Eve the first woman

[NotWorthy]

Nobody knows exactly which formula Liberius approved, because Rome apparently destroyed the statement after Liberius condemned his own statement.

We know that Athanasius violently disagreed with it.

Jerome implied that the teaching turned the Catholic Church into the Arian Church.

And Liberius himself issued a teaching condemning his own prior teaching.

And how do we know that he spoke ex-cathedra?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

And how do we know that he spoke ex-cathedra?

Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

This business about only having to listen to the Pope if he says, “THIS IS AN EX-CATHERDA STATEMENT” is not valid.

For example, if the words “EX CATHEDRA” or “DE FIDE” do not appear in Humanae Vita, are Catholics free to use birth control?

Interestingly, as far as I know the words “ex cathedra” DO appear in Munificentissimus Deus, and Paragraph 20 talks about Mary’s “dead body” not suffering corruption, or rotting, before assumption – and yet many Catholics here – and an article by a website theologian in the website – say that Catholics are free to ignore those words!

Probably, the rule is something like this: One has a duty, as a Catholic ascribing to the validity of “Church,” to abide by the Church’s rulings on faith and morals (not history, not science, although there are crossover points comprising exceptions to those exclusions) unless one can cite, within oneself, an articulable logically compelling and morally compelling reason for disagreeing.

For example, suppose a validly-elected pope gets angry at the cardinals over a disagreement over the definition of infallibility, and perversely publishes an encyclical reading, “I declare, ex cathedra, that all ex cathedra statements are invalid.”

(In theology class at St. Joe’s University, we used to talk about things like, “Well, wouldn’t God do something like strike a perverse pope dead before letting him issue such an encyclical?”)

There would be a duty to think, “Hmmm, that Encyclical is NONSENSE, and must be disobeyed!”

Liberius’ destroyed statement would functionally be such a perverse encyclical. Note that God did not strike him dead to stop its issuance.

Athanasius was able to cite within himself are articulable logically and morally compelling reason for disagreeing. So, he flaunted the Church’s teaching, and then the Pope himself flaunted the Church’s teaching with a new teaching.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Knowing what I’ve been taught about Jesus, can you explain this last statement?

Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

Sure I can explain the statement: Humans still in this world don’t “beam down” from some place. Check! It’s true!

Church doctrine is that Christ is fully God and fully man. If He became immaterial for a time to pass through Mary mystically, then He is not “fully man.” The “being born” part was excluded.

 

[NotWorthy]

There would be a duty to think, “Hmmm, that Encyclical is NONSENSE, and must be disobeyed!”

Liberius’ destroyed statement would functionally be such a perverse encyclical. Note that God did not strike him dead to stop its issuance.

Athanasius was able to cite within himself are articulable logically and morally compelling reason for disagreeing. So, he flaunted the Church’s teaching, and then the Pope himself flaunted the Church’s teaching with a new teaching.

So what did Liberius write? I still haven’t a clue what scenario you are talking about other than Athanisius’ fight against Arianism, so I’m rather unqualified to defend one’s actions.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

NotWorthy: “**No, I’m simply admitting that the Church does not know whether she died or not. There are two traditions, both accepted by the Church, that Mary was assumed prior to her death and that Mary died and was assumed prior to the corruption of her flesh. If Pope Pius writes of this, he is simply giving his opinion (he is not teaching infallibly), or we may be reading his opinion in error! **”

I squarely disagree, good friend. As far as I know, Munificentissimus Deus is expressly ex cathedra. In Paragraph 20, it talks about Mary’s “dead body.”

You are misleading Catholics here! (Remember your words about me misleading Christine?)

The point: Be humble. Be humble. Be humble. In all things, love.

So, allow me to diverge a little bit, in honesty, from your opinion, on Adam and Eve.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sure I can explain the statement: Humans still in this world don’t “beam down” from some place. Check! It’s true!

Church doctrine is that Christ is fully God and fully man. * If He became immaterial for a time to pass through Mary mystically, then He is not “fully man.”* The “being born” part was excluded.

Ok, for a minute there I thought you were going off in the wrong tangent.

That being said, wouldn’t your thread of logic continue with “If He became for a time able to walk on top of water then He is not ‘fully man’”.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

So what did Liberius write? I still haven’t a clue what scenario you are talking about other than Athanisius’ fight against Arianism, so I’m rather unqualified to defend one’s actions.

You have to believe Liberius’ second teaching on Arianism, when he condemned his own teaching, to believe that the first statement by Liberius was incorrect.

I understand that the second teaching, in which he condemns his own first teaching, exists. When I have the time, I will spend a few days looking for it, because it takes that long to find the embarrassing stuff.

But, do you want to know something, NotWorthy? Few here care about proof. I showed the folks here Paragraph 20 of Munificentissimus Deus, and still none of those saying “Mary didn’t die” changed their minds.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Ok, for a minute there I thought you were going off in the wrong tangent.

That being said, wouldn’t your thread of logic continue with “If He became for a time able to walk on top of water then He is not ‘fully man’”.

No. Because that does not affect him in substance, just procedure.

If the stuff which later was scourged and had thorns pounded into it and nails driven through it “became mystical,” then he wasn’t fully us in his substance.

 

[grannymh]

No, I don’t deny that Jesus was born. I think you’ve narrowed birth to “no breach of integrity, no birth”. That’s a false presumption with God. It would be like saying, “There is no way to create something out of nothing, hence, God couldn’t have created the universe”.

Peter, you and I both know that all things are possible with God, so I simply find your thesis false on the “breaching integrity” part.

I"m not sure if I’m getting bogged down in the details of your post and missing your point. If I deny what the Church teaches, there are two questions:
a) Am I doing it knowing that it goes against the Church?
b) Am I doing it out of ignorance, misunderstanding the Church’s teaching.

Now, if the answer is a), then I have to ask:
Am I trying to teach others this “falsehood” knowing that it goes against the grain of Church doctrine.

If I’m doing that, then I feel that I am committing a grave sin, and I simply do not wish to do that. Nor do I wish you to do that, which is why I’m trying to point out your (what I feel are) false teachings, for you write in the form of someone who knows what they are talking about - in other words, you seem to try to be teaching us the truth.

Simply watching how Chrstine777 soaks up everything you write on Typology only goes to show how damaging your teaching can be, if it is false.

Do you see what I a trying to say?

Granted there are many English definitions of integrity. Checking a common dictionary one finds: in-teg-ri-ty “1.Steadfast adherence to a strict ethical code.”

Integrity in reference to the Mother of God refers to her total virtue as a virgin. However, I may be mistaken, but there may have possibly been a thread yanked because of improper and immodest references to Our Blessed Mother. My personal advice on this topic is to stick with the “Hail Mary” prayer.

 

[grannymh]

How can I answer this without having a clue what you are talking about? What “one of the formula’s of the great Arian Heresy for the Trinity” did Pope Liberius apparently approve? St. Jerome’s comment and Bishop Athanasius’ stance and comments on the Arian Heresy, I understand.

All this refers to the early period in Church history where there were a number of disagreements regarding Divine Revelation. As you know the Holy Spirit is the guide of the Church and through the power of the Holy Spirit, dogma was declared and the Deposit of Faith secured.

The individual Pope Liberaius was one of the players in the turbulent drama along with other individual players such as Athanasius and the original Arius. This history, complicated by politics, etc., makes for fascinating reading and deciding who was the greater sinner. However, once it was officially declared that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, discussion closed. Individuals who spoke one way or the other are interesting characters; however, we are not bound by their pre-dogmatic formulas. We are bound by the dogma that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

 

[juliamajor]

I don’t want to disturb the two gentle men in their urinating contest but WHERE THE HECK IS EVE IN ALL THIS palaver?Shouldn’t we get back to the subject? Hey MODERATOR IS THIS THREAD OFF COURSE OR NOT!!

 

[grannymh]

Can you share your knowledge with me regarding Eve. We do believe her to be the very first woman for Adam… to go forth and multiply. Then came Cane, Abel, Seth after him I do not know. Who are where did Cane and Abel’s wife’ come from? How did they procreate?

The first thing about Eve is that she was real and that she and Adam are the sole parents of the human race.

The second thing about procreating is a question I have about incest. Isn’t that forbidden due to the possibility of contracting a blood disease? If so, wouldn’t there be a number of generations before there would be enough mutations of genes to pass on the disease?

The third thing is the length of time a woman has for conceiving. Supposedly one of my ancestors conceived at 50. Also, I have a couple of friends who are older than their uncle.

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t want to disturb the two gentle men in their urinating contest but WHERE THE HECK IS EVE IN ALL THIS palaver?Shouldn’t we get back to the subject? Hey MODERATOR IS THIS THREAD OFF COURSE OR NOT!!

Although I whole-heartedly agree with your assesment, I’m not going to let a little headwind spoil our contest!

 

[NotWorthy]

Ah, good, you know where I’m going.

Historically, re Jesus’ birth, the Church’s teaching is that there was no violation of “integrity.” Historically, that has been read to have the same meaning as the word “integrity” when the captain of a ship is told, “The iceberg has breached the integrity of the ship’s hull, sir.” With a Caesarian as with a birth via a birth canal, there is a “breach of integrity.” So, claiming a Caesarian equivalent misses the point.

The point is that our Church’s teaching is that Jesus came into the world from a womb with no opening. He *had * to have “become mystical,” to leave the womb to come into the world. The point of the teaching is that He wasn’t “born” in the technical sense, because being born in the technical sense necessarily entails a breach of integrity.

So, you apparently believe that Jesus wasn’t born, correct?

Let me ask you, Peter. Was Jesus still fully human after his Resurrection and prior to His Ascension? I’m thinking of a passage in John which would seem to indicate that you think He is not (using this logic of yours).

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Let me ask you, Peter. Was Jesus still fully human after his Resurrection and prior to His Ascension? I’m thinking of a passage in John which would seem to indicate that you think He is not (using this logic of yours).

No. He vanished, on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24:31. He passed through locked doors in one of His appearances to them. John 20:19. He did it again a week later. John 20:26.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

But here I have to agree with Juliamajor. How in Heavens Name is that related to Eve?

 

[NotWorthy]

No. He vanished, on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24:31. He passed through locked doors in one of His appearances to them. John 20:19. He did it again a week later. John 20:26.

I think you and I BOTH dropped off the subject of Eve a long time ago, and I’d be happy to get back to it.

But, since he wasn’t Fully Human after His Resurrection (according to your logic), did the Apostles simply see an apparition? How can Jesus claim to have risen from the dead if His Body didn’t rise also? This would make it seem that Jesus’ Resurrection could easily be explained away by any skeptic as simply a result of necromancy .

 

[Pons]

But Jesus was fully God as well as fully human, so miraculous “teleportation” would be no sweat for him.

 

[Benadam]

Jesus’ body was perfectly obedient to Jesus’ will on earth. His body entered eternity in perfected obedience. It gets a share from the tree formerly forbidden. No longer bound by earthly laws but bound only to the will of Jesus. Whatever form Jesus wills.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I think you and I BOTH dropped off the subject of Eve a long time ago, and I’d be happy to get back to it.

But, since he wasn’t Fully Human after His Resurrection (according to your logic), did the Apostles simply see an apparition? How can Jesus claim to have risen from the dead if His Body didn’t rise also? This would make it seem that Jesus’ Resurrection could easily be explained away by any skeptic as simply a result of necromancy .

No. The Apostles saw a Glorified Body (modified slightly, so that He bore the crucifixion marks, but not the torture marks). By “fully human” I meant, “barred from doing magical stuff in substance,” like “de-materializing” to go through things.

Can you de-materialize?

No?

Then that’s what Jesus was – a non-de-materializer.

I think that one of the reasons why the Father would have wanted Him to be a non-de-materializer is so that there could be no speculation that the crucifixion did not hurt bad – no speculation, for example, that He “de-materialized” in His hands, feet and side WHILE on the cross.

Read Wisdom 7:5-6.