Posted on 03/12/2016 9:36:07 AM PST by Salvation
Perpetual virginity
3/9/2016
Question: I am a lifelong and devout Catholic and have always considered Mary to be ever virgin. But recently, I read in my Bible that Joseph had no relations with Mary “before” she bore a son (Mt 1:25). Now, I wonder if our belief does not contradict the Bible.— Eugene DeClue, Festus, Missouri
Answer: The Greek word “heos,” which your citation renders “before,” is more accurately translated “until,” which can be ambiguous without a wider context of time. It is true, in English, the usual sense of “until” is that I am doing or not doing something now “until” something changes, and then I start doing or not doing it. However, this is not always the case, even in Scripture.
If I say to you, “God bless you until we meet again.” I do not mean that after we meet again God’s blessing will cease or turn to curses. In this case, “until” is merely being used to refer to an indefinite period of time which may or may not ever occur. Surely, I hope we meet again, but it is possible we will not, so go with God’s blessings, whatever the case.
|
|
In Scripture, too, we encounter “until” being used merely to indicate an indefinite period whose conditions may or may not be met. Thus, we read, “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). Of course, this should not be taken to mean that she started having children after she died. If I say to you in English that Christ “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25), I do not mean his everlasting kingdom will actually end thereafter.
While “until” often suggests a future change of state, it does not necessarily mean that the change happens — or even can happen. Context is important. It is the same in Greek, where heos, or heos hou, require context to more fully understand what is being affirmed.
The teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not rise or fall on one word, rather, a body of evidence from other sources such as: Mary’s question to the angel as to how a betrothed virgin would conceive; Jesus entrusting Mary to the care of a non-blood relative at this death; and also the long witness of ancient Tradition.
Anicetus did not 'allow' Polycarp to do anything. It was Polycarp who had the connections to the actual Apostles which gave him the authority to come to Rome and argue against heresies. Anicetus was not even on the same plane as Polycarp! And this is the sort of specious authority which has buoyed so much heresy by Rome!
Could Anicetus be giving Polycarp the benefit of any doubt.
Polycarp could very well say “the body and blood of the Lord are here in the communion.” And even modern evangelicals will say they are omnipresent, and available to all believers, “in a spiritual way.”
Well... this is kind of sidling up on the same sort of argument Rome has been making. Polycarp had the connections, therefore had the authority. Though once Polycarp had gone to his reward, there was nobody left with that kind of authority. Only the scriptures of New Testament were left.
If we could only see ALL the written materials Rome has sequestered in the Vatican ... if Polycarp’s letter to the Philipians is an indication of the sorts of materials that may be hidden away from us in order that the foundations of catholiciism not be shaken. But I would not go as far as Dan Brown in his fiction.
It simply gets the child wet.
You are right MM. The only thing baptism does, is get anyone wet, no matter what their age. Baptism is only an outward sign of an inward change. We are, of course, saved by faith, and faith alone. I am amazed at the false doctrines out there.
Nope, see page 330 of the Catholic Catechism and it will explain, in detail, what Baptism is.
I think that I'll stick with their 2,016 year old explanation rather than yours.
ua know, eventually this purposed false assertion (2016 years? Really?) becomes lying for your religion. That’s not a part of Christianity, dewd.
Anicetus did not ‘allow’ Polycarp to do anything. It was Polycarp who had the connections to the actual Apostles which gave him the authority to come to Rome and argue against heresies.
Okay, have it your way. Anicetus did not ‘allow’ Polycarp to do anything. Polycarp argued against heresies. Either way, Polycarp celebrated the Eucharist in Rome, where it was believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ.
So the question for you to ponder is, if the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ, why did Polycarp not argue against this great heresy?
Could Anicetus be giving Polycarp the benefit of any doubt.
Polycarp does not strike me as someone who would leave any doubt about what he believed. If he argued so strongly against the timing of the Easter celebration, it would seem that he would argue ever bit as strongly against the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ.
If there is some kind of 'problem' the result does seem quite as drastic as the Ananias and Sapphira thing!
PAGE 330??
330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.190
So there was this fellow who lived in a town that had a church with a very high bell tower. The guy really wanted to ring the bell, but the good pastor told him it was too dangerous and would not let him. Undeterred, the fellow snuck up the bell tower one night and started ringing away. He was so excited that he accidently stepped in front of the bell, which banged into him with a loud sound, and knocked him out of the tower and he fell to his death. Everyone in town came out to see what the commotion was, and as they were looking at the dead man, someone asked the pastor if he knew the poor guy. The pastor answered, “No, but his face sure rings a bell.”
The guy had an identical twin brother who, after hearing what happened, decided that he wanted to ring the bell. So one night he came into town and snuck up the bell tower. The same thing happened. He got so excited that he stepped in front of the bell, which banged into him with a loud sound, and he also was knocked out of the tower to his death. So again a crowd gathered, and again someone asked the preacher if he knew the poor fellow. The pastor answered, “No, but he’s a dead ringer for that first fellow.”
BUT we do have the History of Judaism (and Jesus was a Jew) that tells us to serve blood at Passover would defile the Passover Seder. Since the early Christians in Asia Minor were celebrating The Passover Seder, what does your mind tell you they would do? Would they believe, as modern catholics do, they drink the wine believing it is transmogrified into real blood, or would they drink the wine in Remembrance of the blood Jesus shed for them on that Cross?
I would submit to you that the early Christians celebrated on 14 Nisan BECAUSE they were following the lead of Jesus and the Apostles, who would not have desecrated the Passover with real blood or real human flesh. Eating the bread, they remembered the flesh of Jesus sacrificed fro us. Drinking the wine they remembered the precious blood shed for us on the cross.
The earliest Christians in Asia Minor performed a Remembrance, using bread as REMEMBRANCE for the Flesh of Messiah, and wine as the REMEMBRANCE of Blood of the Messiah, as a sacred Passover Seder with Jesus as The Lamb of God. The Jews celebrate to this day the Passover Seder using sacred metaphor.
The Blood Jesus shed for us was taken into the Holy of Holies in Heaven and is not served for gastronomic ingestion on a catholic mass altar. The body Jesus now inhabits has life by the Spirit, not in the blood. In our state now the life is in the blood. Jesus gave that life for our redemption. Perhaps you are repeating an error that may have originated with Justin Martyr?
So many portions of pagan rituals have been incorporated into catholiciism that it is hard to know where or by whom many of them got adopted. But it is not hard to trace the History of righteous Seder participation. And I would submit to you and all reading this thread that Jesus would not have had His disciples drink blood in the Passover Seder, especially on the night BEFORE He fulfilled ALL righteousness as the sin offering for our sins.
Ask an observant Jew what Passover signifies. Ask him what the unleavened bread signifies and what the several cups of wine signify. The important point is that these bread and wine 'tokens' are signifying Spiritual Truths, Spiritual gifts. Your catholic Priest can no more continue sacrificing Jesus on the catholiciism altar than Moses could call Messiah from heaven to sacrifice Him. The catholic mass claiming to have real presence of Jesus for drinking His REAL blood and eating His real Body makes a mockery of the truth of the Passover Seder. And I would submit further to you that Polycarp knew better than any wannabe in Rome what Jesus taught His Apostles. Jesus said to perform the Passover thereafter in Remembrance of Him, not to continue sacrificing Him. He instituted the Remembrance BEFORE HE MADE THE ACTUAL SACRIFICE.
But your religion from Rome now dictates what is reported of Polycarp’s arguments. The bread represents the body, the wine represents the blood. Do you really believe Polycarp would partake of the Eucharist believing these turn into the REAL body and Blood during the ritual? He would agree that the Real Presence of Jesus is in the Remembrance, but as one who observed the sacredness of Passover so much that he walked to Rome to argue against changing the day for the celebration away from Nisan 14 to the pagan day celebrating Easter, I would submit to all that Polycarp would not profane the Remembrance as catholiciism does. I personally trust words from Rome to be true and accurate as much as I trust The Martian Chronicles.
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep. [DRB]
It may be hard to receive, but 'judgment unto himself' implies law broken. The Levitical Law forbade drinking blood as the life is in the blood. The judgment would be that taking the bread and wine unworthily shifts the celebration by that one into drinking the blood forbidden in Leviticus. And what does the catholic religion insist their sincere adherents do at catholic Mass ...
Do tell. I didn't know that the CCC from V2 was 2016 years old. Provide the proof that that is so.
If you’re depending on the CCC or any other theology from men, you have built your house on sinking sand.
Do you really believe Polycarp would partake of the Eucharist believing these turn into the REAL body and Blood during the ritual?
That’s a question you have to deal with. The historical record shows that Polycarp did participate in the Eucharist when he was in Rome, which would include partaking of the REAL body and blood of Christ. I have no problem believing this. How you reconcile this to be in accord with your disbelief is something I’ll leave for you to figure out.
Peace,
Rich
The Historical records of the Catholiciism church are ALL managed by the Vatican, so there is no filter for accuracy so long as dogma is served.
Polycarp went to Rome as probably the only living Bishop with direct connection to the actual teaching of the Apostles. Did Polycarp serve the Remembrance or did Anicetus serve the Eucharist while Polycarp took the wafer and wine as a remembrance rather than as real flesh and blood? Since you and I cannot read Polycarp's mind then, we have only the indirect method to discern what Polycarp held to be the Truth regarding the Passover.
As you put it, 'I’ll leave for you to figure out.'
Oh, but you are under the impression that Catholicism holds that the bread and wine are literally transformed into human flesh and blood, which they consume, so that scientific investigation would find it to be actual flesh and blood. That perception is easy to be had in the light of statements by Caths to that effect, and with their insistent emphasis upon "actual," "truly," and "really" and statements such as "The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ," (St. Gregory of Nyssa Sermon on the Day of Lights or on The Baptism of Christ) and of the claimed miracles of this the b+w literally being actual literal human flesh and blood. But in contrast, as the apostate evangelical now RC priest Dwight Longenecker explains (along with others), "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh."
Instead, what the theory of transubstantiation means by "substance" is distinct from what properties and the normal meaning of substance, and require pagan philosophy to explain it*. Longenecker continues:
The word “transubstantiation” means “substance across” and to understand what this means we must first understand what the medieval philosophers like St Thomas Aquinas meant by the word “substance”. They meant by this word almost exactly the opposite of what we mean by it. When we say something is “substantial” we mean it is solid, real, physical and concrete. The medieval philosophers however, used the word “substance” to indicate the invisible and eternal quality of a thing.
But faced with the objection that "If the physical aspect is not transformed in some way, then some Catholics argue, the transformation is just an ethereal or spiritual presence sort of floating about and around the bread and wine," it is denied that this immaterial substance can exist "separately from the physical aspect. Therefore, inasmuch as the substance is changed there is also some sort of change in the physical aspect." "Therefore we must go a bit further than the medieval philosophical explanation and posit that the real presence of the Lord’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the sacrament is also, in some way, physical. We could say the inner quality of the physical Christ is present, but not extended in space...Through the transubstantiation Christ is also present physically within the substance."
However, "This does not mean that the bread and wine become human flesh and blood, and it is this misapprehension that we need to be careful to correct." (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/explaining-transubstantiation.html)
Which leads to such things as asserting that those in Heaven are not really persons, save for Mary. And much weight is placed upon the RC-defined "Real Presence," but what it means is that, unlike all other miracles of physical change, from water to wine to healing, and contrary to what the Jews in Jn. 6 would have assumed the Lord was teaching if He was speaking literally, instead of an actual physical change which would have shown, for instance, that the water actually became wine, somehow there is an utterly undetectable, undiscernible change in which the elements look, taste, and would test as bread and wine, while the Lord "really" and "truly" was in the apostles stomachs while as yet He sat in His incarnated body before them. If only the Jews of Jn. 6 had understood this while no doubt Caths will argue that the kosher apostles basically implicitly somehow understood this "transubstantiation," without the usual questions and Petrine protestation.
But in contrast, they would have been familiar with the metaphorical use of eating and drinking in Scripture, from David clearly calling actual water to be the sacrificial blood of men and refusing to drink it, but pouring it out as an offering unto the Lord, (2 Samuel 23:16-17) to the Canaanite being called bread for Israel, (Num. 14:9) to Jeremiah eating the word of God, (Jer. 15:16) and the Law being sweeter than honey (Psalms 19:10) to the believers mouth, (Ps. 119:103) to the Lord teaching that eating and drinking Him so as to live by Him was like how He lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) by living by His word and the doing of it being His meat. And in the light of this and the place and description of the Lord's Supper in the life of the church, and the function of the NT pastors, then it is abundantly manifest that it is only the metaphorical explanation that conflates with the rest of Scripture and easily so, while nowhere was spiritual life obtained by literally eating anything, nor were NT pastors a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests offering up the elements of the Lord's Supper as sacrifice for sin.
* In Sacred Games: A History of Christian Worship, Bernhard Lang argues that, “When in late antiquity the religious elite of the Roman Empire rethought religion and ritual, the choice was not one between Mithraism and Christianity (as Ernest Renan suggested in the 19th century) but between pagan Neoplatonism and Neoplatonic Christianity.”
“In the third century CE, under the leadership of Plotinus, Plato’s philosophy enjoyed a renaissance that was to continue throughout late antiquity. This school of thought had much in common with Christianity: it believed in one God (the “One”), in the necessity of ritual, and in the saving contact with deities that were distinct from the ineffable One and stood closer to humanity. Like Judaism and Christianity, it also had its sacred books–the writings of Plato, and, in its later phase, also the Chaldean Oracles. In fact, major early Christian theologians–Origen, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus–can at the same time be considered major representatives of the Neoplatonic school of thought.” - (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2014/04/08/early-churchs-choice-between-neoplatonism)
From a RC monk and defender:
Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...
The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”
Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...
That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy)
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.