Follow
Let us first answer the question with an emphatic, No! The Scripture says that God owes no man anything, and He has no need of anything that man may offer or produce. The reason is that He already owns everything. What does He need from us that is not already His for the taking?
“The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Psalms 24:1)
“For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” (Psalms 50:10-12)
Despite this, Roman Catholic tradition has God in Mary’s debt because He used her womb at the Incarnation and thus He has borrowed flesh from her. Listen to Methodius (ostensibly a 4th century monk who died c. 310 A.D., but in reality a 9th century monk of the same name), who opined on Mary:
“Thou hast lent to God, who stands in need of nothing, that flesh which He had not, in order that the Omnipotent might become that which it was His good pleasure to be. … Hail, hail! mother and handmaid of God. Hail, hail! thou to whom the great Creditor of all is a debtor. We are all debtors to God, but to thee He is Himself indebted.” (Methodius, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, ch. 10)
Writing in Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, Fr. Eymard elaborates:
“By listening to Mary, and granting all her requests,” says St. George of Nicomedia, “Jesus Christ only discharges a debt to His Mother.” … Jesus Christ a debtor to Mary?—in what?—”Ah yes!” exclaims Bishop Tulle, “He is in debt to her. He owes to her all that He has gained by His Incarnation.” … “During four thousand years, the Word of God longed for that Flesh. He could not find it… But behold Mary appears! … He darts eagerly into Mary’s womb, His love urging Him on with giant steps.” … “Ah! My Mother,” [Jesus] seems to say to her, “take all My merits. All My graces are thine. It is by thy help that I have acquired them. Thou didst furnish the capital. Dispose, as its Mistress, of the revenue that it produces. …Here [in the Eucharist], as in the Incarnation, He is her debtor, and He has only one means by which He can worthily discharge His debt of gratitude, and that is, to give over to Mary the dispensing of all graces comprised in the Eucharist, as He remitted into her hands the entire and absolute disposal of all His other graces. And that is just what He has done.” (Eymard, Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, trans. from the Sixth French Edition, 1903, pp. 202-6).
Of course, this is easily refuted. Jesus is no more in Mary’s debt for the use of her womb, than He is in debt to the owner of the donkey and the colt He borrowed for His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-3). By His use of them, He fulfilled Zechariah 9:9,
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”
Nor is He in debt to Joseph of Arimathaea, in whose borrowed tomb Jesus was buried. By this, it was fulfilled what was said in Isaiah 5:9,
“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.”
As we noted earlier, Rome has the Trinity watching eagerly to hear Mary’s decision to receive Jesus into her womb at the Annunciation. We wonder if Rome would also have the Trinity wondering anxiously to find out whether the owner of the donkey and the colt would “allow” Jesus to fulfill Zechariah 9:9, and whether They were concerned to find out whether Pontius Pilate would grant Joseph of Arimathaea permission to take Jesus’ body for burial (John 19:38), and thus fulfill Isaiah 53:9.
Our readers will note that we frequently return to this theme of Mary being free, and God being in prison; or Mary having leverage over God due to a debt He owes to her; or Jesus submitting to Mary, even as He sits on the right hand of His Father in Heaven, holding the universe together by the Word of His mouth (Hebrews 1:2-3). Rome spills a great amount of ink to insist that having Mary in this position “in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 970-971). Rome delights in having the Trinity subjugated to Mary, in debt to Mary, deferential to Mary and watching as the fate of the universe hinges on Mary’s assent.
But we know better from His Word.
I guess, after reading your comments on how God much does not need Mary, Joseph of Aramathaea, or the owner of the donkey , why He even bothered with the Incarnation. I mean, God certainly doesn’t need our oohing and awing over the salvation he accomplished on our behalf, does He? Any Glory given by us is of no interest to a Being complete within the Trinity. Outside of God, nothing is necessary, right?
Of course, as beings held in existence by God at any given moment, we have no absolute rights over God. However, remembering the gratuity of the whole scheme of things, why is it so inconceivable that God, who chooses to share existence with the unnecessary, could not set up an unnecessary world where creatures, by God’s own good pleasure, bind Him to His own rules?
We humans do this all the time. If a TV game show promises to reward a contestant with a jackpot, they freely bind themselves to play by their own rules. If a father offers a reward to a child for doing the chores he is obligated to do anyway, is the father somehow then enslaved against his will?
How can we be said to be created in God’s Image if we are mere “Klotz, Stock, und stein”. Luther said Mary’s consent, her Fiat, was no more a part of the Redemption than the consent of the lifeless beams of the wooden cross. If this is so, why the Annunciation? Why the Incarnation? Why creation?
Thank you, Jim.
My concern with your reasoning is that it is so selective. You write,
You and I will agree, at least in this universe that God ordained, that the blood of goats and bulls will not suffice to take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). You might posit, as it seems that Fr. Most did, that God could have accepted the blood of a goat or bull, but simply chose not to.
But by this same reasoning, you could as easily say that God did not need to own everything in the universe—after all, the Trinity is sufficient within a shared communion without the trappings of material possessions—He just “chose” to own everything in the universe. Therefore, having “bound Himself” to ownership, it is impossible that He should be in debt to anyone, because everything, including Mary’s womb, was His.
How is the argument on debt materially different from Fr. Most’s on atonement? I suggest that the difference is a matter of preference, which is a highly selective use of an argument. On the one hand, God is “bound” to accept only a specified form of payment, but on the other hand, He is “free” to relinquish the bonds of ownership and place Himself in Mary’s debt. Given that reasoning, a man could arrive at any precision-tailored conclusion he desired, as Fr. Most often did.
Thanks for your comment,
Tim
On the right track here, Jim.
Don’t stop.
Peace.
Timothy,
Thanks! Cradle Protestant here. I took up learning about RCism in 2012. Your website and work is invaluable to one as myself. So much in their system only raises more questions. To me, anyway..
Take care.
Fr. Most in “Marian Council, Vatican II” stresses that God was free to forgive Adam and Eve without any reparation being done at all without violating any law.
He could also have accepted whatever reparation a finite human being could offer. This designated person could have been anyone, sinner or saint.
A third option was to accept the infinite reparation of an infinite person but without demanding the cross. Christ could have been born in a palace, lived a life of luxury and on an appointed day said, ” Father forgive them”. He could have then ascended in glory.
Instead, God chose to go beyond infinity. This infinite person was born in a stable, lived a life of poverty, suffered and went to the cross where he poured out His last drop of blood.
The finite but enormous merits of Mary could have been added to the already beyond infinite price of paid for the Redemption.
God was free to bind Himself to accept any payment He chose.
As long as more could be done, God chose to do it. Why? To give us the richest titles to grace imaginable.
Fr. Most goes on to develop the New Eve theme from the Fathers. Without her role in the overthrow of the devil’s kingdom, something more could have still be done. Satan bound both the man and the woman. His undoing called for both a New Adam and a New Eve to untie the knot.
This is all for us. God puts Himself in debt for us.
Sorry to ratchet the civil discussion up to polemics but I must say that what I posted above is probably not going to impress someone who does not believe God loves all men or wants them to have those rich titles to grace Fr. Most speaks of.
If you are of the opinion that God’s eternal decree is to reprobate most of mankind, the idea of Mary is meaningless. The Fall, for Calvinists, was not to “Lock up all men in sin so He could have mercy on them all”, but to move them into the Massa Damnata so they could be passed over in “justice”.
I read once that the reason why Old Testament names like Ezekial and Jedediah were popular in Calvinist America was because the New Testament Christ was valued only as means to secure what was decreed in eternity past.
No, the whole idea of Mary doesn’t fit with that concept of God.
Jim, not buying your entire characterization of Calvinists, as I am one, myself.
What do you do with a verse, such as, “for Jacob I loved and Esau I hated?”
See Paul’s epistles for my view, classical reformed view.
Peace.
Andrew, According to Fr. Most, Hebrew does not have the comparative and superlative as does the English. In order to show degree, they used opposites. This would merely mean that God loved Jacob more.
Of course you are aware that not every Protestant reads this passage, or the one in Malachi, to mean individuals salvation.
Our Fr. Most says the predestination passages refer to full membership in the Church.
Go in peace and sin no more.
Who is Fr. Most?
Never mind.
Timothy and Andrew,
I guess the question is why God would put Himself into Mary’s debt.
Or to put Himself in debt to the priest to change bread and wine into the Eucharist every time the words are spoken.
Why would a father put himself in debt to four little blond kids by promising a reward for learning their prayers, helping their mom or sharing with one another? In fact, a blond father has quasi-absolute power over his blond whelps, does he not? Does he not stand in the place of God to them? What have they got that they have not been given? At one time, a “pater” could have sold his offspring into slavery or worse on a whim.
I don’t know, Dad. Why would you bind yourself by oath to those who already owe everything to you? What’s in it for you?
Jim, interetingly enough, this week’s sermon yesterday at church was on Mark 3:31-35. My pastor did a fantastic job showing how our spiritual family in the church trumps our natural family. So while I can appreciate your attempt using this analogy (and as a father of 3 blondies, I’m somewhat also “in the know”), it’s only good as far as it goes.
Also, I work for a living, my kids are small, many years ahead of me, working. I’m checking out until at least the weekend, but I read comments in blogs like this so I encourage any and with questions to ask, or to find me on Twitter using the link on my name.
Grace and peace.
Jim,
I understand what you are asking, but I cannot agree with the assumptions that went into it. God says He loved Israel, but not because of anything in them that was lovely:
Then He saved them, not for their sakes, but because of His Holy name’s sake:
If He loved us, but not because of anything in us, and He saves us, but for His own Name’s sake and not for ours, in what way can you say that He has put Himself in our debt by loving us, and then makes good on the debt by saving us? Clearly, when God makes a promise, is it not His own faithfulness that He has in mind when He keeps it?
You ask, “Why would you bind yourself by oath to those who already owe everything to you?” Indeed, why would God save one such as me whose only claim is that I have indebted myself to Him and cannot repay? Perhaps “that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy” (Romans 9:23)?
Thanks,
Tim
Gentlemen, Let me even more graphic; why would a dad give twenty bucks to his kids so they can go and buy him a tie for Fathers’ Day?
Why not buy your own tie and get one that you actually like?
C’mon, do you really need that bouquet of dandelions or worse, flowers picked from your own flower box?
Why hang those finger paintings on the fridge door? They would never make it into Louvre.
Why do you let the kid help you mow the lawn? You could do it a lot faster if you didn’t have to carry him in one arm while pushing the machine with the other hand. And then reward him with a cookie for all his “help”!
I can’t believe you can’t answer your own question as to why God would put Himself into our debt.
You lost me. I was here responding to your polemics against my beliefs. I’m of the mind this thread should stick to issues directly related to Mariolatry.
Peace to you on your journey, Jim.
PS Jim,
You can read here if you want more of my mind. Comments welcome.
But Timothy is better at this stuff than me. Shhh…
I don’t know much about marialotry but I do like to consider myself somewhat up on Mariology. Sorry if I lost you with my Little Blond Kid imagery. I had hoped to spare myself having to type a long dissertation on Mary’s condign and congruous merit.
So much for “one picture is worth a thousand words”.
Take care
OOPS! I forgot to mention earlier that I too find the image of the Persons of the Trinity waiting with baited breath for teenage Mary’s fiat…well, quaint.
It reminds me of scripture’s image of Our Lord pacing up and down the corridors of heaven, wringing his hands, wiping beads of sweat from his brow, muttering, waiting for the Seven Churches to come to their senses and repent. Makes me want to tug on the hem of his garment and say, Pssst! Lord, they ain’t gonna repent til you zap
’em with some of that irresistible grace.”
Or funnier still is the picture of the King of the Universe gingerly tapping at the door of the Church of Laodicia, waiting a minute,biting His lip, clearing his throat loudly and then tapping again like a timid mouse. Of course, we all know that when He wants enter into some chamber in His world, He kicks the door down and barges right on in. It is His universe, after all and He wears the pants.
Luther said Mary ‘s cooperation in salvation was like that of the dumb and lifeless wooden beams of the cross.
But then, he is the same dude who said when the devil mounts us, he rides and when God mounts us, He rides.
Hmmmmm? ( Makes us sound like donkeys, huh”)
No, Timothy, on second thought, I will go with the Fathers who said Gabriel was like a matchmaker, sent to offer a proposal to a maiden. I like the narrative that unties the knot tied by Eve’s disobedience with Mary’s obedience.
Jim, try this:
You lost me Andrew, I thought we were on the topic of how God, our father, could be in debt His child/creature.
For a minute I wondered why were we discussing a peripheral issue like Mary when we have bigger fish to fry like God’s will to save all men.
Then I snapped out of it. Mary, the “Hammer of Heresy”, is so intertwined with every article of Faith that we should let her guide us. No/Know Mary, No/Know Jesus.
You wanna rephrase your characterization of my father in the faith, Luther, or no? Jim?
I have read a book by EO priest John McGuckin about Cyril of Alexandria. It covers the council of Ephesus. “Theotokos” was important in that council.
I have opinions on Mary, but they mainly come from my study of Scripture. When I learned that some people believed Mary did not have original sin, I was shocked.
This experience of learning positions of the RCC has been repeated several times over. A blog like this is very helpful for one like me, a cradle prot, never been to Roman mass.
Don’t see a real reason to neither. Nor would I feel comfortable taking communion in Roman Mass. Nor should I be allowed to by Romanists.
Peace.
Timothy, I am plodding through you utube interview with Larry Weasels. At about midway through you guys discuss the title, “Oueen of Heaven”. You seem to say that the title robs God of His glory.
Is that because God is the real Queen of Heaven? Should we apply the title of queen only to the Father? Help me out here.
Jim,
I don’t remember the entire conversation (if you’ve got a link, I’ll be happy to listen). My last conversation with Larry Wessels was about 18 years ago.
Nevertheless, Pope Pius IX said of Mary,
Since “nothing is excluded” from her dominion, St. Bernardine once said that “At the command of Mary, all obey, even God.” And Richard of St. Laurence said, “Yes, Mary is omnipotent, for the queen by every law enjoys the same privileges as the king. And as the power of the son and that of the mother is the same, a mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent son.” (St. Alphonsus di Liguori, The Glories of Mary, 4th Reprint Revised, (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, ©1931), pg. 181)
These are the privileges, so I understand, of the “sovereign Queen of the Universe,” as Pope Leo XIII called her. (Iucunda Semper Expectatione, Encyclical of September 8, 1894).
You asked, “Is that because God is the real Queen of Heaven? Should we apply the title of queen only to the Father?”
Suppose I were to say, “We should not worship statues, because that would rob God of the glory He is due.” Now suppose someone responded, “Is that because God is the real statue?” That would be to miss the point, would it not? That would be to assume that the glory is in the object and not in worship associated with it.
As you can see, the title “Queen of Heaven” is fully laden with privileges and powers that belong to God alone. Thus, He says, “for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.” (Isaiah 48:11).
Best regards,
Tim
Timothy, As for the quote from Bernardine, sounds like hyperbole, the language of love. As for the other quotes, it depends on whether or not God shares His glory. You say He doesn’t. I say the Bible says He does.
You are misleading people like Andrew if you assert that Mary’s prerogatives compete with He Son’s. No more than the moon does, which has no light of its own but only reflects the sun’s.
( Think of the Magnificat ).
I managed to get through the interview. In all honesty, you should have confined yourself only to approved apparitions. You did mention some of them are not approved but only after waxing on about them as if they were.
One interesting little tid-bit about Fatima: The miracle of the sun may or may not have a natural explanation. ( Like Josue making the sun stand still).
What you cannot refute however, is the fact that Mary ( or the kids since you are a scoffer ) were able to predict the future. Months before the event in question, it was prophesied that a sign would be given on such and such a date. It took place as predicted.
Think of this; Jesus told Peter where to go and catch a fish in which he would find a coin to pay the temple tax. Peter did it.
Any fishermen can testify that fish swallow shiny objects. Nothing miraculous in that. The real miracle was in Our Lord knowing when and where Peter would catch that fish.
Coincidentally, I am writing you from Portugal where I live. Believe it or not, when I first moved here, there were people alive who witnessed the event. Probably there are some still alive. There are newspaper photographs still to be seen of the crowd present at the Cova on that day when the sun seemd to dash toward the earth. Everybody was on their knees. Well, not everyone. There were some men stubbornly standing erect with their hats still firmly on their heads. They were the Christ hating Masons. They, like the pharisees who saw Jesus perform miracles, didn’t deny it. They just refused to bend their knee to Him.
As for Lourdes, why not google the case of Emil Zola the atheist writer. Or Alexis Carrel the Nobel Prize winning doctor and Nazi sympathizer’s testamony. Or my favorite, the case of Jack Traynor, the British soldier’s incredible healing.
Of course you can, like John MacArthur, attribute everything to the work of the devil. But then you are like the folks who said Jesus cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub.
I hope you don’t go there!
Ave Maria
Thank you, Jim.
I do not deny the “miracle of the sun,” the prescience of the visionaries, or even of the spirit masquerading as Mary. I believe the visions of Mary are really happening. I believe there are wonders performed by the spirit masquerading as Mary, particularly “eucharistic miracles” in which the bread begins to bleeds, as if to prove true the doctrine of transubstantiation. I am sure there have been some false healings, or some psychosomatic ailments that disappeared after a pilgrimage, but on the whole, I believe there have been too many healings to deny, and you may be happy to know that I believe the “miracle of the sun” that dried out the rainy soil, really happened. I know about the newspaper stories and the eyewitness accounts.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
However, a prophecy coming to pass is necessary, but not sufficient, to prove that a prophet is from God. That prophet must also speak according to the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
Because the visions of Mary would have us “us go after other gods,” I will not “hearken unto the words of that prophet.”
Best regards,
Tim
Timothy, I think your assessment of Fatima and, I assume ,Lourdes is a classic example of begging the question.
You assert that the miracles cannot be of God. They just can’t be!
Of Course, if the apparitions point to “other gods” they should be rejected. But you never prove the Mary of the apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima to be another god.
Starting with Lourdes, it is interesting to note than when the Lady prayed the Rosary with Bernadette, her fingers moved along the beads but her lips only moved at the Glory Be prayers. In other words, while she did not say the Our Fathers ( she can not ask to have her trespasses forgiven ) nor the Hail Mary’s ( she cannot address herself ) but she does praise the Trinity.
No Goddess would pray to God. ( This reminds me, in the Image of Guadalupe, the “goddess” has her hands together in prayer to God. )
Which leaves on Fatima’s , “God wants to establish devotion to my Immaculate Heart”.
The Gospel of Luke mentions that heart which ponders the mysteries of her Son. That heart does not rob Christ of anything. Rather, in the words of Cardinal Newman,
Holy the womb that bare Him,
Holy the breasts that fed,
But holier still the royal heart
That in His passion bled.”
To be continued…
Oh,one more comment on the interview. You and Wessels or whoever it was were rending your garments over the idea that Mary could have remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus., Rather than appealing to the tons of stuff from the Fathers and the Bible, let me just turn to good old common sense.
Image Tim, the sleaziest street walker you have ever seen, a three dollar whore, hot-pants up her buns, condoms in her purse, loaded on heroin, etc. etc. etc.
Now, imagine an angel going to her and telling her she has been chosen to bear God in her womb, to give birth to the Savior of the world, to Holiness Himself.
Now,do you honestly think for one moment, that harlot wouldn’t be transformed, that she wouldn’t feel set aside, consecrated, chosen for a purpose? Do you really think she would ever again consider turning another trick or even use her body for legitimate, let alone illicit, sexual use again?
Now, remember, that Mary wasn’t a pathetic sin-laden wretch but already a saint beyond all others. What you suggest is blasphemously absurd.
As for Joseph, imagine a just man, a holy man being told that his espoused would bear the Incarnate Word, would he still demand his rights, or worse his turn? Would he not, like St. Joseph, want to put her away quietly, to not stand in awe? Would he not like St. Peter, say, “Depart form me for I am a sinful man?”
Finally, I am sad to say your interview offered nothing new, The same old hackneyed Protestant arguments.
I hope Andrew takes the time to actually talk to a Catholic who loves Mary rather than go to someone who doesn’t even believe anymore.
I will say a Hail Mary for you.
Dear Jim,
Thank you for summarizing your impressions of the interview for me. If your impression is that the spontaneous words of a man 18 years my junior came off as the words of a man 18 years my junior, I confess, I was young and impetuous and on occasion was known to speak out of turn and before my thoughts were complete. Who of us will go back 18 years and say they are satisfied with who they were and have not changed a bit? I will not. I was a child and I thought as a child and behaved as a child. Whether or not I did in that interview, I simply do not know, so long ago did it take place. But of what I know and have learned of myself since then, it is sufficient to stipulate that I am a common man, subject to errors, fallacies, sins and emotions. I am of earth, earthy.
But there is an inconsistency in your rationale about Mary, and I will offer only a small illustration of it here (stay tuned for more later). Roman Catholics may say that it is “fitting” that Jesus be incarnated in the womb of a sinless woman, because the Incarnate God is too holy, and the privilege too high, for a sinful womb to serve the purpose. But at another time, a Roman Catholic might say that Jesus’ birth in a manger, and his lowly life as a carpenter was unfitting for him, but that Christ does not what is “fitting” for Him, but what is “fitting” for us and for our salvation. And at another time, it is “fitting” that Jesus’ transfiguration be witnessed by men, and not angels, because His body belonged to men only. I could go on and on about how flexibly and extensively the “fittingness” principle is applied.
But, if “fittingness” can be used so flexibly as to say that it was “fitting” that Mary be sinless, and therefore she was; and that because the transfiguration of Jesus’ earthly body was witnessed by men and not angels, it must because “it was fitting”; or though it was “unfitting” for Him to be a lowly carpenter, but that as Savior He does not what is “fitting” for Him, but only what is “fitting” for us—then in what way does “fittingness” matter at all? “Fittingness” is used not as a legitimate proof of the truth of any doctrine, but rather as a license to practice whatever doctrine have you in your heart.
Can we not apply the “carpenter” rationale to Mary and say, “Jesus was worthy of a throne in heaven, but he forsook it for our sakes, and therefore it was fitting that he be incarnated in a the womb of a sinner, since it was for sinners, not the righteous, that He came”? Or why not apply the “Mary” rationale to Jesus’ occupation and say that He must have been the most magnificent child king to rule over the land of Israel between the ages of 12 to 30 because it was “fitting” that such a Divine King rule over the Kingdom of His father, David, and more magnificently than David or Solomon did? The Scripture says nothing to us of that time of his life, so why not take “fittingness” wherever it may lead us, and make Jesus a glorious King during those undocumented years?
This is the very rationale John Paul II used when he taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus was the first to see His resurrected body. Sure, the Gospels say nothing of this, in fact, they testify that Mary Magdalene, not His mother, was the first to see him (John 20:11-14). But what of it? It was “fitting” that she see Him first, and so it must be true.
This is why I find it not a little ironic that Roman Catholic apologists argue that Mary was present at every significant event in salvation history—the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Presentation in the Temple, the Wedding Feast, the Crucifixion, the Upper Room. It just proves her significant role in salvation. Of course, there is just one event missing, and not an insignificant one—the Resurrection. But because she was at every significant event in salvation history, she must have been at that one, too. It would just be “fitting.”
The circularity is difficult to digest. There is simply nothing—nothing—that cannot be proven using this method. I could as easily use the “fittingness” method to arrive at your illustration of “the sleaziest street walker” as you did to arrive at “Immaculate” Mary. It was, after all “the sleaziest street walker” whose name is forever attached to the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, for “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Mark 14:9). It’s just not the right Mary, is it?
Kind regards, and thanks for your comments. I do appreciate hearing from you and reading them.
Best,
Tim
Jim, I’m always around for chit chat.
This guy founded my church. Note the topic of his book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1599252651
Peace, friend.
Timothy,
Actually, Sin and carpentry are really quite different. That analogy doesn’t even come close,
Neither did the statue analogy you used earlier. It doesn’t make sense. However, the king and queen image I used is quite good, if I do so so.
My niece won a huge prize from King Juan Carlos to go to university . My nephew won the parallel prize to go to the same school from Queen Sophia. Because Sophia is only a queen, of course her prize money was much less than the King’s. The King’s fortune is really the money behind the Queen’s prize. In most monarchies, inheritance applies only to males. Queens rule only because of the king. Like my previous analogy of the sun, which has its own light, and the moon that reflects that same light.
“Bright as the sun, fair as the moon, terrible as an army set in battle array”
No one was present at the Resurrection. Especially Mary. Why would she have been with Magdalene and the wife of Cleophas at the empty tomb? She believed in what her Son had told her.
Timothy, Christ could have been born by a sinful woman. He could have been born of the union of Joseph and Mary naturally.
When speaking of God, we must never speak of necessity.
OOPS, After my last installment, my mind drifted back to the previous post. I should mention I have family in Spain. which explains the Juan Carlos/Sophia reference. Okay. That should clarify things.
Timothy, We don’t believe in the Marian doctrines because they are fitting. We believe in them because the are revealed.
I am pleased that you sighted King David. I assume you know already but for Andrew’s sake, I should mention that 16 of the Queen mothers of the Davidic line are mentioned in the OT. Since we probably agree that Jesus is rules as King now, it is more than fitting that Mary is Queen Mother.
You do recall how even the mighty King Solomon bowed before the Queen Mother Bathsheba. So, you not not be scandalized by St. Alphonsus’ lofty words about Mary’s power.
And remember, Gabriel greeted Mary with Chaire/Ave, the same word used by the soldiers when they knelt before and mocked Jesus as King of the Jews.
The Woman of Revelation 12, wearing a crown of stars Mary.
So, the Queen of heaven of the pagans that you titillated Larry Wessels with is not Mary.
Weeping for Tammuz has nothing to do with Mary. No more than being afraid to read the book of Esther because she is named after Ishtar.
Ave Maria
Andrew, I don’t mean to neglect you. As for Gresham Machem, does he believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Or only the virginal conception of Jesus?
Think of how strange it must have been to grow up in the house at Nazareth for all of Jesus’ siblings. Joseph would have been yelling at the boys, ” why can’t you knuckleheads be more like your Brother?!” every time they broke a chisel bit or messed up at school.
Or Mary, trying to explain why her eldest boy looked just like her but the other kids all had Joseph’s crooked nose.
Check out the golf course in my area https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkK_MdwKbMM
It was a Jeronimite monastery until it was taken over and secularized.
Looked up this doctrine, Jim. Most assuredly he rejects it, on account of Jesus’ siblings.
As for the golf course, mebbe they could have picked somewhere else to build it. Oh, well 😐
Not sure. I’ve never heard of that.
Andrew, Where were those siblings when Joseph took Mary and the 12 year old up to Jerusalem? They are not mentioned.
But we are to believe that after a dozen years of infertility, Mary pops out Joses, Simeon, James, Jude and maybe even Salome?
How often have you seen this happen? Women generally become less sterile with age, not the contrary.
Why did Jesus give Mary to John while on the cross. Why not to a brother?
Besides, John’s own mother was standing right there without uttering a peep of, ” Hey, hold on. Johnny is my boy. Have one of your brothers do his duty to your mom.”
Mariology is more important in your belief system than fine.
The questions you ask are interesiting, because Jesus is my savior.
Otherwise, I never think on such things. If Mary had sex, so what?
I’m asking for clarification, and not trying to be crass. Apologies if I overstepped here, but those are my thoughts.
Dear Jim,
You wrote something that I thought might benefit from some additional analysis:
This is a good example of our different epistemologies, and it is well for us to keep it in mind in our conversation. The truth is that you believe that Luke 2:41-42 includes implicitly the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity—but not because of Luke 2:41-42. You hold this because of Tradition. Luke 2:41-42 does not actually teach whether Mary had other children or not.
I make this observation because when Scripture does not state that Jesus’ mother was the first to see Him after the resurrection, John Paul II concluded that the fact that she is omitted from the narrative must not be interpreted as proof that she wasn’t there to see Him:
The contrast between your interpretation of Luke 2:41-42, and John Paul II’s interpretation of the Resurrection is instructional because it highlights our different approaches. In your case, you argue that the omission of any references to other children means there weren’t any other children. In John Paul’s case, the omission of any reference to an encounter between the Jesus and His mother “must not lead to the conclusion that” there wasn’t one.
But in neither case—yours or John Paul’s—is the text itself actually the source of your belief. Tradition is the source, and scripture is interpreted through that lens. It’s just a very flexible method. It can be used to prove anything.
But the text does tell us that “he appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (Mark 16:9). The Christian is satisfied with this. The Roman Catholic, whose Tradition requires something else, is not satisfied until it can be shown that “it was fitting that she should be the first to experience his glory.”
Thanks,
Tim
*
finemineAndrew,
We insist that Mary was a virgin before, during*, and after the birth of Christ because it has been revealed by God in the Bible.
If Mary had had relations with a man, she would have been under the curse of Gen 3:16. Same applies if she had given birth to children resulting from those relations. This is part of Original sin’s punishment to all daughters of Eve.
While the Orthodox do not officially accept the Catholic definition of the Immaculate Conception, they acknowledge her exception from the curse of Eve by their use of the term “Ever Virgin”.
So, if not ever virgin, Mary would have had Original Sin. There would not have been a complete and constant enmity between Mary and the serpent ( Gen 3;15 ). She would have been under the dominion of the devil like all others.
She would not have been able to cooperate with her Son in humbling the serpent if she were in bondage to the serpent.
The doctrine of the New Eve demands that she be free of the taint of all sin.
Also, The Perpetual Virginity stresses Mary’s complete focus on Christ and His mission. Mary is the type of the Church. Our concept of the Church allows for no heresy or distraction on the part of Mary or the Church.
All of the teachings on Mary ( Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, Mediatrix, Cooperation with Christ, Divine Maternity, etc. ) are intertwined.
Andrew,
*It is revealed that Mary remained a virgin not only after but in the parturition according to the Bible. Isaiah and John bear witness to this.
Especially interesting is the use of the term, ” not of bloods” in John 1:13. Notice the plural. In the OT, Bloods referred to the blood of menstruation and parturition.
As for afterwards, Joseph, a just man, would not have been permitted to have children with Mary. The Law prohibited it.
Remember David had to put away his concubines after Absalom had violated them.
As for the brothers, we know Jesus’ kinsman James was an Apostle. One Apostle James was the son of Zebedee. The other, the” Lesser” James, went on to become the Bishop of Jerusalem. It can be demonstrated from both scripture and Church history that this James was of the line of Levi.
We also know that while Mary was of the line of David ( Rm 1:3 ), she had priestly kin folk, Zachary and Elizabeth.
I know you know Catholics say “brother” means any male relative in Hebrew. My Hungarian mother in law tells me her native language has one word for uncle, cousin and brother.
Mary and her” sister” Mary the wife of Cleophas were at the cross together. While here in Portugal most girls have Maria as their first name and go only by their second name, I don’t think that it was the custom of the Jews to give the same name to two of their daughters.
Recall that Jude and James had the relationship of brother to brother and father to son depending on which biblical passage one is reading.
I will stop here for now. I have lots more.
Thanks Jim. Likely you’ve encountered protrestant responses to some of this. In case you haven’t, must know, the beliefs you hold seem to me to be unnecessary, and are explainable in other ways that are also in accord with Scripture.
Im done on the topic too. But write anything you want, I’ll read, and will let Timothy moderate as he has been so gracious to do, thus far.
Peace, friend.
Timothy, As one who was raised a Catholic, surely you wouldn’t say that the pious tradition that Christ appeared to Mary before the Magdalene is not in the same category as the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, would you?
Okay Andrew, As for Mary being unnecessary, strictly speaking, of course. The Incarnation was unnecessary. Only God is necessary.
But, once having chosen to redeem mankind, the New Eve was necessary, according to the Fathers, to “untie the knot of Eve’s disobedience”.
Should you so desire, you can view a series of about 40 clips of about 10 minutes each dealing with the Franciscan view of Mary’s Predestination and purpose in the Incarnation/Redemption. While it has taken a back seat to the more popular Dominican view, it is thought provoking. It starts with the question of, “would Christ have become Incarnate if Adam had not sinned?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9jEyK5s6E
Take care, happy Lent.
That’s an interesting question, Jim, as the Roman hermeneutic is a moving target. If you say, “I will go with the Fathers,” I can show you church fathers who thought Mary was sinful. Those Fathers are rejected on that topic.. If I deny the infallibility of the Roman church, a Roman Catholic will point to those same Fathers’ beliefs on the infallibility of the church. If I point out that Mary was omitted from the Resurrection narrative, and there is no explicit encounter between Jesus and His mother, John Paul II says that the omission itself might actually be evidence of an encounter. Yet another Roman Catholic will say an omission of any references to other children in Luke 2:41-42 is evidence that there were no other children.
There is a Tradition that is superimposed over the Scriptures and the Fathers in order to guarantee a predetermined interpretation. Where the Fathers agree with Rome, they are cited as evidence that Rome traces its doctrine back to the sub-apostolic era. If those Fathers disagree with Rome, it is proposed that those Fathers weren’t yet aware of the teaching of the church which had already been established back then.
To answer your question, whatever cannot be demonstrated from the Scriptures or logically deduced therefrom, is in the same category, whether it be Mary’s perpetual virginity, a painless childbirth, Mary’s not having other children, or Jesus appearing to His mother before Magdalene. It’s all in the same category to me.
Justin said, “For whereas Eve, yet a virgin and undefiled, through conceiving the word that came from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings” obeyed. An interesting parallel. But how do we even know Eve was a virgin at the time of deception? We don’t. So how can we know there is even a parallel? The Fathers went on and made the connection that the virgin Eve was deceived under a tree, and the Virgin Mary was obedient under the tree of the cross. Chrysostom:
But again, how do we know Eve was a virgin when deceived? How do we know Mary was a virgin under the cross? We don’t. Perhaps Joseph was the victim of a terrible carpentry accident and lost his member? I suppose that’s possible. I don’t know, and I don’t need to know. If I needed to know it would be revealed in the Scriptures, for they say, “All scripture is given…That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished…” (1 Timothy 3:16-17). But Rome has made it an article of faith.
And how do we know Mary was obedient under the cross if other Fathers (Origen, Basil and Cyril) have her doubting there? Maybe those Fathers didn’t know any better? If not, why go to the Fathers at all?
The reasoning is a little imaginative and flows something like this: if Eve was a virgin at deception, then we have a parallel between Eve & Mary who was a virgin at Jesus’ conception. And if we have an Eve & Mary parallel, then it must be linked to an Adam & Christ parallel, and if we have death through Adam and life through Christ, then we must have the parallel, death through Eve and life through Mary. And if we have the Eve & Mary/Adam & Jesus parallel, and Eve and Mary were both virgins, and Eve was a virgin under a tree, then it follows that Mary must have been a virgin under a tree, so Mary must have still been a virgin at the cross, etc…, etc…, etc…
The reality is that Rome teaches Mary’s perpetual virginity and immaculate sinlessness. Fathers who disagree are discarded as not in the know, and Fathers who agree are provided as evidence that the church has always believed it. Her sinlessness, her immaculate conception, her encounter with the Resurrected Christ before Magdalene, her assumption into Heaven, are all in the same category to me: tradition. Unreliable, unbelievable, unwholesome, unbiblical and unnecessary tradition that nullifies the Word of God.
Thanks,
Tim
One can make an argument that Jesus in his relationship with His mother actually distanced Himself when she tried to get involved in his work. Once saying Woman what does this have to do with me. Or when someone said behold your mother, He said on the contrary bold my mother, brother etc. From her prayer one would say she viewed herself humbly calling Him my Lord and savior.
Timothy,
You wrote, “This is a good example of our different epistemologies, and it is well for us to keep it in mind in our conversation. The truth is that you believe that Luke 2:41-42 includes implicitly the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity—but not because of Luke 2:41-42. You hold this because of Tradition. Luke 2:41-42 does not actually teach whether Mary had other children or not”.
Couple this with Andrews, ” In case you haven’t, must know, the beliefs you hold seem to me to be unnecessary,”
Gentlemen, You are correct to accuse me of reading the passage in Luke through Rome colored glasses. Guilty as charged. But aren’t you reading it through Bible -Belt colored glasses ( I can’t say Geneva colored as Calvin believed in the Perpetual Virginity).
The thing is guys, the Marian doctrine we are disputing goes back to before the canon of scripture was even compiled. The same Church that taught against Helvidius also told us that Luke was inspired but the Gospel of James from the 2nd or even 1st century wasn’t although it was all about Mary’s Virginity in partu.
You know, the Books of the New Testament are called for short the” New Testament”. Why? Because they were read at the New Testament Celebration, a.k.a. the Mass and liturgy. They are the books of the Church, to be read in church. They were never intended to be read outside the Church.
Fire is good in a fireplace. Sex is good in marriage, The Bible is good in the Church. Yes, I proudly concede that I read Luke in the Church. That was the intent of its authors.
As for Mariology being unnecessary, who is to decide? The Church that gave you the Bible seems to think it is necessary.
I know you fellows subscribe to the “Canon within the Canon” theory which puts Paul’s epistles before the Gospels and passages that imply imputation, forensic justification, faith being alone. etc. ahead of the words of Christ which say, “Behold your Mother”. But I must ask on whose authority you do so. You didn’t get it from a plain reading of the text. Certainly not from Luke 2 :41-52. C’mon, the fact the siblings aren’t mentioned does not prove they exist. Or as you might say, “…excludes implicitly the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity”. Forget whose tradition is right. Let’s use Sola Scriptura on this one.
Enjoy the day
Dude. Don’t take this the wrong way. But I read my Bible and see my Lord being asked this very thing. He didn’t answer. Rememeber?
So need I tread where he hath not?
Kevin, It is with trepidation that I even respond to your post as I suspect you are the same Kevin from other blogs. Only because I am counting on Timothy to police his blog that I dare to bite on the bait you dangle before me.
The passage dealing with the wedding feast at Cana does not support your assertion. Rather than distancing Himself from His mother, He actually asks for her to give Him the green light to start His mission public ministry/mission.
The fact that Mary is never named in John’s Gospel is important. Both at Cana and on Calvary she is addressed as Woman. This harkens back to the Woman of Gen 3:15 and points to the Woman in Rev 12. I will say no more on this right now as I am sure you will have much to say. I am chomping at the bit to elaborate.
No problem with the “who is my mother, my brother…” passage. You are implying more than it says.
As for the Magnificat, just for fun I will say that Mary call the Lord her savior. Yes, indeed. But not her redeemer. Wrestle with that one.
Or, I could say, fine. Mary is saved from her lowly temporal state. Nothing about salvation form hell or the devil here.
Or I could counter with, “so why don’t guys of your Protestant ilk ever call her blessed”. ( Please, don’t kid me by saying that you do. You pay lip service to it but then turn around and call her the most stupid wench that ever walked the face of the earth. You all but say that she forgot how Jesus came about in her womb. You imply she forgot about the visit from an angel.
You do all this when you insist that she went on to have a “normal sex life with her husband” after conceiving the Second Person of the Trinity in the flesh. ( How does a woman have a “normal sex life” after sharing the same Son as term of her maternity as God the Father has for His paternity? )
Okay, enuff. I hungrily look forward to you coming into my parlor on this one Kevin.
Jim,
I enjoy your comments and I enjoy interacting with you. I do find it humorous that in the same comment that you trust me to police the blog to make sure people keep their comments topical and cordial, that you then accuse Protestants of calling Mary “the most stupid wench that ever walked the face of the earth.”
Well, that’s hyperbole, I’m sure, because I honestly have never met a Protestant who claimed this, but charity compels me to see your words as passionate rather pejorative. I trust you’ll be able to interpret my, and everyone else’s comments, through such a charitable lens.
Though it is always nice to think twice before hitting “post comment”. 🙂
Kind regards to all,
Tim
Timothy, Before I shoot out the door for Mass I should quickly mention something. You said some of the Fathers said Mary was a sinner. Well, I am not sure you have it right. Indeed, there is mention of Mary having, doubt, fear and even vainglory in the Fathers. But if you check, they said this was because she was a woman, not a sinner. They were all a bit mysogonystic. I believe you mentioned Livius. It has been years since I read him, but I think he may explain this better than I can from my vantage point..
Ciao for now
Dear Jim,
In response to your comment, “You said some of the Fathers said Mary was a sinner. Well, I am not sure you have it right. Indeed, there is mention of Mary having, doubt, fear and even vainglory in the Fathers. But if you check, they said this was because she was a woman, not a sinner. They were all a bit mysogonystic,” I want to provide Origen in context.
Note that he states that if Peter himself was scandalized that night, how can Mary have been exempt from it, “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”?
It is quite clear that this is not misogyny, but rather an appeal to the scriptures to show that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, even Mary. And Origen believed that he had this from the Apostles themselves:
Warm regards,
Tim
Jim,
You comments on the wedding at Cana provide an interesting opportunity. The conversation went like this:
This is often interpreted by Roman Catholics to show that Jesus answers Mary’s prayers, and even if it mean starting His public ministry early. Or as you have said, Jim, actually getting her permission to start His public ministry.
But that assumes a great deal about the conversation. Just like “I like climbing vines” requires some context (is it the speaker, or the vines, that are climbing?), there is a context to this conversation between Jesus and Mary, and we actually to not know what that context is. And we should keep in mind that Mary actually requests nothing in the conversation. There are only two statements, and neither is a question or a command to Jesus: “They have no wine… do whatever He tells you.”
I do not believe the following example, but it illustrates just how much you have to assume in order to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was changing His plans at Mary’s request:
Suppose for example, Jesus and the apostles are on their way to the wedding and agree that they will head to Capernaum as soon as the wedding party runs out of things to eat and drink, because there is no time like the Passover for driving people out of the temple and claiming that He can rebuild it in 3 days if they destroy it. But the wedding party runs out of wine early, and Mary informs Jesus they have no wine, indicating that it is time to go. Jesus responds “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says, thinking He’ll ask the servants to get their things because they’re leaving. But instead, since Jesus and the apostles are not ready to leave, He miraculously extends the supply of wine, postponing their departure so that their arrival in Capernaum (John 2:12-13) better coincides with the precise time when He will drive out the money changers, and fulfill the words, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” And what better time and place than the Passover in Jerusalem to maximize the number of witnesses who would testify that he had said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”?
To be clear, I do not believe the example is true. But when Roman Catholics read into the story that Jesus eternally submits to His mother and grants her every wish, I have to ask, “What, precisely, did she ask for in John 2:3-5?” There is no indication at all that she asked for anything. Therefore, the Roman Catholic interpretation is just as fanciful as my example, above. And it’s just an example. It is not an interpretation of the verse. (To be triply clear: I do not believe the example is true.)
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy, Of course I am using hyperbole. Perhaps I should have said, ” Protestants might as well say Mary was …”.
As for the quote from Origin, that is exactly one of the ones I meant. If a big strong man like Peter was scandalized, can we expect less from the weaker sex?
Notice the opening chapters of John’s Gospel recount the hexameron sequence of days culmination on the 7th day which is a wedding. Who are the couple getting married? Hmmmm?
It just so happens I heard Fr. Barron of utube fame give an interesting take I had never heard before. He says in the passage in question it could almost read, Woman what has this to do with US?” My only point, in that installment, was to question Kevin’s assertion that Jesus was distancing Himself from Mary.
Going on, the miracle of Cana was the beginning of the signs. it was where the Apostles began to believe. Jesus was there, it seems on account of His mother who may or may not have been some sort of guest of honor ( she commands the servants ). Possibly, she may have been related as the feast is at Cana and Simon, one of the Apostles and “brother” of Jesus was also from there. ( Just as an aside, please note that in the various lists of the Apostles,the 12 are divided according to sets of brothers. James the Lesser, Simon and Jude are always together. Although Joses ( brother of James and son of Cleophas, is not named, three of the four “brothers” are. )
Chew on that for a bit and I will develop it more after I run some errands.
Okay I am back. The Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon died Wednesday and the country is busy with his funeral.
Anyway, Mary was not rebuked at Cana. Jesus would have broken the Law if He had publicly remonstrated with His mother. Besides. why would He have performed the miracle of changing the water of the OT purification rites into the wine of the messianic nuptials if He meant to slap her down? Again, no mention is made of the wedding couple. The fact that in John’s Gospel Jesus is the Bridegroom is significant.
Your statement that, “there is no indication at all that she asked for anything” is dumbfounding. Is there any indication at all that Jesus would have involved Himself if not for Mary’s comment on the lack of wine? Besides, she immediately directs the servant to obey. A strange thing to do if she had just been rebuked. I am sorry Tim, but I am going to stick to my guns here. This is a very clear case of mediation on the part of Mary.
You mentioned Origen above. I am sure he was the one one said that in order to understand the Gospel, one must “rest their head on Jesus’ breast as did John and take Mary as mother”.
If you can’t swallow this passage as an account of Mary’s mediation with her son, you are really going to be scandalized by my assertion that the mystical wedding here is between the Bridegroom of the New Covenant and His associate.
The use of Woman is meant to make one remember the Woman of Gen 3:15. This is the New Adam and the new Eve. Again, this wedding feast is on the 7th Day ( the 3rd day after the 4th day ). John begins his Gospel with, ” In the Beginning” and counts off the days.
I bet the idea of spousal-maternity is hard to accept. There is a lot more to be said but alas, I have to put it on hold until I get home later.
Timothy.
The major issue we are going to disagree on is going to be Mary as cooperating with Jesus, yes? After all, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption and title of Mother of God were affirmed by the Reformers.
Mary did not suffer in our stead, impute her righteousness to us, or become sin. The Father did not pour out His wrath upon her. She did not go to hell for three days and did not suffer as the damned. At no time did God turn away from her.
Catholics don’t believe any of this. But then, we don’t say this about Jesus either. As you no doubt already know, Penal Substitution is not our view of the Atonement.
Rather, we speak of Christ meriting, making satisfaction, become our sacrifice and finally, redeeming us. Mary participated, in a subordinate way of course, in these four facets of her Son’s work.
The last one, the redeeming, we can look at very quickly. No price was paid to the devil but he did have a hold on the human race. Because of her Immaculate Conception, Mary was never under his bondage.
One of the unanimous teachings of the Fathers was that of the New Eve. Just as the first Eve had been a willing cooperator with the serpent in seducing Adam by giving him the material of the first sin ( the apple ), the New Eve was a willing associate of the New Adam by giving Him flesh.
It was Adam’s sin that brought us perdition. Eve just assisted.
It was by the obedience of the New Adam we are saved but Mary’s obedience was accepted as part of the price to redeem us.
It is only right that a woman participate in the Redemption since a woman is blamed for the Fall.
As for Merit, Satisfaction and Sacrifice, that is for another posting.
Hi, Jim,
Just a couple thoughts for you. As you read the below, recall that Christians see themselves as sinners, justifiably worthy of the Father’s wrath, and see Jesus as the mediator who suffers in our place, shelters us from the Father’s just wrath, and reconciles us to Him through His own death, making peace through the blood of His cross (Romans 5:1, Colossians 1:10).
Rome, on the other hand, sees Jesus offended by our sins, and Mary suffering in our place to expiate them—either under God’s wrath, or under Jesus’ wrath. It is by her sufferings that we are reconciled to Jesus, and it is her merits that are presented to Jesus to reconcile us to Him.
We see the former as the glorious gospel of grace, and the latter not only as a false gospel, but a demonic one.
Jim: “Mary did not suffer in our stead….The Father did not pour out His wrath upon her.”
These data say otherwise:
Apparition of Mary at LaSallette, France (1846), an approved appearance of Mary to the Roman Catholic Church:
Fr. Eymard’s Month of Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, (1903):
Jim: “[Mary did not] impute her righteousness to us.”
Fr. Eymard says otherwise:
Fr. Eymard, pp. 29, 164:
I know, Jim, that you very much want to couch our disagreement as simply as whether Mary did or did not cooperate with Jesus in our salvation. But make no mistake: our disagreement with you is whether your gospel is from heaven or hell, and whether such a demonic gospel can save you. It cannot.
Thanks for your comments. I am glad to have your participation on the blog. I just didn’t want you to think we were just arguing over semantics.
Kind regards,
Tim
Andrew, I am haunted by something you wrote a few days ago. I can’t get it out of my head.
After reading my rather lengthy post on Mary, you dismissed me with something like, ” You do know Jim, that we Protestants don’t have an interest in this”. Click. Bzzz…
Okay. I know you don’t. But now I am bewildered as to know why you don’t. Why do you thrill to ” The Just shall live by faith” or Abraham was justified by faith and not by works of the law” or whatever would move a Calvinist instead of something so sublime as John 19? Is it just a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder?
From what little you have written, you certainly don’t seem like an anti-Catholic. You don’t especially seem wicked. How could a dad who enjoys pushing a little ball around with a stick on a sunny day be all that diabolical?
So, why are you unmoved by John 19 ” Behold your Mother” or the Annunciation or Rev 12, etc.?
My wife is a classical musician and plays in the orchestra. She drags me to concerts weekly where I sit trying to hide my boredom. Oh, to be sure, I know I am listening to great pieces being performed by high rollers like Danial Berenboim, Pinchas Zuckermann, Rhonda Fleming and their ilk all composed by the greats masters Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. But I am a sow’s ear, a donkey, a clod. I would rather stay home on the sofa watching Wipe-Out. It’s just the way God made me.
I live close to a Kingdom Hall and am visited by the Witness’s regularly. They are almost always ex-Catholics. Stymied, I ask what was that made them leave for the cult. They always say how, as Catholics, they didn’t have a Bible or couldn’t believe in three gods or in what a priest would say.
I then ask, if they couldn’t believe in Trinity, what was so compelling when two complete strangers knocked on their door and told them that Jesus died on a stake and not a cross, or that Jesus was a son of God but not God. Why did they doubt their own parents and the priest but believe the total strangers?
So, Andrew. Give me some peace. Why don’t you find Mary interesting?
Look, man. Sure, interesting enough, I spoke earlier about how I studied “theotokos.”
But here’s me.
The council of Trent doesn’t do it for me.
There’s a lot to respond to here in this post of yours, unfortunately, I can not. Maybe in time. I’ll keep an eye on Timothy’s blog. But I’ve been told I have creepy tendencies by some around here. In other words watch out, friend.
Peace.
Or, Jim, i would love a comment at my blog
http://adb95037.wordpress.com/
Tim, Please remember that whenever Mary’s participation in the objective Redemption is mentioned, it is always assumed the reader knows it is in a subordinate way.
As for Mary’s sufferings, her martyrdom as St. Eymard says, this brings up the reason why Christ’s mother was the New Eve rather than a wife. A mother shares in the sufferings of her child to a degree that a spouse doesn’t. And the sufferings of a virgin mother with her one child is on a degree that no one can fathom.
At the Annunciation Mary consented to being the mother of the Suffering Servant, the one who would be spat upon, have his beard plucked out, the one whose stripes would save us.
At the Presentation, she offered her Son to the Father in a way far beyond Abraham’s offering of Isaac. Simeon recognized that Mary( not Joseph ) was to suffer for the sake of Israel.
Despite the pious paintings of Mary swooning into the arms of St. John on Calvary, the Church is quick to insist that Mary stood there offering her Son to the Father and suffering in her soul every nail and thorn and insult of her Son.
As for hiding under Mary’s mantle, yes indeed. Just as we hide in Christ’s wounds. It is only when this imagery is seen through the the eyes of Calvinism’s Penal Substitution , a substitution that says there is no need for our participation, that a problem arises.
As for “O Mary, clothe me with thy virtues, thy spirit, they merits”. Absolutely. No more than when St. Paul says we “put on Christ” are we to see this as an imputation of an alien righteousness alone. God the Father most assuredly did accept Mary’s meritorious obedience along with Jesus’ merits.
Previously, I spoke of satisfaction. Remember St. Anselm’s, ” Offense is measure by the degree of him offended and satisfaction is measured by the degree of him making satisfaction”? Aquinas poetically says that God exhausted His creativity in three instances; (1) In the unity of the two natures in the Person of Christ (2) In the unity of our souls with God in the Beatific Vision ( 3 ) In the honor bestowed on a creature by making Mary the Mother of God.
Mary, who had no sins of her own, suffered to make satisfaction for sins. Ours. And her sufferings, like her Son’s, are measured not only in degree ( which was immense ) but also to the degree of her dignity.
Again, and again and again, Timothy, I must insist on the non-necessity of this. Remember what we said of Fr. Most’ words as to why God opted for including Mary in Christ’s work when discussing how God could be said to be in debt to Mary?
Just to finish up the four ways of the Atonement, a few words on Sacrifice. Your book, “Mary quite Contrary” could be countered with, “Mary had a Little lamb”. In Genesis, when Abraham offers Isaac, you know Isaac is the type of Christ. Abraham represents the Father surrendering His Son for us. Actually of course, Abraham knew nothing of Isaac dying for the sins of the world. Mary was, however, aware of what was happening with the Lamb she was offering as far as a mother could offer her son. And to think she and the Father were offering the same Son!
That will have to do as I have to go to Church now.
As for the imagery of Mary holding back her Son’s chastising arm, well, she is the Gevirah, the Queen Mother is she not?
Andrew, Very quickly, while cutting the grass yesterday I was musing over my note to you. I started thinking about the Woman who will share with her Seed in the complete enmity and undoing of the serpent. I was in bliss. The work was over before I knew it.
Do you prefer, ” Jacob I loved but Esau I hated”? Do you love to meditate that passage? Or how about the one about” vessels of wrath created for destruction”?
Ha!
More power to you, dude. I mowed my grass yesterday too, and while not a blissful experience, I did enjoy it enough. How odd..
I hereby plan the following Oldlife flag. There’s some interlocutors here, as I am, who hang out at that little online club. In other words, if you want to talk more with me, there’s always Twitter, or that place. Some people around these parts know of what I speak.
As some one recently told me, Go under the mercy.
I’m out.
Greetings Timothy,
As I was walking home I was thinking how strange it is to appeal to one of the least known apparitions( La Salette ) and a saint known more for his writings on the Eucharist than Mary as the sources to prove your point. There are magisterial documents galore easily found on EWTN and elsewhere that would use the precise language of theologians rather than the rhetoric of piety you could have better made your case with. Especially when deciphering the messages given to peasant children, one must remember that they are always given in a manner that the recipient can grasp. ( Same applies to scripture itself doesn’t it ).
I am reminded of our friend Kevin who has been on another blog for weeks now insisting that the Catholic view of grace is that it is a substance. This error can be due to the phrase, “grace is poured into our hearts” in prayers and common parlance.
Still, I guess you are within the rules of argument to hold me to “Lex orandi, lex credendi”.
I don’t know if you have had a chance to peruse all of what I have written in the last couple of days. Mostly, it is in response to your assertion that the Mary of apparitions and piety is not the Mary of the Bible. Having submitted a few lines giving my opinion, it is now my turn to hold your feet to the inquisitorial fire and ask you, ” Is the Protestant Mary the Mary of the Bible?” You know, the young Hebrew woman who had a visit from an angel while a virgin and was told she would be married to God and carry divinity within herself who then went on with her guardian to have a “normal and healthy sex life”. Is your Mary, the one who forgot how she conceived her firstborn, forgot the prophecy of Simeon, forgot the visit of the Magi, forgot the flight into Egypt and tears later went on to, along with her passle of other kids, fetch Jesus home because she thought he had lost His mind, the Mary of the Bible? Is the busy-body Jewish mom who was rebuked for wanting her son to keep the drinks at a party flowing the Mary of the Bible? Is the poor widow woman whose son had neglected until the last minute before his execution to make provisions for her earthly welfare the Mary of the Bible?
Or is the Mary of the Bible the Woman of Gen 3:15 who was to share in the overthrowing the kingdom of Satan? Isn’t the Mary of the Bible the Ark of the Covenant that bore the True Manna that came down from heaven within her womb? Isn’t the Mary of the Bible the one who is the Queen of Heaven whom even an angel greeted with the royal greeting Ave? Isn’t the Mary of the Bible the mother of all who bear witness to Jesus?
Tim, I don’t mean to be a pest but you are the fellow who wrote the book, made the video and now sallies forth on a website throwing down a gauntlet to those of us who believe some very specific things on topic very dear to our hearts.
I am merely, in my very unworthy manner, picking it up.
Dear Jim,
I take your word that you don’t mean to be a pest, and I assure you I don’t take you as one. Your questions are reasonable and on topic.
I do find, however, that the goalposts always move further and further into the distance. I’ve been in phone interviews in which critics called to say that I have not sufficiently differentiated between approved and non-approved apparitions. Then you find an interview in which I differentiate between approved and non-approved apparitions, but you are concerned that I didn’t differentiate early enough in the interview. Then I provide you with the words of an approved apparition, and you argue that I have appealed to one of the least known approved apparitions. And besides, I could have appealed to magisterial documents without appealing to the Apparitions at all.
It seems to me that my Roman Catholic interlocutors will not be satisfied until I simply give in and argue for the Roman Catholic position and save them the trouble.
Well, you claimed that Catholics do not believe that Mary suffers in our place. I provided you with evidence that not only do Roman Catholics believe that—but also that Apparitions of Mary that have said exactly that have been approved by the Roman Catholic Church. You say that’s just the language of peasant children, and I provide you with evidence that an educated Mariologist (Fr. Eymard) says exactly the same thing—”Mary took on herself the debt of their crimes. She expiated them by her sufferings.” As a fan of Fr. Eymard’s, you say that you “wouldn’t think he was prone to hysteria or given to excess,” but when he says Mary expiated our crimes with her sufferings, you say that Mariology was not his specialty, and he’s more of a Eucharistologist anyway.
You say the Father’s don’t actually call Mary a sinner, so I provide you with Origen’s own words that Mary was a sinner and Jesus died for her sins, and you say, Well, he was a misogynist.
You say the title “Queen of Heaven” doesn’t rob God of His glory, and I provide St. Bernardine’s famous deduction from the title—”At the command of Mary, all obey, even God”—and you say that’s just hyperbole, the language of love.
My point is that I’m happy to interact with you as time permits, and I’m glad to have you as a member here. But I do find it humorous that we have a bit of a battle rhythm going here: You say Catholics don’t [X]. I provide evidence that they do. You reply that it really doesn’t matter that they do [X] anyway.
Good day to you, and I am reading your comments, and thinking about them here and there.
Best,
Tim
Joyous greetings Andrew and Tim,
In the middle of Lent we have a feast day. St. Joseph,Husband of Mary, Here in Portugal it is also “Dia do Pai”, their version of Fathers’ Day. Since our discussion on Mary includes the topic of her Perpetual Virginity, I think we should ask St. Joseph about it.
Who would know better than he, huh?
The Law said that a man who had divorced his wife, could never take her back later if she had been married in the interim.
If a wife was touched intimately by another man, she was defiled. Think of the case of Reuben and his Israel (Gen 49.4 )
Another incident is that of King David. After Absalom violated his ten concubines (2 Sam 20:3 ), David locked them away as they were forbidden to him for life. He continued to provide for them but the were ” as widows of a living man”.
We know Joesph was an observant Jew, a just man who upon discovering Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit, was afraid.
Not jealous or angry. Afraid. He knew something extraordinary had transpired. Perhaps, he like Peter who said, “Depart from me Lord as I am a sinner” felt unworthy.
In a dream an angel told him to have no fear but to take Mary to his home. Joseph was told that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Spirit. The word used by the angel was the same one used in the Bible where we see the lawful love scene between Boaz and Ruth. It is to “overshadow” or to”spread one’s cloak over”, a euphemism for to “have marital relations with” or to “act as a husband towards”.
Mary was forbidden to Joseph for life. He was to provide for her and the child but as the Holy Spirit had acted as a husband towards Mary, the marriage was to be chaste.
Celibacy within Marriage was not unknown to the Jews. There is a case in the OT where sisters married their brothers”( a.k.a. cousins ) within the proscribed bloodlines to preserve inheritance rights.
Priests while administering their duties were to remain celibate for a period. The Rabbis say that Moses remained celibate after the scene on Mount Sinai( Ex. 19:15). The Essenes are known to have had celibate marriages too.
Add this to the fact Mary had said to Gabriel, “…I know not man…”, in the present indicative, “I don’t smoke” means my habit is not to smoke. A strange tense to use for a woman espoused to a man. It sure looks like Mary had vowed to remain a virgin although espoused to a man.
Okay, I hope that give you something to think about. It’s all from the Bible.
By the way, Joseph and John the baptist are the only saints that each have two feast days. Joseph’s other one is on May 1. The Pope established the feast of St. Joseph the Worker to counter the Communist May Day celebrations. Some nice trivia for your next cocktail party or between golf shots.
Enjoy the feast day.
Dear Jim,
Thanks, as always , for your contributions. This one about Joseph is interesting. You wrote,
Let’s agree that Joseph was of a mind to put Mary away (by bill of divorce) because of the Law. That is, “being a just man, … was minded to put her away privily” (Matthew 1:19). He thought, according to the Law, “she is defiled,” and therefore he “may not take her again to be his wife,” for that would be “an abomination before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 24:4). Indeed, according to the Law, the ground for divorce was that ‘”he hath found some uncleanness in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1). Small wonder then that he was unwilling to take her to wife.
While he is entertaining these thoughts, an angel appears in a dream and says “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:20). In other words, “she is not defiled,” and you “hath found no uncleanness in her.” Proceed with the marriage, for the obstacle to consummation does not exist.
My point is that when we look at the narrative, we must understand the cause of Joseph’s trepidation (the law of uncleanness) which resulted in a desire to put her away, and what new information was presented that he might not put her away: she had not been defiled, and therefore not prohibited to him.
Mary would have been prohibited to Joseph only if the Holy Spirit had defiled her, and He had not. Therefore, there was no obstacle to marriage, and no need to put Mary away.
It is interesting to me that Roman Catholics use Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in order to show that Mary was off limits to Joseph, for the Holy Spirit would be that “other man” of Deuteronomy 24:2. Yet this is done inadvisedly, for not only does this say she was “defiled” by the Holy Spirit; the Scripture also says that it is unlawful for a man to take to himself a virgin already betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), which, when applied here imputes sin to the Holy Spirit. I fail to see why Deuteronomy 24:1-4 applies to the Holy Spirit, thus keeping Mary off limits to Joseph, but Deuteronomy 22:23-24 does not apply to the Holy Spirit, preventing Him from taking to Himself a virgin already betrothed. I suggest that Rome’s selective use of the Law here accidentally has them imputing unlawful behavior to the Holy Spirit, and necessarily has Him defiling her Mary in order for Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to apply.
But the Spirit did not defile Mary per Deuteronomy 24:1-4, nor did He violate Deuteronomy 22:23-34 (by taking to Himself a virgin already betrothed). She was His already—as are all women and things in creation, for He Himself has said it: “for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” (Psalms 50:12)
Okay Timothy, let me suggest that Joseph would have defiled the Holy Spirit’s spouse.
Remember, before Mary had actually started cohabiting with Joseph, the angel went to her. One of the Fathers actually says the angel “sped” to her before she moved in with Joseph to, like a match-maker, present her with a proposal. She gave her Fiat before going to Joseph’s house. While here, may I proceed with this wedding proposal business.
The Person Mary was going to conceive was not a future being yet to come into existence. Rather, the Son of God existed already when Gabriel approached Mary. This explains why the Fathers saw a wedding proposal here, as much an offer to be a spouse as to be a mother.
P.S. I should clarify something; the previous post about St. Joseph and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is NOT trivia. I was just kidding when I said so. Last week, after posting on Mary, Andrew answered with a one liner saying that it was nice but it was of no special interest to Protestants. That is probably because all scripture must be subsumed to a few lines in St. Paul’s letter to the Romans for him. Andrew was not rude. He was just stating a fact. Even if I had deftly demonstrated various Marian prerogatives as true or at least probable, they are still only on the level of being able to name off the 12 tribes of Israel, the name of Jonathon’s crippled son, or John the Baptist’s diet of locusts and honey.
Nice to know but so what? If one has down ” Abraham believed God…”, “…and not by works lest any man should boast”, and”…by Faith and not by works of the Law…”, one has all that is needed for salvation, right?
Wrong! Mary has to do with soteriology. Mary has to do with ecclesiology which in turn is about soteriology. Mary is all about Christology. Mary is all about getting to heaven. “Woman, behold your son, son behold your Mother”
was uttered from the cross. FROM THE CROSS. Remember that the next time you are dismissing her role in your salvation.
Ave Maria
Jim, I also said J Gresham Machen wrote a book, The Virgin Birth of Christ. Mariology matters to Protestants, I think you misunderstood what I said. And this whole “all scripture is subsumed” business is not charitable. I was trying to have a conversation with you, and I don’t feel it’s going very well.
You know where to reach me, if you ever want to. Take care.
PS this could be helpful
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_Mary
Andrew, If I offended you it was unintentional. Forgive me please. Tell me if my “uncharitable” remark is not accurate. Honestly, that is the impression I have of formed from my experience with non-Catholics and I really thought that was your position.
I clicked on the Gresham Machen book and like the little bit I have had time to read. He defends the Virgin Birth from Modernists and bring out the fact that the doctrine was not borrowed from the pagans who actually opposed the idea.
I didn’t find, in my cursory perusal of the online version, the specific issue we are engaged in here. I will go back and read more to see what he says on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
Not offended in the least bit. Religion is a dicey topic. If you feel this has been good, then the discussion has been good and healthy, because from my POV, it has been good. So thank you, Jim.
Wow, Portugal. I live on the west Coast of the U.S. I went to Lisbon with my parents in ’98 on a 6 week Europe trip. Do enjoy the good weather if you can, I’ve been doing that here.
Until next time, friend. See you around.
Andrew, My wife and I are Portlanders transplanted here. So it must be morning where you are on the west coast.
Perhaps when your family visited here long ago, you guys went to St. Andrews Presbyterian in Lisbon. I understand it has been here since about 1886. http://www.standrewslisbon.com/ The former minster, a young guy from Scotland named Graham, came to our church for ecumenical Bible study a few times. Other than Graham, I don’t think I know any Presbyterians here. Tons of British Anglicans though as Portugal and England are the world’s oldest allies.
Yeah, it’s easy to forget we are dealing with sensitive stuff and in the heat of winning an argument, say things we later regret. I remember buttonholing two Mormon kids here on mission years ago. After pompously demonstrating my knowledge of their doctrine of eternal regression and why it is illogical, I waited for their rebuttal After some seconds, one of them turned away and burst out sobbing. His buddy looked at me with a look I will never forget. I was so ashamed. They were kids young enough to be my sons, far from home and happy to meet a fellow American. I had been brutal. While I enjoy sharing what I hold most dear, I can become overly “passionate” forget the people I am talking to feel the same about the beliefs handed on to them by their mothers and fathers.
In another blog, I have been uncharitable with Kevin and he probably wants to give as well as he got. I hope we can start fresh on this one. If I get out of line in our discussions Andrew, with you or the other guys, just tell me to knock it off.
Take care.
The bible has her with her children at least 3 different time in scripture. The word for children is used, which is completely different the the word cousin. Or else she had a lot of cousins with her all the time. Just another ridiculous attempt to deify Mary and make her the fourth member of the Trinity. To say Mary was a virgin is as crazy as saying Mary was sinless.
Greetings Kevin,
Thanks for coming on over to discuss the sublime topic.
You said in your post that the word “children” rather than cousin is used. I bet you meant to speak of Jesus’ “brothers” contra cousins.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify something; While the Greek does indeed have two different words, the Hebrew doesn’t. The Gospel writers brought the Hebrew single word over into their Greek writings.
This is not such an unusual thing. My Hungarian mother-in-law told me once that her native language follows a practice similar to the Hebrew.
Of course, you will want some scriptural references so I am happy to supply them.
1. St. James and St. Jude are related according to scripture. However in Luke 6:12, Jude is James’ son. In Jude 1:1, Jude introduces himself as James’ brother. This is an especially interesting point as, since according to most non-Catholics, James and Jude are Jesus’ brothers german. If Jude is wanted to establish his credentials to his readers, certainly he would have appealed to his uterine relationship with Jesus Himself rather than a mere Apostle.
2. At the foot of the cross stood Mary and her “sister” Mary. Surely, this sister was a kinswoman rather than a sister.
.Lot and Abraham are said to have a brother/ brother relationship in one place and a nephew/uncle one elsewhere.
As for Catholics trying to deify Mary, I bet the book by Greham Machen that Andrew has suggested addresses the absurdity of trying to tar Christians with having borrowed from the pagans.
As for your caustic remarks about Catholic doctrines being “ridiculous” and “crazy”, I don’t care to respond. I had hoped you could enter into debate rather than mud slinging.
Have a great day.
Tim, your stuff on Mary is great. MacArthur in his series on the Catholics has a couple cd’s on Mary. The Roman church make her responsible for everything. There are more prayers to Mary tha to Christ. Mary hang heard a prayer since the day she died and she would be embarrassed of all this. It is clear when you do a study of Jesus ministry, He in a a nice way puts her in her place. ” Woman, what does this have to do with me. IOW stay out of my ministry. When she showed up and people tried to direct attention to her ” behold you mother , brothers etc. Jesus again says “rather here are your mother, brothers etc.” The only time queen of heaven is used in the bible its with paganism. But you know that doesn’t stop the RC. Really if you think about it, Mormonism is reincarnated Romanism. Added revelation and reducing Christ to something less than God.
Kevin, I hope you don’t mind if I interject something. I know you are addressing Tim and it is good of you to let me add my two cents.
Please scroll up and read my previous posts. I have pretty much already covered your thought provoking views at length.
As for the business about prayers to Mary, may I mention that the people who hid in the catacombs prayed to Mary. On one of the walls is a prayer called the “Sub Tuum Praesidium”. Please recall, Kevin and Timothy, these are the very people who preferred death rather than blend Christ with paganism. They knew praying to the Mother of Jesus what not praying to Isis or some other goddess. To insinuate Marian devotion is goddess worship is” Horus Manure”.
Jim,
May I inquire as to your source on the following?
Since the Sub Tuum Præsidium was not composed until the 3rd century AD, and the earliest known inscription is from an Egyptian papyrus, I might suggest that you have formed a composite history out of two pieces of information: a fresco in a Roman Catacomb and an inscription on an Egyptian papyrus.
I do not believe there are inscriptions of the Sub Tuum Præsidium in the Roman Catacombs.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I may have confused the prayer with something else. In one of the catacombs in a picture of Mary in the Orans position. I hasten to admit, that while I have visited one group of catacombs, I haven’t seen the one with this drawing.
I can easily concede the point as it doesn’t take away from my assertion that early Christians, so opposed to syncretism, believed at least in seed form, ALL that I believe about Mary. Celsus accused Christians of borrowing from myths about Zeus disguised as cuckoos and swans coupling with virgins in order fabricate their story of a dove ( the Holy Ghost )impregnating Mary. He was wrong then and non-Catholics who make the claim that Marian devotion is pagan are wrong now. I am sure you are aware of the same charges being brought against the belief in Christ by Dan Brown and others. If Christ is not Horus warmed over, Mary is not Isis warmed over.
Jim, Why don’t you deal with scripture? Start with Mathew 12:46-50. Instead of trying to read the wall of a catacomb. If you want to know what Scripture says, read Roman doctrine, and believe the exact opposite and you will find eternal life. Scripture says salvation is faith alone in Christ alone. RC says faith plus works. Mary calls herself a sinner in he prayer and a bondslave of Christ and shows up with her children, RC says sinless and perpetual virgin, Scripture says Christ is King, RC say Mary is Queen ( the only mention of Queen of heaven in scripture is with paganism), Scripture says “not of yourselves” not a result of works”, RC says faith plus works, Scripture says cll no one on earth father, RC calls a sinner Holy father, God says He shares his glory with no other, RC worships a different saint everyday, Scripture says the supper is a meal at a table, RC says it is a sacrifice at an altar, and on and on, Peter and Paul say gold and Silver we have none, RC walks around in 10000 dollar robes and sell forgiveness, Scripture says ” once and for all delivered faith, RC says added revelation. The Scripture says the evil one will make good look evil and evil look good. Just read Roman doctrine and believe the opposite and you will be saved.
Dear Kevin,
I certainly appreciate your passion. I take this as hyperbole, as I’m sure Roman Catholic readers will, as well. For example, Rome believes Jesus was born of a virgin. We obviously shouldn’t believe the opposite of that.
But there is an element of truth in what you’re saying. It will take some fleshing out—worthy of more than a comment to a comment—but the vain repetitions, bowing to objects, priestly celibacy, are all examples of a doctrines and practices that appear to be the opposite of the truth. It will be worth our time here to evaluate the practices, as well as the Roman Catholic justification for them. By my reading, and by yours, as well, I imagine, they do very much seem to be saying that we should do the opposite of what the Scripture plainly teaches.
We shall address them here as well at some point. All in good time.
Warm regards,
Tim
Greetings Tim,
I enjoyed your response to Kevin and would appreciate some clarification on, “but the vain repetitions, bowing to objects, priestly celibacy, are all examples of a doctrines and practices that appear to be the opposite of the truth. ”
No doubt by the vain repetitions your mean the Holy Rosary., a truly Biblical prayer consisting, basically of the angel’s salutation to Mary and Elizbeth’s greeting while infilled by the Holy Ghost. It also contains a request to Mary to prayer for us as the Bible says, “The prayers of a just man availeth much”.
As for the refrain of the Rosary, would you say it is any more “vain repetition” tha Psalm 136 that some two dozen times repeats the line, “His merciful loves endures forever”.
As for bowing, that is a cultural thing.
Finally, Catholic priests are called to celibacy in imitation of Christ. ( St. Paul too).
Have a nice evening.
Kevin, I prefer to keep a blog on Mary just that; A blog on Mary.
I believe I have already done my best explaining the myriad of other issues you raise over on Jason Stellman’s blog. Perhaps you could go back and re-read my posts there.
Have a great day
Tim, I thank to God for the Apostles for handing us those doctrines and the men who fought for them in the early church. Im thankful for the early councils that upheld and defined biblical truths. But thats where it ends. But thats as far as it goes. In the long war on the truth, the most relentless and deceptive enemy has been Roman Catholicism. The true church has always known that and separated itself from them. It is a false gospel. Spurgeon said we should pray against their doctrines as if they were the doctrines of the devil. He said we can have no peace with Rome and they can have no peace with them. He said this” war”. We shall love their people and hate their doctrines. I think when you read my quote you know exactly hat i mean Tim. Why do I feel this way. Because they wound Christ and will not permit men to be saved. Like the Pharisees they look religious on the outside, but on the inside. Unfortunately Tim the evangelical church to day, their ignorance is only matched by their lack of courage. I have lost every catholic friend I had because I challenged the in love with the gospel. Ive been called unloving, crazy, Had 2000 year old exorcism prayers prayed over me by my wife’s best friend. Tolerance can tolerate everything but intolerance. I always try to love people, but won’t back away from the gospel. I guarantee you Tim, and you know this, if you challenge Rome, it won’t go well. Are we supposed to give credit to Rome because they got part of the truth right but change the gospel. I think not. All case religions do two things, they reduce christ to something less than who He is, and its based on their works in some way. JC Ryle said don’t be fooled.If you listen long enough the false teaching come out. Why do I hate their doctrines Tim, because they wound Christ, and He is all I care about. If someone does not like me, I don care. At a time when the Reformed and evangelical church is throwing their arms around Rome, we should fight it with all we have. They aren’t interested in reconciliation, they are interested into fetching back to Rome. Not for me.
Greetings Tim,
I enjoyed your response to Kevin and would appreciate some clarification on, “but the vain repetitions, bowing to objects, priestly celibacy, are all examples of a doctrines and practices that appear to be the opposite of the truth. ”
No doubt by the vain repetitions your mean the Holy Rosary., a truly Biblical prayer consisting, basically of the angel’s salutation to Mary and Elizbeth’s greeting while infilled by the Holy Ghost. It also contains a request to Mary to prayer for us as the Bible says, “The prayers of a just man availeth much”.
As for the refrain of the Rosary, would you say it is any more “vain repetition” tha Psalm 136 that some two dozen times repeats the line, “His merciful loves endures forever”.
As for bowing, that is a cultural thing.
Finally, Catholic priests are called to celibacy in imitation of Christ. ( St. Paul too).
Have a nice evening.
Kevin, Although you are directing your diatribe to Tim, blog protocol says I can jump in so I will. If I am mistaken on the rule, be sure to let me know.
You wrote, ” I thank to God for the Apostles for handing us those doctrines and the men who fought for them in the early church. Im thankful for the early councils that upheld and defined biblical truths. ”
Could you tell me which early councils you are speaking of please? I also assume the “men who fought for” those doctrines are the Fathers. Any in particular? I would appreciate having a list of their names as I would like to see if any of them affirm such “biblical truths” as Mary as the New Eve, Baptismal regeneration/infants, and the such.
Enjoy your day.
Tim, I was just on my way to retire for the night and it suddenly struck me; So what if the Sub Tuum Praesidium is from a papyrus in Egypt rather than a Roman catacomb? My point stands intact. While Christians were being fed to lions, burnt alive, boiled in oil, etc. rather than burn a pinch of incense to the Emperor or take part in any pagan ceremony, they were praying to Mary for her intercession. Death before syncretism!
The Sub Tuum dates from 250 A.D. Not until the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. were Christians allowed to openly.
The idea that praying to Mary is just pagan goddess worship sneaking into the Church is going to fly. No more than saying praying to Christ is just Mithra worship under a new face.
Good night
kevin,,
link below is formCatholic Answers and a person asked how do we , catholics explain Mary making vows of perpetual virginity while still marrying Joseph?
appoligist Tim Staple ( formor Protestant) answered that
question
time 12:39 into the show when the question was asked
http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/open-forum-11548
God Bless
Tim, while scrolling up and down on some previous posts last night I saw that you had mentioned to Kenneth (?) something about the Ark of the Covenant, how you have studied it and that you subsequently dismiss any Marian significance associated with Israel’s most sacred object.
Could you please elaborate? I would love to see what you have to say as I feel 100% the opposite of your bewildering statement.
Thanks
Hi, Jim,
Always great to hear from you. To your point, my comment to Kenneth was that there have been so many attempts to understand “the meaning of metaphor” that it might be better simply to read the text and see what it says propositionally. The contrast was between, on the one hand, seeing in the Ark a figure of Mary, and on the other hand, simply reading why Paul was appealing to Ezekiel in Romans 2.
In that context, I said I had heard a lot of interpreting the Ark of the Covenant as metaphor in such as way as the stretch the imagery beyond all relation to the text, and yet all I was doing was appealing to what Paul had written, and I was being criticized as if I had been reading tea leaves.
That said, I will tell you that I do not believe the Quadriga is a reliable hermeneutic. I do not believe we can or should interpret the Scriptures metaphorically unless the Scripture itself provides, then explains, the metaphor. As regards the Ark, St. Thomas Aquinas says it is a metaphor for Christ, but also that it also symbolizes the wood of the cross. St. Bonaventure says it is a metaphor for the Holy Eucharist. St. Gregory says it is a metaphor for Mary. The Venerable Bede says it is a metaphor for the Church. Why, one church father even sees, in the worms festering in the rotten manna in Exodus 16:20, a figure of Christ born in Mary.
Well, more on the Quadriga and the Ark of the Covenant later.
Warm regards,
Tim
Greeting to All,
I just want to tell Andrew that I read the Gesham Machen stuff as far as “to be continued”. I would tell him directly but I am a computer neanderthal and have enough trouble just using this blog. So I won’t be trying to navigate his site to say I liked what I read and say thank you for turning me on to it.
Something Machen mentioned got me to click over on Justin Martyrs’s dialogue with Trypho the Jew. I remember how early Christians said that the Jews had tried to say the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 did not say “virgin” and that they had thrown out the Book of Wisdom to deny Christ as Messiah.
Anyway, I was thinking of a good topic for the readers of this blog who have shown an interest in the question of Mary’s Virginity.
May I submit the following; Why the Virginal Conception and Birth of Christ in the first place if Mary was to lose her virginal integrity either in the birth of Jesus, her firstborn, or in the conception of subsequent children?
I know some say that the Virginal Conception was necessary so as to keep Jesus from inheriting the sin of Adam. That is not the Catholic position however. Theoretically, the Messiah could have been conceived sinless even if He had been conceived through normal relations of two human parents. Even sinners. The Second Person of the Trinity could have assumed a sinless human nature from Joseph and Mary. So, the Virgin Birth was not absolutely necessary.
So, my assertion is, if Mary did not keep her Virginity intact all her life, not -Catholics who deny her Perpetual Virginity need to give an explanation for their belief Christ Himself was conceived and born of a virgin. Why was Christ born of a virgin at all? Was it merely “fitting”?
Okay, thanks. I look forward to reading some replies.
Jim,
I understand Mariology is important for you. I know it bothered you when I said as a protestant, it’s not important for me.
If I was retired, not raising 3 small children, working a stressful job, and active in my church, I’d devote more time to Roman Catholic Mariology.
Plus, I am a cradle protestant, with absolutely ZERO personal history with RCism except what I read on blogs and how catholics interact with me on the protestant chatrooms where I like to hang out and find people who want to play in the NCAA bracket challenge (as president Obama does).
I care for Roman Catholics. Really. But I can’t sustain this conversation. I do have answers to your questions about why Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus in her womb. But the rest, I’m going to punt to Timothy. He’s your man for this job. And able at that. I thank God for him and what he is doing.
As for me, talk Doctrine of Justification, and that’s where I will be waiting. It’s a great topic, IMHO.
Grace and peace.
Okay Andrew,
I’ve enjoyed meeting you. Just one parting thought; maybe you know, maybe you don’t but for Catholics Justification is not forensic but familial. Our infatuation/intoxication/enchantment /obsession with Mary is part of being born to higher life and made domestics of the household of God. Just as we cry, “Abba, Father” due to our Baptism into Christ Jesus, we also take His mother as our own. When we meditate on Mary we can’t help but feel how much Jesus loves us by sharing her with us. We have confidence He wants us in heaven and is sure to give us all the graces needed to get there. Just as Mary’s OT type of the Ark of the Covenant was carried into battle by the Hebrews to give them courage in the face of their enemies, we call her, Our Life, our sweetness and our HOPE” because she gives us hope amid the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” to strive meet her Son in glory.
Sorry Andrew. I said just “one parting thought” and I went ecstatic. Anyway, all the best to you and yours, Jim
Timothy, Thanks for getting back to me on the Ark of the Covenant.
Previous Catholic writers, Aquinas included, may or may not have known what we know today. I don’t think Aquinas read Greekbut am not sure.
So I would rather address what St. Luke and St. John wrote on the Ark.
St. Luke the physician who is said to have learned directly from Mary, used some very specific Greek words in his Gospel when he wrote on Mary. Firstly, at the Annunciation, Gabriel used the very word used in the OT for the Shekinah overshadowing the Ark of the Covenant. ( The same word use in the scene with Ruth and Boaz too). Secondly, When Mary went on to visit her kinswoman, Elizabeth, the verb used to describe the greeting by Elizabeth was “anaphosim”. This the word used throughout scripture for the trumpet blast given when the Ark of the Covenant drew near. Thirdly, the term used for St. John leaping, dancing or skipping in Elizabeth’s womb is “skirtan”, which was also used in II Samuel VI to describe how David danced when the Ark came to him. David and Elizabeth both asked similar questions, ” How is it the Ark of the Lord/ Mother of the Lord, should come to me?’ Luke then goes on to say that Mary stayed for three months with Elizabeth during which time the barren Elizabeth gave birth. This echoes similar language used in II Samuel about the Ark staying for three month and the fruitfulness accompanying its stay.
Coincidence?
St. John, in Revelation 11-12 speaks of the the Heavens opening to reveal the Ark. He then immediately launches into the scene of the Woman. This Woman is the Woman of Gen 3:15. Mary is never called by name in his Gospel but only Woman.
Okay, that should more than establish that Luke and John believed the incorruptible chest that carried the Manna, the Rod of Aaron the priest and the Ten Commandments of Moses within, never to be touched by man, was a type and shadow of the sinless and ever Virgin Mary who was to carry the true Bread from Heaven and be the true High Priest and Lawgiver.
If I am mistaken, I had better be shown that Luke and John, both intimates of Our Lady, had something else in mind when they drew so heavily on OT imagery.
Tim,
I am having trouble finding where we left off last night but I remember you wanted to talk about Reparation made to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, Penal Substitution, and … I can’t recall.
I know you wrote a book called Graven Bread that you are hankering to expound on. So I will initiate the discussion by bringing up the fact that OT sacrifices, temple, and ceremonies were “shadows of things to come”. One shadow we should discuss is the Bread of Presence, which along with the Menorah and Ark, was placed in the Holy Place. as a sign that the God of Mt. Sinai was dwelling in the midst of His people. Only this Shew Bread was allowed to be seen by the people. Like the red lamp that burns before Christ in the Eucharist ( Your Graven Bread ) in all Catholic churches, the menorah burnt before this Bread which sat on a golden table as a “perpetual offering to be before the Lord”.
Okay, as all OT shadows must have something substantial behind them, or a fulfillment in Christ, could you tell me how you find the Bread of the Presence in the Church today?
Was the Bread of Presence a “Graven Bread”? Did it detract from adoration to Yahweh? Or was it a sign of His dwelling in the midst of His people? Why did people of former times need a visible manifestation of His dwelling amid them but people no longer do?
Before talking about reparation made to Christ in the Eucharist, maybe we should start here.
Okay, Tim, I will await your response.
Tim, We seem to be jumping all over the place. You have several different topics on your site ranging from apparitions, infallibility, Tradition, etc. but it seems you squeeze your views on Mary into all of of them sooner or later, so I should probably just stay here rather than running about trying to post on Reparation to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, the Immaculate Heart, the various apparitions, Penal Substitution, etc. and later lose my place.
Since I have already submitted a bit on why the OT sacrifices in no way point to PS, I will continue on with that. ( This is all leading up to your attack on Reparation to Christ and to Mary’s Immaculate Heart so be patient ).
Proceeding on with Penal Substitution, I must first ask if, as Kevin repeatedly asserts, the cross saves us “once and for all” without any instrumental causality via the Sacraments, why is it necessary for the elect to have faith? Why do Protestants pray the Lord’s Prayer asking to be forgiven their debts if they have already been forgiven on the cross? Why is repentance even needed?
Why do we continue to suffer sickness and death as these penalties were addressed “once for all” on Calvary?
If our sins were laid on Christ and He was punished in our stead, but did not go to hell for eternity, can you say He has paid the penalty for our sin? Is not eternal separation from God the wages of sin?
How could St. Paul possibly”fill up what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ”?
If Christ was punished in my stead, I can’t be punished for my sin by a fair judge/God. Still, how does that make me worthy of heaven? That doesn’t address my corrupt nature does it?
How could St. Paul have been “crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20) if Christ had been crucified in Paul’s stead already?
How is the scape goat applied to Christ in the New Testament? Was that an example of PS?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
As I said last night,the logical corollary of Limited Atonement, the weakest link in the Calvinist chain, requires this false view of the the redemption. In the same way, your erroneous doctrine of imputation also stands or falls with the theory of Penal Substitution.
If you want to explore this more, okay. If not, okay too. My only point is that as Mary has no part in Christ’s atoning work according to your view of the atonement, it could be because your view of Christ’s atoning work is a bit off.
To be continued…
Tim, Since it doesn’t appear you care to (yet ) pursue Penal Substitution, I will moved ahead with the topic of reparation.
Sin robs God of the honor/glory due Him by His creatures. ) Of course we are talking about glory ad extra the Trinity ).
God doesn’t need our esteem but we need to esteem Him.
Christ’s once for all sacrifice made super abundant satisfaction for a million worlds. Yet we are called to “fill up what is lacking …”. We continue to “preach Christ crucified” although He does not suffer now. Our sins, ” trample under foot the blood of Christ” and “crucify again to themselves the Son of God making Him a mockery”. From heaven Christ asked Paul why he was persecuting Him.
So, we have a need to undo as bet as we can the sins committed against God. repenting and promising never to sin again is a good start but it must include penance, reparation, a desire to repair the damage we or others have done. Suffering conforms us to Christ and His priestly act, His death. As members of the priesthood of believers, we intercede for the conversion of others. ( Fatima ) The fasting, penances and patient endurance of life’s crosses are pleasing to God and make our prayers more likely to be heard.
In the Garden Christ, in His human heart, could see all the graces that would be neglected. He wanted the Apostles to stay awake with Him. They slept so and angel was sent to comfort Him. On the cross a few kind words won paradise for one of the thieves.
The indifference and sacrileges against the Sacred Victim the Blessed Sacrament need to be atoned for. The insults against His Mother who suffered with Him for us need to be atoned for by us. We need to make reparation. We need to for us,
Tim and Lurkers,
Here are some videos from a conference given at Fatima last Summer. Click on to the one by Christopher West.
It is about JPII and Our Lady of Fatima and what is happening today around the world.
Enjoy!
Tim, ( Not Kelvin. You already had your chance).
Why didn’t God create us already in heaven or hell? I mean, since in your system, God is just a ventriloquist talking to his dummy, why would the ventriloquist need to talk to the dummy before throwing it in the furnace if that is what he had decided to do?
Why would he pull the dummy’s strings to make it curse or weep or accept not being thrown in that furnace? It’s all the ventriloquist doing everything isn’t it?
Jim,
It was God’s pleasure to create some vessels for wrath “to make his power known” and some vessels for mercy to “make known the riches of his glory” (Romans 9:21-24). Simply creating us in heaven or hell skips an important step of making His power and His glory known.
Will you judge Him for this? “Hath not the potter power over the clay”?
Thanks,
Tim
Boys, You miss my point. Couldn’t God have just made people already in their finally abode? Couldn’t they praise God’s glory just as easily by starting out in heaven or hell? I mean, if God does everything anyway, and we are just spectators in a game that is rigged, why bother to try to play? Just get it over with.
( Actually, I think you both see my point clear enough. You just don’t want to go there ).
Jim, Tim told you the same thing I did. Its about God’s glory.
Yes Kelvin. Uncle Tim backed you up. ( With the same wiggly answer about God’s glory. How is God anymore glorified by pretending people have a choice? Just get on with it. Calvinish say the game is decided in advance. Just hand out the trophy to the winners and send the losers away before the game starts. Same amount of glory for God, isn’t it? Since the players don’t really play anyway, why get all sweaty pretending to play. )
Jim,
I know nothing of the secondary causes of God’s glory except that which I read in the Scriptures.
• “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.” (John 15:8)
• “When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. (2 Thessalonians 1:10)
• “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.” (Romans 15:9)
• “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (1 Peter 2:12)
• “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)
These are only a few examples. God establishes in His Word the secondary causes of His glorification, among which are the good deeds of His saints (John 15:8, 1 Peter 2:12), the faith of His saints (2 Thessalonians 1:10), their testimony to the world (Romans 15:9), and by His judgment of sinners (Romans 3:7).
It is no more my prerogative to question whether He might have been more glorified by me never sinning and He never forgiving me at all, than it is my prerogative to question whether He might have been more glorified had He allowed certain sinners to continue in their sins that He may judge them more severely. His timing is not to be questioned. All I know is that it pleases Him to forgive me (Isaiah 53:10), yet it is also to His glory for me to refrain from sinning (1 Corinthians 6:20); and further that it is to His glory to punish sin (Romans 3:9), and yet it is also to His glory to allow sins continue that He may punish them more severely in His time (Genesis 15:6).
I doubt we will resolve the matter to your satisfaction in this forum, but I will say this for your consideration: the appearance of free will is not proof of free will. It is only proof of the appearance of free will. Every decision you make is the outcome of a long series of events and influences in your life, events and influences over which you had no control (e.g., the time and location of your birth, your parents, the books that did, and did not, come across your desk, your genetic makeup and the people who did, and who did not, cross your path). Whether you know it or not, there is not a single decision you make that is completely independent of these influences in your life—influences that came upon you quite apart from your “permissive will.” Every preference, every habit, every, decision between vanilla, chocolate and strawberry when you order a shake at McDonald’s, is influenced by things over which you had no control, and about which your permission was not requested in advance. You may ask, “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7) and so did the Jews to Paul, apparently. His answer is the very verse we are discussing:
To those whom the Lord would save, He opens their hearts that they may believe (Acts 16:14), and to those whom He would consign to reprobation, He sends a strong delusion that they may believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11). There are some, like Lydia, who heard the Gospel because the Spirit forbade Paul from going east (Acts 16:6), and there are some, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, who were converted because Philip was told directly by the Spirit to go to him (Acts 8:29). What a different world we would live in if Paul had gone east and Philip had not been directed to preach to the Eunuch. But it is not my place to imagine that that alternate world could be better, or more glorifying to God than this one. There were not a multiplicity of alternate universes between which God chose in eternity past that He might—by the free will of His creation—receive more glory from one than from another. There is only the universe of His decrees, and all that He has ordained from eternity past must certainly come to pass. To that end, you should know that it is not my desire or my intent to even try to prevent Antichrist from accomplishing the purposes that God ordained for him to accomplish. The world must certainly wonder after the beast. It cannot be otherwise than as God has ordained. But God has called His people out of Rome, and I believe there are yet sheep within her grasp who must come out as certainly as Rome must go to perdition.
As regards the immutability of God’s eternal decrees, it is to Rome’s shame, not to Rome’s glory, that her apologists subordinate God’s eternal decrees to the whim of a teenage Jewish girl. And yet that is what they do. At Luke 1:37, Gabriel says, “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” But Roman apologist Tim Staples doesn’t like that rendering. He prefers, “Every word of God is possible“:
Either God is in charge, or you are. Or Mary is. All of you can’t be.
Tim
Tim and kelvin,
” Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev 3
Guys, why don’t you tell Jesus they aren’t going to open from the inside. They don’t have freewill. He has to kick the door in.
Ask Jesus if He died for them, if the Father gave them to Him. If He didn’t die for them, ( and He would know ), they will never open so He should stop knocking.
Is He knocking for His glory? Is He being barred from entry for His glory?
Calvinish Guys,
Check out the letters to the 7 churches. Jesus is waiting for them to repent. He says He has given them time to come around to repentance? Why? What is He waiting for?
Why is the ventriloquist waiting for the dummy to recite “Paul Revere’s Ride”? Unless the puppeteer picks the dummy up, puts his hand in the dummy’s back, takes hold of the strings and starts saying out of the side of his mouth, ” Listen my children and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere… “, the dummy will lay there til hell freezes over.
Jim, just what doe it mean to you that he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, he predestines us to be sons. You can’t ignore this dude?
Kelvin, He predestined us in Christ. He did not predestine us to be in Christ.
Jim, Ephesians says while we were dead in sins, He made us alive. Its monergistic. You and and all your Catholic cohorts on here want the glory. its all about you. You look at yourself and down at the death wafer, we look outside ourselves and up to Christ in faith. God helps you save yourself. ” Why does the Potter say to the clay why did you make me this way? ” Wherever the true gospel is preached, the one Jesus preached, and Paul, and Luther, and Calvin, and Knox, and Spurgeon, people have flourished. And wherever the Roman church has been people have been oppressed.
Kelvin, jump over on Jason’s blog. Somebody just posted something on you.
Yes kelvin, while the world lay in sin and misery, Jesus was born in a stable, grew up, founded the Church and died for all men, especially those who believe, willing that none should perish, including those who trample under foot he blood that bought them, etc.
Kelvin, If you don”t eat what you call the death wafer, he have no life in you.
(Did you see what someone is saying about you on Jason’s blog right now?)
Kelvin, Don’t make me angry or I will stop posting here. Then what will you do? Talk to Bob and Walt? Wait for Tim’s next installment to bow down before?
I just torpedoed any chance you may have thought you had of getting back on Jason’s blog. ( Actually, you have said enough on Tim’s demon blog since being dumped off Jason’s.)
Jim, I told Jason I would not ever go on his blog again. Its a bunch of wannabe theologians pontificating. Jonathan’s the worst. He is talking about his master’s in physics today. As if that makes him an expert on scripture. My dad used to have a saying. If I had what that guy thinks he’s worthI could have retired at 20. He got on you for bringing my name up, but he keeps bringing my name up to Robert. Robert kicks his tail on a regular basis.
Jim, ask Jonathan a question for me. When he says I consider myself a “christian physicist”; is that like I’m a Christian baseball player, or is that like I’m a Christian who can explain the physics of the gospel. I mean, can you believe that dude. As if having a physics degree gives him some insight on the gospel or hermeneutics, or exegesis. Jim, tell him what I said and when I see you, I’ll bring you a Dom Perinon 1959. LOL
Kevin, Jonathan may be a bit taken with his degree. Maybe physics is involved in the causality stuff he is arguing with Robert about. He seems to be right on what he says. Still, I don’t read half of what Robert, James, Mateo and Jonathan write because their posts are 3 feet long sometimes. I think some of the Catholics get too caught up in WCF junk with Robert. I probably should because they might have something worth reading. Maybe not. Amateur theologians could be wrong too. In that case, no big deal, I am not missing anything.
Shame on you though Kevin for your Death Wafer wisecrack. Shame on Tim for entertaining such language. But it is only logical he would delight in you blaspheming. I don’t know where you are coming from Kevin. Tim, Bob and Walt have emotional issues I’m sure. ( I’ve never met a lapsed Catholic who didn’t hate his parents. These guys might/might not be exceptions. I am just saying, there’s a pattern I have seen ). Where your sickness stems from is a mystery. Maybe too much of that creepy scary MacArthur guy you lap up. He is so smug and arrogant. Typical Calvinist. He thinks he is elect so he struts about in front of the reprobate looking down his nose at them.. Like the Pharisee and the Publican, huh?
I am disappointed in Jason’s blog. Eric and Ruberan should be given warnings for their shenanigans too. If the blog was shut down, it would be better than allowing slurs against the Faith. I can’t fathom how you were allowed to get away with it for as long as you did. I was starting to lighten up on you but I can see I did the right thing in raising so much hell to get you muzzled.
I just got in late from a procession from one parish to another. Candles, singing, statue of Mary carried high, banners, cops, traffic held up. I am not sure what the occasion was. I walked it to make reparation for the offenses against Mary on these two blogs by you, Tim, Eric and others.
Jim, It is pretty simple where I’m coming from, I believe the scripture clearly teaches JBFA and believe the Roman Catholicism is not the universal catholic church. I believe it preaches a false gospel of salvation thru a sacramental system, putting sacramental efficacy up in the place of the finished atonement. And substituting the church and doing its sacramental system as a way of attaining salvation as opposed to a simple life of faith. Paul says the righteous shall live by faith. Faith covers all of salvation Galatians 3:1-6, 1 John 4, Romans 5:1, 3:26, 4:5, 4:16, Ephesians 2:8 etc. Jim you won’t find a sacramental system whereby someone earns increase of grace and justice rationed out by a Priesthood. Its overwhelming faith alone in christ alone saves.
Jim, you wrote:
“Of Course, if the apparitions point to “other gods” they should be rejected. But you never prove the Mary of the apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima to be another god.”
Boy oh boy, if we could get you to focus on this issue things might really change in your life for the better.
Tim, you said:
“The contrast between your interpretation of Luke 2:41-42, and John Paul II’s interpretation of the Resurrection is instructional because it highlights our different approaches. In your case, you argue that the omission of any references to other children means there weren’t any other children. In John Paul’s case, the omission of any reference to an encounter between the Jesus and His mother “must not lead to the conclusion that” there wasn’t one.
But in neither case—yours or John Paul’s—is the text itself actually the source of your belief. Tradition is the source, and scripture is interpreted through that lens. It’s just a very flexible method. It can be used to prove anything.”
John Paul said:
“Could not Mary’s absence from the group of women who went to the tomb at dawn (cf. Mk 16: 1; Mt 28: 1) indicate that she had already met Jesus? ***This inference*** would also be confirmed by the fact that the first witnesses of the Resurrection, by Jesus’ will, were the women who had remained faithful at the foot of the Cross and therefore were more steadfast in faith. (John Paul II, Mary was Witness to the whole paschal mystery, 28 May 1997”
The Westminster Confession says:
“1.6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, ***or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.***
Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
Pope Paul is making an “inference” which Westminster calls a “good and necessary consequence” of the Scripture.
“And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him (Matt.16:1)
“In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” (Matt.28:1)
“Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.” (Lk.2:41-42)
In your reference above to Lk 2:41-42 do you mean Lk 24:1-3?
“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.”
Tim wrote about how Jim is double minded:
“I enjoy your comments and I enjoy interacting with you. I do find it humorous that in the same comment that you trust me to police the blog to make sure people keep their comments topical and cordial, that you then accuse Protestants of calling Mary “the most stupid wench that ever walked the face of the earth.”
I wrote about this very early in my blogs with Jim to be very specific as to what I wrote, and what Jim said I wrote. There was a difference, and so early I recognized that Jim was not really here to accurately discuss these issues, but rather (likely as a paid Jesuit in Lisbon) to seek to confuse and get on record what is not be represented faithfully. If you read the Jesuits in history this is their goal to help protect the church and Pope from being labeled anti-christ or heretical.
Jim wrote:
“You know, the Books of the New Testament are called for short the” New Testament”. Why? Because they were read at the New Testament Celebration, a.k.a. the Mass and liturgy. They are the books of the Church, to be read in church. They were never intended to be read outside the Church.
Fire is good in a fireplace. Sex is good in marriage, The Bible is good in the Church. Yes, I proudly concede that I read Luke in the Church. That was the intent of its authors.”
Wow, that is what I was taught as a Catholic. They drilled it into my mind that the RCC was the only voice to speak to the Scriptures on earth.
However, since leaving the RCC I have learned that such views are really tailored to attract and retain the most weak and ignorant in our global society in hopes to keep them bound as a primarily financial contributor to the RCC system.
What is a far better and more excellent argument to what one should do in regards to Scripture is as follows (source withheld):
“First, whatsoever reverence or dignity is by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures given to particular men in office, all of it is given, not properly to men themselves, but to the office of the ministry which those men occupy. Those particular men who are called of Christ to serve in an official capacity are “clothed” with the ministry. In essence, the official requirements of the ministry, and the associated spiritual power to fulfil their attendant duties are “committed” unto them (Exod.3:4 and 14:31; Duet.17:9,10; Mal.2:4,6; Ezek.3:17; Jer.23:28 and 1:6; Matt.28:19; Acts 15:10).
Accordingly, these men, as official ministers called and sent of Christ, have been given a limited ministerial power to make subordinate rules and decrees. These rules and decrees do not bind except where and when they wholly conform to that first infallible and unerring rule prescribed by Christ Himself (Luke 22:25-27; 1Pe5:2,3; 2Tim.3:15,16,17; 1Thess.5:12; Eph.6:1).
In essence, the authority of all ministerial rules and decrees are founded solely upon and wholly deprived from the Word of God. Not only is the authority associated with ministerial declarations of doctrinal abstractions, such as Confessions of Faith, solely dependent upon the authority of the written Word of God, but also the administration and exercise of the same-the practical out-working of these doctrinal positions in time and history-must also conform to this alone infallible rule, or else such rules, decrees, or practical examples of mere men have no binding authority (Isa.8:19,20; Mal.2:6,7; Matt.28:19).
In so far as any ministerial declaration or practical application does actually err and decline from that which is taught in God’s Word, these officers do act without power and authority from Jesus Christ. Because they are commissioned by Christ, and clothed with the ministry, ministers may do nothing against the Truth, but only for the Truth (2Cor.13:8), with power that He has given unto edification and not unto destruction (2Cor.13:10).
***It is, therefore, both the duty and privilege of every church member to use his own judgment and discretion in order to examine every thing that a church judicatory decrees or declares. If after a diligent and impartial examination, any ministerial decree or practice is found to be “certainly” contrary to God’s Word, then these members are not to bring their conscience in bondage to the mere dictates of men (Isa.9:15,16; Jer.8:8,9; Mal.2:8,9; Isa.40:6-8; Rom.3:4; 1Cor.13:9-12).”***
Tim, you wrote:
“I do find, however, that the goalposts always move further and further into the distance. I’ve been in phone interviews in which critics called to say that I have not sufficiently differentiated between approved and non-approved apparitions. Then you find an interview in which I differentiate between approved and non-approved apparitions, but you are concerned that I didn’t differentiate early enough in the interview. Then I provide you with the words of an approved apparition, and you argue that I have appealed to one of the least known approved apparitions. And besides, I could have appealed to magisterial documents without appealing to the Apparitions at all.
It seems to me that my Roman Catholic interlocutors will not be satisfied until I simply give in and argue for the Roman Catholic position and save them the trouble.”
This is interesting. I did not make this distinction so I will now be looking more carefully at your blog for these distinctions.
Jim, you wrote:
“Perhaps when your family visited here long ago, you guys went to St. Andrews Presbyterian in Lisbon. I understand it has been here since about 1886. http://www.standrewslisbon.com/ The former minster, a young guy from Scotland named Graham, came to our church for ecumenical Bible study a few times. Other than Graham, I don’t think I know any Presbyterians here. Tons of British Anglicans though as Portugal and England are the world’s oldest allies.”
It would be a good place to start doing some research on Presbyterian form of church government, and at least understand it looks much like Romish government without the Pope as the head of the church. We put Christ as the head of the church, but where Angelicans put the Queen/King, and the Independents put the local Pastor, we Presbyterians do see bible warrant for the appeal process from local Session, to Presbytery, to regional or national Synod and finally to national General Assembly as the highest church court.
“Romish” Walt? That’s why I have dubbed an equally stupid word, “Calvinish”.
I did not mean to offend you with the word “Romish” as I have used it before out of habit. I will stay with RCC or Romanist if that is not offensive. You can label Calvin whatever you like as I have heard far worse coming out of the Arminian Protestants about Calvin, and seen YouTube video’s about Calvin that are far worse than anything a die hard RCC would say. The Arminian Protestants literally hate Calvin, and it is their source of all discussions. While RCC folks focus on the Eucharist (it seems here and elsewhere as I’m growing more to understand) the Arminian Protestants focus on Calvin murdered Servetus.
Jim/Tim,
I would like to learn more on this issue if you have ever done any research on this controversy. Jim wrote:
“I remember how early Christians said that the Jews had tried to say the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 did not say “virgin” and that they had thrown out the Book of Wisdom to deny Christ as Messiah.
Anyway, I was thinking of a good topic for the readers of this blog who have shown an interest in the question of Mary’s Virginity.”
I recently watched a video between a well known Jewish Rabbi and a Protestant in Israel. This issue of the hebrew translation of virgin was a major issue. Here is the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDbOCKdSIR8
It is an interesting debate…but a bit long. I found myself thinking how I would respond using Scripture primarily.
Walt, There was a good reason why they used to confiscate and burn the Talmud. Jews turned Catholic have talked about the dirty little secret some Jews snicker about Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
Modern Jewry are passionate about their traditions and are no different than how passionate RCC families are on their traditions. Both hold dearly to their traditions, and while they love their Talmud it is equally clear how RCC love their canon law and sacred tradition. I know of some Catholics who speak just absolutely terrible things about Jews and even written major books about Jewish traditions while at the same time holding dear to their RCC traditions. It is odd to read the stuff.
Jim, you wrote:
“Tim and Lurkers,
Here are some videos from a conference given at Fatima last Summer. Click on to the one by Christopher West.
It is about JPII and Our Lady of Fatima and what is happening today around the world.
Enjoy!”
I could not see this link…can you provide it again please?
Walt,
Here you are. I hope you enjoy it.
http://tobinternationalsymposia.com/?page_id=18
Do the Presbyterians have an equivalent? ( Of course not as they are not sure where they stand on this stuff. The Scottish minister at St. Andrew’s Lisbon is weak on it ).
I’m not sure as I will need to look through the site. I’m sure the more commercial Presbyterian church has something honoring some sort of new partnership with Rome, or where they have something in common. One of the last times I was in Rome I met the lead Pastor of the Church of Scotland, and sat down with him to go through their position on Rome, and it was rather rosy. They definitely chose the right guy to keep his head in Rome vs. if Luther or Calvin would have been chosen to lead a church in Rome.
Jim, you wrote:
“Kelvin, Don’t make me angry or I will stop posting here. Then what will you do? Talk to Bob and Walt? Wait for Tim’s next installment to bow down before?”
I do hope you stay on posting as I’m learning a lot of things that have clarified for me why I left Rome, and it is supporting my decision. It is helpful to have learned Roman Catholicism as a young boy, then to study extensively Protestant history, and now to go back to learn about Rome on this blog with your and Tim’s discussions.
Walt,
For Bob’s edification, please tell me about growing up Catholic at your house. Did you have a nativity scene at Christmas time? Did you love your nuns? Religious art on your wall. Praying as a family? To date, you have mentioned how bad it was. Anything good?
And your parents? Were they dupes of the Whore of Babylon?
Assuming they have gone on, do you fear for their eternal salvation if they died Catholic?
Our gracious host is teaching his little ones that their grandmother (his mom ) is a bread worshiping idolater. That is the typical attitude lapsed Catholics have for their parents ( in my humble but vast experience ). Bob implies he is the exception. Are you an exception too?
Jim,
Of course we had all that stuff. Certainly it was enjoyable and loaded with fun. Christmas was always more fun than commercial as it is today. I enjoyed being a Catholic boy, and certainly gained my love and interest in Scripture when I would read before the people at morning mass 3 days a week. We were not taught to focus on Scripture as you see today with guys like Patrick Madrid who get Catholics to focus on the Bible. Patrick Madrid does a nice job of going through each text of Scripture and applying his view on how tradition overrides that text, and makes it easy for people to understand how Sacred Tradition is superior or equal to Scripture.
While the best reformers used Scripture to interpret Scripture the best RCC theologians use Tradition to interpret Scripture. One has to figure out for themselves, by begging for God’s grace to show them the truth, what is the best way to learn Scripture’s “intended meaning”…ie., the literal sense of Scripture interpretation.
“Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave [i.e. relocate – GB] if he could… If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul. Then let him worship God in private (at home – ed.), praying him to restore his poor church to its right estate.” – John Calvin, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press,
Tim, Bob and Walt have emotional issues I’m sure. ( I’ve never met a lapsed Catholic who didn’t hate his parents.
Yo Freud, you need to get out more and meet some real people and lay off the gratuitous slander. Nobody here has said anything about your moma, so you got no business making comments about ours. Capiche?
Bob,
I said zero about your mother. I merely stated something I have observed about people like you.
Protestants who become Catholics have nothing but good feelings about heir former denominations, the foundation in the Bible they were given and gratitude for their upbringing. I submit Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Jason Stellman, etc. etc. as examples you may be familiar with. My personal acquaintances reflect the same.
Catholic to Protestant almost never, feel the same. They hate the Church ( as you do ), have nothing nice to say about growing up Catholic, and think their parents are doomed to hell.
Are you the exception? Tell me about how nice it was as a kid at Christmas time for instance. I would love to hear something other than the venom I have been subjected to.
Jim, as I said in my earlier posts when I joined this blog, you need to stop twisting what people say. Your a master at ignoring what people actually mean by what they write in context, and twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. I must admit if anyone is reading this blog for any length of time they would certainly be concerned about how you phrase things people say here with your own twisted meaning.
Do you ever confess this sin to the Priest when you go? How often do you go to confession? What does he tell you to do about overcoming this sin? If you go back to him weekly with the same sin, and you do it behind the curtain, does he know it is you again and again and again confessing the same sin? If he does, I would encourage you to go to him in person to discuss this problem sin in your life and seek counseling. If you are a Jesuit on a mission, to some degree, you must agree truth is better than deception, or trying to lead others astray with your posts.
So you did have a happy childhood eh, Walt? It wasn’t that bad being a Catholic?
When you apologize for slandering Tim, Walt and me, we can talk, Jim. Until then, forget it. You know none of us personally so your previous opinion doesn’t count for much other than it is egregious, patronizing and insulting. You can’t demonstrate that it is true, so you just assumed it and your latest merely doubles down on your uncharitable assumption.
Tim, I don’t see this article on the left side under your heading “Recent Posts”. Is this something that only my Firefox browser is not reading, or do you have to link the article to that column heading?
Walt,
Anything older than a month or so ends up in the archives, which you can see under each month showing in the left margin. Let me know if you can’t find it. It’s from February 2014.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I cannot see this blog name posted: “Is God in debt to Mary?”
Here you go:
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/02/06/is-god-in-debt-to-mary/
It’s from a few months back, so has scrolled off the “recent posts” list.
Thanks,
Tim
Ah, I see. I assumed it was a recent post. Now I will watch for the date published in the future. Thank you for the clarification and correction.
Tim,
If you ever get a chance to order or download this book, I would highly recommend it as an actual source document on Rome and the Church.
Roman State and Christian Church
A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535
3 vol.
Author: P.R. COLEMAN-NORTON
Publisher: S.P.C.K., London, 1966
Total Pages: LXXXVII-1358
Format: Book
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/293454?uid=3739728&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104217252233
They are VERY Rare to find anywhere. I bought a set for my minister, and they will give you the key source legal documents on the periods you are covering. It is incredible for what you are researching to be the most accurate.