Posted on 02/01/2007 9:29:47 AM PST by Ottofire
GRPL ping!
Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
But the descendants of Mary are also sinners, going all the way back to Adam. She is not sprung from dust, she is human, thus carries the sin of Adam carried by all descendants of Adam except the one Perfect Savior.
Using your semi-gnostic argument Mary would have to be wholly created for this purpose without any human parents to be sinless, which Luke, did not document, nor did he document the perfect birth of Mary, though he most likely did talk to the Blessed Mother in person, himself.
(I use the term semi-gnostic as the RCC seems to think that something as blessed as sex is wrong, much like the anti-materialist gnostics. Sex between married people is indeed a blessing and carries no sin, given to us from God Himself. Thus the sex that produced Mary gave her no sin, just her nature as a human did.)
is sex between a husband and his second wife a blessing?
You would be well advised to better acquaint yourself with our theology of Marriage. Your statement, quoted above, 'seems' delusional and disconnected from reality.
--is sex between a husband and his second wife a blessing?
Of course it is. But marriage is only for this world. And all the pleasures of marriage serves the purposes of God to ensure the generations. If you are asking about a second marriage after unwarranted divorce, the divorce is a sin that must be repented of. You must consult the scriptures and get counseling to see if sex after the second marriage is a sin. I am not studied in this area.
Something of the Scriptures that I just read and came to mind:
Matthew 22:23-33 (NASB)
23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27"Last of all, the woman died.
28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."
29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
So if according to the RCC, Mary is the wife of the Spirit, is she still that after her death?
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Please clarify. By "second wife" do you refer to "remarriage" after "divorce", or to marriage of a widow(er)?
Do you actually think God can glorify His Name through you and not His Mother in the supernatural things that He did for her? It doesn't matter whether you or I believe it or if Zwingli and Calvin and whoever believed it, truth is truth; regardless.
reffering to protestant divorce really (IE not a situation where the marriage was nonexistent due to porneia)
--I use the term semi-gnostic as the RCC seems to think that something as blessed as sex is wrong
-You would be well advised to better acquaint yourself with our theology of Marriage. Your statement, quoted above, 'seems' delusional and disconnected from reality.
("delusional and disconnected"? Heh!)
Then please explain why, if Mary's parents were married, she must be immaculately conceived herself. Her conception was pure if done the natural way.
Does the RCC suggest that Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit similarly to Jesus?
>>I use the term semi-gnostic as the RCC seems to think that something as blessed as sex is wrong, much like the anti-materialist gnostics.<<
What the hell are you talking about? Read this and then get back to us:
http://www.theologyofthebody.net/
What do you think "immaculately conceived" means?
Thanks ... I ask because my first thought involved widow(er)s ...
--Do you actually think God can glorify His Name through you and not His Mother in the supernatural things that He did for her? It doesn't matter whether you or I believe it or if Zwingli and Calvin and whoever believed it, truth is truth; regardless.
Did I say that God was not glorified in the virgin birth? I give all glory to God for that is where it belongs.
The reformed give no glory to His servants, who are but mirrors that reflect His Grace, and neither deserve or require worship, latria, dulia or otherwise. Sola Dei Gloria not glory to Mary, and certainly no glory TO me. I pray that THROUGH me, may God be glorified.
It does not require the immaculate conception of Mary for her to give birth to the Savior. That happened with Mary having a natural one. And all glory for Christs birth is His alone.
May I direct you to Pope Benedict's recent encyclical, Deus Carita Est?
But the descendants of Mary are also sinners, going all the way back to Adam. She is not sprung from dust, she is human, thus carries the sin of Adam carried by all descendants of Adam except the one Perfect Savior.
The RCC does not deny that Mary required a savior. But theologically speaking, however, for her to have held the presence of God in her womb (a virtual human "ark of the covenant"), she could not be stained with original sin. The RCC believes that Mary was PRESERVED from this sin by the living Word at her (immaculate) conception. So, yes, Jesus saved His own mother at her conception.
Luke's account of the Visitation to Elizabeth gives strong evidence that, even in the earliest days of Christianity, Mary was honored and praised as a new "ark of the covenant". It was not too long after that early believers honored her as being without sin.
my point is more that if Joeseph were to have relations with Mary after God set her apart it would be at best no more blessed than are remarriages after divorce.
Also though even Paul mentions remarriage for widowers is more of a lesser of two evils...
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.