Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[NYer]

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 

So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:

The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.

         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.

         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 

         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name

“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.

The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:

When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, born under the law,

to ransom those under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as sons.

As proof that you are sons,

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

crying out, “Abba, Father!”

So you are no longer a slave but a son,

and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,

reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,

he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel

before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 

[kosciusko51]

Thanks. Which post?

[The Cuban]

Whoops it didn’t post No its not necessary for sLvation. However it is a truth. I really don’t get the Protestant aversion to honoring the Mother of Jesus. Heck I respect and pay deference to my friends mothers out of respect. I certainly don’t talk sh*t about them and sometimes hang out with them. Non-protestant Christians know that death cannot separate the Christian Community because Jesus conquered it. Just like you ask your mom to pray for you we ask Mary (the first Christian by the way) to pray for us. After all what Mary asks of her son, Jesus is quite willing to do, just ask the guests at the wedding at Canaa.

Also don’t respond with “Catholics worship Mary” or think she is necessary for salvation which is false. (Regardless Why would she lead anyone away from her Son?) If you want to argue first read the actual Catechism of the Church and refute it. It’s available online. Google it.

Don’t go quoting some ex disgruntled ex catholic or snake charming West Virginia hick or some malnourished 16th Century Northern European religious malcontent.

[kinsman redeemer]

Me - When you do the Rosary, how many "Hail Marys" do you knock out? The answer is apparently 53 (fifty three). [Let's keep up the legal nature of the subject.] Here's the rub: If you pray 2 (two) Rosaries, then you gotta knock out 153 (one hundred fifty three) of those bad boys. Wait! What?

You - Catholic school, first grade...53+53 is 106....not 153.

.

You are wrong, but so was I. Mine was an arithmetic error (and Yes, I could have used help.) I was counting "HMs" for 3 Rosaries. I said 2. I'm sincerely sorry. I said 2, not 3.

Two Rosaries deposit 103 "Hail Marys" in your account.

Three Rosaries gets you to 153.

Your error is a dangerous PROCESS ERROR and that's what worries me: If you're saying the Rosary incorrectly by throwing in extra "preliminary" Hail Marys (for Faith, Hope, and Charity), are you going to go to hell? I hope not. You're entertaining.

In my post, I also said, "Don't ask me, I don't make the rules!

You appear to be saying three UNNECESSARY prayers with each mystery. Are you trying to get extra credit but unknowingly risking your eternal destiny?

This is a serious matter.

There are 153 Hail Mary's in a 15 decade Rosary, 53 in a 5 decade Rosary. I was talking about the full monty, when I said 153 Hail jobs.

Gird yourself.

How many mysteries do you hold to? Do you embrace the Luminous mysteries?

Do you mind telling me your best time for a single Hail? I can say the prayer in 6.65 seconds.

Are you in the "...the Lord is with you" camp are are you an "...our Lord is with you" kinda guy?

Finally, when you've been a Freeper as long as I, then you'll be much wiser.
P.S. That's about a week from now. ;^)

But by that time the "standard" changes... you should be accustomed to changing standards by now.

REMEMBER: With the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" - It's ALL ABOUT THE PROCESS. Please "stay within the lines!" It's your only hope.

[kinsman redeemer]

I sometimes need this:

more than I'll ever need THAT!

[kosciusko51]

If it is not necessary for salvation, then why criticize those who don’t believe, or frankly, don’t see the need for the additional veneration of her?

I have no problem with the term Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary, and mother of Jesus is also an accurate title for her.

PS: I’m not sure why you needed to use a scatological term to get your point across.

[The Cuban]

I don’t but as you can see from the Title of this thread it was hijacked by them, because the mention of Mary gets there panties all up in a bunch. Unlike Protestantism, which defines itself by how uncatholic they are, Catholics could care less what Protestants believe, other than of course being aware that it’s heretical, which just means not in accord with orthodoxy.

[kosciusko51]

But is it heresy to not venerate Mary, and if so why, since is it not a salvation issue?

[kinsman redeemer]

Protestantism, which defines itself by how uncatholic they are...

I am part of the catholic Church.

"Mentioning Mary" doesn't bother me a bit. What the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" does with her DOES bother me and here's why:

The "HRCC" is leading people to HELL and Mary worship is part of Satan's plot!

Sure! That bothers me and it bothers God.

[The Cuban]

Allright there smart guy

[The Cuban]

No veneration is an act. Contumacoous refusal while aware that she is due it is another matter. Here is a good explanation:

“In every age the Church has drawn a fundamental distinction (which, on account of its importance, should never be overlooked) between formal and merely material heretics, and her penal legislation was directed solely against the former category. As the open and obstinate rebellion of a Catholic against the Divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church, formal heresy still remains one of the most grievous sins. Material heresy on the other hand, i.e. an error in faith entertained undesignedly and unconsciously, is in itself neither sinful nor punishable, except where the error is itself inexcusable. In excusable error are all who possess subjectively the firm and honest conviction that they have the true faith of Christ, thus including the vast majority of non-Catholics, who were born and educated in their particular form of belief”

[The Cuban]

No veneration is an act. Contumacoous refusal while aware that she is due it is another matter. Here is a good explanation:

“In every age the Church has drawn a fundamental distinction (which, on account of its importance, should never be overlooked) between formal and merely material heretics, and her penal legislation was directed solely against the former category. As the open and obstinate rebellion of a Catholic against the Divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church, formal heresy still remains one of the most grievous sins. Material heresy on the other hand, i.e. an error in faith entertained undesignedly and unconsciously, is in itself neither sinful nor punishable, except where the error is itself inexcusable. In excusable error are all who possess subjectively the firm and honest conviction that they have the true faith of Christ, thus including the vast majority of non-Catholics, who were born and educated in their particular form of belief”

[MHGinTN]

Offering this as a 'prot', we non-Catholics see two different Mary profiles. One profile is the Mother of Jesus, since she is a human being and cannot be the progenitor of God. We use that term progenitor the way it is defined in common usage:

Full Definition of progenitor 1

a : an ancestor in the direct line : forefather
b : a biologically ancestral form

2

: precursor, originator

Personally, I do not assign any DNA connection directly from Mary, the Mother of Jesus, to the embryonic being Who gestated in her womb. As such she is the biological surrogate to a conceptus COMPLETELY formed by God The Father and placed in Mary's womb by The Holy Spirit.

If one assigns half the chromosomes of Jesus to a gamete from Mary, she is more than a surrogate Mother. If one assigns no gamete chromosome origins to Mary then she is The surrogate Mother of Jesus ... and here's the part catholic boneheads will just thrill over ... if Mary is solely a surrogate to the God fashioned embryonic Jesus, she is the surrogate mother of the physical human body Jesus occupied during His earthly sojourn and is due no other honor than the blessed Mother of Jesus, The Jesus Who was and IS God with us.

The religion of catholiciism, as different from Christianity, seeks to assign to the Mother of Jesus titles and roles which God did not assign in His Word, The Bible. To do this sleight of hand the catholic hierarchy plays conflation games and duplicitous definition games. That's just plain dishonest when such titles and roles are not found anywhere in The Word of God, The Bible.

It is curious that catholics insist we 'prots' acknowledge that it is the Catholic Church (not the ekklesia of Jesus origins, begun in the profession of faith by Peter) which brought us all The Bible as we have it today, yet they cannot find even one clear passage which makes assignment of the titles the religion of modern catholiciism assigns to their Mary in adoration.

When Mary and her other children came to the house where Jesus was teaching and stood outside asking for an audience, it is revealing to see how Jesus responded. Had Mary been a real progenitor to Jesus as God, He would by Jewish law been obliged to honor her request. He, however, stated tot he attending crowd, who is my Mother, etc. when Jesus was dying in body on the Cross, since none of his brothers were there present with His Mother, He gave her care over to a disciple.

It was only AFTER the Resurrection that the brothers of Jesus fully believed in His Messiah identity! And why not, they knew Him as the oldest brother in the family and had even tried to persuade Him to stop with the making unrest among the people being ruled by Rome. After the Resurrection they knew without any doubt that He was much more than just a religious zealot who was their oldest brother ... He was God with them! And their lives thereafter reflect their certainty. Had James not been the brother of Jesus, I doubt the body of Jewish believers would have placed him as their leader in Jerusalem, since the Sanhedrin was hell-bent to persecute the Jewish zealotry. But James was a rock of faithfulness, and even the acknowledged leader when the Council in Acts takes place determining what would be the best way to relate with the gentiles coming to Christ.

Removing the family connection between Jesus and James as having the same Mother seems a foolish way to try and promote false titles and roles for their Mother. The Blessed Mother of Jesus was more than just the Mother of Jesus, she was the Mother of a couple of the pillars of Christian ekklesia!

[DungeonMaster]

De Montfort

22. The plan adopted by the three persons of the Blessed Trinity in the Incarnation, the first coming of Jesus Christ, is adhered to each day in an invisible manner throughout the Church and they will pursue it to the end of time until the last coming of Jesus Christ.

23. God the Father gathered all the waters together and called them the seas (maria). He gathered all his graces together and called them Mary (Maria). The great God has a treasury or storehouse full of riches in which he has enclosed all that is beautiful, resplendent, rare, and precious, even his own Son. This immense treasury is none other than Mary whom the saints call the "treasury of the Lord". From her fullness all men are made rich.

[kosciusko51]

Interesting. If it is not too much trouble, will you provide a link or at least the name of the source of the quote? Thank you.

[Elsie]

Probably much older than Mary,

Oh?

Upon what evidence do you base this guesstimation?

[Elsie]

I’ll ask my question again, slightly rephrased: is belief Mary’s post-partum virginity necessary for one’s salvation, and if so, why?

Of COURSE not!

But...

...it IS necessary for her assumed GOD-like powers the Roman Ctholic Church asserts that she processes.

[MHGinTN]

One last note on the surrogacy of Mary: had God used a gamete from Mary to fashion the embryonic being of Jesus, that would have connected Mary to God the Holy Spirit in a way that would violate the marriage The Angel told Joseph to go ahead and finish rather than ‘putting her away’. Had half the chromosomes of Jesus come directly from His Mother, she would be an adulterer to finish the marriage to Jospeh because in catholic reasoning her first spouse IS still alive when she completes her marriage to Joseph.

[The Cuban]

You lost me at “the Religion of Catholicism as opposed to Christianity”

[MHGinTN]

Meant to ping you folks tot he additional thought ...

[MHGinTN]

When/if you are no longer lost, you will get the differentiation.