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 ...
God forbid!
Without forensic evidence, nothing can be a fact.
Yea, I’m sure she knew what was going on 2000+ years ago. These type of articles are so stupid.
Matthew 1:25 says “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” (NIV translation). She WAS a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception but the plain reading of the verse strongly implies that Mary didn’t stay in that state her whole life. If the nun’s comments were along these lines, I’d agree with her interpretation.
MY understanding is that the proper translation is that of a young woman, not necessarily a virgin per se. Christ’s conception was a miracle because no man was involved.
Yes, if they had never had sex, then the sentence would just say: “But he did not consummate their marriage.”
So how were Jesus’s brothers and sisters conceived?
“Christ’s conception was a miracle because no man was involved.”
Correct. No man involved in Christ’s conception.
When discussing with Catholics, I try to use the Douay-Rheims, when possible. It avoids getting sidetracked with translation arguments.
It works here:
“And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
The use of ‘till’ shows a historic Catholic understanding that Mary and Joseph did have normal marital relations after Jesus was born.
The catholics will disagree with you.
I had this out with my Dad, a Knight of Malta. I showed him a couple of those, and specifically about James being Jesus’s little brother. Can you just imagine the stories James told about Jesus that were never written down?
Only the ones that don’t read and think for themselves.
Correct.
The Hebrew word translated “until” (and we do have the Hebrew of Matthew, courtesy of some Rabbis—cf. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1443358.Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew
is the same word used in describing David’s relationship (or lack thereof) with his wife after she ridiculed his behaviour when the ark was brought up—he did not know her until the day of her death. Unlike the english “until” it does not imply anything either way about what happens after.
If y’all and this nun are correct, then why did Mary ask the angel “How can this be, since I know not man?”
Think about it. Luke has just explained that she is espoused, and an angel comes and tells her that she is going to have a baby. Why would that surprise a fiancee who was expecting to consummate her marriage? Instead, Mary indicates that she is a person who will never “know” her husband, since she asks how she can have a baby.
How would I react if someone told me I would win the lottery? I’d say, How can that be true, since I don’t play the lottery?
Notice too that Zecharia was struck dumb for asking a somewhat similar question: How can this be, since my wife is old? Mere old age is not a barrier for God (remember Sarah), so it was a foolish question on his part.
But a plan of non-consummation was a completely different kind of barrier, and there was no proto-type. Thus, Mary was not struck dumb as she asked a very legitimate question.
And finally, the angel didn’t clarify and say, well, this will happen after you marry; instead he explained that this would happen as by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
Outrage has been sparked! This time in headline!
Drink!
Lord, I hate that stupid cliche! I wonder if Soros or Media Matters is paying these “journ-o-leasts” a stipend for every “outrage” THEY “spark”?
They’re supposed to report the dang story. Period.
Telling us we’re supposed get in line and be outraged—just like, presumably, everybody else—is not journalism.
Sheesh.
There was a young priest in our parish in the late 60’s who suggested the same thing one Sunday during the youth mass.
There was an audible gasp from the crowd and that was the last time I ever saw that priest.
Well, there's an understatement if ever I heard one.
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.