Robert Blair Kaiser clearly from the tone and tenor of the writing appeared to be a strong advocate of a NEW AGE future -- and as soon as possible, as far as he was concerned.
Last year strange events in the Roman Catholic Church transpired. Pope Benedict XVI suddenly resigned and he was quickly replaced by Pope Francis, the former Cardinal Mario Bergoglio. I personally could not help wonder if the formerly vigilantly anti-New Age Pope Benedict XVI had been forced out of his job by hidden pressures.
Today I was scratching my head over the ADVOCATE ("gay" magzine) naming of Pope Francis as their "Man of the Year." The Huffington blog of the former Arrianna Stassinopolous enthusiastically reported on that as they do on all events and personages they view as New Age. Arrianna Huffington f/k/a was a close friend of Marilyn Ferguson and she was (maybe still is) a minister in John Rogers "Messiah" cult, "Movement for Spiritual Inner Awareness."
I suddenly recalled the list I had compiled from Kaiser's book of the short list for Pope that Ratzinger had not appeared on -- and those who were for "Change" and those who were not.
Pope Francis as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was #2 on that list and classified as "for change."
Now, today, I read another alleged statement from Pope Francis that the Creation Centered Spirituality people are taking no small degree of comfort from. It appears in the current ATLANTIC Magazine. You may read an online version by clicking here.
I thought my old article deserved re-reading in light of current events. I'm interested in your opinions.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
The Battle for the Roman Catholic Church Future – New Age vs. anti-New Age? What is author Robert Blair Kaiser really saying?
I made the costly mistake of dropping by Border’s on my way home tonight. I saw husband Barry’s car parked there. Hubby graciously offered to buy me a cup of coffee. I accepted that after noticing four new irresistible titles on the new non-fiction table. One of them is the subject of this blog. That is Robert Blair Kaiser’s new book, A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future.” For many of the same reasons for which I found myself comforted by openly anti-New Age Cardinal Ratzinger’s elevation, Kaiser finds the same distasteful. It appears that Robert Blair Kaiser and Lee Penn, author ofFalse Dawn, are at opposite theological poles. Obviously so are Robert Blair Kaiser and yours truly.
It might even be that Robert Blair Kaiser’s BOOK
is a type of “The Aquarian Conspiracy” manifesto for integrating more “New Age” change into the church. The people he praises are for the most part open syncretists, those openly promoting apostasy and denial of orthodox tenets. Those he denigrates bluntly are guilty of nothing but keeping the faith.Robert Blair Kaiser seeks “a Church in Search of Itself.” Lee Penn ably articulates (using the verb “pens” would seem a littlepunnish!) the need instead of a church in search of God. Kaiser wants a church whose theology swings daily in the opposite direction. The author’s syncretistic biases shine throughout the book. His chapter, Cardinal Francis Arinze on “Developing Local Theologies” probably shows the author’s biases more than the reportedly more conservative Cardinal Arinze (and probably Lee Penn might have more knowledge about this).
Kaiser refers to an address Arinze gave at a year 2000 “Millennium World Peace summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders” at the UN in New York.[1] Kaiser says Arinze there called upon world leaders not to misuse religion by promoting violence. I have no quarrel with that premise. Kaiser was even happier that “since that meeting, “Arinze had presided over at least three major interreligious gatherings in turn, raising his media profile.” He then writes:
“Four months after 9/11, he helped organize a huge gathering of leaders – Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and Catholics -- in Assisi, where a similar meeting had been held a decade before. Curiously, the delegates prayed separately, because Cardinal Ratzinger had decided not to encourage joint prayer by men and women who believed in different Gods [sic]. Arinze didn’t fight Ratzinger on that. Neither did the pope.”
Well, score one hooray for Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)! Kaiser also wrote about those he considered the brave, good guys – those who were for “developing local theologies”[2] Furthermore, Kaiser probably misread Arinze’s whose agenda was never syncretism, but evangelism. Arinze has personally, even earlier than the last pope himself, spoken out strongly against spiritualism and New Religions, including but not limited to New Age religion.
My admitted light reading of the volume last night makes it appear to me as though Los Angeles' Cardinal Mahoney is a Kaiser favorite. He rapturously describes his do-it-yourself skills with such detail as to make Mahoney look like a natural replacement for the host and star of "This Old House". However, in this case it looks like home construction and church destruction may well go hand in hand in southern California Catholic land. Faithful Christians in Cardinal Mahoney’s diocese succinctly described his actions:
"The Cardinal is bringing in speakers who openly trample on official Catholic teachings," Fisher observed. "He's subjecting Catholics to talks by advocates of abortion, sodomy, homosexual 'marriage,' fornication, ordaining priestesses and homosexuals, occult "New Age' practices, 'dismantling' the Church, defying the Vatican's authority, redefining God, and MORE
. He should stop thumbing his nose at Pope John Paul II and leave office."[3]While Kaiser was scathingly indignant about Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s orthodox theology, he was curiously enraptured by those who would deny our Lord, including but not limited to prominent New World Religion proponent Leonard Swidler. Now Swidler is a name well known to me. One of his closest confidants is Jordan’s Prince Hassan, who currently serves as President of the Club of Rome. I’ve kept internet archived files on Swidler for the past few years. I even tried to get him on my radio program once. Luckily for Swidler, he was out of the country and unavailable for that BOOKING
. I had planned to use him as Exhibit A to demonstrate the intensity and determination of New Age theologians.Just what is my issue/problem with “A Church in Search of Itself”? The answer is contained in the very title. A true church is one in search of God, not itself. Kaiser boasts that Belgian and former Pax Christi head, Cardinal Godfried Danneels (one who also at times claimed to speak out against the New Age Movement) proudly said that his theology ‘changed daily.’ [4]
Kaiser, an unapologetic proponent of syncretistic change, gives an interesting list of those who were on the short list for the papal replacement. Kaiser says Ratzinger made none of those 2004 lists:
Papal Candidate Location Liberal Change or “no Change”
Cardinal Francis Arinze[5], Nigeria No Change
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Buenos Aires, Argentina Change
Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Mechelen-Brussel, Belgium Change
Cardinal Ivan Dias[6], Bombay, India No Change.
Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, São Paulo, Brazil Change
Cardinal Walter Kasper, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in Rome Change
Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera[7], Mexico City No Change
Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga[8]. Tegucigapa, Honduras ChangeCardinal Christoph Schönborn[9], Vienna No change
Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, Milan No change
It is more than interesting to note that just about everybody labeled “No change” spoke out boldly and strongly against theNew Age Movement. Those on the list indicated for “change” were considerably more tolerant, if not openly sympathetic to it.
With all the current talk and songs of “New Church”, and writers out there like Robert Blair Kaiser, not to mention the Matthew Foxes, Basil Penningtons, and Thomas Keatings lurking in the background, it appears that Catholic New Agers have not gone away. They merely went underground, but they are resurfacing. Last week I had an anguished call from a local client who was staying with a convent in Rome. Her daughter had called her from
Michigan, USA to say that here local Catholic hospitals are now adopting the very New Age Reikki practices along with the unfortunately usual “healing touch” and other such “transformative technologies.”
My Catholic friends, fasten your spiritual seatbelts and pray for the Pope. As the political agenda of the New Age advances via the European Union, “the men who stare at goats" in the USA military a la Jon Ronson’s analysis, the attempt to again forcibly impose it on Catholics as once happened in the 1980s appears to be once again on the militant march.
The battle is not over. In fact, it may be just beginning. Jesus once said to his apostles, “it is inevitable but that evil comes, but woe to him through whom it comes.”
A word to the spiritually wise should be sufficient!
[1] Kaiser, Robert Blair. A CHURCH IN SEARCH OF ITSELF: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future. New York: Knof BOOKS
, 2006. Page 131.[2] Kaiser, op. cit., page 131.
[3] Quoted from http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-16878.html>
4/2/2006, 10:21 PM
[4] Kaiser claims that Cardinal Danneels, once head of Pax Christi, and even the author of an anti-New Age tract, said that his theology changed daily. Whether that is good or bad, one would suppose, would be the direction in which the theology changes – closer to or further away from Jesus Christ whom he is pledged to serve – closer or further from God the father. I am dismayed to learn that Danneels was so overwrought by the election of the conservative Ratzinger to the papacy. Danneels' purported anti-New Age ADVOCACY
, shown to me a few years ago by another anti-New Age author, Donna Steichen, had once given me hope. Disturbingly, Danneels and nine other cardinals would not stay for the impromptu supper served up by the new Pope Benedict XVI. It has a ring of someone else who at times convincingly professed orthodoxy, but would not stay for dinner – Judas Iscariot on the night of our Lord’s Last Supper.[5] Cardinal Arinze issued a strong statement against “New Religious Movements” including the New Age Movement in 1991, two years even before Pope John Paul II issued the first such statement known to me. See http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/ARINNEWM.TXT.
[6] Ivan Cardinal Dias has spoken out against syncretism and the New Age Movement. See, e.g., http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/ARINNEWM.TXT.
[7] Cardinal Carrera’s election would not have disappointed me either. He issued a superb condemnation of the New Age Movement, even as some Evangelical cult-watchers were downplaying the threat of the Movement to true Christianity. Seehttp://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/acall.htm. Among the topics covered by Cardinal Carrera in that pastoral letter to his Mexico City Catholics were:
New Age and the False Hope, The Rapid Spread of New Age. New Age Beliefs, Environmentalism, Gnosticism, Pseudo-Science, Incompatibility of New Age and the Gospel . Reincarnation, and Non-Christian Meditation, Responsibility of Catholics in Face of Confusion
[8] This Maradiaga is the one that Rastafarian “Squeakbox” the author of the sycophantic biography of Javier Solana referenced in my last blogspot was so terribly disappointed was not elected pope. He posted that to 2005 comment sections on my then blogspots. This is also the one that well meaning readers frequently and wrongfully confuse with Solana’s grandfather Salvador de Madariaga. Maradiaga looks similar, but the spellings are distinctly different on closer inspection.
[9] Cardinal Schonburn strongly spoke out against the New Age Movement. Reviewer James Likoudis writes: "Cardinal Schonborn insists on the historical reliability and credibility of the Gospels. He sharply criticizes the New Age movement and emphasizes that "[t}he dogma of original sin is of inestimable importance for the whole structure of the faith" (p.67). He echoes the Rule of St. Benedict, which asserts that "[n]othing should take precedence over the work of God,' that is, solemn worship" " (p.67). He is reviewing Schonborn’s book, Loving the Church, By Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Ignatius Press, 1998
507 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 507 Newer› Newest»9:27 - Don't try that old tired trick of acting like a crazy. It's well known that it's a ruse to scare away others, whether on the streets or on the internet. It works in many cases because the recipient is supposed to worry what the crazy will do next.
This is a blog dealing with facts and is not based on emotional rants. Factual information never stands alone. There is always a wider context. Truth will hold up under an examination of that context. Manipulation of others will never stand up when examined closely.
cont..
[PDF]
International University of Social Studies Pro ...
www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/686.PDF
________________________________
PRO DEO BOOKLET
An American Oriented University in the Heart of Europe
[PDF]
Pro Deo booklet, American Council for the ... - ...
www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/685.PDF
_______________________________
Here is one of the films Father Morlion was involved in...
THE FLOWERS OF ST. FRANCIS
The Flowers of St. Francis (in Italian, Francesco, giullare di Dio, or "Francis, God's Jester") is a 1950 film directed by Roberto Rossellini and co-written by Federico Fellini. .........
.....Rossellini had a strong interest in Christian values in the contemporary world.[8] Though he was not a practicing Catholic, Rossellini loved the Church's ethical teaching, and was enchanted by religious sentiment—things which were neglected in the materialistic world.[9] This interest helped to inspire the making of the film.,[10] and he also employed two priests to work on it with him, Félix A. Morlion O.P., and Antonio Lisandri O.F.M.[11] Though the priests contributed little to the script, their presence within the movie gave a feel of respectability in regards to theology.[12] Morlion vigorously defended Catholic foundations within Italian neorealism, and felt that Rossellini's work, and eventually scriptwriter Fellini's, best captured this foundation......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flowers_of_St._Francis
____________________________
cont...
cont...
.......In October of 1962, Pope John XXIII, successor to Pius XII, opened the Second Vatican Council, and with it a new approach toward the world (“aggiornamento”). This included searching new avenues to ease the suffering of Christians under Communist rule, without withdrawing any of the Church’s warnings about Marxist-Leninist ideology. The new approach was described by Msgr. Igino Cardinale, chief of protocol at the Secretariat of the Holy See, as being “ready to engage in relations with any state,” as long as there was a reliable assurance that “freedom for the church and the sanctity of the moral and spiritual interests of its citizens” were respected. Given the deceptions and crimes of the Communists, that was asking a lot, but the Vatican was willing to take risks, in hopes of achieving a greater good.
It didn’t take long to test the new policy. Just a few days after Vatican II opened, the Cuban Missile Crisis broke out and the mediation of the Church was sought. President Kennedy—pulling out all stops to avert a catastrophe—contacted his friend, the author Norman Cousins, who believed the greatest independent force in the world was the papacy. Cousins in turn reached out to his friend, Belgian priest Father Felix Morlion, O.P., who contacted the Holy See, and was assured of the Pope’s willingness to help. The next day, October 24, 1962, John XXIII issued a dramatic appeal to the relevant leaders not to remain deaf to “the cry of humanity.” On October 28, Khrushchev told President Kennedy that the missiles would be withdrawn. Many historians believe Pope John’s public appeal provided Khrushchev with a face-saving way to change course, depicting himself as a savior of world peace, rather than an outfoxed aggressor who blinked. Kennedy explicitly thanked John XXIII for his help.
Many of these same players, as Schelkens reveals, also worked together to obtain the release of Archbishop Slipyj. Thanks to a private intervention by Fr. Morlion with Russian representatives, the indefatigable Cousins was able to interview Khrushchev directly, and serve as an intermediary for the Holy See on behalf of world peace, religious freedom, and Archbishop Slipyj. Dutch Monsignor Johannes Willebrands also took parallel measures with other key diplomatic and religious figures, and the Soviets were surprisingly—though note entirely—cooperative. By early 1963, a decision had been made to release Slipyj on the condition that he would remain in exile and that his freedom would not be exploited by the Church for “anti-Soviet” purposes. In fact, as Schelkens reveals, “the Soviets thought it crucial that it was not to be considered a rehabilitation…. The release was to be regarded as an amnesty and that Slipyj was still considered an enemy of the Soviet government.” The Holy See agreed not to exploit the matter but made no promises about restricting its admonitions against Communism. Willebrands traveled to Russia to receive the Ukrainian archbishop and accompanied him back to Rome, where he was able to participate in the Council. Slipyj’s long-won freedom was further complicated by the fact that Russian Orthodox observers had been invited to attend the Council, as an ecumenical gesture, and accepted. Their presence “deeply shocked” the Ukrainian diaspora bishops who thought that the Holy See had conceded far too much to prelates they considered accessories to the Soviet suppression of the UGCC. But in the large picture, and whatever internal debates remained, the Holy See believed that its strategy had succeeded in accomplishing its ecumenical and political goals, without sacrificing any of its genuine principles...........
http://contemporarychurchhistory.org/2012/03/article-note-new-research-on-cold-war-catholicism/
______________________
cont...
Vatican Diplomacy after the Cuban Missile Crisis: New Light on the Release of Josyf Slipyj
Karim Schelkens
Abstract:
The author, drawing on original documentation from several archives, examines the February 1963 release of Josyf Slipyj, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic archbishop, by the Soviet government. Slipyj's liberation is explored against the complex background of the Second Vatican Council and the emergence of Catholic ecumenism, as well as the diplomatic and political aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The significant roles of Pope John XXIII; Belgian friar Felix A. Morlion, O.P.; U.S. journalist Norman Cousins; and Dutch monsignor Johannes Willebrands—who all played a part in Slipyj's release—are described.
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/catholic_historical_review/v097/97.4.schelkens.pdf
See also:
http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2489340891/vatican-diplomacy-after-the-cuban-missile-crisis
FINIS
P.S. Thank you, Constance for your kind words earlier. I hope you find this information helpful.
I have a question...
Constance why do you publically ask Susanna for all of the catholic info here? Can't she give you what you want privately for you to go over yourself and then put out the needed information in summary if important? Does doing that possibly promote a catholic/protestant rift with all of the mass of catholic info that overwhelms this blog? Or make it seem that Susanna is a hand-picked favorite that can invite the idea to be more about personalities rather than the message itself? I think this is a legitimate point and don't know why you do not consider it for the good of of all. This is not to be taken as a bash of catholics I just think it a reasonable request.
Anon 8:36
I agree completely and I think your post is quite reasonable.
Most people that are not catholic do not find Susanna to be brilliant, as Constance puts it.
Sure, there are a few non catholic groupies here that fall in line.
Susanna's posts are mostly long and overkill, and almost 8 out 10 times promote a catholic viewpoint.
That's not brilliance, that's bias.
Susanna provides the voice of reason - not to mention her wealth of knowledge and extensive research ~ against all of the over the top Catholic bashing that has been happening on this blog for years.
To those who object, and whine (like children) to Constance about it: why don't you debate Susanna directly? What's the matter? Are you afraid that maybe you don't have 'the right stuff' (verbal tools) in which to challenge her?
Here is my suggestion for you: either put up or shut up!!!
To Anonymous @ 1:40 AM
Re: Article in Canada Free Press
The very last paragraph says it all: "Meanwhile, the road to hell Obama is taking the world down was created for him by RADICAL priests and bishops of the Catholic Church."
This is a RADICAL element in a Church of over 1 BILLION Catholics!!! It does not speak for the rest, who are the MAJORITY of traditional, devout, Catholics.
Because God gave each and every one of us the gift of a FREE WILL . . . unfortunately, there are those who will decide to choose EVIL over good. There is nothing that we can do about THEIR decision, except pray for them.
Meanwhile, we can only concentrate on the direction and path for our own immortal souls . . . and just try to be the best person that we can be.
God, our Heavenly Father will sort it all out in the END.
The three underlying goals of the New Age Movement, after stripping away all the excess verbosity are:
1. New World Order.
2. New World Religion.
3. New Age "Messiah" ("Reappearance of the Christ")
Constance noted the above recently (as a bit of a reminder).
That above list should be the focus I would think - not whether a particular 'type' of Christian is noting info here. Its not each other we need to be worrying about, its those who would wish to remove Christianity from the face of the earth.
From Oz
Anonymous 1:40 A.M.
That is a well-written article by Judy McLeod. Socialism, which is militantly atheistic, has no place in the Catholic - or non-Catholic - Christian Church and I have little use for those - including members of the Catholic clergy - who embrace socialism while professing at the same time to be Christian. Monsignor John (Jack) J. Egan (1917-2001) was a socialist Chicago priest and a friend of Saul Alinsky and Studs Terkel.
After worming his way into Egan's good graces, Alynsky apparently proceeded to appeal to Egan's ambition:
"Make up your mind, Jack," Alinsky said, "whether you want to be a priest or a bishop. All other decisions will flow from that one."
http://www.keywiki.org/Jack_Egan
__________________________
Fortunately, Egan was never consecrated a bishop.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Egan was said to have been banished from the Chicago diocese by the late John Cardinal Cody, but was brought back by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin in 1983, about a year after Cody's death.
Activist Msgr. Egan Back In Tailor-made Saddle
August 15, 1986|By Jack Houston.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-08-15/news/8603010274_1_office-of-urban-affairs-john-egan-chicago-priests
_________________________
It wouldn't surprise me if Egan was either one of Italian Communist Bella Dodd's Proteges or someone recruited by one of Dodd's "priests." Recall that I mentioned Bella Dodd in an earlier post. By her own admission, she recruited more than 1,000 Soviet agents/Communists into the Roman Catholic priesthood - close to the time of Egan's red "glory days."
COMRADE CATHOLICS IN CHICAGO
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/comrade_catholics_in_chicago.html_______________________________
The following article by historian Paul Kengor was embedded in the article I posted above. In the article, Mr. Kengor mentions "loyal American Bolshevik" Anna Louise Strong - said to be cousin of Maurice Strong.....and her strategy of setting Protestant clergy against Catholics.
OBAMA'S CATHOLIC CHURCH GAMBIT: LESSONS FROM AMERICAN COMMUNISTS
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obamas_catholic_church_gambit_lessons_from_american_communists.html
_______________________________
Here is an article from Catholic Culture and as you will see, it is NOT sympathetic to Msgr. Jack Egan.
The Underground Call to Action
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1318
_______________________________
While I can only speak for myself and like-minded Catholics, when all is said and done, we Catholics do not see the emergence of these "Judases" as an excuse to turn tail and run. We see it as a call to do our Christian duty.....to stand and fight!!!
Here Here !!
From Oz
Or should that be Hear Hear !!
From Oz
Dear OZ, 10:21
You are right. The New Age Movement will be a merging of
1. New World Order. - Politics
2. New World Religion. - Religion
3. New Age "Messiah"
("Reappearance of the Christ") - the "Priest-King" demanding to be worshipped as God.
You are right. The New Age Movement will be a merging of
2. New World Religion. - Religion
Precisely what pope francis is doing
And many have debated with Susanna directly right here. Can't really call this fair and balanced around this place. Fewer and fewer are fair with the facts--fewer and fewer have a balanced view in these last days according to prophecy because of compromised politics, religion, and their own visions of grandeur in their made-up 'messiah's'.........
To Anonymous @ 11:20 AM
Re: "Can't really call this fair and balanced around this place. Fewer and fewer are fair with the facts."
1) This is not Fox News.
2) Everyone has an equal opportunity to state his or her opinion on this blog.
3) For that matter, life is not fair.
Not asking it to be 'fox news' around here but asking common courtesy in people weighing in on issues, taking others views with openness and consideration instead of the narrow 'my way or the highway' attitude that certain ones especially appear prone too.
Apparently there are some very religious strongholds in people and they seem the least open of all (from catholic and protestant camps). Life is not fair, but we should strive to be shouldn't we?
Anonymous 11:20 A.M.
I don't think it is a matter of people being unfair with the facts. I think it is more a matter of your not having any facts to support your false accusations.
So quit your whining!
Opinions are like navels, everybody has one. Get out of your own navel 2:04 pm (one of several around here)
Hey, 11:20 AM
You've got to have more to offer in the way of concrete evidence and documentation than making statements like...
"Precisely what Pope Francis is doing."
That just won't cut it.
(Talk about not being 'fair'.)
Have you missed the whole discussion (for instance and recent) about pope francis and his joining together in league with kenneth copeland and arnotts, etc? It has been tried to be discussed here quite a bit but discussion repeatedly shut down because it is not even questioned that the pope is heading up a in this endeavor, many deep compromises which has not only potential but intent leading to a one world religion (and the vatican is very political just as moral majority was back when and what did that lead to?)--deep compromises that forfeit the true Gospel because being homogenized and losing it's distinction (that Jesus Christ is Lord)-(which is what the new age aim is?--working hard to get rid of that understanding in unholy alliance with all religions is part of this). Have tried to state these things many times and got nowhere.
4:23 PM
Discussion does not equal EVIDENCE!!!
Speaking of 'fair'...
No Methodist or Baptist or Presbyterian or Episcopalian would put up with relentless attack after attack on this blog for years on end as Catholics have had to endure.
The New Age Movement has infiltrated ALL religions; there are no exceptions!!!
Go back and look for the links.
No, 5:07 PM
You are the one blowing all of the hot air. So, YOU 'go back and look for the links.'
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-urges-legitimate-redistribution
Another compromise with global elite.
I agree with Pope Francis that the he Lord created us ALL 'in His image and likeness'... and that He died for the sins of ALL mankind.
So, until the moment that they take their last dying breath, even atheists have a chance to get straight with God.
I am reminded of what Constance herself once said...
"I have my own suspicions that this is an incited thing that is designed to set the three Alice Bailey delineated fundamentalist target groups of Jews, Christians, and Moslems off against each other. I have even uglier feelings that it was cynically produced and put in circulation with just that sort of 'kill-off Monotheism' war... I suspect this may be a deliberate and well-financed move to incite the target groups against each other."
Yes there is grace for atheists until their dying breath but they have to come by repentance and faith in Christ like anyone who who receives salvation from Jesus which would maker them no longer atheist.
Yes, and until that atheist draws his or her very last breath, he or she does have that last chance at Redemption.
am so very disappointed with Sarah Palin and her espousement of Yoga -- Bikram Hot Yoga (104-105 Fahrenheit temperature in room to simulate conditions of Bikram Yoga. Some of the "Conservative" commentators are falling all over themselves now blessing it as "Christian" when it clearly is not. I've written in the past about gossipy New Ager Roland Gammon, AUTHOR of Nirvana Now
Gammon wrote an earlier book, ALL BELIEVERS ARE BROTHERS. He included a chapter by Hindu author Chakravarty who wrote this about Yoga:
Hinduism, India's ANCIENT religion, has many of the same images as the Greeks ("Deeply hidden as in a cave"). Yoga is a method of uniting the two currents of the material and the spiritual laws which meet in HUMAN life. It is a yoking of the human personahty to the Divine through a series of disciplines which regulate and strengthen the body, the mind, and the higher consciousness.
I am afraid that Sarah Palin will willingly or unwillingly introduce and even initiate many into New Age practice by her sorry example of taking up this leading New Age introductory practice.
Constance
"Did you catch that? Apparently Pope Francis believes that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God."
That question is simply not capable of a Yes/no answer. They both believe in an omnipotent creator God, but assign different personalities to Him.
It is like me, a Christian, telling you that a Mr John Smith lives at 78 Main Street and is friendly and lives with his son, and a Muslim insists that a Mr John Smith lives at 78 Main St but is forbidding and lives alone.
Half-truths make the most insidious lies (as in Genesis 3), and as a Christian I would say that in Islam the view of the divine personality has been distorted by Satan. There simply is no answer to the question "Is Allah Jehovah?"
I didn't know that Constance had written "I have my own suspicions that this is an incited thing that is designed to set the three Alice Bailey delineated fundamentalist target groups of Jews, Christians, and Moslems off against each other." This explains why Constance is so sympathetic to Islam despite the Quran's harshness toward Jews and Christians. But why should she trust Alice Bailey? Hannah Newman's e-book The Rainbow Swastika which parallels Constance's work on New Age says that NA in the Holy Land is anti-Judaism and anti-Christian but not anti-Islam. I prefer to work with the facts, and Newman actually lives in Israel.
Re the criticisms of Susanna: she is well informed about New Age, she is Roman Catholic, and Constance's article which started this thread is about New Age in the Roman Catholic church. So what do you expect Susanna to say? Where Catholics and protestants differ she goes of course with Rome whereas I, as a protestant, don't. But we can perfectly well discuss the issues at hand (and perhaps Rome's view of Mary, which continues to concern me in relation to New Age and ancient gnosticism).
To 4:54 AM
Susanna has never denied that there is New Age infiltration within the Catholic Church... just as (Constance has often brought out) there is also New Age infiltration within your own Protestant sect.
So, shouldn't you be MORE concerned in examining all of this New Age infiltration within your OWN Protestant sect... rather than so obviously and transparently 'licking your chops' in going off the deep end by mentioning Mary (whom the Catholic Church as always honored, but never worshiped as the Mother of Jesus)???
Since you obviously DON'T honor Mary... stick to your Protestant faith... and allow Catholics to stick to theirs. No one is asking you to believe as we do. How simple is that???
But no... you would rather use this blog as a platform (as so many others do) to ATTACK the Catholic Church ad nausuem.
And then, you wonder why Susanna and others are quick to jump in to defend our Catholic faith from people like you!!!
Anon 4:46,
You wrote, Half-truths make the most insidious lies (as in Genesis 3), and as a Christian I would say that in Islam the view of the divine personality has been distorted by Satan. There simply is no answer to the question "Is Allah Jehovah?"
The question most certainly can be answered. The answer is found in the worldview of Islam as put forth by the Qu’ran, which depicts a god totally foreign to both the OT and the NT. Quite simply, Allah is not Jehovah, at least not the Jehovah that Jews and Christians recognize and worship. To believe otherwise is to fall into the slippery slope of ‘all paths lead to God.’
Craig,
Yes and No. Even to ask "Is Allah Jehovah?" is implicitly to suppose that Allah and Jehovah exist, yet if Allah is specified to be the creator God with the personality described in the Quran, while Jehovah is specified to be the creator God described in the Bible, then they can't both exist.
We are probably in agreement, but it is subtle to make clear exactly what statements we agree on.
Dear 8.28am,
This is 4.54am to whom you responded. You talk about New Age infiltration within my protestant sect, but you don't know what sect that is! I am in fact in a congregation without a hierarchy of authority over it, just a council of elders as is described in the New Testament. If it was New Agey then I wouldn't be in it.
"Since you obviously DON'T honor Mary"
Another assumption... I certainly do honor her as the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. In her Magnificat she states that all generations will call her blessed, and I am happy to do that.
What I am not happy to do is insist that she never had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born, an assertion which is unprovable from the New Testament, against the most obvious inference from it, and for which there is no historical evidence. Ditto with her asserted direct assumption into heaven.
Nor do I accept that "Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin… The foundation of all Our confidence… is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary". This is from the 19th declaration of the (meaning Mary's) immaculate conception, and is a statement that would apply perfectly to Jesus Christ but no other.
Perpetual virginity, direct assumption, immaculate conception... remind you of anybody else?
Speaking of which, I don't address prayers to Mary that ask her for things only Jesus Christ is authorised to do. Is that really prayer "through" Mary? Then why don't such Catholic prayers address God and finish "through Mary our lady" just as mine address God and finish "through Jesus Christ our lord"? In any case there is one mediator between God and man... Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5). One means one.
So why is it OK to discuss modern encroachments of the New Age into the Roman Catholic church but not longstanding ones?
Oops, that should be "19th century"
Bless you 9:59 AM.
Exactly what is not allowed here. (or it is called bashing)
The problem is that the new age has it's female side for it's worshipers (and look at the Book of Revelation that speaks of this in images that folks will be taken by) so if people are confused or worse deceived about Mary's role as Jesus' mother (no more and certainly no less that what you mention in Luke 1) they could be easily duped into promoting and conforming to new age belief because it is becoming (especially now) a very slippery slope! It is the age of deception and don't think for a moment that the evil one is not creeping around looking for who he can push straight into the arms of the new world religion. Blindly led or tricked into it, is still a danger zone that we must warn people of. So I don't frame this in the catholic-protestant differences (which is better or more right or oldest and purest yuck) terms so much as in terms that mean the apostasy that is going on in all denominations is in need of real discernment and truly God's Word lights the way in these dark days and dark issues--not denominational/pastoral/priest/ritual adherences. Thus says the Lord is going to be all we can cling to in simple faith and trust....(because that is all there ever was to cling to anyway).
Anon 9:07:
You wrote in response to me, Yes and No. Even to ask "Is Allah Jehovah?" is implicitly to suppose that Allah and Jehovah exist, yet if Allah is specified to be the creator God with the personality described in the Quran, while Jehovah is specified to be the creator God described in the Bible, then they can't both exist.
I would disagree that implicit in the simple question "Is Allah Jehovah" is an agreement that both exist. I'm interpreting the question as asking if the two are ontologically equivalent. With that in mind, I'll rephrase a bit differently, so that perhaps we can agree:
Do you believe that Allah, as depicted in the Qu'ran, is the same God as Jehovah, as depicted in the OT and/or the OT/NT; i.e. are Allah and Jehovah ontologically equivalent?
My answer is a simple, emphatic "NO"! And yours?
RE:"So why is it OK to discuss modern encroachments of the New Age into the Roman Catholic church but not longstanding ones?"
Because your allusion to discussing so-called "longstanding encroachments" is not a discussion of the New Age, but rather a rehash of the same tired old Catholic-Protestant religious polemics that you are trying to pass off - unsuccessfully - as "New Age" in order to justify your Catholic bashing. You are not fooling anybody.
But hey....knock yourself out.
Your obsession with the Pope reveals more negative things about you than it does about the Pope. I don't notice any similar obsessions here among the Catholics about Protestant beliefs like the "Rapture" or the "Millenium" which Catholics could very well spin into a New Age/Antichrist pseudo-theology given that it goes against Our Lord's own unequivocal statement "My kingdom is not of this world."
But they don't do that. They are content to live out their own Catholic Christian faith, love their neighbor - Protestants included - and trust in the Lord!
Craig,
My answer is that no god exists who both created the world and has the personality depicted in the Quran, whereas the Bible depicts the personality of the Creator correctly. you may wish to respond (in the negative) to the Yes/No question "Is Allah Jehovah", but I prefer to put it that way. I'm sure we are in basic agreement.
"your allusion to discussing so-called "longstanding encroachments" is not a discussion of the New Age, but rather a rehash of the same tired old Catholic-Protestant religious polemics that you are trying to pass off - unsuccessfully - as "New Age" in order to justify your Catholic bashing."
I'm sorry, I find that goddess-worship in disguise is rather New Age. I would love to see Catholicism cleanse itself of this. And New Age aint so new... it was described as gnosticism at the time that Mary began to be elevated within the church.
"Your obsession with the Pope reveals more negative things about you than it does about the Pope."
Er, what obsession with the Pope? My posts at 4.54am and 9.59am didn't mention the papacy, and if you are assuming that I am one of the Anons who has been Francis-bashing above then that is another wrong assumption.
To 9:59 AM
Hey, YOU are the one who described yourself as 'I, as a Protestant' (in your 4:54 AM post)... not me.
Protestants are the 'umbrella' for many other Christian groups, like the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.
Again, you are ATTACKING our Catholic beliefs, simply because you don't agree with them. That is NOT OK with me. If you don't want to believe in Mary's virginity, her Assumption into Heaven, and her Immaculate Conception... NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE!!! However, you have absolutely no right to condemn MY beliefs??? I have every right to my beliefs... and where do you get off thinking that I have to justify any of them to you???
Again, you Protestants need to concentrate on cleaning up your OWN 'bsckyards' first.
Otherwise, I am calling your BLUFF about you being genuinely concerned about the infiltration of the New Age Movement in ALL of these churches... and if you think your particular church is the exception, you are delusional.
Also, stop making the wrong assumption that RADICAL Catholics speak for the majority of traditional Catholics!!! THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR US!!!
Like Susanna said, that does not mean that we are going to 'turn tail and run' when the going gets rough either.
We have the word and promise of Jesus Himself, when He told Peter, our first Pope that 'the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it.'
Since God gave each and every one of us the gift of a FREE WILL, we have no control over those who decide to choose an evil path. All we can do is pray for them. I have complete faith that God will sort it all out in the end.
That's why He's God... and we're NOT!!!
Mary worship is just that, no matter how catholics try to explain it away. She was never to be promoted as a co-partner in worship with Christ. Please read again Luke ch 1. It is a new age trouble for catholic folks because of it's old pagan roots. Read Jeremiah 44 with fresh eyes and see the mirror image of worship of the queen of heaven and see how it has deep new age implications that work right in to the prophecy of the bible. We are so there now!!! Israel of OT times would not learn and suffered for their mistake in their worship. Please don't be caught up in the same in our modern times.
It is not wrong-hearted to warn folks of this. I can love and separate out the catholic believers from the catholic belief system because God loves people but religious systems (all) are not what Jesus died for. He did not die to make us good church-goers or religious or 'spiritual' as some love to call themselves. He died to save sinners. I am one of those. (we all are)
Anonymous 12:10 P.M.
"THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR"
"you are ATTACKING our Catholic beliefs, simply because you don't agree with them."
Why else would I attack them?
"That is NOT OK with me. If you don't want to believe in Mary's virginity, her Assumption into Heaven, and her Immaculate Conception... NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE!!! However, you have absolutely no right to condemn MY beliefs???"
Assuming that that is a statement rather than a question, I don't need your permission. I acknowledge your freedom to believe whatever you like. Also I am not to condemn you as a person. But your beliefs are open season (as are mine, of course).
"I have every right to my beliefs... and where do you get off thinking that I have to justify any of them to you???"
Where did I say you had to?
"I am calling your BLUFF about you being genuinely concerned about the infiltration of the New Age Movement in ALL of these churches... and if you think your particular church is the exception, you are delusional."
And just how are you calling what you say is my bluff?
I would be overjoyed to see the Roman Catholic church, which is full of Trinitarian Christians (just as I am), cleansed of its Mariolatry.
I know what your church believes about Mary, because its doctrine is a public matter. You have no idea what goes on in "my" congregation, so your statement about it is bluster.
"Also, stop making the wrong assumption that RADICAL Catholics speak for the majority of traditional Catholics!!! THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR US!!!"
Where did I make that assumption? I have quoted only accepted Catholic doctrine about Mary. Do you wish to discuss these doctrines?
Anon 11:50,
I suppose we are in basic agreement, but I can't say I'm clear on your argument here. I suppose it's semantics, but, I'm sure you have no difficulty with Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 11:4:
4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! (NKJV)
Quickly one realizes that while there is more than one 'S/spirit,' there isn't really more than one Jesus or more than one gospel. Having stated that, Islam clearly teaches "another Jesus," as does most every other religion. And that is the main differentiating factor between Christianity and all others.
We could take the essence of Paul's words here and understand that Allah is "another Jehovah."
New Age planning brings personality control to schooling. Controllers need cooperation and what better way to achieve it than programming it into schooling at the international level. It is what Common Core is to bring about. No independent thinking. Always group think. Note the reference to Fabian Socialism which has been very New Age from its start.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/openly-admitting-global-coordination-to-impose-behavioral-programming-using-education-and-the-law/#comments
Anonymous 10:56
Regarding the posts by one of the anti-Catholic "Anony-mice" here at 12:01 and 12:10...one of which reads....
"I'm sorry, I find that goddess-worship in disguise is rather New Age."
Apart from violating the commandment against gearing false witness, these persons are merely Alexander Hislop clones......like professional anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner, many of whose anti-Catholic diatribes have been repudiated by decent Protestants who would be too embarrassed to even admit knowing about his writings.
In the world of professional anti-Catholicism, most, if not all roads eventually lead to Hislop.
Hislop's book - which I happen to have read several years ago - is entitled:
The Two Babylons, subtitled The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
______________________
Ralph Woodrow is an Evangelical Christian minister who at first supported Hislop's book until he started doing his own homework.
He gained a certain notoriety and suffered severe financial losses when he changed his view about Hislop's book and pulled his work from circulation.
His new viewpoint is documented in The Babylon Connection?
Message from Ralph Woodrow regarding the book
THE BABTLON CONNECTION?
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html
_________________________
From another Evangelical Protestant Robin A. Brace:
Hislop's 'Babylonian Mystery Religion' Teaching Exposed and Overturned.
The Commendable Intellectual Honesty of Ralph Woodrow...
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1hislopbaby.html
_______________________________
Here is an article about Loraine Boettner's books:
The Anti-Catholic Bible
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-anti-catholic-bible
To 12:28 PM
Well, I would be 'overjoyed' to see this blog 'cleansed' of Catholic bashers!!! LOL
You know, the very fact that you state that my 'beliefs are open season' (seriously?)... reveals a total lack of respect. Your extremely arrogant 'tone' reveals that any further discussion would be a total waste of my valuable time... since I do not intend to, or feel the need to, JUSTIFY my belief in Catholic doctrine with you or anyone else!!!
Always group think.
Yes. (many are even good religious people, many are even good well-meaning people wanting to vote their conscience)
But, sadly, if they do not reverse that trend, become easy fodder for the new age/new world, and the ugly consequence that befits it.
Go, Susanna!!!
BRAVO!!!
Susanna,
This is Anon of 12.01 (though not 12.10). I have not read Loraine Boettner, precisely because I am aware of the weakness of his arguments. I have read both Alexander Hislop and Ralph Woodrow and I agree with Woodrow. None of my arguments depended in any way on Boettner or Hislop.
What you don't say above is that Hislop's main thesis was that Roman Catholicism is the pagan worship of ancient Babylon in disguise. I disagree with this thesis, and none of my comments about the Mary of Roman Catholicism (which I stand by) rested on it.
Anonymous 2:12 PM
Susanna spoke eloquently to many Protestant's 'concerns' about Mary in her two earlier posts of 12:11 PM and 12:13 PM.
Yes she did, 2.43pm, and as courteously as ever, but she did not address the concerns I raised at 9.59am.
"the very fact that you state that my 'beliefs are open season' (seriously?)... reveals a total lack of respect."
And what does my further comment that my own beliefs are also open season reveal?
"Your extremely arrogant 'tone' reveals that any further discussion would be a total waste of my valuable time... since I do not intend to, or feel the need to, JUSTIFY my belief in Catholic doctrine with you or anyone else!!!"
Absolutely right; a dialogue takes two consenting adults. But some here might consider that you are ducking out because you CAN'T knock down what was said at 9.59am.
New Age ideas have taken root deeply over the past 100 years. Think tomato plants. Snall, shallow roots, no fruit. Time passes. Roots go deeper and tomatoes come from the blossoms. We are in New Age times now. Antisemitism has exploded. Anti-Catholicism is exploding as is anti-Christianity. When anyone goes one on one attacking or defending, not much gets done because of such change agent individuals there is no end. Evaluate the plant, not just individual tomatoes.
Susanna, take some time to show others the anti-Catholicism history of the New Age movement and why it exists. Individuals targeting an individual or a happening probably are enmeshed in an organizational or individual nest of such beliefs.
I would say most of us who read many books come across information that doesn't fit in with our own accepted beliefs. Yet we don't feel it necessary to go poking a stick into the eye of those who have other beliefs.
A book from 1883, Among the Holy Hills, tells of the travels of a man who wanted to go through the areas in which Jesus lived. He described individuals, communities and the land. He writes "Can this be the Promised Land?--and inwardly thanked God that it was not the land promised to our fathers. Old Massachusetts is worth a hundred Palestines. In that Commonwealth, which we are proud to call our mother, there is more intelligence, more wealth and comfort, more domestic virtue and happiness, more order and civilization, yes, and more genuine Christianity, than in all of the land of the East." He then goes on to say some nice things. How foolish I would be to say look, here's proof that the Middle East is a junk heap.
Another, Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs, The True History of Religion Revealed, put out in 1998 by Adventures Unlimited is definitely a New Age type book. I would be foolish to say Coptic Christianity is the way to go because of the Egyptian connection.
Another that I can't find at the moment was a rather charming, detail filled quite old book which purported to show that Jesus learned what he taught as he traveled through India. Should I jump on the bandwagon that says Christianity just stole from the Zoroastrians or some such?
I have the Oxford Dictionary of Popes which lists the biography of every Pope. It's no news that they all weren't perfect representatives of Catholicism. Should I pick one or two out and say here's proof of the weakness of the Catholic church.
From what I know, this blog was set up to inform others about the New Age movement. Constance herself visited the home of Marilyn Ferguson, author of a major New Age book, The Aquarian Conspiracy. I doubt that she spent the time kicking Ferguson in the shins telling her what an idiot she appeared to be. Constance has a show on the Microeffect, a hot bed of New Age Jew hating types. While occasionally she says she disagrees with their premises, she doesn't spend all of her shows attacking them.
Sum up your theory by saying who you think the Pope is harming by taking the stands that he has taken.
Anonymous 4:45 P.M.
Re: "Absolutely right; a dialogue takes two consenting adults. But some here might consider that you are ducking out because you CAN'T knock down what was said at 9.59am."
Nice try.
Some here might consider that what was said at 9:59 A.M has already been knocked down, but people like you who either can't or won't read continue to create your own reality - just like the New Agers - by repeating the same false accusations again and again with no credible evidence to back them up. Only your so-called "discernment!" Which is one among thousands.
That is probably why Susanna won't engage in further "discussions" with you about her Catholic beliefs - opting instead to simply leave you to your delusions.
Anonymous 4:45 PM
Re: 'You CAN'T knock down what was said at 9:59 AM'
1) Oh, you mean you expected me to actually DIGNIFY your slanderous statement with a comment that the Blessed Virgin Mary had sex with Joseph??? (WOW)
2) Or, maybe you wanted me to agree with you that Mary's 'assumption into heaven' never happened?
3) As far as your strange rant about 'Mary ALWAYS delivering the Christian people from their greatest calamities', etc. (and added phrases that you obviously MADE UP as you went along)... sorry, but I just couldn't make heads or tails out of that entire RAMBLING paragraph!!!
4) Maybe you wanted me to debate you on Mary's 'Immaculate Conception'? (Hey, why bother? Since this is a Catholic doctrine that we accept on faith, and you don't, what's the point???)
5) Re: 'prayers to Mary'... Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Catholics knows that Catholics do NOT pray to Mary. We ask for her 'intercession' (through her Son, Jesus).
Come on, Anonymous - be honest with YOURSELF...
Since you don't believe in any of these things that we Catholics believe (and you have to KNOW that you will NEVER change our minds!)... why continue this 'charade' of PRETENDING that you want a 'discussion' with us Catholics???
Some might wonder if you are just 'entertaining' yourself and maybe a few other SMUG Catholic-bashing friends (for sport)???
I imagine that you'd be able to find that same 'entertainment' at some other blog... where you might even come across some rather naïve individuals who might just actually 'swallow' some of your propaganda!!!
Good luck to you now... and have a nice day!
Susanna @ 5.50pm,
So that was you writing anonymously at 1.48pm?
At 5.50pm you wrote,
"Some here might consider that what was said at 9:59 A.M has already been knocked down, but people like you who either can't or won't read continue to create your own reality..."
I made specific comments about Rome's Mary at 9.59am, and the only reply to date has been to grumble that Hislop or Boettner said the same and they were wrong. No knockdown there. And actually it wasn't Hislop's main (nonsensical) concern - I've read him - while I've no idea what Boettner said because I've not bothered to read him.
So, to summarise from 9.59am, Mary's perpetual virginity is an assertion which is unprovable from the New Testament, against the most obvious inference from it, and for which there is no historical evidence. Ditto with her asserted direct assumption into heaven and her own immaculate conception. (These are all true of Jesus, of course.) Then there is prayer addressed specifically to Mary that asks her for things only Jesus Christ is authorised to do. If that is really prayer "through" Mary then why don't such Catholic prayers address God and finish "through Mary our lady" just as mine address God and finish "through Jesus Christ our lord"? There is ONE mediator between God and man... Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5).
This progressive elevation of Mary has been going on ever since the era of the gnostic gospels when these doctrine first appeared several centuries after Mary actually lived. It is a slow burner and I worry that it will culminate in her deification in these endtimes. It wouldn't and needn't if only Catholics desist from their present views and practises concerning her. A real Rome-hater would be glad to see them continue. I want them to stop.
Well, 6:19 PM -
We want YOU to stop!!!
Not being familiar with the wording of a papal encyclical of 1849! (which was way before my time) can be called an honest mistake on my part... but can hardly be called 'shooting myself in the foot.'
Nice try though...
Hey 6:19 PM ~
You just don't get it, do you?
You must be really slow.
You don't get to DICTATE to Catholics what we should and shouldn't believe!!!
Catholics are not on 'trial' here. We don't have to PROVE anything to you or anyone else!!!
Give it a rest. It just makes you look very FOOLISH!!!
You're beginning to sound like one of those paid 'divide and conquer' trolls.
How's that working for you?
Well yes, 6.57pm, 1849AD was way before my time as well (how old do you think protestants live?), but I know how to look things up. Seems you don't think much of what the Pope wrote in that encyclical. A bit too Marian perhaps?
And 7.09pm: you don't have to prove anything to anybody and you are free to believe whatever you like. And I am free to critique Rome's Mary.
What will be very 'interesting' is when you cross over to the other side some day and actually meet Mary (after all of that trash talk).
Anonymous 6:19 P.M.
No that was not me writing anonymously at 1:48P.M.
Moreover, the mentioning of Hislop and Boettner is not the only reply you got concerning Catholic beliefs about Mary.
At 12:11 and 12:13 I was addressed Anonymous 4:54's ( i.e. YOUR???) concerns about "Rome's view of Mary, which continues to concern me in relation to New Age and ancient gnosticism)."
You might want to go back and read it.
As a cradle Catholic, I KNOW what Catholics believe. And I KNOW that authentic Catholics do not worship Mary. For you to say that they do is to bear false witness.
Regarding your comment at 6:19
So, to summarise from 9.59am, Mary's perpetual virginity is an assertion which is unprovable from the New Testament, against the most obvious inference from it, and for which there is no historical evidence. Ditto with her asserted direct assumption into heaven and her own immaculate conception. (These are all true of Jesus, of course.) Then there is prayer addressed specifically to Mary that asks her for things only Jesus Christ is authorised to do. If that is really prayer "through" Mary then why don't such Catholic prayers address God and finish "through Mary our lady" just as mine address God and finish "through Jesus Christ our lord"? There is ONE mediator between God and man... Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5).
First of all, we Catholics do not pray to Mary. We ask Mary to pray for us to her Son Jesus. If you read the "Hail Mary," the first part is directly from the Gospel according to Luke. The last part asks MAry to "pray for us sinners." That is light years away form worshipping Mary!
Regarding Catholic Marian beliefs, if your Rule of Faith is Sola Scriptura which goes tandem with private interpretation ( a.k.a. "discernment?"), then some of your views about Mary are understandable. However, Sola Scriptura is not the Roman Catholic Rule of Faith. The Roman Catholic Rule of Faith is Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
And our Old Testament canon is the Septuagint.
Ergo, from the point of view of our respective Rules of Faith, I would not expect you to agree with my beliefs, but if you ever hoped to have any kind of an honest "discussion" with me about these matters (as you claimed in one of your earlier posts) - then you might have at least done your homework in order to correctly understand what it is that you are disagreeing with.
When I want to learn about what Protestants believe, I go to reputable Protestant sources. I don't go trolling for texts written by creatures like the late anti-Protestant bigot Father Leonard Sweeney who taught that Protestants were going to hell in a handbasket just because they were Protestant.
By the way, Father Feeney was excommunicated for disobeying the Pope and stubbornly persisting in his views.
"What will be very 'interesting' is when you cross over to the other side some day and actually meet Mary."
Was that a Catholic Anon comment or a protestant one? I think that in heaven today Blessed Mary, the revered mother of the Great and divine King and therefore a high member of the Royal Family, weeps that Catholic doctrine has stolen some of her Son's rightful glory and heaped it on to her.
I've never heard of Fr Feeney who "taught that Protestants were going to hell in a handbasket just because they were Protestant" and "was excommunicated for disobeying the Pope and stubbornly persisting in his views." Which Pope? Sweeney might have been permitted some confusion given that the Council of Trent took that view---that Christians who knowingly remained outside the Catholic church would not be saved. To my knowledge that remained the case until Vatican II, although I would be delighted if the change took place earlier.
Yes my own faith is Sola Scriptura, but the point here is not whether others have added stuff to the scriptures in their own rule of faith; it is whether added stuff is CONSISTENT with scripture. Even praying "through" Mary is inconsistent with 1 Tim 2:5 where Paul states that the sole mediator between God and man is Jesus Christ. I was not thinking of the Hail Mary but many ex tempore prayers by Catholics whom I have heard and who consider themselves loyal and are in good standing with their parish priest. Just check out the many Catholic prayers online addressed to Mary. My question stands: if these are prayers "through" Mary then why do they not ape protestant prayers through Christ which address God then end "through Christ our Lord"? Some of them personally ask Mary for things that only God/Jesus/Holy spirit is authorised to do. They are on websites run by committed not nominal Catholics---no liberal stuff there.
"I KNOW that authentic Catholics do not worship Mary. For you to say that they do is to bear false witness."
They are doing something wrong without realising it---just like Christians who take up yoga, which has also been discussed on this thread. "Occult" means "hidden". I have no wish to bear false witness.
No, 3:09 AM - I think that the Blessed Virgin Mary (the mother of Jesus) will 'weep' more over the fact that people like you keep spreading untrue, slanderous statements insisting that Mary had sex with Joseph and gave birth to more children.
In the time of Jesus, the Jewish culture made reference to each other as “brothers” and “sisters.”
Also, the Hebrew language did not contain a word that meant “cousin.” Instead, the word “brother” was used for both, the words “brother” and “cousin.”
Now, let us review the claim that James was the brother of Jesus. In Mark 15:40, we read, “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” It is clear from this verse that Mary, the mother of James and Joses was not Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Bible makes reference to more than one Mary.
Here are some logical facts that clearly indicate that Jesus could not have had brothers...
1) If Jesus had brothers or sisters, does common sense not state that the descendants from Jesus’s mother would be proud of it? And accordingly, would these descendants not be claiming their rightful place as descendants of Mary? Yet, this has never happened!
2) The Catholic Church has always proclaimed that Mary was ever-virgin. If such was not true, why has her alleged other children and possibly descendants ever publicly renounce the virginity of Mary as a lie? It is because there are no other children or descendants of Mary.
3) If Mary would have had other children, Jesus would not have been as popular as He was. Jesus was popular because He was recognized as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the words found in the Gospel of Matthew where it states, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means, 'God is with us.'" [Mt. 1:22-23] If Mary would have had other children, the prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary in the Gospel of Matthew would not have been fulfilled. And Jesus would not have been recognized as being the Messiah.
4) In the Gospel of John, we read, "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, 'Woman, here is your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." [Jn. 19:26-27]
If Jesus would have had any brothers, according to the Jewish custom, they would have been obligated to take care of Mary after Jesus died. But this was not the case. Jesus placed the care of His mother, Mary, into the hands of the Apostle John.
5) In the Gospel of Luke, we read how Jesus was conceived. "The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" [Lk. 1: 35] The conception of Jesus resulted from a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. This union, a marriage blessed by God, placed Mary in a position where she was obligated to maintain a vow of perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. If Mary would have had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, this would have been viewed as an adulterous affair.
6) In Mark 6:3, we read, "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?' And they were offense at him." Notice here that there is only one reference to "the son of Mary," that being Jesus. The others are not called the sons of Mary but rather the brothers of Jesus. If they would have been the brothers of Jesus, logically, they too would have been referred to as the sons of Mary.
Therefore, those who insist otherwise have clearly failed to thoroughly study the facts that are found in the Bible.
Susanna,
I have only some familiarity with the RCC view of Mary; so, I'd like your view on whether the Anon 7:09AM post just above is consistent with the RCC position on Mary. Specifically, my interest is piqued with point #5, in which it's stated that Mary and the Holy Spirit are, in fact, 'married.'
"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed [is] she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord. And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy [is] His name." - Luke 1:41-49
"I think that the Blessed Virgin Mary (the mother of Jesus) will 'weep' more over the fact that people like you keep spreading untrue, slanderous statements insisting that Mary had sex with Joseph and gave birth to more children."
If you can prove that it is untrue then I'll publicly change my mind. But even then it would not be slanderous to suggest that a married couple had sex, would it?
Come on, 8:45 AM - now, you know better than that!
We are not talking about an ordinary 'married couple' are we? We are talking about the Blessed VIRGIN Mary, the mother of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Re: "If you can prove that it is untrue then I'll publicly change my mind."
Sorry, 'doubting Thomas', but my post at 7:09 AM is all the proof I've got. Take it or leave it.
(Unless, of course, you are one of these 'cafeteria' Christians who cherry picks certain portions of the Bible that you agree with, and skips over the rest?)
8:45 AM
Dear 7.09am,
Thank you for a genuine contribution to this debate. I'll respond to your points (with the same numbers as you have used) and then offer two of my own.
1. Jesus is God incarnate and next to that there is nothing special about anyone else; even if any (half!) brothers and sisters believed in him then there is no reason for them to be exalted. We have no roll call of the apostolic church.
2. The earliest claims of Mary's perpetual virginity are dated generations after she and any children of hers would have departed this earth. That's why there was silence on the issue in the apostolic era.
3. "If Mary would have had other children, the prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary [by Isaiah, and spoken of] in the Gospel of Matthew would not have been fulfilled." Not so - she would still have been a virgin when she conceived, which is the miracle prophesied.
4. John (7:5) also said that Jesus' own brothers and sister didn't believe in him. So of course Jesus is going to put Mary - obviously a believer - in the care of "the disciple who loved him" rather than unbelievers. Elsewhere Jesus warned how belief in him might divide families, and this comment could have stemmed from painful personal experience.
5. I don't agree with your logic. What is wrong with this paraphrase: "O Mary, I the God of Israel, your creator, wish to borrow your womb for 9 months. There is no question of sexual relations nor of breaking of the Law I gave to your people. I shall inform your betrothed in a dream, and after you have given birth you and he are free to express your love for each other in the usual way. Children are a blessing, and you are greatly blessed; be fruitful." That is my own paraphrase but it is wholly consistent with the gospels, and we have Mary's reply (Luke 1:38): "I am the Lord's servant; be it unto me as you have said."
6. "Son of Mary" was a dig at Jesus by hostile people using the fact that Mary obviously gave birth to him less than 9 months after she married Joseph. They were hinting that Joseph might have been cuckolded; most people were called "Son of [father's name]."
Some points of my own:
7. Mary’s perpetual virginity is nowhere deducible from scripture and is against the normal inference from Matthew’s words about Mary in verses 1:18 and 1:25, that Joseph “had no [carnal] knowledge of her until she bore him a son” – which although stating nothing about what happened afterwards is not how Matthew would have written if the couple had remained celibate. If you hear that a woman broke her leg days before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed, what is the natural inference about what they did next? St Paul affirmed that married couples SHOULD have sex (1 Cor 7:5).
8. The gospels refer to Jesus’ adelphoi and adelphai – ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ which in John 2:12 (‘his brothers and disciples’) & 7:5 (‘even his brothers did not believe in him’) & Matt 12:47 (“your mother and brothers are outside” – “who are my brothers – these are,” meaning the disciples) cannot refer to the spiritual sense. Catholics take these references to refer to cousins of Jesus (although there is a specific Greek word for that, anepsioi), or they postulate that Joseph was a widower with children from a previous marriage (a claim for which there is no evidence in the Bible or any other contemporary source). The words adelphoi and adelphai commonly imply the same mother since delphys means ‘womb,’ and seven of the ten references to ‘his brothers’ in the gospels and Acts are in immediate connection to Mary. (The exceptions are in the passage John 7:2-10, which cannot refer to spiritual brothers as mentioned.)
Bottom line...
If Jesus HAD brother and sisters, according to Jewish tradition, it was THEY who would have happily taken 'their mother' into heir homes after Jesus was crucified and died for our sins. But, because Jesus had NO BROTHERS OR SISTERS, it was left up to the apostle John to take Mary into his home, where he cared for her.
Case closed!!!
9:-44 AM
Just proof that your arrogance knows no bounds... and that you would argue with Jesus Christ Himself if He was posting on this blog. LOL
"Just proof that your arrogance knows no bounds..."
Just proof that you have no counter-arguments!
How remarkable it is that some people are scandalised that a married couple had sex.
FYI 9:44 AM -
The original non-watered down biblical verse was...
"For neither did his BRETHREN believe in him." (John 7:5)
It was YOU who decided to take it upon yourself to take it to mean 'brothers' in the literal sense!!!
The word 'brethren' (in both the Jewish culture and the Old Testament) referred to all children descended from Adam and Eve.
10:33 AM
Just proof that I am dealing with a 'child' here... which usually calls for sending you to your room for a time out. LOL
Catholics DO NOT worship Our Lady. She is not God. We have not been taught to treat her as anything other than what she is - the Mother of Jesus our Saviour. Because she is His mother she is automatically the most special woman who walked the face of the earth. If a Christian person does not GET that then something is terribly wrong. And its a matter of respect.
That's the very least she deserves for her role in delivering him to us, for us. If we wish to ask her to say a prayer for us I don't think we are doing anything untoward. Afterall, I'm sure many of you out there ask other friends, or those you like and respect to say a little prayer for you sometime when you most need it. I know I do.
From Oz
Dear 10.47am, check the original Greek and look at other occurrences of the word in the New Testament and the Septuagint. At 9.44am I referred to all of its appearances in the gospels and Acts and they do not support your claim. In the ‘Septuagint’ translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek from Christ’s era, adelphos may mean ‘kinsman’ where it cannot imply the same mother, eg uncle/nephew relations at Genesis 13:8, 14:14,16 and 29:12,15, first cousins in 1 Chr 23:22; but there is always an implication of closeness, of a bond due to the familial relation. I've not checked Paul and the other letters - feel free.
"If we wish to ask [Mary] to say a prayer for us I don't think we are doing anything untoward. Afterall, I'm sure many of you out there ask other friends, or those you like and respect to say a little prayer for you sometime when you most need it."
Not after they've passed from this earth I don't. I gladly acknowledge that Catholic prayers to Mary are not INTENTIONALLY idolatrous, but neither is a Christian who takes up yoga, and that was (rightly) slammed above. "There is ONE mediator between God and man... Jesus Christ" (1 Tim 2:5).
Craig,
The 7:09 A.M. post is consistent with the RCC position on Mary.
Mary is referred to spiritually by Catholics as "Bride of the Holy Spirit." Her spiritual union with the Holy Spirit is how
"the Word became flesh..."...and Jesus became the Son of God both in His humanity as well as in His divinity.
This does NOT mean that Mary was the Mother of the Word before "the Word was made flesh." This would make her equal to God which would not only be blasphemy and heresy, but also impossible since Mary is a creature, and at one time did not exist.
I mentioned earlier a heresy of Marie Paul Giguere and her cult which held a view of Mary which included just such a heresy.
Rather than the traditional Catholic Trinity — in which God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each fully divine and Persons of a Trinity — the Army of Mary spoke of a “quinternity,” including Mary and Mme. Giguère.
Needless to say, Giguere and her unrepentant cult were excommunicated.
It is also Catholic teaching that Mary as "Bride of the Holy Spirit" is a foreshadowing of what the Beatific Vision will be for us in Heaven when Christ is experienced as "the Bridegroom of our souls." In the Scriptures, the Church is referred to as "The Bride of Christ." Catholics see Mary as the pre-eminent member and quasi-personification of the Church. She is also a pattern of what we are to become at the Resurrection.
cont..
Speaking of "brides," "bridegrooms" and Heaven it is interesting to recall that C.S. Lewis once had a discussion about whether or not there would be "sex in Heaven" in Chapter 16 of his book MIRACLES.
C. S. Lewis – “One point must be touched on because, though I kept silence, it would none the less be present in most readers’ minds. The letter and spirit of scripture, and of all Christianity, forbid us to suppose that life in the New Creation will be a sexual life; and this reduces our imagination to the withering alternative either of bodies which are hardly recognizable as human bodies at all or else of a perpetual fast. As regards the fast, I think our present outlook might be like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer ‘No,’ he might regard absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain would you tell him that the reason why lovers in their carnal raptures don’t bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate: he does not know the positive thing that excludes it. We are in the same position. We know the sexual life; we do not know, except in glimpses, the other thing which, in Heaven, will leave no room for it. Hence where fullness awaits us we anticipate fasting. In denying that sexual life, as we now understand it, makes any part of the final beatitude, it is not of course necessary to suppose that the distinction of sexes will disappear. What is no longer needed for biological purposes may be expected to survive for splendor. Sexuality is the instrument both of virginity and of conjugal virtue; neither men nor women will be asked to throw away weapons they have used victoriously. It is the beaten and the fugitives who throw away their swords. The conquerors sheathe theirs and retain them. ‘Trans-sexual’ would be a better word than ‘sexless’ for the heavenly life.”
We are not talking about something material here when using nuptial language in reference to Heaven, but something spiritual. The body, which ihas been created to be the "temple of the Holy Spirit" is a gift of God and the soul's inheritance. This is what is meant when the Bible says that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. That which is inherited, says St. Irenaeus, cannot at the same time inherit.
While the soul can live without the body, the body cannot live without the soul because the soul is the life of the body as well as its form.
It is important to point out that before Pentecost, the Apostles were experientially ignorant of the Holy Spirit, but Mary already knew the Holy Spirit intimately - not only because of His overshadowing by which "the Word was made flesh" - but also because He had already descended upon her at the moment of her conception filling her with Sanctifying grace. This is what we Catholics refer to as the "Immaculate Conception."
When the Archangel Gabriel greeted Mary saying "Hail full of Grace," according to Catholic interpretation, this signified what Catholics believe to be her Immaculate Conception - the beginning of the restoration of the Sanctifying Grace that Adam and Eve had lost as a consequence of the Fall. Mary's sinlessness is also a reason why Mary is referred to as "the new Eve." Since Eve was sinless when she freely succumbed to the temptation of the serpent, God arranged for Mary to be sinless when she freely uttered the "fiat" which paved the way for humanity's redemption. It is true that God could have accomplished the Redemption in some other way, but the way in which God chose to accomplish it - starting with the free unselfish consent of a pure humble creature ( Mary) - is consistent with the great commandment which will be eternally the law of heaven.......the Law of Love.
cont...
cont...
This does not mean that Mary did not need Redemption. She did. But Catholics believe that Mary was pre-redeemed by the future merits of the Passion, death and Resurrection of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in view of her role as Mother of the Word Incarnate. Remember, God in His divine essence is not subject to time. And just as Christ, who is truly God as well as truly Man, was able to redeem the righteous dead of the past, so also was He able to reach into the future. It was Jesus Himself who said "Before Abraham came to be, I AM." John 8:58
After month of Mary, Pope (Benedict XVI)reflects on her bond with the Holy Spirit
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after_month_of_mary_pope_reflects_on_her_bond_with_the_holy_spirit/
______________________________
By the way, here is an interesting Catholic perspective on Joseph's response to the revelation that Mary was to become the Mother of the Word made flesh.
Joseph A Just Man
http://www.defendingthebride.com/sn/toseph.html
I feel sorry for catholic folks.
Very bound up and need to get free.
No wonder the catholic church has helped make sex such a tortured issue. From birth control to every other facet so many poor catholics have gotten this quite wrong. We all have of course---true that! But sad that they can actually perpetuate it in their own beliefs. My own catholic family members have been victims of that very bondage and my aunt who finally walked away from all that teaching and just started reading and believing the Bible, was able to feel and know she was forgiven and no longer bound up in the guilt of all the unresolved stuff she was taught from her catholic church. She passed away a couple of years ago at 84 and knew her freedom was in Jesus Alone! She did not need Mary to pray for her (she tried that for years! and prayers to many on that saint list) she was able to simply go to the Savior herself and fall at His feet and there was Mercy waiting. She gave up the need for a priest and went to the High Priest Himself. Her years of crying were ended because the guilt was finally gone. She was a very devoted catholic for many years and gave to that church abundantly but she knew that church and all of it's prescriptions did not save her. Jesus did.
Pray for us, oh holy Mother of God that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
From Oz
Susanna,
I think that CS Lewis is pushing speculation a bit there re sex in heaven. There's no marriage in heaven, after all (Luke 20). Somewhere else (I don't remember where) I recall he wrote that we should combine in entirely different ways, and I found that a great phrase.
Sex, alcohol and other drugs, poetry, music (classical or rock or disco) – the satisfaction in these lies in the temporary dissolution of self. That is because the self is sinful and unbearable. When sinfulness is gone, our permanent state will be ecstasy, and God will give us greater joys still, through his love for us. Here words fail, for “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived all that God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9).
To Anon at 11.09
How ever do you ask Jesus for anything then? he passed from this earth.
From Oz
Dear Ozzie, I replied that I didn't ask (Christian) friends to pray for me after they had passed from this earth. These were, therefore, friends whom I had made and who then passed from this earth. Jesus is not in that category, for he passed from this earth a long time before I made friends with him. He is also not in that category because he is God. He is, however, the sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), because only he is both.
Hey, 11:16 AM -
There is no need to feel 'sorry' for us Catholics... or, to rush to 'pile on' the Catholic-bashing bandwagon.
We are fine, and totally at peace in our faith.
We neither want nor need your 'pity.'
A much better use of your time might be be to concentrate on cleaning up your own glass house first before attacking others.
In other words, that 'spec' in your own eye is growing larger and larger every day.
Anonymous 11:24
You may be right in that C.S. Lewis may have been pushing speculation a bit. But I think it was casually done by way of analogy and that he intended to expand on the passage you quoted in a way that embodies ordinary human experience everyone can understand.
Here words fail, for “no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived all that God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9).
Most of what we know is what the eye HAS seen and what the ear HAS heard and because of concupiscence - except for the Gospels which is the GOOD NEWS - it tends to be bad news.
11:04 AM
It's not MY claim!!!
Brethren does not mean 'brothers' in the literal sense of immediate family members... as you took it.
I have a real problem with modern watered-down 'translations'
of original biblical passages that (as in this case) end up actually CHANGING the very MEANING of the 'Word' of God... and YOU should have a problem with it, too!!!
Dear 12.36pm, if you insist on discussing this as "brothers" vs "brethren" when English usage has changed since King James' day and the original was in Greek anyway then there is no point in continuing.
OZ 11:34
BRILLIANT POINT!!!!!
12:41 PM
Fine with me...
There is also 'no point' in continuing to insist that Jesus had 'brothers'... when He clearly did NOT!!!
That's why John was at the foot of the cross to take care of Mary after Jesus died... because Jesus had NO siblings to take Mary in to their home in order to look after her!!!
The original 'language' didn't change... the original words have actually been 'ALTERED' over the centuries... and the results are in evidence with so many VERSIONS of the Bible.
When John said: "For neither did his BRETHREN believe in him." (John 7:5)... he was not talking about 'brothers' (in the literal sense) within his immediate family. He was talking about his fellow man... his Jewish brethren!!!
Eisegesis 4.06pm, and as for why Jesus handed Mary to John, see John 7:5 - at that stage his own brothers didn't believe in him whereas Mary obviously did.
To 4:51 PM -
Go back and re-read my 4:06 PM post...
When John said: "For neither did his BRETHREN believe in him." (John 7:5)... he was not talking about 'BROTHERS' (in the literal sense) within his immediate family. He was talking about his fellow man... his Jewish BRETHREN!!!
You comment didn't make sense before and it still doesn't. What on earth does this mean: "The original 'language' didn't change... the original words have actually been 'ALTERED' over the centuries... and the results are in evidence with so many VERSIONS of the Bible."
Are you talking about the Greek original? To my knowledge the word used is consistent across all early Greek manuscripts of the NT. Its other appearances in that and other Greek manuscripts of the era must then be examined to get a meaning in modern English. Accept that and we have common ground on which to base a proper discussion. Not otherwise.
6:08 PM
The word 'brethren' (no matter what ancient language it was originally translated from) still remains 'brethren.'
If I say to you that I am praying for my brethren, it means that I am praying for my fellow human beings... not the brothers (siblings) in my immediate family.
The word 'brother' (no matter what ancient language it was originally translated) still remains 'brother.'
However, if one wanted to try to 'confuse' an entire group of people, one might decide to stop using the word 'brethren' in order to try to convince that group of people that Jesus had brothers (family siblings)... when, in fact, He did NOT!!!
6.29pm, if you are not interested in what Matthew Mark Luke and John actually wrote down (which was in Greek) then I'm not interested in discussing it with you. I've presented a case from scripture against Mary's perpetual virginity in points 7 and 8 at 9.44am (and 11.04am) and there's no merit in pasting those again here. The first trace of the claim came many generations after she actually lived - no continuous tradition. Believe what you like, but don't claim that there's any evidence for it.
6:43 PM
The same goes for you... believe what you like, but don't claim that Jesus had brothers when there is no evidence to support that statement!!!
6:08 PM -
John actually DID write down 'brethren' in the Bible.
In the more modern 'watered-down' versions of the Bible... 'brethren' was changed to 'brother'.
The end result was that this changed the very MEANING of that biblical passage... causing people like YOU to believe that Jesus had family siblings when He did NOT!!!
Susanna,
Thanks for taking the time to explain the RCC beliefs re: Mary, as pertaining to her status as “Bride of the Holy Spirit.” Some of the info I knew, but it’s good to put it out more fully for all to see.
Having said that, the primary reason my eyebrows were raised was in what appears on the surface to be polygamy, with this specific view in mind. Hopefully, you can help me understand how it would not be so, from the RCC perspective.
Here’s how I see it. We know that Mary was betrothed to Joseph [Luke 1:27] during the time when the Holy Spirit was to ‘come upon her’ [Luke 1:35]. My understanding is that a betrothal is a bit stronger than what we would call an engagement. So, in essence, while Mary was betrothed to Joseph, Mary became the “Bride of the Holy Spirit,” in the RCC view.
Here are my concerns:
(1) If we contend that Mary was “married” to the Holy Spirit at the virginal conception, wouldn’t this impinge on her betrothal?
(2) If Mary was already married to the Holy Spirit, why would she go on to marry Joseph [Matthew 1:24], and, relatedly, why would Joseph be instructed to marry her [Matthew 1:20-24]? Wouldn’t that entail polygamy – that is, assuming her “marriage” to the Holy Spirit wasn’t already polygamous with respect to her betrothal?
(3) If this marriage to the Holy Spirit is spiritual, perhaps in differentiation from literal/physical, which then wouldn’t preclude her from marrying Joseph, why the need to retain perpetual virgin status?
A related set of questions: Given the RCC perspective that Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit is a foreshadowing of our future relationship with Jesus as the bride of Christ, does this mean Mary is not/will not be included as part of the collective bride of Christ? Will she have a different position than all others at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?
Jesus earthly life was lived as the sinless Son of God but He was also the Son of Man, 100% both. He lived as a man to be tempted as a man. Hebrews 4:15. A family is the first place where we learn to be human beings. Jesus got to live that experience in an actual home-not some hermitically sealed state or cloistered status--so regular that Judas had to have a signal to pick Him out from the crowd for the soldiers who came to arrest Him. Tempted as we are that no one would be able to say that Jesus cannot know or understand their story. So why bypass that valuable part of relating to claim He did not live a normal family life with a regular family? He got to be a son with a regular mom. He was a half-brother-He was a step-son. He knew what poor was too but understood what it is to be rich. 100% relatable. He learned obedience yet He was/is God. Hebrews 5:8. Love stooped very low to reach you and me. No doubt Mary herself pondered these very wonders...and called Him Savior--no special status but a special role...and called Him Lord.
Mary would have not done or said anything to even try to put herself in His Light--assume any of His Glory for herself. Now that is special--and why she was chosen--blessed as no other.
10:00 PM -
1) NO, Jesus was neither 'a half-brother'... nor, was He 'a step-son.'
There is absolutely NO evidence to support this outrageous claim!!!
2) Of course Mary NEVER DID say 'anything to even try to put herself in His Light--assume any of His Glory for herself.'
She was the paragon of the virtue of HUMILITY... just the opposite of the sin of PRIDE (a lesson which MANY on this blog could certainly learn from)!!!
"The same goes for you... believe what you like, but don't claim that Jesus had brothers when there is no evidence to support that statement!!!"
There is. As follows:
1. It is normal for married couples have sex. They want to express their love for each other and they want a family. God himself backs marital sex.
2. Matthew (1:25) wrote that Joseph had no [carnal] knowledge of [ie, sex with] Mary "before she gave birth". If they continued to abstain, why did Matthew write such a limited phrase?
3. The gospels speak of Jesus' brothers. That most certainly is evidence. It is not decisive evidence, so let us discuss it. But let us discuss what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote, not at secondhand in translations. They didn't write in English!
John wrote that even his own brothers (adelphoi) didn't believe in him. So that's not spiritual brothers. Does it mean the Jews generally? No - a glance at the passage (John 7) shows that it distinguishes between believing and unbelieving Jews. Does the Greek word have a wider meaning than "same mother" - perhaps cousin? That is the Catholic claim. It cannot be disproved, but it cannot be proved either and Greek has its own word for cousin. So the obvious reading is other children of Mary.
Nobody who knew the Holy Family personally and none of the apostles is known ever to have asserted Mary's perpetual virginity. The earliest traces of the claim are generations later. It's like people who write histories of the Napoleonic wars but make up dialogue for dramatic effect - they can't know. And Greek culture, unlike Hebrew culture, had a tradition of drama and rhetoric. Moreover it had an ascetic tradition that infected the church in the wider Greek world, and by the 7th century in which church councils formally asserted Mary's perpetual virginity, Pope Gregory had written that sex was for procreation only, and even then it should not be enjoyed. That is explicit in his Pastoral Rule (bk. 3 ch. 27). This depressing and mistaken view is surely what lies behind the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
4:16 AM
1) It is not 'normal' for the Blessed VIRGIN Mary to have sex.
2) Jesus had no brothers.
Stop the SLANDER!!!
May God have mercy on your immortal soul before you leave this earth.
Hey, 4:16 AM
YOU are the one who should be more concerned about 'secondhand translations' by insisting on quoting from more modern watered-down versions of the Bible... which insist on using the word 'brother' instead of brethren.
Definition of the word 'BRETHREN'...
Used chiefly in formal or solemn address or in referring to the members of a profession, society, or sect.
Male members, as of a congregation or fraternal organization; fellow members.
The lay members of a male religious order.
Dear 4.16am,
You wrote: "It is not 'normal' for the Blessed VIRGIN Mary to have sex."
Do tell me where in any source written by people who knew her or the holy family, whether in the scriptures or outside them, she is described after the birth of Jesus as the Virgin Mary.
You also wrote: "Stop the SLANDER!!!"
Why it is slanderous to suggest that a married couple had sex? In my opinion this viewpoint says more about you than about me.
And: "Jesus had no brothers."
Prove it!
Dear 4.46am, What language were the gospels written in?
5:23 AM
I already have provided more evidence than you have... I refuse to repeat myself to someone who is behaving like an absolute IDIOT... none are so blind as those who will not see.
You are not only full of false pride... you have a clear bias and a transparent 'agenda' against Catholics.
5:24 AM
It doe not MATTER what 'language'
the gospels were written in.
John meant 'brethren'... NOT 'brother'!!!
Stop reading modern watered-down versions of the Bible (that both distort and pervert the 'word' of God)!!!
Definition of the word 'BRETHREN'...
Used chiefly in formal or solemn address or in referring to the members of a profession, society, or sect.
Male members, as of a congregation or fraternal organization; fellow members.
The lay members of a male religious order.
Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).
To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.
However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.
The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
(Continued...)
The Protoevangelium of James
"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).
"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).
"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).
Origen
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
(Continued...)
Hilary of Poitiers
"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius
"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
"You are not only full of false pride... you have a clear bias and a transparent 'agenda' against Catholics."
When you judged me, didn't you mean 'real pride'?
I have no agenda against Catholics. I believe that some Catholic DOCTRINE is unscriptural, and I make no apology for challenging it in a thread that Constance started with an article about the Roman Catholic church. If your response is to play the man rather than the ball, that suggests you have no decent counter-arguments.
(Continued...)
Jerome
"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428)
(Continued...)
Leporius
"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Pope Leo I
"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).
"It doe not MATTER what 'language'
the gospels were written in."
O really? Have you checked that view with any serious scholar, believing or unbelieving, in your own denomination or out?
Today most Protestants are unaware of early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of 'the brethren of the Lord.'
And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves — Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli — HONORED THE PERPECTUAL VIGINITY OF MARY and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
Dear Anonymous recent poster of a lengthy 5 (at least)-part message, if you are going to join a debate that has been going on for well over one hundred comments then it is helpful, as well as being good etiquette, to see what has been said before. All but one of the points you make have been raised and responded to. (It is of course up to you whether you agree or disagree.) The remaining point is that the reference to Jesus' brothers could have meant sons of Joseph, presumed to be a widower, by a previous marriage. You quote for this the 'gospel' of James. But the very identity of this document is a lie. It purports to have been written by a half-brother of Jesus yet speaks of consecrated virgins (a Greek concept) in the Temple in Jerusalem. This ‘gospel’ was first mentioned by Origen in the 3rd century, moreover - generations after the purported events it talks about.
Today most Protestants are unaware of early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of 'the brethren of the Lord.'
And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves — Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli — HONORED THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
"most Protestants are unaware of early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity... yet the Protestant Reformers themselves — Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli — HONORED THE PERPECTUAL VIGINITY OF MARY"
When Catholics quote Luther in defence of their doctrines you know they are getting desperate... the Reformers didn't get everything right. 16th century scholars (Catholic and protestant) They still hadn't twigged that only the sources contemporary to an event stand a chance of describing it accurately.
Hey, 'doubting Thomas' `
Any sons of Joseph by a previous marriage still does not 'translate' to Mary not being a perpetual virgin does it?
Oh, how convenient!!! Now, you're trashing the Protestant reformers because they don't happen to agree with you? LOL
(That's hilarious.)
Actually, what we Catholics are saying is that even the Protestant reformers obviously had more integrity than many Protestant 'interpreters' of the modern Bible in the 21st Century... who seem to prefer their 'watered-down' passages.
"Any sons of Joseph by a previous marriage still does not 'translate' to Mary not being a perpetual virgin does it?"
I never said that one entailed the other. This is a branch off the main argument, as can be seen from the discussion above.
"Oh, how convenient!!! Now, you're trashing the Protestant reformers because they don't happen to agree with you?"
I'm disagreeing with their views on one subject. And not because they "don't happen to agree with" me, but because of the arguments about ancient texts set out above (which are nowadays accepted by many protestants). I'd love to have discussed it with the Reformers, just as I am discussing it with you.
"Actually, what we Catholics are saying is that even the Protestant reformers obviously had more integrity than many Protestant 'interpreters' of the modern Bible in the 21st Century... who seem to prefer their 'watered-down' passages."
There is no such thing as a "modern Bible". The New Testament was written nearly 2000 years ago. There are only modern translations. If you want to know what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote, go to a Greek Orthodox church and look in their Bible.
Well, to clarify - let's just say, for example, that the New Intercontinental Version is more 'modern' that the original King James Version of the Bible.
My point is that, since this is the written 'WORD' of God, why would anyone DARE to change one single word of it???
We wouldn't be having this debate about brother vs. brethren if the original had just been left alone!!!
It clearly points to the fact that modern translations of the word of God are being tampered with at the very least... or distorted to change the meaning of a passage.
The Gospels were all written in Greek (though there were a few words transliterated from Aramaic, such as ‘Cephas’ {Peter - rock} and ‘Messias’ in John 1:41 and 4:25) – though some understand that Matthew was originally in Aramaic. While I have info which illustrates the contrary which I may address another time, the important thing is that all extant manuscripts are in Koine Greek.
While one may argue that contextually ἀδελφοὶ (adelphoi) in John 7:5 refers to, using the translated words of Jerome above, “brethren in point of kinship, not by nature,” as opposed to by nature, the fact remains that it is the masculine plural form of ἀδελφός (adelphos), which, in King James English is “brethren” (note the New KJV, which only ‘updates’ the English, uses “brothers”) while in modern English it is usually “brothers.” If one wishes to make a distinction between “brethren” and “brothers,” then fine; but, dictionary.com recognizes both definitions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brethren?s=ts
1. fellow members.
2. Archaic. brothers.
The point is that it is an interpretative decision, not a clear cut one based upon the original word. I can refer to my biological brothers, or I can speak of my brothers in Christ, with the distinction understood by my context. I don’t call other Christians “brethren,” though if someone else wishes to, fine.
On a related note, the Patristics quotes above are all in English. I’d like to see the original languages. For example, the quote from Didymus (6:06AM) uses Matthew 1:25 to specify ‘first-born’ or ‘only-begotten’ when this is NOT in what is recognized as most likely the original Greek text (and it’s not used in the online Catholic Bible):
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν• καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.
And not he know her until she gave birth to a son; and he called the name of him Jesus.
And he did not know her until she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
…however, some manuscripts DO contain prototokos, or ‘first-born,’ but even this term most logically implies others born to the same mother, though to be fair, prototokos is prefaced by tov, the definite article (which we translate as “the”), which may, I repeat MAY, particularize it. In Greek the definite article may be used for emphasis, as opposed to particularity, or it may be used in more of a general sense. French, for example, usually uses the article le (masculine) or la (feminine) for most any noun, without necessarily particularizing it.
Even the word for ‘only-begotten’ (monogenes) does not necessarily mean the only one birthed, as the writer of Hebrews uses this term for Isaac; see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogen%C4%93s
It can be applied to an only child, or only legitimate child, special child, and also on its own as a noun; o monogenēs "the only one", or "the only legitimate child". The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having especial virtue.
"to clarify - let's just say, for example, that the New Intercontinental Version is more 'modern' that the original King James Version of the Bible. My point is that, since this is the written 'WORD' of God, why would anyone DARE to change one single word of it?"
According to your view there was no Bible before King James - which is nonsense. "The Bible" was written in Hebrew and Greek and the canon closed some 19 centuries ago, after which the Bible as we know it today existed. It was translated into the English of King James' day in King James' time. It is translated into the English of our day in our time. Yes there are some dubious translations today but the idea of updating a translation when the target language changes is sound. What does Jesus saying "Suffer little children" sound like to modern ears?
I should also add that the word prototokos (Greek: πρωτότοκος) is used in Colossians 1:18 for Christ as firstborn “among the dead,” which speaks of the future resurrection of Christians at the eschaton (end of things).
One time when Jesus was speaking, a woman in the crowd proclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” (Luke 11:27). There was never a better opportunity for Jesus to declare that Mary was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. What was Jesus’ response? “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (Luke 11:28). To Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.
Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus, or anyone else, direct any praise, glory, or adoration towards Mary. Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, praised Mary in Luke 1:42-44, but her praise is based on the blessing of giving birth to the Messiah. It was not based on any inherent glory in Mary.
Mary was present at the cross when Jesus died (John 19:25). Mary was also with the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14). However, Mary is never mentioned again after Acts chapter 1. The apostles did not give Mary a prominent role. Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.
The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (See Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is His name” (Luke 1:46-49).
Susanna,
First of all, the Protoevangelium of James is not canon, and is not even in the deuterocanonical books of the RCC (though perhaps the RCC has put it in some sort of exalted-type position of which I’m not aware – but what is its provenance, i.e. is it inspired?); so, I view that work as similar to the Shepherd of Hermas. While I recognize that Christian marriages are threefold, with God at the center (I’m not ready to affirm ALL marriages – e.g. ask a Hindu if Jehovah God is at the center of his/her marriage.), I don’t see this as answering my main question re: polygamy, as this is not analogous, since neither the husband nor wife is viewed as “marrying God,” and even bachelor/ettes belong to God. Given the RCC perspective that Mary was/is “married to the Holy Spirit,” there must be some sort of explanation as to why/how she could also marry Joseph without entailing polygamy.
While I understand we are not likely to agree on some things, here I'm searching for at least a plausible answer.
okay, I shut up till the end of the month. Here I am again. (combined universal shudder of all here, I suppose.)
Bible re Mary's ever virginity is AMBIGUOUS. except for one thing. When Gabriel tells her she is going to have a son, she asks how this can happen "since I know not a man?" This is absurd and irrelevant since she could expect to know a man in future unless....her statement reflected a oath and intention to remain celibate.
IF YOU ARE AN ENGAGED VIRGIN, AND ARE TOLD YOU WILL HAVE A SON, you're reaction is either "how do you know it won't be a girl?" or "oh, goody, my future marriage will bear fruit."
That Joseph was a very aged man is not stated in Scripture, but is deduceable SINCE HE DISAPPEARS EARLY ON FROM THE GOSPELS, WHILE MARY REMAINS TO THE END.
The Eastern Orthodox arguments that they would not have had sex because of the Incarnation do not hold water, because no one knew what sort of being He is until many years later.
quotes from the 300's AD and forward have NO WEIGHT because of time.
HOWEVER the first mention of this, The Protevangelion of James or Nativity of Mary is AD 150, so would contain a general picture drawn from reports of those who knew The Theotokos. Pseudepigraphic (fake author ascription) and some howlers (infertile couple not allowed to sacrifice) but not incredible.
if she was a great prayer warrior and equated to military who were to be celibate during service (and her service was to be for all her life), such a dedication to virginity might have happened. There might have been other reasons.
The Assumption (RC says never died, EO says she died and Jesus resurrected her) is a later doctrine,
I give it credence since according to the story, she forbade everyone who knew this to make it public, SO SHE WOULD NOT DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM HER SON.
(Marian focussed RC take note. Prots take not also, because this is exactly what you would expect her to do.)
It became public when a church requested relics from her hometown church (i.e., body parts) and there were none and the explanation was made and this went, in modern Internet terms, viral.
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS A WHOLE OTHER ANIMAL, and go along with excessive marian focus to the point of mariolatry, is a very late notion, is a twist on statements that relate more to personal sinlessness, is totally unnecessary, and DOES distract from Christ. It is part of a process of development that while giving lip service to being Christ referent, in fact in practice throws the focus on His mother, and is part of a sequence of visions and such like which aside from having earmarks of prelest or plani in Greek, spiritual deception, tend increasingly to ascribe to Mary status, capability and role that belong only to Jesus Christ.
Now, as for prayers to or through her and intercession.
Mary does not intercede for us with God The Father like Jesus the High Priest does.
Mary intercedes for us with Jesus, Who is God The Son. That is the concept involved. That is why no one prays to God and says through Mary or in Mary's name. That's the sort of thing you say about Jesus.
Christine, you wrote:
"When Gabriel tells her she is going to have a son, she asks how this can happen "since I know not a man?" This is absurd and irrelevant since she could expect to know a man in future unless....her statement reflected a oath and intention to remain celibate."
Yet she was betrothed at the time. Are you seriously suggesting that she and Joseph had got betrothed yet did not intend to have sex? No couple in ancient Israel would do that; anybody who intended to be celibate would simply not marry. Luke never says that he has given us the entire conversation between Gabriel and Mary and we are free to suppose that he has edited it down.
"That Joseph was a very aged man is not stated in Scripture, but is deduceable SINCE HE DISAPPEARS EARLY ON FROM THE GOSPELS"
That is just one of many possible reasons for his disappearance. You can't know which.
"The Protevangelion of James or Nativity of Mary is AD 150, so would contain a general picture drawn from reports of those who knew The Theotokos. Pseudepigraphic (fake author ascription) and some howlers (infertile couple not allowed to sacrifice) but not incredible."
It contains a lie, regarding authorship. Why trust anything else about it?
"The Assumption (RC says never died, EO says she died and Jesus resurrected her) is a later doctrine,
I give it credence since according to the story, she forbade everyone who knew this to make it public, SO SHE WOULD NOT DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM HER SON."
You would benefit from reading Stephen Shoemaker's 2003 book "Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption" which is a scholarly analysis of the earliest known sources. They are all from the 300s or later, an era from which you correctly say above that sources "have NO WEIGHT because of time".
"Mary does not intercede for us with God The Father like Jesus the High Priest does. Mary intercedes for us with Jesus, Who is God The Son."
How do you know she does? St Paul said that "there is one mediator between God and man... the man Jesus Christ" (1 Tim 2:5). Note that here Paul specifies the human aspect of Jesus. If God has appointed one mediator and said so in the scriptures he gave the church, he might not heed prayers directed to others. I am not suggesting that Mary is not well thought of in heaven, but following instructions is an obedience test among other things. I repeat: How do you know that she intercedes for us in heaven?
anon 12:29 my point about the protevangelion is that while it is not entirely trustworthy frankly neither is anything else except Apostolic written books and letters, incl. modern history books, it is from an early enough time that it would contain info from people who knew her.
As for getting married without intending to have sex, this occurs at times now and in past centuries, ever heard the term "married in name only"?
Of course it would be and is unusual. But unusual seems to usual in connection with Jesus and Judaism wasn't that uniform back then with competing sects, and all were different from the present time. The alleged purpose of the marriage was to provide a guardian for the girl, whose parents were presumably dead and being ready to menstruate would be unclean to have on Temple premises.
As for Assumption, you are forgetting that I give it credence solely because SHE TOLD PEOPLE TO NOT REPORT THIS SO SHE WOULD NOT DISTRACT FROM HER SON and it took a few hundred years to leak from an inside circle of friends and their families.
Whether Mary in fact intercedes for us, as in prays for us, or not, the point is that that is the idea AND YOU STILL MISS THE POINT.
Yes Jesus (God The Son) is the one mediator between man (incl. Mary) and God The Father, that is not the point, the CONCEPT in play is that Mary prays to her son, having more credence with Him than anyone else presumably does. THAT IS THE IDEA IN PLAY, NOT ANY IDEA THAT SHE REPLACES OR SUPPLEMENTS JESUS AS MEDIATOR. Whether in fact she prays to Him for us or not is another matter.
My statement was to clear up a misunderstanding about WHAT THE CONCEPT IS. Now you can argue if the correct version is itself true or not. At least get the idea right.
""That Joseph was a very aged man is not stated in Scripture, but is deduceable SINCE HE DISAPPEARS EARLY ON FROM THE GOSPELS"
That is just one of many possible reasons for his disappearance. You can't know which."
that's not the point. As someone here said, sola scriptura is not only "is it in Scripture or not?" but "is it compatible with or refutable by Scripture, can it be deduced from Scripture or is it refuted by Scripture?"
There is nothing in Scripture that refutes Mary's ever virginity (which frankly I although EO consider to not be that important a doctrine, certainly not like things in The Creed).
There are a couple of things in Scripture which are COMPATIBLE with the legend.
Scripture is AMBIGUOUS AT BEST. The remarks of the people who referred to Jesus' brothers and sisters have NO WEIGHT because they would not know about the virgin birth, Jesus would be assumed to be Joseph's son, conceived during the betrothal (not an absolute no no), Talmud says that the law regarding a man who finds his wife not a virgin on the wedding night could NOT be applied if he EVER spent a night under his future father in law's roof, because he might have devirginated her himself, and the issue was not whether she came to the wedding a virgin but whether she came to HIM a virgin.
Joseph would not have broadcast this virgin birth thing all over town because no one would believe it, and it would have made her look as bad as if he publicly repudiated her for adultery, and himself look like a fool as well.
Mat 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
See the distinction?
The taunting brothers of Jesus...
John 7:1-10
Joh 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
Joh 7:2 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
Joh 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
Joh 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
Joh 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Joh 7:6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
Joh 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
Joh 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
Joh 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
Note v 3 and see the difference made between brethren and His disciples
Hail Mary full of Grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed are thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary Mother of God,
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death Amen.
The first half of the Hail Mary is straight out of the Bible. One part is the angel Gabriel's greeting to the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation, when he told her that she had been chosen by God to bear His Son, Jesus Christ (Luke 1:28).
And then, there are the words uttered by Saint Elizabeth, the cousin of the Blessed Virgin, at the Visitation, when Saint Mary came to the aid of her pregnant cousin, and Saint Elizabeth felt Saint John the Baptist leap in her womb (Luke 1:42). The Blessed Virgin's response to Saint Elizabeth was the beautiful canticle (a biblical hymn) that we know as the Magnificat.
Christine, to preserve the alleged virginity of Mary after Jesus was born you now have her betrothed because she had just reached puberty and her parents were dead. As you well know scripture is silent about that but it's sheer guesswork to fulfil an agenda. Moreover in combination with that perpetual virginity agenda it means that both she and Joseph had agreed never to have sex even though they were presumably healthy human beings with healthy desires, hers just awakening. How many more unlikely things are you going to insist on in order to maintain that a married couple didn't do what St Paul says married couples should?
"As for Assumption, you are forgetting that I give it credence solely because SHE TOLD PEOPLE TO NOT REPORT THIS SO SHE WOULD NOT DISTRACT FROM HER SON and it took a few hundred years to leak from an inside circle of friends and their families."
That's not the way things work when information is handed on verbally, and again it is sheer speculation to try to fit an agenda.
"Whether Mary in fact intercedes for us, as in prays for us, or not, the point is that that is the idea AND YOU STILL MISS THE POINT. Yes Jesus (God The Son) is the one mediator between man (incl. Mary) and God The Father, that is not the point, the CONCEPT in play is that Mary prays to her son, having more credence with Him than anyone else presumably does. THAT IS THE IDEA IN PLAY, NOT ANY IDEA THAT SHE REPLACES OR SUPPLEMENTS JESUS AS MEDIATOR."
Let me get this right. You want a prayer to reach God. So you pray to Mary to take it to Jesus (who's both man and God) to take it to the Father. That involves two mediators. But Paul says that there is only one. Moreover the extent to which God permits people in heaven to hear everything that goes on on earth, and the extent to which they are capable of doing that, not being divine, are utterly unknown. I suppose you'll be putting the tooth fairy in next.
Speaking of 'agendas' and 'tooth fairies'.....
WARNING: PLESASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!!!
Why be so afraid to go to Jesus yourself without the 'help' of Mary? Don't you have a personal relationship with Him? He personally wore your sins on the Cross. If you truly do, you can bypass a n y o n e else and go directly to Him and be heard.
I think we have found The Problem...
Hail Jesus Lord of Truth, Lord of Grace, you are Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth. There is no one else beside You.
Thank You for Your Cross and Empty Tomb. There is no other mediator between God and man as Your Mercy Alone is Sufficient. Uphold me and all who are born again by Your Holy Spirit, by the Strength of Your Righteous Right Hand our Kinsman Redeemer. The Right Hand of Fellowship in the beloved making us One in God and blessed forever.
I need no other argument, I need not other plea, it is Enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me.
""As for Assumption, you are forgetting that I give it credence solely because SHE TOLD PEOPLE TO NOT REPORT THIS SO SHE WOULD NOT DISTRACT FROM HER SON and it took a few hundred years to leak from an inside circle of friends and their families."
That's not the way things work when information is handed on verbally,"
THAT IS EXACTLY HOW INFORMATION WORKS WHEN HANDED ON AS A SECRET.
" and again it is sheer speculation to try to fit an agenda."
The Scriptures being ambiguous on the matter, arguments for ever virginity and not ever virginity are both sheer speculation, though the former is compatible with what is written.
"Let me get this right. You want a prayer to reach God. So you pray to Mary to take it to Jesus (who's both man and God) to take it to the Father. That involves two mediators. "
No more so than when you ask someone you know to pray for you.
Most of my prayers are to Jesus directly, and as for information transfer certainty, I prefer to ask God to get such and such a saint to pray for me.
Score:
Christine - 1
Troll - 0
"as for information transfer certainty, I prefer to ask God to get such and such a saint to pray for me."
And the saint then prays to God, presumably. So you ask God to ask a saint to ask God to do something for you...?
Me: "That involves two mediators.
You: ""No more so than when you ask someone you know to pray for you."
When I do that I ask someone who is alive. Because then they can say yes or no and I can hear them say it! Not so with the deceased.
"THAT IS EXACTLY HOW INFORMATION WORKS WHEN HANDED ON AS A SECRET."
Shouting don't make it so!
Yeah that's how the religious do it. They keep score.
Jesus does not.
Would be funny if not so sad.
God decides the score, 7.21pm, not you!
Craig,
It is not my intention to be snarky here, but please tell me......How else would you refer to Mary other than "Bride of the Holy Spirit?" What other term would you use to describe the woman chosen to become the Mother of the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit?
We Catholics believe that Mary always intended to live a life of consecrated virginity. Our belief is based on the Archangel Gabriel's invitation in Luke's Gospel and Mary's response..
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Luke 1:26-38:
Now it is clear from the Gospel passage that the Archangel is speaking in the future tense...thou SHALT CONCEIVE....and "THOU SHALT CALL HIS NAME JESUS.........
Since Mary was betrothed to Joseph and knew that she would soon be marrying him, her having a son and naming Him Jesus would not have been anything extraordinary......UNLESS.....and this is a big UNLESS........she and Joseph had already agreed to live a life of consecrated virginity. It was the emphatic teaching of the Church Fathers that Mary had made a vow of virginity.
cont....
P.S. Craig,
Perpetually Virgin (CCC 496-507, 510) Church Fathers
What does this mean?
The perpetual virginity of Mary is one of the four Marian Dogmas. It is the teaching that Mary was a virgin, “ante partum, in partu, et post partum,” or before birth, during birth, and after the birth of Christ. Mary conceived Jesus, “by the power of the Holy Spirit” without losing her virginity. The miraculous birth of Jesus, some theologians say, was like light piercing glass, for He “did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. 57)
In essence, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary the mother of God never had sex and had no children other than Jesus Christ.
Why is this important?
The importance of Mary's perpetual virginity is discussed in the relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But, in brief, Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit (remember that Jesus is conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit) and so for her to have sex with anyone else would have been adultery or fornication. Her virginity is a symbol of her purity and undefilement, and ties into the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and also the typology of the Ark of the Covenant.
Many Christians do not believe that Mary is ever-virgin. They feel that this would downgrade sex in marriage. But in reality, Mary’s virginity was part of her unique role in the salvation of the world. Mary was spiritually perfect, and her body was to reflect this perfection. God miraculously preserved her virginity when she gave birth to Christ to keep her pure and undefiled.........
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/3b.htm
Susanna, thank you for that point about polyandry.
Though I accept the idea of the ever virginity of Mary, I am uncomfortable with the concept of Mary as the spouse of The Holy Spirit, because it implies a sexual event between her and Him. This sounds like Mormonism. No sex of any kind occurred.
Since Jesus' mother and putative father had no idea that He is God Incarnate, no one understood this until later at first even the Apostles didn't understand, and celibacy being relevant for holiness only during a season, such as when priests were on their cycle of service, but not off cycle, all such
arguments DO NOT HOLD WATER. They assume a knowledge and understanding that was not present. The holiness of the CHILD would dictate (perhaps) He be dedicated to celibacy for life, not necessarily His mother.
Other reasons for arguing for her virginity apply as I already showed.
"Me: "That involves two mediators.
You: ""No more so than when you ask someone you know to pray for you."
When I do that I ask someone who is alive. Because then they can say yes or no and I can hear them say it! Not so with the deceased."
Good God, what is wrong with you? What possible relevance does a person being alive, or you knowing whether or not they prayed for you have to this?
IT IS STILL TWO MEDIATORS BY YOUR DEFINITION.
you equate all degrees and kinds of mediation. But you also think that irrelevant issues about the person praying for you have bearing.
by your definition of mediation, equating all kinds and degrees, you are yourself violating Jesus' role when you pray for someone else!
But we are told to pray for each other, so clearly this is not the case, whether the person doing the praying for someone is you, someone praying for you (and you WON'T know if they say yes they will pray for you and get around to it later you hope), or Mary still alive or a saint who is dead.
the condition and identity of the person doing the interceeding does not change the fact that an intercession is being done.
Susanna, the vows referred to in Numbers have NOTHING to do with celibacy. you RC think vows are only about this. read the passage itself, there is NO MENTION of a future husband, the issue is strictly that if someone makes a vow of ANY kind he is responsible to fulfill it, and if a woman still in her father's house not married or gone independent somehow, or a married woman, not divorced or a widow, makes a vow this can be annulled by her husband or father but then he bears her sin for breaking it.
Vows could be anything and might involve making an offering to God (many sacrifices were not sin offerings protestants think these were the only kind made) or might have nothing to do with worship.
I don't reject the doctrine of the ever virginity of Mary, but a bad argument is a bad argument.d
This catholic blog has ceased being relevant---if it ever was--since the takeover. Constance is now only a guest on her own blog.
Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
"the condition and identity of the person doing the interceeding does not change the fact that an intercession is being done."
By "condition" you are clearly, in context, referring to alive or dead. But you don't know if the dead in heaven are interceding for you, do you? They don't tell you. Whereas you can be sure that Jesus is, because the Bible - the only source of reliable information about the afterlife - tells us so. "Mediator" means a go-between, and Jesus does that because He talks not only to God of man but to man of God. In all of this Mary as mediator stuff, it is not normal to hear from her, or from a saint, is it, as it is from Jesus. Is it?
We don't know very much about the afterlife. We don't know if Mary or other humans there have the capacity to listen to every prayer "through" them, for we are limited whereas Jesus/God is not. We are not even sure who is in heaven and who is not, and the church's way to work that out - by seeing if intercessory prayer brings forth a miracle - is far from watertight. I'll stick with Jesus as my only mediator, just as Paul says he is.
Dear 2.21am, the Reformers accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary but where in their writings did they "recognis[e] it as the teaching of the Bible"?
A protestant response to the fact that they believed this has already been given above: in the 16th century it had not been properly understood that history depended on sources contemporary with the events they relate.
"Since Mary was betrothed to Joseph and knew that she would soon be marrying him, her having a son and naming Him Jesus would not have been anything extraordinary......UNLESS......she and Joseph had already agreed to live a life of consecrated virginity."
Not true, Susanna. An alternative possibility is that this miraculous conception was imminent, ie in the gap between Mary's betrothal to Joseph and their wedding, during which time a faithful couple obviously did not have sexual relations. Moreover this scenario is not only possible but likely, for why should God send Gabriel to Mary if the event were not imminent?
This imminence also explains the present CONTINUOUS tense in the Greek of Mary's reply, "How shall this be, since I am not knowing a man?" That is what Fr Erlenbush misses in his essay.
"The Protestant position is that Mary was a surrogate mother for His Son. Sorry God does not use surrogate mothers. If He conceives a Child in a woman He would have to be spiritually espoused to her even though she is only a mere creature."
Well yes, they were "spiritually espoused" to each other, because Mary was a devout and faithful believer in God - He would not have chosen her otherwise. But there is some loose logic here. Marriage is required by God's regulations for sex-and-conception. The Catholic claim here is that marriage is required for conception. I respond that it is required for sex (that's not in doubt from the OT) but not necessarily for conception without sex. Catholics have not proved that necessity and, since the conception of Jesus is a one-off event, they can't look at any other case to seek a rule.
The Protoevangelium of James was not written by James but claims it was. That is not a good start to a document in which Catholics place their trust about what is nowadays its key point! And "the Fathers" were all well after that document and knew of it...
It is surely significant that the first writings known of most of the extra claims about Mary which Catholics tack on to the gospel are from the era of the gnostic gospels. Catholics rightly deride the gnostic writings about Jesus, but not those about his mother.
"God miraculously preserved her virginity when she gave birth to Christ to keep her pure and undefiled."
What does this sentence mean, please?
anon 5:33 you are ducking the issue that by your definition of intercession, which equates all forms and degrees of it,
TWO intercessors are involved instead of only one, Jesus, whenever anyone prays for anyone else but themselves.
anon 5:42
""God miraculously preserved her virginity when she gave birth to Christ to keep her pure and undefiled."
What does this sentence mean, please?"
It means that her hymen did not break while giving birth.
The hymen if flexible and a very small edge around the vaginal opening, may not break during sex even several times. But it would rupture in childbirth. Normally.
The alleged examination of her after giving birth showed no indications of having just given birth, which means if true that this was a miraculously easy birth, like what would have been the norm if we had not fallen.
An unbroken hymen does not guarantee no sex has occurred. However it should rupture in childbirth given the stretching, absent a miracle. (It is not a membrane across the opening it is a ring around the opening. rarely it is solid across needing to be cut to allow menstruation.)
If she was noted to be still betulah after Jesus' birth, it would be likely she would be checked again after the birth of any other child, to see if this miracle occurred again. And since the next birth or two would surely rupture the hymen it would be noted that eventually she was not betulah hymen intact type virgin, so the perpetual virginity thing would not have gotten started.
Therefore the fact such a legend was in play, she did not give birth after Jesus.
""The Protestant position is that Mary was a surrogate mother for His Son. Sorry God does not use surrogate mothers. If He conceives a Child in a woman He would have to be spiritually espoused to her even though she is only a mere creature.""
Again, this kind of thinking implies a sexual relation between The Holy Spirit and Mary, which by definition would mean she was NOT a virgin, and also would imply Jesus is a hybrid, half God half man, instead of 100% God and 100% man.
Taking some of her flesh, a cell, purifying it of original sin, and as God The Son enters the cell, causing it to divide once to be diploid, then tweaking an X chromosome to make it into a Y,
is not sex it is something barely crudely accomplished sort of (though so far not in changing a chromosome) by genetic engineers.
It also involves TWO Persons being in her womb, The Holy Spirit and The Son. So we got what here, polyandry again?
A child starts out in the womb, and exits it, it never enters it. In this case both The Holy Spirit and The Son entered the womb of Mary, and The Son came out as Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit OVERSHADOWED her, not copulated with her, then left in the sense of this overshadowing activity.
This is not a sexual situation, so issues of spouse and adultery do not apply. This is not like pagan "gods" having sex with women and producing heros, divine human hybrids.
It is one thing to consider Mary a type of the Church in a way, since the Church like a mother tends its children, and she being the mother of Jesus is effectively the mother of His converts, and to analogically equate her with the Church to some extent.
Christine,
I asked what it meant to say that "God miraculously preserved [Mary's] virginity when she gave birth to Christ to keep her pure and undefiled" and you replied that it meant her hymen did not rupture.
Why would it make her impure and defiled if her hymen broke while giving birth to Jesus? And how can you possibly be certain that it had not already been broken when she leapt over a stream or something like that? (It is not uncommon.) The only sensible definition of virginity is no history of sexual relations. The state of the hymen is simply a sign of that, but it is not an accurate one. I find doctrine centring on Mary's hymen profoundly unhealthy.
anon 7:14
hymens don't rupture that easily, and are usually taken as indication of no penetration, but in fact a betulah could get pregnant without a miracle.
and the thinking in those days wasn't the same as ours. The hymen had developed a mystical mythic kind of value. Its rupture meant the physical and spiritual integrity of the woman was compromised, or so it was thought. Clearly the physical integrity is minimal and the spiritual unaffected if not willing fornication.
The Isaiah prophecy doesn't say betulah, it says almah which Stong's says has implication of isolation and veiledness so no possible degree of parasexual activity had occurred.
That is why in Genesis we read regarding Rebekah that she was a virgin AND no man had known her. Two separate issues. Technical virgin is what it is called now.
the ruptured hymen is a deformation damage, invisible but comparable to the "defilement" of someone's face by disfiguring it by damage.
Hymens don't break from horseback riding or jumping over streams. I don't know how anyone got that idea.
There are some women that have no hymens or hardly any one. In the Talmud such a woman was accused of unchastity, but on finding she had no hymen (a broken hymen remains as flaps) and that this ran in her family, it was decreed that the women of her family were exempted from this rule of evidence in future.
absent hymen is not present but unruptured.
Betulah could be intact hymen and giving oral, anal and non penetrative tip on vaginal sex and between the thighs and be a "technical virgin" and get pregnant by a semen spill.
Almah is totally non contact beyond shaking hands or something like that if that.
"That is why in Genesis we read regarding Rebekah that she was a virgin AND no man had known her."
That is not necessarily the reason. You are assuming that God and the Genesis author would not waste words by saying the same thing twice. In fact it is common semitic usage to say the same thing in two different ways. It's known as Hebrew parallelism and is common in the Book of Proverbs. Perhaps its value is that different people think in different ways and some may best "get it" from one way of phrasing the idea and others from the other way.
I find the subject of Mary's hymen profoundly distasteful, but I shall continue while I remain concerned that error is being spread. I asked what it meant to say that "God miraculously preserved [Mary's] virginity when she gave birth to Christ to keep her pure and undefiled" and you replied that it meant her hymen did not rupture. What you haven't answered is why a rupturing of Mary's hymen as she gave birth to Jesus would make her impure and defiled, as your response implies. Why?
I answered that. virginity was defined primarily in terms of the hymen,
destruction of this is a usually invisible disfiguring. Also in her childbearing, she did not suffer bodily changes related to that, but remained like a young woman unravaged by such stressors.
You think of defilement as moral, but it is often more than that. Ask anyone with a scarring if they don't feel it is a bit defiling to their image. (unless they view it as a badge of honor.)
And Genesis is not the Book of Proverbs. Genesis is telescoped history, covering a lot of ground in short space.
God is not over wordy, very few of the Prophetic books are lengthy and these are themselves several much shorter messages from God to various people and nations.
One of the dead giveaways in the channelled literature, false prophetic books like Urantia and A Course in Miracles, and prophetic "utterances" by modern charismatics, is that "God" blathers on and on.
That's not His style. It took thousands of years to put together all the verbiage, most of it not direct dictation, in The Bible. While modern "prophets" fill page after page or even large books.
Genesis was written on a scroll, SPACE AVAILABLE TO USE WAS CRITICAL.
Proverbs was a separate scroll all to itself unless paired with Ecclesiastes or something like that.
Modern codex binding was not invented until shortly before Christ by the Romans.
Aging defiles the once young and beautiful and healthy body, for instance. defilement is not necessarily moral, but often disfigurement or physical dirt is used as a symbol of moral defilement. Hence the importance of the animal sacrifices being without blemished, and in the Aaronic priesthood rules no one could be priest who was crippled.
Correcting the scholars again Christine? It looks good until someone who knows what they are talking about responds. Nobody said that Hebrew parallelism appeared ONLY in Proverbs - that is why it is called HEBREW parallelism. Genesis is four square in the Hebrew tradition. And even if you continue to disagree, the fact that you can't exclude the possibility shows that your explanation of the comment about Rebekah is not the only one possible.
It's to do with the fact that childbirth involves the shedding of blood - which is true from the umbilical cord regardless of the hymen. Blood is sacred unto God. Mary took the two doves to the Temple as a cleansing sacrifice as specified in Leviticus 12, which explains that it is about blood.
I didn't say what you imply I said, and scholars are often worthless, you can read The WHOLE BIBLE for yourself like I did and see such parallelism BUT IT ISN'T IN THE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS LIKE GENESIS OR KINGS OR CHRONICLES.
If you read scholars enough you'd know the entire five Books of Moses could barely fit on one scroll, and I don't think there is a single instance of poetic parallelism except perhaps in the song of Miriam or in Moses' song at the end of Deuteronomy.
parallelism belongs in one kind of literature, not in another. SPACE TO WRITE ON IS CRITICAL.
The FACT is that a woman can do all kinds of sexual acts and have orgasms and give them without penis even touching vagina.
that FACT should validate that "a virgin and no man had known her" meant she was an actual virgin, not what is called in modern terms a "technical virgin."
I recall a story about a couple of gals who would pick up a guy and do anything except something that endangered their hymens, which they held sacred.
Its called non penetrative sex acts.
And yes you can get pregnant from a semen spill, which is why God in His wisdom did NOT say a betulah would conceive but an almah would conceive.
The Kikuyu before becoming Christian, and those who still haven't or kept old customs, used to do thigh sex the teenagers would do it the male between her tightly held muscular thighs, valued for the musculature that made this easier, she held her thighs together with a leather apron over her privates so no semen would get on them, and the rubbing would also stimulate her clitoris and they would climax, and this wasn't just steady committed girlfriend boyfriend this was friends with benefits sort of thing or promiscuous more than that. Such girls were considered virgins because the hymen was intact.
This wasn't a sly thing it was TRADITIONAL BEHAVIOR IN THAT SOCIETY FOR UNMARRIED TEENAGERS.
It may be that The Theotokos gave birth with womb lining and placenta cast with the baby, and miraculously no blood, such a full caul type birth should result in blood, but The Law said, you have to make that sacrifice of animals or doves if you give birth, no exceptions.
I've had enough of the sex discussion with you Christine. You say no parallelism in Genesis, but that is because you are a priori ruling it out as the meaning of the comment about Rebekah. You can't do that. You can't prove your meaning and I can't disprove it. When you write as if you have proved it, that is simply empty rhetoric. Genesis 4:23 is a clear example of Hebrew parallelism in Genesis.
show me one example of parallelism in Genesis except maybe a hint in part of the creation account, besides this one place.
parallelism is used in POETRY not hard headed historical record. you are the one spouting rhetoric. Go read through The Bible for yourself, don't depend on "scholars."
Common sense: would you consider a woman who did dry humping and being fondled and "eaten out" and so forth naked or half naked but still has her hymen, to have NOT been "known" by a man or not? obviously not "all the way," but that's not the point. Has she been "known" at all or not?
I have read through Genesis three times each time in a few hours. Have you done that? do that and tell me what you find. I am not assuming anything.
Genesis was not originally written on scrolls. PJ Wiseman (d. 1948) recognised that Genesis is a compiled sequence of ancient texts that had originally been written on stone tablets. Many stone tablets from Mesopotamia dated as old as Abraham and Noah have been found, and they have their own writing conventions in the cuneiform, which Wiseman recognised within Genesis. The keeping of those conventions, with the compiler – presumably Moses, who also wrote the last part set in Egypt – shows that he copied faithfully. Moses added the name in his own time of various places which had changed name, but that is all. We even know who each tablet had been written by (or for), because the earlier, Mesopotamian parts of Genesis end with the phrase “These are the toledoth of…” and toledoth means “historical origins”. (For example, “these are the toledoth of Jacob” in Genesis 37:2; our chapter divisions, which are mediaeval, do not match this insight.) Each section runs up close to the death of the man named but never reaches it, and each section gives information which only that man could have known or reliably found out. Unfortunately Wiseman’s work is not well known, but it demolishes the "documentary hypothesis" of Wellhausen and other liberals. He wrote it up in several short books, putting it a little better each time, but any will do.
thank you for making my case for me.
IF this interpretation he made is correct, and IF they were originally written on stone tablets, THEN the space available to write on issue was even more extreme than on scrolls.
and you haven't answered either of my questions.
is a girl who has done everything but lose her hymen so is still a virgin someone you could say has not been known by a man?
and have you ever read Genesis straight through in one sitting?
Christine sure does fit a picture for us that Jesus described...
Strains at a gnat and swallows a camel.
Wow.
Have I read Genesis through in one sitting - I can't remember. I've certainly read it through in a short space of time.
I'm not going to discuss sexual issues with you. I shudder at your eagerness to go into detail I consider gratuitous.
One wonders if certain people would have been happier if God sent Jesus to us via the stork !! ( Where is the respect for the Mother of Jesus Christ?)
From Oz
I don't think anybody here has shown disrespect to the Mother of Jesus Christ. Certainly not the Catholics. And I, the skeptic here of her perpetual virginity, and her own immaculate conception and direct assumption, believe she lived a blameless sex life with Joseph as required by the Law of Moses; am glad to call her blessed; believe she was chosen for a combination of strong faith and motherly qualities (and the right family line); and look forward to hailing her as the mother of the king and a senior member of the royal family in the Millennium. Where is the disrespect in that, please?
Anonymous 10:26 said...
Re:"This catholic blog has ceased being relevant---if it ever was--since the takeover. Constance is now only a guest on her own blog."
In case you have forgotten, the topic of this thread is
RECENT DISTURBING DEVELOPMENTS IN CATHOLIC CIRCLES......
Moreover, we Catholics are not the ones who started the pope bashing and the
Catholic bashing under the phony guise of wanting to have a "discussion."
So if you want to talk about "irrelevant......."
Christine,
I was explaining Catholic Marian beliefs to Craig, not Orthodox beleifs.
I was not doing so with a view to getting into a debate with him, but rather with a view to enabling him to understand why Catholics believe what they believe about the Blessed Virgin. When all is said and done, Craig and I are able to amicably "agree to disagree" when necessary.
I don't either. What I love about the Bible is that all of the people who are the believers in the One True God whether in the OT or the NT is that---they are in fact ordinary people........who love an Extraordinary GOD. Mary the mother of Jesus is one of those ordinarys with an extraordinary role to fill.
Look what Jesus Himself said about John the Baptist (and did not mention a word about mom)
Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
God delights to take the ordinary and highlight His Greatness in the lives of all of us. And the Bible calls us saints. Just ordinary people who love and trust Him-have repented and put our full trust in God the Son to wash our sins away by His Blood.
Let Jesus have All the Glory people, by seeing Him lifted higher--much, much, higher than any other personality of any age and place in history. Why make this difficult? If you priority is right it won't be.
It is His Due.
What is disturbing is how many are bound up in catholic doctrine with so many old pagan roots that they do not see history cycling again in the new age fruit produced in their religion. (making the globalists quite happy). Many in protestant circles have swallowed this whole as well but the catholics have the loudest defense of it here.
The whole lump is leavened.
"With all due respect...not true for you, perhaps, according to your interpretation, but I adhere to the Catholic interpretation."
Susanna, the phrase "not true for you" is postmodernist, albeit unintentionally I'm sure from you. Let us agree that we have different understandings and that one of us (at least!) is wrong. I've explained why the future tense in Gabriel's words need not imply a no-sex pact between Mary and Joseph, so that those words are not decisive between us. But why, if they had such a pact, were they planning to get married at all? I was not impressed by Christine's explanation; I welcome yours.
Mark Miravalle pronouncing on whether Mary felt the increased pain spoken of in Genesis 3 when she gave birth to Jesus makes me smile. He is the man who wants Mary declared co-redemptrix (co-redeemer in normal English) and mediator of all the graces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Miravalle
Don't you agree that that is idolatrous?
Non Catholics
Don't you get it? It's useless here to have a constructive debate.
If you quote your sources or research links, you are "wrong" and a "basher".
But Susanna can post opinions and research from church fathers and popes (notice how she doesn't usually quote scripture, but the church father's interpretation of scripture?)
And Christine, don't even get me started on her. It's a joke.
I'm not a firm believer that Sola Scriptura is the only way. But, come on, there is no need to add and speculate as much as Catholics do from scripture when it simply isn't there.
And Susanna, I'm was a cradle catholic just like you, so I too, KNOW WHAT THE CHURCH BELIEVES.
Oh, but I forgot, I must have been a very bad catholic for leaving the church.
"Moreover, the archangel Gabriel used the word "shall" twice. "
yay! I missed that. Back to square one, when someone tells an engaged girl,
"you SHALL have a son" it is definitely future oriented not imminent, and
her normal reaction would be, "oh, goody, my future marriage will bear fruit, I won't be barren," not "how can this be since I know not a man?"
unless she had no intention of having sex in that marriage.
Orthodox vs. RC beliefs about Mary - we share the ever virginity, the assumption (though we say she died and was resurrected by Jesus dropping by to do this and I understand RC says she never died), but reject immaculate conception.
Jewish law did not require sex to happen in marriage it merely assumed it would. A marriage arranged as a disguised guardianship, so that her association with the man would not look odd, and he and she would not be pestered with requests for her hand in marriage, is not at all odd if there was a previous decision to remain celibate.
can't recall if you anon read through Genesis in a few hours or one sitting, but did read it through in a short time, I guess by short time you mean a few days?
read through it in a few hours NOW, and then tell me how much parallelism goes on in it. Never mind my explanations, never mind "scholars" on the subject, READ IT FOR YOURSELF.
I assume you are a protestant and reading The Bible for yourself is a big deal, right?
are you going to switch from letting the pope tell you what it says to letting "scholars" tell you what it says?
Dead on TLC at 2:17 pm
No Christine, the first "shall" is about the miraculous conception that is imminent - for why else send Gabriel then, and a miracle it certainly is when the wedding was some time ahead - and the second "shall" is not "you SHALL have a son" but "you shall have a SON". The first "shall" told her that she was going to have a child. That second that it would be male.
"can't recall if you anon read through Genesis in a few hours or one sitting, but did read it through in a short time, I guess by short time you mean a few days? read through it in a few hours NOW, and then tell me how much parallelism goes on in it. Never mind my explanations, never mind "scholars" on the subject, READ IT FOR YOURSELF."
First, by telling me what to do you are exceeding your authority. Second, you said that Genesis was written on a medium so precious that there would be no repetition of the sort found in parallelism. One counter-example to your claim is enough to down it, and Genesis 4:23 suffices.
"I assume you are a protestant and reading The Bible for yourself is a big deal, right? are you going to switch from letting the pope tell you what it says to letting "scholars" tell you what it says?"
Since when did protestants let the pope interpret the Bible for us? You make no sense.
2:17 PM
Re: "Oh, but I forgot, I must have been a very bad catholic for leaving the church."
Well, YOU sad it. We didn't.
2:17 PM
'Quoting sources or research links' doesn't automatically make those various sources and links true or ACCURATE, does it?
Also, when you accuse Catholics of 'speculation' (without evidence)... that is proof that you ARE in fact a Catholic-basher.
Post a Comment