Mary Have No Other Kids?

[Circle_Master]

the Old Testament prophecies had immediate and future fulfillments much of the time, I can agree with that. Why the Jews didn't have any possible clue Jesus was coming as He did? Because they thought several people were needed to fulfill the prophecies of messiah, and the messianic prophecies are also written showing a suffering messiah, and also a reigning one. How could that work in one man?

However, those prophecies are also clear about predicting a messiah. The Ezekiel passage is clearly talking about a temple. What does my circle of protestants do with that? We say that there will be a temple! And because we hold to a future millennium, it makes sense that it will be there! That would be a literal interpretation of the passage. Anything other is something not there at all

(hope that responds well, I'm getting sloppy in my answers, too much work to proofread! of course note as well that mull and bruce may disagree with me on this passage. This is my dispensational blood speaking and they may be covenantal.)

Edited December 31, 2003 by Circle_Master

[Donna]

JasJis, I knew you were connected with Limey's! (Or maybe some other ppl's do this as well?)

I can say that word 'cause some of the relatives are Brits.

Crackers and crowns abound here, too, on major holidays.

:rolling:

[jasJis]

JasJis, I knew you were connected with Limey's! (Or maybe some other ppl's do this as well?)

I can say that word 'cause some of the relatives are Brits.

Crackers and crowns abound here, too, on major holidays.

:rolling:

I'd like to say 'limey', but my Brit wife won't let me. For many years, her grandfather (who was a card carrying Mason) would say that his grand-daughter married a 'bloody papist'

The Brits are awful civilized until it comes to crackers, pouring beer, and soccer.

[cmotherofpirl]

Jaslis you forgot fish and chips

[Donna]

Aye, well, gotta love those Limey's (Sir Thomas More, ora pro jasJis and me!).

Through the writings of the Saints and Fathers I believe Mary was perfect; meaning that she practiced domestic arts and everything else to perfection as she did the virtues. No burned food from Our Lady! (We thinks not, O Precious).

She was completely unique and singular; and her most chaste spouse, Joseph, was so, as much as one not immaculately conceived could be; and both spouses grew upward from there.

The Church reminds us through the celibate clergy and nuns that in the world to come, as regards marriage, all shall be like the angels. Why shouldn't we marvel, instead of scoff, that The Blessed Trinity by marrying these two individuals, thus protected the virginity of both?

The Scripture scholars down the ages would have a hard time with the Precious Blood which saves us all, being taken from anyone not perpetually inviolate in virginity, nor free from original sin. This is God Incarnate we are talking about and it is unthinkable that He would cleave to a fallen womb and Mother; that the matter from which His Person and Precious Blood could be associated in any way with sin.

Let's remember that her mystical spouse is the Holy Ghost.

From the Denzinger:

"For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born

of a virgin, if he had judged she would be so incontinent,

that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute

the generative chamber of the Lord's body, that palace

of the eternal King." [exceprt of #9;, from the Epistle

"Aceppi Litteras Vestra" to Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, 392].

I think that people have a problem not with Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity or Immaculate Conception per se; but that these necessarily place our own selves comparatively as "the seed of human copulation... would pollute the generative chamber of the Lord's body."

Yet who more champions marriage and the begetting of children than the Catholic Church? So we see that human copulation in this context alone is holy and very good, but not fitting at all for the Word Made Flesh and His Mother.

Edited January 1, 2004 by Donna

[Circle_Master]

Through the writings of the Saints and Fathers I believe Mary was perfect; meaning that she practiced domestic arts and everything else to perfection as she did the virtues. No burned food from Our Lady! (We thinks not, O Precious).

no one agrees with you here . They were saying she is sinless, not perfect.

The Church reminds us through the celibate clergy and nuns that in the world to come, as regards marriage, all shall be like the angels. Why shouldn't we marvel, instead of scoff, that The Blessed Trinity by marrying these two individuals, thus protected the virginity of both?

Why would you want to be like an angel? The angels look at us with wonder. The angels are also under us now as we are in Christ. Angels long to be like us.

The Scripture scholars down the ages would have a hard time with the Precious Blood which saves us all, being taken from anyone not perpetually inviolate in virginity, nor free from original sin.

it's not really tough, the sin nature passes through the father. solution given.

Let's remember that her mystical spouse is the Holy Ghost.

actually she wed Joseph. The insemination was merely by the Holy Spirit.

Yet who more champions marriage and the begetting of children than the Catholic Church? So we see that human copulation in this context alone is holy and very good, but not fitting at all for the Word Made Flesh and His Mother.

hm.. protestant churches do as well. and we don't require out leadership to be single as some of the Catholic Church rites do.

[jasJis]

Jaslis you forgot fish and chips

I cannot forget about fish & chips, but I didn't mention them for 2 reasons.

1- They are very civilized about them. Even though they're wrapped in paper. It's neat and tidy.

2- In London, ethnic "English" do not make them. I would always call them Hajbib's fish & chips. (Though I didn't know if they were middle eastern or Indian). Very, very good, but not strictly "Brit" any more.

Speaking of food in England. Nobody can imagine the quality and stunning variety of sandwiches you can get there. If one could rule the world by sandwich. They would be the lone superpower, and we would all be waving leafy branches. :rolling:

[cmotherofpirl]

Speak for yourself, and don't try that "no one agrees with you" bit.

It really doesn't read well and is a bit arrogant.

[Circle_Master]

I said that before if you read through the first 4 pages of this post, every single Catholic said "she was sinless" and some even argued she wasn't perfect.

[Donna]

Thank you for such curteous replies, Mr. Master.

I am aware that no one here has agreed with my belief that the Blessed Mother was perfect.

It matters not whether I want to be an angel or not. The point is in heaven no one is given to marriage. The beatific vision in heaven is what we were created for, and the things and state while in heaven is what we are supposed to like, or at least have an admiration or longing for. The Church reminds us of no marriage in heaven by "enuchs for Christ", those celibate clergy and nuns.

In the hierarchy of persons: Divine, angelic, human. Yet it is so the angels would want to be like us so as to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

"Conceived by the Holy Ghost", Whom is the mystical spouse of the Blessed Mother. St. Joseph: Our Lady's "most chaste spouse."

There is no other that most champions marriage and begetting of children than Holy Mother Church.

Edited January 3, 2004 by Donna

[Circle_Master]

Where are you from Donna? You write with.. different grammer styles. (that is a serious question, not insulting)

[Donna]

Not even Husband knows where I am from....

[hyperdulia again]

I believe that Donna is transported English Catholic lady, circa 1875 and I think it rocks! :)

[Ellenita]

Oi! Less of the bashing of the Brits in this thread!!! :club: :irate:

[Jake Huether]

I posted this in the Apologetics phorum, but it might get better visibility here:

Luke 1:

The Birth of Jesus Foretold

26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,

27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

28 The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you.

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.

30 But the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favour with God.

31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; his kingdom will never end.

34 How will this be, Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin?

Let me highlight the key quotes which undeniably indicate that Mary intended even before she pledged to be married to remain a virgin.

The Angel Gabriel declares to Mary.

You will be with child and give birth to a son

Note, this is in the future tense. You WILL be with child. Not you ARE with child.

When in the future? Is it before Mary is married to Joseph? Is it after? We aren't sure. Mary isn't sure.

Also note, the Angel doesn't explicitly say that her son will be God. Mary can't be sure the child wont be from Joseph. At this point, the child might be from her future husband - because the Angel said she'd have a child in the future. In fact, the reader of the Gospel up to this point has every reason to believe that it would be from Joseph, since Gabriel had just come from talking with Zechariah in pretty much the same exact fashion. And we all know Elizabeth would be with child BY Zechariah. But we can't really be sure. Frankly, the Angel Gabriel leaves a lot to be desired. And consequently Mary must asks:

How will this be, Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin?

Now, if the Angel tells Mary that in the future she will be with child, and he doesn't explicitly say who the father will be, and Mary is engaged to Joseph, and (main point) if indeed Mary intended on having relations with Joseph...

Why on earth would she, at this point, need to ask "How will this be."? If it is in the future, and Mary will marry Joseph and have normal relations with him in the future, then Mary would have most certainly presumed that it would have been from Joseph!

You see, in Zech's case, he asked "how can this be" but he got busted. Why? Because he presumed correctly that it would be by his wife. But what he didn't believe is that his wife could still have kids by the power of God. Mary on the other hand doesn't get busted. Why? Because she knows that she and her future husband could have kids if they wanted. BUT. she doesn't want to have marital relations with Joseph. And the Angle knows that! So, since Mary has presumed wrongly that the way in which her child would be born would be through intercourse, and she has not (nor will she) have intercourse, then her question is valid.

We can conclude then that Mary had previosly made a vow before God that she would remain a virgin. If she hadn't, then her question is null. Understanding her circumstances, she would have presumed that Joseph would be the father. In which case, then the Angel would have needed to be more explisit prior.

Mary was vowed to be a virgin, despite being engaged, perpetually.

Mary ever Virgin, pray for us.

[Circle_Master]

perhaps Matthew was ignorant of her vow when he wrote "before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit" (1:18) or perhaps Mary understood it will be that she was not going to have relations until Joseph wed her - and knew that was a still good ways off - which is why she couldn't figure out the angel would appear to her now, instead of later.

I would go with the second for the simple reason that I don't believe Matthew would have written ignorantly here.

[Anna]

That's what your translation says. Mine says "before they lived together." Still doesn't mean that they did not remain chaste.

Pax Christi. <><

[jasJis]

It's so easily understood, I can't fathom why understanding is refused.

I got the flu vaccine BEFORE I got the the flu. Does that mean I got the flu eventually? Does it mean I was even exposed to the flu and necessarily would have contracted it?

No.

The exact same thing with Mary's sinlessness. She was vaccinated with Grace, but still needed the Grace. Grace was needed to enable her to not sin. She could not do so without Grace. Grace acted as a preventative to the illness of sin, not a cure for a committed sin.

Protestant insistence that Mary had other children is based in a simple desire to debase Catholicism. It isn't even a universal Protestant doctrine. Ask a Lutheran. The idea Mary had other children is a symptom of Fundamentalist Protestants that fundamentaled themselves to blindness of what has been known and accepted by ALL Christian denominations for hundreds of years. This new idea is creeping into other Protestant denominations because of their desire to 'not be Catholic' and be of one accord with their Protestant Brothers and Sisters.

That is why Catholics will not back down from what has been known as a Truth for all of Christianity. It is issues with denying Truth that is splintering Anglican and Episcaplian congregations and sending them back Home to the Church.

TRUTH can divide or unite us, but it's still Truth. Just as Jesus tells us He loves us all and wants us to be One, He also tells us he will set child against mother, brother against sister. He comes in Truth.

[Ellenita]

I've been thinking alot about Mary recently - boy, am I mad that she is virtually sidelined by most protestant churches to the 'christmas story'.

I feel like I am only just beginning to know this incredibly amesome woman - what a witness of complete obedience to God she is, and what a powerful message that is to me a Christian woman who repeatedly asked what place there was for women in the church and felt bereft of examples in the various protestant churches which I attended.

I really love the understated way the writers of the gospels write how she accepted the news the angel gave her and then agreed to God's plan! She must have been in complete turmoil and gone through doubts but still remained obedient. I would imagine that Joesph went through similar feelings. It seems completely reasonable to me to think that having gone through the physical, emotional, and spiritual process of allowing themselves to be used as the means of the Son of God to be born human they would think it was such an amesome thing, an incredibly precious gift from God, that they would choose to remain celebate in their married life.......

But like I said, I'm only really just beginning to get to know her, so maybe I'm way off beam here.......

[Circle_Master]

Protestant insistence that Mary had other children is based in a simple desire to debase Catholicism.

actually, I really don't care.

But doing my first studies on it, without ever thinking of if it was important to Catholicism or not, Scriptures indicate that she did have kids. You can argue against it-but it seems to indicate that she did have kids.

Now the Church Fathers... Mary was a legend - legends are always exaggerated over time. That is a natural man response. It's the 'rumor-wheel' if you will.