Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
How on Earth would the "Fathers Of The Church" know whether or not Mary screamed. Were they there? Did they peer into her 'inviolate womb' to check things out? Did anyone there peer into Marys womb?
What evidence could St. Augustine possibly have had four centuries later that Marys womb was 'inviolate'?
It's precisely this kind of silliness which keeps me away from Churches.
It's not enough that Jesus healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and raised the dead. That just ain't good enough. Oh no, his mother had to have an 'inviolate womb'.
L
*************
Agreed. Thanks for posting the article.
When it comes to the BVM and what she looks like, I have been doing computer graphic designs showing Mary in the different titles she is honored, be it Fatima, Gaudalupe, or even Poland. I have found a picture of her that honors her as mother of all of Africa. As she is the spiritual mother of all the Christian believers, so she appears in the diffrerent backrounds.
We have one of the most traditional/orthodox priests in the USA.
Our parish has been mentioned on EWTN for the amount of Altar Boys we have and the devotion of the parishioners.
When I ask our priest about seeing this, he said he would not discourage anyone from going. He said to take the concerns from a Catholic point of view and use it as a learning experience. Discuss, discuss, discuss.
We are actually waiting for the DVD so that we can pause and talk about the parts that go against the CCC. Articles like this are great because they guide us in the discussion.
As a person who helps 9th-10th pre-Confirmation studies teens sign-in every first Sunday of the month in order for them to signup for the monthly lists of classes and service projects, one of the offerings for credit, with a written report is going to see the movie, "The Nativity" instead of doing the two days of classes about Advent.
Perhaps because they had available the testimony of Mary herself?? Remember, she was entrusted to and lived with St. John for many years until her death.
"What evidence could St. Augustine possibly have had four centuries later that Marys womb was 'inviolate'?"
That same testimony mentioned above, passed down as oral teachings (aka "Sacred Tradition").
"It's precisely this kind of silliness which keeps me away from Churches."
Too bad.
"It's not enough that Jesus healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and raised the dead. That just ain't good enough. Oh no, his mother had to have an 'inviolate womb'."
You read it just backwards. God can have it any way he wants it. If he could raise the dead and pass through walls, he could certainly maintain Mary's vagina in whatever state he wanted it to be.
I'll have to reread my copy of the New Testament. I missed the part where Mary describes the condition of her vagina after Jesus was born.
L
The Catholic belief that Mary gave birth without suffering the physical changes or pain of childbirth certainly doesn't bother me. Neither does transubstantiation. Neither does the fundamentalist belief in a literal six day creation period. Neither does the Calvinists' fevered belief in predestination. I myself find these beliefs unconvincing and unpersuasive to a greater or lesser degree.
No matter. Every man believes thoroughly improbable and odd things, Mr. Calvinist.
The one improbable and odd thing believed by Catholics, Mormons, and Calvinists alike is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, actually and truly lived and ministered on this blue planet about 2000 years ago, was scourged and put to death on the cross as a common criminal, after three days was actually and truly raised up to everlasting life to take his place on the right hand of God, that by his sacrifice and atonement all mankind will be resurrected, and those that believed on his name, the only name given under heaven whereby man man may be saved, shall have eternal life and live as joint heirs with him forever.
I understand these things. I was born Catholic, raised Protestant, and am now LDS. I know these things personally and directly.
One must be an atheist and materialist to believe a truly impossible thing: that this astonishingly complex and meaningful miracle called life coalesced out of mindless and directionless chaos in a few billion years and will gone in a few billion more, just a pointless and absurd joke conjured up without planning or intention by a blind, deaf, dumb, unreasoning cosmic comedian.
Actually, I think the fact that it opened at the Vatican shows that the Church has no problem with it.
It's a reflection, a meditation on the life of the Virgin and the events surrounding the Nativity, not a theological treatise or even an historical description (although I thought the recreation of the life of a 1st century Jew was very well done and showed a lot of research). I liked the film and thought of it as the kind of meditation one does when one prays the Rosary, recreating the scene and filling in details about aspects that may not necessarily be recounted in detail in the Gospels.
This is something people have always done with the Nativity story, in particular, and it's the source of all art on the subject, which naturally examines it from the time and the ideas circulating in the world at the time that the artist produces the work. And this is art, not a doctrinal statement, and I thought that it does what art is supposed to do: make one think and wonder.
And there is your disconnect. You've bought completely into "sola scriptura", which does NOT have "the whole story", and is, in fact, itself un-Biblical. Try actually reading what the Catholic Church has to say on the subject with an open mind. You might just be surprised as to how logical (and how backed by scripture) the Church's positions on Mary are.
So the Bible is un-Biblical.
Right. Got it.
Try actually reading what the Catholic Church has to say on the subject with an open mind.
My mind is pretty open. But it's not so open that I'll believe what some guy who was born 400 hundred years after Mary died says about her vagina.
You might just be surprised as to how logical (and how backed by scripture)
Logic tells me that since no one who was there at the time wrote about her vaginal condition we have no evidence one way or the other. And didn't you just tell me that what I was looking for wasn't in Scripture?
L
Go your way and be content with your belief.
What I don't believe is that people are acutally arguing over what the condition of Marys womb was.
It's silly. It's pointless. It doesn't have a thing to do with the Divinity of Christ.
Christ is the Divine One, not Mary or her supposedly inviolate womb.
L
In that case, why not a Chinese Mary and an Ethiopian, or perhaps, a blond, blue-eyed Jesus?
I am sure there is enough talent in this world that we don't have to get "exotic." Also, there is a point when artistic license becomes just plain absurd.
Wonderful response. As a mother who also has given birth drug-free -- four times-- I can relate to all that you say.
Inaccurate. "Sola scriputra" is un-Biblical. Both St. Paul and St. John specifically say so in their gospels.
"My mind is pretty open. But it's not so open that I'll believe what some guy who was born 400 hundred years after Mary died says about her vagina."
And suppose that "guy" was relating teachings passed on by St. John??
Logic tells me that since no one who was there at the time wrote about her vaginal condition we have no evidence one way or the other.
Both Mary herself and St.John were there. After all, she lived with him for decades more after Christ's death. I'm SURE they might have had a conversation or two about him and his birth during that time.
"And didn't you just tell me that what I was looking for wasn't in Scripture?
Read the teachings from Catholic sources. You'd be surprised by exactly how much "is" in scripture. It's in the same class as the Triune godhead, which, if you actually claim to be a Christian, you profess to believe. That ain't taught directly in Scripture either, bro. It's a logical inference from things that ARE taught in Scripture.
Depicting Theotokos as giving a "natural" Birth, is a specualtion and very much extra-Biblical, because the Bible says nothing about it.
The Church has reason to believe what we believe about BEV Mary. We do not claim it as dogma. We only claim that she is the Mother of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, her Motherhood not being a "natural" one, from the Incarnation through the His Birth.
We Orthodox and Catholics do not believe that she suffered in her Virginal Birth any pains because the Birth, like the Incarnation itself, was a supernatural act of Divine intervention and not of carnal relationship subject to physiological consequences and corruption.
Just as the incarnation itself was nothing "natural" it is only consistent to consider the Virginal Birth as nothing "natural."
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.