Mary's Virginity And Sinlessness

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 11 2004, 03:54 PM'] Yes, I think we both see the problem. But my main concern at the moment is that large elements of the Church herself seem to be adrift, and unsure of what the answer to this problem is, when the answer is Christ, the Church's own mystical Head. I know the Pope sees this clearly, and you can tell that by his encyclicals, but many others in the Church don't appear to understand the present situation at all.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Yes, this precise point has been a cause of distress to me for several years. *sigh*
Through Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, true peace is possible, despite everything that is passing. And I believe being a "man of peace" (like Irenaeus , is the best thing a person can do on the individual level to help the Church. "Be not afraid", as our beloved Pope says. (I feel like I'm preaching to myself)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 02:16 PM'] Yes, this precise point has been a cause of distress to me for several years. *sigh*
Through Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, true peace is possible, despite everything that is passing. And I believe being a "man of peace" (like Irenaeus , is the best thing a person can do on the individual level to help the Church. "Be not afraid", as our beloved Pope says. (I feel like I'm preaching to myself) [/quote]
I agree, we all must trust in divine providence.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 03:47 PM'] Yes, that is precisely the point. As I said before, it is an interpretation of the development and structure of human strivings as they proceed without reference to God. This is the essential factor which gives these dynamisms a shape which forms a kind of antithesis to the Christian world-view and a particular symbolism which mocks salvation history.

In the context in which these things have emerged they take on a symbolic content which manipulates the inner texture of society/culture. Thus things like the perception of masculinity and femininity, work, man's relation to himself and the outside world (even on a cosmic level), etc. are distorted in accordance with what I call simply, "anti-Christ". I perceive the dawning of the "anti-incarnation", and various subtle preparations for this symbolic event, such as the subversive post-industrial ethos as stimulated various dehumanizing forces (eg. the complete objectification of the human person, pop-culture as sublimated techno-eroticism, a hostility toward a Logos-centric cosmos- deconstruction, post-structuralism, etc.). It can be discerned in art, literature, music, architecture, to some extent politics and law, and of course contemporary applications of technology. The appropriation of man's spiritual and nuptial dimensions into a vacuum of pseudo-transcendence, and all of this as an expression of the state of fallen man's alienated and deprived soul.

Perhaps I'm loosing it... If I'm not loosing it, I fear it may become quite a struggle for people to believe in love and goodness in the midst of a vast, seemingly invincible onslaught of evil. The world is treacherous and winding. It is a twisted and violent place filled with darkness and snares. Perhaps I am merely projecting, and these theories are more an expression of my tortured soul than they are insight into reality.

Thanks you for your very balanced thoughts. Muy bien!

[/quote]
Wow, that was morbid.. I'm Irish, I'm allowed.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 01:47 PM'] Yes, that is precisely the point. As I said before, it is an interpretation of the development and structure of human strivings as they proceed without reference to God. This is the essential factor which gives these dynamisms a shape which forms a kind of antithesis to the Christian world-view and a particular symbolism which mocks salvation history.

In the context in which these things have emerged they take on a symbolic content which manipulates the inner texture of society/culture. Thus things like the perception of masculinity and femininity, work, man's relation to himself and the outside world (even on a cosmic level), etc. are distorted in accordance with what I call simply, "anti-Christ". I perceive the dawning of the "anti-incarnation", and various subtle preparations for this symbolic event, such as the subversive post-industrial ethos as stimulated various dehumanizing forces (eg. the complete objectification of the human person, pop-culture as sublimated techno-eroticism, a hostility toward a Logos-centric cosmos- deconstruction, post-structuralism, etc.). It can be discerned in art, literature, music, architecture, to some extent politics and law, and of course contemporary applications of technology. The appropriation of man's spiritual and nuptial dimensions into a vacuum of pseudo-transcendence, and all of this as an expression of the state of fallen man's alienated and deprived soul.

Perhaps I'm loosing it...  If I'm not loosing it, I fear it may become quite a struggle for people to believe in love and goodness in the midst of a vast, seemingly invincible onslaught of evil. The world is treacherous and winding. It is a twisted and violent place filled with darkness and snares. Perhaps I am merely projecting, and these theories are more an expression of my tortured soul than they are insight into reality.

Thanks you for your very balanced thoughts. Muy bien!

[/quote]
I agree there is an anti-incarnational and a neo-gnostic attitude developing today, or rather, fully developed at the present time. The neo-gnostic viewpoint objectifies human nature and the body in particular, seeking to be freed from bodily restrictions and existence. It promotes an anarchical conception of freedom that is ultimately destructive of right reason, and the moral order. This is completely foreign to the Catholic view of man. The Catholic response must be a full and unequivocal assertion of the natural goodness of the material world, and in opposition to the false spiritualizing tendencies popular today, the Church must promote true human values, which are founded upon creation and the incarnation of the Word, because only that approach can give an adequate corrective to the errors of our time.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 11, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 11 2004, 06:35 PM'] I agree there is an anti-incarnational and a neo-gnostic attitude developing today, or rather, fully developed at the present time. The neo-gnostic viewpoint objectifies human nature and the body in particular, seeking to be freed from bodily restrictions and existence. It promotes an anarchical conception of freedom that is ultimately destructive of right reason, and the moral order. This is completely foreign to the Catholic view of man. The Catholic response must be a full and unequivocal assertion of the natural goodness of the material world, and in opposition to the false spiritualizing tendencies popular today, the Church must promote true human values, which are founded upon creation and the incarnation of the Word, because only that approach can give an adequate corrective to the errors of our time.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Thank you Apotheoun. That is basically what seems true to me as well.

God bless you.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 01:47 PM'] Perhaps I'm loosing it... If I'm not loosing it, I fear it may become quite a struggle for people to believe in love and goodness in the midst of a vast, seemingly invincible onslaught of evil. The world is treacherous and winding. It is a twisted and violent place filled with darkness and snares. Perhaps I am merely projecting, and these theories are more an expression of my tortured soul than they are insight into reality.
[/quote]
In one sense it has always been a struggle for men to have faith, and to trust in the love and goodness of God, in the midst of the evil that is all around them; but I agree that the modern world has made it even more difficult for men to see the goodness of God in creation, because with the advance of technology has come the ability to magnify evil actions on a scale unimagined in past centuries. In spite of this, God, the giver of life, continues to pour out His blessings upon mankind, and that is why I remain optimistic about the future, because God's grace exceeds anything that men can ever do or imagine. Divine providence is at work in all that happens, and so men of faith must never lose hope, but must always turn to God, who is Love itself and the source of all that is truly good, and trust that His plan of redemption cannot be frustrated.

God bless,
Todd

[Guest nave]

In the book of Ecclesiastes in ch. 9 vs. 5-6 it tells us that the dead no longer have anything to do with anything done under the sun. Any ways Jesus told us to ask the Father what we will in His name and it shall be given. A women in the gospels came to Jesus praising Mary saying blessed is she whos breast nursed you, and how did Jesus respond? He said more blessed are those who hear the word of God and do it.

[Era Might]

Yes, and he says that deliberately. It was not merely natural motherhood which made her so special, but that she heard the word of God and obeyed it. She said yes to God, after Eve said no, and after Zechariah doubted the word of the Angel, and was silenced (Luke 1:20). The children of the woman in Revelation 12:17 are "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus." We are the children of this woman. We have been made sons of the Father with Christ, but also he has given us his blessed mother to take as our own (John 19:27).

As for the dead, we read in Revelation 8:4 that "the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God." The Saints pray for us before the Most Holy Trinity.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='Dave' post='134815' date='Mar 8 2004, 04:38 PM']The Bible says no such thing. It refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters, but in that language, there was no separate word for cousin, and so the word for brother often meant cousin.

Wrong -

Mary and Joseph indeed had children. They were the Lord's half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.

Matthew
13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark
6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

That still doesn't say that Mary wasn't sinless.


Are you saying Mary just gave birth to Christ's human nature? No. Mothers don't give birth to human natures. They give birth to [b]persons[/b]. Jesus is God -- the 2nd person of the Trinity. And Mary gave birth to Him; therefore, she's the Mother of God.

Now give me some scriptures that you think prove your point regarding the things I've brought up.[/quote]

[Ragamuffin]

I'm not totally on board with Mary's sinlessness or perpetual virginity, but I see no reason to reject calling her the "Mother of God." And in fact, I find good reason to stick with that designation even if it might initally cause some confusion for the theological neophyte. Mark Shea gives a good explanation of this and why it's important:

[quote]That was the revolutionary thought that made it possible for me to press on, as a new Catholic, to find out what the Church was trying to get at with her Marian teaching. In coming to understand this, it seemed to me, I'd come a long way toward understanding why Mary figures so prominently, not merely in the heads, but in the hearts of Catholics.

The first question that arises, of course, is, "Why Marian dogma at all?" Why not just dogmas about Christ and let Catholics think what they like about Mary? Why bind consciences here?

[b]The answer is that Catholics do think what they like-not only about Mary, but about lots of things. And sometimes they think deeply erroneous things. When they do, and that thought imperils some revealed truth to the point it threatens the integrity of the Church's witness, the Church will, from time to time, define its doctrine more precisely.[/b] This is a process that's already at work in the New Testament (cf. Acts 15), and it continues until the return of Christ.

So, for instance, in the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. [b]They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as [i]Theotokos[/i], or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called [i]Christotokos[/i], or Christ bearer. [/b]She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.

[b]The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins.[/b]

So the Church formulated its response. [b]First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she's the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn't introduce Mary saying, "This is the mother of my human nature." He said, "This is my mother."[/b]

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. [b]The dogma of the [i]Theotokos [/i]is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of "hedge" around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. That is a vital key to understanding Marian dogmas: They're always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person.[/b][/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1290317' date='Jun 7 2007, 02:31 PM']I'm not totally on board with Mary's sinlessness or perpetual virginity, but I see no reason to reject calling her the "Mother of God."[/quote]
Are you Catholic? I ask to point out that these are not optional for belief by Catholics, these are dogmas of the faith (the sinlessness of Our Lady and her perpetual virginity).

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1290318' date='Jun 7 2007, 01:34 PM']Are you Catholic? I ask to point out that these are not optional for belief by Catholics, these are dogmas of the faith (the sinlessness of Our Lady and her perpetual virginity).[/quote]
No I'm not. I should have said that. I made the mistake of assuming everyone here has read my posts.

I'm a Protestant, but I posted this to show that one doesn't have to be Catholic to recognize good theology and sound reason. I think too often Protestants have a knee-jerk reaction to things simply because they are viewed as "Catholic doctrines" when in reality, if you research them enough, they are just "Christian doctrines."

Edited June 7, 2007 by Ragamuffin

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='nave' post='1290289' date='Jun 7 2007, 02:01 PM']In the book of Ecclesiastes in ch. 9 vs. 5-6 it tells us that the dead no longer have anything to do with anything done under the sun. Any ways Jesus told us to ask the Father what we will in His name and it shall be given. A women in the gospels came to Jesus praising Mary saying blessed is she whos breast nursed you, and how did Jesus respond? He said more blessed are those who hear the word of God and do it.[/quote]

This is something my protestant friend tried to tell me... I'm going to ask if he believes in the Communion of Saints. If not, then I guess I'll be asking "then are we not alive in Christ?"