Posted on 07/19/2009 2:17:43 PM PDT by NYer
Well, it is strictly speaking an inference. There is no scripture that says “Mary was free from sin and had no other children”. We are supposed to think as well as read, no?
This is just as much an inference as the Trinity is the inference. There is not scripture that says “God is one in three Persons”. The idea that unless there is a clear scriptural prooftext is itself am extrascriptural, in fact, counterscriptural inference.
You are incorrect that the sinlessness, as well as perpetual virginity of Virgin Mary is not held by the Orthodox. They have objections to the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Their objection is not based on what is ar os not stated in the Holy Scripture, but rather to the manner in which it was adopted by the Church in Rome. At times, they also miscast the doctrine, which is unfortunate but has nothing to do with our argument here.
I agree that the doctrines must be checked by the Scripture. That happens to be a Cathoic teaching as well.
So your position is that it is not definitive that Jesus had literal brothers and sisters from Mary; He may have, He may not have. The scripture is inconclusive?
How we know that Mary had no other children? We infer it.
And what scripture provides the basis for that inference?
First, theologically, as the totality of human fulfillment inherent in the choice of being the virginal Mother of God would seem to preclude other familial ambition.
That is simply a statement, not a reason. You infer that Mary is virginal because your theological statement says she is virginal.
Second, if Jesus had blood relatives, why would St. John the Evangelist chosen as caretaker?
Why not Joseph's family? Or Mary's sisters, or other relatives? In fact, your own position - they were cousins, not brothers and sisters - would run counter to your own claim that Jesus did not have blood relatives.
Jesus chose John for symbolic reasons, I submit. John was not needed to take care of her physically; John was needed to care for her spiritually. Jesus named them mother and son spiritually, to tend to each others spiritual needs.
Thirdly, it doesn’t seem that the purpose of the marriage of Mary to Joseph was to make babies anyway. When Archangel announces to Mary, she seems perplexed by the suggestion that she would become pregnant by anyone. “I know not man”, she replies. How many young brides do you know who marvel at the idea that they would soon give birth to a great man? She had never intended to be a mother, or to be a consummated wife.
Ummm, Mary and Joseph weren't married when the angel appeared; they were engaged. Mary and Joseph - being good Jews - would not have consummated marriage because they were not yet married. Mary was perplexed because she had not even married, let alone slept with her husband-to-be!
Unless that doctrine is ex cathedra, such as the eternal chastity of Mary, or her sinless nature. According to the Catechism there can be no question; the debate is over.
Great!
Now if only we could get rid of that annoying 7th inning stretch tradition of singing ‘Take me out to the ballgame’ - as if baseball games aren’t long enough!
If a Catholic were to look at Gen. 8:1 and believe that it assures him that God remembers him and his whole family in the midst of a great trial, he is not prohibited to interpret and have faith that it is so, even though no theologian may have interpreted it precisely that way.
On the other hand, Catholics, like Protestants may run into some difficulties with the authorities in their church if they proclaim an interpretation of scripture that is counter to accepted doctrine. In either case, it is likely that they will be told to hush up and repent. And again, in either case, excommunication would not be the first response to error.
I like to go get a hotdog (with a bazillion others) at the 7th inning stretch. If only everyone else would just stand there and sing, I could get that hotdog before the 8th inning starts.
Time for me to call it a night.
Then what is the scriptural basis for the sinless nature of Mary and the denial of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? These infallible positions would be in addition to the scriptures, if there isn't a scriptural basis for them, correct?
Yes, from Scripture alone we cannot conclude that Mary had no other biological children. We cannot, however, conclude that she definitely had them. It is absurd to suggest so, but not directly contradictory to the scripture.
I agree that the reasons St. Jonh was chosed as Mary’s adoptive son and caretaker was primarily spiritual, in order to confer Mary’s motherhood to all disciples of Christ, and conversely, to elicit her protection of all Christians (see Apoc. 12). It would nevertheless be a violation of the Jewish laws to select a heir who is not a blood relative if a blood relative is available.
Regarding Mary’s reaction in Luke 1: the angel did not suggest the Mary will be pregnant before the marriage to Joseph was to be consummated. Therefore, the logical reaction would have been the same as when any American bride is told that her son will be president of the US one day: “Ah, thanks. I’ll be sure to name the baby Jesus then”. Instead her reaction was “How am I going to get a son in the first place?” It is a very unusual reaction.
It is the obligation of the Magisterium of the Church, including, of course, the Holy Father, to check any theological utterings not only against the Holy Scripture but also against the entire doctrinal catechesis of the Church, prior to promulgating any doctrine. It is true that once an infallible determination has been made, it is binding, but the reason it is binding is that is it authentic historically and scripturally.
The Pope, or the councils, never advance new doctrines. They clarify existing doctrines, often in application to the questions the flock has. For example, the teaching against abortion, euthanasia and contraception is not a new doctrine; it is the clarification of the position the Church has always had in application to the new technological possibilites unavailable — blissfully — in 1c.
“So there is no scriptural claim that Mary was sinless, just an inference running counter to 2000 years of Orthodox tradition.”
Quite the opposite, P. We Orthodox call her Panagia because we believe that she was in fact sinless throughout her life in accord with the Consensus Patrum. We do not however accept the IC since in our understanding of the Sin of Adam, there is no need for it.
But the Psalms *are* prayers. And prayers are merely petitions - that is the reason you have “prayers for relief” when you file a suit in court, or if you asked “what, pray tell, are you talking about?” There is a distinction between such prayer and worship, which is only for God.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted. But, the question remains, are, for example, Michael and Gabriel sinless? If no, what evidence do you have? If yes, my original post holds - sinless is not a trait exclusive to God. Also, I’m not saying that Angels are unable to sin, just that they were created without sin.
Because she was Jewish and humble and obedient to the Law until the second covenant was fulfilled.
Now there's 40,000 denominations, eh??? When you going to provide some proof for this claim???
There is ZERO evidence of that...And it doesn't even make good sense...
You are mistaken...And God layed it out so a 12 year old could understand it...
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
ALL scripture is given by the inspiration of God...And we are to use the scripture as the standard by which we judge Christian matters...
When it comes to another religion, or someone deviating from the Gospel of the Grace of God, tradition, private revelation from God, apparitions, etc., we are to chew the person out, correct the person with scripture and then instruct the person in the ways of righteousness...
And by this correction from the scripture, a man will gain perfection while being completely, thouroughly furnished unto all good works...
The scripture is what it takes, and all it takes...
God didn't say she was full of grace...That's an addition by your religion...
Mary Worship Alert ...
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.