tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post2030311533812244638..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Biblical proof that Mary (and Joseph) made a vow of virginityFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-82253131186484977112012-12-07T23:52:34.314-08:002012-12-07T23:52:34.314-08:00Father Ryan:
I love your sharp wit and the way yo...Father Ryan:<br /><br />I love your sharp wit and the way you express the Truth in the light of dissenters. As Christians we are all bound to search for the Truth. When I was young and Protestant I relied on the Bible, but I had problems when what I read did not agree with others, and even more so when I saw ministers interpret passages that were completely contrary to another ministers; and yet, they were both supposed to be the Truth. My search for the Truth eventually lead me to the Catholic Church, but I was afraid to enter because of the anti-catholic myths, half-truths, and out-and-out lies I had learned as a Protestant. It was only through a lot of searching, even going back to writings of the early Church Fathers, that I finally swam the Tiber. <br /><br />Many of those who dissent from your writing have also been brought up with those anti-catholic biases, and they refuse to believe that you speak the TRUTH; they refuse to even consider that they do not have the fullness of Truth. I sometimes worry for them because when they had the Truth presented to them they refused to believe. I worry that they will forever burn in Hell because of their denial of the Truth, and I thank God every day that I found it. We need to remember to pray that the scales will fall from their eyes so they may see clearly and will be able to see that the fullness of Truth is found only in the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Thank you for such a well written article, and for your wonderful answers to those who thought otherwise. Though I have been a Catholic for almost 42 years, I have never stopped learning, and your article has given me some new insights. God bless youCephashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15750068089237821808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56393978064641427392011-12-29T19:08:55.242-08:002011-12-29T19:08:55.242-08:00Ezechiel, Chapter 44:1-3, says that the east gate ...Ezechiel, Chapter 44:1-3, says that the east gate will remain shut and no one else may enter by it because the Lord of hosts has entered by it, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit by it and eat his bread in the presence of the Lord, he should enter by the vestibule and leave the same way. 1-Since it is strongly asserted that the gate remain shut it is easy to see that after the the birth of Jesus Mary is to be perpetual virgin and at the foot of the Cross Jesus gives her to be our spiritual Mother in the person of John the beloved disciple. 2-The only one that qualifies as the prince can only be Saint Joseph who is the spouse of Mary and ate his bread in the presence of the Lord all the days for the rest of his life. 3- It speaks of the hidden life as pointed out that he comes and goes by way of the vestibule, which we know that when the priest is in the vestibule he is hidden from sight, thus Saint Joseph's coming is prophesied. Another area that speaks of Saint Joseph is a comparison with Joseph of old. The first Joseph was made Lord over Egypt except for the house of Pharaoh but Joseph the spouse of the ever Virgin Mary was made Lord over the house of the Lord at Nazareth, he was also honored to name Jesus along with Mary and Jesus also called him Father. Lastly he was declared as Patron and protector of the Universal Church along with his many other titles!<br /><br />Luciano, a stone that cries out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-25076685837136687892011-12-28T16:38:50.146-08:002011-12-28T16:38:50.146-08:00@Anonymous,
Please use a pseudonym in the future.
...@Anonymous,<br />Please use a pseudonym in the future.<br /><br />Yes, certainly Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit through her vow of virginity ... and I think you are very right to point this out.<br /><br />Additionally, I would add that Mary was already the spouse of Joseph (even though they had only been betrothed) ... because betrothal was much more in their culture than engagement is in ours.<br />Indeed, the Scriptures say as much ... "... to a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph ..." ... if she was espoused to Joseph then she was his spouse.<br /><br />In any case, as you say, Mary was most certainly NOT an unwed mother ... and it is impious for anyone (protestant or catholic) to utter such words! <br /><br />Peace and merry Christmas! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-81249414004112225712011-12-28T15:42:45.707-08:002011-12-28T15:42:45.707-08:00That is a fabulous article.
Jesus was not an ille...That is a fabulous article. <br />Jesus was not an illegitimate Child!!! There is no way God would conceive a Child with Mary without first espousing her. Mary was espoused to God by a vow of virginity. A vow of virginity is a vow of espousal to God: total consecration to God her Spouse.<br />Mary was not a surrogate mother for God's Son! Humans can espouse themselves to God if they want to. The Church is the Bride of Christ, we will all be espoused to God for ever in Heaven. Nuns, Brothers, Religious take vows of Poverty, Chastity (Virginity for virgins) and obedience to God. In other words they marry God in this life to be more perfectly espoused to Him in the next. Mary had to be espoused (Vow of virginity) to God before she conceived Jesus otherwise Jesus was an llegitimate Child. <br />"Before they came to live together she was found to be with child". In reality she was already married to God and had a Son. There is no way God would conceive a Child out of wedlock. <br />Would a Christian man conceive a child with a woman before marrying her? No! Neither would God.<br /> God is not a spiritual fornicator or spiritual adulterer. Mary had to espouse herself to Him before He conceived the Child in her womb. <br /><br />The Protestant position is that Mary was a surrogate mother for His Son. Sorry God does not use surrogate mothers. If He conceives a Child in a woman He would have to be spiritually espoused to her even though she is only a mere creature. God does not break His own rules. <br />Jesus could not have been born of Mary unless she had taken a vow of virginity for the love of God. It would have been compulsory for her to totally give herself to God before she conceived His Son.<br /><br /><br />So why was Mary married to Joseph?<br />2 reasons: 1) Because Joseph was of royal descent then by adoption into Joseph's lineage Jesus became a descendent of David.<br />2) For very practical reasons Mary who was a single mother had to have a husband for appearance purposes. She would have always been under the risk of stoning to death otherwise. Joseph was that very special holy and devout person who was capable of living under the same roof as God and who must also have been consecrated to God in virginity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-84333908596528799682011-12-20T13:16:40.185-08:002011-12-20T13:16:40.185-08:00I do not know whether Fr. said that the "till...I do not know whether Fr. said that the "till" in Greek can only be interpreted in the manner he is. I think the exegesis argument is to be not interpretation, since anyone can claim a knowledge of Koine Greek, but that on translation. First, the logic of translation is very accesible and found in volumes of dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, etc. However, Interpretations vary...The Catholic view and teaching it to provide that the teaching is not only found in Scriptures (actually explicit or implicitly as the Old Testament being found in the New and vice versa)but that the logic of Scripture is confirmed by Church Teaching and the teaching of the Church does no violence to the logic of Scripture, and that is how a few examples exegetically sound (and literally) suffice.<br />-ReneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-18967618422111310712011-12-20T11:57:47.659-08:002011-12-20T11:57:47.659-08:00Thank you for the response to my (only) note Fr. (...Thank you for the response to my (only) note Fr. (concerning Anonymus Dec 10 at 10:10am)<br />-ReneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-84862523084899628322011-12-20T10:53:28.309-08:002011-12-20T10:53:28.309-08:00Dr. Hahn speaks about the issue at length in the l...Dr. Hahn speaks about the issue at length in the last 25 minutes of Disk #5 of his 7-CD set, "Genesis 1-22: The Covenant as a Family Affair". You should be able to find it in a parish or diocesan library. If not, do a google search for "sex before the fall".Wade St. Ongehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10188238068927761034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-20425908910866943762011-12-20T00:33:47.595-08:002011-12-20T00:33:47.595-08:00Thankyou Father Erlenbush. I might take you up on...Thankyou Father Erlenbush. I might take you up on that and at least try and keep up on these blogs through my friend on a different blogging site. Though I might not have much more to add questions or comments. I've studyed the bible a little, but know very little about catholic traditions and teachings that are outside the scope of the bible. <br /><br />For instance you next blog commmenting on Angels, is intreasting, but I have no knowledge on angels to be able to scope the ideas as either reasonable or unreasonable ideas. (The calculating of Angelic hirachery isn't something I found in bible passages.)<br /><br />-Fellow BelieverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68849184863219044292011-12-19T17:09:50.032-08:002011-12-19T17:09:50.032-08:00Hello Augustinus,
Your examples betray your own a...Hello Augustinus,<br /><br />Your examples betray your own argument. It is referencing the past in your examples as well. Which is the only logical way to look at it. There is a description of some manifest state. The translation of "until" is better translated as "up to that point" because it only speaks to the state of things described. The clause afterwards can either provide a change of that state or provide a completely different state. But no matter how you look at it, whatever comes after is not the reference point.Irenaeus of New Yorkhttp://www.azoic.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-66265487246702387492011-12-19T12:38:09.732-08:002011-12-19T12:38:09.732-08:00@ Wade St Onge: I have never heard of Scott Hahn ...@ Wade St Onge: I have never heard of Scott Hahn nor his alternative teaching of Gods supposed back up plan until today. But I'm willing to listen. Please supply a link of any info you have.larrybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00777661368502657219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-85656188326147556822011-12-19T11:15:30.379-08:002011-12-19T11:15:30.379-08:00@ Fr Ryan: thank you for your article, your comme...@ Fr Ryan: thank you for your article, your comments and mostly for your patience. Whether marriage was natural or a sacrament before mans fall I do not know. I do know that God made man/woman in his image and that sex outside marriage is a sin. If man did not have the knowledge of good and evil and had not sinned yet, it would make sense that God would instituted marriage to prevent that. I would also imagine that concupiscence also existed but again man had no knowledge of it. As far as Marys perpetual virginity, I cannot see how one could come to any other conclusion than you do. I bet Joseph had no problem being celebet once he found out whos child he would be raising, and who the mother of that child was. Who could dare to even think of it.<br />Larrylarrybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00777661368502657219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-42301141159818924142011-12-19T08:39:13.551-08:002011-12-19T08:39:13.551-08:00@Peter,
Did you catch the irony of accusing me of ...@Peter,<br />Did you catch the irony of accusing me of "an immense lack of humility" right after you had dismissed 2000 years of Church tradition (which goes back to men who were friends of St. Peter and the other Apostles) as "men's created dogmatic and morality" ... I mean, come on! You didn't even use proper spelling! <br />(I'm presuming that you meant the noun "dogma" rather than the adjective "dogmatic")<br /><br /><br />Well, in any case, since you are so smart (and humble to boot!), why don't you explain what Mary didn't understand?<br />If she was planning on having relations with Joseph, what part of "you will conceive" was confusing to her?!<br /><br />You are obviously much more learned than Sts. John Chrysostom and Jerome ... let not your humility keep us in the dark! Share your light with us, oh Teacher!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-59327344245810863852011-12-19T08:35:18.084-08:002011-12-19T08:35:18.084-08:00@Mike,
I believe you are referring to Luke 1:36 .....@Mike,<br />I believe you are referring to Luke 1:36 ... where Gabriel speaks of Mary's "cousin" Elizabeth.<br />Yes, the word (in Greek) is either "cousin" or "kinswoman".<br /><br />In the article, I pointed out that there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic ... and that, in both the Old and New Testaments, the Hebrew and Greek words for "brother/sister" are occasionally used to refer to "cousins".<br /><br />Hope it is more clear now! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-5701880889337794762011-12-19T08:32:04.241-08:002011-12-19T08:32:04.241-08:00@Fellow Believer,
Please do always feel very free ...@Fellow Believer,<br />Please do always feel very free to comment and ask questions! You most certainly did not offend me or put me on the defensive! :-)<br /><br />For my part, I am sorry that I'm not being very clear ... what I mean to say is that confusion in itself is most certainly NOT a cause of damnation. Not by any means!<br /><br />My comment in the article is meant to emphasize the importance of receiving the faith from those first chosen to preach it to the whole world (the Apostles and Church Fathers).<br /><br />Again, confusion does not cause damnation, but rather obstinate denial of the faith and of the teaching of Christ.<br />In other words, it is precisely when we are not confused, but know that Jesus taught us that his Mother was a Virgin, and yet still choose to reject his teaching (given us in Scripture and through the Fathers) -- this is when failing to read the Fathers leads to our eternal ruin.<br /><br />You, on the other hand, show your goodness of spirit in entering into this dialogue (on a very intense and conservative Catholic blog) ... and I applaud you for your openness to discussion and your desire for truth.<br />Please do feel free to comment again on any article ... you are most welcome here!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40830439919512365432011-12-19T08:19:35.222-08:002011-12-19T08:19:35.222-08:00@larryb,
I'm sure I've not been as clear a...@larryb,<br />I'm sure I've not been as clear as I could be ... I'd rather not go off into questions of marriage too quickly, since it is far beyond what the article is about ... so, just a word here ...<br /><br />Marriage before the fall was not a sacrament but a natural condition ... all the sacraments were instituted as a remedy for sin, none of them would have been given without the fall (for more see ST III, q.61, a.3).<br /><br />The particular context of our discussion related to St. Paul's words -- and he makes it clear that, if one can be celibate then he should (i.e. if he can do it without "burning") ... and this would lead us to believe that marriage is (in large part at least) a remedy for concupiscence (burning).<br /><br />Well, in any case, I do not go quite as far many of the Church Fathers (especially those of the East) who held that sex was a result of the foreseen fall ... you can see more on this point from Wade St Orange (below).<br /><br />St. Thomas, in fact, is quite a bit more moderate than most of the Fathers.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-86195245872720489982011-12-19T07:46:28.886-08:002011-12-19T07:46:28.886-08:00If y'all think it odd that Mary took a vow of ...If y'all think it odd that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity, what would y'all think upon reading that Mary was surrendered to be brought up in the Temple when she was three and that at the age of three Mary began to get-up and pray every midnight -Matins for Mary :).<br /><br />No, that is not in The Bible but we Catholics, as Trinitarians - have a three-fold source of truth, Tradition, Bible, Church - and, additionally, we know from Private Revelation (Mary to St Elizabeth of Hungary) that Mary prayed at that time in the Temple:<br /><br />"I always rose at midnight and went before the altar of the temple, where I besought of God that I might observe all the commandments of His law, and be enriched with those graces which would render me pleasing to his majesty.."<br /><br />Dear Protestants. Holy Mother Church has gone out of her way to be kind and understanding to those of you who were born into christian communities which had earlier been separated from the Truth and so it seems only rational and fair to ask of you folks in those communities to keep in mind it makes no sense for y'all to insist we abandon the fullness of truth to satisfy your desires; rather, it is your duty to accept the fullness of truth and to convert to the One True Church, the Ark of Salvation.<br /><br />Asking a Catholic to stick only with the BIble would make as much sense as a Mormon demanding you protestants source your claims solely in their texts.<br /><br />The Catholic Church owns the Bible, Lock, Stock, and Barrel and Holy Mother Church alone has the authority, guided as she is by The Holy Ghost, established as she was by Jesus, to say what Scripture means and the fact the Hierarchy does not tell you that truth is a failure that needs correction because effete ecumenism succors not the Truth in all of its glory.Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-35548791022155305702011-12-19T06:47:43.535-08:002011-12-19T06:47:43.535-08:00"the perpetual Virginity is a de fide Dogma -...<i>"the perpetual Virginity is a de fide Dogma -- hence, to deny it is to reject the gift of salvation"</i>...<br /><br />I'm wondering if God will have men's created dogmatic and morality in consideration when He's thinking if a human being is refusing, or not, the gift of salvation… more: your interpretation of Luke 1:26-38 is just that: your interpretation and saying the hypothesis of a virginity vow “is the only way” to understand that text (it is not… more: your position lacks any evidence that the present tense used in the Greek text is to be understood also as a bridge to the future: it’s a common Greek syntax that does not allow that interpretation) is an immense lack of humility…<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-9193395980926163362011-12-19T05:03:58.410-08:002011-12-19T05:03:58.410-08:00Father, the one question I get asked on this issue...Father, the one question I get asked on this issue that I have no answer for is "if there was no word for cousin, why is Elizabeth referred to as Mary's cousin?" Can you help me with that one? Thanks.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02491084930433319172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-41321101615398564912011-12-19T04:26:17.389-08:002011-12-19T04:26:17.389-08:00Irenaeus of New York said:
"In short, "...Irenaeus of New York said:<br /><br />"In short, "heos" references the past, never the future."<br /><br />This is not correct, nor have you correctly represented Chrysostom's argument. There are several exampels of ἕως meaning "until" as in "until later" in the NT. Behold two of the many examples.<br /><br />John 21:22<br /><br />22 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς: ἐὰν αὐτὸν θέλω μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι, τί πρὸς σέ; σύ μοι ἀκολούθει.<br /><br />22 Jesus said to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to you? Follow me.<br /><br /><br />Acts 8:40<br /><br />Φίλιππος δὲ εὑρέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον, καὶ διερχόμενος εὐηγγελίζετο τὰς πόλεις πάσας ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς Καισάρειαν.<br /><br />But Philip was found in Azotus: and passing through, he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.Augustinusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-13898269434820136622011-12-19T00:36:08.527-08:002011-12-19T00:36:08.527-08:00@ Irenaeus of New York
Thank you for your comment....@ Irenaeus of New York<br />Thank you for your comment.<br />"Marriage is not necessarily part of that commandment". If you wishsd to include celebet priest I understand. That does not change Gods command to be fruitful and multiply, or "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and they become one flesh". It does shed light on that even Priest can fulfill the command, albeit on a spiritual level as you say. Fr Ryan means something here that I do not yet understand.larrybhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00777661368502657219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-61896407596253221002011-12-19T00:18:58.514-08:002011-12-19T00:18:58.514-08:00Thank you for the excellent article father. I just...Thank you for the excellent article father. I just want to add a couple points. <br />In some translations of 2 Samuel 6:23 "...Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death". We can safely understand this as NOT to mean that she had children then AFTER her death. Furthermore, it would have been absolutely shocking, if Jesus entrusted His mother to John if He had blood-brothers.<br />Also, if the Ark of covenant that was so revered and one would die if touching it had one not have priestly duty to do so, how much more would the Blessed Mother, the Ark that carried God Himself should be treated (including by St. Joseph).<br />Lastly, wasn't it true that Martin Luther himself believed only a fool would question this issue (of Mary's perpetual virginity)<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Minh<br /><br /><br />second the use of "brothers and sisters" in Vietnamese is very much similar to Aramaic.Minhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09623254334156256624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7932449936765914622011-12-18T23:59:29.529-08:002011-12-18T23:59:29.529-08:00"natural marriage is a concession to human we..."natural marriage is a concession to human weakness and lust". <br /><br />Father, I would like to see you discuss this issue with Deacon Scott Dodge. We just had a disagreement on his blog (my final response was given on my blog because he ended the discussion).<br /><br />For my part, I agree with you - and I think the Church needs a good debate on this issue because the widespread dissent from the dogma of the superiority of celibacy to marriage is leading modern Catholics to not only disagree with the Church Fathers, but to accuse them of Manichaeism (which is exactly what Deacon Dodge did). <br /><br />@larryb: many of the Church Fathers would say that sexual intercourse was given to man as a "back up plan" in foresight of the Fall, and that before the fall, man would have had the preternatural powers to simply speak the word and bring a new human being into existence, just as God spoke the Word in order to create the world. And if you think this idea is passe, guess where I learned this from? One of my Steubenville professors, Dr. Scott Hahn.Wade St. Ongehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10188238068927761034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-67448259249118331802011-12-18T23:42:00.267-08:002011-12-18T23:42:00.267-08:00"such texts will often be ignored by Protesta..."such texts will often be ignored by Protestants (to their eternal ruin)"<br /><br />Sorry, Father, but that's a bit strong.Wade St. Ongehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10188238068927761034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-63533701125183092062011-12-18T22:52:06.608-08:002011-12-18T22:52:06.608-08:00Father,
To support larryb's argument somewha...Father, <br /><br />To support larryb's argument somewhat, how about God's commandment to Noah after the flood? Genesis 9 starts with God blessing Noah and his sons and says "Be fruitful and increase in number." Do you/church fathers interpret that as a sort of special case? I've started interpreting it as a type of the command Jesus gave--go forth and make disciples of all the nations; that the Old Testament commission was to expand the nation of believers through procreation, whereas the new commission was to expand the church through conversion. (This ties in nicely with the change from birthright inheritance to inheritance via adoption, as in how Christians receive heavenly gifts and treasures through adoption by God rather than literally being His progeny.) In fact, though it's been a while since I've checked, I think that most every covenant formed had some variant of this command (especially if we view it as a type of the great commission). However, it doesn't seem that this command is meant by God to be a method to remedy sin; rather, it seems to be a request for them to engage in a positive task. Any thoughts?drizzlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12216174587054233403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30665014122392037422011-12-18T22:37:05.367-08:002011-12-18T22:37:05.367-08:00I am sorry to put you on the defense Father. (If ...I am sorry to put you on the defense Father. (If that's what I did.) A friend has been following your words and showed a group of us this artical. Some of the people started asking her some questions concerning the content, and she recomended to give those questions to you via this blogsite, if we wanted an answer. She is Catholic, where as many of us are not.<br /><br />Thankyou for being kind enough to reply back before. I am sorry to intrupt the flow of this blog, for someone who doen't understand many of the catholic teachings. Best wishes, and hope your ministery, and your thoughts lead many people to Jesus, and to further understand bible truths and spiritual truths.<br /><br />-Fellow BelieverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com