Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
Catholics are permitted to hold to either point of view (as long as they do maintain the perpetual virginity of the BVM) as the Church has not formally come down on either side. It has tended to be that the Latins adopted the "adelphoi" argument, whereas the Greeks adopted the widowhood argument, but both have been viewed as acceptable in East and West.
Re St. Joseph's chastity - if he was a widower with other children, it is still quite possible to be chaste within marriage and father children. In fact all of us who are married are called to use our marriages chastely, and the chaste use of marriage does not affect our purity.
Obviously, even if he was a widower, after he took Mary into his home, he became celibate as well as chaste.
Yes, you've probably seen that in the Bible.
"Sorry. The correct interpretation of 'adelphoi' is 'from the same womb'. Cousins are not from the same womb"
Neither are uncles and nephews from the same womb, and yet the Bible uses the same term to describe Abraham and Lot. I suggest that your interpretation of the word does not fit in with the semitic usage of it.
The logic of the immaculate conception is not compelling, imo.
Nor is the hemeneutic compelling.
We, therefore, have a combination of assumptions being combined to create a doctrine. Since premised on assumptions, it cannot be binding. It certainly is not authoritative.
*2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophesy of the Scripture is made by private interpretation.
*This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by anyone's private judgement or private spirit; because every part of holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which He has left and promised to remain with His Church to guide Her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us that many of our divines interpret the Scriptures. They may do so but they do it always with a submission to the judgement of the Church and not otherwise.
A question for all Roman Catholics out there, does the Immaculate Conception teaching say that Mary was kept sinless throughout her life? If not, is there a stated teaching elsewhere in the church that addresses this?
Thanks
Aside from Mary being Daughter of God the Father and Mother of God the Son, was not Our Lady also spouse, therefore bride of God the Holy Ghost? Since God is the Church, She is also bride of the Church - Which is why he who does not have Holy Mother (the Church) for his mother cannot have God for his father.
"Then why don't we just let the silence of the scripture remain silent...Since that is all that God has told us, shouldn't that be enough."
Because:
a) Scripture isn't silent - in its typology it is deafeningly loud
b) Even if it were totally silent, that would not affect the veracity of the Tradition for:
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." Jn 21,25.
c) This is what Christians have always and everywhere believed. Therefore, any contradictory view is novel doctrine and falls under anathema.
d) Christ's Church has never subscribed to a doctrine of Scripture alone, but has always held fast to what has been handed on by both Scripture and Tradition. The Church's prayer and divine liturgy existed before any of the New Testament was committed to writing, for example.
e) Scripture is completely silent about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and yet you would consider me mad if I suggested we therefore believe it to be still standing, as it is a fact that the temple was so destroyed. The Church's doctrine about the Mother of God is similarly factual and therefore cannot be denied without denying Truth Himself.
How could any one be so intimate with God - and for so long - - - and not get more holy?
In my mind, it makes absolutely all the sense in the world that even if She were not the Immaculate Conception, She would have only grew in the grace of God - not fallen away and sinned. Would we suppose that such an intimate union as that would have been an occasion for Her to forget who Her own son was and sin against Him? If She did sin, it would have been against Her own Son right? Or perhaps Her heavenly spouse the Holy Spirit?
Is it possible or even remotely probable that there was ever any created human being in the whole wide world who fulfilled the 1st commandment to its absolute fullest more completely than Her? The love of a mother for her son. How can one even think, that with so great a love as that, She was capable of causing Sorrow to her son through sin.
Yeah right. And John Madden is a great commentator. NOT!
Spot-on, Stubborn! Well said!
"We, therefore, have a combination of assumptions being combined to create a doctrine."
No, the facts of the case and hence the doctrine existed prior to the assumptions. The assumptions are merely explanations of the doctrine.
"It certainly is not authoritative."
Correct - for you! But as you are extra ecclesiam, you hold an a priori rejection of external authority anyway. Do you believe that anything is binding?
I have a question concerning Mary and the Immaculate Conception.
By being immaculately conceived, Mary joined Jesus, Adam and Eve as the only people ever born without the taint of original sin. Right?
Now, we all know that, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve were made immortal, but sentenced to death for the sin of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That's why they died.
And everyone since has died, according to Genesis, because of the inherited sin of Adam and Eve.
Jesus did not inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, but he was killed.
Mary was immaculately conceived, and did not inherit the original sin coming down from Adam and Eve. Why, then, did she die?
Where is that usage explicitly found in the Bible?
Suggenes vs. adelphos. Since there is a perfectly good Greek word for "cousin", why wasn't it used in these disputed passages?
On another note, if a woman has one male child isn't it still her first born child, even though she has no others?
The Scriptures state that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth at which point they consummated their marriage and had sons and daughters as evidenced by the mention of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the Bible -- Where is this in the Bible?
Jesus is a type of the Ark of the Covenant. To associate Mary with the Ark is take Glory away from Christ Jesus and to give it to Mary.
Jesus is the Word of God, Mary carried Jesus in her womb, Mary is the Ark of the Word.
Also, Mary is not a type of Eve, for Eve is a type of the Church
Mary is the new Eve, whereas Eve said "No" to God, Mary said "Yes" to God.
By and large, this should be a catholic thread, however, the title indicated an explanation was being proffered.
I assumed that explanation wasn't really to the faithful, but to those outside your denomination. (In other words, the title appears that the article intends to preach to outsiders and not to "the choir.")
Nonetheless, I wish to allow this thread to remain catholic after having made my contribution.
As a summary, it speaks for itself.
As a Christian, I believe that the best position to be in would be one in which the body was in both a spiritual apostolic lineage and in a successive apostolic lineage.
I have a very high view of the church universal, I think.
Even in the IC theory were true, Mary's other children would not have been immaculate since they had a human (non-immaculate) father.
But it's all speculation. The Bible does not teach that Mary was immaculately conceived, and it does teach that Jesus had (step-) brothers and sisters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.