack: “Had Communion about a month ago — we don’t reject a scriptural communion that is only in remembrance.”
Matthew, Mark and Luke all quote Jesus telling you what this is, His body and blood. Luke includes Jesus’s command to do it and tells you why, “in remembrance of Me”. The ‘why’ does nothing to diminish the ‘what’. John does not mention this, but with clear 20/20 hindsight instead offers additional validation in Chapter 6. Jesus teaches that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink, even to the point of many disciples walking away. He doesn’t call them back explaining that it was only symbolic or only a remembrance. Jesus knew this truth would be a challenge to their faith in Him. If you can’t trust Him in this, you’re ultimately walking away from Him.
Paul doesn’t water it down either. In 1 Cor 11 he like his disciple Luke includes Jesus’s command to, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” Paul says that those who eat and drink unworthily “will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” He goes on to say that if you don’t discern the body and blood, you drink judgment upon yourself and blames this for disease and death in the community. Paul’s emphasis is clearly on the reality of the body and blood, and Jesus’s command in no way reduces that to only remembrance. This is not an either/or teaching, but a both/and teaching, i.e. it is His real body and blood that He intended to be made available to future generations as a most concrete and intimate way to remember Him.
This has been the Church’s belief, teaching and practice from the beginning to today. There’s plenty of evidence that this is so. This is a very hard truth to accept because it defies common sense and everyday experience. If it weren’t true, such a belief would have died a very early death. As it is, once again Jesus showed us His love in a why that’s entirely over the top, putting Himself helplessly in our very hands that His Body and Blood might nourish ours and that He might live entirely within us. God’s foolishness is greater than man’s wisdom.
Joe, who I assume is a Cradle Catholic, may try to be charitable to ones like mackquigley, but as a Catholic Convert who was once just like you, I have not such hang-ups, and will enjoy crushing you into the dusty ground.
Shall we being?
First, please put down that 17th century mistranslation of a Roman Catholic document(s), let’s go to the original 1st century Koine Greek to get some answers.
James does not says “sins” but “faults” -“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another…” James 5:16 KJV.
He does say “sins”, the Greek term is “ἁμαρτίας” “ham-ar-tias” which means “sin”
http://biblesuite.com/greek/266.htm
No Roman Catholic priests were present in John 20:23 KJVso don’t worry about it. If you want your sins forgiven go directly to Jesus Christ – 1 John 1:9 KJV & 1 John 2:1 KJV.
Let’s take a gander at those verses, shall we?
1 John 1:9
“ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας [There’s that pesky word again…] ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας”
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins [bold for emphasis] and to cleanse us from all iniquity.”
So… To whom am I to confess my sins to? It doesn’t say. All it says is to “…confess our sins…” it doesn’t tell us to whom… From just this text alone, I am unable to ascertain who to do my confessing to.
1 John 2:1
Τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε [Why… It’s that same word again!]. καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ [Here it is again!!!], παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον.
“My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin [I think you know what that’s bolded by now…]. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just.”
So, from this passage, I have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. Not much in there about confessing my sins…
Now let’s look at John 20:23:
ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας [hello again “hamartias”!] ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς: ἄν τινων κρατῆτε, κεκράτηνται
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
Either Jesus is a liar and didn’t give his first Bishops the power to absolve sins, or he did, and I should try and find their rightful successors someone walking around today (All evidence points to them being Catholics…) Or I should take my vast knowledge of Ancient Greek, tell Google to give up on a driverless car, and get to work on a time machine.
By the way, many of the other quotes you cited in defense of “Scripture Loyalty” are poor choices, take 1 Peter 2:2 for one example:
ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε εἰς σωτηρίαν,
Again the KJV is incorrect in its translation. “λογικὸν” is an adjective in this citation, and it shouldn’t be translated as “word” as the KJV does, that would be better suited to the word “λόγος” in John 1:1. It is better translated as “rational” and is translated in New Advent’s Bible:
“…as newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation…”
http://biblesuite.com/greek/3050.htm
Not only should that verse number even actually be there as it is just a part of a longer sentence and having it there discourages serious Scripture study as it was originally written, but there is nothing in that scripture citation, or any other citation of yours, that actually says What Scripture Actually Is, and gives a clear definition of that Scripture.
If anything, one could use that citation to show that 1 Peter ISN’T scripture, as it is referencing to something outside of the letter itself as Scripture. Taken at face value, there is nothing in that letter of St. Peter to indicate that he knew he was writing scripture. Nothing. Without some outside source telling you that it is scripture along with about 1600+ years of tradition, you would have no reason to think it scripture any more than you think the morning paper is scripture.
[Had to break this one up into multiple parts…]
Bible Christians reject Roman Catholicism because its system is not sound Bible doctrine. Keep prayerfully studying the scriptures and you will eventually come to the same conclusion.
“Bible Christian” that is an interesting term, I used to be one of you. I will happily let you claim it. Our Church was founded at Pentecost, circa 33 AD by Jesus Christ in the Upper Room, your Church was founded in 382 at the council of Carthage, and finalized by Pope Damasus of the Catholic Church. But don’t take just word of this Humble Papist Convert, take the word of Alan Watts, a former Anglican Priest, and Buddhist philosopher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42V8BGBvTk
Skip ahead to about 7:30 mark.
With any luck, St. Jerome (my patron saint) is in Heaven right now and is slowly clapping in astonishment after all of that.
Hi Joe,
Don’t let my bark scare you – I’m against your religion, not you or other Catholics.
My beef with Catholicism? Substituting membership in an institution for receiving Jesus Christ in the heart. I’m concerned about unsaved people going to hell trusting their Church membership instead of Jesus Christ. Are you one of them?
#1 All saved Christians are priests and able to appoint local church leadership and replace apostate leaders. Paul allows every man to have his own opinion on issues like holy days: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Rom. 14:5 KJV. Let likeminded Christians meet together on the days they want – stop trying to govern somebody else’s group. Paul wasn’t a fanatic about church management 1 Cor. 14:38 KJV – but with sound doctrines of salvation: Titus 1:9-11 KJV.
Church authority vs “inner light” is a false dichotomy – both can be wrong. Uniformity of wrong belief is no virtue, neither are church authorities a substitute for the Holy Ghost in each believer. Christians should both hear their teachers and judge for themselves, departing from false ones: 1 Tim. 6:3-5 KJV; 1 Cor. 14:37 KJV; 1 Cor. 3:5 KJV.
(2) Hebrews 13:17 KJV doesn’t say we must look for a religious master. I obey the police, judges, boss who has the rule over me in any situation, and respect a pastor’s decisions over the business of his church – but not if command me on any personal issue because that isn’t his business. Peter told elders not to be “lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter 5:3 KJV; Paul said “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” 1 Cor. 7:23 KJV. Enslavers are false: “false brethren …spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:” Gal. 2:4 KJV. Beware of the cult-like control in Roman Catholicism.
(3) Trinity is an eternal truth simply acknowledged by councils. But a council of devils would also make the correct decision, James 2:19 KJV and “And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.” Luke 4:41 KJV. Councils enforced their decisions by murder which sheds light on the devil’s involvement. John 8:44 KJV.
(4) “Pray to the Virgin, not Jesus, she understands” is something some Catholic women say to each other. Men too can be fanatical: “…they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Acts 19:28-29 KJV. Zeal for a goddess isn’t good. Religious devotion to Mary robs honour from Jesus Christ alone.
(5) The “Queen of Heaven” is the name of a devil that apostate Jews used to worship, Jeremiah 44:17 KJV. Doubtless the Marian apparitions and miracles are of the devil: Deut. 13:2-3 KJV; Leviticus 19:31 KJV; Deut. 18:11 KJV; Galatians 1:8-9 KJV; Hebrews 9:27 KJV; Isaiah 8:19 KJV; Luke 16:29 KJV; 1 Chronicles 10:13 KJV.
(6) John wrote that Jesus Christ “full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 KJV. But Rome says Mary is “full of grace.” Who’s right? Romanism has this legacy from the accommodation to get pagans in the church. But its another obstacle that prevent a person from getting saved by going directly to Jesus Christ. Mary isn’t a mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). The “fruit” will be seen on the day when countless are cast into hell. Is Marian devotion worth that price?
And Rob – Once you change the text, you can make it say whatever you want. So I can’t help you there.
– Mack
John Holmquist,
I appreciate your scriptural approach, I don’t deny John 6 (although I don’t think you read it very carefully).
However, the scriptures have three applications: historic, doctrinal, and spiritual.
The historic application of Christ’s giving his body and blood for us to eat in John 6 is when Jesus died on the cross. The spiritual application in the church age is receiving Christ by believing the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-4 KJV). The literal/doctrinal application for Christians is receipt of literal new sinless resurrected bodies from Christ’s own body. The spiritual application for people born after the millennium is they must eat from tree of life and drink of the river of life in New Jerusalem and thereby live forever (Rev. 22:14).
Rome’s Mass tries to combine these separate applications into one – which results in a total chaos.
You’ve never heard this before so you’ll think I invented it – but I’m just reading it out of the same Bible anybody else can – nothing “private” about it.
– Mack
Wow… Rob, outstanding! Unfortunately, you have someone who doesn’t understand what we call in historical resource as an original primary source. Unless he was referring to not being able to read the Greek you typed and is accusing you of making it up as you typed the Greek on the comments.
Mack – you do realize that Catholics invented scriptural exegesis, right? We do know about the four (not three) senses of Scripture. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0329.html
It’s interesting that you decide for yourself when a passage is literal and when it is spiritual. It means you can justify just about anything, doesn’t it?
Hi JoAnna,
Jews invented scriptural exegesis long before Rome even existed or any “Christians” were on planet earth (Nehemiah 8:8 KJV; Acts 11:26 KJV). (cf. Romans 11:20-22 KJV).
– Mack
Catholicism is simply the fulfillment of Judaism, Mack.
Mack, you always say “Rome, Rome”. What about Byzantium (Greek Catholics), Constantinople, Alexandria, all the other sees…the Lebanese Catholics, Syrian, Coptic, Eastern Orthdox–all who have long traditions about Mary that are 99% identical to Rome’s teachings (100% if you word the Immaculate Conception correctly)?
Are you against them? Then perhaps you should be against the Apostolic Churches and not simply The Catholic Church of Rome.
Mack: “You’ve never heard this before so you’ll think I invented it – but I’m just reading it out of the same Bible anybody else can – nothing “private” about it.”
I’ve heard it all before. The nature of the Eucharist is not something to scoff at. What could be more important than Jesus’s real presence among us? He did promise to be with us all days. There’s no fuzz as to what’s written in the Gospels and the Epistles on this subject, only blindness and rationalization on your part. There’s no question as to what the Church has consistently believed on this subject. That’s real history. Check the Church Fathers. I doubt you’ve read them or any of the saints across the last 2000 years. I have and it’s always the same belief and same love for our Lord in the Eucharist. They are also consistent devotees to His mother well knowing the importance of her role in bringing people to her Son. The saints are masters of Scripture. If you want to understand, learn from them. Even Martin Luther would take exception to you. I know the Catholic Church has it right, because I’ve done the research and the prayer. Denying Jesus’s real presence body, blood, soul and divinity in favor of only a mere memory is a relatively new notion, something I’m sure Satan delights in.
Mack, you said,
Good thing I’m not in that religious cult where free thinking is prohibited. It’s based in Rome, heard of it?
Again, I thank you for providing this statement. It makes it very simple to compare your teachings to Scripture and Catholic Doctrine to Scripture.
So, is so called “free thinking” approved of in Scripture? Let us see what Scripture says:
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Not in that verse. No.
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Not in that verse, either.
1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Nor in that verse.
Romans 6:17
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Not there either. Can you provide any verse which supports or promotes “free thinking”?
De Maria
Mack also said,
Please ignore everything I say –
I’m doing my best.
but you can’t ignore the Bible.
We know. We follow the Teaching of Scripture diligently. It is the Teaching of the Church. The Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old and then bound them together in one Holy Book.
Is that arrogance? You’d only think so if you mistook what I said for what the Bible said. If you make that mistake, shame on you, not me.
Its not we who mistake what you say for what the Bible actually says. It is you confounding the two.
The Bible says sorcery and enchantment really exist (eg, Ex 7:11, Acts 8:9, Isaiah 47:12, Prov 6:13) –
That is Catholic Teaching. That is why we have Exorcists.
whether Jack Van Impe (“imp” means a devil) uses it is pure speculation.
I have no idea who this guy is nor what you guys are talking about. Carry on. No comment on my part.
cont’d
cont’d
Mack said,
Also, the Bible has a rapture (Rev 14:14-16; Matthew 25:1) and a rapture (2 Thess 2:6-7; 1 Cor 15:52)- if you can reconcile them some other way than one post-trib and other pre-trib, then go ahead.
Only the Father knows. I’ll leave it to Him to reveal it in His good time.
And if you can explain the mystery of James the son of Alphaeus who is Christ’s brother – without changing the text – then go ahead.
Easily. The word “adelphos” is used to mean “close or intimate friend” as in the following:
Mat 23:8 But 1161 be 2564 0 not 3361 ye 5210 called 2564 Rabbi 4461: for 1063 one 1520 is 2076 your 5216 Master 2519, [even] Christ 5547; and 1161 all 3956 ye 5210 are 2075 brethren 80.
All of the Apostles are brethren according to Christ.
Strong’s G80 – adelphos ἀδελφός Transliteration adelphos
The word used there is adelphos.
Jhn 20:17 Jesus 2424 saith 3004 unto her 846, Touch 680 me 3450 not 3361; for 1063 I am 305 0 not yet 3768 ascended 305 to 4314 my 3450 Father 3962: but 1161 go 4198 to 4314 my 3450 brethren 80, and 2532 say 2036 unto them 846, I ascend 305 unto 4314 my 3450 Father 3962, and 2532 your 5216 Father 3962; and 2532 [to] my 3450 God 2316, and 2532 your 5216 God 2316.
This disproves the Protestant teaching that adelphos must always be a “brother of the womb”. Because in these verses and in most verses of the New Testament it does not refer to “brothers of the womb” but to intimate friends.
Ignore me every time –
Still doing my best.
but the Bible says what it says.
Yeah. And the Bible continually supports Catholic doctrine because it is based upon Catholic Teaching.
Why do you concern yourself so much with Mary while avoiding a Bible-based study of her?
Hm? It is you who concern yourself with denying the Bible based doctrines concerning the Mother of Our Lord.
Isn’t that rather ridiculous?
Your position is, yes.
We can thank Reformers for any Bible doctrine that stamps out men’s traditions –
No. It is precisely the opposite. The Reformers confounded the teaching of Scripture and have led many people astray, including you.
including the reformers’ traditions.
Any of their traditions which contradict the Teaching of the Catholic Church also contradict Scripture.
Traditions are fine unless the Bible says otherwise.
Exactly! Let me give you a clear example. Protestants say “justified by faith alone.” Scripture says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
cont’d
cont’d
Mack said,
Why should snake handling cults shock people more than Roman Catholics whipping themselves or crucifying themselves??
Why should Catholics whipping themselves or crucifying themselves shock people more than snake handling Christians?
Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
1 Corinthians 9:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1 Pet 4:1
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Let the Pope sit in this special little seat and acknowledge the supremacy of the King James Bible over everything – then we will have something worthwhile to unify around.
The King James Bible is a translation based in part upon St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. It is St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate which is the best translation of the originals that ever existed.
That sordid bigot Leo X attacked Martin Luther and cut his church off from the work of God – which continued elsewhere.
It is the other way around. Martin Luther cut himself off from the work of God when he revolted against the Church.
Romanism went on to enacted the ludicrous “anathemas” in the Council of Trent – cutting itself off completely from Bible Christianity.
Still more error on your part. The Catholic Church did precisely what She was supposed to do when She condemned the heinous errors of the Protestants.
Luther wrote to the German princes that in view of Rome’s manifest failure to lead the flock of God, it was necessary that fellow Christians – who are all priests – appoint their own bishops. He was exactly right – 2 Tim 2:2.
He was wrong. He innovated and changed the Word of God. Thereby disobeying the verse you have provided in support of his heinous behavior:
2 Timothy 2:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
This is the support for Apostolic Succession. He flagrantly also violated this Scripture:
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Of course, “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) isn’t a sarcastic title when applied to saved believers under Christ’s head – but it is when applied to Romanism under the pope’s head.
On the contrary, it is a perfect description of the Catholic Church. The term “saved believers” when applied to Protestants is irony in its purest form. It is they who deny the Fountains of God’s grace which are the Sacraments. The only vessels by which they can be saved in this life.
cont’d
cont’d
Mack said,
In that very chapter, 1 Timothy 3, Paul says Bishops should be married.
And in another verse he says that in order to better serve the Lord a man should remain unmarried:
1 Corinthians 7:32
But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
Which verse carries the greater force in your opinion?
So please forgive me if I involuntarily snicker when somebody calls Rome the “pillar and ground of the truth.”
It is God whose forgiveness you should seek for belittling the Church which His Son sacrificed Himself to build:
Ephesians 5:
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
You aren’t aware of the “co-redemptrix” lobby? Once they get their way you will then have ample opportunity to “explain” how this didn’t deify Mary, like you explain so many other “consistencies” from 313 AD until the present.
Mary is co-redemptrix. It is a simple title which acknowledges that we are all fellow laborers with God and she chief among us because she brought Christ into the world:
1 Corinthians 3:9
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
Remember your loyalty must be first and foremost to holy scripture.
First and foremost to God and His Word which is taught us in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture by the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.
If you think God doesn’t allow his people to be tested by a corrupt religious leadership run by the devil, then you need to re-read the lessons taught in the Old Testament.
I believe it. It is you being tested by the corrupt leadership which you follow and which has mainlined the sins of adultery (Matthew 5:32), abortion (abortifacent contraception), homosexuality (permits homosexual ministers and has written homosexual versions of Scripture), etc. etc.
De Maria
Hi Mack, you said to Taylor,
Scriptural loyalty: Mark 7:7 KJV; Col. 2:22 KJV; 1 Tim. 4:1 KJV; 2 Tim. 2:16-17 KJV; 2 Tim. 4:4 KJV; 1 Cor. 3:19 KJV; Prov. 13:13 KJV; Psalm 119:158 KJV; Isaiah 8:20 KJV; psalm 138:2 KJV; 1 Thess 2:13 KJV; Acts 17:11 KJV; Psalm 119:105 KJV; Luke 8:11 KJV; Luke 4:4 KJV; Proverbs 30:6 KJV; 1 Peter 1:23-25 KJV; 1 Peter 2:2 KJV; Heb. 4:12 KJV; Rev. 19:13 KJV; Eccl. 8:4 KJV; Jer. 15:16 KJV.
Mack, the Catholic Church teaches we must have loyalty to the Scriptures. You however, claim that there we must hold our loyalty “first and foremost” to the Holy Scriptures. None of these verses say any such thing. And these that follow say something different:
Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Hebrews 13:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
These verses hold the Church and our Leaders in high esteem and the third equates Tradition and Scripture.
Had Communion about a month ago — we don’t reject a scriptural communion that is only in remembrance.
You should, because Scripture explicitly states that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ:
1 Corinthians 11:27
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
James does not says “sins” but “faults” –
We consider them the same thing.
“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another…” James 5:16 KJV. When you are in the confessional, does the priest confess back to you??
No. We confess to God through the Priest. That verse doesn’t say, one to another and back again. It says one to another, period.
Faults are between people, sins are transgressions against God. “let God alone hear you.” said John Chrysostom.
St. John Chrysostom was a Catholic Priest who heard confessions.
St. John Chrysostom, On the Gospel of John , Homily 86, 4 (391 AD):
Let us then do all we can to have the Holy Spirit with ourselves, and let us treat with much honor those into whose hands its operation hath been committed. For great is the dignity of the priests. “Whosesoever sins,” it saith, “ye remit, they are remitted unto them”; wherefore also Paul saith, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” (Heb. xiii. 17.) And hold them very exceedingly in honor; for thou indeed carest about thine own affairs, and if thou orderest them well, thou givest” no account for others, but the priest even if he rightly order his own life, if he have not an anxious care for thine, yea and that of all those around him, will depart with the wicked into hell. NPNF1, vol. 14, p. 326.
St. Chrysostoms mentions again here the great dignity of priests. Priests are to be obeyed.. Priests have such authority, that they have authority over our own souls. If they do not fulfill their duties properly St. Chrysostom warns that they can even lose their own salvation. Our own eternity is put into their hands, as the priests are Christ’s instruments.
cont’d
cont’d
Mack also said,
No Roman Catholic priests were present in John 20:23 KJV
The See of Peter had not yet been transferred to Rome. But the Apostles and the Priests they had designated were all Catholics.
so don’t worry about it.
I’m not.
If you want your sins forgiven go directly to Jesus Christ – 1 John 1:9 KJV & 1 John 2:1 KJV.
I will go directly to His ambassadors who hold the ministry of reconciliation, otherwise known as the Sacrament of Confession:
2 Corinthians 5:18
And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
If you offend your local Church by a sin (both against them and God), then repent and the leadership must forgive you and welcome you back. cf. 1 Cor 5:13 KJV& 2 Cor 2:7-10 KJV.
If you repent and confess your sins and do works meet for repentance:
Acts 26:20
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
But if leadership kicks you put wrongfully,
What in the world does that mean? I’m trying to follow your logic, I suppose you mean that if the leadership does not accept your confession or something like that. That’s not likely. The Church recognizes that anyone who lies in the Confessional lies to God and therefore blasphemes the Holy Spirit of God. God is not mocked:
Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
ignore them and go elsewhere: see 3 john 1:9-11 KJV.
This is definitely what you should do. Your leadership is leading you into sin and error and endangering your salvation. Repent and come to the Fullness of Truth:
1 Timothy 3:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
cont’d
cont’d
Mack said,
Everyone who is saved has the Holy Ghost “…if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9 KJV.
That is Catholic Teaching.
James wrote to Jewish tribes (Js 1:1 KJV)
You’re mistaken because you don’t understand the Scriptures. St. James writes to Christians:
James 2
King James Version (KJV)
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
and fails to mention the atonement by the blood of Jesus Christ.
But does not reject nor deny it.
The author James is therefore most likely the one who died in Acts 12:2 KJV before the disciples learned of Acts 15:9-11 KJV. Much of James is written for the great tribulation period (compare Matthew 25:40 KJV).
Perhaps. I tend to agree since he probably intends to contradict St. Paul’s teaching on justification. Although, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, he supports it instead. Read more.
Signs and wonders authenticate to the Jews because “the Jews require a sign” 1 Cor 1:22 KJV. Moses also did them: Exodus 4:9-10 KJV. “Acts of the Apostles” is full of early Church’s authenticating signs and wonders pursuant to Mark 16:17 KJV, “these signs shall follow them that believe…” After the apostles are gone, so are the signs and wonders – we are left with the Bible.
You say this because you are unaware of the signs and wonders performed by the Canonized Saints to this day. The Holy Spirit still works wonders through those who believe in Christ.
Those claiming to be apostles today are liars: “thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” Rev 2:2 KJV… because they can’t show the signs and wonders: “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” 2 Corinthians 12:12 KJV.
That is not what those verses mean. There were only 13 Apostles appointed by Christ. But we are all apostles appointed by the Church. Apostle simply means “servant” or “messenger”.
Wicked men reject the Bible and follow experiences – God will allow them to be deceived by the devil’s false miracles (John 5:4 KJV; 1 Kings 22:22 KJV; Ex. 7:11 KJV; 2 Thess 2:11-12 KJV). A few devilish miracles at a shrine can enslave millions away from God.
That is true. That is why the Catholic Church is careful to examine every miracle scientifically:
1 Thessalonians 5:19 Quench not the Spirit. 20 Despise not prophesyings. 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Bible Christians
True Bible Christianity resides ONLY in the Catholic Church.
reject Roman Catholicism because its system is not sound Bible doctrine.
All who reject the Catholic Church reject Christ who established His Church to lead all men to salvation.
Keep prayerfully studying the scriptures and you will eventually come to the same conclusion.
Keep prayerfully studying the Scriptures and they will lead you to the Catholic Church.
PS: You attack me as being uncharitable in my posts. I am not attacking you, Joe, or anybody else – just your system of belief. Bible believers aren’t lickspittle vacillators who coo out unctuous apologies for what we believe. You need to stop using your “feelings” as a Holy Spirit geiger counter. Charity “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6 KJV). Do you?
Let me see. The first time I spoke to you, you could not respond to my biblical arguments so you called me a “fickle religious nut”. Yes, you are uncharitable in your posts. That shoe fits you perfectly, wear it.
De Maria
Mack, you said,
Don’t let my bark scare you –
Hm? What makes you think anyone here is scared?
I’m against your religion, not you or other Catholics.
Thanks for the olive branch. I’m also not against you. I am however against your religion and the errors which your are here trying to spread.
My beef with Catholicism? Substituting membership in an institution for receiving Jesus Christ in the heart.
Hm? Yours is a false dichotomy. Those who receive Jesus Christ in the heart will seek membership in His Institution:
Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
I’m concerned about unsaved people going to hell trusting their Church membership instead of Jesus Christ. Are you one of them?
No. But you are. It is your church which pits its membership against Jesus Christ when it attacks the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ.
Oh and you aren’t saved because you claim salvation. God alone knows whether you are saved or not:
1 Corinthians 4:2-4
King James Version (KJV)
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
If you have saved yourself, then you have received your reward. We will await the Judgment of All Mighty God.’
cont’d
cont’d
Mack you said,
#1 All saved Christians are priests and able to appoint local church leadership and replace apostate leaders.
That is not true. In the Church, we all have our vocations:
Ephesians 4:10-12
King James Version (KJV)
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Paul allows every man to have his own opinion on issues like holy days: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Rom. 14:5 KJV.
Not exactly. St. Peter says the same thing much more succinctly:
Acts 10:34-35
King James Version (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
St. Paul also says it much more succinctly in another place:
1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Let me walk you through it. First he says:
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Don’t argue with that are weak in understanding of the faith of Christ.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
He is using hyperbole or exaggeration here to make a point. The one who is strong in faith eats all things, because God has made all things clean (Acts 10:13-15). But he is pointing out that those who are weak in faith do not trust the teaching of the Church and will eat only vegetables in order to “play it safe”, so to speak.
Then he says:
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
There is a subtle change here because he is referring to Jew and Christian. St. Paul is saying that we are not to judge anyone for their religious beliefs. He is our Judge.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
God is not a respecter of persons. It doesn’t matter if you’re Protestant, Catholic, Jew or Muslim. Only one thing matters, do you keep the Commandments?
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Do you keep the Sunday Sabbath or the Saturday Sabbath? It doesn’t matter. What matters is, do you keep the Commandments?
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
cont’d
cont’d,
Mack said,
Let likeminded Christians meet together on the days they want – stop trying to govern somebody else’s group.
Uh? What are you doing here then?
Paul wasn’t a fanatic about church management 1 Cor. 14:38 KJV –
Lol! Really? Let’s look at it. He goes through a whole chapter, 37 verses, explaining what one’s attitude should be in the Church and concerning prophecy. Read them for yourself. And then he says:
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
That is not a commendation but a condemnation for a man’s unbelief.. If a man chooses to be ignorant and disbelieve the instruction which St. Paul has just explained, then let him be ignorant. Let him be a fool, if he chooses so to be. How you can turn that into a recommendation to remain a fool, is beyond me.
but with sound doctrines of salvation: Titus 1:9-11 KJV.
An ignorant person, a fool, does not accept the wisdom of God. An ignoramus does not have the wisdom to accept sound doctrine:
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Church authority vs “inner light” is a false dichotomy – both can be wrong.
Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God (Eph 3:10). Therefore, the Church can’t be wrong.
I’m not sure what you mean by “inner light”. If you mean that some men who think they are inspired by the light of the Holy Spirit, may not be, I would agree.
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Uniformity of wrong belief is no virtue,
True.
neither are church authorities a substitute for the Holy Ghost in each believer.
That is a straw man argument, since no one is advocating that one should substitute church authorities for the Holy Ghost. However, we are advocating submission and obedience to Church authorities in accordance with the command of the Holy Ghost:
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Christians should both hear their teachers and judge for themselves, departing from false ones: 1 Tim. 6:3-5 KJV; 1 Cor. 14:37 KJV; 1 Cor. 3:5 KJV.
That is true. We hear the Church (Matt 18:17) and reject your teachings ( Rom 16:17).
(2) Hebrews 13:17 KJV doesn’t say we must look for a religious master.
That verse tells us that we already have religious masters whom we should submit to and obey. It is an obvious reference to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and to submission to Church authority.
cont’d
cont’d,
Mack said:
I obey the police, judges, boss who has the rule over me in any situation, and respect a pastor’s decisions over the business of his church – but not if command me on any personal issue because that isn’t his business.
The condition of your soul is supposed to be his business. Lets read the Scripture rather than gloss over it as you have done in an attempt to fool us into believing your opinion rather than the actual Word of God:
Hebrews 13:17King James Version (KJV)
Note that this is the King James version of this Scripture.
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:
He says that we should obey and submit to those who have rule over us. In other words, we should humble ourselves before these people. At this point, he could be talking about secular authorities or about church authorities. He has, after all, admonished us to obey secular authorities in another place, see:
Rom chapter 13.3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
But that is not the case here. We know because he says:
for they watch for your souls,
Secular authorities do not watch over our souls. Catholic Church authorities do so. Protestants do not and if they attempted to, Protestants like yourself would reject them and accuse them of overstepping their bounds.
as they that must give account,
This is what makes this a reference to the Sacrament of Confession. It is in this Sacrament that it is the Priests duty to give an account to God of the sins which we have confessed.
that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
What is this, joy or grief? Priests are visibly grieved when their constituents are habitually confessing the same sins. And habitually confessing the same sins is not profitable for us. It means we are not growing in our faith. It is not commendable but condemnable.
Peter told elders not to be “lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter 5:3 KJV;
True. That is the still the admonition to all priests and lay people alike today.
Paul said “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” 1 Cor. 7:23 KJV.
And yet Christ gave us an example of servitude.
Matthew 20:28
King James Version (KJV)
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
John 13:
13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Was St. Paul contradicting our Lord, do you think? Or how do you read 1 Cor 7:23? Let me give you a hint (Colossians 3:23-24).
cont’d
cont’d
Mack said:
Enslavers are false: “false brethren …spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:” Gal. 2:4 KJV. Beware of the cult-like control in Roman Catholicism.
There is no such thing. The Catholic Church teaches the freedom which comes of the Truth:
John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
It is, in fact, the lies of Protestantism which bind people to the yoke of Satan by forbidding the true understanding of the Sacraments of Christ which are the fountains of His saving grace.
(3) Trinity is an eternal truth simply acknowledged by councils. But a council of devils would also make the correct decision, James 2:19 KJV and “And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.” Luke 4:41 KJV. Councils enforced their decisions by murder which sheds light on the devil’s involvement. John 8:44 KJV.
You make an art of mixing lies and truth. The Councils of the Catholic Church arrived at the Truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any murder which took place was the result of the fallen nature of the man who committed the murder. Any such murder would have taken place IN SPITE of the Teachings of the Catholic Church and not because of Them.
Does it bother your conscience at all that you indict the innocent with the guilty with such ease? I remind you that the Scripture says:
Matthew 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
cont’d
cont’d
Mack said:
(4) “Pray to the Virgin, not Jesus, she understands” is something some Catholic women say to each other.
I was born in the Catholic faith and have been around Catholics all my life. I’ve never heard a Catholic say that. Although I’ve heard Protestants continually claim this is so.
Men too can be fanatical: “…they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Acts 19:28-29 KJV. Zeal for a goddess isn’t good.
True. But we don’t worship Mary as a goddess.
Religious devotion to Mary robs honour from Jesus Christ alone.
That isn’t true. We are devoted to Mary because Jesus Christ loves her. We love all whom He loves:
Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
That was spoken by God to Abraham. But it is a Biblical principal. God approves of those who are devoted to those whom He loves.
(5) The “Queen of Heaven” is the name of a devil that apostate Jews used to worship,Jeremiah 44:17 KJV.
True. Many people share titles and names. Have you ever heard of Jesus Barsabbas? Barsabbas means “son of the father”. Who is this man who shares the name of Jesus, Our Lord?
Does the fact that the Jews loved this man more than they loved Jesus somehow detract from the glory of Jesus? Does the fact he has the same name as our Lord detract from the glory of our Lord?
In the same way, the pagan Queen of Heaven does not detract from the Virgin Mary’s true Queenship in Heaven:
Revelation 12:1
King James Version (KJV)
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Doubtless the Marian apparitions and miracles are of the devil:Deut. 13:2-3 KJV; Leviticus 19:31 KJV; Deut. 18:11 KJV; Galatians 1:8-9 KJV; Hebrews 9:27 KJV; Isaiah 8:19 KJV; Luke 16:29 KJV; 1 Chronicles 10:13 KJV.
How did St. Paul put it? If you wish to be ignorant, then remain ignorant. It is your decision. However, the Queen of Heaven has appeared and it is confirmed by the Catholic Church, in order to reiterate the Teaching of the Gospel. We do not despise the grace of God. We test everything, holding on to the good.
cont’d
cont’d
Mack said,
(6) John wrote that Jesus Christ “full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 KJV. But Rome says Mary is “full of grace.” Who’s right?
Scripture says that both are full of grace. Mary is described as “kecharitomene” (Luke 1:28). Always full of grace.
1:28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν
Do you deny it?
Romanism has this legacy from the accommodation to get pagans in the church. But its another obstacle that prevent a person from getting saved by going directly to Jesus Christ. Mary isn’t a mediator (1 Tim. 2:5).
Yes, she is. We are all mediators, in fact. Jesus is the One Mediator between God and man BY NATURE. We are mediators by God’s grace. Have you not read in Scripture?
Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Have you not also read:
1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
But Mary is greatest of God’s co-workers because she alone gave birth to our Saviour.
The “fruit” will be seen on the day when countless are cast into hell. Is Marian devotion worth that price?
Uh? We aren’t worried. But you should be. Let me explain. Scripture tells us that all those beloved of Christ are children of Mary.
First:
John 19:26-28
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. 28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Catholics are taught to read Scripture as though God was speaking to us. Now, are you a beloved disciple of Christ? To put it differently, are you a disciple whom Jesus loves?
Catholics would answer, “Yes” to that question and therefore accept Jesus command to take Mary as our mother and bring her into our home (i.e. heart).
For the second part of this explanation, you need to be aware of other verses in Scripture.
Genesis 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The seed of the Woman is not just Jesus. Let me show you:
Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Do you consider yourself someone who keeps the Commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus? If so, then you are seed or a child of the Woman. That Woman is Mary. And therefore, Scripture says that all who fight the good fight on behalf of God in Christ, are children of Mary.
But you reject Mary and therefore reject the love of Christ who has made you her son.
De Maria
Hi again Mack,
You said to John:
mackquigley December 14, 2012 8:29 AM
John Holmquist,
I appreciate your scriptural approach, I don’t deny John 6 (although I don’t think you read it very carefully).
Lets see how carefully you read it.
However, the scriptures have three applications: historic, doctrinal, and spiritual.
At least those three. Lets read what else you have to say.
The historic application of Christ’s giving his body and blood for us to eat in John 6 is when Jesus died on the cross.
That is Catholic Teaching. Jesus is the Lamb of God, therefore Christ in the Eucharist is our Passover and the Mass is His Passover Feast.
The spiritual application in the church age is receiving Christ by believing the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-4 KJV).
That is one way. But there is more. The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is the test of faith. It is by faith that we discern the Body of our Lord in the Bread and the Cup (1 Cor 11:29).
The literal/doctrinal application for Christians is receipt of literal new sinless resurrected bodies from Christ’s own body.
It is union with Christ. By eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, we literally are becoming what we eat. We are thereby united not only to Christ but to the Body of Christ, the Church:
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
The spiritual application for people born after the millennium is they must eat from tree of life and drink of the river of life in New Jerusalem and thereby live forever (Rev. 22:14).
That is part of the Spiritual application for all. Jesus is the Tree of Life. Those who keep the Commandments have a right to eat of this fruit:
Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rome’s Mass tries to combine these separate applications into one – which results in a total chaos.
On the contrary, the Mass is the celebration of the Christian Passover:
1 Corinthians 5:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Scripture is clear that those who neglect or reject the Christian gathering for the Mass have trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace (Heb 10:29). And are worthy of a terrible punishment at the hand of God.
You’ve never heard this before so you’ll think I invented it – but I’m just reading it out of the same Bible anybody else can – nothing “private” about it.
It is invented. You have discarded the Traditions of Jesus Christ and therefore don’t recognize them in the Scriptures when you read about them there. To fill the void left by your dried up theology, you invent things which were not intended by the Apostles.
De Maria
De Maria:
A fickle religious nut is somebody who will waste a lifetime arguing that “real” blood is in the eucharist, and then state that this has ZERO significance because it doesn’t really give “eternal life” – even though Christ said so!
“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:68.
But Catholic says “we drank his blood, but we don’t know if we have eternal life, that’s the sin of presumption!”
What a wild thing! You people are NUTS. If there is a more assured obsession than ranting and raving over “real blood” while denying you have eternal life – I have no idea what it is.
But I see exactly why this lunatical contradiction is taught: Your religion wants to monopolize the salvation that Christ freely offers to all who believe on him without regard to what religious organization they belong to. If any man can receive Christ by faith and from that moment on have eternal life, it renders paying tithes to Rome unnecessary and superfluous.
I’m sorry, but I happen to be a man, a cynic, and an educated human as well as a Christian. I know what a scam is – and Rome is a religious scam.
You get saved by Jesus Christ freely – by simple faith in him. Rome teaches that bondage from cradle to death-bed is necessary – but not assurance – of salvation.
Blow it out your nose. I’d say it exctly like that to the pope’s face. I am a saved Christian because I trusted the Lord Jesus Christ who died for my sins on the cross and rose again. And what you, or entire Roman Curia, says otherwise is amounts to ZIP. Christ saved me and I reject your religion. And I’m saved. Got it?
You don’t get it because your religion makes arrogant statements of its own importance – which have nothing to do with Bible Christianity. Am I saved? You can talk to Jesus about that – he alone can answer, for I have trusted him completely to save me. Not the Pope. Not any “saint”. Certainly not “Mary” or any angels. Only the Saviour Jesus Christ.
If you dare say I’m not saved for rejecting Roman Catholicism, even though I trusted the Lord Jesus Christ, then you are a dirty lying vomit-eating dog blasphemer heretic from hell. Praise God! May every bumbling religious heretic like you who accuses Jesus of being unable to save poor sinners – to advance the simony of his own religious monopoly – shut his filthy hypocritical mouth and be put to everlasting shame and contempt. To hell with you and may Jesus Christ be glorified. Amen.
– Mack
A fickle religious nut is somebody who will waste a lifetime arguing that “real” blood is in the eucharist, and then state that this has ZERO significance because it doesn’t really give “eternal life” – even though Christ said so!
“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:68.
But Catholic says “we drank his blood, but we don’t know if we have eternal life, that’s the sin of presumption!”
We can have assurance of salvation AT THAT MOMENT, but there’s no guarantee known to us that we won’t defect in our faith tomorrow, or the day after, etc. It’s he that endures to the end that’s saved. Matt 10:22
“If any man can receive Christ by faith and from that moment on have eternal life, it renders paying tithes to Rome unnecessary and superfluous.”
Tithing to Rome is not necessary for salvation. Having a charitable heart is. ” and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
You get saved by Jesus Christ freely – by simple faith in him
Even the demons believe, and do they tremble.
Rome teaches that bondage from cradle to death-bed is necessary – but not assurance – of salvation.
The Bible says to be obedient even to people who don’t deserve it.
Blow it out your nose. I’d say it exctly like that to the pope’s face.
Shall you come unto him with a rod? Or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
And I’m saved. Got it?
From hell? By your zeal for God (though I think it’s misguided) I’m confident that you are. Saved from your sins? By your insolent and disrespectful words I can plainly see that there is much hate and therefore sin in your heart.
Am I saved? You can talk to Jesus about that – he alone can answer, for I have trusted him completely to save me. Not the Pope. Not any “saint”. Certainly not “Mary” or any angels. Only the Saviour Jesus Christ.
“…he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”
If you dare say I’m not saved for rejecting Roman Catholicism, even though I trusted the Lord Jesus Christ, then you are a dirty lying vomit-eating dog blasphemer heretic from hell…May every bumbling religious heretic like you …shut his filthy hypocritical mouth and be put to everlasting shame and contempt. To hell with you and may Jesus Christ be glorified. Amen.
You should be ashamed to use the name of our Lord in the same sentence that you so thoroughly repudiate the virtues of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, and temperance.
But at least you have faith.
2 Roman Catholic scholars comment on Revelation 12 as being about Mary. As you will see the facts of Scriptures don’t fit for it being about Mary.
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
“a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
Some of these criticisms are easily dismissable. Although Mary did not experience pains of childbirth, she was pursued into desert–the Holy Family had to flee due to the Child Jesus being searched. Also, does Mary not suffer if we persecuted for her Son’s sake?
Meyu,
1) Are you appealing to the authors of Brown and Fitzmyer because you think that they’re credible authorities on the subject, or because you think that we Catholics think this? And are you familiar with the other claims made throughout the Jerome Biblical Commentary, for example, about the historicity of the Virgin Birth and the sayings of Christ?
2) It doesn’t work to hold up the Jerome Biblical Commentary as if it represents an (or the) authentic Catholic voice. It’s not Magisterial teachings that we Catholics needed to hold as infallible, and their heterodox conclusions don’t disprove the Catholic Church.
Even the JBC acknowledges that it’s just warmed-over liberal Protestant scholarship that aims to undermine the traditional faith of Catholics. Okay, they wouldn’t put it like that. They would put it like this:
“Over-all, modern Catholic NT scholarship has consisted in a judicious selecting and combining of acceptable elements in Protestant scholarship; it is not yet following its own new paths. It has succeeded in convincing more intelligent Catholics that the ultraconservative biblical positions of the past are no longer tenable; but now it faces the much more difficult task of discussing with scientific objectivity and in detail the sensitive problems of NT exegesis that have vital dogmatic implication, e.g., the limitations of Jesus’ knowledge regarding himself, the future, and the Church; the reliability of Acts as a guide to how the Church historically emerged; the extent of creativity exercised in the formation of the Gospel tradition; the historicity of the infancy narratives. One can be certain that such discussion, no matter what results are reached, will provoke heated opposition; for some contend that scientific discussion should not be allowed, since inevitable it will filter into the popular press and disturb the faithful. Nevertheless, the freedom and objectivity of this discussion and the sense of responsibility with which it is conducted will be the real test of the maturity of modern Catholic biblical scholarship in a post-Vatican II Church.” (JBC, II, 19).
That’s from an essay in the JBC by John S. Kselman, S.S.
3) On the merits of his actual claim, I have answered those arguments previously, and Taylor does as well in the preceding comment.
I.X.,
Joe
One of the problems you have with your analysis is that none of the apostles teach what you claim. No apostle claims that Mary had a crown of 12 stars. The other problem is the to have pain in childbirth was part of the curse that God gave because of sin. Now if Mary was sinless then she would not have felt the pain of childbirth as verse 2 says.
By that argument, since death is part of the curse that God gave because of sin, now if Jesus was sinless then he would not have died.
Jesus would not have died unless He willingly laid down His life. “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” John 10:18
Well, Revelation was written by the Apostle John…
The problem is that Revelation is written in a Semitic and symbolic style, which makes interpretation highly delicate. That does not mean that the symbols are not true or do not point to real things. The pains of childbirth could be both the Church’s struggles with creating new members (persecution), and also Mary’s suffering for the children who become members of the Church (cf “Woman, behold your son!”). Not an either/or and not a literal, but could be both symbolic and figurative and still point to Mary.
The problem is that if it was Mary why didn’t John say so? Why say something about her when there is nothing in the gospels about her like this? For example, where does it say that she was in the wilderness for 1260 days? How would you respond to the pain in childbirth if Mary was supposedly sinless?
The Apostles spoke in code many times, such as using the term “Babylon” instead of Rome, the Lamb Who Was Slain instead of simply Jesus, etc.
Meyu,
That is exactly the right line of questioning. You’re touching on a question that was debated within the early Church. St. Clement and others argued that Mary didn’t experience the pangs of childbirth for the reasons you suggest: since neither Mother nor Son had original or actual sin, it seems inappropriate for her to suffer through the curse of the Fall. There are four possible explanations that I know of:
1) One way to read Genesis 3:16 is as saying that childbearing pains existed from the start, but were increased because of the Fall. If that’s the case, there’s no apparent problem in affirming that Mary was free from original sin, and yet she suffered some pains in childbirth (albeit much more minor than most women).
2) Another solution is simply that Mary voluntarily participated in the sufferings in a way that works towards the redemption of souls. Colossians 1:24, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.”
3) A third solution would be to understand this as prophesy, and treat it that way. The woman combines attributes of Israel, Mary, and the Church, just like other Scriptural depictions. As St. Ambrose explained, Mary is a type of the Church, so descriptions of one of them often work as descriptions of another (like the imagery of Eve, which is applied to each of them):
“Well [does the Gospel say]: married but a virgin; because she is the type of the Church, which is also married but remains immaculate. The Virgin [Church] conceived us by the Holy Spirit and, as a virgin, gave birth to us without pain. And perhaps this is why holy Mary, married to one man [Joseph], is made fruitful by another [the Holy Spirit], to show that the individual churches are filled with the Spirit and with grace, even as they are united to the person of a temporal priest.”
With this understanding, we could easily say that the Woman of Revelation 12 is both the Church and Mary. Some depictions of the Woman seem to apply more to the Church (like the birth pangs), and some depictions seem to apply more to Mary (like giving birth to Christ).
4) Finally, the birth pangs could be metaphoric, for the suffering she experiences at the pain of her children: both her Son, and all of the followers of Christ.
Start with the image of the Son. The Son is promised to rule the nations with an iron rod (Rev. 12:5). Obviously, this applies primarily to Christ, as the Book of Revelation confirms (Rev. 19:11-16). But it applies in a secondary way to all of the elect, as the Book of Revelation also confirms (Rev. 2:26-28). If you take it in this way, then it makes sense that the Mother is primarily Mary, but in a secondary way, the Church. But I think it would be mistaken to say that the Woman in Revelation 12 is the Church and not Mary, or that the Son is the Christian and not the Christ.
I.X.,
Joe
Meyu, you said,
meyuDecember 13, 2012 10:48 AM
2 Roman Catholic scholars comment on Revelation 12 as being about Mary. As you will see the facts of Scriptures don’t fit for it being about Mary.
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
“a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church;
Meyu, the key word here is “most”. Most does not mean “all”.
in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
This statement is representative of the Protestant mindset of “either/or”. The Catholic Church has never maintained that this is about either the Church or Mary. The Catholic Church has always known it is about Mary and about the Church and about Israel.
But the person whom it fits more closely and perfectly is Mary. Because Mary is a Woman and Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. And the Woman of Rev 12 fits that description perfectly.
Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2),
Anyone reading Rev 12 can see that the ideas represented there are symbolic. To what do the symbols of birth pains refer in the context of Mary? To the prophecy of Simeon:
Luke 2:35
(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
to the fact that she would have to suffer the flight to Egypt to save her Son.
to the fact that she would have to suffer the sight of her Son being persecuted and killed by the Jews.
that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.),
She was. She had to flee to Egypt, Egypt is in a desert.
or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17).
Through her other Spiritual Children who would be martyred for the name of Christ:
Revelation 12:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ
The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God.
Except for one thing. The Church did not give birth to Christ. The Church is the mother of Christians. But not of Christ. The most direct correlation to that aspect of the prophecy remains MARY OF NAZARETH, the Mother of God.
Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
And that is part of the interpretation of the Catholic Church. But the most explicit interpretation is that the Woman is Mary.
Sincerely,
De Maria
meyu, you said, December 13, 2012 5:40 PM,
One of the problems you have with your analysis is that none of the apostles teach what you claim. No apostle claims that Mary had a crown of 12 stars.
St. John did. Rev 12:1
The other problem is the to have pain in childbirth was part of the curse that God gave because of sin.
That is not our problem but yours. Look at Rev 12. Look at the birth of the Child. Is that Child, Jesus Christ? Did Jesus Christ ascend as an infant or after the Resurrection? Did Jesus Christ ascend to His Throne when He was not even a minute old or when He was thirty three years old?
Why, if 99% of the writing in that chapter is symbolic, do you expect the verses concerning Mary to be absolutely literal? The answer is simple. Because you don’t want to know the truth.
But you are only deceiving yourself.
Now if Mary was sinless then she would not have felt the pain of childbirth as verse 2 says.
Mary was sinless and the pains of childbirth depicted in Rev 12 are symbolic references to the emotional suffering which Mary had to undergo as a result of her vocation as the Mother of our Lord.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Meyu said:
meyu December 13, 2012 6:51 PM
The problem is that if it was Mary why didn’t John say so?
Because he was describing his dream.
Why say something about her when there is nothing in the gospels about her like this?
I don’t know what you mean. The Gospels are precisely about this. The mother of a King is a Queen. Jesus is the King of Heaven, is He not?
For example, where does it say that she was in the wilderness for 1260 days?
That is how long she remained in the desert with St. Joseph and her Child.
How would you respond to the pain in childbirth if Mary was supposedly sinless?
The pain of childbirth described in Rev 12 is symbolic to the emotional pain which St. Mary endured in serving her vocation as the Mother of God.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Joe,
Hi. I don’t usually comment, but I frequently read your site and really appreciate all the effort and study you put into the subjects you take on. Reading the comments for this post, especially those from mackquigley, reminds me a lot of the discussions I have with my own Protestant relatives, friend’s, etc. I am a convert and in my experience it is extremely hard to have these kinds of discussions with protestants because they, in general, tend to treat the Scriptures as if they were written by the finger of God himself (but only the KJV, of course). It is supremely frustrating and I feel like a lot of folks treat the Scriptures as if they *are* God, ie Bibleolotry. I was wondering if you would do a treatment of this subject and maybe discuss the appropriate attitude we should have towards the Scriptures. They are obviously much more significant than any random book or collection of books and should be treated reverently. But at the same time I would think it’s also incorrect to behave as if God actually wrote those words instead of inspiring men to express his will with their own words. Is that correct?
Anyway, like I said, I would like to see this topic covered, as it might help to clear up a lot of misunderstandings between Catholics and Protestants.
God bless!
Thanks for all the work you do!
Meyu,
marycatelli said:
By that argument, since death is part of the curse that God gave because of sin, now if Jesus was sinless then he would not have died.
and you responded:
Jesus would not have died unless He willingly laid down His life. “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.” John 10:18
How does that help your case? Did He die or not? The answer is yes.
And yet neither Enoch nor Elijah died. So how does that help your case?
Sincerely,
De Maria
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/revelation/patristic-citations-on-revelation
“Substituting membership in an institution for receiving Jesus Christ in the heart.”
Luckily, Catholicism does not teach this! See the Catechism of the Catholic Church on justification. I’m sure you’re very relieved to hear it. 🙂
I think you’ve confused about what “No Salvation Outside the Church” means. It does not mean that one must be a registered Catholic (and ONLY a registered Catholic) to be saved. Quite the contrary. As the Catechism says, “How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
All salvation comes from Christ, who is the Head of the Catholic Church. If you refuse to submit to Christ, you cannot be saved, even if you are a “registered” Catholic.
If you are going to oppose Catholicism, perhaps you should oppose what we ACTUALLY believe instead of what you THINK we believe?
Joe,
You have your hands full this week. I am not going to stir up the pot too much, but I must protest (that is what us Lutherans do best, you know) one of the points. It came early in the post. You said “By that same token, test the fruits of the virulently anti-Marian crowd. See how well (or how poorly) their anti-Marian views exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23).” This is not a fair or true statement. I have been part of the virulently anti-Marion crowd, and I had the same fruit of the Holy Spirit that I have today, even though I am now strongly respect Mary. By the way, it is “fruit” and not “fruits” in a literally understanding. You may be right, but there might be more fruits in the Roman Church. ha ha ha! I could not help that one. Peace!
With regard to the fruits of Marian devotion, I offer the miracle of Guadalupe. Mary’s appearance to a poor and humble indian convert less than 50 years after Columbus discovered the New World resulted in bringing 9,000,000 converts to Christ in only ten years. I attended a novena for Our Lady of Guadalupe in my parish the last couple of weeks. I was deeply impressed with the continued faith I witnessed 500 years later. Some may think this is “excessive”, but when is true love ever excessive as long as it is properly ordered? What I saw was a fiery and generous love for Jesus and His mother. This is never a choice of one or the other. When Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourselves in the second great commandment, He didn’t put a cap on that. We owe God/Jesus an unlimited debt of love as the first great commandment tells us because He first loved us, but love is diffusive and meant to be spread maximally. Paradoxically offering God/Jesus our whole hearts and all of our love does not empty or diminish it, but actually grows it leaving plenty to spread around. It’s impossible to have love and devotion to Mary and neglect love for her Son, because it all ultimately comes from God without limit or reservation.
Which is all the more impressive, because that is the number of Catholics (9 million) that were leaving the Church in Europe to become Protestants!!!
*sigh* Christianity: the only religion in the world to multiply by division.
From the Liturgy of Saint James:
Priest: Commemorating with all the holy and just, our all-holy, pure, most glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, let us devote ourselves, and one another, and our whole life, to Christ our God.
If you have a problem with that theology, Lord have mercy.
There are serious problems with Mary being an ever-virgin. Here is why:
1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin.
2) The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
3) The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
4) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
5) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
6) There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
7) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
8) There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.
9) Psalm 69 which is a messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. Verse 8—“ I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.”
10) Other references to Jesus’ brothers by Mary included: John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14
11) Protestant scholar D. A. Carson points out, if “brothers” refers to Joseph’s sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph’s firstborn would have been legal heir to David’s throne. The second theory — that “brothers” refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name “Mary” — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of “brothers” in this pericope, despite McHugh’s best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT… — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them <(Midrash Exodus Rabbah> 19; 46.3; 99 sect. 11; 81-82, 203-204; 9, 39; 111, 46; 13; 3 72; 87a; 87b,Babylonian Talmud).
References didn’t post right:
(Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19; 46.3; Sifre to Numbers 99 sect. 11; Sifre Zutta 81-82, 203-204; Aboth Rabbi Nathan 9, 39; Tanchuman 111, 46; Tanchumah Zaw 13; 3 Petirot Moshe 72; Shabbath 87a; Pesachim 87b,Babylonian Talmud).
Meyu,
Sorry I haven’t had a chance to respond to your 11 point argument in greater detail earlier. I just got done with finals season. I should have more time to address the topic in depth now. For now, though, I just want to address your first claim:
1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin.
True, none of the authors of Scripture use the term “perpetual virgin” explicitly. But look at how other doctrines (like the Trinity) are handled: they’re not doctrines found by cherry-picking single verses here or there, but from drinking in Scripture as a whole. Similarly, taking Scripture as a whole, we see strong evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity, particularly in the way that she is depicted in St. Luke’s Gospel. I have talked about specific Marian types
Are you familiar with typology, the pattern of prefigurements that occur within Scripture? Because if so, that’s the easiest way to show Mary’s perpetual virginity. She’s prefigured by Eve and the Ark of the Covenant, prophesied as the Temple Gate, and alluded to as the Temple-Builder.
Mary as the New Eve:
Adam and Eve, Jesus and Mary
Mary, the New Eve
Early Church Fathers on Mary as the New Eve
Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant:
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant
Mary as the Temple Gate:
Part IV of Jesus Christ, the New Temple
Mary as the Temple-Builder:
How Mary Built the Temple that King David Couldn’t
I think that after reading this, you will discover that the evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity is far stronger than you realize, and that there’s a reason that the early Christians spoke with one voice on the subject.
I.X.,
Joe
Meyu, you said,
meyuDecember 15, 2012 4:08 PM
There are serious problems with Mary being an ever-virgin. Here is why:
1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin.
True. But that causes problems for you, not for us.
1. Your claim proves too much since none of the authors of Scripture claim that Jesus was a perpetual virgin either. Since it is not denied in Scripture, does that mean it is affirmed that Jesus is not a perpetual virgin?
2. I assume that you believe in Scripture alone. And since Scripture does not say that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, you must be relying upon a non-biblcial source to claim that she was not.
2) The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
If it is read without the benefit of the Traditions and Doctrines of Jesus Christ which underly the whole of the New Testament. If, however, you understand the Traditions and Doctrines of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament, then you will realize that it is impossible that Mary not be a perpetual virgin.
cont’d
cont’d
meyu said:
3) The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
And yet St. Paul teaches:
1 Corinthians 7:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
Could it be that St. Joseph was aware of this teaching?
4) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
a. Not so. The Bible was not written for teachers of grammar but for the common people. And common usage is evident throughout.
b. Even today, in certain societies, cousins are referred to as brothers.
c. In the New Testament, the brethren of Jesus Christ are identified multiple times as His Apostles.
response cont’d
to continue:
d. If we study the Scriptures, we find that 3 of the 4 brethren identified in Matt 13:55-56 are indeed, Apostles. Let me show you:
Matthew 13:55-56
King James Version (KJV)
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
So, who are these brethren? First let us correlate the lists of the Apostles in the various Gospels:
Matthew 10:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Mark 3:
16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.
Luke 6:13-16
King James Version (KJV)
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; 14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
St. John does not provide a list. Here we go:
They all begin with Simon Peter, showing his primacy.
They all mention Andrew, his brother, although not in the same order.
They all mention James, the son of Zebedee.
They all mention John, the brother of James.
They all mention Philip.
They all mention Bartholomew.
They all mention Thomas.
They all mention Matthew.
Now, pay close attention to the next three:
ONE: They all mention James the son of Alphaeus. Some call him James the less.
TWO: Matthew’s Labbaeus Thaddeus is Mark’s Thaddeus which corresponds to Luke’s Judas the brother of James. Did you catch that? Judas the brother of James. Keep that in mind.
THREE: Next, Matt’s and Mark’s Simon the Canaanite corresponds to Luke’s Simon Zelotes.
We can disregard the final Apostle, the traitor Iscariot.
What were the names of those brethren again? James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Is it a coincidence then that James, Judas the brother of James and Simon are always listed together in the lists of Apostles?
There is no question in my mind, that these three Apostles are the brethren mentioned in Matt 13:55-56. But lets go to the next point.
cont’d
Furthermore:
e. If we study further, we will also see that these same 3 brethren are identified as the children of the other Mary. There is another Mary who is the “sister” of the Virgin Mary. Let us correlate some Scriptures:
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
This Mary is always mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.
Matthew 28:1
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Note that she is the mother of James:
Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
I’m assuming that Joanna is Salome, who is also frequently mentioned with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary:
Mark 15:40
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Now, this Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. Therefore she is also the mother of Judas the brother of James and of Simon:
Matthew 13:55
King James Version (KJV)
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
We know from Tradition that the Virgin Mary is an only child. Therefore her “sister”, the OTHER Mary, is her “cousin.”
The children of this other Mary, James, Joses, Simon, Judas and Salome are kindred of Jesus. But not brothers of the womb.
Perhaps of further interest is this. One of the early Church Fathers reveals that Alphaeus (aka Cleophas) is St. Joseph’s brother. Now, the Jews were expected to marry their cousins. Remember how Abraham sent his servant to his brother to find a wife for Isaac?
This leads to another interesting situation. James the greater and John, the sons of Zebedee are related to Jesus Christ from both sides of His earthly family. Salome, the other Mary’s daughter is the wife of Alphaeus, St. Joseph’s brother. She is the mother of Zebedee’s children, James and John.
cont’d
and meyu also said:
5) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
They are kin, but not siblings.
6) There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
There is no hint in Scripture that Mary ever committed sin nor that she had other children. Yet, you believe these things.
7) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
Meaning “cousin” or “kin”. But not “brother of womb.”
This same James is the brother of Jude. But Jude introduces himself as:
Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
NOT the “brother of Jesus Christ and James.
8) There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.
But we can prove from the Scriptures that those whom you claim are His blood brothers are actually His cousins.
9) Psalm 69 which is a messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. Verse 8—“ I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.”
Ahhhh, how you twist the Scriptures to your convenience. That is a reference to the Nation of Israel. My mother’s sons are my fellow Israelites. The mother being Israel:
Deuteronomy 17:15
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
10) Other references to Jesus’ brothers by Mary included: John 2:12,
That is a reference to the Apostles.
John 7:3;
You didn’t read John 6?
The disciples had just abandoned Jesus:
John 6:66
The only ones left were the Twelve, His brethren. And they were concerned both for His safety and for the fact that the Church had literally been disbanded before it began. Therefore they suggested.
John 7:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
Acts 1:14
That is a reference to His Apostles or to His Kin or to both. But again, it is proven from Scripture that those whom you claim are Mary’s children are the children of another woman also named Mary.
11) Protestant scholar D. A. Carson points out, if “brothers” refers to Joseph’s sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph’s firstborn would have been legal heir to David’s throne. The second theory — that “brothers” refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name “Mary” — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name.
A. That’s funny. Because it is not uncommon in many households, even today, for EVERY woman to be named Mary.
B. The word “sister” is also a reference to “cousins”. We know by Tradition that Mary was an only child.
All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of “brothers” in this pericope, despite McHugh’s best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT… — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
Its a shame that the best Bible Scholars that Protestantism can produce have not bothered to do some actual research in the Bible. If they had, they would have found that the other Mary is the mother of the four individuals whom they claim are the “brothers” of Christ.
It is, indeed, pitiful.
Sincerely,
De Maria
This comment has been removed by the author.
And using Psalm 69 to apply so strictly to Christ causes grave theological hurdles.
You, God, know my folly; 5 my guilt is not hidden from you. Lord, the LORD Almighty, 6 may those who hope in you not be disgraced because of me; God of Israel, may those who seek you not be put to shame because of me. For I endure scorn for your sake, 7 and shame covers my face. I am a foreigner to my own family, 8 a stranger to my own mother’s children;
Final thought for tonight.
You keep saying it’s not in the Bible it’s not in the Bible. I can’t find where in the Bible it says that Mary was born. Do you believe that Mary was born?
They believe what they want whether it is in the Bible or not. Faith alone is not in the Bible. Scripture alone is not in the Bible. In fact, they both contradict the Bible. But Protestants believe those errors regardless.
De Maria
Meyu,
Brother is used in four ways by Holy Scripture. It is used to denote a relationship that can either be by nature, race, kindred, or affection. An example of nature, would be the biological brothers of Peter and Andrew. An example of race, would be all Jews referring to each other as brothers (Deut. 15:12). An example of kindred, would be those within a tribe, clan or family such as Abraham referring to Lot(actually a nephew) as brother (Gen. 13:8). An example of affection, would be Paul writing to the Church in Corinth(1 Cor. 5:11). Secondly, Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.” These were the languages that Jesus spoke which were translated into Greek. Furthermore, Mary’s perpetual virginity is something that has always been held as a truth of the faith since apostolic times. Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition put to writing. Everything in Sacred Tradition attests to her virginity.
We can only go by Greek since that is the language of the NT. If the writers of the NT meant relative or cousin as the brothers and sisters of Christ they would have used the word anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.
“We can only go by Greek since that is the language of the NT.”
Who says?
One of the ways that we can attest to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is the presence of Egyptian figures of speech. Similarly, the New Testament was written by Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Jews. If we truly believe that, why wouldn’t we expect to find Hebrew figures of speech?
Particularly since (1) the dialogue and events being described generally occurred in Hebrew, and (2) at least one of the New Testament Books (St. Matthew’s Gospel) is said to have originally been written in Aramaic.
When the “brothers” of Jesus are listed as having separate fathers and mothers as Jesus, we can say to a complete certainty that they’re aren’t His brothers in the sense that we would use that term today. And notably, the pre-Nicene Church Fathers of both the East and West (many of whom, unlike you or me, actually spoke Greek) were unanimous on the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity, with the singular exception of Tertullian.
When Helvidius comes along in the late fourth century, and denies the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, St. Jerome dismantles his argument.
I.X.,
Joe
I agree with meyu that the point is best made from the Greek.
What does Gen 13:8 say in the Septuagint?
“αδελφοι”
That is a definitive refutation of the requirement that for our interpretation to be correct, the Greek must read ‘anepsios’ or ‘sunginis’
Source:
http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=Gn&ch=13
I checked for a variant translation by Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion and didn’t find one in any of my notes.
Ok. Lets go by the Greek.
Mat 23:8 But 1161 be 2564 0 not 3361 ye 5210 called 2564 Rabbi 4461: for 1063 one 1520 is 2076 your 5216 Master 2519, [even] Christ 5547; and 1161 all 3956 ye 5210 are 2075 brethren 80.
All of the Apostles are brethren according to Christ.
Strong’s G80 – adelphos
ἀδελφός
Transliteration
adelphos
The word used there is adelphos.
Jhn 20:17 Jesus 2424 saith 3004 unto her 846, Touch 680 me 3450 not 3361; for 1063 I am 305 0 not yet 3768 ascended 305 to 4314 my 3450 Father 3962: but 1161 go 4198 to 4314 my 3450 brethren 80, and 2532 say 2036 unto them 846, I ascend 305 unto 4314 my 3450 Father 3962, and 2532 your 5216 Father 3962; and 2532 [to] my 3450 God 2316, and 2532 your 5216 God 2316.
Again, the word used there, is the Greek, adelphos with reference to the Apostles.
Do you mean then that we should believe that all the Apostles are born of Mary’s womb? Because that is the group that is described by that term.
Obviously, none of the Apostles were the children of Mary and yet they are described as “adelphos” as well.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Meyu’s posts have been burning in my mind.
1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin.
The premises are valid, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Scripture nowhere shows Mary having sex, and never denies her virginity. From that alone, would it be logical to conclude her perpetual virginity? No one would, because there are historical facts that exist even when Scripture doesn’t mention them.
2) The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
That’s true, but it doesn’t take into account the subtext. “Mary, you will conceive in the future.” “How? I’m not currently having sex with my husband?” She dismisses that she is supposed to conceive BY JOSEPH, which is only plausibly explained by a vow of virginity.
3) The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
1) Consecrated virginity is known to the Semitic world, e.g. some of the Essenes. Sex is never done after contact with the Divine Presence, and I referenced the midrash in many places to support this.
4) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
It can mean that, which nobody denies. It can also mean “kin” as I proved from the Septuagint. Better Greek won’t help us, but better literary critical analysis will. http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-mary-have-other-children.html and http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/11/st-jude-and-brothers-of-jesus.html make excellent points you haven’t addressed.
Point 4 is enough to show that Mary was not a life long virgin. Point 1 does not mention anyone in the NT having sex either. Should we assume that it never happened to the people mentioned such Peter or Jarius? If Mary was a perpetual virgin then how does Joseph deal with his sex drive? Where do you get the idea that “Sex is never done after contact with the Divine Presence” from Scripture? There was nothing from the angel when he spoke with Mary that it was forbidden for her to have sexual relations with her husband.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained theologically by Mary not having normal sexual relations with her husband and having more children. Before Jesus was born it would have been since the prophecy said He would be born of a virgin. See Isaiah 7:14. After this prophecy was fulfilled there is no reason for her to remain a virgin. Also, if Jesus was to experience humanity to the fullest extent then being part of a family where He had brothers and sisters would be expected.
There actually is a lot to be gained theology by understanding Mary’s perpetual virginity. What you must realize is that _every_ Marian doctrine/dogma reflects what will happen to _us_ after the resurrection.
1) Mary was a perpetual virgin=after the Resurrection of the Dead, we will be perpetually virgin (i.e., not fall into sin again)
2) Mary was conceived without sin=after the Resurrection of the Dead, we will be recreated without sin
3) Mary was assumed into Heaven, body and soul=after the Resurrection, we will be united Body and Soul into the Heavenly New Earth
4) Mary was crowned as Queen of Heaven=we will all have our crowns of glory (such as St. Paul talks about)
Basically, Mary was saved through the merits of Christ on the cross, applied outside of time. She, in a sense, is “before the times” as we will be given all of these after the Resurrection.
Meyu, you said,
meyuDecember 17, 2012 4:21 PM
Point 4 is enough to show that Mary was not a life long virgin.
No, it has been effectively rebutted several times. Please read the responses rather than ignoring the points of rebuttal. That is the only way you could make this claim.
Point 1 does not mention anyone in the NT having sex either. Should we assume that it never happened to the people mentioned such Peter or Jarius?
Your logic is faulty.
1. You claim that Scripture does not say that Mary is a perpetual virgin, therefore you conclude that Mary is not a perpetual virgin.
2. To support that contention, you provide an example of Scripture not mentioning that anyone had sex. To be consistent with your first claim, you should conclude that therefore, since it isn’t mentioned in Scripture, it can’t be true. But you conclude the opposite.
3. Your logic supports the Catholic position.
If Mary was a perpetual virgin then how does Joseph deal with his sex drive?
With the grace of God. Do you really believe the myths that men will go blind if they don’t have sex?
Where do you get the idea that “Sex is never done after contact with the Divine Presence” from Scripture? There was nothing from the angel when he spoke with Mary that it was forbidden for her to have sexual relations with her husband.
Interesting idea. I’d also like to hear more.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained theologically by Mary not having normal sexual relations with her husband and having more children.
That is because you don’t discern the meaning of Scripture spiritually. Mary is not simply a vessel which carried the Divine Being of Christ. She is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
If she were to have sex with St. Joseph, she would become an adulteress and St. Joseph an adulterer.
Now, let me show you that Mary is married to the Holy Spirit. The important terminology here is “overshadowed”.
A euphemism for marriage in the Old Testament is covering:
Ruth 3:
7 And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down. 8 And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid, and turned himself: and, behold, a woman lay at his feet. 9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.
Ruth, effectively asked Boaz to marry her. If you read the rest of the story, you will see that Boaz understood and was determined to do so.
To a Jew, it is clear that when the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” the Virgin Mary, He took her to Himself and the logical outcome is that a Child would be born. The Virgin Mary then married St. Joseph for righteousness sake. The same reason that the sinless Jesus was Baptized.
St. Joseph, being a righteous man, would have known better than to go into the Virgin Mary, having been informed in a dream that she bore the Child by the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Before Jesus was born it would have been since the prophecy said He would be born of a virgin. See Isaiah 7:14. After this prophecy was fulfilled there is no reason for her to remain a virgin.
You say this because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Also, if Jesus was to experience humanity to the fullest extent then being part of a family where He had brothers and sisters would be expected.
Being an only child makes one no less a human.
Sincerely,
De Maria
This last response had some truly astounding comments…
> “If Mary was a perpetual virgin then how does Joseph deal with his sex drive?”
I’d expect a comment like that from one of the secular guys with whom I attended university…but a Christian?
> “if Jesus was to experience humanity to the fullest extent then being part of a family where He had brothers and sisters would be expected”
So children without brothers and sisters don’t get to experience humanity to the fullest extent?
If Joseph was a man then this is something he would have needed to deal with. After all, one of the benefits of marriage is for the man and the woman to express their sexuality towards each other in holy and godly way. There is no reason to think Joesph did not have normal sexual desires and wanting to have children of his own. Same would apply to Mary.
Children without brothers and sisters do not experience family life the same way that those that do. Does not mean they are less but they don’t have this experience.
> “If Joseph was a man then this is something he would have needed to deal with”
You initial question “If Mary was a perpetual virgin then how does Joseph deal with his sex drive?” makes little sense to me. EVERY man has to deal with his sex drive, whether he’s single or even if he’s married.
> “Children without brothers and sisters do not experience family life the same way that those that do. Does not mean they are less but they don’t have this experience.”
Children WITH brothers and sisters do not experience family life the same way that those WITHOUT them do. Does not mean they are less but they don’t have this experience.
Meyu said:
meyuDecember 17, 2012 5:30 PM
If Joseph was a man
He was and is a man.
then this is something he would have needed to deal with.
Have you ever read in Scripture that God will give you the grace you need to fulfill your vocation?
2 Thessalonians 1:11
King James Version (KJV)
11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
After all, one of the benefits of marriage is for the man and the woman to express their sexuality towards each other in holy and godly way.
What do you think is a greater benefit? To serve God or to have sex with your spouse? This is what Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 7:
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
There is no reason to think Joesph did not have normal sexual desires and wanting to have children of his own. Same would apply to Mary.
You are projecting. To us, we are taught that God satisfies all our desires:
Our Heart is Restless Until it rests in You
Saint Augustine of Hippo
Apparently, you are taught that the highest blessing is sex with your spouse. But that is wrong. We are made for God. St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary received a blessing beyond calculation. They were united to their God in this life.
Children without brothers and sisters do not experience family life the same way that those that do. Does not mean they are less but they don’t have this experience.
Does that make them less human? You admit it doesn’t, so why even bring that up?
Sincerely,
De Maria
“Point 4 is enough to show that Mary was not a life long virgin…”
Only if you believe the word ἀδελφός and ἀδελφή only mean blood brothers and blood sisters.
Part of rational debate is admitting when you have a weak point. Your assertion that the text is definitive on Christ’s blood brothers has been irredeemably destroyed by LXX Gen 13:8 Also the LXX of Tobit 7:4 shows the ambiguity of ἀδελφὸν.
The fact of the matter is that the text is linguistically ambiguous. That is an incontrovertible fact. Can you find any Lexicon that says otherwise? I’m open to hear it. Don’t bother with Strong’s. Don’t bother with Thayer’s. Don’t bother with E. A. Sophocles. I checked those three for you.
My point is not weak but yours is. I gave 11 points above that show why the perpetual virginity goes against the Scripture and common sense. Where do the NT writers use Genesis 13:8 in relation to the brothers of Jesus?
Here is how the word Gen 13:8 (brothers or kinsmen) is defined in Strongs–” brother
a) brother of same parents
b) half-brother (same father)
c) relative, kinship, same tribe
d) each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
e) (fig.) of resemblance
The text is not ambiguous. The idea that Jesus had other blood brothers and sister is well grounded in Scripture.
Even the historian Josephus, a well-known Jewish historian, writing in the 90’s A.D., confirms that
James was the Lord’s brother saying, “the brother of Jesus, who was called the
Christ, whose name was James” (Antiquities- Book 20: Ch 9). He also says James, the
Lord’s brother was martyred in 62 A.D. One of the early church fathers, Origen
(185-254 A.D.) in 3 of his writings confirms that Josephus did indeed say this:
(1. Commentary on Mt 10:17)(2. Against Celsus 1:47)(3. Against Celsus 2:13).
Meyu,
Josephus wrote in Aramaic which was later translated into other langauges. As I have already pointed out, there is not a word for ‘cousin’ in aramaic or hebrew. When they wanted to say kinsman, they would use the same word as brother.
That’s Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon for the entry אָח, which is Strong’s Entry H251. That’s for the Masoretic Text of Gen 13:8 which was brought up by…nobody.
The Strong’s reference for the word used in Greek in the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) version of Gen 13:8 is Strong’s G80. You need to look that up in Strong’s Greek Lexicon. Both Lexicons are usually found at the end of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
And Origin is a great authority on this matter.
“”For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” –Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).
What does Gen 13:8 have to do with Mary and her sons? There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.
What must guide us not Origin but the Scripture.
That is all besides the point.
The other Mary, the wife of Cleophas (aka Alpaheus) is the mother James, Joses, Simon and Jude.
Therefore, they are Jesus’ cousins.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I don’t know how to make it more clear for you.
ἀδελφός sometimes means brother. It sometimes means kinsmen.
So you can’t point to a text that says ἀδελφός and definitively say what it means.
Here’s an example of textual ambiguity in English:
“For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country…”
That can mean:
“For the first time in my adult life, I am sincerely proud of my country…”
Or
“For the first time in my adult life, I am to a higher degree proud of my country…”
Because the text is ambiguous, it doesn’t tell you which “REALLY” is meant: “really sincerely” or “really to a higher degree”
If you were in a Greek class, if you translated the phrase:
“οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός οὐχί ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωσῆς καὶ Σίμων καὶ Ἰούδας
As
‘blah blah “brothers” blah blah’, then you would be right.
If you translated it as:
‘blah blah “kinsmen” blah blah’, then you would also be right.
The word is ambiguous. Period.
So what did the author of the text mean?
For that we have to look at other clues. I’ve already cited how we know who the parents of James and Joses are–Mary and Cleopas. And we know that Mary and the Virgin Mary are sisters. But blood sisters with the same name doesn’t make sense. So somehow they are sisters in law.
We know this because:
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.
AND
There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
AND
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Ok. But what does what does Gen 13:8 have to do with Mary and her sons? What does it have to do with Matt 13:55-56?
The word for brothers in this passage is Adelphós which means denoting unity, and delphús (n.f.), a womb. A brother. Adelphós generally denotes a fellowship of life based on identity of origin, e.g., members of the same family (Matt. 1:2; Luke 3:1, 19; 6:14); members of the same tribe, countrymen, and so forth (Acts 3:22; 7:23; Rom. 9:3). One of the same nature, a fellow man was regarded as a brother (Matt. 5:22–24, 47).
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G80). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
It doesn’t matter. We can effectively eliminate the idea that they are Jesus’ brothers from the same womb because they can be traced to another mother and to another father. In Scripture.
There is no getting around that fact.
Sincerely,
De Maria
What does Gen 13:8 have to do with Mary and her sons?
It proves a point you haven’t conceded yet about the use of a disputed word in Koine Greek.
How do you translate:
“εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ τῷ Λωτ μὴ ἔστω μάχη ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων μου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων σου ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν”
I can’t read Greek. I’m still trying to figure out what the connection is supposed to be between Gen 13:8 and Matt 13:55-56. We know what the word for brother means in Matt 13:55-56 and it means 2 human beings from the same womb. This is not the only place where Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in Scripture and not to mention that the idea that Mary would remain a virgin after the birth of Christ is absurd. The Scripture did not forbid her to have sexual relations with Joseph and to have many children in their culture was something that was highly desirable.
What would help your case is for you to find a passage in the OT that would say the Messiah would not have blood brothers and sisters or that the mother of Messiah would not have children after He was born.
I don’t get it. What does it gain in the least for Mary not to have other children of her own?
Gen 13:8 in Greek:
εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ τῷ Λωτ μὴ ἔστω μάχη ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων μου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων σου ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν
[3said 1And 2Abram] to Lot, Do not let there be a battle between me and you, and between your herdsmen and between my herdsmen for [2men 4brothers 3are 1we].
Note: Koine Greek jumbles up word order sometimes, so I hope the brackets and numbers help.
Lot and Abram are not brothers, but they are related. They are kinsmen.
Gen 13:8 from the Septuagint therefore tells us that the word can also mean “kinsmen who are not blood brothers.”
You don’t speak Greek. Fine. Listen to those who do.
Jerome:
I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disgusted at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learned to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue….What darkness, what raging madness rushing to its own destruction! You say that the mother of the Lord was present at the cross, you say that she was entrusted to the disciple John on account of her widowhood and solitary condition: as if upon your own showing, she had not four sons, and numerous daughters, with whose solace she might comfort herself?…
John Calvin: ” Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”
I’m not trying to be rude here. I certainly don’t think you’re stupid or your argument is stupid.
But I’m showing you that by repeating (even without knowing it) Helvidius’s argument, that authorities as diverse as St. Jerome and John Calvin would call your argument stupid.
Meyu, you said,
meyuDecember 17, 2012 8:06 PM
I can’t read Greek.
You don’t need to.
I’m still trying to figure out what the connection is supposed to be between Gen 13:8 and Matt 13:55-56. We know what the word for brother means in Matt 13:55-56 and it means 2 human beings from the same womb.
Only if you ignore the fact that the people whom you claim are Jesus brothers are the children of the other Mary and another father.
This is not the only place where Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in Scripture and not to mention that the idea that Mary would remain a virgin after the birth of Christ is absurd.
It is absurd to you because you have not considered the reason for our being. Both St. joseph and St. Mary were united to their God in this life. They had no need for sex.
The Scripture did not forbid her to have sexual relations with Joseph and to have many children in their culture was something that was highly desirable.
Mary gave birth to God incarnate. Why would she want any more children?
Why would St. Joseph want any other children when he was entrusted with the life of His God?
What would help your case is for you to find a passage in the OT that would say the Messiah would not have blood brothers and sisters or that the mother of Messiah would not have children after He was born.
It would help you to begin to understand that the individuals which you claim are the children of Mary of Nazareth are actually the children of another woman. Open your mind or open the Bible. Truly those who grieve God are afflicted with blindness. How many times must it be pointed out that Scripture shows they are the children of another woman before you begin to believe the Word of God?
I don’t get it. What does it gain in the least for Mary not to have other children of her own?
I don’t get it. What does it gain in the least for her to have more?
Sincerely,
De Maria
John Calvin on Matt 13:55
“The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”
Zwingli:
“I firmly believe that [Mary], … forever remained a pure, intact Virgin…”
Wesley:
“… born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”
Luther:
“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.”
These men nor any man (except Christ) is infallible. They can and do err. They erred because the Scripture does not support them on this issue.
Can men speak infallibly some of the time?
That is to say, can God speak infallibly through men some of the time?
Yes. He spoke through the prophets and apostles and we call their writings inspired-inerrant Scripture. There is nothing outside of Scripture that is inspired-inerrant Word of God. Infallibly is not necessary to speak truth.
meyuDecember 17, 2012 8:44 PM
These men nor any man (except Christ) is infallible. They can and do err. They erred because the Scripture does not support them on this issue.
Scripture does support them. The people you claim are Jesus’ brothers of the womb, James, Joses, Judas and Simon, can be traced to another mother and another father.
meyuDecember 17, 2012 10:37 PM
Yes. He spoke through the prophets and apostles and we call their writings inspired-inerrant Scripture. There is nothing outside of Scripture that is inspired-inerrant Word of God. Infallibly is not necessary to speak truth.
Scripture is inerrant. Therefore believe this.
Matthew 27:56
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, ….
Acts 1:13… James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
Jude 1:1
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
James of Alphaeus, Joses, Simon and Jude are the children of the other Mary.
That is in Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
What does infallibility mean to you?
incapable erring.
Is there an infallible way to interpret Scripture?
No. All men are fallen and we don’t know everything about the Bible in some passages.
Does an infallible Bible fallibly interpreted do something a fallible tradition doesn’t do?
(We can talk about a fallible vs infallible tradition later.)
Give me an example.
You reading the Bible. You are fallible. The Bible is infallible. Therefore, do you claim to ALWAYS come to infallible conclusions by reading the infallible Bible?
My point is that if there isn’t an infallible way to interpret infallible Scripture, then you don’t have a standard any higher than fallible tradition.
In other words, if you are right and Catholics are wrong, then you still have fallible doctrine, and no way to discern if you have more or less truth than Catholics.
Catholics say that’s silly. That it only matters that Scripture is infallible because it can be infallibly interpreted. Just like their was the ability to discern infallibly in the Old Testament with the umin and thummim.
What verses of the Bible has the RCC infallibly interpreted and where can I see this?
The Catholic Church does not “interpret” Scripture. She teaches it. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old. If you want to see the infallible Teaching of the Catholic Church, open your Bible.
No. You don’t need to be infallible to know the truth. We don’t need infallibly in other areas of knowledge to know the truth nor do we need it in the understanding of Scripture. We can know if a doctrine is correct and true if it lines up with what Christ and the apostle taught. Take the meaning of the death of Christ. We don’t need to be infallible to know that Jesus died for sin.
That is actually true and Catholic Teaching.
The problem is that you don’t know what Christ and the Apostles taught because you have discarded the Traditions of the Catholic Church.
That is a problem because the New Testament is based upon those Traditions. The New Testament did not come first. The Traditions of Jesus Christ came first. Then He established the Church and commanded that Church to teach His Traditions. The Church then wrote the New Testament in order to assist in the handing down of Tradition.
Without those Traditions, you have no context to understand what the Apostles were talking about when they wrote the New Testament.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Do you need to be incapable of falsehood some of the time to know the truth?
No. Such a condition does not exist for fallen human beings.
2+2=4.
I just proved you wrong. 2+2=4 is an infallible statement. I am a fallen human being.
2+2=4. That is an infallible truth produced by a fallen human being.
Then how do we know what truth is? If God doesn’t give us a way to understand Scripture or tradition or use reason or experience to determine what’s true, then how can we even have truth at all?
Infallibility is not a precondition for truth and knowledge. God has given us the ability to understand what Scripture means via His Holy Spirit in us and by gifted teachers who teach the Scriptures.
God has also given us an infallible Teacher to transmit His doctrines without error (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
Does that inspiration by the Spirit prevent error?
In the case of the writers of the Scripture they did not commit error when writing Scripture. If the Spirit is inspiring someone today to write something then that would mean that would be also Scripture. The second issue is how do you know when someone today is inspired by the Holy Spirit? What are the characteristics of one that supposedly is?
1. He sits on the chair of Peter and instructs the universal Church about Christian doctrine.
2. He writes or teaches from an Ecumencial Council in union with the Bishops of the Church and the Pope.
I mean on the interpreting side. You said that via the Holy Spirit that you can determine an interpretation of a passage, that is to say that he’s giving us the ability to understand it.
Does the Spirit fail?
If not, then if it is the Spirit who enables the interpretation, then how can that interpretation be wrong?
If it can’t be wrong, then it’s unable to err. Therefore, the Church has a mechanism of infallible interpretation.
The Spirit does not tell us the meaning of a passage but gives us the ability to understand it. Contrast this with the unbeliever who thinks its foolishness. (1 Cor 2:12-16). The Spirit does not fail but we can and do at times. It is possible for men to misunderstand the Scripture and teach falsely. Scripture warns of this in 2 Peter 2:1.
If your church “has a mechanism of infallible interpretation” of Scripture then where is this work to be found? Where is this work that tells you what the infallible interpretation is?
Meyu, you ask:
If your church “has a mechanism of infallible interpretation” of Scripture then where is this work to be found?
1. The Papal pronouncements from the Chair of Peter.
2. The pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils.
Where is this work that tells you what the infallible interpretation is?
There are many. Here is one on Justification:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
Here is an excerpt with a specific Scripture mentioned:
Concerning Rom 3:24; 5:1
CHAPTER VIII
HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD
But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46]
Sincerely,
De Maria
The canons of the 21 Ecumenical Councils, the document Ineffabilis Deus, and the document Munificentissimus Deus.
How can you tell if your pastor or even yourself has the ability to give a true interpretation of Scripture?
So the canons of the councils and the documents are inspired-inerrant in the same way the Scriptures are?
You can tell if you are interpreting Scripture by understanding the genre of the book, the context, each chapter in context to name a few principles that are necessary for correct interpretation of Scriptures. Pastors are trained in seminaries how to interpret Scripture. There are also a lot of great commentaries of the Scriptures to study and various other tools to help one understand the Scripture.
How do you know when you are hearing a homily from your priest that he is correctly interpreting Scripture? Is he infallible when he does so?
Meyu,
You asked:
meyuDecember 18, 2012 6:04 PM
So the canons of the councils and the documents are inspired-inerrant in the same way the Scriptures are?
Not exactly. You have actually shifted language to the more accurate terminology used by the Church.
The Scriptures are inspired and inerrant. Not infallible as you were previously saying.
The Church is infallible.
The difference is that the Scriptures were written by the inspiration of God and contain no error. No more Scripture will be written.
The Church, however, continually Teaches the Traditions of Jesus Christ as contained in the Doctrines of the Church and the Scriptures and does so with the protection of the Holy Spirit which prevents the Church from teaching error.
The Church is infallible because it will continually Teach and infallibility is a continuing gift.
You can tell if you are interpreting Scripture by understanding the genre of the book, the context, each chapter in context to name a few principles that are necessary for correct interpretation of Scriptures. Pastors are trained in seminaries how to interpret Scripture.
Then you can list those Pastors which are infallible.
There are also a lot of great commentaries of the Scriptures to study and various other tools to help one understand the Scripture.
Then list for us the Protestant commentaries which are infallible.
How do you know when you are hearing a homily from your priest that he is correctly interpreting Scripture?
When he teaches in accordance with the infallible Teaching of the Church.
Is he infallible when he does so?
No.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Priests aren’t protected by infallibility in their homilies. Usually homilies don’t touch upon doctrine,but rather they encourage us to be moral.
Does context of Scripture ever come from the historical record?
So an official of your church can teach false doctrine. Teachers are not protected from doing so. Right?
Scripture is written in historical times. Knowing these things can help to shed light on Scripture.
So an official of your church can teach false doctrine. Teachers are not protected from doing so. Right?
The Church is however. And we have access to the Teachings of the Church.
Scripture is written in historical times. Knowing these things can help to shed light on Scripture.
The problem is that you have made a false dichotomy between Scripture and the Church. Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition:
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
Scripture is the Teaching of the Church.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Meyu,
Acts. 1:12-15 – The gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. It should be obvious that Mary did not give birth to 120 sons.
Agreed. In this context brothers means a fellow believer.
Exactly. Even though it can also mean they were brothers by nature. The word is ambiguous. Context is not always available by scripture alone, because there are many things that were not written down Jn 21:25. And people like St John even preferred oral tradition 3Jn 1:13. This is why Catholics hold fast to tradition and scripture. Because they together form our deposit of faith. 2Thess 2:15, 2Thess 3:6.
“Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit.”
Papias, Sayings of the Lord (A.D. 115-140)
It is true that Jesus did other things not recorded in the gospels. The problem is that no one knows what they were. Not even the Roman Catholic church knows what these other things Jesus said and did not recorded in the gospels. It is true for a time Christians were taught orally by the apostles while they were alive but we no longer know specifically what they said. All that we have from Jesus and His apostles can be found only in the NT.
Meyu,
Papias was the bishop of Hieropolis. He passed down what he learned just as every other Catholic bishop did via practice, catechism, prayers, liturgy, iconography, writings, sacrament, etc. We cannot know everything that was said, but the volumes of ancient extra-biblical content Catholics have which date from the first and second century certainly give us a rich context to interpret. The Gospels took place in history. To avoid the historical accounts that were written will only serve to harm scriptural understanding.
Take for instance St Ignatius of Antioch. More than one of the early church father has said Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed that with his friend Polycarp(a disciple of St John), and was among the auditors of St. John’s gospel. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch. Even if we disregard all of that as legend, wouldn’t a Christian writing from around AD 100 be able to give better insight into the meaning of scripture? How about St Clement of Rome who wrote around AD 90 and who is mentioned in Phil 4:3?
Meyu said:
It is true that Jesus did other things not recorded in the gospels. The problem is that no one knows what they were.
If we don’t know what they were, they aren’t important.
Not even the Roman Catholic church knows what these other things Jesus said and did not recorded in the gospels.
If they aren’t in the Scriptures, they aren’t important.
It is true for a time Christians were taught orally by the apostles while they were alive but we no longer know specifically what they said. All that we have from Jesus and His apostles can be found only in the NT.
Not true. How do you know who wrote the Gospel of St. Mark? Not from Scripture.
But although your statement is in error, it remains besides the point.
The point is this. The New Testament was not written in a vacuum. It was written in the context of that which Jesus Christ taught the Apostles. And it was written by the Church which was passing down these Traditions. This is confirmed in the Scripture (Matthew 28:20).
It is upon this infallible Teaching that the inerrant Scriptures are based and it is by this infallible Teacher that the inerrant Scriptures are taught. Without these anchors, it is impossible to prevent human beings from erroenously interpreting the Scriptures. The proof is in the history of the Protestant movement. By their fruits you shall know them.
sincerely,
De Maria
You can tell if you are interpreting Scripture by understanding the genre of the book, the context, each chapter in context to name a few principles that are necessary for correct interpretation of Scriptures. Pastors are trained in seminaries how to interpret Scripture. There are also a lot of great commentaries of the Scriptures to study and various other tools to help one understand the Scripture.
So in order to correctly interpret Scripture, we need A) The Scripture that the Church assembled B) The Holy Spirit enabling us C) pastors who are trained D) nonscriptural commentaries and tools and E) historical context that is found in the historical record outside of Scripture.
So we’re already throwing Sola Scriptura out the window.
Let’s do an experiment with your hermeneutics.
Who is the child and who is the woman in Isaiah 66:7?
You asked “How can you tell if your pastor or even yourself has the ability to give a true interpretation of Scripture?” and I gave you some methods and tools how to do this. This does not nullify Sola Scriptura in the least.
The meaning of Is 66:7 is that the return of Israel to the land will be so remarkably quick that it will be like giving birth to a son before she has labor pains (v8).
That is not the question which was asked.
How do you define Sola Scriptura? Please provide Chapter and verse.
Is the son the Messiah?
No.
Targum Yonatan has a reading that says, “Before distress cometh upon her, she shall be redeemed; and before trembling cometh upon her, like the pains upon a woman in child-bearing, her King shall be revealed.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary has a Messianic meaning.
Matthew Henry has a Messianic meaning for all of Chapter 66.
Chuck Smith has v. 7 instituting the Kingdom Age, meaning the Messianic Kingdom
David Guzik gives Chapter 66 a Messianic interpretation.
Calvin says that the woman is the Church and she is giving birth to believers that are manly and courageous.
Wesley says “doubtless it refers to the coming of Christ…”
Gill says it’s Christ and references the above Targum.
Darby gives all of Chapter 66 a Messianic interpretation.
Martin Luther says that the woman is Zion, and the child is the Church.
I believe that verse refers to Mary and the child refers to Christ. You think I’m wrong.
What do you interpret it that verse to be, and how do you know it’s a true interpretation, and how do you know mine is a false one?
Where is the Messiah mentioned in chapter 66?
The whole chapter is about the Messianic age!
Conversion of Gentiles, Armageddon, the works!
How could the whole chapter be about the Messianic age when the Messiah is never mentioned?
How does your church interpret this passage?
How could the whole chapter be about the Messianic age when the Messiah is never mentioned?
The Messiah is never mentioned EXPLICITLY. However, the Messiah is mentioned IMPLICITLY. In addition, the Messianic age is described and many events of the Messianic age are prophecies.
How does your church interpret this passage?
As a prophecy of the Messianic age.
Ok. Let’s remember that chapter and verse divisions are tools to help up, and not part of scripture itself. Let’s go back to Is 65:1 and read from there.
““I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’”
Who is speaking here? The LORD obviously. But more than that, these words are used by Paul in reference to Jesus and the Gentiles in Romans chapter 10.
“But as for you who forsake the Lord
and forget my holy mountain,
who spread a table for Fortune
and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny,
I will destine you for the sword,
and all of you will fall in the slaughter;
for I called but you did not answer,
I spoke but you did not listen.
You did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me.”
That parallels Rev 14:10
Then:
“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
This parallels Rev 21:1-2, and occurs after ‘Satan is bound for a 1000 years’
The LORD is still speaking as Chapter 65 ends and 66 begins.
Chapter 66 continues talking about the End Times (v.16 “For with fire and with his sword the LORD will execute judgment upon all men, and many will be those slain by the LORD.”, and again we see in verse 22 another reference to the “New heavens and the new earth.”
You said at first that it was chapter 66 is about the Messianic age. No mention of 65. The key issue though is how do you know as an RC that your interpretation is correct? Where does your church tell you your interpretation is right?
Because the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.
Do you agree?
I’m asking where your church officially has interpreted Is 65-66 to mean what you have interpreted to mean? That would help me to see if you are in sync with the interpretation of your church.