And knowing where you want to go is a key part of trying to figure out how to get there. Up until fairly recently (historically speaking) the part about where we are going was largely agreed upon. The disagreements were largely based on the "how to get there." We've managed to confuse even the destination at this point.
Yeah, that perpetual virgin idea troubles me. Firstly, there's no biblical indication of it. Secondly, it would seem to force celibacy upon Joseph. (Maybe that's why the Catholic portrayal of Joseph is generally as an old guy) Finally, what is demeaning or unholy about Mary being intimate with her husband and becoming a mother to other children? And doesn't the Bible say that she knew not Joseph UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born? That would seem to indicate that she did, at that point, "know" him.
In Catholic thought, Mary's perpetual virginity has less to do with her and more what it says about Christ. It's the same thing with her immaculate conception (which is the doctrine she was conceived without original sin). These are singular honors bestowed upon her by God, with advanced graces won by Christ on the cross, applied to her because of her unique position in the history of salvation and relationship to the Incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity. She is also seen as the "Ark of the New Covenant." If God Himself saw fit to reside physically in this living temple of a woman, would it make sense for something else to be put into it? I mean, what else would you put in the original ark after it was filled with evidence God's faithfulness?
I'm not arguing here, just explaining the Catholic reasoning :) and I'm most likely deficient at it, so my apologies for that! But the bottom line is, any idea that Catholics have about Mary is literally only in relation to who Christ, and only magnifies who He is, namely God Incarnate.
Thanks for the explanation. I tend to give the Bible the ultimate place of authority rather than church tradition, so I feel like the Bible would have been explicit. Instead, it reads this way in Matthew 1: 24, 25 (from the New Catholic Bible)
"24 When Joseph rose from sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him. He took Mary into his home as his wife, 25 but he engaged in no marital relations[i] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus."
I would think if this were an important detail, it would have read that "he never engaged in marital relations with her, but she remained a virgin until her death."
In any case, I respect your beliefs. I certainly wouldn't break fellowship over this.
I definitely understand how one could come to that conclusion by reading those verses, and I wouldn't break fellowship over something like this either!
From a Catholic perspective, those verses wouldn't necessarily need clarification as it was understood from oral teachings and tradition what it meant.
(“To this he called you through our Gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:14–15).)
When I read that I see it as an emphasis on the virgin birth which would be a call back to OT scripture prophesies of Christ for the Jewish audience Matthew was writing for. Also, since we are all reading translations, some things might not come across exactly how they were originally written. For instance, we read the word "until" and think, "well, only up to that point and then something happened after that." But the original intent and understanding might have been only to emphasize the lead up to the scripturally prophesized virgin birth and not saying anything more beyond.
Anyway, that's just how we come to our understanding of things in cases like these :)
I so admire your talent for tying deep ideas to concrete images. For anyone who wants to know more about the unseen spirit world, the book Heaven and Hell is a powerful, deeply insightful read.
“I have often argued the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity.” REALLY
I struggle to see why there’s so much doubt about the “emasculate conception “
When in this day & age it’s considered hate speech to say trans men can’t menstruate and have babies . I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure being in possession of a womb & a uterus shortens the odds on the chance of truth with Mary than the guy filmed bouncing around on the White House lawn with his chemically enhanced hooters out .
PS. If the lord is listening, I apologise for the agricultural tone of phrase but what we are told is true today seems way beyond far fetched than the bible at it most allegorical.
Indeed. My sister was born with Down Syndrome and had a different comprehension and love of God than I do. She expressed it in a simpler vocabulary than mine but I suspect with deeper understanding and faith. Multiply such variations by billions and the near infinite spectrum somehow must to resolve to a single question or state.
From the Catholic view, the reason to care about the "catechism final exam" is much less about the actual contents and more about the proper obedience and humility to assent to the teachings of God through the Church He founded, even when there may be difficulties. It is that act of submission of the intellect that does the soul-shaping part.
And knowing where you want to go is a key part of trying to figure out how to get there. Up until fairly recently (historically speaking) the part about where we are going was largely agreed upon. The disagreements were largely based on the "how to get there." We've managed to confuse even the destination at this point.
I want to know the truth about the unseen spirit world for the same reason I want to know the truth about unseen forces like gravity and heat.
Me Too!
For a while there, I was wondering if you were going to talk about a gathering of bohemians in the desert, or possibly an Edward Woodward movie 😂
Yeah, that perpetual virgin idea troubles me. Firstly, there's no biblical indication of it. Secondly, it would seem to force celibacy upon Joseph. (Maybe that's why the Catholic portrayal of Joseph is generally as an old guy) Finally, what is demeaning or unholy about Mary being intimate with her husband and becoming a mother to other children? And doesn't the Bible say that she knew not Joseph UNTIL AFTER Jesus was born? That would seem to indicate that she did, at that point, "know" him.
In Catholic thought, Mary's perpetual virginity has less to do with her and more what it says about Christ. It's the same thing with her immaculate conception (which is the doctrine she was conceived without original sin). These are singular honors bestowed upon her by God, with advanced graces won by Christ on the cross, applied to her because of her unique position in the history of salvation and relationship to the Incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity. She is also seen as the "Ark of the New Covenant." If God Himself saw fit to reside physically in this living temple of a woman, would it make sense for something else to be put into it? I mean, what else would you put in the original ark after it was filled with evidence God's faithfulness?
I'm not arguing here, just explaining the Catholic reasoning :) and I'm most likely deficient at it, so my apologies for that! But the bottom line is, any idea that Catholics have about Mary is literally only in relation to who Christ, and only magnifies who He is, namely God Incarnate.
Thanks for the explanation. I tend to give the Bible the ultimate place of authority rather than church tradition, so I feel like the Bible would have been explicit. Instead, it reads this way in Matthew 1: 24, 25 (from the New Catholic Bible)
"24 When Joseph rose from sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him. He took Mary into his home as his wife, 25 but he engaged in no marital relations[i] with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus."
I would think if this were an important detail, it would have read that "he never engaged in marital relations with her, but she remained a virgin until her death."
In any case, I respect your beliefs. I certainly wouldn't break fellowship over this.
I definitely understand how one could come to that conclusion by reading those verses, and I wouldn't break fellowship over something like this either!
From a Catholic perspective, those verses wouldn't necessarily need clarification as it was understood from oral teachings and tradition what it meant.
(“To this he called you through our Gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:14–15).)
When I read that I see it as an emphasis on the virgin birth which would be a call back to OT scripture prophesies of Christ for the Jewish audience Matthew was writing for. Also, since we are all reading translations, some things might not come across exactly how they were originally written. For instance, we read the word "until" and think, "well, only up to that point and then something happened after that." But the original intent and understanding might have been only to emphasize the lead up to the scripturally prophesized virgin birth and not saying anything more beyond.
Anyway, that's just how we come to our understanding of things in cases like these :)
I so admire your talent for tying deep ideas to concrete images. For anyone who wants to know more about the unseen spirit world, the book Heaven and Hell is a powerful, deeply insightful read.
https://a.co/d/akzxy98
The question “how do I live?” is really interesting.
It assumes that one should live in the first place and also that living good is preferable to living bad.
What 's happened to you, Aaron? Culture of death gettin to ya?
Lol nah (maybe a little). Just interesting how atheists ask “What is true?” and Christians ask “How do I live?”
“I have often argued the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity.” REALLY
I struggle to see why there’s so much doubt about the “emasculate conception “
When in this day & age it’s considered hate speech to say trans men can’t menstruate and have babies . I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure being in possession of a womb & a uterus shortens the odds on the chance of truth with Mary than the guy filmed bouncing around on the White House lawn with his chemically enhanced hooters out .
PS. If the lord is listening, I apologise for the agricultural tone of phrase but what we are told is true today seems way beyond far fetched than the bible at it most allegorical.
Indeed. My sister was born with Down Syndrome and had a different comprehension and love of God than I do. She expressed it in a simpler vocabulary than mine but I suspect with deeper understanding and faith. Multiply such variations by billions and the near infinite spectrum somehow must to resolve to a single question or state.
The fire will be in your bones but it will not consume you. It will be your next baptism. Burn, baby, burn.
From the Catholic view, the reason to care about the "catechism final exam" is much less about the actual contents and more about the proper obedience and humility to assent to the teachings of God through the Church He founded, even when there may be difficulties. It is that act of submission of the intellect that does the soul-shaping part.
Covenant overcomes time and gravity because sacrifice helps us develop eternal traits.You have taught this so well.