Posted on 02/02/2017 5:24:02 PM PST by markomalley
She has 180,000 followers on Twitter, became a daytime TV star with a cooking show sharing traditional convent recipes and waded into local politics speaking out in support of Catalan independence.
But the latest public declarations from the 51-year-old Dominican nun have provoked a stern telling off by the Catholic Church.
Her unlikely appearance on a chat show at the weekend to talk about sex led to her revealing that she didn’t really believe in one of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith – that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a virgin.
"I think that Mary was in love with Joseph and that they were a normal couple, and the normal thing is to have sex,” the nun who was born in Argentina before moving to a Catalan convent 26 years ago told Risto Mejideon on the Cuatro show Chester in Love.
"It’s hard to believe and to take in,” she added. "We’ve stuck with rules that we have invented without reaching the true message.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.es ...
“being a couple of deep love for each other being unable to express that physically, under the premise that somehow this was required”
Reminds me of the plot of a few tragic romance stories of more modern eras.
For example the character “Rogue” from the X-men comics, who had many romances, but could not do so much as touch any of them without doing them physical harm. Or the characters on the TV show “Pushing Daisies”, who were childhood sweethearts reunited, but could not touch each other or one of them would die.
But that’s a bit off topic, so feel free to ignore me :D
I am an ex Catholic. When I was a Catholic, I believed Mary was an ever virgin. I don't now, of course, but I did then.
That was the plan
If Mary had other children, why did Jesus ask John to take care of his mother from the cross? Why wouldn't her other children take care of her?
What Christ commanded was in line with His teaching that His brothers and sisters are those who hear the Word of God and do it. As God He could decree what He wished.
Your second paragraph presents two possible hypotheses: based on an earlier Hebrew Text or back translation.
Back translation fails for three reasons.
The text has affinities to a variety of pecularities in the Old Latin, the Coptic, the Old Syriac, and a variety of second and third century fictional works (gospel of Thomas, photo-Evangelium of James), that are easily explained if the various authors/translators were familiar with a Hebrew Matthew that was also a source for the text preserved by the Rabbis, but cannot realistically be explained by someone producing a translation consulting only the Greek or the Vulgate, and the odds of a Rabbi digging through a wide variety of languages, obscure translations, and obscure documents is nil. Maybe it was aliens.
Secondly, there are a number of puns. (This , in my opinion, is the weakest of the three arguments, but Howard likes it, and thus it should be included).
Thirdly, the Hebrew text is a brilliant tool for the conversion of Jews—much more theologically vivid for the original purpose than the Greek. For example, the Greek word underlying light in “you are the light of the world” might be translated by a variety of Hebrew Words—the word that appears is a somewhat unexpected one, best rendered into English as “sanctuary lamp.” There are many similar cases. An early translator into Greek could easily leave out Jewish nuances that would confuse the pagans. It seems extremely unlikely that a Rabbi would invent such nuances, or that a Christian would both have the mastery of Hebrew for such theological niceties and the chutzpah to impose them on the text.
Having worked with the text to some extent for two decades, I’m morally certain it is not a back translation. (I draw upon the tet each year as part of an Intro Scripture course). A Hebrew preposition underlies the “until,” and I’m morally certain that which preposition may be known with certainty.
Firstborn son in the Hebrew is a technical term—there are specific rituals connected with a firstborn son (see Ex. 13:2 for the origin), and they are done when he is born, not upon the birth of a second son.
No, there is no "indicates" her unless you want to read into "how" what simply is not there. Instead, her question is not, "How shall this be, seeing I shall never know a a man,' but was simply "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man."
That Mary would ask this is certainly understandable in the light of the intimated (by the words of her present blessed state, "highly favoured [graced], the Lord is with thee: blessed thou among women," "hast found favour with God") strong possibility that this "thou shalt conceive" would happen before she was married, versus possibly up to two years later ("After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed," unless the groom was a widower: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal).
And see my above posts for why the absence of any mention by the Holy Spirit of perpetual virginity is contrary to His practice.
Without the RC vowed "unanimous consent" of the fathers.
The doctrine was not rejected at the start of the Protestant reformation, and several early Protestant reformers supported the doctrine to varying degrees.
The needed reformation is not the work of one day or two, and is yet incomplete.
Over time, some Protestant churches have stopped teaching the doctrine and others even deny it. Why have people stopped believing what has been a belief during much of the history of Christianity?
Why? Before the post-Scriptural history of Christianity is not the standard for Christianity, and testifies to its deformation in the light of the only wholly inspired substantive revelation of the NT church.
While you can believe in perpetual Marian virginity (PMV), there is no more warrant for making this a required belief than there is for multitude Catholic distinctives. .
. I have not done a study on the Hebrew word, nor subscribe to that being the original form of Matthew
I will refer you to my post 106 for some arguments in favour of Shem Tov’s copy.
You are right with the Greek almost without exception—there are exceptions.
While it is a notable exception in most cultures, some members of the Essenes/Nazorean movement did practice such marriages. That Joseph went and settled in a town called Nazareth may have been a sufficient hint for the original Hebrew audience. The question “can anything good come out of Nazareth” points to a town notorious for something.
We don't know how far Mary and Joseph were into their "betrothal" period - which was usually one year before consummation. My thinking is the angel Gabriel's words were that the conception was imminent which would cause Mary to ask her question about not "knowing" (in the Biblical sense) a man. I also believe religious Jews would be familiar with Isaiah's prophecy that a "virgin will conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14).
Are you aware that his brothers are recorded in the Bible as not believing in Him before the resurrection? And there is no record of ANY of his brothers showing up at the crucifixion. AND James, Jesus’s brother only believed in Him following seeing Him AFTER the resurrection. James, BTW, was the leader of the ekkelsia in Jerusalem. These is an episode during Jesus’s evangelism where His Mother and siblings came to the house where He was teaching and sought an audience with Him. After that episode, it appears that ONLY Mary His Mother continued to believe in Him, even to the death on the Cross.
Yes it does.
The angel told Joseph to take Mary as his WIFE.
And that he did not know here until after she had given birth.
And it goes on to reference Jesus' brothers and sisters with the Greek word for *brother* and *sister* and to NAME them.
Mary's virginity at the time of her conception and birth of Jesus was critical to fulfilling prophecy.
Her continued virginity is absolutely meaningless and unnecessary to anything Jesus did or accomplished on the cross.
Her perpetual virginity totally irrelevant anything and any one except the Catholic church and their determination to teach as unassailable truth something that is not even hinted at in Scripture.
For all the Catholic church claims to be such champions for marriage, they denigrate it terribly by exalting virginity and chastity within the bounds of marriage and presenting it as a superior way of life.
It denigrates something God ordained and blessed for man and woman. The enemy is alway son the move to try to destroy marriage and the family and certainly will not stop at attacking what God intended as a blessing for them.
Meaning it lacks wholly inspired warrant.
While Scripture does say that Mary did not have relations with Joseph until Jesus was born, it does not say that she did ever have relations with Joseph.
The word for "till" in Greek almost always refers to a terminus before or indicating a change.
And if not, then Joseph deserves more credit, for I think celibacy usually is harder for the male, and his permission would have been necessary for Mary, unless it came from her father and he concurred (Numbers 30).
While Scripture does say that Jesus was her firstborn son, it does not say that she ever conceived in her womb and gave birth to other children. While Scripture does mention the brothers of Jesus, it does not say Mary was the birth mother of any of these brothers.
But firstborn can be in distinction to later births.
Your problem is that marital relations are descriptive of marriage (Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh), versus two not becoming one
And that there is only one possible recorded case of a celibate marriage in Scripture, (1 Kings 1:1-4) which is due to the infirmity of the man
And as said before, the Holy Spirit characteristically records exception to the norm, and in the case of Mary before she gave birth, but rather than affirming this being a continuing state, we have the conspicuous "till," which naturally only makes sense as indicating a change in that status in to a normal marital relationship. .
I do not argue that one must believe that Joseph and Mary did not remain celibate, but you simply do not have a Scriptural case for making Perpetual Marian Virginity a required belief. Resorting to Cath tradition only confirms the progressive accretions of traditions of men, and then teaching them for doctrines. Tragically.
Yup, so Scripture gets tossed on the trash heap in the name of *sacred tradition*.
Truth is not based on popular opinion.
Popular opinion can be wrong and just because many people have believed something for a long time, doesn’t mean they they are right.
Truth is truth and stands alone outside of any human opinion on the matter.
And if longevity or popularity were the litmus test for truth, then there are many other religions in the world which would bump out the Catholic claim of being the source of truth based on longevity and popular opinion.
And these are the writings that the Catholic church depends on so heavily for their *sacred tradition*.
No wonder the Catholic church teaches an equally warped view on marriage and sex.
So a husband commits sin when he desires his wife and has sex with her, in contrast to the Scripture that says......
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Not really: Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? - Mark 7:5 Your uninspired Catholic tradition is not the sure standard for Truth nor is Jewish oral tradition. As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
You are right with the Greek almost without exception—there are exceptions.
And exceptions are not the norm, and we have a rare exception her, and which the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions, but the evidence here weighs in favor of the norm.
While it is a notable exception in most cultures, some members of the Essenes/Nazorean movement did practice such marriages.
Which does not make them Scriptural, or justify an exception to the norm being a required belief when the Holy Spirit does not teach it. As said, I do not argue that one must believe that Joseph and Mary did not remain celibate, but you simply do not have a Scriptural case for making Perpetual Marian Virginity a required belief. Resorting to Cath tradition only confirms the progressive accretions of traditions of men, and then teaching them for doctrines. Tragically.
Because they weren't there at the cross with Him.
Honestly, He knew what He was doing and we can speculate all we want about the reasons of why He did it, but guessing that He did it because He had no siblings is NOT proof, nor warranted. it's speculation, plain and simple and certainly not the sort of thing to build a doctrine out of.
Trying to guess what was in Jesus' mind when He did something and then trying to build a doctrine on what might have been, is foolishness.
If you have to fall back to a translation of a translation or a non-existent, purely hypothetical Hebrew text to justify a doctrine, you are on really shaky ground in your support of that interpretation.
There was not a universal agreement on the "perpetual virginity" of Mary among the early church leaders and those that did hold to it were admittedly influenced by apocryphal writings such as the Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, along with purported apparitions and visions of "saints". The early church father Origen wrote a commentary on Matthew in which he rejected The Protoevangelium of James as spurious - as did the early church - and affirmed Mary had other children.
But, let me ask you this...why would someone like me, for example, reject this doctrine if it were actually true and divinely revealed? I have nothing against Mary - I honor and respect her greatly. I can do that without attributing to Mary an almost goddess-like power and purpose that Scripture nowhere gives to her. Why can't we accept her for who she was and not get into heated arguments over what cannot be confirmed? Shouldn't we believe what God has chosen to include in His word and not try to base dogma on non-Scriptural works? Isn't this an "agree to disagree" instance?
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.