• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Catholics venerate the Virgin Mary and "saints" a lot.

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What does the Holy Bible (King James Version) say about saints and the "making of saints"?

What is the Protestant take on "sainthood"?

I know the Protestants don't say "Virgin Mary" nearly as much as they say "'God", "Jesus Christ" and "Holy Ghost". It seems as on Catholic radio, I hear MARY more than CHRIST.


Reminds me of this thing I once heared, don't remember where...

There was some study in Italy asking people to whom they pray mostly.

Jesus was only 7th on the list.
The first 6 were just saints, Mary being just one of them (and not even the top one if memory serves me right)

In practice, it seems not quite the monotheistic religion it is made out to be
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't know where the Hail Mary and Mother of God parts come in the Good Book though or of our asking her to pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen.
"Hail Mary" means "praise be to Mary". "Mother of God" is a reference to Mary being the mother of Jesus, who is believed to be of God in terms of his "essence". "Pray for us" is a reference to the belief that there is no complete separation between those that are alive and those that have passed away as believers, much like we can pray through Jesus to God the Father. This is found in the Apostle's Creed in the "communion of saints" reference in regards to the belief that we can pray for the deceased and the deceased can pray for us.

[I emphasized certain words with the hope that they may make things more clear]
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Still, churches are CHRISTIAN (following Christ) , not MARIAN (following Mary) and not TRIUNE (of a three-person godhead).
Most denominations do believe in the Trinitarian concept, and we really don't "follow Mary" as Catholics. During mass, for example, Mary is only mentioned maybe once or twice in our prayers and songs, whereas God and Jesus are mentioned over and over and over again.
 

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
It is more accurate to state a virginal conception but not a virginal birth as that would indicate the hymen remained in tact. Tertullian coined the phrase, 'Virgo quantum a virgo, non virgo fquantum a partu (virgin in terms of a husband, not virgin in terms of giving birth.'



Wouldn't that imply a 'physical' begetting?

When the bible says that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, John 3:16, I believe it is inferred that God was the actual biological father of Jesus. Jesus had to get his Y chromosome from somewhere, certainly not from his mother and not from an earthly man. It's how the birds and the bees works. I'm trying to put the coming about of Jesus Christ in a sex-ed mindset.

I don't think the bible says explicitly that God knew Mary like Adam knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived. The term BEGOTTEN Son has me believe so. Many Christians might be too modest, too piously old-lady-like prudish, to think of the conception of Christ as a mating in the flesh between Mary and God. But because a woman can only lose her virginity by mating with an earthly man, Mary's mating with God was still chaste. VIRGIN implies UNTOUCHED by MAN.

God can do nothing to a woman Himself to deflower her.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
What does the Holy Bible (King James Version) say about saints and the "making of saints"?

What is the Protestant take on "sainthood"?

I know the Protestants don't say "Virgin Mary" nearly as much as they say "'God", "Jesus Christ" and "Holy Ghost". It seems as on Catholic radio, I hear MARY more than CHRIST.

I sure get tired of anti catholic talk.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
It is more accurate to state a virginal conception but not a virginal birth as that would indicate the hymen remained in tact. Tertullian coined the phrase, 'Virgo quantum a virgo, non virgo fquantum a partu
I remember listening to a sermon online a few years ago, which if I recall correctly insisted that the Church tradition maintains that Mary retained her physical virginity even after the birth. Doing a little research this seems to be confirmed by Trent.
But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.

Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from everyday examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.

And

From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ, and through Him are regenerated children of grace. To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.


The Catechism of Trent 1030

 

pearl

Well-Known Member
When the bible says that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, John 3:16, I believe it is inferred that God was the actual biological father of Jesus.

In pagan texts the Godhead almost always appears as fertilizing, procreative power, under a more or less sexual aspect, in a physical sense as the 'father' of the savior-child. From the NT the conception of Jesus is new creation, not begetting by God. God does not become the biological father of Jesus, and neither the NT nor the theology of the Church has fundamentally ever seen in this narrative or in the event recounted in it the ground for the real divinity of Jesus, his "Divine Sonship". Jesus is not half God and half man. Jesus is completely God and completely man. The divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father, the doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage. Divine Sonship of faith is not a biological but an ontological fact, an event not in time but in God's eternity; God is always Father, Son, and Spirit. In Jesus human nature was assumed by him who from eternity belongs to the triune relationship of divine love. Unfortunately, conceptual language has been frozen in Hellenistic origin.
excerpts from 'Introduction to Christianity'.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I remember listening to a sermon online a few years ago, which if I recall correctly insisted that the Church tradition maintains that Mary retained her physical virginity even after the birth. Doing a little research this seems to be confirmed by Trent.

One of the purposes of Catholic theology is to explain the doctrines of the Church, it is never frozen in time. While it does not discard the past neither is it confined to the past. A doctrine is never understood as being wrong, but it represents a particular time and culture and is continually interpreted by the Church. 'That frequently doctrine has been phrased in 'the changeable conceptions of a given epoch...and that one must distinguish between the truth infallibly taught and the way that truth has been phrased.'
There is tradition and there is Tradition.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Luke 1[41] And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
[42] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!

Also in John, 'mother' behold your son' and to the disciple, 'here is your mother'. Mary is considered the mother of the Church. The 'Wedding at Cana' the guests turn to Mary when they run out of wine, who sends them to Jesus and tell the guests to do whatever he says'. She can do nothing of her own.
 

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
In pagan texts the Godhead almost always appears as fertilizing, procreative power, under a more or less sexual aspect, in a physical sense as the 'father' of the savior-child. From the NT the conception of Jesus is new creation, not begetting by God. God does not become the biological father of Jesus, and neither the NT nor the theology of the Church has fundamentally ever seen in this narrative or in the event recounted in it the ground for the real divinity of Jesus, his "Divine Sonship". Jesus is not half God and half man. Jesus is completely God and completely man. The divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father, the doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage. Divine Sonship of faith is not a biological but an ontological fact, an event not in time but in God's eternity; God is always Father, Son, and Spirit. In Jesus human nature was assumed by him who from eternity belongs to the triune relationship of divine love. Unfortunately, conceptual language has been frozen in Hellenistic origin.
excerpts from 'Introduction to Christianity'.

The true nature of Christ's conception in the womb and birth is rather a mystery then. The true nature of Christ's being also would seem a mystery. Who and what exactly is "Jesus Christ"?

Considering that God possibly fertilized the egg of Mary by his seed seems like the only natural way to explain the existence of Jesus as a living entity, a person at that.

That the bible says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is rationality for believing or assuming that God is the true Father of Christ in the natural sense. This would have me believe that God had intercourse with Mary. This, after all, is the very nature of God's creations. I would like to believe that Jesus came into this world in the usual way but having rather God as a natural Father (as opposed to an earthly natural human father) as the only special aspect of it.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
When we try and apply objective biology to subjective texts, we may be barking up the wrong tree.
 

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
When we try and apply objective biology to subjective texts, we may be barking up the wrong tree.

The fact is we don't know exactly how the baby Jesus was made in Mary's womb for a fact.

The bible's referral to God as "Father" implies "male parent".

BEGET implies the male part of nature, to make the female fertile, to cause to become a mother, or female parent.

But however Christ got into His own mother's womb, what is more important is His salvation.

Christianity is fraught with many mysteries known only to God.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The fact is we don't know exactly how the baby Jesus was made in Mary's womb for a fact.

The bible's referral to God as "Father" implies "male parent".

BEGET implies the male part of nature, to make the female parent fertile.
Yep, yep, and yep. However, that's taking the scriptures objectively, which may well be the wrong approach on this.
 

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
Yep, yep, and yep. However, that's taking the scriptures objectively, which may well be the wrong approach on this.

The trouble is too many people have their own interpretation of the Bible just like many different politicians interpret the Constitution their own way.

The Bible was written for HUMANS to read. I would think it was also written for HUMANS to understand. There is no reason for God Himself to read the Bible except maybe to proof-read it for accuracy. There is no need for man to teach God, the possessor of all knowledge, anything. The created does not teach the Creator. It's the other way around. The Bible is a learning tool solely for man about the ways of God. Period. Man doesn't need to know anything more about God than the pages of scripture.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
What does the Holy Bible (King James Version) say about saints and the "making of saints"?

What is the Protestant take on "sainthood"?

I know the Protestants don't say "Virgin Mary" nearly as much as they say "'God", "Jesus Christ" and "Holy Ghost". It seems as on Catholic radio, I hear MARY more than CHRIST.
Anglicans venerate the Saints and Mary, especially Anglo-Catholics. So do more traditional Lutherans and Methodists.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
The fact is we don't know exactly how the baby Jesus was made in Mary's womb for a fact.

The bible's referral to God as "Father" implies "male parent".

BEGET implies the male part of nature, to make the female fertile, to cause to become a mother, or female parent.

But however Christ got into His own mother's womb, what is more important is His salvation.

Christianity is fraught with many mysteries known only to God.
Males don't make females fertile. They either are or are not.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
The trouble is too many people have their own interpretation of the Bible just like many different politicians interpret the Constitution their own way.

The Bible was written for HUMANS to read. I would think it was also written for HUMANS to understand. There is no reason for God Himself to read the Bible except maybe to proof-read it for accuracy. There is no need for man to teach God, the possessor of all knowledge, anything. The created does not teach the Creator. It's the other way around. The Bible is a learning tool solely for man about the ways of God. Period. Man doesn't need to know anything more about God than the pages of scripture.

Humans need to know if it exists and if the ghastly things attributed to it are true?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think its fair to say that Luther, remember him, the founder of the Reformation, would not recognize today's Protestant churches.


Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation. (Sermon, March 11, 1523).Who possess a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Our prayer should include the Mother of God.. .What the Hail Mary says is that all glory should be given to God, using these words: "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Amen!" You see that these words are not concerned with prayer but purely with giving praise and honor.. .We can use the Hail Mary as a meditation in which we recite what grace God has given her. Second, we should add a wish that everyone may know and respect her...He who has no faith is advised to refrain from saying the Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).
That i think that points back to the original post.
 

Catholicus

Active Member
Luke 1[41] And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
[42] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!


A substitute for the word "blessed" is "special".

Specially Chosen by God - thus Blessed.
 
Top