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 ...
Did YOU dream this up or was it TAUGHT to you by higher powers?
Women; who can understand them?
If JOSEPH were NOT planning to consummate his marriage to Mary, why did he plan to DIVORCE her?
(Ain't speckelatin' FUN!!??)
Oh?
What logic fallacy did I just exhibit?
It DOES??
And this is EXACTLY what us Prots do.
Catholics; however; go WAY overboard in what THEY call her!!
Prove it!
I have a friend here, from Greece. He tells me the Greek words used here, tell him these brothers and sisters, were REAL brothers and sisters, from the same mother and father. Jesus had numerous other half brothers and sisters, including James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, but haven't we beat this dead horse a ton of times already? He said the word for "cousin" is a different Greek word.
Anyway Els, if you are not careful, you will force me to conjure up another Limerick.
He subsequently left FR after making additional outlandish posts. Though he may be lurking around....we're not sure.
“Jerome, at least, saw something that agreed with this manuscript in one point against the Greek”
Which doesn’t really establish much more than that a Hebrew version existed, and that the Rabbis copied at least one part of it faithfully. I wouldn’t extrapolate that to assume they copied everything else faithfully.
We accept the Scriptures as undeniable, infallible truth.
It's our position to challenge the challenger.
PROVE THE EVER VIRGINITY.
I don't get caught up in these arguments.
HE... wink-wink
I wonder if it was a regular occurrence in their household, for Joseph to ask Mary if she was awake? 😀😂😆😄
False analogy. First, you mean to say, when a doctor tells someone they have will have lung cancer [=be pregnant], the response is, "how can this be, since I do not yet smoke?" yet they soon plan to [=be married].
Moreover, even making lung cancer analogous to pregnancy is absurd, as that is a curse normally related to smoking which is certainly something one would want to avoid, whereas sexual relations in marriage, which Mary soon would be, is a blessing that basically is a command. (Gn. 9:7; 1Co. 7:5) and Mary expected to be married.
However, in any case it is not I who needs to prove that devout Mary engaged in how Scripture describes marriage, consummating it as is normative, but it is you who must show that what the Holy Spirit, as is His practice with such, is certain to state, that of the exception to the norm that existed before she brought forth her first born son, continued to her death, but which instead the Holy Spirit uses a word which almost always signifies a terminus before a change, and refers to brothers and sisters of Christ without calling them cousins.
This do not mean "till" must mean a terminus of Joseph and Mary's continence and entrance into sexual union as per Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4) and that these brothers and sisters of Christ are biological, nor that you must believe that. But at the least what it means is that your position lacks the weight of Scriptural evidence necessary for this to be a doctrine, leaving it to be a tradition of men that developed over dissent, showing that it lacked certitude even early on.
It doesn't say they ever went to the bathroom either.
Because she knew she and Joseph had not had relations...yet.
Recall the text.
30The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
35The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. 36“And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. 37“For nothing will be impossible with God.”
38And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. Luke 1:30-38 NASB
Are you saying that you have never learned anything from someone who has studied more than you have about religion? Do you never learn anything from a preacher?
I am but a grain of sand on the shoulders of giants...
Such a reasoned, logical response! It doesn’t make sense because women are incomprehensible, not because the woman chosen by God to bear His Son might have a brain and mean something other than what you want her to mean.
He means that the argument of tradition that it means contrary to how it is almost always used does not make it true.
This has no logic behind it, sorry. Our faith is not on a Darwinian timeline - that is fatal to it.
Actually the Catholic faith is very much a Darwinian timeline, a faith that progressively developed distinctives that are simply not seen in the NT church , and which development tradition testifies to.
The insistence that Mary is just another woman and had a family had no basis until people just read translations and ignored thoughtful and comprehensive scholarship. Nonsense. Its based does not depend upon translations, and as shown, ECFs disagreed on Perpetual Marian Virginity (PMV), which thoughtful and comprehensive scholarship testifies to.
For one, the esteemed *by Catholics) J.N.D. Kelly finds that Basil stated that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495). And insomuch as modern scholarship and its sources became widely known and available then Cath propaganda became exposed for what it is.
Just one example, there same word is used to reference Herod’s “brothers” in translations
A valid point, but your problem is that of justifying an exception to the norm, in language, in the Scriptural description of marriage, and the characteristic mention of such exceptions to the norm by the Holy Spirit, all of which at the least is necessary for PMV to be a required belief. Which certainly is not evident in the NT church.
. In and of itself, it does not matter much to me otherwise, but reading into Scripture a doctrine that is there, does.
Anyway, God Bless and remember “All generation will call me blessed.”
Indeed, since this is recorded in Scripture of this holy women of faith and the Spirit.
We all know there are no wasted words in the Gospels! Indeed, including that we are not to think of mortals above that which is written, (1Co. 4:6) and not simply to prevent division, yet the larger problem with PMV is that it is part of the hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism far far above that which is written .
Who elevates Mary above Christ by simply saying she remained a virgin? Christ Himself did the same.
And tbh, so have many, many people down through history, maybe even some Protestants! Are they elevated above Christ because someone mentions that about them?
I do not argue that one must believe that Joseph and Mary did not remain celibate
Nor do I argue that one must believe that Joseph and Mary did remain celibate. Most of my posts on this thread are responses to questions from ifinnegan on my beliefs. I respect your right to believe as you wish and I appreciate your stating that I can believe in PMV.
Perhaps Joseph also wanted to focus his attention on God? Why would this be a strange concept to you?
Well, maybe you are not a Christian, maybe you are an atheist, and I had misunderstood what you are doing here.
As to why he would want to divorce her, think about it. The two have a plan to live a celibate life together, foregoing all the priveleges of married life, and then she turns up pregnant, which is generally an indication of sexual activity. She seems not to be the sort of person she had shown herself to be. Of course Joseph would divorce her, to allow her to marry the father of her child, or someone who did not want a celibate marriage as he seems to have done.
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.