Catholic Q&A

goldenchild · 05-08-2006, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Christ declared John to be her "son" , I don't see why you say that means He caused her birth children to have any issues with Jewish law. They didn't neglect her care, Jesus just entrusted it to an "adopted" son.

But she went and lived with John. One cannot take on more responsibility of a person than to bring them to live in their own house and have them as one of their own. This is the responsibility of one's family in Scripture(and I would say even for us). If John took Mary to live in his own house and cared for her in this way, then what might there be left for her "children" to do??? They have no responsibility left to do. John took care of her, Jesus did not let her 'children' do what they were commanded to do. That is all there is to it. If her 'children' did indeed care for her in the way they were commanded(and in the way you claim) then where does it indicate this in Scripture. If Scripture has all the information in it, and if it is true, then Scripture would say. And even extend it further, where in any early Church testimony does it indicate ANY of this. Even in the heretic who did believe Mary to have children never even approached this subject. There is no reason to accept it except if you wish to impose something that isn't there.

The fact is, Jesus entrusted her to John. John took her to live with him in his home, and thus no reason to expect that anyone else provided for her needs. If "they" did, then something from somewhere would have even the smallest hint. But there is nothing. Even in Acts we see that Mary still continues to stay with John, even in the presence of her 'children'.

KFBobInsanesMom · 05-11-2006, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenchild

But she went and lived with John. One cannot take on more responsibility of a person than to bring them to live in their own house and have them as one of their own. This is the responsibility of one's family in Scripture(and I would say even for us). If John took Mary to live in his own house and cared for her in this way, then what might there be left for her "children" to do??? They have no responsibility left to do. John took care of her, Jesus did not let her 'children' do what they were commanded to do. That is all there is to it. If her 'children' did indeed care for her in the way they were commanded(and in the way you claim) then where does it indicate this in Scripture. If Scripture has all the information in it, and if it is true, then Scripture would say. And even extend it further, where in any early Church testimony does it indicate ANY of this. Even in the heretic who did believe Mary to have children never even approached this subject. There is no reason to accept it except if you wish to impose something that isn't there.

The fact is, Jesus entrusted her to John. John took her to live with him in his home, and thus no reason to expect that anyone else provided for her needs. If "they" did, then something from somewhere would have even the smallest hint. But there is nothing. Even in Acts we see that Mary still continues to stay with John, even in the presence of her 'children'.

The command though was to not neglect the care of the widow. If she is being cared for there is no neglect. Can you give me the verses you are referring to that command the children to take sole care of the widowed parent? I think what scripture was teaching was that they should not be neglected if they need cared for. I don't see any neglect having taken place in respect to Mary.

goldenchild · 05-13-2006, 02:38 AM

It's the principle of the thing. Not to mention how much disrespect Jesus shows his "siblings" by not allowing them to care for their own mother.

KFBobInsanesMom · 05-13-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenchild

It's the principle of the thing. Not to mention how much disrespect Jesus shows his "siblings" by not allowing them to care for their own mother.

I know I'm not a Jew, but I always considered it a kindness when someone did things for my mom or dad. Perhaps it is because Jesus knew that John would not suffer the fate of the others that He placed Mary in his care. Who knows. I just don't see it as being disrespectful to His siblings that He cared enough about His mother to give her another "son" to love since He was being taken from her.

goldenchild · 05-17-2006, 01:11 AM

I can't imagine any "child" that would not feel disrespect if their "brother" did not feel them adaquate for taking care of their mother. If Jesus believed His siblings could do the job well there is no reason not to allow them this privilege.

KFBobInsanesMom · 05-17-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenchild

I can't imagine any "child" that would not feel disrespect if their "brother" did not feel them adaquate for taking care of their mother. If Jesus believed His siblings could do the job well there is no reason not to allow them this privilege.

My dad chose my youngest brother to have power of attorney when he was in the hospital (life and death decisions were made) and to be executor of his estate when he died. I have no disrespect for my brother that he was more "adequate" to care for my dad in this regard than I was.

Who said Christ believed His siblings wouldn't take care of Mary? It doesn't say that Christ ordered Mary to go live with John or for John to take on the responsiblity of caring for Mary in her "old age", all He did was say "woman behold your son, behold your mother". It was apparently Mary and John who made the decision she would live with him. Jesus in no way stopped His siblings from caring for their mother, all He did was give to Mary another son to fill the void when He was gone. You draw a lot of conclusions from a simple statement. All Jesus did was call one mother and one son, nothing more.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!"

For all we know Jesus may have done this for John's sake, His beloved disciple. Maybe John's mother was dead and Jesus was not only filling a void in Mary by granting her another son, but also filling a void in His beloved disciple. I could draw a ton of conclusions from this simple statement that would have no more support for them than the ones you draw do. The fact is that all Jesus said was "behold your son, behold your mother".