Posted on 04/15/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by verga
For years there has been disagreement between Catholics and some non-Catholic groups about the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Marian Dogmas, particularly, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. This will attempt to clear up some of the confusion.
Catholics have always held that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and following the birth of Jesus. Many non-Catholics contend that scripture proves that she did not and points to several instances of people being called brothers or sisters of Jesus.
When we study the scriptures carefully, paying particular attention to the order of sentences and view the language with precision, we see that the Catholic position is both logical and scriptural.
We see the annunciation in Luke Chapter 1. Luke 1:26-27 “In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.”
Notice that Mary is described as “betrothed”. For all intents and purposes this means that they are married, but the marriage has not yet been consummated. I will go into more detail about this further on.
The angel says to Mary in Luke 1:30-33 “And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
It is important to note here that the angel has not specified a time when or how this would occur.
Mary’s response is very telling Luke 1:34 “εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;” Luke 1:34 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” In both the Douay-Rheims and the King James version ἔσται is correctly translated as “shall” From Strong’s concordance 1510 εἰμί eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be"). Ἔσται is the future tense or “will be.”
Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.
There are some who will say that the word betrothed meant that they were merely engaged, but scripture shows differently; in the Hebrew culture a couple became betrothed then, the husband prepared a house, returned for the wife, and took her into the house to consummate the marriage.
Jesus used the language of the bridegroom in John 14:1-3 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith* in God; have faith also in me”.
2 “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?”
3 “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be”.
Months later after she is already living with Joseph on the way to Bethlehem Mary is still referred to as being betrothed,
Luke 2:5 “to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.”
If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her.
Matthew 1:19 “Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν.”
Matthew 1:19 “Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately”. The word ἀπολῦσαι from Strong’s concordance 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner
We see the exact same term used when Jesus is discussing marriage and divorce in Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9.
At this point the non-Catholics will point out that this does not prevent them from having a conjugal relationship after the birth of Jesus and the purification ritual. I have shown above that Mary had no intention of entering into a conjugal relationship with Joseph and this is is due to her having entered into a “relationship” with the Holy Spirit.
This is evidenced in the language used in Luke when the angel explains how Mary is to conceive.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
The term “overshadow” is nuptial language. We see similar language in Ruth and Ezekiel. Ruth 3:9 And he said to her: “Who art thou?” And she answered:” I am Ruth thy handmaid: spread thy coverlet over thy servant, for thou art a near kinsman.”
Ezekiel 16;7-8 “I caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field: and thou didst increase and grow great, and advancedst, and camest to woman's ornament: thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair grew: and thou wast naked, and full of confusion
. And I passed by thee, and saw thee: and behold thy time was the time of lovers : and I spread my garment over thee, and covered thy ignominy. And I swore to thee, and I entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God: and thou becamest mine.”
At this point some will ask how could Mary be in a matrimonial relationship with both the Holy Spirit and Joseph, The answer is in the exact same way that all Christians are in that relationship with Christ.
Mary had both an earthly temporal nuptial relationship with Joseph and an eternal nuptial relationship with the Holy Spirit, just as all Christians hope to have with God. This comes from the Hebrew word אֲרוּסָה (kiddush) which means betrothed, The root of kiddush is קָדוֹשׁ (kadash) which means holy or sacred.
Matthew 9:14-15 Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (See also Mark 2:18-20, Luke 5:33-35) Matthew 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom”
Isaiah 61:10 “I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
John 3:29 "He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice So this joy of mine has been made full.
2 Corinthians 11:2 “For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
Revelation 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”
The difference between Mary’s nuptial relationship with God and ours is that hers intersected here in the temporal world and resulted in the conception of the Man, Christ Jesus.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The question will still remain to some: How does this prevent Mary and Joseph from engaging in a conjugal relationship?
By law he was strictly prohibited from entering this type of relationship with Mary. To understand this we need to refer to the Old Testament, specifically the book of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.
Deuteronomy 1:1-4 1 “When a man, after marrying a woman, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house,
2 if on leaving his house she goes and becomes the wife of another man,
3 and the second husband, too, comes to dislike her and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, or if this second man who has married her dies, 4 then her former husband, who dismissed her, may not again take her as his wife after she has become defiled. That would be an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage.”
Jeremiah 3:1 “If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and then becomes the wife of another, Can she return to the first? Would not this land be wholly defiled? But you have played the prostitute with many lovers, and yet you would return to me!—oracle of the LORD.”
In the The Babylonian Talmud: (Neusner vol 11 pg 123) It states that a man can not enter into a marriage contract with a woman who has been made pregnant by a former husband. If he does, he is required to give her a bill of divorce.and not remarry her.
We see this in 2 Samuel. Absalom had relations with ten of David’s concubines.
2 Samuel 16:22 “So a tent was pitched on the roof for Absalom, and Absalom went to his father’s concubines in view of all Israel.
After Absalom’s plot to overthrow his father failed David did the only thing he could. He took them back but he never had relations with them.
2 Samuel 20:3 David came to his house in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten concubines whom he had left behind to care for the palace and placed them under guard. He provided for them, but never again saw them. And so they remained shut away to the day of their death, lifelong widows.”
As we saw in Matthew 1:19 Joseph had planned to divorce her quietly, but again an angel intervened.
Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.”
Now we need to compare the language used 1:18 and in 1:20 Matthew 1:18 “Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.” Sunerchomai συνελθεῖν to come together, to assemble, to marry to have marital relations.
Matthew 1:20 “ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυείδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν Ἁγίου·”
Paralambanó παραλαβεῖν I take from, receive from, or: I take to, receive (apparently not used of money), admit, acknowledge; I take with me.To take charge of.
At this point Joseph became her guardian/ protector and legal spouse. This fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would come from the line of David of which Joseph was a member. Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery. Joseph was able to fulfill all the temporal duties of a father that the Holy Spirit could not.
Further evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity is seen Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 44:1-2 “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary facing east, but it was closed.2The LORD said to me: This gate must remain closed; it must not be opened, and no one should come through it. Because the LORD, the God of Israel, came through it, it must remain closed.”
The Sanctuary is the Temple and only God is permitted to enter through that gate. Jesus told us in John that He was the Temple
John 2:19-21
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?”
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
Logically if Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world.
There will still be some die hards that will say: But what about the “brothers” and “sisters” referred to in the gospels?
In John 19:26-27 we read 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
Some have offered that his siblings were unbelievers. Paul describes James in Galatians 1:19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” So much for James being an unbeliever if he was one of the Apostles. Also nowhere does James describe himself as related to Jesus.
Jude describes himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). If Jude is a sibling of Jesus, why does he talk in this weird way?
If any of them were to be unbelievers it would be a very temporary state of affairs. We see this in John 17:12 When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.
The claim of unbelief came in John 7:5 For his brothers did not believe in him. During the feast of tabernacles (See John 7:2). That was 6 months prior to the Passover and both James and Jude were present for that.
Further Jesus would have known that they would to him based on his predictions of the behavior of others in the gospels.
Matthew 26:13 He knew the woman that anointed Him with oil would be remembered.
Matthew 26:34 He knew of Peter’s triple denial.
Peter's death in John 21:18-19, and the list goes on.
Even if they did not believe in Him they were still faithful Jews and had a responsibility that Jesus went into great detail about ignoring parents for “religious” reasons.
Mark 7:9-12 9 He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
11 Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban” (meaning, dedicated to God),
12 you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
We also know from the Gospel that Jesus was the First born of Mary, and siblings would be younger and it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason.
If non-Catholics are going to be consistent then are they willing to say that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus?
John 6:42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?
Luke 2:33 The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” Of course not, every Christian realizes that Joseph was His father by adoption not by nature.
Let’s look further at the gospels.
Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 27:56 “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Matthew 28:1 “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
We see when we look at John that the biological father of these men is actually Clopas. John 19:25 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”
Notice that John refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas as “sisters” Most families do not give uterine relatives the same first name. At best they are probably first cousins, which would make the sons of Clopas 2nd cousins to Jesus.
Paul states in Galatians 1:17-19
17 “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.”
18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.”
19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.”
There were two Apostles named James. The first was the son of Zebedee He was killed by Herod (Acts 12:1-2). This James must be the son of Alphaeus referred to in Luke 6:15-16. Jude refers to himself as the brother of James in Jude 1:1
Three of the four have been ruled out as uterine brothers of Jesus. It should also be noted that not one of these “brothers” was ever referred to as either the son of Joseph or Mary. Also note that in Luke 2:41-52 when Jesus was lost and later found in the temple no mention is made of any other children.
The only conclusion that can be drawn, based entirely on the Scriptures, is that Mary did remain a virgin for her entire life.
“Rejoice, unshakeable Tower of the Church.” There was a tower in Babylon’s plane ... the goddess from thence is come to live again in the catholic religion.
Not my opinion. The Greek, which you claim to have studied, tells us.
Oh yes ,I see that tactic used by liberals all the time. Some have learned it well. But some of us have learned to recognize it and call it for what it is.
Rather, despite, or actually because of your laborious attempts support what would be clearly manifest in Scripture it were true, "a scriptural defense of the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary" is actually an attack on Scripture, for,
1. A marriage in which there is "leaving" but no covenantal sexual "cleaving" is contrary to the manifest basic description of marriage, which the Lord Himself affirmed. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6) And the intent not to procreate is actually a condition for annulment. But perhaps Joseph and Mary had permission of the pope.
The only possible known exception would be a caretaker marriage when there is no sexual "cleaving" due to physical inability. (1Ki. 1:1-4)
Thus the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary must presume an extra-ordinary exception which is nowhere stated.
2. In addition, that the word for "till" in "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS," (Matthew 1:25) did not signify a terminus which denotes a change in status is contrary to what it almost always denotes, which i can show, and contrary to most of the Cath attempts to show otherwise.
Thus the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary must presume an extra-ordinary exception which is nowhere stated, but instead the contrary is what is normally inferred.
Nor was Joseph told that Mary would be a perpetual virgin, nor was she told this (nor said this*), and thus And it is another leap of unwarranted presumption to think that Joseph married Mary knowing that she had taken a vow of virginity. And since you want to invoke the Law, then a vow of perpetual virginity by a daughter or a wife would be subject to approval by either her father (before marriage) or her husband, and which the Law speaks quite extensively:
If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. (Numbers 30:3-8)
Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. (Numbers 30:13-14)
And thus if Marian perpetual virginity is true, then where is the honor of Joseph (or her father is the vow was prior to marriage)? For it was by his consent that she could engage in this, and surely (speaking as a man) it was at least as much a sacrifice - and more difficult - for Joe to be continent in marriage, even if he was taken home early, as seems evident.
Thus the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary must presume either the father or husband of Mary (or God) sanctioned her vow of perpetual virginity, which is nowhere manifest, but instead the contrary is what is normally inferred.
3. The Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary with the above presumptions of the extraordinary are contrary to the character and integrity of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit characteristically records extraordinary aspects of even far less persons in Scripture, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), hair (Esau) strength (Samson), prolonged celibacy (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, and Christ being sinless.
But Mary is nowhere presented as being a sinless perpetual virgin and highest created being in virtue, titled the mother of God and bodily assumed into Heaven and crowned as its Queen, with authority over angels, and hearing virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth addressed to her, etc. And both the perpetual virginity of Mary and her exaltation is entirely absent in the life of the church, being nowhere evident in Acts or any of the epistles to the church (thus Caths attempt to erroneously read Mary into Rv, 12, but which even their own church does not affirm as an indisputable interpretation).
And thus if even the perpetual virginity of Mary was true, it is hardly warranted as dogma, and as such it provides additional testimony to the damnable doctrine that the veracity of RC teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by which the NT church began, but upon the premise of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, and which is contrary to how the NT church began.
But the real reason for the Catholic Dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary is due to her hereditary imbalanced view of virginity vs marriage (such as Jerome and others engaged in) and the psychological attraction of a heavenly virgin and mother, and thus (what would be in Scripture) worship of a Christianized Queen of Heaven.
*Ἔσται is the future tense or “will be.”
I am not going to chase down every opinion on this, while from what i read a present indicative active simply does not mean perpetual, that it will have to go into the future. Hre it signifies an ongoing condition, . That "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34) means How shall this be, seeing I will NEVER know a man?" is contrary to every translation am aware of, including the DRB and interlinear as well as the Peshitta. It is an ongoing reality, but which does not mean it will never change.
John A. Battle, Jr engages a search "with a careful reading of the Greek Testament, underlining every occurrence of a present indicative verb form." "It is the conclusion of this author that most previous definitions of the exact nature and force of the present indicative are inadequate. The tense can describe action in any time--past, present, or future; and it can describe action of any kind--durative, punctiliar, or perfective.
New Testament examples of perfective presents are not lacking. John asks Jesus, "Do you come to me?" (Mt. 3:14); Jesus had already come and was there as a result. Jesus consoles the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven" (Mt. 9:2), for Jesus had seen his faith already shown. This last example is often listed under the category "aoristic present," but truly it better is perfective--God had already forgiven his sins, which forgiveness Jesus declared with authority (cf. v. 6). An undebatable example is found in Luke 1:34, where Mary protests to the angel, "How will this be, since I know not a man?" Her previous chastity resulted in her present virginity. Often in court scenes this usage comes forth. Pilate declares, "I find no fault in him" (Jn. 19:4), speaking of the results of the previous interrogation. (https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/battle-presenttense/battle-present tense.doc)
Thus it seems that at best you can only postulate that it can mean future as meaning perpetual, but which again in so much special pleading without the expected and needed manifest testimony.
If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her.
No, that is also not what we find:
The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite status in rabbinical law.
In the Bible. Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.
In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce. - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal
It’s sure a good thing that Catholics tell us that they don’t worship Mary cause otherwise nobody would ever know that that sort of thing wasn’t worship.
I find it comical that the primary verse upon which catholicism hangs its hat on this issue, Luke 1:34, cannot be shown by the catholics to say what they want it to say.
Their understanding is beyond eisegesis(reading something into the text that's not there) and borders on fraud.
“Rejoice, unshakeable Tower of the Church.” There was a tower in Babylon’s plane ... the goddess from thence is come to live again in the catholic religion.”
Really? I wonder how my ancestors missed that! Just as a matter of curiosity, why do you suppose God let the Christian world get it so wrong for so long? Why did He wait over 1500 years to “enlighten” a bunch of non Greek speaking Western Europeans as to the Truth and since then to limit the understanding of that Truth to so few people, virtually all of whom are English speaking Westerners?
You are wrong and your selective quoting proves my point.
Kolokotronis,
I have seen from your other posts that you are Orthodox. Typically, I haven’t seen you on these conversations, but since you are, I like to ask you a few questions.
* Is belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary requirement for salvation in the Orthodox Church? If so, why?
* Is the scriptural defense put forward by the OP consistent with the teachings of the Orthodox Church?
Grace and peace,
K51
“It’s sure a good thing that Catholics tell us that they don’t worship Mary cause otherwise nobody would ever know that that sort of thing wasn’t worship.”
Is it possible that Western Protestants haven’t been Christians long enough to understand a prayer like the Akathist? Maybe Western culture, mostly dog vomit these days and firmly rooted in Atheism, makes it impossible for you folks?
BTW, your post is the first I’ve seen from a non-Orthodox Freeper which recognizes Orthodox as Catholics. In fairness to the Latins, most every Marian belief they have came from us.
“* Is belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary requirement for salvation in the Orthodox Church? If so, why?
* Is the scriptural defense put forward by the OP consistent with the teachings of the Orthodox Church?”
A) No, but you should understand that Orthodox Christianity doesn’t have any “Do this or you’ll go to hell” dogma. We have very little dogma, at least as the West understands it. We do have theologoumenna and Holy Tradition and disciplinary canons and of course Scripture, but these are to help us arrive at theosis which we believe is our created purpose. We have a “Do this and you’ll become like God” mindset. This, however, is not up to The Church; it’s up to God.
B) OP?
OP - original poster.
Nobody with an understanding of what real worship is would confuse that beautiful prayer with worship. People who accept a niggardly imitation "worship" might have a problem.
Really?
You guys are the ones who believe in free will. Remember?
Not only that, His word has been out there the whole time with its ability to correct the error that religions and churches promulgate.
What do you want Him to have done. FORCE everyone into believing a certain way as the Catholic church loved to do?
Why did He wait over 1500 years to “enlighten” a bunch of non Greek speaking Western Europeans as to the Truth and since then to limit the understanding of that Truth to so few people, virtually all of whom are English speaking Westerners?
He didn't wait 1,500 years to do that. His Holy Spirit has always been on hand to enlighten people. Anyone who truly wanted to know God could and would find Him.
He always has a remnant.
The ekklesia JESUS established is based upon believing in Jesus as Savior. PERIOD. Your religion, catholiciism, as you put it 'the christian world' is not that Ekklesia. So in all generations, people can be born from above by The Holy Spirit after the fashion of Peter preaching on Pentecost or sharing the Gospel in the house of Cornelius, without 'your institutional hierarchy' even being involved. Salvation cometh by HEARING and hearing by The Word of God ... not some pagan rite of eating the food offered to idols, as catholic Mass conducts the rite.
And there are doubtless many such born from above members of Christ's body right there in those pagan-based halls of catholic empowerment. I've known one or two who did not adhere to the pagan rites of Mass or the Mariology demigoddess nonsense, yet they stayed in that other religion's system because of family or loved ones, all the while KNOWING they are alive in Christ by the Spirit of God in them. They are troubled souls, but they gave been born from above and are out of the reach of the god of catholiciism.
Oh we know --because we have witnessed it for several weeks, intensely-- your ilk will plead that Peter was the first Pope of the catholiciism institutional religion. Or the dogma that the first eucharist was on the night before Jesus went to the cross for our redemption (so the Remembrance was instituted BEFORE the sacrifice thus showing it is indeed a remembrance of what He did once for all forever at the Cross, a sacred memorial to show the Lord's death for us until He returns, for us!). These fantasy claims of this other religion, catholiciism, are not supported by scriptures unless one reads a huge amount into the very sparse verses dragged out of context to play word games.
This 'christian world' of the catholic church constitutes another gospel, one which requires the followers to eat the flesh, blood, soul and divinity of the god of this other gospel. And that heresy too is only supported in catholiciism by ripping one or two verse out of the context of all the Word, ignoring the extensive use of parables ands sacred metaphors by JESUS, and in open defiance of the Law which JESUS said would not pass away and which exposes the catholic Mass as a pagan blasphemy.
But to the utter consternation of the god of catholiciism, a father of liars and lies, there are actually human beings believing in Jesus without adhering to the blasphemous dogmas of catholiciism. You could say God's Spirit Saves some inspite of the catholiciism commands to blaspheme the Lord of Hosts by committing pagan rites to empower the institution of that catholiciism 'christian world'.
Kolokotronis, you papist you!
LOL what a riot!
Kolo is Eastern Orthodox ...
Well yes, I know that, you don't seem to understand the difference though.
“He always has a remnant.”
And you guys, I take it, are that remnant? All of you, some of you, most of you but none of us?
I’ve been told on these threads that the only way to “call upon the true Lord” is to do so in English, Is that one of the rules of the “remnant”? If I do go to hell, do I get to “ stand on the Bishop’s shoulders?” Or was that just part of a bedtime story for Orthodox children?
Wow. Mariolatry 101.
Thanks for the example of Mariolatry that cannot be denied.
Hoss
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.