 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mary, woman, the physical and sex.
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?
I think that this line of reasoning is meant to lead you to the parallel question: Why would it be necessary for Mary to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Jesus from it?
Yes, perhaps. And of course my answer would be the same: it wasn't. That's not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is about either: instead, it's about interpreting "full of grace".
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I asked 'so what' about the suggestion Mary was perpetually a virgin.
I think that there should usually be a reason which leads doctrine to be defined. Didn't Newman say this in relation to the Immaculate Conception. He was hesitant about it being defined, although allowed it may be so.
And yes if I like the terms to described the Mother of God incarnate then I will use them. However, the point I am trying to make in the opening post is tht the church is in danger of focussing too much on arcane terms to describe Mary, I feel, and that isn't helping feed spiritually the current generation.
I repeat I am not speaking strongly against old descriptors, but rather asking that more new interpretations be introduced into litanies, liturgy etc.
Mother,of our liberation
Mary, model,of courage... Pray for us
'....may we, in the company of The blessed Virgin Mary, Model of perseverance....'
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I asked 'so what' about the suggestion Mary was perpetually a virgin.
I think that there should usually be a reason which leads doctrine to be defined. Didn't Newman say this in relation to the Immaculate Conception. He was hesitant about it being defined, although allowed it may be so.
And yes if I like the terms to described the Mother of God incarnate then I will use them. However, the point I am trying to make in the opening post is tht the church is in danger of focussing too much on arcane terms to describe Mary, I feel, and that isn't helping feed spiritually the current generation.
I repeat I am not speaking strongly against old descriptors, but rather asking that more new interpretations be introduced into litanies, liturgy etc.
Mother,of our liberation
Mary, model,of courage... Pray for us
'....may we, in the company of The blessed Virgin Mary, Model of perseverance....'
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I think that there should usually be a reason which leads doctrine to be defined.
Historically, it has usually been the denial of elements of Christian doctrine by certain factions that has led to them being codified. Prior to that, they were so commonly accepted that it simply wouldn't have occurred to anybody that they might need to be explicitly defined.
Most, if not all, of the conciliar definitions of doctrine arose as a result of this - almost every line of the Creed is a result of this - and I think that, in a sense, we are seeing something of that here in this thread. It is not that the adherents to the Perpetual Virginity are making a big deal of it, but that we are stating and explaining what we believe in the face of denial or outright opposition to it - something that we otherwise wouldn't usually do, instead just simply getting with the business of our lives of faith - and the result is that some people, observing this, have rightly asked, 'Why is this such a big issue?' It is only being made so by its opponents.
quote:
And yes if I like the terms to described the Mother of God incarnate then I will use them. However, the point I am trying to make in the opening post is tht the church is in danger of focussing too much on arcane terms to describe Mary, I feel, and that isn't helping feed spiritually the current generation.
I think that this raises a question of its own that might form the basis of a Purgatory/Ecclesiantics thread, and it is the relationship between the dutiful worship of God offered by the Church and the evangelical mission of the Church, and whether the one should be viewed as a tool for the other. As an "insider" of this generation and participant in the mystical life in Christ, I find that I am very well nourished and fed by the Church's liturgy. of the concern is outreach to "outsiders", then the above question needs to be raised, and I have quite firmly-held views on this point with some basis in experience.
[ 16. August 2012, 22:39: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...
One can see why the traditions evolved of the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity....but I think enshrining them in doctrine, making a whole detailed doctrinal argument about the freedom from original sin and the perpetual virginity, and exactly how they happened, and over-defining this and that, is going into a whole lot of unnecessary detail, going too far. But I suppose that is the heritage of a certain type of theology in the past--what's known as Scholasticism? (Showing my ignorance.)
And I think that the very detailed theology does lead to this prurient Sun-newspaper-type dwelling on her physical condition.
I can also sympathise with those who say her "yes" would be even more wonderful if she were a normal, non-immaculate woman....I know the immaculate conception doesn't mean that she was sinless, just that she didn't have "the stain of original sin" from the start, but still. Makes her seem so "special" that her incredible history-shattering "yes" was easier for her than it would be for anyone else...
I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.
The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.
My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.
To me the biblical story of the Annunciation is enough and encapsulates everything necessary for belief. I find it quite interesting that the Quran supports the traditional Christian belief on the Virgin Birth. Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.
There is a big gulf in the West among Christians on this matter. I think it comes to a stage where you agree that others have different beliefs to you and bless them on their way.
One thing which should be remembered about Mary: she would have been extremely young at the time of the Annunciation: a teenager and one far, far more innocent than her peers today who are exposed to all sorts of pornography. So to wish to talk of Mary's possible "sexual desire" really tells me more about the people who write about it than her.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is about either: instead, it's about interpreting "full of grace".
Ah. More information, please.
(if everyone will allow me to continue my immaculate conception tangent in a perpetual virginity thread! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.
Perhaps you did not notice, or disregarded, the post above in which Percy B specifically said, and I quote: quote:
I repeat I am not speaking strongly against old descriptors, but rather asking that more new interpretations be introduced into litanies, liturgy etc.
Why, in your mind, is "asking that new interpretations be introduced" the same as "ditch"? It does not seem to be a proposal of subtraction but of addition.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
we are not talking about Christ's teaching here.
We are talking about what is canonical, and there is no canonical foundation on which to build a doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The fact that a good thing has the possibility of being corrupted by people who wish to do so does not mean we should do away with it.
If by a “good thing” you mean Mary’s perpetual virginity, then you are begging the question.
If by “good thing” you are referring to alleged dominical and apostolic teaching which did not make it into the canon, then we judge it by what is in the canon.
This applies to patristic writing in general, which is why the church has rejected some of the teachings of someone of the brilliance and stature of Origen.
Neither the veneration of Mary nor her perpetual virginity are to be found in the canonical writings.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The fact that a good thing has the possibility of being corrupted by people who wish to do so does not mean we should do away with it.
If by a “good thing” you mean Mary’s perpetual virginity, then you are begging the question.
No, I'm not referring to that. Though thank you for using the expression "begging the question" properly. It is seldom seen these days, at least among my regular correspondents. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
If by “good thing” you are referring to alleged dominical and apostolic teaching which did not make it into the canon, then we judge it by what is in the canon.
This applies to patristic writing in general, which is why the church has rejected some of the teachings of someone of the brilliance and stature of Origen.
Neither the veneration of Mary nor her perpetual virginity are to be found in the canonical writings.
Yet, although they may not be explicitly found in canonical Scripture, they are perfectly consonant with it, for they and canonical Scripture are part of the same Holy Tradition. It is this consonancy that some of Origen's teachings lacked. Among the things not explicitly found in Holy Scripture, we must - and do - distinguish between those things that are still in keeping with it and those things that outright contradict it. Of course things that fall into the latter category must be viewed with suspicion and likely ultimately discarded but the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God seems to fall into the former category. Certainly, nobody thus far has been able to show anything reasonable to the contrary.
The most that anybody can say with absolute certainty is that we don't have conclusive written proof either way. As I don't rest my faith on conclusive proof, this isn't all that problematic for me.
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
As an aside, The Eastern Orthodox view that the Brother's were from Josephs first wife (of whom no-one has ever heard) seems a bit like strawclutching to me. Anyone know of ANY evidence for this.
Forgive me if I have missed it but I'm not sure whether anybody has responded to this yet.
If what you're looking for is proof, then no, to my knowledge, nobody is able to produce a marriage certificate for St Joseph or birth certificates for his children, but there is certainly evidence of his previous marriage and children in the fact that there is an early oral tradition saying that he was an old man, previously married with children. The existence of this from early times may not be proof but it certainly counts as evidence.
I just don't see how anybody can see that and claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife. Engaging in discussions such as this may be the first time that many Protestants encounter such things* because they come from texts and traditions that were many years ago removed from the regular experience of Protestants. That's fair enough: Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike disregard those things that seem contrary to the Faith as we understand it to be. That's how we preserve what we understand to be the truth. However, to then claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife of St Joseph, just because she isn't a common part of present-day Protestant consciousness, doesn't seem a logical approach to me. For many of us, this is not new information that somebody on a website has just come up with but has been a part of the awareness of Christians for a very long time. That doesn't make it demonstrably true, of course, but it does render spurious the claim that nobody has ever heard of it.
*(I was shocked, for instance, to learn in this thread that there were Christians who had never heard of the Protoevangelium of St James. I had known that various approaches were taken to it and its authority in different traditions but as the apocryphal gospels were a fascination of mine in my teenage Anglican days and have always been part of my consciousness, even before anybody would have suggested to me that I might one day be Orthodox, it just didn't occur to me that they may be entirely unknown to some seasoned Christians of the reasoning and net-savvy variety).
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ The Scrumpmeister
The issue re non-canonical material is quite a subtle one. Non-canonical material is of course very variable in content, ranging from unexceptional to controversial to downright deceptive. I think within Protestantism the problem is that all of it is regarded with caution, even suspicion, as a source of information re Christian beliefs. The key word is authorised.
Many Protestants are not aware that there are differences between the Protestant Canon and the Canon. The lower you go down the candle the likelier you are to find this.
So far as my own personal experience is concerned, I knew about the Infancy Gospel of James long before I actually read it; I heard it was "fanciful", never saw the need, really, to look at it. It was below my horizon of interest. Even through the 1980's when I was involved a lot in local ecumenism, the major focus in conversations with Catholics was on the Eucharist, not Mary.
So it was a "blind spot" until Father Gregory opened a thread in Kerygmania several years ago. An eye-opening discussion followed. The significance of the probable date of the Infancy Gospel struck me during the discussion, and helped me a lot in understanding things. In a later discussion, I looked at some of the Ecumenical Council documents re Theotokos and learned a lot more.
The truth is that it is not easy if one has lived within Protestantism to evoke much sympathy for veneration of Mary. It often seems idolatrous, almost as though the Godhead had a fourth person. I now see that much of this is misunderstanding, but it is easy to pick up wrong signals.
And there is an underlying issue which the OP brings out about the curious relationship between holiness, set-apartness, and human sexuality. The celibacy of Jesus, the need for Mary to be a virgin and therefore a "pure vessel" give out obvious and pretty negative messages to folks outside the church. Purity is associated with sexual continence. Whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, we need to recognise that, come to terms with underlying attitudes and messages.
But when it comes to understanding one another's beliefs in the different Christian families, I think we do well to look closely at what they are and why they are, before pointing fingers of suspicion or even scorn. I think that's part of putting our own house in order.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I've skimmed through Percy B's posts, Leaf, and am a little concerned about who the "we" are who are going to add these "new descriptors" to these litanies.
The traditional litanies could be said to encapsulate traditional belief.
I am unsure some of Percy B's suggestions are within what I would consider the tradition.
It is interesting, in the modern world, that there is quite a movement among young people to the Latin Mass and other forms that are supposedly unable to speak to them.
There was, in the last century, a French Roman Catholic priest called Michel Quoist who wrote a number of books, including one called "Prayers of Life" which brought Christianity into a more everyday context than prayer was often seen to be. They were excellent but never became part of any service I am aware of.
I am not surprised many in the modern world find Mary hard to understand. In many ways she would seem counter-cultural. I would see that as a thoroughly good thing and a challenge. Perhaps she should remain that way.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Thank you for that insightful post, Barnabas62, and for sharing something of your personal background and development of understanding. It is helpful.
I suppose it is similarly difficult for me to see where many Protestants are coming from, not in terms of pointing out the lack of historical certainty for many things, which is perfectly understandable, but basing on that a suspicion or outright opposition to what are in my experience unremarkable elements of the Christian Faith. This difficulty is perhaps to do with my own background.
Our last public exchange began with you commenting on a post of mine in which I mentioned the degree to which Anglo-Catholicism, at least in England, potentially lends itself to a persecution complex. It is very different from Roman Catholicism in a number of ways. Protestants were not people in another church with different beliefs with which we disagreed. Rather they were people within our own church whose beliefs impinged on what we were and were not allowed to do in our parishes. That makes for a very particular relationship.
I've mentioned before on these boards that I went to a Roman Catholic college. In a liturgical discussion with the priest chaplain, we started talking about the epiklesis. He was surprised that a 17-yr-old would even know what that was. For him, as a Roman Catholic, it was just another given part of how his church believed and worshipped and went without question or discussion. For me, as an Anglo-Catholic, it was a part of Catholic practice that had to be fought for when the then new services of the Church of England were being debated because there were Evangelicals who were arguing for the exclusion of the epiklesis over the gifts. There were other elements that were open to Catholic interpretation but had to be worded in particularly weak ways in order to be acceptable to the Protestant-minded within our own church. Similarly, when a Methodist friend accompanied me to an Anglican mass for the Assumption of the Mother of God, the priest, embarrassed by the low turn-out, jested at the end that he thought putting the major feast of the Mother of God in the middle of summer, when everyone would be on holiday, must be a Protestant plot. My friend pointed out that this joke would never have been made in a Roman Catholic church, and she was right, although I don't think she really understood why.
The point is that there is a culture in some places within Anglo-Catholic circles of viewing anything associated with Protestantism as "the enemy", and I spent a significant chunk of my Christian life in that atmosphere. Whether that attitude is right or wrong, it is understanble. However, I have moved beyond this in many ways. In fact, that part was almost instantaneous the moment I left the Church of England. I still disagree with much of Protestantism but it no longer affects me and I am quite happy for people to believe whatever they wanted to believe and to practise that faith because it no longer comes tied up with restrictions on me doing the same for my faith.
However, I'll admit that there is still some residual feeling when the same objections are raised. I have simply never held to Protestantism, or had it instilled in me, so I don't understand it from the inside. I remember a thread here a few years ago about Calvinism versus Arminianism. Never having heard of Arminianism, I embarrassed myself by responding with something about the Armenian church. Arminianism was completely outside of my experience, and when I later understood what it and Calvinism were about, it just seemed like a completely different religion. The subjects being debated seemed to be two sides of the same coin that belonged to a foreign currency.
In many ways, while my understanding has been much expanded, much of Protestantism still represents for me an opposition to what for me have always been basic elements of the Christian Faith. Honour of the Mother of God and the saints has always been there for me. The reasoning behind it has always been there. The use of incense and ceremonial in worship has always been there and is demonstrably part of the Christian heritage. The belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Saviour has always been there and is shown to have been the ancient and continuous belief of Christians. Opposition to these things seems to be a comparatively recent innovation, especially when some of the reformers themselves affirmed the perpetual virginity. So it is very difficult to understand the reasons behind objections to these things, and it is perhaps far too easy, when I see things like some of the posts on this thread, to be tempted to roll my eyes, and think, 'Oh, look! More of the same from the usual quarters'. That likely says more about me than anybody else. I try to approach discussion of these matters with an open mind as to people's motives, but when their arguments are tied up with implications about what Catholics and Orthodox believe that we know for a fact to be untrue, it is very difficult to take it seriously.
We have seen it numerous times on these boards. Our subscription to the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God must mean that sex is dirty. Our calling her the Mother of God must mean that we believe she exists in eternity and actually brought the Godhead into being (an interpretation that I had not heard and which had never even occurred to me before it was posited in Purgatory as an argument against the title "Mother of God" some years ago). That we venerate the holy icons must mean that we have no regard for Scripture. There are many more.
When what might be very sensible and reasoned positions are presented bound up with the sort of thing in the previous paragraph that I know for a fact not to be true, then it becomes very difficult to engage with it in a way that isn't dismissive or to see it as based on a genuine quest for truth and not reinforcing the idea that it is just opposition for opposition's sake.
This is quite different from the reasoned and thoughtful contributions from Protestants and others who do not hold to this firm opposition but are questioning and clearly seeking to understand why we believe what we believe.
Your post here has given me a little more insight into why some people might genuinely have a difficulty with some things, and I shall perhaps go away and think about that a little more.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, Michael. It's difficult sometimes, but it always seems worthwhile to me to try and lessen differences. We'll end up having to agree to differ, but it nearly always helps to understand the how and the why.
It helps me to remember that I live with the consequences of earlier schisms I had no part in creating, and have no wish to perpetuate. Friendship is better.
[ 17. August 2012, 12:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
I just don't see how anybody can see that and claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife.
Fair point - it was new to me and i have been in a few different denominations, from the Liturgical to the Fantastical and i would have expected something this to have been mentioned SOMEWHERE if it was a strong tradition as it would indeed be a valid way of squaring the circle.
Since Joseph disappears quickly from the narrative its possible to speculate that he may have been older, died , have a previous family etc.
This idea explains why Jesus leaves Mary to John's care i think.
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).
It would also explain why Jesus used the opportunity to teach who was and wasn't his brother. He would have had a great example to use.
Disadvantage is that it still seems like a bit of an arguement from silence, since Joseph's full story isn't told in the Gospels but it would explain some of the tricky bits.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:
I just don't see how anybody can see that and claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife.
Fair point - it was new to me and i have been in a few different denominations, from the Liturgical to the Fantastical and i would have expected something this to have been mentioned SOMEWHERE if it was a strong tradition as it would indeed be a valid way of squaring the circle.
Since Joseph disappears quickly from the narrative its possible to speculate that he may have been older, died , have a previous family etc.
This idea explains why Jesus leaves Mary to John's care i think.
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).
It would also explain why Jesus used the opportunity to teach who was and wasn't his brother. He would have had a great example to use.
Disadvantage is that it still seems like a bit of an arguement from silence, since Joseph's full story isn't told in the Gospels but it would explain some of the tricky bits.
Thank you for this, beatmenace. As you point out, it is difficult to know one way or another, and an argument from silence is nothing definitive. The Protoevangengelium of James and Origen are writings that mention St Joseph's children, although these are 2nd and 3rd century, respectively.
If we were starting out today, coming to all of this for the first time, and having before us the bare account of the Gospel, then the explanation of St Joseph being an older man - a widower with children of his own - while a plausible explanation for a number of things, would be mere conjecture. We might adopt it as an explanation, we might acknowledge it as a possibility and move on, or we might dismiss it in the absence of conclusive proof.
However, this is not the Orthodox view. We are not starting out today as ones coming to the events surrounding the life of Christ for the first time, and looking back at evidence from 2000 years ago with a view to working out what might have happened. This might be an interesting and worthwhile activity from an academic perspective, but it is not the way of faith. Rather, we are inheritors of Holy Tradition - "tradition" literally meaning "that which is passed on". We do not need to rely solely on what we, in the present day, can construct from what hard evidence survives from two millennia ago because we have the inherited Tradition that has been continuously passed on from generation to generation since then. As I mentioned further upthread, the Apostles knew each other, the Saviour, and the Mother of God. They, the Myrrh-bearing women, and other disciples from the early Church knew the characters involved, and would not have relied solely on writings for what they knew and passed on to those after them, who in turn passed them on, who in turn...
St Veronica is a good example of this. She is mentioned in Scripture, (though not by name) as she had an issue of blood and was healed with faith and a touch of the Saviour's hem. Yet she re-appears in the event mentioned nowhere in the Gospel, as the woman who wipes the face of Christ. Every year I go to a pan-Orthodox pilgrimage to St Winefride's well. People from across the country go and there are people I only ever see there, once each year. There are many of them whose names I don't even know. Having been part of such a regular crowd, I have memories of thinking, 'Oh look! There's that lady who always falls over/brings that lovely cake to share/sings beautifully when she comes every year', and it is very easy for me to imagine, in a crowd, a woman wiping the bloody and sweaty face of the Saviour in an act of mercy, and people thinking, 'Oh look! There's that lady who caused all that fuss that day when Jesus said someone touched him'. The lady without a name has clearly been given a name based on the events of the account, but it has nonetheless come down to us.
An example that I, personally, find interesting, is the various accounts of the events surrounding the death and assumption of the Mother of God. By the time these got written down in the 5th-6th centuries, there were a few discrepancies between them. This is to be expected as different people recount the same story and some people mention particular events that others do not. Yet what is interesting is that these written accounts, from different times and different parts of the world, are almost identical to each other on the main sequence and events of the story. One or two things can be put down to fancy, such as the element in one version in which St Thomas arrives late and refuses to believe until he has seen evidence for himself, (and that is why no part of Tradition is viewed in isolation from the rest - sola any single part of Tradition is always misleading), but for the most part we have a good example of non-Scriptural Tradition at work.
All of this is to say that Tradition is not a dead corpus of information from the past but is a living thing - nothing less than the life of the Church. Some of it is written down and codified (Holy Scripture); other parts of it are enshrined in the prayers, actions, hymnody, and even the structure of our worship (the Church's Liturgy); yet others are found in both written and oral traditions and found in writings of various people (the apocryphal books, the writings of the Church Fathers and Mothers); and yet others are to be found in the manner in which we resolve the difficulties raised when parts of this (the Creed, the Councils of the Church, and so forth). The Orthodox way is to view all of it against itself and particularly against Holy Scripture as an inheritance of which we are part.
The non-Scriptural traditions may not have the same standing as canonical Scripture, but they are nonetheless part of what has been handed down to us, and we must not disregard them just because they are not on an ancient piece of paper (or papyrus).
[ 17. August 2012, 13:57: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is about either: instead, it's about interpreting "full of grace".
Ah. More information, please.
(if everyone will allow me to continue my immaculate conception tangent in a perpetual virginity thread! )
I thought 'full of grace' came from the Latin Vulgate whereas the Greek is better translated 'you hat are highly favoured', i.e. it isn't that Mary is tanked up with some substance called 'grace' but it chosen by God (though, of course, the act of choice can involve her immaculate conception).
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
... and yet others are to be found in the manner in which we resolve the difficulties raised when parts of this
Er...
"...when parts of this are denied from within the communion of the Church."
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
Thank you both, Michael and Barnabas, for these gracious and illuminating posts.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Thank you both, Michael and Barnabas, for these gracious and illuminating posts.
Thank you for this, Pine Marten.
As I read back, I realise the potentially misleading account I gave. While my feelings of being threatened within the church to which I belonged may have melted away immediately, my reaction against what I had previously felt threatened by continued for some time, and manifested itself here.
We lives and learns.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).
Sorry for the tangent, but I believe this definition (the matrilineal descent of Jewishness) postdates the New Testament era. Certainly people's names at the time indicate their father, and not mother -- bar Kochba, for example)
[ 17. August 2012, 15:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I was told by a learned Jewish person once that the descent through mothers was adopted after the Romans crushed the Jewish revolts because so many Jewish women were raped that no one could be sure who had a Jewish father.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.
The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.
My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.
I want to make two comments about scholasticism here. Cara may or may not understand Scholasticism pretty well but she doesn't understand the history of these doctrines regarding Our Lady. Scholasticism is widely agreed to have developed from the twelfth century onwards. The doctrines of the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption/dormitory were all hundreds of years old by then. They were not developed in response to some Scholastic desire to over-define.
Secondly, give scholasticism a break. I know it gives many on these boards the creeps because it has a tendency to make precise distinctions in response to questions when you'd prefer less precision but if people ask questions you can either answer or not. The great achievement of scholasticism in this area (aside from its great achievements elsewhere) was to reveal just how many of these questions can be answered from the faith of the Church and the use of human reason. Oh, and btw, remember St Thomas was unsure about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - as, of course, he was free to be.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Where does he do that Trisagion ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
For example, here.
But this should not be taken to be his only thoughts on the matter. I haven't researched it in detail but Trisagion's "unsure" seems a reasonable summary of the matter.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I suppose my main problem with Mary's holiness translating as perpetual virginity
Once again you have it the wrong way around. There is no historical evidence of her holiness being translated into perpetual virginity. This is a subtle form of Bulverism -- "you only think she's a perpetual virgin because you want to safeguard her holiness."
quote:
and the idea of her carrying Jesus meaning any further children would defile her holiness, is that this is apparently not done with anything else in Jesus' earthly life. It was by God's grace that Mary conceived Jesus, and it was by God's grace that Jesus was born in a stable, yet the stable was presumably used again to keep animals - why could Mary not have further children?
A fair question, as far as it goes. But it is a question of scale. He wasn't in the barn for terribly long (they were living in a house by the time the Wise Men showed up). He was in her womb for 9 months. She had the most intimate contact possible between two humans -- and she had that contact with the Man who is God -- for 40 weeks. A coal touching Isaiah's lips for seconds made him holy. She touched -- she surrounded, she exchanged fluids with, she nourished, she gave the human nature to -- the live coal that was God.
quote:
It also goes against the whole theme of humility and unimpressive outward appearance concealing God's grace within the NT.
This makes no sense to me at all. That God should choose something lowly to set apart, I understand. But that this should mean that the lowly thing is only temporarily set apart? I don't see the reasoning.
quote:
Whilst, of course, it is not impossible that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I see no reason why from the Scriptures that would be the automatic assumption.
It isn't the automatic assumption. This is looking at, again, as if people looked at the Scriptures and said, "Well, was she a virgin or not?" That's not what happened, as has been discussed here at length.
quote:
Tradition is certainly valuable, and I do believe Mary should have more honour in Protestant circles, but I don't believe her having children after Jesus dishonours her or God in any way or is supported by Scripture.
It's not a matter of honour, it's of being set apart for one special purpose.
Sorry for my very unclear post! What I meant by holiness in humble clothing is that as I understand it, the New Testament era heralds the end of the Israelite law and therefore the difference between the set-apart and the unclean (as in, Acts 10). Therefore there is no need to set Mary apart as holier than the rest of the Body - she's a jar of clay just like the rest of us. A really wonderful jar of clay, but I don't regard her 'yes' as any more holy than the innkeeper's 'yes'. I view Mary as having a sinful nature like all other humans though.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...
One can see why the traditions evolved of the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity....but I think enshrining them in doctrine, making a whole detailed doctrinal argument about the freedom from original sin and the perpetual virginity, and exactly how they happened, and over-defining this and that, is going into a whole lot of unnecessary detail, going too far. But I suppose that is the heritage of a certain type of theology in the past--what's known as Scholasticism? (Showing my ignorance.)
And I think that the very detailed theology does lead to this prurient Sun-newspaper-type dwelling on her physical condition.
I can also sympathise with those who say her "yes" would be even more wonderful if she were a normal, non-immaculate woman....I know the immaculate conception doesn't mean that she was sinless, just that she didn't have "the stain of original sin" from the start, but still. Makes her seem so "special" that her incredible history-shattering "yes" was easier for her than it would be for anyone else...
I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.
The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.
My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.
To me the biblical story of the Annunciation is enough and encapsulates everything necessary for belief. I find it quite interesting that the Quran supports the traditional Christian belief on the Virgin Birth. Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.
There is a big gulf in the West among Christians on this matter. I think it comes to a stage where you agree that others have different beliefs to you and bless them on their way.
One thing which should be remembered about Mary: she would have been extremely young at the time of the Annunciation: a teenager and one far, far more innocent than her peers today who are exposed to all sorts of pornography. So to wish to talk of Mary's possible "sexual desire" really tells me more about the people who write about it than her.
Mary had presumably entered puberty by the time of the Annunciation and therefore would have had some kind of sex drive - the fact that she was a hormonal teenager makes it more likely, not less! Sexual desire is based on body chemistry, particularly in the brain, not access to pornography. It's not exactly a new phenomenon, God created Adam and Eve to sexually desire one another. It's a good thing.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think you're conflating the clean/unclean and for-common-use/set-apart dichotomies.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For example, here.
But this should not be taken to be his only thoughts on the matter. I haven't researched it in detail but Trisagion's "unsure" seems a reasonable summary of the matter.
Good hunting, Barnabas.
As far as I can see, however, this is not Thomas denying that Mary was preserved from the tendency to sin, but merely saying that she can only have been preserved (sanctified) from this after the infusion of her rational soul with her body (i.e., no one is susceptible to sin before this stage - which occurs a few months into pregnancy, as St Thomas hypothesised it - so, necessarily, Mary was thus sanctified from that point only).
But - I admit - I read it very quickly and could have got that wrong.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Look at replies to Objections 3 and 4. To these protestant eyes, Thomas seems to be arguing that the conception was not immaculate.
But I stand to be corrected! And, as I say, such research that I have done suggests that Thomas' views on this issue wandered around a bit! "Unsure" does seem fair.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Look at replies to Objections 3 and 4. To these protestant eyes, Thomas seems to be arguing that the conception was not immaculate.
But I stand to be corrected! And, as I say, such research that I have done suggests that Thomas' views on this issue wandered around a bit! "Unsure" does seem fair.
You are correct: he comes down, on balance, against the doctrine. His near contemporary, Bl. John Duns Scotus took the opposing view, strongly supporting the teaching.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Gentlemen, I stand corrected.
I suppose what I was getting was that, although Thomas is not supporting a teaching of the immaculate conception, he seems to lean to an immediate post-animation sanctification for Our Lady - her being sanctified (and thus kept thenceforward from all actual sin) whilst still in the womb. Mary, therefore, needed no baptism, as she received in the womb what we receive only at the font. But Thomas here (if not later) presumes her to have contracted original sin, only immediately to have been cleansed from it. It's a pretty nice point.
What he makes abundantly clear, and which is worth keeping in mind when considering this doctrine, is that Our Lady still needed Our lord as her saviour and redeemer. But she was redeemed in a uniquely special way - in this, she was "most highly favoured".
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
P.S. Incidentally, I notice that there is some reason to think St. Thomas may have ended his theological speculation by embracing the doctrine after all.
It all depends on the actual dating of a late work, Devotissima expositio super salutatione angelica. It was written some time around or just after he finished the Summa Theologica and (in the large majority of extant manuscript versions) contains the following: quote:
For [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault and incurred neither original nor mental nor venial sin.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).
Sorry for the tangent, but I believe this definition (the matrilineal descent of Jewishness) postdates the New Testament era. Certainly people's names at the time indicate their father, and not mother -- bar Kochba, for example)
Matrilineal descent is only for Jewishness but not for other bits that are inherited. One is a Cohen, a priest, only if one's father in legitimate marriage is a Cohen (and the same for Levites or those classified of the house of David).
This is independent of duties to honor and care for parents but those duties are for one's own mother and father and not necessarily for a stepmother. Jewish understanding from at least a short time later on to the current day seems to be that you are obligated to honor and care for a stepmother while your father is alive and that it is good but not an obligation to do so after your father is dead.
Even if Jesus had full brothers as apparently her eldest son he had the primary duty of taking care of their mother. One way he could do that knowing that he would be dead soon is by adding someone to the list of those responsible (perhaps someone in a better position to do so given that it is unlikely Jesus or his kin had much if anything in the way of money, house, or land). But John is the only gospel with this discussion. Mark and Matthew has the women watching from a distance (no mention of the male disciples) and none of the other three have a conversation of Jesus on the cross with John or Mary.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc
I thought this was fair.
For me as a protestant, what is truly impressive in the Summa Theologica argument I linked earlier is St Thomas's extraordinary care to defend the need for all to be redeemed. Including Mary. That seems to have been predominant in his mind at the time of writing, and I applaud that.
There does seem to me to be an inescapable tension between that doctrine, common to Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
On the other hand, I have no problems at all with "most highly favoured Lady" as the old carol puts it. Protestants too easily forget that, overlook its significance in the gospel record.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Jade Constable: I think you are possibly putting a modern sensibility on Mary and making her sound like one of the girls in "Puberty Blues". I doubt she would have the artificially hyped sexuality of a modern teenager.
Her purity and the Virgin Birth take nothing away from the normal sexual attraction you describe.
It seems to me quite interesting that some of the most active women working to assist battered, sexually exploited and trafficked women are Roman Catholic nuns who aspire to the same sort of purity as Mary.
Perhaps, in Mary, we see something above the normal course of life? Something that might raise it up? The traditional Christian belief was it did.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There does seem to me to be an inescapable tension between that doctrine, common to Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
There's no tension at all. Indeed the form of the dogma as defined by Bl Pope Pius IX makes clear Mary's absolute dependence on salvation through the merits of Christ. In translation it reads:
quote:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
[ 18. August 2012, 06:42: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.
The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.
My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.
I want to make two comments about scholasticism here. Cara may or may not understand Scholasticism pretty well but she doesn't understand the history of these doctrines regarding Our Lady. Scholasticism is widely agreed to have developed from the twelfth century onwards. The doctrines of the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption/dormitory were all hundreds of years old by then. They were not developed in response to some Scholastic desire to over-define.
Secondly, give scholasticism a break. I know it gives many on these boards the creeps because it has a tendency to make precise distinctions in response to questions when you'd prefer less precision but if people ask questions you can either answer or not. The great achievement of scholasticism in this area (aside from its great achievements elsewhere) was to reveal just how many of these questions can be answered from the faith of the Church and the use of human reason. Oh, and btw, remember St Thomas was unsure about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - as, of course, he was free to be.
Thank you, Sir Pellinore. And your idea of a modern way of explaining traditional belief is an interesting one....
Trisagion, it must be admitted that I know very little about Scholasticism. I did know that the doctrines in question were indeed hundreds of years old by the time of medieval Scholasticism --as part of the ancient inherited tradition which Scrumpmeister/Michael has so beautifully described and which I respect and cherish as well. I just had the idea that the doctrines were less clearly defined church-wide in previous times, and were more vague and varied and so on. This may well be a mistaken idea.
I can also see that Scholasticism was a response to questions. As Scrumpmeister has also clarified, the creeds and many other doctrines were defined so precisely only in defence against opposition and dissension. Otherwise they wouldn't necessarily have been defined down to the nth degree. So I'll try to be more careful when I bandy words like Scholasticism about!
I too want to say how much I have appreciated so many of the posts on this thread, too many to mention, but including Josephine's comments from the perspective of (if I understand correctly) an Orthodox woman, and the illuminating posts by Barnabas and Scrumpmeister.
Cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There does seem to me to be an inescapable tension between that doctrine, common to Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
There's no tension at all. Indeed the form of the dogma as defined by Bl Pope Pius IX makes clear Mary's absolute dependence on salvation through the merits of Christ. In translation it reads:
quote:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
Its a personal view of this, Trisagion. So it's likely to be unorthodox in some respects, but you know me.
The tension for me is in that pregnant (no disrespect intended) word "singular". I read this as saying that consistency between the two doctrines can be preserved if Mary has been granted a singular i.e. unique exemption from the general order. It works of course, as a means of preserving both; no question of that. But it strikes me as a somewhat forced argument, hence the tension. For me at least.
My instincts for forced harmonisation have of course been honed in the very different arena of the forced harmonisations used to preserve the inerrancy of scripture within nonconformist protestantism. An issue I struggled with 30 years ago but I still carry the scars. So maybe I'm just a bit sensitive over such matters?
Anyhow, for better or for worse, that's how it strikes me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Jade Constable: I think you are possibly putting a modern sensibility on Mary and making her sound like one of the girls in "Puberty Blues". I doubt she would have the artificially hyped sexuality of a modern teenager.
Her purity and the Virgin Birth take nothing away from the normal sexual attraction you describe.
It seems to me quite interesting that some of the most active women working to assist battered, sexually exploited and trafficked women are Roman Catholic nuns who aspire to the same sort of purity as Mary.
Perhaps, in Mary, we see something above the normal course of life? Something that might raise it up? The traditional Christian belief was it did.
By 'modern sensibility' do you mean one of biology? We do not know how old Mary was at the point of the Annunciation, but women of childbearing age are biologically built to have some kind of sex drive. I'm not sure why this is considered to be so radical. Do a little research and you'll see that adolescent sexuality is definitely not a modern phenomenon, even only going as far into history as Classical times (which were of course when Mary lived).
After all the comments on how Mary's purity does not indicate that sex is bad and impure, how then can you say that Mary's 'purity' (inverted commas added because I believe Mary to have had a sinful nature like any human), by which I presume you mean her virginity, is something that would raise the standard of human experience and that nuns should be role models in this area? If Mary was not a perpetual virgin, would this make her less of a role model in this respect? God's commandment to the vast majority of His people is to marry, have sex and bear children via sex - Mary is therefore MORE of a role model if she had children after Jesus, because she is obeying this commandment.
What precisely do you mean by purity?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ohhhhhhhh. THAT Saint Thomas. The one who realised that his eight and a half million C13th words were superfluous. That makes him truly great to me. Thanks Barnabas.
And Jade.
Nice. Keep up the deconstruction!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
After all the comments on how Mary's purity does not indicate that sex is bad and impure, how then can you say that Mary's 'purity' (inverted commas added because I believe Mary to have had a sinful nature like any human), by which I presume you mean her virginity, is something that would raise the standard of human experience and that nuns should be role models in this area?
Addressing the part that I put in italics first, in the Orthodox church, we do not believe that anyone has "a sinful nature." We have a human nature, and that nature has been damaged by sin. But the nature itself is not sinful. God created it in his own image, and declared it good. The Son of God took it on himself in the Incarnation, and took it up to heaven at the Ascension.
There is no "sinful nature." There is our human nature, and there is sin, which is acting in ways that are contrary to our nature.
In the Orthodox Church, we do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, because we reject the idea of original sin. We believe that human nature, although damaged, is still good. Infants are baptized, not to free them from the guilt of original sin, but to transfer their citizenship from this world to the Kingdom, to join them to the Body of Christ, to begin the process of their salvation. Salvation is not the forgiveness of sins. If you have sinned, then salvation includes the forgiveness of sins. But forgiveness is just a part of the whole.
If you ever attend an Orthodox funeral for an adult, you will hear prayers asking for their forgiveness. If you ever attend an Orthodox funeral for an infant or young child, the prayers are entirely different. We don't ask God to forgive the child, because a young child hasn't yet learned how to sin.
We reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not because we disagree that Mary was born without inherited guilt, but because we think that we are all free of inherited guilt. Most of us have plenty of our own guilt. Mary, and perhaps a few others, by the grace of God and by their own efforts, managed to live a life without sinning. Since she did it, we know that it is possible for any of us. The goal, "be perfect," is difficult, but not impossible. And if we've failed to reach it so far, we can receive forgiveness and healing, and try again.
Oh, and as for the question of Mary's purity -- we say that she was "all-pure." That is, she was pure in every respect, in her thoughts, in her words, in the things she did and in the things she refrained from doing. Of course, she was sexually pure. (And "sexually pure" doesn't mean "virgin." Virgins can be impure, and married folks can be pure.) But her sexual purity is really a very small part of what we're talking about when we talk of her purity.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
99% with you and the Big O then Josephine.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Thanks to those of you who responded to my questions about Koine vocabulary upthread. I remain unconvinced about widening the uses of "brothers" and "until". I still have a hunch that this is done in order to accommodate the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, rather than being a standard usage unconnected with the development of the doctrine.
I also dislike any argument that uses the Protevangelium. The passage in the book where the Jewish midwife finds Mary's hymen intact after the birth of Jesus reeks of docetism and, for me, is a "miracle" too far.
I constantly come back to a question I often ask in relation to points of Christian doctrine: when we argue so passionately, it begins to look like we want our doctrine to be true. Why do we want this particular doctrine to be true?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I also dislike any argument that uses the Protevangelium. The passage in the book where the Jewish midwife finds Mary's hymen intact after the birth of Jesus reeks of docetism and, for me, is a "miracle" too far.
The Church knew all this - that is why the Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew and other infancy gospels have never been part of the canon of Holy Scripture. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a shread of truth somewhere in the books, handed down through Tradition.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Shreds of possible truth that are turned in to excluding dogmata are not and are all too Christian.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
What a lot of difficulties we would avoid were it not for the doctrine of Original Sin!
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, what's stopping us from ditching it, Eirenist? I often ask myself that question ... but it keeps coming back to haunt me ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.
Perhaps you did not notice, or disregarded, the post above in which Percy B specifically said, and I quote: quote:
I repeat I am not speaking strongly against old descriptors, but rather asking that more new interpretations be introduced into litanies, liturgy etc.
Why, in your mind, is "asking that new interpretations be introduced" the same as "ditch"? It does not seem to be a proposal of subtraction but of addition.
Thank you Leaf for speaking up for me on that one. That is right. I am certainly not wanting to ditch what the majority believe. I do feel that truths and faith often have to be proclaimed afresh in new generations and that may mean bringing on board new images and similes.
It is like the wise householder bringing from his store good things, old and new...
Thanks too to those who are contributing I have been enriched by the differing views and thoughts. Most interesting.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
On this thread, at least, the Protoevangelium has only been invoked to demonstrate the age of these beliefs, not their veracity.
And once again with this "why do you need it to be true" steerfeces we descend into Bulverism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
