Posted on 06/14/2011 6:53:10 AM PDT by narses
I have no problem being firm with doctrinal beliefs that have been handed down to us throughout the ages so long as there is a srong basis for those viewpoints. The core beliefs of the Christian faith are rooted in scripture. Even other topics, such as the sins of homosexuality, abortion, and predicting Christ’s return (e.g., Camping) also have strong basis in scripture.
The reason you have certain churches that accept homosexuality, abortion, and predicting Christ’s return is because of their liberal views on scripture and not necessarily because they don’t always fall in line with official Catholic church teaching. Liberal churches believe they can pick and choose what to believe even when there is strong scriptural opposition to their positions.
In the case of perpetual virginity, the Bible doesn’t explicity state that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin forever. Instead, there are many verses that can be used to infer the proper understanding. Both sides of this issue present reasonable arguements based upon scripture, IMO. Therefore, I don’t believe this issue can be settled to everyone’s satisfaction by examining scripture alone.
Catholics also believe, based upon tradition, that those close to Mary knew she was a virgin and passed along that knowledge to others. If there was evidence that the tradition really did originate from those close to Mary, then I would accept that as pretty convincing. However, all I have seen is appeals to early church fathers who would have been pretty far removed from the original source of the tradition.
Victorinus — not quite. Jerome says he was an opponent of this but later on in the same text says that “ But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel — that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature.” (Against Helvidius)
The Anglicans didn't think so in the 1930s and once the little step was taken, here we are 80 years later with the Anglican church sadly in near total apostasy
That being said -- as you point out there is no direct scriptural evidence for or against. If you are to leave it at that, so be it.
Absolutely. And you are so right about Mary. As the church says about her, she is the first and most perfect of disciples.
I do not take lightly the difficulties that protestants have with coming into the church. Even after being raised a Catholic, coming back after a twenty year absence took a lot of study and prayer.
The Church is beautiful and mysterious and eternal and I, too am a grateful Catholic. I love that it is a well so deep it is impossible to imagine plumbing all its wisdom.
The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is just one example of the richness of the Church’s theology. Though protestants insist the doctrine is a means to support the Church’s deification of Mary, in reality, it defends the person of Jesus as God and human.
The Church tends to see the long view of theology rather than grasp on to the popular exegesis of any given generation. And that is why she is ancient and eternal.
I
What does it matter so much, these strongly devout and still very Christian people would have said
But the one little step, moves to another and another and finally it is a precipitous cliff.
, When divorce is allowed, it is just the first little step to gay marriage as we see.
Am I now saved?
It’s not disingenuous to point out that your post shows homosexuality in the priesthood/bishopric to be the end result of doctrinal or traditional compromise.
You offered no explanation for the occurrences of homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood/bishopric
It could be argued that at least with Anglicans, you can identify which of the priests are homosexual
will
I don't think the reason Anglicans are headed (or are already in apostasy) is because they slowly rejected more and more of the Catholic church's teaching. I think their problem, like many other liberal churches, is their approach to scripture. They don't treat scripture interpretation carefully but allow the culture of the day to bias their positions. They have become too connected to the world's philosophies rather than relying on the unchanging truth of the Bible.
"That being said -- as you point out there is no direct scriptural evidence for or against. If you are to leave it at that, so be it."
That is where I personally am it - I don't see direct scriptural support for or against perpetual virginity, so to me it's a non-issue. As I mentioned earlier, if I did see strong support for the tradition that those close to Mary told others she was a virgin, then I would consider that evidence as well.
Any stone, when toppled, that brings down the entire structure ... is foundational.
Is this the same theology that says that "homosexual discrimination is a thing of the past, let's have gay marriages as that is the message of Jesus"
lol ... ah ... No ...
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church wrote in 2003”The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.
“No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.”
*******
Reading this definition, scriptural references and I believe Catholic annulment guidelines, a marriage unconsummated is not a marriage; yet the persistent belief in the ever virginity of the wife of Joseph. Was she married or not?
I believe the term you’re fond of is ‘disingenuous’
will
Yes, like acceptance of gay marriage...do you support that?
Fair enough. God be with you
Are you shaved? Dunno — have you lathered up yet?
It was disingenuous of your post to make it seem like an attack on Anglicans. They sadly show what can happen when one takes the one small step away from orthodoxy
| 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. |
repent, believe, confess the name of the Lord, be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and endure to the end. Christ's words...
But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
How would an infant child obey the command to fast one or two days?
My point all along is that the early church fathers present neither a complete nor uniform systematic theology ... and the tendency of theologians within your persuasion is to pick and choose that which supports doctrine not clearly spelled out in the New Testament; using the "sacred tradition" card as justification.
This....
perfectly illustrates the Church’s defense of Mary as defense of Jesus.
Mary, though fully human, was not just any human.
Joseph, though fully human, was not just any human.
They were the holy parents of Jesus, God Incarnate, set apart by God the Father in order to fulfill His plan of salvation.
Why so insistent that they must have had sexual relations?
Why the juvenile charge of frigidity?
Jesus, though fully human, was not just any human. He was not just a good man who went about preaching love and forgiveness and working miracles. HE US LORD! God the Son who lived and died and rose for our salvation.
One cannot separate Jesus from his mother, cavalierly throwing out a “your mamma” joke as if one may insult Mary without offense to her Son.
Jesus said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”
One may truly believe that one is merely mocking Mary and through her the Church, but in believing thus, one would be wrong.
you want to baptise your young later, ok -- but the problem is that you don't believe that Baptism is for the remission of sins, do you?
1 Then He brought me back by the way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces the east; and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.
Continue reading in Ezekiel 44 ...
Ez 44:7 when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it
If we apply your method of interpretation, and link sanctuary with Mary ... this would nullify your position in its entirety.
This passage has nothing to do with Mary at all; it is simply describing a vision of the temple that was given to Ezekiel. Only by applying a subjective and allegorical method of reading into the text can you arrive at your interpretation.
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.