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]).
Evidently 1 in 10,000 (or more) RC’s are able to engage sufficient thought to even understand that perspective and the outrageously abundant evidence for it.
Hey, Proddys, is my assertion off the wall on such scores or do any of you agree with me?
Re this one:
The slick and not so subtle insinuation that Mary mothered God the Father is intolerable to most of us Proddys and requires an emphatic distinction otherwise.
To us,
IF the RC’s and Vatican system were
NOT
tenaciously, persistently
making every bit of hay they could from the phrase
MOTHER OF GOD vis a vis the implications that somehow it includes THE FATHER,
THEN,
they would be quite eager to insure ABSOLUTELY NO
MISUNDERSTANDING BY
CHANGING
the phrase to MOTHER OF JESUS
OR EVEN
MOTHER OF JESUS—CREATOR GOD.
“MOTHER OF GOD”
IS
MISLEADING, OFFENSIVE, UNBIBLICAL IN EVEN THE LEAST INSINUATION THAT IT INCLUDES FATHER GOD.
YET, RC’S DEFEND THE PHRASE SOOOO FIERCELY,
IT HAS to be
A MUCH BIGGER DEAL than merely that they are emphasizing that Jesus is also God.
Proddys are keenly aware of and also believe that Jesus is also God.
THAT’S NOT THE POINT!
Sometimes, it seems like RC’s and the Vatican system exalt in the
DISTINCTION included in the difference on the matter. That it’s part of the
gilded exclusionist mentality of the Vatican and not to be surrendered in the slightest degree.
And that, too, is a horrible stench to Proddys.
One aspect of confusion regarding the body in Communion and in understanding Col 2:9 arises when the reader identifies the body with His flesh rather than his body. 2 different words are used in Scripture and I suspect they are used to convey explicitly different meanings. Had the word SARX or flesh been used, then transubstantiation as many interpret it might be valid, but if one pays close attention to the meaning of the word SOMA in the body, it begins to make more sense.
Nonsense.
I’ve documented otherwise a la the collection of outrageous Ferraro compiled quotes clung to and exalted in over the centuries glorifying and deifying Mary as a Jr part of the Godhead; the only way to Salvation etc. etc.
Then there’s the statistics about what major portions of practicing RC’s believe.
Clearly the Catechism has little influence on the vast majority of RC’s.
THAT’S NOT Proddy’s fault.
BLAMING PRODDYS for pointing such things out as though it was our fault—is absurd and outrageous.
Dear, Dear Mad Dawg . . .
as the Ferraro compilation of quotes from the centuries of Mary and Saint adorations make abundantly clear—that’s just NOT TRUE for at least major percentages of RC’s.
Rushing back to hide under the shelter of the formal Catechism while MOST RC’S BELIEVE AND PRACTICE OTHERWISE
IS ABSURD, DISINGENUOUS AND AT SOME POINT, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST—to Proddys observing such things so relentlessly.
I quite agree.
Some of them are not my personal taste.
Yet, I can sense in them a kind of . . . even . . . anointing.
Please elaborate a few more paragraphs on that distinction.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
My apologies, please delete that post.
I don’t see how anybody knows what most Catholics think.
My “dirty picturees” chestnut was to sugest that if you come to, say, de Montfort expecting to find evidence of mariolatry, you will succeed. But if you are confident that de Montfort holds to the creeds and councils, it will never enter your mind that he thinks that Mary could be anything like the mother of the Father.
Even if it’s true that most Catholics are heretics or in astounding error, look: If I manufacture and market and effective toothpaste and it sells and some people insist on rubbing it on their elbows, is that my fault? It’s labelled toothpaste. I offer classes on its proper use, I can only do so much. I’m not going to quit making it because some people are weird.
And, sometimes people grow. It’s the whole Church as hospital thing again. If we had detailed theological exams one had to pass before receiving the sacraments, that might be a little like insisting people were healthy before admitting them for treatment.
Happy Penetcost!
What Quix said! Say more.
For some time I have seen in my future a laborious word study on just this problem. I guess I’m going to have to buy “Bibleworks”.
It might be more productive to stay away from the Eucharistic side of the question unless it’s essential to your point.
I think one aspect of what we’re seeing is evidence of what we say, that Mariology flows from Christology, which has an intimate tie with Trinitarian thought.
We are castigated for following the Fathers. (”Rather than Scripture” they say) but if one does not pay some attention the the Fathers one has to reinvent the theological wheel — and there’s not enough time in one’s natural life to do that.
So naturally they differ from us, not only regarding Mary, but in other fundamental matters as well.
If it were true that we taught Mary as mother of the Father, we would deserve condemnation. They have condemned us in their minds for decades. That’s not a habit which will change over night. I think we have to be patient with our accusers. We won’t reach the comity requisite for useful conversation otherwise.
That is not true. Look at the organizations of Osteen and Warren and Long. They haven't been around for very long and see how they are.
It is not an insinuation and has never been Christian doctrine. Don't accuse Catholics of believing it.
Won't be me...
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.
That's why God says
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
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 it certainly doesn't note that at all...It notes what it says...
And that 'saves' Col 1:19 and 2:9>
Save them from what??? You mean you can twist those two verses if you reject the other verses???
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
You suppose people see the Trinity when they get to heaven???
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."
The Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary???
Pure fable...Does God hear muzlims when they pray to Mohammed or that black statue (idol, rock)???
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.
Does she tell you she prays for you, or is that some fairy tale that your religious leaders told you to believe...
Her influence with God, like it or not, is far superior than YOURS.
Not according to Jesus...You ever read the bible, without your religion looking over your shoulder???
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.
Your common sense??? Jesus didn't tell us to use common sense to understand the scriptures...Your common sense may not make any sense to anyone else...
Izlam has been around for over a thousand years...They then should have just about as much credibility as your religion...
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?
OKay, where does that idea fall into this that you posted???
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.
Mary performs miracles, eh??? If that was true, don't you think that Jesus might have mentioned it, or even hinted at it???
I haven't heard that one before...
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.