Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For a sound reason: Personal theories are entirely unrelated to dogmatic substantiation.
I might have a personal theory that there is life in this solar system other than on Earth. Nice theory. Probably many agree with it. Such has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with substantiating that such is a dogmatic fact. You know that. Thekla knows that. MamaZ knows that. IMHO, it's just another diversion and evasion attempt.
In spite of a Catholic starting this thread, I suspect most Catholics wish it would be closed. I wouldn't even be surprised if they are petitioning Staff to do so. But, IMHO, this question raised by our Catholic friend WarriorAngel gets to the very heart of the issue: Is it distinctively LOVING to spread - as dogma that MUST be believed by all and to deny is to be a heretic whose salvation is in question - how often a couple has sex or not? It does raise the issue of WHY THIS ISSUE and in light of the Catholic Catechism's insistence that to share a report that is not substantiated is a SIN and thus NOT loving, it raising the issue of whether the substantiation offered reaches the level of dogma and is of a nature that the RCC itself accepts from others. Our Catholic friend in this thread got right to the heart of the issue, and it's interesting that this makes some Catholics, well, uncomfortable.
BECAUSE I love Our Mother more than my own earthly mother, I will raise this point anywhere I can - even if this thread is forced by Catholics to close. Respect requires it, IMHO.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
I could understand this if indeed it was Mary that made Christ unique.. But it wasn't..if Christ is truly unique, the Theotokos cannot share her flesh, cannot bear another child, without compromising in some fashion the absolute uniqueness of the God-man Jesus Christ.
why would it matter if Mary was pregnant many of times? It takes nothing away from Christ our redeemer.. Gods blessings flow to His People..
Mary was the passage of the word to become flesh.. His Holiness was born from Him being part of the trinity..
1. Personal theories are not dogmatic substantiation.
2. There is no dogma of Mary Was Pregnant Lotsa Times.
.
Sorry if it seems so. Actually, I do understand that there is a spirituality connected to Mary and I certainly understand that there are implications attached to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (that marital sex defiles the wife being the one I've heard and read from Catholics most often). But I'm not talking about what IMPLICATIONS people may take FROM the Dogma. I'm talking about the dogma, and I DO wonder why you seem to be working so hard to not do that? I know you believe it true, which I respect, so I puzzles me why you don't want to talk about it?
The spiritual is not limited (as in gnosticism) to the spiritual realm; the Incarnation exhibits this.
I am not avoiding discussing this teaching. It is my impression that you avoid an actual discussion on the matter. It seems you want this stated in "catechism" form. It seems you rely on a sort of "logical certainty". The things of God are not, imo, so reducible.
Friend, IF this dogma was that Jesus Had No Sibs - that would be what the Catechism would say and I expect that would be reflected in the name of the dogma. IF this dogma was about everything associated with Jesus being pure and sinless then that would be the explaination and definition in the Catechism and the name of the dogma would likely reflect that. IF this dogma was about marital sex being dirty and defiling the wife then that is what the Catechism would say about this and that would be reflected in the title (thus, I don't give much credence to the most often made "explanation" for this).
You assume the catechism will state things in a manner that you expect or approve of ... this is hardly a reasonable expectation.
The name of the dogma is "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary." And the Catechism makes clear this is that Mary was a virgin perpetually. I'm puzzled why all the dancing? We all KNOW what the dogma is - I never thought that was even an issue of debate. We all know who Mary is. We all know what Perpetual means. We all know what a virgin is. I'm lost what you are trying to do here. The dogma is what it is - and we all know it. It's what it says. It is what the Catholic Catechism says. Why don't you want to discuss it?
If you are unwilling to engage in or unfamiliar with dialogue, I can see then how you would arrive at this conclusion. Again, you want simplistic answers.
Again , I KNOW (I honestly do!) that ANY teaching can and probably MOST teachings DO have implications. This one is likely no different. And I appreciated hearing some that you and others (mostly the Orthodox here) shared. Thank you! Wonderful and spiritual things!!!!! But these implications are not the dogma, and I have a couple of questions about the dogma. I've raised them repeatedly - one having to do with why it is so important - to the level of dogma - for all the world to know how often Mary had sex (if at all), the other dealing with the issue of substantiation that the RCC (NOT ME) raises. Friend, both of these are much more issues for Catholics since I understand this is not dogma in the EO (yet another thing the CC and EO do not have in common) and I don't know if the EO believes that rumors are correct and loving regardless of substantiation or not, I only know what the Catholic Catechism say, I don't know the EO position on the spreading of rumors.
and Mary having children with Joseph after Jesus was born, would not make them God-men.His Holiness (as one person of the Trinity) is "unique" in person (Son) not essence. But He is unique in every way; there is ONLY ONE God-man. His incarnation/enfleshment is unique. His "flesh" is also unique.
and Mary having children with Joseph after Jesus was born, would not make them God-men.
this seems quite the stretch, Thekla,that the uniqueness of the incarnation is proof that Mary couldn't have had sex.
I For God blesses His people.. He does not withhold blessings of other children and a happy marriage from the People He has chosen..Throughout the OT we see the blessings upon Gods people..
Mary was the passage of the word to become flesh.. His Holiness was born from Him being part of the trinity..
Paul does not hold your theory of Mary here.. Is he not speaking lovinly toward Mary to you?
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
Now I notice here that Paul does not say born of the blessed virgin Mother. But born of a woman.
Greetings!! I hear the Jews might use DNA to determine if one of them is from the tribe of Judah or Levi for the coming Priesthood their Messiah will bring them.Mary was not just a passage or a vessel. His humanity came from her. If they'd been able to do DNA testing (especially Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from the mother to her offspring)on them, His DNA would have matched hers. He had her genes. Certainly, His divinity came from His Father, but His humanity came from Mary. If He was not both human and divine, then we are not saved. By the way, it is certainly possilbe for humans to become holy, even though they don't have a divine nature. Yes, holiness comes by God's grace, but a person does not have to be part of the Trinity in order to be holy.
we all share something of the nature of Christ. Humanity.It means they would share something of the nature of Christ, the God-man.
This would render Christ "somewhat unique" (sharing something of the nature of the God-man with another or others). "Somewhat unique" is a logical impossibility; something is either unique or not.
What is the Nature of Christ?we all share something of the nature of Christ. Humanity.
sorry, this ones really, really silly.
we all share something of the nature of Christ. Humanity.
sorry, this ones really, really silly.
No one has ever said that Jesus was not human and that His humanity did not come from Mary.Mary was not just a passage or a vessel. His humanity came from her. If they'd been able to do DNA testing (especially Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from the mother to her offspring)on them, His DNA would have matched hers. He had her genes. Certainly, His divinity came from His Father, but His humanity came from Mary. If He was not both human and divine, then we are not saved. By the way, it is certainly possilbe for humans to become holy, even though they don't have a divine nature. Yes, holiness comes by God's grace, but a person does not have to be part of the Trinity in order to be holy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?