Holy Family?

[DrBubbaLove]

It is definitely one heck of a doozie of a teaching and as you have guessed, I believe is a fairy tale. More importantly, a very dangerous one.

Most properly taught Catholics would understand the distinction between a "teaching" and tradition/legend. Am not sure what would be 'dangerous" believing a Man Who certainly could, would do that for His Mother or telling children that He did so. It is fitting and beautiful that He would.

Lord knows we have enough graves of the same Saints (and heads of John the Baptist) but not a single legend about the body of Mary. The Sister leading our group into the Church told the story about a tour in Rome stopping at a Church displaying the Baptizer's skull. When the curator was asked about another such site with similar claim, he replied yes, but ours is from when he was younger.

 

[JustHisKid]

Not sure it is clear to look at those verses that way at all.

Jesus making a true point that following (being a member of His Kingdom) Him is more important than our family/relationships (member of a family) on earth is not a negative statement about family. To use that to suggest Jesus was teaching that those relationships are meaningless in Heaven is putting more into what He said than was there and He would also be understood as conflicting with the honor our parents command. Likewise when He responded to the question about the widow marrying multiple brothers. It was not negative statement about marriages (that they are earthly marriage is dissolved in the life is a negative).

Jesus never mentions anything in this passage about being of member of His Kingdom is more important than family. You are adding to the passage. Further, I never suggested that those relationships are meaningless in the resurrection. They don't exist!

Angels do not have bodies because they are spirits. Jesus was demonstrated after resurrection (how we CAN be) having a body (and soul/spirit of course since He is human). So those humans in Glory (and those in Hell) will have bodies, just like He does. However, like the angels (who are created unable), we will no longer reproduce in the next life, which makes marriage and getting engaged meaningless.

That might work if the man was asking about getting hitched in the next life, but he's not. He is asking about 'retaining' earthly relationships.

 

[JustHisKid]

Most properly taught Catholics would understand the distinction between a "teaching" and tradition/legend.

I understand what Oral Tradition is. I reject it. To me, it is a Catholic teaching.

Am not sure what would be 'dangerous" believing a Man Who certainly could, would do that for His Mother or telling children that He did so. It is fitting and beautiful that He would.

Well, He didn't do it, but the danger is that you have elevated Mary to a status not due her and are in danger of idol worship.

Lord knows we have enough graves of the same Saints (and heads of John the Baptist) but not a single legend about the body of Mary. The Sister leading our group into the Church told the story about a tour in Rome stopping at a Church displaying the Baptizer's skull. When the curator was asked about another such site with similar claim, he replied yes, but ours is from when he was younger.

The worship of dead men's bones. Not a great idea.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Jesus never mentions anything in this passage about being of member of His Kingdom is more important than family. You are adding to the passage.

Am unfamiliar with the notion that people who do His Will are NOT part of His Kingdom (again which a properly taught Catholic would understand the full statement of those verses reflects the reality that He established His Kingdom (Church - His followers - those that do His Will) on earth. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." N

Further, I never suggested that those relationships are meaningless in the resurrection. They don't exist!

I would equate meaningless here with non-existence. When a relationship ceases to exist (the point being suggested), it no longer has meaning. Why God would join two to have that bond cease to exist in the next life?

That might work if the man was asking about getting hitched in the next life, but he's not. He is asking about 'retaining' earthly relationships.

And this thinking might matter if the people asking the question actually believed in resurrection. In context the men were asking a question they thought would stump Him, be unanswerable. Rather than telling them whom would be considered her husband in Heaven, He addresses both their unbelief in the resurrection and also unbelief in angels. The response does not say those relationships are not retained. It states people will not marry or get hitched in Heaven - which is why the understanding that He knew they thought they had Him and He avoids addressing that false question - because they really just wanted to make fun of - make absurd the notion of a resurrection. It is sort of like my responding to your question as if you really wanted to know my belief - Jesus would do that He is smarter man than me.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I understand what Oral Tradition is. I reject it. To me, it is a Catholic teaching.

That is not demonstrated, since "Tradition" and "tradition/legend" are two different things and lumping them together as Catholic teaching further demonstrates a fail.

Well, He didn't do it, but the danger is that you have elevated Mary to a status not due her and are in danger of idol worship.

LOL, I will agree it is not recorded in Scripture. I do not agree that "proves" He did not do it. Am not sure how believing in the very Loving act of a perfect Son for His dying Mother would be elevating Her. To me, like everything taught and traditions/legends about Mary, such a belief reflects on Her Son, not Her.

The worship of dead men's bones. Not a great idea.

Another fail on demonstrating knowledge about Catholic teachings. Just because someones says they are or were Catholic does not mean they have special or secret knowledge about Catholic beliefs. Being Catholic also does not make one inhuman and humans err. Of all denominations, the RCC is the most open and detailed in this regard. So what Catholics are suppose to believe (IOW not traditions/legends), what they "attest" to when claiming to be Catholic is detailed in the Catechism. Nothing there about worshiping bones in case anyone was wondering.

 

[JustHisKid]

Am unfamiliar with the notion that people who do His Will are NOT part of His Kingdom (again which a properly taught Catholic would understand the full statement of those verses reflects the reality that He established His Kingdom (Church - His followers - those that do His Will) on earth. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." N

I can't follow this rabbit trail. Jesus is not comparing our relationship with Him to that of regular old humans.

I would equate meaningless here with non-existence. When a relationship ceases to exist (the point being suggested), it no longer has meaning. Why God would join two to have that bond cease to exist in the next life?

I wouldn't equate it because it is not what I am saying. When a relationship ceases to exist, it simply does not exist. Something has to exist to have no meaning. Why would God join two in a relationship on earth that does not continue in the resurrection? I believe it is because a marriage is simply a model of what our relationship will be with Him in heaven. Of course, that is just a guess. I can't answer that question. I only know that is what Jesus is saying.

And this thinking might matter if the people asking the question actually believed in resurrection. In context the men were asking a question they thought would stump Him, be unanswerable. Rather than telling them whom would be considered her husband in Heaven, He addresses both their unbelief in the resurrection and also unbelief in angels. The response does not say those relationships are not retained. It states people will not marry or get hitched in Heaven - which is why the understanding that He knew they thought they had Him and He avoids addressing that false question - because they really just wanted to make fun of - make absurd the notion of a resurrection. It is sort of like my responding to your question as if you really wanted to know my belief - Jesus would do that He is smarter man than me.

It doesn't matter that they didn't believe. They asked about retaining earthly familial relationships in heaven and Jesus answered them.

The bottom line is there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest we retain our earthly familial relationships in the resurrection. Quite the opposite. We are free to marry again after our spouse dies because that relationship was only meant for the life in the flesh. How confusing that would be in heaven for a woman who had four husbands on earth. I understand people want to believe we will remain "families" in heaven because in this life, we love them so much that we can't imagine not being a family in heaven. Our emotions, however, do not make doctrine. Further, what a horrible fate your theory would thrust upon people (and there are many) who are the only believers in their families.

 

[JustHisKid]

That is not demonstrated, since "Tradition" and "tradition/legend" are two different things and lumping them together as Catholic teaching further demonstrates a fail.

The Assumption isn't Oral Tradition?

LOL, I will agree it is not recorded in Scripture. I do not agree that "proves" He did not do it.

Of course it doesn't, but why would you subscribe to a belief that is not recorded in the inspired word of God, the only reliable source of truth?

Am not sure how believing in the very Loving act of a perfect Son for His dying Mother would be elevating Her. To me, like everything taught and traditions/legends about Mary, such a belief reflects on Her Son, not Her.

It is very dangerous believing false doctrine and since it is not recorded, you should avoid it to protect yourself from falling into the slippery slope of believing things that are not true and basing your worship on those beliefs.

Another fail on demonstrating knowledge about Catholic teachings. Just because someones says they are or were Catholic does not mean they have special or secret knowledge about Catholic beliefs. Being Catholic also does not make one inhuman and humans err. Of all denominations, the RCC is the most open and detailed in this regard. So what Catholics are suppose to believe (IOW not traditions/legends), what they "attest" to when claiming to be Catholic is detailed in the Catechism. Nothing there about worshiping bones in case anyone was wondering.

What would you call putting dead men's bones on display in a museum? I don't know if anyone bows before them in prayer to him, but if they did, it would be no different from bowing before a statue of a person who is dead in the flesh and praying to them. Summoning the spirits of people who have died in the flesh is sorcery, and believing there is no harm in it is result of believing false doctrine.

 

[Winepress777]

(Isa 9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called... The everlasting Father...

(Joh 14:8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
(Joh 14:9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

 

[JustHisKid]

(Isa 9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called... The everlasting Father...

(Joh 14:8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
(Joh 14:9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Not sure where you are going with this.

 

[Winepress777]

Not sure where you are going with this.

Some folk will. Since it is God speaking, and not me.

 

[JustHisKid]

Some folk will. Since it is God speaking, and not me.

It's an amazing passage, I just don't understand how you are relating it to the OP. Maybe you could share. That would be helpful.

 

[Winepress777]

It's an amazing passage, I just don't understand how you are relating it to the OP. Maybe you could share. That would be helpful.

It's an amazing passage, I just don't understand how you are relating it to the OP. Maybe you could share. That would be helpful.

(Rom 7:4) ... be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit (children) unto God.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
(Joh 14:9) Jesus saith unto him...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father

(Joh 16:21) A woman then has no more the travail, ...for the joy that a man is born into the world.

(Gal 4:19) My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

(Heb 2:13) And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

(Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come...

 

[JustHisKid]

That is not demonstrated, since "Tradition" and "tradition/legend" are two different things and lumping them together as Catholic teaching further demonstrates a fail.
LOL, I will agree it is not recorded in Scripture. I do not agree that "proves" He did not do it. Am not sure how believing in the very Loving act of a perfect Son for His dying Mother would be elevating Her. To me, like everything taught and traditions/legends about Mary, such a belief reflects on Her Son, not Her.
Another fail on demonstrating knowledge about Catholic teachings. Just because someones says they are or were Catholic does not mean they have special or secret knowledge about Catholic beliefs. Being Catholic also does not make one inhuman and humans err. Of all denominations, the RCC is the most open and detailed in this regard. So what Catholics are suppose to believe (IOW not traditions/legends), what they "attest" to when claiming to be Catholic is detailed in the Catechism. Nothing there about worshiping bones in case anyone was wondering.

Romans 7 King James Version (KJV)
7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I can't follow this rabbit trail. Jesus is not comparing our relationship with Him to that of regular old humans.

You cannot follow that He was teaching not that family relationships are non-existent but that His Followers (His Kingdom) are those that do His Will. In essence He acknowledges yes those people are my family (by blood), but those that do My Will (My Followers - He actually points to them) are right now part of an extended family (right now-part of My Kingdom/family). Not sure why that would be hard to understand or follow.

I wouldn't equate it because it is not what I am saying. When a relationship ceases to exist, it simply does not exist. Something has to exist to have no meaning. Why would God join two in a relationship on earth that does not continue in the resurrection? I believe it is because a marriage is simply a model of what our relationship will be with Him in heaven. Of course, that is just a guess. I can't answer that question. I only know that is what Jesus is saying.

So in your mind our relationship with Him in heaven are not or may not be eternal (could become non-existent like the "model") or He is allowed to bond eternally and break relationships but forbid us to do so (not sure how that is Love)?

It doesn't matter that they didn't believe. They asked about retaining earthly familial relationships in heaven and Jesus answered them.

It matters because it goes to context of His response and if did not matter why was the fact they not believe in a resurrection recorded? hint: to put His response in context because He did not tell which brother would be Her husband or deny that she would have husband there.

The bottom line is there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest we retain our earthly familial relationships in the resurrection. Quite the opposite. We are free to marry again after our spouse dies because that relationship was only meant for the life in the flesh. How confusing that would be in heaven for a woman who had four husbands on earth. I understand people want to believe we will remain "families" in heaven because in this life, we love them so much that we can't imagine not being a family in heaven. Our emotions, however, do not make doctrine. Further, what a horrible fate your theory would thrust upon people (and there are many) who are the only believers in their families.

We were speaking of Heaven, which clearly He says those there would not be given in marriages or have wedding/marriages. Which has nothing to do with allowing those who loose a spouse to remarry (especially if childless or unable to remain chaste as Saint Paul emphasizes - which our issues humans in Heaven will not be bothered with)

Am not sure why a widow/widower remarrying would create family confusion in Heaven where all be full of Joy and Love. I could see why it would if one thought they would still live, sleep (& reproduce) as families but that is not part of the RCC teachings on Heaven. Actually speculation of why we would still have all our body parts leads some to make some interesting suggestions - but that is another issue and embarrassing for those who want to be in the protesting section of Heaven. Pun intended.

The alleged "problem" of having people we know and love go to Hell would exist whether one is married or not (another topic), so I am unclear why that presents an issue for remaining a "family" in heaven for those where both spouses make it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Romans 7 King James Version (KJV)
7 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

And again, in context and not in isolation, these verses speak as to whether a woman can remarry in this life and also about the limitations of the Law in this life. It is comparing the Law to rule a husband over his wife until he dies - upon which she is released from the rule of his law. It says nothing about whether or not she has a husband waiting for her in heaven or whether or not he would still be considered her husband (relationship wise) in Heaven.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The Assumption isn't Oral Tradition?

No, not if Oral Tradition is understood and also why it [the assumption of Mary] is not found in the Catechism.

Of course it doesn't, but why would you subscribe to a belief that is not recorded in the inspired word of God, the only reliable source of truth?

Oral Tradition is a reliable source because it is Inspired by God to be revealed to mankind. Legends and traditions (lower case) change over time, truth and Tradition do not.

It is very dangerous believing false doctrine and since it is not recorded, you should avoid it to protect yourself from falling into the slippery slope of believing things that are not true and basing your worship on those beliefs.

You mean a slippery slope like develop my own beliefs by taking scripture out of context and assume that the resulting understanding is Inspired by the Holy Ghost - no thanks.

What would you call putting dead men's bones on display in a museum? I don't know if anyone bows before them in prayer to him, but if they did, it would be no different from bowing before a statue of a person who is dead in the flesh and praying to them. Summoning the spirits of people who have died in the flesh is sorcery, and believing there is no harm in it is result of believing false doctrine.

I would call that honoring a person. cherishing their memory, reminding us of what they did during their life, especially ones worthy of our honor/respect. We have a lot of statues and flags around our country, been to the Smithsonian. Would not call any of that "worship", especially not worship that is due God. Nothing wrong with those things. It is when we "worship" things with the "worship" owed to God alone that we err. I do not see Catholics or other faiths doing that with statues or icons.

Been a Catholic for a while and know of no teaching or any Catholics who bow to statues of men. We bow entering and leaving Church when (and because) our King is present - nothing to do with the statues. We kneel often (not always) while praying (not a bow) whether in the pew or in front of candles, pictures or statues because it is reverent posture to assume when praying to God or praying in general. Technically most folks bow at least there heads when praying, which says nothing about whatever happens to be in front of them while doing so.

 

[JustHisKid]

And again, in context and not in isolation, these verses speak as to whether a woman can remarry in this life and also about the limitations of the Law in this life. It is comparing the Law to rule a husband over his wife until he dies - upon which she is released from the rule of his law. It says nothing about whether or not she has a husband waiting for her in heaven or whether or not he would still be considered her husband (relationship wise) in Heaven.

Not 'his' law, the law. It shows you that the bond is broken when he dies.

 

[JustHisKid]

.
Oral Tradition is a reliable source because it is Inspired by God to be revealed to mankind.

Who says?


.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not 'his' law, the law. It shows you that the bond is broken when he dies.

Actually I think Saint Paul would say the bond of marriage is never broken. After all, divorce was only permitted to stop the adultery - because of their sin - not because the bond could or should be broken. Saint Paul is saying under the law (given to flesh) she cannot remarry while her husband lives without violating the law (adultery). In fact elsewhere Saint Paul would argue it would be better/preferable to remain a widow.

Maybe am looking at this wrong. If the thought is that in Heaven, there will be unity there between all then we agree. The unity possible there between man and wife exceeds anything possible in this life and all would know and recognize loved ones. I do not think this unity between all the glorified Kingdom replaces, but would instead magnify all the bonds we form in this life, including those of man and wife.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Who says?


.

God said, (my bolding added)
Matt 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And they did:
2 Cor 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

These teachings from the Apostles are the foundation for the entire body of teachings passed down to us, which includes not just sacred scripture but all the "things" He had taught them. The teaching authority Christ gave His Apostles, they passed on to Bishops who took their place. And that process can be shown again by Saint Paul:

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

It is that transmission of knowledge from Christ through the Apostles is passed down to us and that we call Tradition, and it is distinct from sacred scripture. The "T" is capital to distinguish it from tradition/legend which is what we were talking about with the assumption of the Mother of God. Because of the source (Christ Himself) both sacred scripture and this Tradition are considered the Word of God.

The Holy Fathers have expounded upon this Apostolic Tradition and we have their writings (and lives) as first hand account of how this Tradition has continued to bless the Church and our lives for it. This Apostolic Tradition stands with sacred scripture, not against. Together with the teaching authority (Magisterium) Christ gave the Church (bind and loose - Matt 16:19, 18:18), these three (Sacred Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, work together to preserve and pass down for all mankind all that we are to believe (all that God has revealed to mankind). The Church preserves that knowledge, what we are to believe, and that only possible by His Grace, the Holy Spirit (comfort and guide) and His promise:Matt 28:20
"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."