Book about Mary

[Anonymous No.19073186]

When did the Blessed Virgin Mary know that the fruit of her womb was the Logos Himself?
I also hear some people talk about her doubting at the cross.
Any books talking about this?

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY3cHnRY No.19073203]

>>19073186
>When did the Blessed Virgin Mary know that the fruit of her womb was the Logos Himself?

WHEN THE ARCHANGEL GABRIEL VISITED HER, AND TOLD HER SO.

YOU HAVE NOT READ EVEN THE CANONICAL GOSPELS; STOP MAKING THIS THREAD, AND READ THE HOLY BIBLE.


>I also hear some people talk about her doubting at the cross.

STUPID & IGNORANT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT TALK.

[Anonymous No.19073699]

>>19073186
Here are some books to check out
>The World's First Love - Fulton Sheen
>Mary Through the Centuries - Jaroslav Pelikan
>Hail, Holy Queen - Scott Hahn

[Anonymous No.19073717]

>>19073186

[Anonymous No.19073721]

She knew when she had to give Joseph an excuse for having cucked him so he wouldnt stone her to death.

[Anonymous No.19073730]

>>19073717
Mary has nothing to do with mundane fertility cults. The distinction is one of excess vs continence, soul vs spirit.

[Anonymous No.19073738]

>>19073203
Do you believe Mary became immaculate at the Annunciation/Christ within her or when she was born?

[Anonymous No.19073753]

>>19073730
>soul vs spirit
Soul is ideally part of your spirit.

[Anonymous No.19073761]

Ummmmm Marybros..
>>>/his/11951209

[Anonymous No.19073764]

>>19073186
Anon, why do you post the same exact thread countless times? /lit/ is too full of pagans and the like to charitably discuss such a topic. Have you tried asking this question in intellectually inclined Catholic online communities?

[Anonymous No.19073770]

>>19073764

[Anonymous No.19073807]

>>19073770
I'm not Catholic, doofus.

[Anonymous No.19073816]

>>19073807

[Anonymous No.19073830]

>>19073753
I’m not positing a separation but a distinction.

[Anonymous No.19073835]

>>19073186
A fine, concise introduction to the scriptural and historical bases for the Catholic Marian doctrines is: Hugo Rahner, Our Lady and the Church.

Also:
1. John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater (Mother of the Church), available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html

2. The above text is also published in book form with a very substantial introduction by then-Cardinal Ratzinger:
Mary, God's Yes to Man

3. John Paul II, The Rosary of the Virgin Mary, is profoundly insightful work, obviously the product of a mind that has spent many years contemplating the mysteries of Mary. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html

4. John Saward, Cradle of Redeeming Love: The Theology of the Christmas Mystery

5. Marie-Dominique Philippe, The Mysteries of Mary: Growing in Faith, Hope, and Love with Mary

6. Another good book that is indirectly illuminating is:
Marie-Dominique Philippe, The Mystery of Joseph

[Anonymous No.19073862]

>>19073186
The Holy Bible is the only legitimate source of information on Mary. The Catholic and Orthodox fictions originated with the late 2nd century fan fictional Gospel of James.

[Anonymous No.19073923]

>>19073203
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.19073936]

>>19073862
The oldest copy of every single ancient text we have is centuries older than it's original.

[Anonymous No.19073993]

>>19073764
>intellectually inclined Catholic online communities
Such as

[Anonymous No.19073998]

>>19073862
>The Holy Bible is the only legitimate source of information on Mary.
>only legitimate source
Chapter and verse?

[Anonymous No.19074002]

>>19073936
Centuries younger darling

[Anonymous No.19074048]

>>19074002
thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.19074082]

>>19073717
god, i wanna fuck her so bad bros

[Anonymous No.19074350]

>>19073993
I don't know, because I don't participate in them. You can probably find those on any of the big platforms - facebook groups, discord servers, even small subreddits (don't fret, some like r/CatholicPhilosophy can actually be quite good)

[Anonymous No.19074428]

>>19073186
>When did the Blessed Virgin Mary know that the fruit of her womb was the Logos Himself?
Read like the first two chapters of Luke

[Anonymous No.19074447]

>>19073203
actual good post

[Anonymous No.19074453]

Am I going nuts guys. Does anyone else think this looks like what I think it looks like?

[Anonymous No.19074497]

>>19074453
One of those little statues for reference too

[Anonymous No.19074526]

>>19073186
>When did the Blessed Virgin Mary know that the fruit of her womb was the Logos Himself?
St. Gabriel appearance
>I also hear some people talk about her doubting at the cross.
I don't know about this but since the birth of Jesus she knew her son would die to save the world. Simon said he would not die until he see The Messiah in the world, and he did after he saw Saint Mary and the young Jesus with her, he also mentioned a sword would go through her heart and she would had to endure the ultimate suffering for a mother.

[Anonymous No.19074532]

>>19073761
>/his/
No

[Anonymous No.19074541]

>>19073998
Not that guy but Luke has a lot about Saint Mary

[Anonymous No.19074581]

>>19073936
Amazingly, even here in modern times we can find evidence of when a book was published purely through reviews and mentions of, and influential shifts from it outside of itself.

Incidentally, in this manner we also know that the Catholics didn't take on the perpetual virginity narrative until Jerome lobbied for it in the 4th century when he realized that other women would be higher than Mary in Heaven according to the hierarchy schemes they were working out for themselves. None of it came from Apostolic teachings.

[Anonymous No.19074788]

>>19074541
Where did St. Luke say that the Holy Bible was the only source of legitimate information about the Blessed Virgin Mary?

[Anonymous No.19074822]

>>19074788
No you are confused. I was trying to say Luke is a good source of information about the life of St. Mary.

[Anonymous No.19074833]

You Catholics and Orthodox are just as bad as Muslims. Read "Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary" by Jerome for yourselves. Notice that his argument absolute proves that it had not been the belief in the church up to that point, that it had not been what they were given by the Apostles.

[Anonymous No.19074839]

>>19073770
braised

[Anonymous No.19074868]

>>19074581
>None of it came from Apostolic teachings.
The bible itself calls Mary a virgin. What tree are you barking up? The only debate is whether virgin was a euphemism for any young woman, or a virgin specifically.

[Anonymous No.19074935]

>>19073203
Sabes como se llama el hijo por "Partenogénesis", de una judía que tan solo buscaba evitar ser apedreada, y se invento que fue fecundada por su lujurioso Dios hace 2 mil años?.

[Anonymous No.19074945]

>>19074868
>The bible itself calls Mary a virgin
Up until Jesus was born, *not* perpetually.

[Anonymous No.19074958]

>>19074935
You speak infamy by denying the miracle while also claiming God All-Mighty has something like lust.
Shame on you.

[Anonymous No.19074973]

>>19074945
It doesn't say either way. It said Jesus was born and Mary remained a virgin, that was the last word on it.

[Anonymous No.19075080]

@19074945
>birthing the Logos puts you into a lesser state than you were before
Epic. Virginity is superior to non-virginity. The Theotokos would not become lesser by partaking in such grace as honor of being able to birth the Logos. Loving contact with Christ only deifies and raises, not lowers us.

[Anonymous No.19075089]

>>19074973
>misquoting Scripture

[Anonymous No.19075990]

Are we being raised by discord Christians?

[Anonymous No.19076022]

>>19075089
what did I misquote?

[Anonymous No.19076041]

>>19076022
https://biblehub.com/matthew/1-25.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4637.htm

[Anonymous No.19076103]

>>19076041
I'm quoting Luke not Mathew.

[Anonymous No.19076132]

>>19076103
You said "the bible", then you said that "it", the Holy Bible, says that Mary *remained* a virgin and that that was the last word on it. I've just showed you straightly and clearly where that is not the case, that that is not what "the bible" says/does.

[Anonymous No.19076142]

>>19076132
Luke says she remained a virgin.

[Anonymous No.19076180]

>>19076142
No it doesn't, it simply says that she would be a virgin when Jesus was conceived and nothing further on the matter. Thankfully there are 4 gospels, each with details missing from the others, so we can know "little" things like the fact that Mary was only a virgin until Jesus was born.

[Anonymous No.19076245]

>>19076142
Jesus literally had a siblings and one of them was a main founding figure of the church

[Anonymous No.19076673]

>>19076180
>>19076245
Read
https://catholicstraightanswers.com/did-jesus-have-blood-brothers-and-sisters/

[Anonymous No.19076746]

>>19076673
The only reason to assume the word means cousin or something and not the normal usage of brother is if you already believe that mary remained a virgin forever. You are just grasping at straws to get it to support the conclusion you have already preconceived, a conclusion not based on any evidence but on your idolization of mary.

[Anonymous No.19076759]

>>19076673
>we haven't already seen this propaganda page 1000 times before
We have pages too:
"Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?"
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html

[Anonymous No.19076770]

>>19076746
Your speculation is still nothing else than speculation based on Luke needing to mention again Virgin was still a virgin, which she was.
This is no different than assume forbidden practices were allowed because Jesus ever directly spoke against them.
>>19076759
>Inmediately call it propaganda
You are biased, don't pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19076781]

>>19076770
*never

[Anonymous No.19076787]

>>19076770
Yes, biased against obvious hard stretching and twisting of Scripture in the attempt to support Satanic paganism, you bet I am.

[Anonymous No.19076797]

>>19076787
And you are no different from a pharisee that considers the work of the Lord the work of the devil.

[Anonymous No.19076875]

>>19076797
You love god, you do not love truth.

[Anonymous No.19076876]

François Chenique - Le culte de la Vierge ou La métaphysique au féminin

[Anonymous No.19076879]

>>19076797
Actually, I'm not the one who supports gatekeeping the Eucharist, making it 2 years on average before someone can participate. Nor the notion that *my* church's "priests" have control over the adjudication of sins. So yes, I am quite different from the Pharisees.

[Anonymous No.19076950]

Stupid Mary Worshippers, you are not Christian. Repent or suffer forever in hell.