← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 13248 | Posts: 46 | Started: 2004-04-20
2004-04-20 03:55 | User Profile
Facing Up to Mary By Fr. Peter E. Gillquist
Is it safe to say that no woman in history is more misunderstood by modern Christendom than the Virgin Mary? And is it also probable that in a discussion concerning Mary between two Christians, if their differences remain unresolved, most likely it will be due to differing interpretations of the biblical data? If I have heard him say it once, I have heard Billy Graham say it at least a half-dozen times over the years: We evangelical Christians do not give Mary her proper due. There is no doubt in my mind that he is correct. But his statement raises a crucial question about Mary. What is her proper due? Before we look to the Scriptures for some answers, let us acknowledge right up front a problem which makes our task much more difficult than it should be. The highly charged emotional atmosphere which surrounds this subject serves to blunt our objectivity in facing up to Mary. Therefore, those of us who were brought up to question or reject honor paid to Mary in Christian worship or art often have our minds made up in advance. That is why we have allowed our preconceptions to color our understanding even of the scriptural passages concerning her. We have not let the facts speak for themselves. As we attempt to face up to Mary honestly and openly, let us turn first to the Bible, the source book of all true Christian doctrine. We will consider what the New Testament teaches about her, and then we will turn to the Old Testament. To understand how the biblical record has been applied through the years by Christians, we will look specifically at Church history to understand both how she has been properly honored, and how excessive beliefs concerning her have crept into the picture. Lastly, we will look at how we must face up to her in light of the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
THE NEW TESTAMENT RECORD What is it, then, that the New Testament clearly teaches concerning the Virgin Mary? The Gospel of Saint Luke, the book of the beloved physician, gives us at least four crucial answers.
Mary is the greatest woman who ever lived. Whereas our Lord Jesus Christ tells us there is no greater man to walk the earth than John the Baptist, both the Archangel Gabriel and the saintly Elizabeth confess to Mary, "Blessed are you among women" (Luke 1:28 and 42). She is the most blessed of women for several reasons, the greatest of which is that she conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nurtured the very Savior of our souls. The One who today occupies the heavenly throne of David, seated regally at the right hand of God the Father, entered the human race and became our Savior through her womb. She was sovereignly chosen by the Father to bear His only begotten Son. In that role, Mary is the first person in all history to receive and accept Christ as her Savior. You and I are called to enthrone the Lord in our hearts and lives-to follow her example in doing so. Early in Christian history she is called "the first of the redeemed." I remember entering a church some years ago and seeing a painting or icon of Mary with open arms front and center on the wall (the apse) just behind the altar. My first impulse was to wonder why Christ alone was not featured at that particular place in the church, though He was shown in a large circle that was superimposed over Mary's heart. When I asked why she was so prominently featured, the Christian scholar with me explained, "This is one of the greatest evangelistic icons in the entire Church. What you see is Christ living as Lord in Mary's life, and her outstretched arms are an invitation to you and me to let Him live in our lives as He has in hers." The power of that icon stays in my mind to this day. For she has set the pace for all of us to personally give our lives over fully to Jesus Christ. Mary is also blessed because she found favor in the sight of God. Gabriel's words of encouragement to her were, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). Then he comforted her by saying, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God" (Luke 1:30, italics mine). What does one do to become one of God's favorites, to be favored by Him? Remember Cornelius in Acts 10? He was the first Gentile to convert to Christ, "a devout man and one who . . . gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always" (Acts 10:2). Two verses later he is told in a vision, "Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God." The Lord took notice of his deeds of devotion and brought him salvation. In a similar way, Mary's purity found favor with God, and she was chosen to bear His Son. You say, "Wait a minute! Are you suggesting human merit earns salvation?" Not at all! As commendable as it is for us to live in purity, a devout life never merits salvation. Else why would Mary be called first of the redeemed, or why would Cornelius be baptized into Christ by Saint Peter? Prayer and devotion, however, do gain God's attention. When we seek Him with all our hearts, we do find Him! Do you want to be favored of God? Then give Him everything you have, give Him your very life. This is precisely what Mary did, and why she is to be considered the greatest woman who ever lived.
Mary is our model for Christian service. While God certainly knew Mary desired to please Him, He did not take her service for granted. The angel explained how she would bear Christ. "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest [God the Father] will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Now Mary had a decision to make. Was she willing? Hear her answer, for it is the doorway to the life of spiritual service for all of us. "Behold the maidservant of the Lord!" she said. "Let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Even if we are totally sincere about wanting to follow God, He will never conscript us apart from our consent! This is why He is called "the God of all grace" (1 Peter 5:10). We are to choose freely to obey Him and do His will. Some thirty years later, by the way, Mary again had opportunity to exalt her Lord. She was with Jesus at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. The servants who were in charge of the celebration discovered they were out of wine. Mary had no doubt as to who could solve their problem. Referring to her Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, she advised them, "Whatever He says to you, do it" (John 2:5).
Mary is the Mother of God. Now things get a bit more touchy for some of us. Here is one of those emotional trouble spots I mentioned earlier. Whether we like to face it or not, the Bible teaches Mary is the mother of God. First let's look at the text, then we will discuss why this title is so important to our lives as Christians in the Church. After Christ had been conceived in her womb, Mary paid a visit to the home of relatives Zacharias and Elizabeth, soon to be parents of John the Baptist. When Mary greeted her cousin, Elizabeth called her blessed and said, "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). Elizabeth knew that her Lord, the Messiah of Israel, was in the womb of Mary. The title "Mother of God" took on great importance in the fourth century, when a heretic named Nestorius-a man who held high office in the Church-claimed that the one in Mary's womb was certainly man, but that He was not God. Orthodox Christians, with one accord, said, "Wrong!" To see Jesus Christ as something less than God in the flesh is sub-Christian. For unless the one in Mary's womb was and is God, we are dead in our sins. To safeguard the full deity of Christ, the Church has always insisted that Mary be rightly called-as Elizabeth called herthe Mother of God. This title, of course, does not mean mother of the Holy Trinity, for the Holy Trinity has no mother. Neither does it mean she originated the Person who is God the Son. It refers instead to Mary being the Mother of the Son of God, who assumed full humanity in her womb. Just as we insist on the Virgin Birth of Christ, we also insist that for the nine months Mary carried Him in His humanity He was at every moment fully God as well. Thus we say boldly and with great insistence that Mary is the Mother of God, Theotokos, God-bearer. To say anything less is to side with those who deny His deity. When a man buys a large plot of land and turns cattle out to graze on it, he fences in his acreage. He does so to protect his cattle, to keep them from wandering off, and to discourage rustlers. Similarly, the Church sets doctrinal fences around its foundational truths. And nothing is more basic and important to us than the deity of Christ. Because Christ is God, we set a firm and non-negotiable fence around His divinity by our unmovable confession that Mary is Mother of God.
We are to honor Mary and call her blessed. Now comes the toughest test of all. Not only is Mary the most blessed of women, our model for obedience, and the Mother of God, we are called to honor her and to bless her. How do we know? The Bible tells us so. During her three-month stay at Elizabeth's house, Mary offered one of the most beautiful prayers of praise to the Lord in all the Scriptures. It begins, "My soul magnifies the Lord," and thus it has become known as "The Magnificat." In that prayer, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Mary prophesied, "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48). Essentially, all generations in Church history have done so; only the last few centuries have faltered. Our generation of American Christians is filled with those who refuse to bless her, and we must change our ways. For some Christian bodies have come to stand dogmatically against Christ and the New Testament by refusing to bless her. From the beginning of recorded Christian worship, Orthodox Christians have taken special care to venerate or honor Mary in the Liturgy. There is an ancient hymn which begins, "It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos (Mother of God)." She is also called in this hymn "ever-blessed and most pure." The biblical injunction to honor Mary is followed and taken seriously. We do not, of course, worship Mary, for worship is reserved for the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But she is most certainly to be honored and venerated. And because Christ is our elder brother, the firstborn of many brethren, we honor the Virgin Mary as our Mother, our Lady, as well. Just as Eve was mother of the old Adamic race, so Mary is the true Mother of the new race, the Body of Christ, the Church. Perhaps in part because we refuse to honor Mary, our generation seems to struggle with honoring anyone. For example, next time a presidential news conference comes on T.V., watch closely how most of the press corps behave! Far from merely trying to get the story, many are out for intimidation and willful dishonor. While God's word tells us to honor the king (1 Peter 2:17) and to give preference to each other (Romans 12:10), our generation seems to delight in challenging and humiliating other people, especially those in authority. Not only are we who are Bible-believing Christians urged to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), we are called by God in no uncertain terms to bless the Mother of our God. We cannot get around that point in Scripture.
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MARY We know that the Old Testament is more than just an inspired account of the history of mankind, or of Israel in particular. In its pages-indeed central to its message-is also the prophetic record concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. He is typified throughout. Moses is a type of Christ, in that he leads the people out of bondage into the land of promise. David typifies Christ as King of Israel. Adam was a type of Christ as head of the human race. Often overlooked, however, is the fact that the Virgin Mary is also seen in the prophetic pages of the Old Testament. Most Christians are aware that the Prophet Isaiah predicts Mary's virgin conception of Christ when he writes: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But there are numerous other passages which speak of Mary as well.
EVER-VIRGIN From the very early years of the Church, Mary was called not only Virgin, but Ever-Virgin. She was seen as never having had a sexual union with Joseph, before or after the birth of Christ. Ezekiel 44:1, 2 is a passage often referred to by the early Fathers in this regard. It states: "Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the LORD said to me, `This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.' "In traditional interpretation of this passage, Mary is the temple and Christ is the Prince of Peace. The gate mentioned is seen as a picture of Christ's passage through the door of Mary's womb. You might not find that interpretation in some of today's commentaries, but it was held by the great majority of early Church Fathers, as well as many of the Reformation leaders. At this point, however, a very valid question can be raised. If she remained a virgin, why does the Gospel of Matthew tell us that Joseph knew not his wife until Christ was born (Matthew 1:25)? From a scriptural standpoint, the presence of the phrase, "until she had brought forth her firstborn Son" does not automatically mean that Joseph must have known her afterward. This is because in both Greek and Hebrew the word until or to can have several different meanings. We find it in 2 Samuel 6:23: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to [until] the day of her death." It is used again in Matthew 28:20 where the risen Christ says "Lo, I am with you always, even to [until] the end of the age." And in Deuteronomy 34:6 we read that Moses was buried "in a valley in the land of Moab . . . but no one knows his grave to [until] this day." Obviously the use of the word in these passages does not imply that Michal had a child after her death, that Christ will depart at the end of the age, or that Moses' burial place was discovered the day Deuteronomy 34:6 was written. By the same token, the word until in Matthew 1:25 does not mean that Joseph and Mary began a sexual union after Christ was born. Such a teaching is found nowhere in Scripture and is contrary to the consistent voice of the entire early Church. But doesn't the Bible also mention other brothers and sisters of Christ? Who are they and where did they come from? For one thing, they are never directly called the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. In several passages the Bible speaks of the children or relatives as "brothers." Abraham and Lot are called brothers, although Lot was actually Abraham's nephew. And Jacob and Laban are called brothers, even though Jacob was the son of Rebecca, Laban's sister. Scripture is therefore silent concerning the nature of this relationship between Christ and these brothers and sisters. Early Fathers differed slightly in their understanding of what the terms meant. Some, such as Saint Ambrose, believed that they were children of a former marriage between Joseph and a wife who died prior to Matthew chapter 1. Others taught that they were cousins. But on one point, almost everyone is in agreement: Mary and Joseph had no sexual union whatsoever, before or after the birth of Christ. I must say in all candor that had my betrothed been the woman chosen by the Father to bear His eternal Son in the flesh, my view of her would have been utterly transformed and my honor for her infinitely heightened. Imagine being betrothed to the Mother of God. It was so with Joseph. His betrothed was ever-virgin.
ROYALTY If we as the Church are called to be "not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but . . . holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:27), does it not follow that she who is the progenitor of the Lord of that Church should be of that same holy character? Not only has Mary by the mercy and power of God conquered both sin and death, the psalmist sees a glimpse of her in heaven through prophetic eyes. For in Psalm 45, Christ is King and Mary is at His side as Queen and rightly so. If God can make us "kings and priests" (Revelation 1:6) for all eternity, certainly He has the prerogative to crown her with higher honor in heaven's royal procession. Little did John and James realize, the day they argued about which of them might occupy the seat of honor at Christ's right hand in the Kingdom, that God the Father had already reserved that space for the marvelous woman He chose to bear His Son for our salvation. The honor is appropriate for the most blessed of all women, the one who is our very icon of holiness. Who else could be more rightly rewarded? Thus the psalmist is well within the mark when he writes of Christ, "At Your right hand stands the queen" (Psalm 45:9)!
OTHER TRADITIONS There are two other beliefs concerning Mary that must be briefly mentioned and addressed. The first is her bodily assumption into heaven, the other her immaculate conception. It was widely reported in the early Church that shortly after her death, Mary's body was assumed into heaven. In later centuries, the Roman Church ratified this belief as dogma, while the Eastern Church withheld such an official imprimatur. Most Christians agree that such a miracle is within the realm of firm biblical precedent, Enoch and Elijah being two examples. Further, there is no known record of any gravesite or relics of the Holy Virgin. The assumption of the Virgin is safely seen as an historic Christian tradition, though not recorded in the Scriptures. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a doctrine unique to the modern Roman Church. In an effort to distance Mary (and protect Christ) from the stain of sin, the Immaculate Conception holds Mary was conceived and born without sin. The Orthodox Church firmly rejects this doctrine on the basis of both Scripture and tradition. Whatever other excesses may have cropped up in history, the Roman Church has never believed or officially taught that Mary was in any way coequal with the Trinity or was to be worshiped with the Trinity. Such allegations are sometimes set forth by critics of the Roman Church, but without basis in fact.
THE VESPERS PRAYER Near the end of Vespers in the Orthodox Church, the officiant says, "O holy Mother of God, save us." What does this mean? The Orthodox Church has taught from the very beginning that Mary is the supreme example, or prototype, of what happens to a person who fully places trust and faith in God. Everything we aspire to become in Christ, she already is. We are all to "receive" Christ (John 1:12). And as we noted previously, Mary was the first human being who did receive Christ. Out of the millions of "decisions" made for Christ, Mary's was the first. Therefore, whatever promises the Holy Scriptures hold for us, Mary already possesses. If the sacred Scriptures declare that we are all kings (Revelation 1:6), is it so strange that the Church refers to Mary as Queen? If the Holy Bible promised that you and I shall judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3), is it so odd that the Church should sing that Mary is "more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim"? If we who are called "holy brethren" (Hebrews 3:1) are commanded to be holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1:15, 16) and are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1), is it so unthinkable that she whose holy body was the recipient of God Incarnate should be called "most holy" by the Church? If Saint Paul instructs us to "[pray] always . . . for all the saints" (Ephesians 6:18), is it so outrageous to confess with the Church that Holy Mary (along with all the saints who have passed from death to life and continually stand in the presence of Christ) intercedes before her Son on behalf of all men? Mary volitionally relinquished her will to the will of God, thus cooperating fully with the purpose of God. So the original question, "Can Mary save us?" leads to another question: "Can we save others?" Again, the Holy Scriptures speak with resounding clarity. Here are some examples: "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you" (1 Timothy 4:16). "Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:20). "And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire" (Jude 22, 23). Fire saves (1 Corinthians 3:15), prayer saves (James 5:15), angels save (Isaiah 63:9), baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), preaching saves (1 Corinthians 1:21), the Apostle Paul saved (Romans 11:14). New life in Christ, or salvation, is both personal union with Him and an incorporation into the wholeness of the Body, the Church. Salvation is a Church affair, a Church concern, because we are all affected by it. In another biblical image, salvation is seen as a family matter-God's family ("the whole family in heaven and earth"-Ephesians 3:15). Everybody gets into the act, so to speak. Therefore, under Christ we each have a part to play in the corporateness of His saving act. We do not save alone; Mary does not save alone. Jesus Christ is our wellspring of salvation. And He said, "Without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). But, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you" (John 15:7). Mary has a unique role in our salvation because she provided the physical body of Christ and thereby became the "mother" of all those who would be saved. That is why Jesus, while on the Cross, said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" and then said to Saint John, "Behold your mother!" (John 19:26, 27).
TAKING ACTION Many Christians have been grossly misinformed in the last 150 years concerning the historical Church's view of Mary. Therefore, I would suggest that you keep this booklet and use it to help others when the question arises. And remember also that there are things that are unique to the Virgin Mary. She was the only one who gave her flesh to the Son of God, and she is uniquely to be blessed throughout all generations (Luke 1:48). What we do about Mary is connected directly to what we do about Church. The community of Christ's followers is called to act together. Taking action with regard to Mary is not simply personal or private; it has to do with responding as The Church. And where in Christendom has the fullness of truth concerning Mary been preserved? Even most Protestants-both liberal and conservative-know she is slighted in their circles. The answer for Protestants who take the biblical and historical evidence seriously lies neither within the Protestant Churches nor in the Roman Church, with its questionable late dogmatic additions concerning Mary. I urge you to visit and get to know the historic Orthodox Church which has maintained the biblical fidelity concerning Mary and Christian Faith in general. Within the boundaries of Orthodoxy, the faith and practice of the Church safeguard true commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ together with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. It is there that the truths of the Bible are taught in their entirety, where the worship of God is experienced in Spirit and in truth, and where Mary and the great cloud of witnesses for Christ throughout the ages are honored and revered. The hour is at hand for all of us who love Christ and take seriously the Holy Scriptures to set our hearts and minds to giving Holy Mary her proper due in the proper Church. We do so because God has done great things for and through her (Luke 1:49). As Christians we do not live by feelings, we live by faith. Let us once for all rise above those things the devil has sown in our hearts to neutralize us against this precious woman who gave birth to our Savior. Bless her in the midst of God's people. Follow her example in exalting Christ. Confess her as the Mother of God. Come home to the Church that has kept intact our Holy Faith. And may we help turn our generation back to giving Mary the honor and blessing which God has commanded.
2004-04-20 06:00 | User Profile
When I read stuff like that, I'm reminded why I'm not Catholic. The best the Bible says is that Mary was blessed. Duh. She did get to carry Jesus. But, that in no way justifies the treatment the Catholic Church shows Mary. The Bible is full of very blessed people. Other than the hisorical account of Jesus's birth, Mary is practically a no-show in the Bible.
The Bible doesn't say Mary the most blessed or first redeemed.
Outside of the Gospels, Mary is mentioned just one time, and that's not to praise her but is just a passing mention that she was at a gathering which also included Jesus's brothers (Acts 1:14). No one as important as Catholics claim Mary to be would be so completely ignored.
Speaking of Mary staying a virgin, again, nonsense. The Bible says that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until Jesus was born. That does imply Mary did have sex. It isn't compelling to say that "until" doesn't imply something afterwords. If the Bible wanted to say that Mary never had sex, it might have said that she didn't have sex "until" her death. But, after death, sex is a non-issue, unlike a man living with his wife.
Gillquist argues that "brother" might mean nephew. No place in the NT does "brother" ever imply nephew. In Acts 1:14, the only reason the men are mentioned as Jesus's brother rather than children of Mary is because Jesus is the important one. Mary is essentually unimportant.
As the Bible doesn't say Mary remained a virgin until her death, there is no reason for us to believe such.
2004-04-20 06:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]When I read stuff like that, I'm reminded why I'm not Catholic. The best the Bible says is that Mary was blessed. Duh. She did get to carry Jesus. But, that in no way justifies the treatment the Catholic Church shows Mary. The Bible is full of very blessed people. Other than the hisorical account of Jesus's birth, Mary is practically a no-show in the Bible. [/QUOTE]
The fact is Mary has always been venerated by both Catholic and Orthodox since the earliest days of Christianity. The Protestant ambivalence towards the Mother of God is a recent innovation and outside that of traditional Christianity. Christians venerated Mary for 1500 years before the Reformation and even Martin Luther is said to have prayed the Rosary until death. So even Luther didn't adhere to the anti-Mary idea that evidently developed later.
I simply can't go along with the position that for 1500 years Christians venerated Mary and were all wrong. The fact that the apostolic Church has done it since the beginning is proof enough for me that it is correct.
2004-04-20 06:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker] As the Bible doesn't say Mary remained a virgin until her death, there is no reason for us to believe such.[/QUOTE]
Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?
A Protestant inquirer recently wrote the Orthodox Christian Information Center to ask why it is a dogma of the Orthodox Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary is ever-virgin. This page was compiled as a response.
Two dogmas concerning the Mother of God are bound up, in closest fashion, with the dogma of God the Words becoming man. They are: a) Her Ever-virginity, and b) Her name of Theotokos. They procede immediately from the dogma of the unity of the Hypostasis of the Lord from the moment of His Incarnation-the Divine Hypostasis.
A. The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God
The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Virgin is testified to directly and deliberately by two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke. This dogma was entered into the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council, where we read: Who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. The Ever- virginity of the Mother of God is testified by Her own words, handed down in the Gospel, where she expressed awareness of the immeasurable majesty and height of Her chosenness: My soul doth magnify the Lord... For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed... For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His Name (Luke 1:46-49).
The Most Holy Virgin preserved in her memory and in her heart both the announcement of the Archangel Gabriel and the inspired words of righteous Elizabeth when she was visited by Mary: And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to Me? (Luke 1:43); both the prophecy of the righteous Symeon on meeting the Infant Jesus in the Temple, and the prophecy of the righteous Anna on the same day (Luke 2:25-38). In connection with the account of the shepherds of Bethlehem concerning the words of the angels to them, and of the singing of the angels, the Evangelist adds: But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart (Luke 2:19). The same Evangelist, having told of the conversation of the Divine Mother with the twelve-year-old Jesus after their visit to Jerusalem on the Feast of Pascha, ends his account with the words: But His mother kept all these sayings in her heart (Luke 2:51). The Evangelists speak also of the understanding of the majesty of her service in the world by the righteous Joseph, her espoused husband, whose actions were many times guided by an angel.
When the heretics and simple blasphemers refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the "brothers and sisters of Jesus," they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:
a) In the Gospels there are named four "brothers" (James, Joses, Simon and Jude), and there are also mentioned the "sisters" of Jesusââ¬âno fewer than three, as is evident in the words: and His sisters, are they not ALL with us? (Matt. 13:56).
On the other hand, b) in the account of the journey to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy Jesus, where there is mention of the "kinsfolk and acquaintances" (Luke 2:44) in the midst of whom they were seeking Jesus, and where it is likewise mentioned that Mary and Joseph every year journeyed from faraway Galilee to Jerusalem, no reason is given to think that there were present other younger children with Mary: it was thus that the first twelve years of the Lords earthly life proceeded.
c) When, about twenty years after the above-mentioned journey, Mary stood at the cross of the Lord, she was alone, and she was entrusted by her Divine Son to His disciple John; and from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (John 19:27). Evidently, as the ancient Christians also understood it, the Evangelists speak either of "half' brothers and sisters or of cousins.
*From Fr. Michael Pomazansky, trans. Fr. Seraphim (Rose), Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 187-189.
The seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel, whereas the Church of Christ from of old confesses Christ incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary." But the birth of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling stone for those who wished to call themselves Christians but did not wish to humble themselves in mind and be zealous for purity of life. The pure life of Mary was a reproach for those who were impure also in their thoughts. So as to show themselves Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ was born of a Virgin, but they began to affirm that Mary remained a virgin only until she brought forth her first-born son, Jesus (Matt. 1:25).
"After the birth of Jesus," said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, and likewise many others before and after him, "Mary entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him children, who are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ." But the word "until" does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word "until" and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God's righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (I Cor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, "On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.") The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His Most Holy Mother. The names of "brother" and "sister" have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any case, people are called brothers or sisters if they have a common father and mother, or only a common father or mother; or even if they have different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become widowed) have entered into marriage (stepbrothers); or if their parents are bound by close degrees of kinship.
In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise, the sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children, who in view of such close kinship with full right could also be called brothers of the Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved disciple John. Why should He do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, did not consider themselves obliged to take care of one they regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not have for Her such love as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had for Her.
Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete clarity the insubstantiality of the objections against the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently.
*From St. John (Maxomovitch), The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, The Birthgiver of God (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 31-33.
The following was sent to me by Deacon Fr. John Whiteford. It is part of an exchange he had with another Protestant inquirer:
In response to appeals to Matthew 1:25:
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"ââ¬âobviously he did not repent afterwards either.
The point of the verse you have cited is plain. It leaves no room for doubting that Christ was not the result of relations between the Virgin Mary and St. Josephââ¬âit says nothing about what happened thereafter, one way or the other.
St. Jerome wrote a very detailed treatise on this subject that one can find in several readily available translationsââ¬âit is titled "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary".
Not only was this view held universally in the Early Church, but the Early Reformers all believed it as well. John Wesley did too.
By the way, where in the NT does it say that the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ever moved beyond betrothal? The Bible speaks of St. Joseph's "espoused" wifeââ¬âbut never mentions anything beyond it.
You Baptists are likely not familiar with the rite of betrothal, but the Traditional understanding thereof is that a betrothal gives a couple all the responsibilities of marriage, but none of the privileges. Once betrothed, one can only break the betrothal with a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple were not permitted to have marital relations until after the marriage ceremony.
In response to the question of whether or not this doctrine only brings glory to the Virgin Mary, and not to God:
This doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse:
"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).
This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.
The bottom line is this has been the consistent and universal view of the Church from the time of the Apostles until today.
This does not mean that sex is dirty, though the Apostles taught that it was better to remain in virginityââ¬âthough only those who can accept such a life are called to do so. Certainly some are called to this life, and it is blessed by God.
Why then did the Virgin need St. Joseph? That question is valid even if one believes she had other children laterââ¬âwhy did she need St. Joseph to give birth to Christ. The answer is obvious: virgins do not as a rule give birth, and Christ would likely have grown up an orphan had he been born to a single mother.
You ask: "So then was Jesus born out of wedlock? Why then did they travel together to be taxed? Why does Luke write Luke 2:48 ââ¬ËAnd when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.ââ¬â¢?"
I could ask you the same questions: Why does she refer to Joseph as Christ's Father? Obviously not because he really was his father. Why did they travel together to be taxed when they were clearly only at that time "espoused" or betrothed: "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child (Luke 2:5). Do you think they were married on the way to Bethlehem, because they clearly were not when they set off in that direction? Furthermore there is no mention of such a marriage ever having taken placeââ¬âand certainly it would be odd for them to have had such a ceremony with a women "great with child" or even thereafter with a women who had a nursing baby. As I stated, a betrothal gives one all the responsibilities of a marriage without the marital privileges thereof. It can only be broken by a divorceââ¬âso in a sense they were married when they were betrothed.
In the Orthodox Church we still have the rite of betrothal, but because it is so seriousââ¬âand is considered a marriage even if never consummatedââ¬âit is almost always done these days immediately prior to the wedding ceremony.
You said: "Mary had other children. James is called The Lord's brother. The brothers and sisters who came for Jesus while he was teaching are not cousins as catholic footnotes try to make out, like there is no Greek word for brother."
Do you really believe that the Virgin Mary had another sister from the same parents who was also named Mary (John 19:25)? Also, if these brothers were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas (as the second century Palestinian Christian history Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord.
Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child". Do you suppose they could have gotten married at some point after that without being stoned to death first?
You said: "There's no need to be that specific. Can't it be understood from several Scripture passages (John 2:12; Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; especially Matthew 13:55,56 and Mark 6:3,4; etc.) that what's referred to are Mary and Joseph's offsprings?"
How do you deal with the Mary who is not Christ's mother but who also just happens to be the Virgin Mary's sister and who happens to have kids with the same names as Christ's brothers? How do you deal with the very early testimony of Hegesippus who states plainly that the brethren of the Lord were the Children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas and his wife Mary?"
See: Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25 The Matthew account has Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark has Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses. John has "his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas". All accounts mention Mary Magdalene separately and Matthew mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee (who could not also be married to Clopas). This suggests that Mary the wife of Clopas, who is Mary's sister, is the mother of James and Joses, etc.
[Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:11] "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and the disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions, with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive), to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with once consent pronounced Symeon, the Son of Cleopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention [note the Gospels only list Symeon as one of the Brother's of the Lord], to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Cleopas was a brother of Joseph." [note: Hegesippus was a 2nd Century Palestinian Jew. Eusebius preserves one of the few fragments left of his works, since he had access to the great library of Ceasarea and of Alexandriaââ¬âthe contents of which were mostly lost later.]
A few additional points on this subject:
1) The Apostle James, the Son of Alpheaus is not necessarily the same as James the less. They are not connected in the Gospels, though this connection is possible. James the less was the son of Cleopas, but as I have read up on this, it is possible that "Cleopas" is a variant helenized transliteration of the Aramaic name "Chalphi".
2) Yesterday I quoted from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in which a fragment from St. Hegesippus was preserved. As I dug about last night, I found some more:
"Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martrydom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was Consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason it could be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the [wife] of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father. The same historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Savior, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded. He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And after profound peace had been established in every church they remained down to the reign of Trajan Caesar: that is, until the time then he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified...." [St. Hegesippus [who reposed 170 ad], Fragments from his five books of commentaries on the acts of the Church, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 8, p 762]
See also:
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on St. Matthew's Gospel
St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity
The texts for the Feast of the Dormition and the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos in the Festal Menaion (St. Tikhon Seminary Press). This is a treasure of Orthodox dogmatic theology. If one wants to know what the Orthodox Church teaches on a number of dogmatic issues, a proper understanding can only be had by consulting the liturgical texts of the Church. In a very real way, Orthodox chant their theology. As Bishop Kallistos has written: "Certain doctrines, never formally defined, are yet held by the Church with an unmistakable inner conviction, an unruffled unanimity, which is just as binding as an explicit formulation. 'Some things we have from written teaching,' said St. Basil, 'others we have received from the Apostolic Tradition handed down to us in a mystery; and both these things have the same force for piety.' [On the Holy Spirit, xvii, 66] This inner Tradition 'handed down to us in a mystery' is preserved above all in the Church's worship. Lex orandi lex credendi: our faith is expressed in our prayer. Orthodoxy has made few explicit definitions about the Eucharist and the other Sacraments, about the next world, the Mother of God, the saints, and the faithful departed: our belief on these points is contained mainly in the prayers and hymns used at services." (The Orthodox Church, [Penguin Books, 1993] pp. 204-5).
Book Review: The Winter Pascha: Readings for the Christmas-Epiphany Season. By [Father] Thomas Hopko. Reviewed by Bishop [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos of Etna in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IX, No. 2&3.
2004-04-20 07:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Happy Hacker]Other than the hisorical account of Jesus's birth, Mary is practically a no-show in the Bible.[/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree. The first chapters of the Gospel of Luke contains a portrait of Mary that is really a monument of world literature. In fact, Tradition has it that the Church commissioned Luke to visit St. John and Mary (John was caring for Mary at Christ's request), and that his Gospel contains Mary's eyewitness account of the Incarnation. Luke has been called Mary's iconographer - but he used the pen instead of the paint brush.
[QUOTE]The Bible doesn't say Mary the most blessed or first redeemed.
Outside of the Gospels, Mary is mentioned just one time, and that's not to praise her but is just a passing mention that she was at a gathering which also included Jesus's brothers (Acts 1:14). No one as important as Catholics claim Mary to be would be so completely ignored.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's right, either. St. John included in his Apocalypse Chapter 12 a startlingly beautiful portrait of Mary as Queen of the Universe. I could be wrong about this, perhaps the theologians among us could correct me, but I always assumed that St. John was speaking of Mary (again, for whom he cared long at the direct order of Christ) here:
[QUOTE]Revelation 12 1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. [/QUOTE]
We Catholics tend to see the Apocalypse as the spiritual imagery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus Satan is cast down from Heaven by Michael the Archangel, and Mary travails to deliver the Saviour of the World, at every liturgy. Again, the theologians present are encouraged to set me straight on this.
[QUOTE]Speaking of Mary staying a virgin, again, nonsense. The Bible says that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until Jesus was born. That does imply Mary did have sex. It isn't compelling to say that "until" doesn't imply something afterwords. If the Bible wanted to say that Mary never had sex, it might have said that she didn't have sex "until" her death. But, after death, sex is a non-issue, unlike a man living with his wife.[/QUOTE]
Your arguments are good, but that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Perhaps Wild Bill could inform us as to what the Orthodox believe in regard to this question.
[QUOTE]Gillquist argues that "brother" might mean nephew. No place in the NT does "brother" ever imply nephew. In Acts 1:14, the only reason the men are mentioned as Jesus's brother rather than children of Mary is because Jesus is the important one. Mary is essentually unimportant.[/QUOTE]
We Catholics (and Orthodox) are not limited to the Scriptures as our sole authority. We also have Holy Tradition. The fact is that the Church believed that Mary was very special from the beginning. Again, look again at the first chapters of Luke and St. John's Apocalypse. Mary was very, very central to God's Plan of Salvation. She was the new Eve, the one to crush the head of the serpent with her heel. This imagery is also in Revelation 12 cited above, IMHO. [QUOTE]Genesis 3 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]As the Bible doesn't say Mary remained a virgin until her death, there is no reason for us to believe such.[/QUOTE]
Catholics reject the notion of sola scriptura, and thus we believe this because it was held by Holy Tradition and proclaimed by the Magesterium.
I take it from Wild Bill's post immediately above that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches concur on this point. If that is so, then one would think that due deference is owed to the position consistently held by the two most ancient branches of Christianity, with all ambiguities resolved in favor of the traditional understanding of these things.
Fraternal regards,
Walter
2004-04-20 15:00 | User Profile
Good points, Walter. Here's one more. The Bible does explicitly say that Mary was "full of grace," therefore without sin. She would have to be for the purpose of giving God a human nature. God could not by definition assume his nature from a sinful creature. Therefore, she was conceived without sin in anticipation of her future destiny.
You know that but others here may not.
Luke is certainly the most beautiful of the Gospels.
2004-04-20 15:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Good points, Walter. Here's one more. The Bible does explicitly say that Mary was "full of grace," therefore without sin. She would have to be for the purpose of giving God a human nature. God could not by definition assume his nature from a sinful creature. Therefore, she was conceived without sin in anticipation of her future destiny.
You know that but others here may not.
Luke is certainly the most beautiful of the Gospels.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Buster.
What's the deal on Revelations 12? I know that this is read in Mass during one of the Marian feast days, don't recall which one. But then if memory serves I read somewhere that this wasn't Mary.
Walter
2004-04-20 18:06 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/womanrev12.htm]Here's[/URL] an interesting take on Revelation 12 from a Catholic perspective.
The conclusion:
[QUOTE]Thus we conclude: the "woman" of Revelation 12 is Eve, Jerusalem, Israel, Zion, and the Church, all of these being gathered up and located in the single person of Mary, the Mother of Christ and (as Revelation 12 presents her) the Mother of the Church. The Protestant can properly identify the "woman" as the Church or as Jerusalem, but only if he leaves the Marian interpretation intact. Once she is excluded from the text, all other interpretations fail to meet the multi-faceted requirements of Revelation 12. [/QUOTE]
A similar [URL=http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/article.asp?ID=150]ARTICLE [/URL] appeared in Envoy magazine.
I just googled these things up. It looks like the Catholic Church sees Mary in Revelation 12.
Our Protestant brothers have good arguments to the contray that these articles address.
Walter
2004-04-20 18:59 | User Profile
When I read the subject line "Good article on Mary by an ex-Protestant" I took a perspective that the article is designed to be persuasive. It works better an an apologetic article. But, I stumble on the extra-biblical authority.
Mary is an obvious consideration for the woman in Rev 12. But, there's no more reason to think the woman in this sign is a literal woman any more than big red dragan is literally a dragan. Or, literally that a third of the stars were cast down to earth. The picture of this woman here is bigger than the role Mary played Gospels.
2004-04-20 19:02 | User Profile
What is the importance of Mary being highly venerated? Why does it matter? Why not Abraham as well?
2004-04-20 19:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I take it from Wild Bill's post immediately above that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches concur on this point. If that is so, then one would think that due deference is owed to the position consistently held by the two most ancient branches of Christianity, with all ambiguities resolved in favor of the traditional understanding of these things. [/QUOTE]
I agree with all your points. Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree probably 90% of the time, generally, but on Mary we mainly only disagree on the Immaculate Conception, otherwise our Traditions are in line with each other. Both going back 2,000 years.
2004-04-20 19:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]What is the importance of Mary being highly venerated? Why does it matter? Why not Abraham as well?[/QUOTE]
"However, we do believe that the Virgin Mary is an image, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, of the Christian goal of becoming Christ-like, of theosis. Just as the Theotokos gave birth to Christ in a bodily way, so we must, St. Maximos tells us, give birth to Christ in an unbodily or spiritual way. In so doing, we imitate her practical spiritual life, including the purity and humility by which she formed her free will into perfect obedience to the Will of God. Of this practical image of the Virgin Mary, one of our readers, Archdeacon Basil Kuretich, D.D., has written some words that bear repeating here. They give us a clear picture of the importance of the model which she presents for every Orthodox believer:
'We...are aware of the part played by Divine Grace in the Virgin Maryââ¬â¢s life and are aware of the perfection of her virtue. However, we cannot lose sight of the importance of free will in the development and expression of her rich personality. After the Annunication, she kept the secret of Godââ¬â¢s plan for her; she faced misunderstanding and accusation from others. She quickly visited her cousin, Elizabeth, not thinking of her own needs, but only the need of Elizabeth to share her joy. She endured the journey to Bethlehem; she humbly prepared for the birth of her Child and obediently accepted the command to flee into Egypt. The Virgin Mary, aided by Divine Grace, carried out these actions in a real worldââ¬âwith real effort and sacrifice. Thus she is for us a model of many virtues." - An Orthodox View of the Virgin Mary [url]http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/theotokosq&a.htm[/url]
2004-04-20 20:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]The Bible does explicitly say that Mary was "full of grace," therefore without sin. She would have to be for the purpose of giving God a human nature. God could not by definition assume his nature from a sinful creature. Therefore, she was conceived without sin in anticipation of her future destiny.[/QUOTE]
Problematic.
Luke 1:26-38
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Christ's sinless nature is entirely due to the power of the Holy Spirit, and not to any supposed sinlessness of Mary.
Mary goes on to attest to this fact in verses 46-55:
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Mary is a shining example of the sovereign Grace of God - Sola Gratia!
2004-04-20 20:23 | User Profile
Thanks, Tex. Obviously we use different translations and I won't open up that whole issue. Mine is the Douay-Rheims and the phrase "full of grace" is a direct quote.
I didn't say Christ's sinless nature came from Mary, only his human nature. His sinlessness is eternal. Her sinlessness was from her conception in order make her suitable to her future role as Mother of God. God, being God, would have no attachment or union to a sinful creature.
2004-04-20 21:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]What is the importance of Mary being highly venerated? Why does it matter? Why not Abraham as well?[/QUOTE]
I think the basic answer is that just as Man and Woman fell together from the Garden, a man and woman would participate in their redemption. Hence Mary is so often described as the New Eve.
Prayers to Mary are also thought very powerful, given her role in life and the high place she occupies in heaven. This is why the Rosary is considered such an important devotion. It is pleasing to Mary, and so very useful and powerful.
2004-04-20 21:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]We...are aware of the part played by Divine Grace in the Virgin Mary?s life and are aware of the perfection of her virtue. However, we cannot lose sight of the importance of free will in the development and expression of her rich personality.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
2004-04-20 21:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I think the basic answer is that just as Man and Woman fell together from the Garden, a man and woman would participate in their redemption. Hence Mary is so often described as the New Eve.
Prayers to Mary are also thought very powerful, given her role in life and the high place she occupies in heaven. This is why the Rosary is considered such an important devotion. It is pleasing to Mary, and so very useful and powerful.[/QUOTE]
??
1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
2004-04-20 22:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Why not?[/QUOTE]
Because Mary was obviously free to say no, but she didn't.
2004-04-21 05:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]What is the importance of Mary being highly venerated? Why does it matter? Why not Abraham as well?[/QUOTE]
It's because we're talking about his MOTHER.
It's biology, really. Each of us sprang directly from the body of a woman. We were part of her, literally. That relationship is unique - not even with our fathers are we so intimately connected.
Christ's relationship with His Mother is unique, and the Church as always recognized that. Mary has long bore the honorific title "Mother of God." I mean, think of that. She's more than just some other saint or matriarch of old. She bore God Himself in her body. The mystery of her full identity has probably not been fully revealed.
But Revelation 12 gives us a hint as to how Her adopted son, St. John, saw her, and it's obviously much more than just another nice lady who God just randomly selected for the Big Mission of History. She was in fact the Queen of the Universe.
Some of the Marian devotion got a tad excessive in my own Catholic tradition, and I can see how that could put off some who are most concerned with their vital personal conversion experience.
Walter
2004-04-21 06:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]??
1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.[/QUOTE]
Tex, don't we ask for prayers from our fellow Christians? So why not seek the prayers of Mary also?
2004-04-21 09:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Why not?[/QUOTE]
Tex: What is your take on Revelation 12?
Walter
2004-04-21 14:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It's biology, really. Each of us sprang directly from the body of a woman. We were part of her, literally. That relationship is unique - not even with our fathers are we so intimately connected.
I don't know if Mary was anything more than a surrogate.
Christ's relationship with His Mother is unique, and the Church as always recognized that. Mary has long bore the honorific title "Mother of God."
While she was honored by being chosen to carry Jesus, the Bible never uses the title "Mother of God." It may just be my Protestant nature, but extra-biblical tradition, as long enduring as it may be, does not move me.
But Revelation 12 gives us a hint as to how Her adopted son, St. John, saw her, and it's obviously much more than just another nice lady who God just randomly selected for the Big Mission of History. She was in fact the Queen of the Universe.
I think I favor the spiritual Israel as the women of Rev 12.
Some of the Marian devotion got a tad excessive in my own Catholic tradition, and I can see how that could put off some who are most concerned with their vital personal conversion experience. [/QUOTE]
I'm not too worried about that. As long as you have mere humans in the ranks of any insstitution, you're going to have people who take individual teachings to extreme just as you're going to have people who reject those same teachings.
2004-04-21 14:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]??
1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.[/QUOTE]
Here our bibles concur, Tex.
A couple of points. First, Mary's "mediation" is in the form of her prayers for us, which even you or I can do when we pray for another person. Anyone can be a mediator in that sense, though those closest to God are more powerful. I would suggest that the verse you quote refers to a deeper sense of mediation, meaning an ultimate reconciliation between God and man, which as you say can only be accomplished by Christ.
Additionally, the fact that Christ is the sole mediator does not prevent him from appointing agents to act on his behalf and under his authority. If the King of England appoints 50 officials to act in his name, and with his authority, that does not mean there are 50 kings. Hence the authority of bishops, priests, saints, etc.
2004-04-21 15:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Happy Hacker]I don't know if Mary was anything more than a surrogate. While she was honored by being chosen to carry Jesus, the Bible never uses the title "Mother of God." It may just be my Protestant nature, but extra-biblical tradition, as long enduring as it may be, does not move me.[/QUOTE]
I think you've identified the crux of the issue. We Catholics (and Orthodox) accept the authority of Holy Tradition. This goes directly to the heart of the Protestant movement, inasmuch as it is based on sola scriptura and thus a definitional rejection of an authoritative tradition. That's my understanding of it, anyway.
[QUOTE]I think I favor the spiritual Israel as the women of Rev 12.[/QUOTE]
That's a reasonable take on it, see the Envoy article I link above. But I think you'll agree that Mary is not an unreasonable candidate for same. Now, if I understand the Protestant approach correctly, doctrinal orthodoxy requires only assent on those points that Scripture is clear on, and a variety of opinions are allowed in the case of Scriptural ambiguity, under the rubric of "Christian freedom."
If that is so (and please correct me if I'm wrong), then do you agree that the Catholic view of Mary as Queen of the Universe is within the realm of reasonable interpretation?
My only point here is that often my Protestant brothers find no Scriptural basis for the Catholic position, and I'm hoping you'll agree that our Catholic teaching on the subject is not completely beyond the pale by Protestant lights.
[QUOTE]I'm not too worried about that. As long as you have mere humans in the ranks of any insstitution, you're going to have people who take individual teachings to extreme just as you're going to have people who reject those same teachings.[/QUOTE]
I'm pleased to hear that. It's actually a bit worse than you might realize. I guess I should shut up about this, but you can read about it here. Both JPII and Mother Theresa would like to make the fifth ex cathedra declaration, but in my opinion this would be wrong (completely unscriptural) and also utterly impolitic, inasmuch as it would destroy the considerable progress made in reconciliation with the Orthodox, and also with the Lutheran confession. I personally don't think it will happen.
2004-04-21 16:45 | User Profile
*"For a time, Catholic theology seemed to be moving headlong toward proclaiming Mary 'Co-redemptrix' with Christ. This title, already widely used among Catholic bishops with no rebuke from the Vaticanââ¬â¢s Holy Office, makes Protestant blood run cold. It vividly demonstrates the basic Protestant objection to Catholic Mariology, namely, its tendency to obscure the distinctive role of Christ as the 'only mediator between God and man.'
Protestant fears were eased, if not removed, when the Second Vatican Council decided, by the paper-thin margin of 30 votes out of more than 2000 to forego a special schema, or Council declaration, on Mary, and to give her instead a chapter in the schema on the Church.
The importance of this widely misunderstood decision is that it was a triumph for a relatively new viewpoint toward Mary which has been gaining strength in progressive Catholic circles. According to this viewpoint, which has been most influentially expounded by Pope Paul VI, Mary is to be thought of as 'the model, the image, the ideal figure of the Church.' In her humble, self-effacing obedience and complete trust, she is the prototype of what all members of the Church should be like. And in her willing cooperation with the work of redemption which God accomplished in Christ, she exemplifies the Churchââ¬â¢s mission on earth.
Protestant theologians find this new viewpoint on Mary infinitely more attractive than some of the other Mariological doctrines that have found credence in the Catholic Church.
If Protestants feel that Catholics give Mary too much honor, Catholics feel, with at least equal emotion, that Protestants give her far too little. Mary is seldom mentioned in the average Protestant church except at Christmas time.
A growing number of Protestant scholars acknowledge the justice of this indictment, and are urging Protestants to give Mary the reverence that is clearly ââ¬â and biblically ââ¬â her due.
'Not as a semi-divine being, but as an outstanding member of the communion of saints, she is blessed among women,' says Jaroslav Pelikan. "When Protestants begin to say this out loud in their teaching and worship . . they will be better prepared to speak a word of fraternal warning to their Roman Catholic brethren.'"*
--Louis Cassels, [url=http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1563]What's the Difference? A Comparison of the Faiths Men Live By[/url]
2004-04-21 17:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Mary goes on to attest to this fact in verses 46-55:
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. [/QUOTE]
Something for Catholics to consider....if Mary was indeed sinless, why would she have need for a Saviour and acknowledge such in the Magnificat?
2004-04-22 19:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Something for Catholics to consider....if Mary was indeed sinless, why would she have need for a Saviour and acknowledge such in the Magnificat?[/QUOTE]
Good one, Centinel! I don't think I've ever heard that point raised before. I'll see what I can find out. I suppose the Church says she was saved from the moment of conception, but I'll look for a definite answer.
Here it is. My catechism says that insofar as she was human, she needed redemption, but her redemption was accomplished by prevention rather than by subsequent purification. So your point is well taken by the Church.
2004-04-22 20:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]Good one, Centinel! I don't think I've ever heard that point raised before. I'll see what I can find out. I suppose the Church says she was saved from the moment of conception, but I'll look for a definite answer.
That can't be a logical doctrine, since Mary says the Magnificat in Luke's gospel during her visit to Elizabeth after she has already conceived.
Here it is. My catechism says that insofar as she was human, she needed redemption, but her redemption was accomplished by prevention rather than by subsequent purification. So your point is well taken by the Church.[/QUOTE]
What is this doctrine of "prevention?" And how does Rome--in Mary's case or that of any other mortal--square it with these Scriptures?
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
2004-04-22 20:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]That can't be a logical doctrine, since Mary says the Magnificat in Luke's gospel during her visit to Elizabeth after she has already conceived.
What is this doctrine of "prevention?" And how does Rome--in Mary's case or that of any other mortal--square it with these Scriptures? [/QUOTE]
First point, I'm talking about the conception of Mary in the womb of her mother, Anne. That is what the [B]doctrine[/B] of the Immaculate Conception refers to. Not the conception of Christ in Mary's womb or John in Elizabeth's womb. Mary was "preserved" from sin from the moment she existed in the womb of her mother.
As to Timothy, that verse was raised by Texas Dissident and I refer you to my response above.
Your other quotes are valid and true as far as I'm concerned. I just say they do not apply to one person, Mary. She in the sole exception in history.
Actually, there might be two exceptions. I understand that when John leapt in Elizabeth's womb, that signified that he, like Mary, was infused by the Holy Ghost, or made "full of grace." So he was conceived in sin, but born without it. If I'm mistaken about that, someone please let me know.
Where is Walter Yannis when I need him?
2004-04-23 00:35 | User Profile
With regards to seeking the intercession of departed saints or Mary, Luther addresses this directly in the Smalcald Articles. Basically the contention is that it does not have firm Scriptural support, whereas Christ alone as sole (only) mediator between ourselves and God and the Holy Spirit as a helping intercessor is quite plainly stated throughout Scripture (1 Timothy, Romans 8, for example).
Indeed, the most plain instruction in how we should pray is stated by Christ himself in Matthew 6. Nowhere does he mention seeking the intercession of departed saints or Mary. Surely we aren't ready to say that Christ or St. Paul did not get it right or forgot to mention such things!?
Now not to be contentious or anything, but if we start interjecting other means and manners to petition God then what we are really saying is that the plainly stated Scriptural ones are not really enough and thereby cheapens the true Gospel message.
2004-04-23 12:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Now not to be contentious or anything, but if we start interjecting other means and manners to petition God then what we are really saying is that the plainly stated Scriptural ones are not really enough and thereby cheapens the true Gospel message.[/QUOTE]
Maybe my understanding is different from others, but in regard to Mary and the Saints, Orthodoxy accepts that these people are still alive and thus seeking their prayers would be no different than seeking those of any fellow Christian. I don't think this contradicts anything in the Scriptures.
I will also mention that Immaculate Conception is an exclusively Catholic Doctrine. As I understand the Orthodox teaching on the sinlessness of Mary, She was capable of sin, but refused to sin, or at least any Sin she committed was of a very insignificant variety.
2004-04-23 13:00 | User Profile
[More on the Mother of God.........]
Dormition of the Theotokos [url]http://oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feas....html#dormition[/url]
The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary: After the Ascension of the Lord, the Mother of God remained in the care of the Apostle John the Theologian, and during his journeys She lived at the home of his parents, near the Mount of Olives. She was a source of consolation and edification both for the Apostles and for all the believers. Conversing with them, She told them about miraculous events: the Annunciation, the seedless and undefiled Conception of Christ born of Her, about His early childhood, and about His earthly life. Like the Apostles, She helped plant and strengthen the Christian Church by Her presence, Her discourse and Her prayers.
The reverence of the Apostles for the Most Holy Virgin was extraordinary. After the receiving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles remained at Jerusalem for about ten years attending to the salvation of the Jews, and wanting moreover to see the Mother of God and hear Her holy discourse. Many of the newly-enlightened in the Faith even came from faraway lands to Jerusalem, to see and to hear the All-Pure Mother of God.
During the time of the persecution initiated by King Herod against the young Church of Christ (Acts 12: 1-3), the Most Holy Virgin and the Apostle John the Theologian withdrew to Ephesus in the year 43. The preaching of the Gospel there had fallen by lot to the Apostle John the Theologian. The Mother of God was on Cyprus with St. Lazarus the Four-Days-Dead, where he was bishop. She was also on Holy Mount Athos. St. Stephen of the Holy Mountain says that the Mother of God prophetically spoke of it: "Let this place be my lot, given to me by my Son and my God. I will be the Patroness of this place and intercede with God for it."
The respect of ancient Christians for the Mother of God was so great that they preserved what they could about Her life, what they could take note of concerning Her sayings and deeds, and they even passed down to us a description of Her outward appearance.
According to Tradition, based on the words of the Hieromartyrs Dionysios the Areopagite (October 3), Ignatios the God-Bearer (December 20), St. Ambrose of Milan (December 7) had occasion to write in his work "On Virgins" concerning the Mother of God: "She was a Virgin not only in body, but also in soul, humble of heart, circumspect in word, wise in mind, not overly given to speaking, a lover of reading and of work, and prudent in speech. Her rule of life was to offend no one, to intend good for everyone, to respect the aged, not envy others, avoid bragging, be healthy of mind, and to love virtue."
When did She ever hurl the least insult in the face of Her parents? When was She at discord with Her kin? When did She ever puff up with pride before a modest person, or laugh at the weak, or shun the destitute? With Her there was nothing of glaring eyes, nothing of unseemly words, nor of improper conduct. She was modest in the movement of Her body, Her step was quiet, and Her voice straightforward; so that Her face was an expression of soul. She was the personification of purity.
All Her days She was concerned with fasting: She slept only when necessary, and even then, when Her body was at rest, She was still alert in spirit, repeating in Her dreams what She had read, or the implementation of proposed intentions, or those planned yet anew. She was out of Her house only for church, and then only in the company of relatives. Otherwise, She seldom appeared outside Her house in the company of others, and She was Her own best overseer. Others could protect Her only in body, but She Herself guarded Her character."
According to Tradition, that from the compiler of Church history Nikephoros Kallistos (fourteenth century), the Mother of God "was of average stature, or as others suggest, slightly more than average; Her hair golden in appearance; Her eyes bright with pupils like shiny olives; Her eyebrows strong in character and moderately dark, Her nose pronounced and Her mouth vibrant bespeaking sweet speech; Her face was neither round nor angular, but somewhat oblong; the palm of Her hands and fingers were longish.........[continued at link]
2004-04-23 16:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Something for Catholics to consider....if Mary was indeed sinless, why would she have need for a Saviour and acknowledge such in the Magnificat?[/QUOTE]
If Jesus needed to be born of a sinless woman, wouldn't that sinless woman need to be born of a sinless mother and dad? Thus, there would have to be a sinless line of people all the way back to sinless Adam and Eve.
Is the life-long alleged virginity of Mary an extension of the belief that she never sinned? If so, would Mary's ancesters, all the way back to Adam and Eve, be life-long virgins?
2004-04-23 17:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]If Jesus needed to be born of a sinless woman, wouldn't that sinless woman need to be born of a sinless mother and dad? Thus, there would have to be a sinless line of people all the way back to sinless Adam and Eve.
Is the life-long alleged virginity of Mary an extension of the belief that she never sinned? If so, would Mary's ancesters, all the way back to Adam and Eve, be life-long virgins?[/QUOTE]
You lost me on that second point.
Mary was sinless by virtue of the power of God when she was infused with grace at her conception. That's as plain as I can put it.
I will just add this. If you can't accept this doctrine, you are faced with the challenge of teaching that Christ, God incarnate, could be born of a creature tainted by sin. If you can reconcile those facts with each other, so be it.
2004-04-23 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I will just add this. If you can't accept this doctrine, you are faced with the challenge of teaching that Christ, God incarnate, could be born of a creature tainted by sin. If you can reconcile those facts with each other, so be it.[/QUOTE]
It cannot be reconciled, Buster. Just like Christ being fully man and fully God, it is a paradox completely impervious to human reason. Instead of trying to utilize our reason to explain such things like the Calvinists do with double-predestination, we should "heighten the paradox" as Luther wrote and content ourselves to go only as far as Scripture allows. Proverbs 3:5-6
2004-04-23 20:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It cannot be reconciled, Buster. Just like Christ being fully man and fully God, it is a paradox completely impervious to human reason. Instead of trying to utilize our reason to explain such things like the Calvinists do with double-predestination, we should "heighten the paradox" as Luther wrote and content ourselves to go only as far as Scripture allows. Proverbs 3:5-6[/QUOTE]
I agree. It cannot be. And that brings us back to the translation of Luke 1, 28. (Of course, the Church also emphasizes Sacred Tradition to support this doctrine, but that's beside the point).
The Church certainly believes in nothing if not the necessity of accepting certain paradoxes (or "mysteries" as we usually call them). But some apparent contradictions strike at the heart of the faith itself, in this case the Incarnation. How can God be born of a woman? Is Mary just an ordinary woman, or the most extraordinary person who ever lived? It is one or the other. Moreover, we are not asking about the nature of God here, but about the nature of a mere person. A reasonable answer to an apparent contradiction should be expected.
It is 1854. The challenge of Protestantism is growing everywhere. The faithful demand an answer. Who is she? The Catholic Church proffers an answer, in fact, one of only two doctrines in history endorsed by its most solemn teaching authority. If you fail to accept it, you lose the right to call yourself Catholic. Those outside the Church who refuse it will stay outside. Some things are just too important.
2004-04-24 15:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]I agree. It cannot be. And that brings us back to the translation of Luke 1, 28. (Of course, the Church also emphasizes Sacred Tradition to support this doctrine, but that's beside the point).
The Church certainly believes in nothing if not the necessity of accepting certain paradoxes (or "mysteries" as we usually call them). But some apparent contradictions strike at the heart of the faith itself, in this case the Incarnation. How can God be born of a woman? Is Mary just an ordinary woman, or the most extraordinary person who ever lived? It is one or the other. We are not asking about the nature of God here, but about the nature of a person. A reasonable answer should be possible. It is 1854. The challenge of Protestantism is growing everywhere. The faithful demand an answer. Who is she? The Catholic Church proffers an answer, in fact, one of only two doctrines in history endorsed by its most solemn teaching authority. If you fail to accept it, you lose the right to call yourself Catholic. Those outside the Church who refuse it will stay outside. Some things are just too important.[/QUOTE]
Tex: Buster raises a good point. Revelation 12 is good Scriptural basis for the notion that Mary was something more than winner of a sort of cosmic sweepstakes.
What is your take on Revelation 12?
Walter
2004-04-24 17:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What is your take on Revelation 12?[/QUOTE]
Hello Walter!
With regards to the woman in Rev. 12:1, we read she is "a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."
If we go all the way back to Genesis 37:9, we read that Joseph "dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, "Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me." Joseph is referring to the nation of Israel.
Many times in OT Scripture Israel is referred to as a woman (Is.54:6, Jer.6:2, for example). Paul refers to the NT Church as "bethrothed to one husband (Christ)" 2 Cor.11:2
All that to say that I think the woman St. John envisions in Rev. 12 is a symbol of the true Church, or spiritual Israel if you will.
2004-04-25 06:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hello Walter!
With regards to the woman in Rev. 12:1, we read she is "a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."
If we go all the way back to Genesis 37:9, we read that Joseph "dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, "Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me." Joseph is referring to the nation of Israel.
Many times in OT Scripture Israel is referred to as a woman (Is.54:6, Jer.6:2, for example). Paul refers to the NT Church as "bethrothed to one husband (Christ)" 2 Cor.11:2
All that to say that I think the woman St. John envisions in Rev. 12 is a symbol of the true Church, or spiritual Israel if you will.[/QUOTE]
An eminenlty reasonable reading of Revelation 12.
But,- and here's the rub - do you agree that seeing Mary there is also a reasonable reading of the same?
Walter
2004-04-26 23:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But,- and here's the rub - do you agree that seeing Mary there is also a reasonable reading of the same?[/QUOTE]
Well there is certainly some Mary-type imagery there in verse 5, for example, but I don't think it stands the test of all the descriptions throughout the chapter, whereas national/spiritual Israel or the true Church does most assuredly.
One thing I can't understand is why Rome would point to Rev. 12 as a description of Mary in light of its doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception. In Rev.12:2 it describes the woman's labor and birth pains, which are part of God's punishment of Eve for her sinning in the Garden. If Mary had no sin (immaculate conception), why would she experience sin's consequences of painful labor and childbirth as described in Rev.12:2?
In short, Revelation is a very difficult book and must be studied and understood within the strictest exegesis. How many strange cults, sects and heresies have been born out of someone cherry-picking a verse or two from the book and building a theology upon it? I understand that Mary Baker Eddy proclaimed herself to be the woman of Revelation 12 when she founded the Christian Science cult.
2004-04-27 05:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE]One thing I can't understand is why Rome would point to Rev. 12 as a description of Mary in light of its doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception. In Rev.12:2 it describes the woman's labor and birth pains, which are part of God's punishment of Eve for her sinning in the Garden. If Mary had no sin (immaculate conception), why would she experience sin's consequences of painful labor and childbirth as described in Rev.12:2? [/QUOTE]
Excellent points.
I think that the Catholic position is that the woman in Revelation 12 is "all of the above." It is the nation of Israel striving to bring forth Jesus over a thousand years of history, it is the Church fighting Satan who is trying to destroy the Church, and it is Mary, who profoundly symbolizes (even embodies?) the first two.
Each includes the others.
I think that as to Mary's suffering in giving birth, Mary's sufferings at the Cross symbolized birth pangs, inasmuch as the death of Jesus was spiritually our birth. The blood of the Sacrament and the water of Baptism flowed from His side, with both blood and water associated with birth. The Church was born of that death/birth, and it was in a very deep sense Mary's doing.
I'm probably not describing the idea very well, but for Catholics Mary is Mother of the Church, and I think it has to do with that.
Walter
2004-04-27 15:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]One thing I can't understand is why Rome would point to Rev. 12 as a description of Mary in light of its doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception. In Rev.12:2 it describes the woman's labor and birth pains, which are part of God's punishment of Eve for her sinning in the Garden. If Mary had no sin (immaculate conception), why would she experience sin's consequences of painful labor and childbirth as described in Rev.12:2?[/QUOTE] Walter already touched on this, but I wanted to add. According to Orthodox tradition, (Wild_Bill correct me if I'm mistaken) Mary did not experience labor and birth pangs when she delivered Jesus. It was only when Jesus was crucified, symbolizing, as Mr Yannis stated so well, a new birth for mankind, that Mary suffered the pangs of birth. So, she was exempted from the painful labor that is a result of sin, but she was not exempted from feeling the pain of Jesus when He was crucified, since she was so close to Him.
Also, it is instructive to look at the Orthodox view of Original Sin. The Orthodox do not see Original Sin as inherited guilt, but rather as inherited consequences. We do not have guilt imputed to us for something we did not do, but as children of Adam and Eve, we do all suffer the consequences (fallen nature, painful childbirth, death) that resulted from that sin. Therefore, Mary could be sinless and still suffer painful childbirth.
2004-04-27 18:40 | User Profile
Thanks for that clarification, Quantrill. Indeed, Orthodoxy's 'Sacred Tradition' and view of original sin are a couple of fundamental and profound differences with Protestantism and with the latter, Traditional Catholicism.
2004-04-28 21:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]In short, Revelation is a very difficult book and must be studied and understood within the strictest exegesis. How many strange cults, sects and heresies have been born out of someone cherry-picking a verse or two from the book and building a theology upon it? I understand that Mary Baker Eddy proclaimed herself to be the woman of Revelation 12 when she founded the Christian Science cult.[/QUOTE]
Tex, you summed up a lot in that paragraph. Is it any wonder that some people didn't want the Book of Revelation to be included in the NT? One priest gave some good advice by recommending that people worry more about being a good Christian than trying to predict the future by using the Book of Revelation - approach it with caution as it can be easily misunderstood.
2004-04-29 05:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thanks for that clarification, Quantrill. Indeed, Orthodoxy's 'Sacred Tradition' and view of original sin are a couple of fundamental and profound differences with Protestantism and with the latter, Traditional Catholicism.[/QUOTE]
I tried to check this out yesterday, and it appears (although I didn't find this in anything authoritative) that the Catholic Church believes that Mary's birth of Jesus didn't involve birth pangs, like the Orthodox. That would make sense, of course, for the reasons you gave.
Thus Mary was present at the birth of the Church when the lance was thrust into Christ's side, and the blood and water poured out, and these were her birth pangs. She's therefore the Mother of the Church.
Wow. What a beautiful thought. Learn something new everyday.
I vaguely recall being taught this as a child before Vatican II came along, which emphasized Mary's earthy humanity more than here spiritual role.
Walter
2004-04-29 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Thus Mary was present at the birth of the Church when the lance was thrust into Christ's side, and the blood and water poured out, and these were her birth pangs. She's therefore the Mother of the Church. Walter[/QUOTE] Very nicely stated, Walter. It is a beautiful thought indeed. I am constantly amazed at the layers and layers of meaning and symbolism contained in the Gospels.