Robert Blair Kaiser clearly from the tone and tenor of the writing appeared to be a strong advocate of a NEW AGE future -- and as soon as possible, as far as he was concerned.
Last year strange events in the Roman Catholic Church transpired. Pope Benedict XVI suddenly resigned and he was quickly replaced by Pope Francis, the former Cardinal Mario Bergoglio. I personally could not help wonder if the formerly vigilantly anti-New Age Pope Benedict XVI had been forced out of his job by hidden pressures.
Today I was scratching my head over the ADVOCATE ("gay" magzine) naming of Pope Francis as their "Man of the Year." The Huffington blog of the former Arrianna Stassinopolous enthusiastically reported on that as they do on all events and personages they view as New Age. Arrianna Huffington f/k/a was a close friend of Marilyn Ferguson and she was (maybe still is) a minister in John Rogers "Messiah" cult, "Movement for Spiritual Inner Awareness."
I suddenly recalled the list I had compiled from Kaiser's book of the short list for Pope that Ratzinger had not appeared on -- and those who were for "Change" and those who were not.
Pope Francis as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was #2 on that list and classified as "for change."
Now, today, I read another alleged statement from Pope Francis that the Creation Centered Spirituality people are taking no small degree of comfort from. It appears in the current ATLANTIC Magazine. You may read an online version by clicking here.
I thought my old article deserved re-reading in light of current events. I'm interested in your opinions.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
The Battle for the Roman Catholic Church Future – New Age vs. anti-New Age? What is author Robert Blair Kaiser really saying?
I made the costly mistake of dropping by Border’s on my way home tonight. I saw husband Barry’s car parked there. Hubby graciously offered to buy me a cup of coffee. I accepted that after noticing four new irresistible titles on the new non-fiction table. One of them is the subject of this blog. That is Robert Blair Kaiser’s new book, A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future.” For many of the same reasons for which I found myself comforted by openly anti-New Age Cardinal Ratzinger’s elevation, Kaiser finds the same distasteful. It appears that Robert Blair Kaiser and Lee Penn, author ofFalse Dawn, are at opposite theological poles. Obviously so are Robert Blair Kaiser and yours truly.
It might even be that Robert Blair Kaiser’s BOOK
is a type of “The Aquarian Conspiracy” manifesto for integrating more “New Age” change into the church. The people he praises are for the most part open syncretists, those openly promoting apostasy and denial of orthodox tenets. Those he denigrates bluntly are guilty of nothing but keeping the faith.Robert Blair Kaiser seeks “a Church in Search of Itself.” Lee Penn ably articulates (using the verb “pens” would seem a littlepunnish!) the need instead of a church in search of God. Kaiser wants a church whose theology swings daily in the opposite direction. The author’s syncretistic biases shine throughout the book. His chapter, Cardinal Francis Arinze on “Developing Local Theologies” probably shows the author’s biases more than the reportedly more conservative Cardinal Arinze (and probably Lee Penn might have more knowledge about this).
Kaiser refers to an address Arinze gave at a year 2000 “Millennium World Peace summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders” at the UN in New York.[1] Kaiser says Arinze there called upon world leaders not to misuse religion by promoting violence. I have no quarrel with that premise. Kaiser was even happier that “since that meeting, “Arinze had presided over at least three major interreligious gatherings in turn, raising his media profile.” He then writes:
“Four months after 9/11, he helped organize a huge gathering of leaders – Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and Catholics -- in Assisi, where a similar meeting had been held a decade before. Curiously, the delegates prayed separately, because Cardinal Ratzinger had decided not to encourage joint prayer by men and women who believed in different Gods [sic]. Arinze didn’t fight Ratzinger on that. Neither did the pope.”
Well, score one hooray for Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)! Kaiser also wrote about those he considered the brave, good guys – those who were for “developing local theologies”[2] Furthermore, Kaiser probably misread Arinze’s whose agenda was never syncretism, but evangelism. Arinze has personally, even earlier than the last pope himself, spoken out strongly against spiritualism and New Religions, including but not limited to New Age religion.
My admitted light reading of the volume last night makes it appear to me as though Los Angeles' Cardinal Mahoney is a Kaiser favorite. He rapturously describes his do-it-yourself skills with such detail as to make Mahoney look like a natural replacement for the host and star of "This Old House". However, in this case it looks like home construction and church destruction may well go hand in hand in southern California Catholic land. Faithful Christians in Cardinal Mahoney’s diocese succinctly described his actions:
"The Cardinal is bringing in speakers who openly trample on official Catholic teachings," Fisher observed. "He's subjecting Catholics to talks by advocates of abortion, sodomy, homosexual 'marriage,' fornication, ordaining priestesses and homosexuals, occult "New Age' practices, 'dismantling' the Church, defying the Vatican's authority, redefining God, and MORE
. He should stop thumbing his nose at Pope John Paul II and leave office."[3]While Kaiser was scathingly indignant about Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s orthodox theology, he was curiously enraptured by those who would deny our Lord, including but not limited to prominent New World Religion proponent Leonard Swidler. Now Swidler is a name well known to me. One of his closest confidants is Jordan’s Prince Hassan, who currently serves as President of the Club of Rome. I’ve kept internet archived files on Swidler for the past few years. I even tried to get him on my radio program once. Luckily for Swidler, he was out of the country and unavailable for that BOOKING
. I had planned to use him as Exhibit A to demonstrate the intensity and determination of New Age theologians.Just what is my issue/problem with “A Church in Search of Itself”? The answer is contained in the very title. A true church is one in search of God, not itself. Kaiser boasts that Belgian and former Pax Christi head, Cardinal Godfried Danneels (one who also at times claimed to speak out against the New Age Movement) proudly said that his theology ‘changed daily.’ [4]
Kaiser, an unapologetic proponent of syncretistic change, gives an interesting list of those who were on the short list for the papal replacement. Kaiser says Ratzinger made none of those 2004 lists:
Papal Candidate Location Liberal Change or “no Change”
Cardinal Francis Arinze[5], Nigeria No Change
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Buenos Aires, Argentina Change
Cardinal Godfried Danneels, Mechelen-Brussel, Belgium Change
Cardinal Ivan Dias[6], Bombay, India No Change.
Cardinal Cláudio Hummes, São Paulo, Brazil Change
Cardinal Walter Kasper, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in Rome Change
Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera[7], Mexico City No Change
Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga[8]. Tegucigapa, Honduras ChangeCardinal Christoph Schönborn[9], Vienna No change
Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, Milan No change
It is more than interesting to note that just about everybody labeled “No change” spoke out boldly and strongly against theNew Age Movement. Those on the list indicated for “change” were considerably more tolerant, if not openly sympathetic to it.
With all the current talk and songs of “New Church”, and writers out there like Robert Blair Kaiser, not to mention the Matthew Foxes, Basil Penningtons, and Thomas Keatings lurking in the background, it appears that Catholic New Agers have not gone away. They merely went underground, but they are resurfacing. Last week I had an anguished call from a local client who was staying with a convent in Rome. Her daughter had called her from
Michigan, USA to say that here local Catholic hospitals are now adopting the very New Age Reikki practices along with the unfortunately usual “healing touch” and other such “transformative technologies.”
My Catholic friends, fasten your spiritual seatbelts and pray for the Pope. As the political agenda of the New Age advances via the European Union, “the men who stare at goats" in the USA military a la Jon Ronson’s analysis, the attempt to again forcibly impose it on Catholics as once happened in the 1980s appears to be once again on the militant march.
The battle is not over. In fact, it may be just beginning. Jesus once said to his apostles, “it is inevitable but that evil comes, but woe to him through whom it comes.”
A word to the spiritually wise should be sufficient!
[1] Kaiser, Robert Blair. A CHURCH IN SEARCH OF ITSELF: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future. New York: Knof BOOKS
, 2006. Page 131.[2] Kaiser, op. cit., page 131.
[3] Quoted from http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-16878.html>
4/2/2006, 10:21 PM
[4] Kaiser claims that Cardinal Danneels, once head of Pax Christi, and even the author of an anti-New Age tract, said that his theology changed daily. Whether that is good or bad, one would suppose, would be the direction in which the theology changes – closer to or further away from Jesus Christ whom he is pledged to serve – closer or further from God the father. I am dismayed to learn that Danneels was so overwrought by the election of the conservative Ratzinger to the papacy. Danneels' purported anti-New Age ADVOCACY
, shown to me a few years ago by another anti-New Age author, Donna Steichen, had once given me hope. Disturbingly, Danneels and nine other cardinals would not stay for the impromptu supper served up by the new Pope Benedict XVI. It has a ring of someone else who at times convincingly professed orthodoxy, but would not stay for dinner – Judas Iscariot on the night of our Lord’s Last Supper.[5] Cardinal Arinze issued a strong statement against “New Religious Movements” including the New Age Movement in 1991, two years even before Pope John Paul II issued the first such statement known to me. See http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/ARINNEWM.TXT.
[6] Ivan Cardinal Dias has spoken out against syncretism and the New Age Movement. See, e.g., http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/ARINNEWM.TXT.
[7] Cardinal Carrera’s election would not have disappointed me either. He issued a superb condemnation of the New Age Movement, even as some Evangelical cult-watchers were downplaying the threat of the Movement to true Christianity. Seehttp://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/acall.htm. Among the topics covered by Cardinal Carrera in that pastoral letter to his Mexico City Catholics were:
New Age and the False Hope, The Rapid Spread of New Age. New Age Beliefs, Environmentalism, Gnosticism, Pseudo-Science, Incompatibility of New Age and the Gospel . Reincarnation, and Non-Christian Meditation, Responsibility of Catholics in Face of Confusion
[8] This Maradiaga is the one that Rastafarian “Squeakbox” the author of the sycophantic biography of Javier Solana referenced in my last blogspot was so terribly disappointed was not elected pope. He posted that to 2005 comment sections on my then blogspots. This is also the one that well meaning readers frequently and wrongfully confuse with Solana’s grandfather Salvador de Madariaga. Maradiaga looks similar, but the spellings are distinctly different on closer inspection.
[9] Cardinal Schonburn strongly spoke out against the New Age Movement. Reviewer James Likoudis writes: "Cardinal Schonborn insists on the historical reliability and credibility of the Gospels. He sharply criticizes the New Age movement and emphasizes that "[t}he dogma of original sin is of inestimable importance for the whole structure of the faith" (p.67). He echoes the Rule of St. Benedict, which asserts that "[n]othing should take precedence over the work of God,' that is, solemn worship" " (p.67). He is reviewing Schonborn’s book, Loving the Church, By Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Ignatius Press, 1998
507 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 507 of 5072:17 PM
Come on, get real!!!
Many non-Catholics don't really WANT to have 'a constructive debate' in the first place.
What they really WANT is for Catholics to admit that they are 'wrong' and that the non-Catholics are 'right.'
There is nothing 'constructive' about that!!!
And, if you've noticed, it's the non-Catholics who are OBSESSED with convincing Catholics they are wrong... when we Catholics could care less what you non-Catholics believe!!!
It's almost funny...
What is not funny is the adding to or taking away of Scripture giving your pope and church fathers all the authority.
Not funny and....forbidden...by Scripture itself. Beware. Rev 22:18-19
Anon. 1:52 P.M.
RE. "Let us agree that we have different understandings and that one of us (at least!) is wrong."
Whatever you mean by "post-modernist, my understanding is simply Catholic. Period. But I will agree that we have different understandings.
As for Co-Redemptrix, Mary herself needed redemption, and while she did indeed cooperate in the work of the Redemption, she could never be considered "co-Redemptrix" in terms of being in any way equal with Christ. If she were, that would be idolatrous because God creates nothing equal to or greater than His Word.
In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.
By 1998 it was doubtful the Vatican was going to consider new Marian dogmas. The papal spokesman stated "This is not under study by the Holy Father nor by any Vatican congregation or commission". A leading Mariologist stated the petition was "theologically inadequate, historically a mistake, pastorally imprudent and ecumenically unacceptable". Pope John Paul II cautioned against "all false exaggeration", his teaching and devotion to Mary has strictly been "exalting Mary as the first among believers but concentrating all faith on the Triune God and giving primacy to Christ." When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that, the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way.
Pope Benedict XVI further explained his notable opposition of a dogmatisation, concluding that the title is sufficiently included in other better expressions of Catholic Marian teaching. For example, the Scriptural account is unsatisfactory, and above all, we are talking most of the time of a merit de congruo which would seem, by the very definition of de congruo, not fit into the exact clearness needed for dogmatic definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix
______________________________
Ergo, I don't think we have to worry that "co-Redemptrix" will be defined as dogma any time soon - if ever.
"and the second "shall" is not "you SHALL have a son" but "you shall have a SON". The first "shall" told her that she was going to have a child. That second that it would be male."
AND BOTH ARE FORWARD LOOKING NOT IMMINENT. And she is referred to as betrothed not married when Joseph took her to Bethlehem for the census.
RE my telling you to read for yourself in a short time, the purpose of short is to avoid forgetting but get the whole picture
"First, by telling me what to do you are exceeding your authority."
you gave me that authority when you threw scholars at me and expected me to accept their authority, or your authority in pointing me to them.
" Second, you said that Genesis was written on a medium so precious that there would be no repetition of the sort found in parallelism. One counter-example to your claim is enough to down it, and Genesis 4:23 suffices."
KJV "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt."
King James 2000 probably more accurate as it makes more sense, "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for hurting me."
Not relevant, 1. he might be saying he killed TWO people, 2. it is the quoted words of an individual which may indeed be poetic given the whole statement (finishes in the next verse). BUT Gen. 24:16 "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up."
is not a quote of someone's words, but a historical description. What follows about her actions is detailed, and consecutive, and the context is also historical not poetic, descriptive and consecutive.
This is not a parallelism, which happens in Hebrew poetic literature, not in descriptive historical literature.
""I assume you are a protestant and reading The Bible for yourself is a big deal, right? are you going to switch from letting the pope tell you what it says to letting "scholars" tell you what it says?"
Since when did protestants let the pope interpret the Bible for us? You make no sense."
YOU make no sense, protestants dumped the pope for direct reading of The Bible as a group, that is what protestantism to a large degree is about, and if you don't know that you are not in shape to figure out anything. Protestant sermons often reaffirm this, certainly protestant history books or articles do.
Protestants are those founding individuals several hundred years ago, and those current who became protestant instead of born in it, who switched from letting the pope tell them what The Bible said to reading it for themselves. (meanwhile Orthodox were translating Scripture and Holy Liturgy in to vernacular before the dispute arose in the west.)
Anonymous 2:17
Re:And Susanna, I'm was a cradle catholic just like you, so I too, KNOW WHAT THE CHURCH BELIEVES.
Oh, but I forgot, I must have been a very bad catholic for leaving the church.
FYI, I was speaking rhetorically when I told the story about my mother and the Jehova's Witness....not necessarily referring directly to you.....but rather in the spirit of "if the shoe fits, wear it."
But now, since "methinks the lady doth protest too much," I recall another of my mother's oft repeated sayings: "A guilty conscience needs no accuser."
Actually, I don't believe that you were ever a Catholic. Just by reading what you have had to say about the Church. if you had ever really been Catho;lic, you should know better. But as it is, you don't seem to have a grasp on things that even grade school Catechism students would be familiar with. But then, you wouldn't be the first one to pretend to be Catholic with a view to fooling gullible people into thinking you knew what you were talking about.
And as far as posting "anonymously" goes, don't be too quick to assume that those who post anonymously are all unknown to the rest of us here.
susanna there's pop catholicism and there's intense catechetical catholicism, and if you just memorize what to answer to get confirmed so you are socially acceptable, then live according to pop catholicism, your experience is going to be different than someone who has trained seriously in it. I suspect pop catholicism is the majority "catholic" faith.
that said, you accused someone of making something up that he or she showed was taken word for word from a papal statement.
sure Mary is no co redemptrix officially, but that is EXACTLY how she is seen by many incl. priests and bishops who have been pushing for this to be declared dogma. Even Malachi Martin was a believer in this.
If you were catechized by a more normal type catholic, and someone else by someone in the co redemptrix camp, again, the resulting view of the faith is going to be different.
Christine, with all due respect, you are not on the same page here with what I was referring to.
Christine to Susanna @ 5:01 PM
Re: "You accused someone of making something up that he or she showed was taken word for word from a papal statement."
No, Christine - that was NOT Susanna!!! It was me (another Catholic regular posting as 'anonymous').
I admitted my mistake in a later post. I was unfamiliar with the verbage in that particular (much older) papal encyclical.
I apologize for my mistake.
Susanna,
Once again I appreciate that you have provided the Catholic position so that I might at least understand your perspective, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it.
I should begin by stating that I’m not speaking from the perspective as a Protestant per se, as I did not grow up with any definitive tradition, and I only came to faith 14 years ago at 39 years of age. Even then it wasn’t as though I obtained a ‘Protestant’ education, so to speak, though I do adhere to sola Scriptura, properly understood, as my basis for belief. If I were to accept any label, I suppose it would be “non-denominational Christian.” Of course, I understand that’s the main difference between what I believe as a ‘quasi-Protestant’ and your RCC beliefs which include Scripture plus “Tradition,” with said Tradition providing exegesis for Scripture (though allowing some latitude in minor matters), most especially the Cathechism, as well as extra-Biblical teachings. Correct me if I’m not exactly right here.
I must admit I was not familiar with the distinction between ‘polyandry’ and ‘polygamy,’ but it follows that there would be one term for each gender. Since the Greek word for man/husband is andros, ‘polyandry’ – “many husbands” – makes sense. Learn something new every day!
Now to your first questions re: How else would you refer to Mary other than "Bride of the Holy Spirit?" What other term would you use to describe the woman chosen to become the Mother of the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit?, I’ll say: I prefer christotokos (“Christ-bearer”) over theotokos (“God-bearer”), with the understanding that the former refers to Christ both in His divine and human natures – the God-man – though I do fully accept the Chalcedonian Definition which includes theotokos (and I understand why this term was used). Either term requires some qualification, as theotokos must be understood, as you mention above, such that Mary is not the Mother of the Word before "the Word was made flesh." Mary is also the “mother of our Lord” (Luke 1:43). And that’s as far as I’m willing to go.
I may be thick as a brick here; but, I’m having difficulty understanding the requirement of attributing to Mary the “Bride of the Holy Spirit” in view of the virginal conception. If the underlying thought is that Mary would have to ‘marry’ the Holy Spirit in order to conceive by the Holy Spirit and/or bear and birth Christ, I just don’t see how that must obtain. Certainly, according to Mosaic Law a man and a woman must be married before they could consummate their relationship and have children, but how does this equate to the Holy Spirit coming upon and overshadowing Mary to bring forth the virginal conception, and ultimately Jesus Christ?
Also, I think it noteworthy that specific instructions were given to Zechariah regarding the restrictions to be put upon John the Baptist, yet there is nothing suggesting any sort of vow of chastity referencing Numbers 30 with respect to Mary. Of course, I understand that we will not agree on this point because of your adherence to your own Tradition. But, I think it instructive to look at the Greek.
[cont.]
[cont.]
Mary, in response to Gabriel’s assertion that she will be ‘with child’ at some point in the future, states the following:
εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον• πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;
said now Mariam to the angel; how will be this, since man not know?
Now Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I do not know a man?”
Note that Mary does not currently ‘know’ a man, i.e. she is at that moment a virgin. The Greek present tense-form is used for ‘know,’ meaning continuous {imperfective aspect}, that is, she had not ‘known’ and did not ‘know a man’ in the present time of Mary’s speaking. Had Luke wished to imply perpetual virginity, the Greek perfect tense-form {stative aspect} would have been better, as the perfect is understood, according to most grammars, as depicting a present state or continuing results from a previous action (though this view has recently been decisively challenged as not being universally applicable).
But, why didn’t Mary say something to the effect of, “how will this be, as I’ve made a vow of chastity?”, if the RCC view is correct? Perhaps, instead, she inferred from Gabriel’s words that she would be ‘with child’ in the near future, as opposed to her future marriage with Joseph, causing her to ask how it could happen, since she had not been sexually active. Certainly, there’s a period of time between when a woman has, in fact, conceived, and the time at which she knows she’s pregnant, i.e. ‘with child.’ This may well have provoked her “since I do not know a man.” Mary may have been perplexed as to why Gabriel would come to her as a non-sexually active, not-unsuccessfully-trying-to-get-pregnant wife, as opposed to, say, her relative Elizabeth.
Gabriel’s response to Mary seems telling, as in “it is not necessary for you to have known a man, because…”:
…πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι…
Spirit Holy will come upon you and power of the Most High will overshadow you.
The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Both verbs are future forms and prefixed with epi (the “i” is elided out of the first verb), which means “over” or “upon,” with the understanding of power, authority, or control over, especially since the context contains dynamis. The root of the first verb is the very common erchomai, which most usually means “come,” as in movement from one place or another. The second verb is not used on its own in the NT, but essentially means to darken, shade, or cover. So, I’d think “overshadow” above should be thought of more like “cover-over.” With all this in mind, we note that this is indeed an unusual conception! So, how does this necessitate a ‘marriage’? Also, note that there is absolutely no nuptial verbiage in the exchange between Gabriel and Mary, except with respect to Mary’s betrothal to Joseph.
[cont.]
[cont.]
You wrote, It would appear that the vows of chastity made by Mary and Joseph were precisely to preclude any idea of "polyandry" on the part of Mary or "adultery" on the part of Mary or Joseph. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, the RCC stance of their agreed upon vow of chastity, the doctrine that Mary was/is the “Bride of the Holy Spirit” would make Mary a polyandrist (not polygamist!) by the strict definition of the term, which does not necessarily include sexual relations, upon her marriage to Joseph. If Mary had normal marital relations with Joseph, then she’d have also been an adulteress, if she is/was the “Bride of the Holy Spirit.”
Having said all the above, my opinion is that most Protestants do not value Mary as highly as they should, while the RCC places too much value on her. On that we probably agree in part.
I’m still curious on this point: Given the RCC perspective that Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit is a foreshadowing of our future relationship with Jesus as the bride of Christ, does this mean Mary is not/will not be included as part of the collective bride of Christ? Will she have a different position than all others at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?
PS:
I should add that I fully appreciate Leo I’s Tome, which, in effect, provided the basis of the Chalcedon Definition. I would disagree with that one statement about Mary’s virginity remaining intact, though Philip Schaff’s translation is less decisive:
“…For, in fact, he was ‘conceived of the Holy Ghost’ within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore him as she had conceived him, without loss of virginity…”
Schaff’s footnote here states, “It will be noticed here that the virgin-birth is as distinctly defined as the virgin-conception.”
If I can ever finish the article I have in the works affirming that Christ performed miracles in virtue of His divine nature, as opposed to being reliant on the Holy Spirit, I’ll illustrate how this was asserted historically, using Fathers and Leo’s Tome as part of my argumentation.
"But, why didn’t Mary say something to the effect of, “how will this be, as I’ve made a vow of chastity?”"
But couldn't a person, speaking with an angel who would know all this, like someone who is a nun wearing a habit speaking to someone who would know the implications of the habit,
use such present tense to refer to the entirety of her life, meaning, I am one who does not ever past present and future, know a man? The present tense might be implying her present condition as something definitive about her so going to continue.
Christine,
I'd think that, given that an encounter with an angel is not an everyday sort of thing, one may not be at their most lucidity.
The verb ginoskw, "know" is a stative lexeme, i.e. the root word is always stative. Just like "see," as in "understand." Once one knows or understands - or does not know or understand - the state persists until it is either forgotten or, in the negative, once it is known. Because of this, in order to make a particular context a continuing state on into the future, the perfect tense-form better conveys it.
cont...
Here is another article that might help:
Unwedded Bride by Jenny Schroedel and Reverend John Schroedel
One of the paradoxes that has been used to describe Mary, especially in Byzantine hymnography, is the phrase “unwedded bride.” This expresses something profound about Mary's relationship with God. Throughout the centuries, many have believed that by choosing Mary to be the mother of Christ, God entered into a unique, almost spousal relationship with Mary. Mary has been considered the Bride of the Holy Spirit in a relationship that echoes the Scriptural reference to the marriage between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:23–32). For Saint Paul, there was no imagery more potent than that of a wedding to express this joyful union between Christ and the Church.
symbolism
In the Gospels, the kingdom of heaven is compared to a wedding banquet, and the relationship between Christ and the Church is compared to a marriage between a husband and a wife. The use of nuptial imagery remains a common way for Christians to express the mystical depths of the relationship between God and his beloved creatures.
Mary was, of course, married to Joseph in the official sense of the word, but church tradition has held that, in a more transcendent sense, Mary was actually the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Because of the particular nature of Mary's role as the mother of Christ and her unique place in salvation history, both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that Mary and Joseph's marriage was never consummated.
Currently there is much debate between Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox over whether the Virgin Mary remained a virgin all of her life. Although most of the Reformers did believe that Mary remained a virgin (including Protestant reformers John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther, and John Wesley), Protestantism has generally moved away from this earlier belief, while Orthodoxy and Catholicism continue to teach that Mary was “ever-virgin.”
http://www.netplaces.com/virgin-mary/our-lady-of-paradox/unwedded-bride.htm
Whew.
So glad I was not raised catholic. I've had enough things to recover from as is.
Have never seen anything more tortured in my life that what catholic belief does to the straight-forward word of God.
You people made me tired quite a way back on this topic. Your faith is not simple enough for a child and Jesus said that is all we need.
Susanna,
Yes, the redeemed are the bride of Christ, but this, of course, is recognized as metaphorical, like sheep of the Good Shepherd. But this language is made clear in the NT, while "Bride of the Holy Spirit" is not. Note that the collective bride of Christ would necessarily include Mary, making her in the RCC view both the spiritual Bride of the Holy Spirit, as well as part of the figurative bride of Christ.
Craig,
Re;I’m still curious on this point: Given the RCC perspective that Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit is a foreshadowing of our future relationship with Jesus as the bride of Christ, does this mean Mary is not/will not be included as part of the collective bride of Christ? Will she have a different position than all others at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?
Mary is also regarded by Catholics as Mother of the Church.
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm
__________________________
MOTHER OF THE CHURCH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_of_the_Church
By the way, for what it is worth, the following is St. Jerome's defense of Mary's perpetual virginity. St. Jerome produced the Latin translation of the Scriptures known as the Vulgate.
AGAINST HELVIDIUS
http://christianity.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=christianity&cdn=religion&tm=248&gps=83_1721_1680_1050&f=10&tt=65&bt=3&bts=3&zu=http%3A//www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
____________________________
Craig,
RE:Yes, the redeemed are the bride of Christ, but this, of course, is recognized as metaphorical.....
Probably more than merely metaphorical, but still a mystery. "Eye has not seen......"
"Ergo, I don't think we have to worry that "co-Redemptrix" will be defined as dogma any time soon - if ever."
I'm most relieved that it won't be soon. I hope it won't be ever. But I'm not convinced. The progressive dogmatic elevation of Mary above her status in scripture has been running on a timescale much longer than individual lifetimes: calling her the "mother of God" (5th century), perpetually virgin (7th century), immaculately conceived (19th century), undergoing direct assumption (20th century, and the only "infallible" declaration yet made since papal infallibility was formalised). None of these dates any farther back than the era of the gnostic gospels which told nonsense about Christ. All of them make her look more like God or Christ. T he first comes with a rider that she is not the mother of God-the-Father and the rider is never mentioned; the later three all ascribe to her something that scripture ascribes to her son. Co-redeemer status would be just another step along that centuries-long road. Doubtless it would come with a rider that she was not co-redemptrix in the same way Jesus was, and after another couple of generations the rider would be ignored.
I hope I'm wrong! But Mark Miravalle is a tainted source.
Me: "The first "shall" told her that she was going to have a child. That second that it would be male.""
You: "AND BOTH ARE FORWARD LOOKING NOT IMMINENT."
Of course they are forward looking - that's what the future tense means. But there are not different future tenses for just ahead and long ahead, at least in Greek. How far ahead must be inferred from context. There was no reason to send Gabriel unless
this conception was imminent, as Mary clearly understood - or she would not have responded to the effect "How come, since I am not getting married for some months yet?" (I trust that the words exchanged between Gabriel and Mary are reported accurately, but Luke nowhere says that he has given us the whole of the conversation.) That Mary had planned with Joseph not to have sex and therefore would be perpetually virgin (assuming she would make the same pledge with any future husband in the event of being widowed) cannot be proven from her conversion with Gabriel. I find your interpretation far-fetched but I do accept that it cannot formally be excluded. Neither can mine, though.
You: "read through it in a few hours NOW, and then tell me how much parallelism goes on in it. Never mind my explanations, never mind "scholars" on the subject, READ IT FOR YOURSELF."
Me: "First, by telling me what to do you are exceeding your authority."
You: "you gave me that authority when you threw scholars at me and expected me to accept their authority, or your authority in pointing me to them."
What utter nonsense. You might reasonably SUGGEST how I could respond, but phrasing it as a command is simply exceeding your authority and I do not intend to comply. How would you react if I started telling you how to respond to my posts?
Have I read Genesis "in a sitting"? I can't recall; probably not, but probably within a day, perhaps a morning and evening. In any case your point is that Genesis could not contain parallelisms because writing materials were too scarce and precious. But PJ Wiseman found that cuneiform tablets were written for even minor transactions in Mesopotamia, where the early action in Genesis took place (identical signed copies for each of the two participants). And Genesis 4:23 is a very obvious counter-example, demonstrating that you are wrong. Certainly the writer-down of that passage is quoting words of Lamech, but that only shows that parallelism goes back as far as Lamech and that the writer-down thought it worth including Lamech's repetition rather than editing out one of the two phrases. Anybody with literary sensitivity can see that it does not refer to two incidents.
You originally said "I assume you are a protestant and reading The Bible for yourself is a big deal, right? are you going to switch from letting the pope tell you what it says to letting "scholars" tell you what it says?" To which I responded that protestants (yes, I am one, and I know the history of protestantism) never let the Pope interpret the Bible for them and that your comment was incoherent. Your response at 4.49 is even more incoherent. I think that there is some disconnect between what you are saying and what you are meaning, but I can only respond to the former.
11:00 PM
Seriously??? WOW...
Well, all we Catholics have had to 'recover from' are a few OBSESSED radical Protestant Evangelicals who are determined to convince us that we should abandon our beloved traditional Catholic faith.
That is the only thing that makes us 'tired'!!!
So, we have a suggestion and a solution for you: STOP 'torturing' YOURSELVES and leave us ALONE!!!
Re: 'what Catholics have done to the word of God'... certain Protestants 'reformers' are the ones who have 'watered down' and even changed the actual meaning of certain biblical passages over the centuries to suit their own agendas.
Also, if 'faith simple enough for a child' is truly all we need, then Jesus would not have created HIS Catholic Church nearly 2,000 years ago... along with His promise to us that "THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT."
"certain Protestants 'reformers' are the ones who have 'watered down' and even changed the actual meaning of certain biblical passages over the centuries to suit their own agendas."
Such as?
To 12:31 PM
Go into the following website: https://www.biblegateway.com/
Look up at least a dozen passages under 3 different versions of the Bible (making sure that at least one version is old and one is more modern).
For example...
Douay-Rheims 1899
King James Version
New International Version
You will find subtle differences in those various passages. While some may appear quite 'harmless'... some differences end up actually changing the original intended MEANING of that particular biblical passage.
The 'WORD' of God should remain consistent no matter which version of the Bible one is reading... and should never be altered in any way!!!
" I find your interpretation far-fetched but I do accept that it cannot formally be excluded. Neither can mine, though."
exactly. The Scripture is ambiguous, so let's not declare as an article of faith either way.
ever virginity, assumption (held by many from early times only lately made a dogma of RC) are not in the Creed, are they?
as for a future husband if widowed, by that time she being established as a widow might not be expected to remarry like a young girl was expected and have no hassles about it.
as for incoherency, look in the mirror.
of course you didn't address the point I made about the one apparent parallelism in Genesis, Lamech, which was the report of HIS words, themselves part of the historical narrative, but the whole book is a historical narrative not poetry or myth or legend or whatever. Leaving out a lot most likely only touching on some things. For instance the strange looking name of a king rebelled against in Abraham's time might be the Persian legendary king Jamshid. But it isn't important to the history of the world leading up to our salvation.
There is nothing incoherent in saying that, since protestantism is a rejection of papal last word in interpreting Scripture and a stand on reading it for yourself, that you as a protestant, should not be replacing the RC single at a time pope, with the collective "pope" of "scholars."
I suppose we will be hearing from the magisterium known as "The Jesus Seminar" speaking ex cathedra (the cathedral of many institutions of "knowledge" and "learning") next?
"as for a future husband if widowed, by that time she being established as a widow might not be expected to remarry like a young girl was expected and have no hassles about it. as for incoherency, look in the mirror."
With a sentence like that first one??
"I suppose we will be hearing from the magisterium known as "The Jesus Seminar" speaking ex cathedra (the cathedral of many institutions of "knowledge" and "learning") next?"
Everybody thinks that they are right, or they would change their mind. but we protestants don't say that our church is incapable of doctrinal error, so you should not tar us with that brush.
Dear 3.10pm,
No way. YOU made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Susanna
You are WRONG again! I know you are not used to hearing that around here.
I was raised in an Italian American family and was catholic from birth. I attended catholic school all my life and served as an altar boy from grade 2 (yes, 2nd grade) through grade 9. I had a great relationship with my parish priests and proudly participated in and followed all catholic principles. I STAUNCHLY defended catholic faith and teachings well into my late 20's.
That is, until I read the bible for myself without depending on church fathers for interpretation and discovered something AMAZING! That one simply does NOT NEED to add man made traditions to scripture that are NOT THERE. That seems like new age at it's best.
Most of my entire family are still practicing and faithful Catholics and all baptisms, marriages and funerals still take place within the church. So, YES, I know a little bit about catholic teachings.
You are/were WRONG to assume that that someone is being dishonest about their past as a practicing catholic because they do not agree with your beliefs.
But in a way, I should take as a compliment that you considered me a bad catholic a few threads back.
Because if you considered me a good catholic, then that would mean that I was still a part of that scene and, I THANK THE LORD THAT I'M NOT.
4:34 PM
Re: (Being a Catholic...)
"I THANK THE LORD THAT I'M NOT."
Here is a news flash for you... nobody CARES what you believe. The real issue here is that you can NOT seem to leave Catholics ALONE to their beliefs. People like you are OBSESSED (which is actually a form of mental illness) in trying desperately to 'convert' Catholics... and convince them that they are 'wrong' and you are 'right.' You can't seem to accept the fact that Catholics are quite happy being Catholics.
Just get over it!!!
4:11 PM
No, you do not get to 'dictate' to me.
The evidence is there, unless you're AFRAID of what you might find out if you were to do your own research and look up those passages for yourself.
There are far too many passages for me to be able to list all of them here.
So, I am calling YOUR bluff!!!
Susanna,
OK, now I’m following the reasoning a bit better, though I’m having difficulty with its logic, as I’ll explain.
You wrote, Mary would have only been guilty of polyandry if she and Joseph had sexual relations. This statement perplexed me until I did some checking. Apparently the RCC does not officially recognize a marriage until it has been consummated. Thus, Mary and Joseph were not really married, per se, according to the RCC, leaving Mary to remain the “Bride of the Holy Spirit.” But, this still has problems according to the plain sense of Scripture, specifically Matthew 1:18-24 (leaving out v 25 for the moment).
From the Catholic Bible online:
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=47
18 This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to live together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
19 Her husband Joseph, being an upright man and wanting to spare her disgrace, decided to divorce her informally.
20 He had made up his mind to do this when suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because she has conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit.
21 She will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins.'
22 Now all this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken through the prophet:
23 Look! the virgin is with child and will give birth to a son whom they will call Immanuel, a name which means 'God-is-with-us'.
24 When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home;
While I can’t say I’m well-versed in the Hebrew tradition of marriage, my understanding is that a betrothal is stronger than our engagement; as while an engagement may be broken verbally by either party, a betrothal is a strict promise of marriage, with adultery providing the sole reason to forego the marriage, though even this required a divorce. And this is precisely what Joseph had initially intended, as evidenced by verse 19. Yet the angel of the Lord was able to change his mind, so that Joseph went on to take Mary as his wife (verses 20 and 24).
[cont.]
[cont.]
While the word for ‘wife’ here is γυνή (gynē), which may mean either “woman” or “wife,” the context plainly describes ‘wife’ as opposed to merely ‘woman,’ and even the Catholic Bible recognizes this translation. Moreover, according to Scripture, many seem to assume that Joseph is his biological father (Matthew 13:55), using this to disparage Him as “the carpenter’s son,” implying that Mary and Joseph were recognized as husband and wife.
A correction is necessary in order to proceed. Polygamy is a non-specific term for either a man with more than one wife or a woman with more than one husband; whereas, as you pointed out, polyandry is the term for a woman with more than one husband (usually with no specification of sexual relations or not), while polygyny is the specific term for a man having more than one wife. As noted above, the Greek work for wife is γυνή (gynē), which, of course, is the root word used for gynecology. Moreover, for the sake of clarity, monogamy is the term used for being married ot one person at one time, or an agreement of an exclusive commitment between a girlfriend and her boyfriend, et cetera (whether they have sexual relations or not); so, it makes sense that polygamy is as described just above.
You wrote, In addition, the children from other than the first husband are considered illegitimate (i.e., a mamzer),[61] being a product of an adulterous relationship. And this, to my mind, may be the another reason why the RCC has produced its Traditional teaching that Mary remained a virgin, thus logically implying that she had no children with Joseph, being that this same Tradition had already declared Mary “Bride of the Holy Spirit,” which would thereby make any offspring of Mary and Joseph illegitimate. Yet, even at that, quite simply, Mary is both the “Bride of the Holy Spirit” and the bride of Joseph (cf. Matthew 1:24).
And this would make Mary a polygamist/polyandrist in the strict sense of the word – with the “marriage” of Mary and the Holy Spirit being preeminent, as it precedes the marriage of Mary and Joseph (unless the betrothal period is factored in) – though the RCC denies this marriage in a sense in view of the presumed celibacy of Mary and Joseph. However, if Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, were they really considered a married couple? If not, then why does the Catholic Bible read the way it does in Matthew 1:18-24? Ya can’t have it both ways! Therefore, I’m having difficulty reconciling these two seemingly contradictory beliefs.
You wrote, …The description of Mary as "Bride of the Holy Spirit" originated in Patristic times. Yes, and from what I’ve gleaned this began in the late 4th century, rather than from the beginning.
"There are far too many passages for me to be able to list all of them here. So, I am calling YOUR bluff!!!"
What bluff? Just give me the best two or three. That is, if you can.
"Here is a news flash for you... nobody CARES what you believe."
Evidently you do, or you wouldn't have bothered to reply...
10:27 AM
Actually I'm sorry for you, left with a huge burden of trying to explain the bad catholic (new age gnostic) doctrine you folks believe (it is steeped in it for centuries).
But be happy with your church by all means, and since so happy why waste all the explaining on us who choose to be happy just believing the Bible without all the torture of your trying to explain what simple faith in God would have us just believe?
Maybe misery loves company and that it why you dump that religious monstrosity here? Don't know and actually don't care but how about giving this blog a rest from your constant 'explaining'?
Craig,
Re:OK, now I’m following the reasoning a bit better, though I’m having difficulty with its logic, as I’ll explain.
You wrote, Mary would have only been guilty of polyandry if she and Joseph had sexual relations. This statement perplexed me until I did some checking. Apparently the RCC does not officially recognize a marriage until it has been consummated. Thus, Mary and Joseph were not really married, per se, according to the RCC, leaving Mary to remain the “Bride of the Holy Spirit.” But, this still has problems according to the plain sense of Scripture, specifically Matthew 1:18-24 (leaving out v 25 for the moment)........et al.....
I think you are beginning to understand the Catholic perspective. That is why I provided a link to St. Jerome's treatise AGAINST HELVIDIUS.....Jerome says that St. Joseph was Mary's PUTATIVE husband....with putative meaning "commonly regarded as such, alleged; supposed; reputed."
Re: Moreover, according to Scripture, many seem to assume that Joseph is his biological father (Matthew 13:55), using this to disparage Him as “the carpenter’s son,” implying that Mary and Joseph were recognized as husband and wife......et al...
That was the whole point. For Mary's and Jesus' protection, people were allowed to assume that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.
cont
The importance of Mary's perpetual virginity is discussed in the relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "But, in brief, Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit (remember that Jesus is conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit) and so for her to have sex with anyone else would have been adultery or fornication. Her virginity is a symbol of her purity and undefilement, and ties into the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and also the typology of the Ark of the Covenant."
All of that is needed so you catholics can worship Mary as a co-equal to Jesus. Can you spell idolatry?
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me sound familiar? (evidently not in catholic traditions)
Going to answer for that someday.
7:19 PM
Re: "how about giving this blog a rest from your constant 'explaining'?"
How about giving this blog a rest from the constant ATTACKS on the Catholic Church... and we won't HAVE to spend any more time communicating with any of you?
9:11 PM
Re: "Going to answer for that some day"
Since we Catholics know that we WORSHIP ONLY ONE GOD... it is
YOU who are going to have to answer for the lies and the SLANDER!!!
Craig,
Re:And this would make Mary a polygamist/polyandrist in the strict sense of the word – with the “marriage” of Mary and the Holy Spirit being preeminent, as it precedes the marriage of Mary and Joseph (unless the betrothal period is factored in) – though the RCC denies this marriage in a sense in view of the presumed celibacy of Mary and Joseph. However, if Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, were they really considered a married couple? If not, then why does the Catholic Bible read the way it does in Matthew 1:18-24? Ya can’t have it both ways! Therefore, I’m having difficulty reconciling these two seemingly contradictory beliefs.
"Bride of the Holy Spirit" is heavenly spiritual terminology and is ultimately a mystery....no less a mystery than the nuptial language according to which the Church is the Bride of Christ. In Ephesians 5:32, St. Paul himself calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church a great mystery.
That is basically the Catholic position.
Your problem is with the very word of God. I'm not your problem for noting that. Something that needs as much defense as you need to give your catholic spin on the Bible (adding to it by way of your man made traditions-that Jesus warned of-and taking away from Christ Jesus Himself in making Him a 'lesser god' (not God enough because he needs the aid of Mary and other saints to save, sustain and protect us? for shame!) The best person we know can only be self-righteous compared to God's righteousness-misses the mark---by miles!) HE Is Righteous Enough on His Own without aid of saints or popes and priests and rituals, and holy water, and canned prayers, etc etc (or even His mother Mary). I know Jesus needed no human aid whatsoever to go to the Cross and pay for my sin and yours. The catholic milk-toast view of Him breaks my heart. He is the perfect God with all power and did not need His mommy to be my Savior. He was on that Cross Alone. She was privileged (and humble and pleased) to be God's vehicle to get Jesus here but was not--(and never took His Glory from Him in any way)--His co-equal as you would try to explain again and again by your too high an exultation of her and the only way you can back it is with your tradition-not the Bible! Your problem is trying to make The Book (only 66) fit your religion rather than your religion fit the Book. (it ain't working ;) )
Susanna,
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but there is still some lapse of logic here.
Yes, I understand that Joseph was understood to be Mary’s putative husband in the RCC view, but the Gospel of Matthew affirms that Joseph was Mary’s actual husband, i.e. they went through the betrothal and, even though Mary was ‘with Child’ (Jesus), Joseph did not divorce her during the betrothal period, instead going on to marry her legitimately, as per the angel’s instructions (Matthew 1:18-24). If the marriage was never considered to be an actual marriage because they did not consummate it, then this seems tantamount to God Himself being deceptive, putting on a show, tricking others into thinking that Joseph was Mary’s husband because they had consummated their marriage when they really never did, their ‘marriage’ being, in essence, a sham. I don’t think God works that way, as God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19).
More to the point, given the RCC argument that Mary uttered a vow of chastity using Numbers 30 as the base text, then what would prevent this from being an actual marriage, assuming that Joseph went along with Mary’s purported vow? One can’t very well use Numbers 30 as the basis for the claim of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and make the attendant claim that the marriage associated with said vow is somehow not fully valid. Numbers 30 clearly sets out the conditions for vows and marriage, and if Joseph said nothing or explicitly agreed with her purported vow of chastity, then both the vow and the marriage must be honored by God and be fully valid, the lack of sexual union not rendering the marriage incomplete (or whatever term is used for this), given God’s acceptance of the vow of chastity as a precondition. Hence, taking the RCC position and Numbers 30 in its proper, full context, Mary was both the Bride of the Holy Spirit and the literal bride of Joseph. Thus, Mary had two husbands at one and the same time, whether one wants to call it polygamy/polyandry or not.
Also, …the children from other than the first husband are considered illegitimate… precisely because it is assumed that these children are the product of an adulterous relationship. Of course, that is not true in Mary’s case with Jesus due to the virginal conception.
" then this seems tantamount to God Himself being deceptive, putting on a show, tricking others into thinking that Joseph was Mary’s husband because they had consummated their marriage when they really never did, their ‘marriage’ being, in essence, a sham. I don’t think God works that way, as God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19). "
a marriage doesn't have to be consummated to be viewed as a marriage. Once it exists, a legal process has to be gone through to break it even if the process is called annulment based on non consummation. Until that process has been gone through, it is a marriage.
this whole discussion is also presuming that RC standards of marriage and laws surrounding it were in play back then. In fact, the form used in the west, where vows are taken, was never used in the EO which merely blesses the marriage (in the slavic format the priest asks if they are entering this willingly i.e., not coerced, and if either has previously promised him or herself to another.)
10:47 PM
And your propaganda, lies and SLANDER toward the Catholic Church 'ain't working' either.
I am very happy and very much at peace with my Catholic faith. You don't sound like a person at peace with yours. You sound very angry, hostile, and anxious... and absolutely OBSESSED toward Catholics.
It's not mentally healthy to be so obsessed. You could probably benefit from professional help to deal with your problem... and it IS most definitely a problem!!!
10:47 PM
And your propaganda, lies and SLANDER toward the Catholic Church 'ain't working' either.
I am very happy and very much at peace with my Catholic faith. You don't sound like a person at peace with yours. You sound very angry, hostile, and anxious... and absolutely OBSESSED toward Catholics.
It's not mentally healthy to be so obsessed. You could probably benefit from professional help to deal with your problem... and it IS most definitely a problem!!!
a marriage doesn't have to be consummated to be viewed as a marriage. Once it exists, a legal process has to be gone through to break it even if the process is called annulment based on non consummation. Until that process has been gone through, it is a marriage.
Then my main point prevails: Mary was a bride to two different husbands at one and the same time = polygamy/polyandry. If she were to have consummated her marriage with Joseph, then she'd also be an adulteress.
10:47 P.M.
Bravo!!!
Very well said. Unfortunately it will fall on ears that cannot hear! Religious spirits are tenacious, and this blog is a home for them.
Craig @ 6:27 AM
Re: "Then my main point prevails: Mary was a bride to two different husbands at one and the same time = polygamy/polyandry. If she were to have consummated her marriage with Joseph, then she'd also be an adulteress."
Yes, Craig... FINALLY, someone who 'gets' it!!!
Susanna,
You wrote, "Bride of the Holy Spirit" is heavenly spiritual terminology and is ultimately a mystery....no less a mystery than the nuptial language according to which the Church is the Bride of Christ. In Ephesians 5:32, St. Paul himself calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church a great mystery.
This is true, but there's one very big difference between the bride of Christ and the RCC "Bride of the Holy Spirit." All Christians are collectively the bride of Christ, not individually. Yet Mary is singularly the Bride of the Holy Spirit, according to the RCC.
Craig,
Re:. Yet Mary is singularly the Bride of the Holy Spirit, according to the RCC.
Mary was singularly the Mother of the Word made Flesh.
Again, the nuptial imagery used to describe relationships of Mary and the Church with God is spiritual terminology and as such it is mystery. I am not going to pretend that I fully understand it.
So here we will have to agree to disagree because my intention was not to engage in a religious debate.
"Very well said. Unfortunately it will fall on ears that cannot hear! Religious spirits are tenacious, and this blog is a home for them."
Thanks 8:31 AM.
The self-righteous spirit of proud religion does hell's bidding and is his mouthpiece. Droning on and on or yelling their prideful stance and do not let God have the final word on a subject (their tradition has the final word for them I suppose) and do not live in peace with it to constantly need to defend/explain it. Christ the Lord did not do that, but the religious spirit always craves validation from others to feel better about what they believe/themselves so clearly that is where the issue lies. God gives us peace. Craig is trying to parse this out and doing a good job but I cut to the chase because the discussing is so tiring and getting nowhere in my opinion, but certainly he should carry on as feels led. I love the Bible and it's profoundly simple message that is simply profound. I feel sorry for the catholics (and some are no doubt saved-Jesus always saves those humble hearts who come to HIM Alone for forgiveness) who do not know the peace and rest of childlike faith and persist in their pride. May the Lord grant mercy to them to simply trust and love Him. It is a high place in their hearts and these seem unaware that religion is competing for their affections and taking it away from the One they say they believe. Jesus is God enough and was good enough, to give me His righteousness because I had--and still have none on my own. Jesus is Lord.
"because my intention was not to engage in a religious debate."
You have been there and done that to death, Susanna.
Susanna discusses without gratuitous insults, and I wish more people would. I say that as a protestant.
Susanna,
I’m OK with agreeing to disagree. My main thought processes involved trying to reconcile into coherency the RCC position on Mary. So, while I may and do disagree with most of the positions put forth regarding Mary, I think I can see how these can be reconciled – though it does involve quite a bit of qualification.
In the RCC view, Mary is the Bride of the Holy Spirit, in a somewhat similar way to the understanding that all Christians collectively are the bride of Christ. These are both of a ‘spiritual’ nature, divine mysteries, and there’s no assumed contradiction between Mary’s being the singular Bride of the Holy Spirit, while simultaneously a part of the collective bride of Christ, apparently because these mysteries are not identical mysteries. Mary’s marriage to Joseph involved the precondition of a vow of chastity, in order for Mary to retain the purity of a perpetual virgin, otherwise, she would be guilty of adultery against the Holy Spirit, her simultaneous marriages to the Holy Spirit and Joseph somehow not entailing polygamy/polyandry, apparently because this marriage was not consummated.
Do I understand it?
True 11:25. Susanna, I apologize for for 10:53 statement.
Bear in mind that the Law allowed polygamy. For all we know, Joseph had another wife already the mother of his other children, still alive when Mary was added to the family.
Does that make everyone happy?
Craig,
Another source on Catholic belief about the marriage between Mary and Joseph is the Summa.
Re:Do I understand it?
It is not perfect understanding which is required, but faith. And I am sure that as a sincere believer in Christ, you understand what you need to understand.
Again, what I believe about Mary is only important insofar as it refers to the truth about Jesus Christ.
In the early Church, not a whole lot was said about beliefs concerning Mary apart from what was reported in the Gospels because the focus was about the Redemption wrought by Christ.
Many of the definitions about Mary
came about as a result of heresies that attacked the Person of Jesus Christ. For example "Theotokos" which defended the hypostatic union.
Pax :-)
Anonymous 12:24
Apology accepted.
And while I am here, I want to point out that I would not have entered into this discussion about Mary if Craig had not asked me to explain the Catholic position.
I am not in the habit of trying to impose my Catholic beliefs on anyone and unless I am asked to give an explanation of Catholic beliefs and practices or unless I am exposing the occult and/or New Age and/or its infiltration into the Catholic Church I try to refrain from engaging in religious polemics.......most especially on this blog.
Have a great week.
"In the early Church, not a whole lot was said about beliefs concerning Mary apart from what was reported in the Gospels because the focus was about the Redemption wrought by Christ."
Interesting point. The doctrines about Mary DO NOT PROVE Christ's claims, they are believable only BECAUSE of Christ's claims,
AND WHY ARE WE NOT FOCUSSING ON JESUS AND THE REDEMPTION HE WROUGHT?
I think RC can sideline the Mary stuff and focus on Jesus as much as protestants (supposedly) do, and the prots can sideline the free will vs. predestination stuff and focus on Jesus.
Anonymous 11:25
Thank you and God Bless You! :-)
"Bear in mind that the Law allowed polygamy. For all we know, Joseph had another wife already the mother of his other children, still alive when Mary was added to the family."
Yes that is true. But a couple of points:
1. For those who love God the Law is a MINIMUM standard, and nothing good is said about polygamy anywhere in the Bible.
2. Polygamy came about because in ancient societies women bore the children and men provided for the resulting family, and rich men could provide for more than one family. Joseph was not rich - his wife took to the Temple as the prescribed sacrifice after giving birth two doves, a less expensive sacrifice that was permitted only for poor people.
(Nowadays the government has replaced the man as provider, and look at the result...)
"(Nowadays the government has replaced the man as provider, and look at the result...)"
total nonsense. welfare and subsidies are barely enough to get by on, and if the man had been providing - or not abusing along with providing - this wouldn't have been in play anyway.
The historical fact is that the man is not invariably the provider, women did field work, dominated the scene in the bazaars and so forth.
The Virtuous Woman of Proverbs 31 is clearly the provider not the man. In one verse it remarks that her husband, because of her business savvy and productive skills sits at ease in the city gates with no need of spoil - he is not temptable with bribes or whatever because she is the safety net.
taking off the blinders and ignoring the poetic lilt of KJv and read CONTENT she is clearly an aggressive businesswoman, and even muscularly strong, and is running the economic scene and her husband is along for the ride AND PROUD OF HER.
the real economic problem is not the poor on welfare, it is the corporate welfare, the money funneled into big business from govt. subsidies, kickbacks, and the military industrial complex and so forth.
In any discussion of benefits you are not a disinterested party, are you?
Proverbs 31 is clearly about a wife whom her husband trusts to run the family fields, and to supplement the income from any surplus grain with the work of her hands. Her husband, whom she would not dream of usurping, is one of the town elders and sits in the gate with other elders. There is no implication that he and all of the elders sit there all day every day; he will be there on a rota system with other elders to settle trade disputes as merchants come and go, and when a meeting of all elders is convoked.
the key words are "has no need of spoil."
and why? look at her activities. SHE is the one bringing home the bacon. A vineyard, selling in the bazaar, and masculine terms like girds her loins and envigorates her arms.
you are READING INTO The Bible biasses of western concepts in the past few or less centuries.
There are two reasons for the bride price, paying for the transfer of a womb from one lineage to another, and paying for loss of a worker whether field hand or cattle or sheep herder.
she consider (looks over) a field, judges it is good, buys it and plants a vineyard - this is exactly the sort of thing that would provide for the whole family but in addition she is also selling in the marketplace.
The idea presented here is a woman who is either the support of the family, or who is co supporter, pulls her own weight. It is not her ONLY virtue. But usually this chapter is used in a cherry picking way that AVOIDS these things. Their presence AT ALL however is a glaring rebuke to the "feminine" ideal and "complementary" (read: incompatible to the point of hostility) roles and personality type garbage.
Dear Christine Amason,
"has no need of spoil/booty" means that the family is not short of money so that he is not interested in raiding other people.
"you are READING INTO The Bible biasses of western concepts in the past few or less centuries."
Do you not know anything about life in the ancient near east? Of how the default was to regard women as property and that the Law of Moses thankfully promoted a view of them as people rather than property but did nothing to overturn patriarchy? Do tell me where it does! And please do not project your personal agenda on to scripture.
Susanna,
You wrote:
Again, what I believe about Mary is only important insofar as it refers to the truth about Jesus Christ.
In the early Church, not a whole lot was said about beliefs concerning Mary apart from what was reported in the Gospels because the focus was about the Redemption wrought by Christ.
Many of the definitions about Mary came about as a result of heresies that attacked the Person of Jesus Christ. For example "Theotokos" which defended the hypostatic union.
Pax :-)
At lunch today I was re-reading Leo I’s Tome (Epistola Dogmatica ), written to Flavian in 449 and read aloud at and accepted as expounding the “true faith” at Chalcedon (451). It’s a masterful exposition on the two natures of Christ.
In theological circles, the term theanthropos (God-man) is used as a short-hand to describe the Person of Christ. With that in mind, I wish that theantropotokos (God-man-bearer) were used instead of theotokos (God-bearer) in the early Church, as it’s more explicit, and less confusing. Calling Mary the “Mother of God” requires a disclaimer; whereas, theanthroptokos would not.
Though Nestorius had a faulty conception of Christ, I believe he was correct in finding theotokos problematic by itself, suggesting that the term be used in conjunction with anthropotokos in order to alleviate possible confusion in thinking Mary was the mother of the Word before the Word became flesh. Nestorius’ problem was in dividing the Person of Christ into two separate persons; however, theanthropotokos would more logically imply one conjoined Person.
Pax back at-cha!
10:50 AM
Re: "The self-righteous spirit of proud religion does hell's bidding and is his mouthpiece. Droning on and on or yelling their prideful stance and do not let God have the final word"
Sounds like you are projecting... looking in the mirror, and seeing YOURSELF!!!
Craig,
Re the dual nature of Christ - Christian philosophers started to wonder HOW God was Trinity and HOW Jesus was both totally divine and totally human. They sought to penetrate these mysteries using human reasoning, and they ended up disagreeing. Sadly that led to schism over things that the Bible is silent about.
Attempts to understand how Christ is totally God and totally man are futile, because we would first need to know what unfallen man is and what God is. As these things are best learnt from Christ himself, the attempt to understand his nature involves circular logic. St Paul took Christ simply as his starting point. Early councils of the church nevertheless declared heretical the Christology of the large ‘Nestorian’ church movement that grew beyond the eastern borders of the ancient Roman Empire. From a paradox – from mutually inconsistent statements – one can formally prove that any other statement whatsoever is true. Paradoxes exist involving the Trinity and involving Christ, indicating that these mysteries outrun mere human logic; but those paradoxes – also involving Christ’s humanity deriving from Mary – were used by Cyril of Alexandria to generate heretical statements from the Nestorian position, and then deny their faith. It was simply a dirty trick in logic and rhetoric. And a tragedy for church unity.
7:19 PM
Re: "that it why you dump that religious monstrosity here"
I think statements like the above are proof enough as to just WHO is posting 'gratuitous insults' on this blog, 11:25 AM.
You need not bother with me, after all, you have a bunch of canned (or are they freeze-dried?) 'ancient' prayers to be saying or something?
Craig,
Your point is well taken,
but it seems from the following article that the problem is more with the imprecise English translation than it is with the Greek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
________________________
Without any "disclaimers" a religiously clueless person could take "Mother of God" to mean " Mary as Mother of God in the eternal sense" which would be erroneous at best - blasphemous at worst.
Craig, " one conjoined Person" I assume you don't mean what this sounds like, that there are two persons as distinct from two natures in Christ.
anon 3:45 your remarks don't erase the fact that the REASON he doesn't need to raid anyone, cheat anyone, take bribes or otherwise fall into temptation because he is without need,
IS BECAUSE SHE IS BRINGING HOME A LOT OF BACON.
Women's status varied in the ancient world, gradually getting worse.
This change was beginning in Jacob and Laban's time, as you can tell when Laban's daughters complain of being treated by their brother like strangers, he had devoured their inheritance and sold them.
This became standard operating procedure later, but wasn't at that point, or they would have not complained, having no other expectations.
Laban operated by divide and conquer, kept everyone in the dark, everything always private. NEVER LET THIS BE DONE TO YOU and never keep secrets. "no one needs to know our business" "no one heeds to know your business" "why are you telling my business (that involves you)...." watch out for this stuff.
Moses' Law has been viewed as keeping them as property, though there are provisos in it that if used minimize this and might even overturn it.
Woman as field hand and business person in the bazaars is normative in the Middle East and Africa even when women are viewed with disdain.
It is NOT holding her in esteem to have the man be the breadwinner and provider, it is putting her in the situation of bought and paid for subordinate who owes him everything and has nothing but what he gives her, and all the finery she may have is to SHOW OFF TO OTHER MEN HOW HE IS BETTER THAN THEM BECAUSE HIS WIFE DRESSES BETTER.
This is not love this is pride which is the sin of the devil himself. A lot of the crap presented as Biblical values about the sexes' characters and roles and needs is nothing but baptized SPIRITUAL SIN.
I repeat, SIN SIN SIN SIN nothing but SIN. The man's sins that are upheld as fine are the aggressive ones and vainglory ones more apparently honest and direct. The woman's sins that are upheld as fine are the passive and sneaky ones, manipulative, dishonest and vainglory (I got a better man than you do, nyah nyah).
Proverbs 31:11,12,14,16, 17
The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, SO THAT HE SHALL HAVE NO NEED OF SPOIL.
She will do him good and not evil, all the days of her life....
SHE IS LIKE THE MERCHANTS'S SHIPS; SHE BRINGETH HER FOOD FROM AFAR.....
SHE CONSIDERETH A FIELD AND BUYETH IT: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
SHE GIRDETH HER LOINS WITH STRENGTH, AND STRENGTHENETH HER ARMS."
Christine,
Yes, I meant two natures conjoined in the one Person of Christ.
Anon 4:16,
I think it possible that Nestorius did not really adhere to the doctrine of which he was accused. IIRC, all we have are quotes of Cyril of Alexandria and others, rather than original documents of Nestorius, since when an individual was branded a heretic their writings were usually destroyed. If so, we have no way of knowing for sure.
It’s been a couple of years since last I looked at this, but, as I recall, Ephesus I was hastily convened, without adequate representation from the Antiochene position. Also, I think it possible that the mono/miaphysite views may have resulted from a misunderstanding in terminology (physis, hypostasis, etc.).
However, the formal creeds did not attempt to fully explain the mystery of the Trinity, nor the mystery of Christ’s dual-natured Person. The Chalcedonian Creed masterfully defines the Person of Christ, without using too much philosophy, and most Protestants affirm it. My only quibble is the use of theotokos.
Susanna,
You wrote, but it seems from the following article that the problem is more with the imprecise English translation than it is with the Greek.
The term theotokos is taken from theos meaning “God” and tokos meaning “bearer/birther,” hence, “God-bearer/birther,” or, as Pelikan states in the wiki article, “the one who gives birth to the one who is God,” which by itself is ambiguous, and most logically implies that Mary has preceded God in existence. The RCC and EO used the disclaimer that the term did not mean that Mary was the mother of Word prior to the Word becoming flesh, making the term intelligible to those who were educated in said disclaimer.
That’s why I proposed theanthropotokos instead, as the compound word of theanthropos, or “God-man,” provides more clarity, and less likelihood that outsiders would be confused.
"It is NOT holding her in esteem to have the man be the breadwinner and provider, it is putting her in the situation of bought and paid for subordinate who owes him everything and has nothing but what he gives her... This is not love this is pride which is the sin of the devil himself. A lot of the crap presented as Biblical values about the sexes' characters and roles and needs is nothing but baptized SPIRITUAL SIN. I repeat, SIN SIN SIN SIN nothing but SIN."
Have I touched a nerve here? Woman's role stems from the fact that she and only she can have children. For 20 years of her life in the ancient world, having them (every 2-3 years on average for breastfeeders, which would be the norm), and then looking after a house full of them - that's fulltime. So the man HAD to be the one who worked - his soil or as paid labour for someone else - to support them. That's why God cursed childbearing for women and toiling for men in Genesis 3 - those are the primary roled of each. (Labour of differing kinds!) It all follows unavoidably from biology. As for patriarchy, look at what St Paul says in Ephesians 5:22&25: “Wives, obey your husbands as you would the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church… Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (That love is agapē – self-sacrificial love, beyond eros which the couple obviously enjoy and share.) Aren't you wantonly ignoring these verses?
Christine the husband in Proverbs 31 is an ELDER of the town. The wife is past childbearing age and the children are grown. Of course she has the time to assist her man in economic activity.
Here is a quote from pope Francis that every christian should find disturbing to say the very least.
Pope Francis, in an interview with Argentine magazine "Viva" recently gave his Top 10 suggestions on how people could have a "happier and more fulfilled life".
Suggestion #9 " Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs. "We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing", the Pope said.
Really????? This is the head of a "christian" religion of some one point two billion souls???? I did not know our focus should be on a "happier and more fulfilled life"? This sounds like Joel Osteen. Should Y'shua teach Don't proselytize because it paralyzes??? That " The church grows by attraction"? Can you see the Savior teaching on "dialogues, starting with his and her own identity"??? Can you see Y'shua teaching " Don't proselytize; respect others' beliefs"? When the pope speaks like this it looks like he is Not saved! Of course only the Savior knows this. But it certainly looks bad to say the least. These statements are in opposition to the word of the Lord.
The pope needs to read 2 Timothy 4:2-4 among countless other verses that completely expose the pope's word's as religious drivel, and very antichrist drivel at that!
Dear 6.56pm,
Talking to a crowd, of course a Christian should preach. In 1:1 dialogue, which is a personal encounter and totally different, nothing is more offputting than to sense that the other person has an agenda for you. In the latter situation Francis is right, and you should not do more than impart information in love if you can. Sometimes the opportunity doesn't arise. In that case, recognise that God may have other people to send to that person. Francis does however make a common error in saying "respect others' beliefs". No - respect their freedom to hold those beliefs as part of your respect for their personhood in the image of God. But I am to respect Nazis not Nazism!
Protestant, by the way.
" Woman's role stems from the fact that she and only she can have children. For 20 years of her life in the ancient world, having them (every 2-3 years on average for breastfeeders, which would be the norm), and then looking after a house full of them - that's fulltime. So the man HAD to be the one who worked - his soil or as paid labour for someone else - to support them. "
lots of places women would work the fields with the child with them, even on their backs (in south america head boarding was done, keep the kid's head strapped securely so it doesn't flop) and take him or her down to breastfeed.
Hard working women and athletes were found in some studies to have less menstrual related problems, and easier faster childbirth.
Sounds like your interpretation would just add to the curse instead of mitigating it, and mitigation of curses was never called sin. Look at labor saving inventions like the ox or horse hitched to a plough and now tractors and other stuff. Big improvement from having to hack at the hard ground with a hand axe or something like that.
claim that she is past childbearing age is not supported by the passage. Vs. 28 says her CHILDREN will rise up and call her blessed.
A woman in childbearing age can do all this and take time off and get back to it. PARTNERS SWITCH ACTIVITIES. And once you have an older kid like 10 or 12 it can do most of what an adult would do and take care of the toddler.
4:29 PM
Re: "you have a bunch of canned (or are they freeze-dried?) 'ancient' prayers to be saying or something?"
Just keep up these 'gratuitous insults'... which say much more about YOU (and not in a good way) than the person you are attempting to insult.
Your condescending and openly hostile view of Catholics is the main reason why you will NEVER be able to have a constructive exchange with any of the Catholics on this blog.
I will pray that you get professional help for your abnormal OBSESSION... and it really is an obsession!!!
6:56 PM
Re: "The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing", the Pope said."
Pope Francis meant that you can win more people over by setting an example... than by endlessly trying to shove your views down people's THROATS ad nauseam.
What is so hypocritical of certain RADICAL Protestant Evangelicals on this blog is that if we Catholic were to post endless comments on thread after thread in trying to convince you Protestants that you should leave your various denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc.)... you would be complaining to Constance en masse DEMANDING that the Catholics leave the Protestants alone and show them some RESEPECT!!!
Has been a two way street folks.
Hypocrites in several flavors here.
I further suspect (by your hostile attitude) that you are less a sincere proselytizer than you are an Internet TROLL... a person who sows discord on a blog by starting arguments with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.
Trolling is also equated with online HARASSMENT.
So, my advice to all of the Catholics on this blog is PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!
Me: "that's fulltime. So the man HAD to be the one who worked - his soil or as paid labour for someone else - to support them."
You: "lots of places women would work the fields with the child with them"
Yes, to SUPPLEMENT the man's labour and its fruits. As in Proverbs 31. But impossible with several young children to supervise.
"A woman in childbearing age can do all this and take time off and get back to it. PARTNERS SWITCH ACTIVITIES."
Yes, that's what I said. Once she was past childbearing age she would have more time and energy to devote to economic activity. Verse 28 is far from decisive about her age and fertility, as you claim.
8:48 P.M.
Not sure what you mean by "hostile attitude"? I suppose the truth can seem hostile. I'm sure it seemed hostile to the Pharisees when they were addressed by the Lord.
8:15 P.M.
Why the pope says " proselytizing is the worst thing of all", is because it interferes with his effort to bring ALL belief systems together into a one world religious system,,,,which, is as New Age as it gets, and it is anti gospel to put it mildly.
This blog, its obvious, is decidedly pro catholic. We believers, denominational,,,or nondenominational are only attempting to show were catholicism differs from scripture, AND,,, we are not, nor have we displayed any resistance to certain protestant denominations, or groups exposure when that are in error from sound biblical teaching. We have, I have, posted links relating to said groups/denominations.
I do not hate catholics. My family is largely catholic. I can fully understand the Lord instructing Constance's grandmother to not hate catholics. However, that does not mean the catholic faith is off limits to examination and exposure.
The ONLY thing that we Catholics need to know is this....
That when Jesus created HIS Catholic Church nearly 2,000 years ago, He KNEW (being God) that He also had to make the following promise to us....
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT".
--Matthew 16-18 (KJV)
9:26 am you are speaking for me as well. And I agree that there are many that are not seeing the danger of the religious compromises that are helping the new age cause.
"You: "lots of places women would work the fields with the child with them"
Yes, to SUPPLEMENT the man's labour and its fruits. As in Proverbs 31. But impossible with several young children to supervise."
No, that is daily ongoing normal work, not supplementary. Part of the value of a girl for sale to be a wife is also to be a worker.
""A woman in childbearing age can do all this and take time off and get back to it. PARTNERS SWITCH ACTIVITIES."
Yes, that's what I said.""
No that is not what you said, because you don't understand what I mean. I am talking about "okay, I just fed the baby, you take of the rest while I take care of this other stuff, don't forget to wash the dishes and throw the laundry in the bucket to soak while I'm out." SWITCH DAY BY DAY NOT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.
Once a kid is 10 or 12 it can tend flocks, do housework, take care of the younger kids, etc. This is wisdom from our pioneer forebears and later, but considered unthinkable and irresponsible now.
Bear in mind that the nuclear family we take for granted is not that workable and not historically the only way even among Americans 100 years ago, the extended family and dumping excess kids on each other, either for several weeks or months or permanently, now legally counted as child abandonment unless processed through a court, and note she has servants in the household also. Might incl. another whole family a maidservant and her man and kids. Other relatives living in the house would supplement the work. The modern demand for day care was once supplied by relatives living with you.
Christine, the nuclear family was established in England long before the modern era, and the USA was predominantly culturally English. This was established by the British social anthropologist Alan Macfarlane.
Re:"Why the pope says " proselytizing is the worst thing of all", is because it interferes with his effort to bring ALL belief systems together into a one world religious system,,,,which, is as New Age as it gets, and it is anti gospel to put it mildly."
Bwaahahahahaha!!
Please! If the Pope were intending to "bring all belief systems together into a one world religious system," then he would more likely be DEMANDING that Catholics aggressively proselytize!!!!
But the thought does occur to me that by this standard, and given the way certain Protestants obnoxiously get in peoples faces to try to "convert" them - and given the way they trash other peoples religious beliefs - including those of other Christian denominations - it seems to me that it is THEY who are plotting to bring ALL belief systems together into a one world religious system in order to "reign" for a literal thousand years with someone whom they will acknowledge as "Messiah." And who might this "Messiah be??? A descendant of one of Jesus' alleged "brothers????."
I didn't say it didn't exist, but it was harped on here especially in the 1950s probably to help the single family housing and apt. rental market.
THE WAY WE NEVER WERE I forget the author, cites statistics and historical facts. Quite an eye opener. While an extended family can morph into a gang mentality, with clannishness and nobody messes with my people (but I can abuse them at will and they can mess with whoever mentality) and often has, small groups are a better survival thing than isolated single persons or small families.
The infamous Little House on the Prairie series was dishonest, the author DOCTORED her grandmother's diaries to avoid mention of lots of help from neighbors. The book I mentioned may have said that, but I have it confirmed from other sources.
Three generations in one house didn't use to be an anomaly, ever stop to think why those real old houses are so big?
anon 7:09, yes protestants are proselytizing and consider Catholics to be heathens in need of salvation.
No the Messiah expected is not a descendant of one of Jesus' "brothers" but Jesus Himself descending from heaven like the Creed says He will.
However, the issue of whether He will secretly come back first to take believers out of the way of the antichrist, or whether there is only one Second Coming none of it secret AFTER the Church has been persecuted by the antichrist, lift Jesus' followers out of the way of the wrath of God rained down on the antichrist and his followers, and then descend with the accompanying resurrected and still alive believers to rule on earth is another matter. pre tribulation rapture is a deception, and might set people up for an alien harvest pretending to be the rapture!
and if God wouldn't allow believers to be deceived, why does Jesus and Paul and John and Peter warn repeatedly of this possibility?
Christine @ 7:49 PM
Re: "pre tribulation rapture is a deception"
Well, I do agree with that part of your statement anyway!!!
7:09 are you serious?
Where your questions just ignorance or disdain? (don't ask that you would answer me, but perhaps for yourself personally you need to know where you are at with some big passages of scripture)
11:47 PM
Ignorant? NO!!!
Sarcastic? Yes!!!
A false Messiah will need a False Prophet.
The great deceiver and destroyer.
Watch as he says one thing to one Cardinal (Kasper) and then the opposite to a bishop. (Bishop Demetrio Fernandez, the head of the diocese of Cordoba in Spain, in a recent interview) Yet Pope Francis says nothing. Watch the Bishop's Synod closely ;)Watch for manipulation of what is reported and NOT reported.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_CATHOLIC_BISHOPS?SITE=AP&S
Thanks for sharing the information about gym consulting services. That’s a awesome article you posted. I found the post very useful as well as interesting. I will come back to read some more
Catholics know that the bestselling "Left Behind" books and movies have grossly perverted Catholicism's biblical "rapture" doctrine - the only "rapture" view before 1830.
The 2000-year-old Catholic "rapture" (the "caught up" in I Thess. 4:17) occurs AFTER the final "tribulation" (post-tribulation) while the 185-year-old evangelical Protestant "rapture" supposedly occurs BEFORE it (pre-tribulation) and is said to be "imminent."
All Catholics should read journalist Dave MacPherson's "The Rapture Plot" (available by calling 800.643.4645) - the most accurate documentation on the history of the pretrib rapture which began in British cultic circles in 1830. By twisting Scripture, this new doctrine gave folks the (false) hope of being evacuated from earth before the chaos found in the book of Revelation.
"The Rapture Plot" reveals, for the first time, how a Plymouth Brethren historian, after John Darby's death, secretly and dishonestly changed the earliest "rapture" writings of the Irvingites (the first group publicly teaching a pretrib rapture) so that he could wrongfully credit P.B. leader Darby with "dispensationalism" as well as with that rapture view! (Some still view Darby as the "father of dispensationalism" even though MacPherson's book amply proves that Darby wasn't first or original with any crucial aspect of that system but subtly plagiarized others!)
The leading pretrib rapture merchandisers (Scofield, Lindsey, LaHaye etc.) are openly anti-Catholic and believe that the Antichrist during the coming tribulation will be headquartered in Rome (and you can guess where!).
For more shocks Google "Catholics Did NOT Invent the Rapture," "The Real Manuel Lacunza," "Pseudo-Ephraem Taught Pretrib - NOT!," "John Darby Did NOT Invent the Rapture," "Margaret Macdonald's Rapture Chart" (she originated the pretrib rapture!), "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "Famous Rapture Watchers," "Evangelicals Use Occult Deception," "Pretrib Hypocrisy," and "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty."
15713meiqing
hollister kids
cheap air max
air jordan pas cher
ralph lauren polo shirts
tory burch outlet online
adidas wings
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
celine
christian louboutin shoes
michael kors
coach outlet stores
adidas running shoes
michael kors outlet
louboutin pas cher
longchamp outlet
lebron james shoes
coach factory outlet
jordan 11s
louis vuitton
fendi handbags
discount christian louboutin
cheap jerseys
tory burch outlet
christian louboutin shoes
oakley sunglasses
ray ban sungalss
coach outlet online
michael kors handbags
jordan 11 infrared low
gucci outlet
jordan 13s
nfl jerseys
coach factory outlet online
hermes birkin
louis vuitton
burberry outlet
ray ban glasses
ray ban eyeglasses
coach outlet
"toms outlet"
"michael kors outlet online"
"michael kors outlet"
"cheap oakley sunglasses"
"nfl jerseys wholesale"
"michael kors outlet clearance"
"adidas originals"
"timberland outlet"
"christian louboutin shoes"
"nike roshe run"
"hollister clothing"
"ray ban sunglasses outlet"
"coach outlet store online clearances"
"toms shoes"
"jeremy scott shoes"
"jordan retro 3"
"michael kors outlet clearance"
"adidas originals shoes"
"jordans"
"nike air max"
"kate spade handbags"
"cheap oakley sunglasses"
"michael kors handbags"
"timberland boots"
"jordan retro"
"tory burch handbags"
"supra shoes"
"air max 90"
"coach outlet store online"
"christian louboutin sale"
"adidas yeezy"
"tory burch outlet"
"polo ralph lauren"
"jordan 4"
"oakley sunglasses"
"nike uk"
"christian louboutin outlet"
"michael kors outlet"
"kobe shoes 11"
"oakley sunglasses"
20167.6chenjinyan
pandora jewelry
adidas outlet online
longchamp
yeezy sneakers
cheap jordans
goyard tote
kyrie 4
nike air force 1
vanvan cleef and arpels
hogan outlet online
Post a Comment