Posted on 12/31/2010 8:33:04 AM PST by marshmallow
EVERVIRGIN has been a title of our Lady from the earliest days; it appears, albeit obiter, in the documents of councils from Chalcedon onwards. It still appears (confiteor; Communicantes) in the Novus Ordo Mass; was rather more frequent in the Classical Roman Rite; and comes very often in the Byzantine Rite. It is part of the Church's Marian dogma, and was treated respectfully, if rather evasively, by the ARCIC document on Mary. Non-Catholics sneer at it. The great Tom Wright is dismissive. Let us consider the question in the form of a Socratic Dialogue.
The Gospels make it quite clear that Jesus had brothers.
They don't. Adelphoi can mean kinsmen. It doesn't have to mean uterine (that is, born-of-the-same-womb) brothers.
So you say. But that's the obvious meaning if anyone talks about "Jesus' brothers" in any language, isn't it?
Not at all. Mark's and Matthew's Gospels, in their accounts of the Crucifixion, both talk about "Mary the mother of James and Joses [or Joseph]". If this Mary had been the same as Christ's own mother, it would have been very odd for them not to refer to her as the Mother of Jesus. The "obvious" and natural inference is that the "Mother of James and Joses" was a different Mary from "Mary the Mother of Jesus".
So what?
Well, in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55, the places where those "brothers of Jesus" are mentioned, the full text reads: " Jesus the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses [or Joseph] and Judas and Simon". We've just seen that this James and this Joses are apparently the sons of some Mary who was not the same as Mary the Mother of Jesus. And they're the first two on the list here. The list is thus clearly not itemising individuals who were uterine brothers of Jesus.
Well, I still think it's obvious that ...
If it's so "obvious", you've got some explaining to do. Throughout the second century the Gospels were increasingly regarded as 'canonical' and authoritative. If it is so "obvious" that James and the rest of those listed in the Gospels were uterine brothers of Jesus, then the tradition that Jesus was Mary's only child must have arisen well before those Gospels came to be regarded as authorities. Otherwise, when somebody started saying "she never had any more children", somebody who had read the Gospels would have said "Aha, you're wrong: here's a list of his brothers". So, if you're right about it being so "obvious", you're going to have to admit that Mary's perpetual virginity is so early a tradition as to predate the acquisition of authority by our Four Gospels; which modern scholarship dates to the beginning of the second century at the latest. I've got you either way.
That's all gobbledegook. It's obvious ...
That's the problem with you Prods and you Liberals. You're impervious to evidence and to reason.
Of course we are. "Reason is the Devil's Whore". Martin Luther said so. It's obvious.
> I am certain such a person would never say anything rude
> to a Catholic about Catholic beliefs, practices,
> traditions, dogma, etc.
I also am merely a sinner saved by Grace, “of like passions with you” (Acts 14:15).
So, please forgive me if, at times, I express a lack of the meekness and charity commanded by Scripture.
I reference it on my about me page. I don’t have the htread link though
Thanks for telling me about that. In many areas, we are in agreement. May God protect us from the treason within!
When you debate a protestant on FR, many of them end up saying how persecuted they are when they encounter another opinion.
Yet they are starting all these threads lately just looking for a fight.
Weird.
Mary is set aside by God for himself. She’s a holy object.
Things that were set aside for God in the Temple were never used for anything else. King Belshazzar profaned the sacred vessels from the Temple and was condemned.
How much more is the Mother of the Lord, she who carried him under her heart than all the vessels in the Temple?
Wrong.
The good Father explains very clearly why the "brothers" of Jesus spoken of in the Gospels are not siblings of Jesus. Rather well, in my opinion.
That is the point of the article.
You've taken exception to the word "Proddy". I'm sorry about that. As a frequent reader of Fr. Hunwicke's blog, I can tell you that he is not "trolling". He's English and the word "Proddy" is a colloquialism in the UK, albeit a somewhat disparaging one.
The words "Romish", "Romanist" etc., are used frequently on this forum to refer to Catholics. Too frequently, in my opinion but that's just something we have to deal with.
> Yet they are starting all these threads lately just looking for a fight.
I’m sorry, but I don’t remember any recent threads started by non-Catholics posting articles that contain disdainful language towards Catholics.
I see Joel Olsteen’s thing posted daily, I see the LDS stuff from time-to-time, and the wonderfully uplifting Days of Praise every day. I don’t remember any of them presenting any direct challenges to Catholics or employing disdainful language concerning Catholic dogma.
If you can give us examples, then the posters thereof should be willing to explain the same in light of the Scriptures I posted in this thread.
Westbrook, no offense is intended to you. But a lot of open RF threads that are started on Catholic topics are quickly derailed into the usual anti-Catholic arguments, very well known, that mushroom into thousands of posts nitpicking every single Catholic/protestant conflict that has ever taken place on FR.
If you haven’t participated, then you are blessed indeed!
” They need the Doctrine of Sinlesslessness to support the Doctrine that ALL SALVATION is obtained through Mary (Not the Lord Jesus Christ).”
Wrong.
Mary’s personal salvation came through Christ. You don’t think he could give her the same salvation offered mankind, but do it in HIS time?
Salvation come through the savific redemption of humanity by Christ alone. THAT is Catholic Dogma. ~Not what you posted.
“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.”
She bore Christ. If you have a foundation in the Incarnation, you’d understand her role.
“We Protestants also maintain that Matthew is correct in Verse 1:25 “But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born.”
You are translating “until” as used by current meanings.
Michal, the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death (2 Samuel 6:23). Are we to assume that she had children after hear death? How about the raven that Noah released from the ark? The bird “went forth and did not return until the waters were dried up upon the earth” (Genesis 8:7). Actually, the raven NEVER returned at all. Then there’s the burial of Moses. About the location of his grave it was said that no man knows “until this present day” (Dt. 34:6). Well, we know that no one has known since that day either.
I have no problem understanding the Catholic sense of persecution. They have always been a minority in this country and were often treated very harshly in the 19th and 20th centuries.
There is a Catholic Community near to us with whom I am very friendly. They have been punished by the town because of their strong anti-abortion and anti-homosexual letters to the editors in local papers in in their preaching. I agree with them four-square on these matters.
When they appllied for a building permit to expand their school and their chapel, the town imposed absurd requirements upon them that nobody else has to meet. Even the town doesn’t meet such requirements on its own property!
The Catholic community sued, and eventually prevailed in court, but during the controversy, a Boston TV station came up to interview the clergy of the community and people in the town. I was away on business that week and was unable to participate. We don’t have a TV, so we did not see the news segment, but one of the clergy from the community called me almost in tears. They had butchered his interview.
FOr example, the TV interviewer asked him if he believed that Jews will go to hell. Antagonistic townsfolk have been trying to paint the community as anti-semitic for years. The brother pointed-out that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were all Jews, and that almost all the first Christians were Jews, but he added, “Without Faith in Jesus Christ, anybody, including the Jews, will go to hell.”
They excerpted his response so that the only thing aired was, “Jews will go to hell.” There were other edits made to paint him as an anti-semitic, raving bigot. At the end of our call, choking up, he asked us to pray for them.
Another time, the Catholic school was having a music recital of their students. They rented an auditorium at a local State college. When I arrived to attend, there were goons outside singing, “We Shall Overcome” and passing out literature decrying the “CULTure of Hate”, with CULT capitalized and boldfaced.
I am NOT making this up!
Inside the auditorium, the children, dressed in their modest and tidy school uniforms, were singing, playing fiddles, guitars, mandolins, and piano, step-dancing, and reciting prose and poetry.
I asked one of the brothers what was going on with the demonstrators outside, and he said it was a reaction to the TV “special”. I learned later that it was organized by one of the pro-abort, pro-homo, global warming goons here in town.
When I exited with five of my 11 children (I only brought the ones who could attend), I saw the same goonery outside. I was so incensed I said sarcastically, “Thank you for your expression of love.” Whereupon one of them said, “Thank you for teaching your children to hate.”
I told them that I teach my children the words of Jesus to love our enemies and pray for them who hurt us, and asked my children to verify, which they gladly did. At that point, one of the policemen approached me and said, “They’re not worth it, sir.” To which I heartily agreed and started to leave.
I heard shouts of, “Sir! Sir!” behind me, so I turned to see two young women running towards me. They said they were journalists and asked if they could get my name and interview me. I told them, “I don’t trust journalists,” and walked away with my children.
Thank you. You do indeed “get it.”
I'm talking about how I have seen Catholics say they are persecuted here on FR because other posters take a dissimilar stance on matters of theology. Not on every thread but enough times that I have noticed a pattern.
Yet, I see more and more of these types of threads where they invite debate.
> As those same journalists you mentioned how much they
> respect Jerry Falwell.
Oh, I am certain that, even though I am not Catholic, simply because I support the Catholic position on abortion, homosexuality, and even birth control (see my tag line), they would have distorted my words to taint me in the worst of possible ways.
That is why we must eschew these silly spitting contests over arcane and obscure minutiae and rather stick together, presenting a united front. Doesn’t matter anymore “who started it”, though I, too, was a bit curious about that.
One of the Catholic monks at the Community asked me how I could know so much Bible and not be a Catholic. I just chuckled and said that I was raised Catholic, but then the Lord saved me and I started reading the Bible. He smiled at me and shook his head, saying that someday he would have to have a long talk with me.
Given his testimony and his love for Christ, I count this Catholic monk a brother, regardless of his tradition or ancillary beliefs.
I'm not so sure it's because it's the Catholic position. I think it's the position which rankles them whether it's held by conservative Protestant, Jew, Mormon or Catholic.
The only reason I can think of for that post, is that you have no experience on the FR open threads.
I, as a Catholic, do get annoyed when I hear the same old calumnies, that we worship Mary, that we disobey Christ when we call our priests "Father" that the majority of priests are pedophiles and we protect them, that Catholics are liberals, etc. etc. etc.
Literally THOUSANDS of vicious anti-Catholic posts have been made on FR. Catholics are beginning to fight fire with fire, which is why some may be seeing a bit of the same coming back toward Protestants. Frankly, I don't care. Open threads are open threads. I've been here ten years, not as long as some, but long enough to see the treatment that some protestants, the Usual Suspects, deal out to ALL Mormons and Catholics on FR, and have for years.
Dead wrong.
Then I can see no reason for that comment.
> I’m not so sure it’s because it’s the Catholic position.
> I think it’s the position which rankles them whether
> it’s held by conservative Protestant, Jew, Mormon or
> Catholic.
Well, yes, of course.
But while the Catholic Church’s teachings on this matter are monolithic, you can find “evangelical” churches that support gay clergy, woman clergy, and even abortion.
And while the Catholic Church has had its share of scandals, and even the cover-up thereof, such things run counter to the stated teachings of the Catholic Church.
Most evangelicals even support birth control. I know, because they are often horrified by our position on this matter.
So, while the official, stated Evangelical positions on homosexuality, abortion, and birth control vary from denomination to denomination, and church to church, the RCC’s official position on these matters is unchanging.
Why am I not a Catholic then? Well, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt, got the hat.
:)
My portion is not with any one denomination or tradition.
I already gathered that that was your opinion.
I know those are the RCC’s positions. However, I don’t believe those who hold those positions are persecuted because they are the views of the Catholics...they are persecuted because they are conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.