Posted on 05/31/2011 11:53:33 AM PDT by marshmallow
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]).
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]).
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]).
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]).
ping to 2160
Hard to articulate all I see and hear in His gaze in that painting but that comes close. Is that contruent with anything you [A.G.] pick up from looking at it?While this young artist claims to be inspired by God, and she evidently converted her atheist parents to become Christians through her gift (if I got that story straight), the Divine Mercy image was initiated by Christ Himself (He was standing in front of St. Faustina) and the image of Mary of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's tilma was miraculously painted by God, so it gives a pretty good look-see into Mary's appearance as well.
I agree with the Creeds on the issue.
That’s Biblical.
I don’t believe our finiteness
has AS FULL an understanding about all the aspects, details, factors
as we’ll ‘understand it better by and by’ as the hymn goes.
Perhaps
some of the best of the organization is Godly.
All the clap-trap isn’t.
But that’s true in any “Christian” organization.
It just seems that the older and larger, the worse they are.
Those pictures appear to be something more than just natural talent...
I'm surprised you use the word finger...Don't you have a Catholic word for that as well???
It is a serious question, and I agree with you 100%. Did people think I was somehow denying the doctrine of the Trinity, and claiming the Trinity is not three Persons of one substance, without inequality and each Person of the one substance, one God, are not worshipped and glorified equally, as one God? If so, I apologize if I said something otherwise.
The Council of Ephesus was in the 430's,I think, and the Chalcedonian Definition is dated 451.
The first Council of Nicea was a century earlier. That council, boiled down, says that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but no person is another. For this case, the Son is not the Father.
So Any Catholic who argued that
Mary is the mother of the Incarnate Son, andwould be laughed at, and would have been laughed at at Ephesus or Chalcedon.
The Son is God; therefore
(1) Mary is the Mother of God; AND therefore
(2) Mary is the Mother of the Father,
Someone not familiar with the rudiments of Trinitarian thought might infer that we were saying proposition #2; but that is not Catholic doctrine because it would imply a Trinitarian error.
1. Christ CREATOR GOD would not logically FIT within His mortal human frame absolutely 100% of all of His . . . and there words fail . . . . . . all of His . . . being . . . fullness . . . completeness . . . Majesty . . . Glory . . . etc. etc. etc. Any notion otherwise is absurd, to me.
What do you make of Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
Col 2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. "all the fullness of the Godhead" is παν το πληροομα τυς θεοτητος.
It merely notes that the fully God part cannot fully fit in the fully man part. It would be like pouring—trying to contain the Pacific into a thimble.
Well, that's part of what is implied by the "TWO natures in ONE person" lingo. The fullness of the Godhead does not need to fit into the humanity. It seems rather that they're saying it is linked with it in one person. And that 'saves' Col 1:19 and 2:9>
It's still incomprehensible, nobody is denying that, and that's why Catholics are supposed to bow at the part of the Creed that says "And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man."
For the rest, it's largely (not entirely) our difference of opinion about time and eternity.
This is actually kind of neat. We have, for once, gotten to a point where an important theological difference is clarified as a result of our disagreement about Mary. And it would seem that Maryology is indeed bound up with Trinitarian theology and Christology.
I think somebody should congratulate us!
"Insinuation" is, I think, clearly wrong. But perhaps in another approach to the Trinity, calling Mary the Theotokos might lead to that conclusion.
SO I think it's an understandable misunderstanding.
And who, pray tell, are these "numerous, different (Catholic) sources"? Are they bonafide Catholic theologians with doctorates in theology? Or are they just some Catholic "freepers" who are ignorant of their faith? (There are many of these today). And there are many ridiculous, absurd and foul "Catholic" sources of information out there on the web. There is but one official 'source' of Catholic doctrine, and it is called the Magisterium. If any teaching on Catholic doctrine contradicts the Magisterium, then that teaching is in error, period.
No Catholic who knows his/her faith prays to Mary as anything other than a glorious, though merely human, intercessor for us when she unites her prayers with our own and whispers them to God, and hence God hears both us, and his Blessed Mother, praying for our assistance or personal intention.
Prots have their "prayer groups", where Bull Henderson, Paul Smith, Norma Jenkins and Bertha Sanford pray for somebody. That's all well and good, but if given the choice I'd prefer to have the Virgin Mary, Mother of God Incarnate, pray for me. Her influence with God, like it or not, is far superior than YOURS. Until YOU are chosen to give birth to the saviour of mankind, you need to keep the pie hole closely monitored by common sense and 2,000 years of Christian history.
It was Jesus' mother who, in fact, spurred Him to perform His very first miracle, at the wedding at Cana. They ran out of wine and Jesus did not care, or do anything about it. Then His mother interceded, and said the servants: "Do whatever He tells you". And wallah, water was instantly turned into wine, thannks to Mary's intercession. At that moment Jesus did indeed obey His mother's request, as a living symbol of the fifth Commandment "Honor Thy Mother and Father".
Furthermore, the Blessed Virgin Mary can indeed perform miracles, but not of her own power, but of God's power. God gave the Apostles, and even some of their followers, the power to perform miracles. Why would he leave His own mother, whom He chose from all time to be His mother, out of the business of miracles?
In all the flying mud, this has managed to be an interesting conversation.
Just scanning the series of paintings, the "Prince of Peace" captures my attention.
Yes, but we are not allowed to share it with non-Catholics.
You mean an English word, yes. I gave it to you. Now, just because you don't realise that many words in English derive from Latin or other languages and many words are homonyms, well, you need to go read more -- start with the Bible
Sorry, I was just pointing out to the other fellow that you and I as Christians believe in the Trinity. If he wishes to believe in God by modes, that is his problem.
YEAH. I do love our dialogues.
And I think they warrant that word.
I need to start compiling links to your posts that I can’t get to at the time. Too many fall through the cracks and I hate that. I need to go back through your IN FORUM until I find the ones I wanted to comment on.
In terms of Col 2:9—of course I believe and agree with the Scripture
. . . even though . . .
in my finiteness, I don’t grasp more than infitesimally what it could mean, imho.
What it means to me with my finiteness is that—as you seemed to indicate—the fullness of the Godhead is represented, . . . accessed, manifested, operant
. . .
IN CHRIST . . . etc.
I can’t imagine that it means 100% of all of God the Father, Son and Spirit were housed in that human frame before, during or after The Cross and Resurrection. That would just make no sense, to me. Evidently it would make no sense to you either.
Nice when we can agree.
In terms of calling Mary the mother of God . . . I, of course, still believe, feel, think
that RC’s somewhat deliberately and exaltantly LEAN ON, love to use the currency of the flavor of
MOTHER OF *GAWD!*
AS THOUGH that includes the Father.
OF COURSE, when challenged, they quickly retreat to the only sensible thing they can remotely support.
However, the flavor of USING the other implication in a myriad of ways is a fierce persistent stench to Proddys . . . and, I have to think, to God, himself and likely to Mary, herself.
It’s rather like Shrillery saying IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN when she’d just as soon Bar-B-Q a child alive if it served her greed-for-power purposes.
What’s overtly said when challenged, is very different from what’s persistently capitalized on regarding that phrase “Mother of God.”
And thats an extremely disingenuous stench to Proddys.
Can you at least UNDERSTAND THAT? I’m not asking you to agree with it. I’d just like to know if ONE RC CAN understand our perspective on it.
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.