Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Long before Jesus turned water into wine, He turned Mary’s amniotic fluid into meconium, and her breast milk into transitional stools. Anyone who has ever changed a child’s diaper knows that the resulting odor offends the nostrils greatly. As Jesus would later instruct us, “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly” and ends up in the toilet (Matthew 15:17), or in His case as an infant, in the diaper. Thus did Jesus’ lower gastrointestinal tract operate as it must for all men, and thus did our Lord endure the gastrocolic reflex, as all we mortals do. We therefore have no doubt that Mary’s milk passed through Him according to the course of nature, and into His diapers in a common and necessary movement. And thus did Jesus come all the way down to earth to save us, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15).
If that opening paragraph offends you, you do not know why Jesus came to earth, and you have not understood the Gospel. Jesus did not come to seek the whole, for the “whole need not a physician” (Matthew 9:12). He “came not to call the righteous” (Luke 5:32), for the righteous have no need of a Savior. He did not come to avoid sinners, but to find them. He touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14).
In short, He is the sinners’ Savior, and He came to earth to pursue them, not to avoid them (1 Timothy 1:15). To find sinners, He became a man like us. Not a man like us in all ways but sweat and dirt. Not a man like us in all ways but meconium. He became a man like us—”touched with the feeling of our infirmities”—in all ways but sin (Hebrews 4:15). And as if it were not enough that His feet were soiled to walk among us, He stooped even further and soiled His hands as well (John 8:6). Thus Jesus truly condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, say our Roman Catholic acquaintances, such condescension must have its limits. There is only so much stooping God can do without soiling Himself beyond what He can bear. Sure, He fixed his tabernacle among His people, but God ministers at the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus 33:9), and that tabernacle is Mary. And such a tabernacle would need to be sinless. But aside from having a sinless mother, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, being sinless, the womb of Mary was a step up, not a step down, from Heaven. He actually did not, and could not, condescend all the way to our level, say the Roman Catholics:
“The womb of Mary—I will not call it womb, but temple; … the more secret tabernacle, … Yea verily above the heavens must Mary’s womb be accounted, since it sent back the Son of God to heaven more glorious than He had come down from heaven.” (St. Maximus, Homily V)
Thus, while it is true that Jesus “humbled” Himself to become man, He did not so humble Himself that He actually came down from heaven. No, by the testimony of Rome’s saints, He actually went up into Mary’s womb! So aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was actually higher than the heavens that He had left behind, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that He was raised in a perfectly sinless home. Someone as holy as Jesus could not come this far and then live in a household contaminated by the sins He had come to take away. Therefore, Joseph must have been preserved from sin, too. The Apparition of Joseph in 1956 assured Sister Mary Ephrem that “immediately after my conception … because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father … I was from that moment confirmed in grace and never had the slightest stain on my soul.” So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that His cousin, John the Baptist, the herald of the King, also lived a life without sin. This “acceptable belief,” as you can read here, is freely accepted as true by Roman Catholics. As one member of the Catholic Answers forum explains, “It is crystal clear from Scripture that St. John the Baptist was baptized within his mother’s womb … [and] was free of all sin from that point on.”
So widespread is this “pious belief,” that even Pope John XXIII in 1960 taught the logical implications of it: namely that Joseph and John the Baptist must have been assumed bodily into heaven, just as Jesus and Mary had been. “So we may piously believe,” said John XXIII, that the grace of assumption into heaven, so recently and infallibly declared for Mary in 1950, was also granted both to John the Baptist and to Joseph (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 52 (1960) 456). So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, and a sinless cousin, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, the fact that all of the apostles were sinless, too. That this is “acceptable belief” in Rome is evidenced from another writer at the Catholic Answers forum, who holds that not only the apostles, but many, many Roman Catholics led perfectly sinless lives after encountering Christ:
“What is being said is that they led sinless, blameless lives with the help of God’s grace. … Not only the Apostles, but many Saints, Martyrs, Fathers, desert fathers, Confessors and other members of the Church led sinless, blameless lives.”
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, and sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, that His maternal grandparents must have been “profoundly pure” as well. Consider this pious tradition of the conception of Mary in the womb of St. Anne. If Mary was housed in her mother, Anne, and Mary was the tabernacle, then that would make Anne “the inner sanctuary in which was formed the living tabernacle which was to house the Son of God made Man.”
It is thus difficult for Roman Catholics to picture in their minds that Mary had been conceived through normal, biological, copulative processes, including the physical pleasure and all of the attendant physical intimacy between man and wife. So taught Christopher West in his lecture, Theology of the Body and Our Lady of Fatima:
“In the east, do you know how they depict the Immaculate ConceptIon? … The icon is of a chaste embrace between Joachim and Anne, with the marriage bed behind them. How is it possible that their marital embrace led to the immaculate conception, if their hearts had not also in some way been made profoundly pure.”(59:30-1:00:40)
It is apparently inconceivable to Mr. West that Mary might have been conceived in an intimate sexual embrace, her parents lying down in bed, naked, enjoying the sheer physical pleasure that, as Paul wrote, was the “proper gift of God” to each of them (1 Corinthians 7:7). No, their hearts had to be “profoundly pure,” and that level of purity does not countenance the horizontality of unashamedly pleasurable marital sex.
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, and “profoundly pure” maternal grandparents, Jesus was born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
The point we are making is that Jesus was incarnated to save sinners, yet Rome has built up a religion that is intent on saving Jesus from the sinners He came to save! We see this in the march of Roman Catholic tradition that is constantly expanding the circle of sinlessness that surrounds this Man who, so we thought, had come to dine with sinners, touch lepers and be worshiped by prostitutes. Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who freely and deliberately dined and lodged with sinners might have taken up His first residence in one, and received His first meal from one? Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who left Heaven to find sinners might have included among them a mother, a step-father, a cousin and two grandparents who were as eager to be cleansed of their sin as the harlots and lepers? To Roman Catholics, the answer is yes—it is unfathomable. So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that to approach Him to be cleansed, one must already be clean.
But this not the only way Rome separates Jesus from the sinners He came to save. We are all too familiar with Mary’s alleged role as “mediatress.” Yes, Roman Catholics tell us, there is one mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), but despite His incarnation, Jesus’ divinity is still a hindrance, not a help, to His mediation. Read as Roman apologist William Most cleverly transitions from Jesus being “the answer,” to Mary being the much better answer, because her humanity makes her better qualified than Jesus to mediate on our behalf:
“How then can I understand God, how [to] know what He wills, how to deal with him? But In Jesus we have the answer. … Yes, but His heart is the heart of a Divine Person. However, her heart is purely, entirely human, … So her Immaculate Heart can and does assure us we have in heaven an Advocate whom we can understand, who understands us, who loves us to the extent that like the Father, she did not spare her only Son, but gave Him up for all of us” (Most, William G., Mary’s Cooperation in Our Redemption)
But even this cannot be sufficient for Rome, who ever strives by remarkable ingenuity to separate sinners further from their Savior. It is true, says Rome, that Mary is the Mediatress of all graces, and every grace that flows to us from Jesus comes through Mary. But every grace from Mary must necessarily flow through Joseph. In his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church, Fr. Domenico, makes the case:
“It seems fitting then that by his intercession St. Joseph should now obtain all the graces that Our Lady dispenses to the human race. … these grace come through Mary first, and then through St. Joseph who obtains them only through her. … all the other saints rely on St. Joseph in their intercessions, just as St. Joseph relies on the mediation of Our Lady.” (True Devotion to St. Joseph, 381, 383, 400).
One Mediator can never be enough, nor two, nor three, so far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome.
But there is yet another way Rome separates Christ from sinners, and that is by reducing Jesus’ death on the cross to merely a symbolic gesture. It was hardly necessary to die and bleed, they say, but Jesus did it anyway—not to pay for sins, but to demonstrate the horror of sin. So taught Fr. William Most:
“Really an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death would have been an infinite reparation. Yet to show the horror of sin, and the immensity of His love, the Father willed, and He agreed, to go so dreadfully far.” (Most, William, Eschatology).
That is completely contrary to the Scriptures (Hebrews 2:14-17, 9:22), for “it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren … to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,” for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Yet as it turns out, in Rome, the real sacrifice of Jesus was not what He offered on the cross at all, but the bread He offered the night before in the Last Supper. That, we are told, was the real sacrifice:
“Those who crucified Christ did so at the sixth hour. But Jesus our High Priest immolated the lamb which He took towards the evening [the night before], when He celebrated the paschal banquet with His disciples and imparted to them the sacred mysteries.”
Indeed, Rome teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was not an offering for sin. They do not hide this, but say it proudly and openly as the Catholic Legate demonstrates:
“The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin and it certainly was unbloody. Without the Last Supper I defy you to find any reference to the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin in the entire of the Passion Narratives.”
Thus does the religion of Rome nullify the incarnation and “make the cross of Christ of none effect” (1 Corinthians 1:17)—as if Paul had not said we have access to the Father by the blood of the cross (Ephesians 2:13-19), and Peter had not said Jesus “bare our sins in his own body on the tree ” (1 Peter 2:24-3:18), and as if Hebrews did not instruct us that Jesus is “mediator of the new testament … by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions” (Hebrews 9:15). Rome would have Him mediate the new covenant, without blood, without death, without the cross and without suffering for our transgressions, for “an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death” would have sufficed.
Couple this with the visions of Mary, and what we find is an utter and absolute denial of everything the incarnation was to accomplish. The visions of Mary teach Roman Catholics that it is Jesus Who is angry at them, and that Mary is holding back His wrath, and she is suffering for them—contrary to Romans 5:9 which assures us that “we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The visions of Mary also teach that it is Jesus Who needs to be consoled by our sufferings—contrary to 2 Corinthians 1:5 which assures us that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.” Compare these Scripture verses, above, with what the apparitions of Mary teach (Both of these visions and messages, La Salette and Akita, have the ecclesiastical approval of the Roman religion):
“If my people will not obey I shall be compelled to loose my Son’s arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it. How long I have suffered for you! If my Son is not to cast you off, I am obliged to entreat Him without ceasing.” (Apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France to Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu, 1846)
“Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates.” (Apparition of Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, 1973)
So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that we are told that Jesus is angry with us, and that we must suffer to console Him and save Him from His Father’s wrath! Is not the sum total of Rome’s doctrines a material denial of the incarnation?
Consider Rome’s teachings in light of John’s instruction in his first epistle. 1 John is an exquisite magnification of the incarnation, “which we have heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked upon, and our hands have handled,” (1 John 1:1). If we have sinned, there is a Mediator for us, for “we have an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1). “God … sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” and “your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.” (1 John 2:12, 4:10). “He was manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:1). All these speak of an incarnation that provided us with one Mediator, provided us with one propitiation for our sins, and let us boldly approach Him (1 John 4:17) not because we are without sins (1 John 1:8-10), but because He Himself has made propitiation for them. “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). But Rome denies this record. The Serpent attempted to prevent the incarnation from occurring (Revelation 12:4), and failing that, now every effort is made by Rome to undo all of the benefits to be gained from it.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to seek and save sinners? Rome responds by surrounding Him with as many sinless people as possible to make Him distant an inaccessible to those who need Him.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to make a propitiation to the Father? Rome responds by relegating His sacrifice to the background—merely a profound gesture that was not strictly necessary—and making the real sacrifice an unbloody one the night before the crucifixion, when He “offered” bread for sins of the world.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to die, making peace through the blood of His cross? Rome responds by teaching that every sin Jesus pays for just makes the Father and Jesus angrier and angrier, and it is we who must, by our sufferings, make reparation for sin and thus save Jesus from His Father’s wrath.
Did Jesus become a man to be a Mediator between God and His people? Rome responds by adding as many mediators as possible between Jesus and sinners, as if His incarnation had failed, and left Him incapacitated, unfit and unable to serve.
Was Jesus “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9)? Rome responds by saying He was made higher than the heavens, so high is Mary’s womb above the children of men. The leisure of a palace, they say, instead of the humiliation of the cross, would have sufficed as a reparation.
Like the disciples, Rome would send away the unclean (Matthew 15:23), keep the simple from approaching Him (Luke 18:16), and rebuke Jesus for dying on the cross (Matthew 16:22)—for Rome has “taken away the key of knowledge,” not entering themselves, and hindering those who would (Luke 11:52).
When John wrote, “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3), he did not write this as an isolated formulaic incantation. He did not write this as if the mere recitation of the Nicæan Creed was sufficient as a substitute for faith in what had really been accomplished in the incarnation. John wrote this in the context of an incarnation that guaranteed to us a propitiation for sins and the favorable disposition of our heavenly Father, that provided us an Advocate who took on flesh to represent us and intercede before Him, that comforted us with an assurance of pardon for our sin through an accessible Savior Who hears us when we call upon Him. All these things are in practice denied by Rome, and we are offered no peace, no security, an angry Father, an angry Son, an endless line of mediators and a Savior unable to sympathize with our weakness, unapproachable and inaccessible except by those who are already “whole” and already “righteous.”
We hold therefore that when John wrote, “he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:10), it is proof that the religion of Rome, at its core, is a rejection of the incarnation, for Rome has done all in its power to nullify it and make God a liar. Does Rome recite the Nicæan Creed? Well did Isaiah speak of her:
“Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (Isaiah 29:13).
The priests of Rome honor the incarnation with their lips, but by removing Jesus from sinners, they have denied the incarnation, and have removed their hearts from God.
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)
Now you’ve moved the goal posts. It went from being the “unanimous” consent of the ECFs, down to a broad consensus. Is this 80%? 75%? 51%?
Imagine this: You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? I know not man.” **Huh?** For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from—--or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
GOOD GRIEF THE IGNORANCE OF THE WORD! Forgive my caps on this, but this is utterly ridiculus and has been pointed out to you on several occasions by me. This is what is frustrating. After having been shown the Greek behind this you continue to post this falsity. I expect better from you.
The Greek indicates she had not had sex with anyone at the time. Nothing in the Greek indicates what catholics are suggesting. The Greek for “know” means to have intimate knowledge/contact through personal experience….in other words….sexual intercourse.
Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
She’s astonished in that she knows she hasn’t had intercourse with anyone.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—--unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
False equivalence and false assumption on the part of the catholic. Again, there is NOTHING in the text indicating Mary had decided to remain a virgin. The texts show she and Joseph did have intercourse, much to the chagrin of catholics everywhere. Sarah was already married and had been having sex with Abraham in trying to have a child.
This idea that Mary was NOT ever-virgin, is a Renaissance-era innovation.
The Greek texts say otherwise. Paul says otherwise when he noted he met James, the Lord’s brother.
Yet you posted.
OK, I can understand your point. If that is what you really think, then move on, like you said yourself.
Yes, James, the half brother of Jesus, the natural son of Mary and Joseph, was the leader of the Jerusalem church, not Peter. Don't forget Jude, another half brother of Jesus, who wrote the book of Jude. I wonder what the names of the half sisters of Jesus were? We just don't know. I hope all the half brothers and half sisters of Jesus became true Christians, like James and Jude did. We just don't know for sure. 😇
I can’t answer that, because I don’t know.
Regarding your points, I don’t know of whom you are speaking. Who are the banned people, etc.?
Mary and Joseph must just be some weird anomaly.
As a former Protestant, I’ve yet to see one. Peace be with you.
And yet you've read up to reply 53 and have commented.
Dang!
3 of us noticed this!
We know Jews highly valued genealogy, and made a point of recording it (So and so begat...). We also know the only person “born of Mary” (Matthew 1:18) was Jesus. We also know that John the Baptist was the son of Elizabeth “she bore a son” (Luke 1:57).
No place else in Scripture does it say Mary bore other children, nor does it say other children were “born of” Mary.
Additionally, should Jesus had siblings born of Mary, would they not have likely had children and so on? However, we don’t see that, either in the Bible, or other accounts. The Bible appears to indicate the line of both Joseph and Mary stop at Jesus (and John the Baptist, respectively). If it didn’t, when did it? Where were they at Pentecost, the crucifixion, or other key moments in His ministry?
It is my personal opinion there were no other children or half-siblings. I also believe the Apostles had no children, though we know Peter was/had been married.
Scripture doesn't have to say the exact words "Mary bore...." as the text tells us she and Joseph had other kids.
Matthew 13:55 gives us the names of His brothers.
Paul noted in Gal 1:19 that James was the brother of Christ.
Your personal opinion is at odds with the Word.
I don't think we know that at all. They are named in Mattew 13:55. I am not into Greek, but from what I understand, the word for physical brother was used for them. The word for cousin was not used. I also believe that Adam and Eve had a whole huge bunch of kids. Only a few are named, because the Bible was not written to give a blow by blow description of history, nor was it written for our curiosity. It was written, to give us the information necessary, to respond to the gospel. I believe Mary was a sinner, saved by grace, just like all who are saved by grace. She does not occupy a place in Heaven higher than anyone else. If others want to believe something different, so be it. I just don't accept it myself.
The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
You can run all you want, but you can’t hide. The truth is that your religion says that sex between a husband and wife (Joseph and Mary) is sin. Yet it also suggest to propagate and fill the earth as Scripture says. Oh until your latest pope and now it’s been changed to NOT to breed like rabbits. Still your religion wants you to have children, so it wants you to sin so you stay indebted to it for salvation. Just how evil can you get? Stay tuned I’m sure it will get even more sinful. Oh wait news flash the pope’s science adviser worships gaia yep it just got worst!
I remember that comment, and I also remember going much further back than that that another RC commented that sex without the intent of pregnancy is the cause of the moral decline in this country.
I remember that discussion because someone brought up people who were infertile and those couples where they wife as past menopause, making them contributing to the moral decline in this country because they were engaging in sex knowing there was no chance for pro-creation.
You know what, Mrs Don-o?
Much as I like you and respect you, that fall back line of *Wellllll, it’s not infallible teaching of the church* has WAAAAAAAYYYYYY outlived its usefulness, and honestly, I expect better out of you in the way of discussion.
For one thing, were weren’t talking about *official* teaching of the Catholic church. I was addressing the attitude of many Catholics.
For another, the Church has more than contributed to that kind of thinking, maybe not intentionally, since it likes lots of little Catholics, but in portraying celibacy as a superior and more honorable calling for one’s life, it has most certainly presented the view that sex is someone unworthy or beneath someone.
Scripture clearly states that Joseph did not know his wife until AFTER she gave birth, and the writers of the Gospels name Jesus' brothers by name.
So, yes, the "church" for 15 centuries was wrong in claiming she was perpetually virgin. I don't care about their pedigree, or claimed intellectual prowess.
Scripture states otherwise.
Yeah?
Says you.
Tell that to my kids......
The Ark is JESUS, not Mary.
The ark carried the Shekinah glory, not God in physical form. What carried the Shekinah glory was Jesus' body.
Mary was not untouchable. There's not one shred of evidence for support of that in Scripture.
Did people die when they touched Mary? How did her mother not die then, if touching Mary resulted in death?
How did people not die when Jesus touched them?
Was Mary more holy than Jesus, that people could touch God Incarnate and not die, but would die if they touched Mary?
Daniel said it right. Today’s Catholics are not going to come right and say that sex in marriage is evil. They are too sophisticated to do that. When I was a catholic, it wasn’t talked about much either. My parents still haven’t told me about the birds and the bees, and they are both deceased. I had to find out in the locker room of my Catholic school. It was like the elephant in the room. Everyone knew it was there, but no one wanted to talk about it. The implication that doing the “evil deed” was somehow less than ideal, was clearly there, or at least, that is the message that I got out of it. If someone thinks it is less than ideal, instead of the most beautiful gift God ever gave mankind, for use here on earth (notice I said for use here on earth) then I can imagine some might think it is bad, and others may not. I am sure each person has their own idea.
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.