Immaculate Conception Readings confusing

[Julius_Caesar]

Doctor of the Church St. Augustine ALSO thinks it is obvious.

Again, no one before him quotes this. Not even Irenaeus who was a student in John’s teaching.

Augustine was rather late to the party.

 

[Cathoholic]

To the readers here.

This is probably reflective of the marriage St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary undertook (I cannot guarantee it, but it is ALMOST certain) . . . .

From our local Catholic men’s Bible study group . . . .

We already saw in Numbers 30 teachings concerning this situation. As we re-read a portion of Numbers 30, keep in mind St. Joseph isn’t recorded as saying even a single word in Scripture!

NUMBERS 30:6-8, 13-16 6 And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, 7 and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her. . . . . 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. 15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity." 16 These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, as between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter, while in her youth, within her father’s house.

 

[Cathoholic]

Julius_Caesar now knowing better than Saint and doctor of the Church St. Augustine . . . .

Cathoholic:

Doctor of the Church St. Augustine ALSO thinks it is obvious.

Again, no one before him quotes this. Not even Irenaeus who was a student in John’s teaching.

Augustine was rather late to the party.

They didn’t have to. It was assumed by contemplatives (but not by the world) . . .

CCC 498b . . . . The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another” in the totality of Christ’s mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: “Mary’s virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord’s death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God’s silence.”

I think it is the naysayers that are “late to the party”.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Julius_Caesar now knowing better than Saint and doctor of the Church St. Augustine .

Being a doctor of the Church doesn’t guarentee an infallibility pass. Considering none of the ante Nicene Fathers picked it up. But @Cathoholic chooses to ignore this.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

They didn’t have to. It was assumed by contemplatives (but not by the world)

Prove it. I’m waiting.

 

[Cathoholic]

Prove it. I’m waiting.

No . . . .

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No

Ah, no proof.

 

[Cathoholic]

Julius_Caesar . . .

Ah, no proof.

Go ahead and think whatever you want.

The “proof” is common sense and the text.

 

[Cathoholic]

ST. BASIL In Joseph, Mary had a spouse and guardian of her life, so that there would be a witness who was familiar with her purity and so that calumniators would not be given the pretext to accuse her of having violated her virginity.
— St. Basil. On The Holy Generation of Christ 3; PG 31. From Luigi Gamberno. Mary and the Fathers of the Church pp.147-148

.

There is no “violation” for a married woman to show up pregnant.

Never the less St. Basil the Great had this to say . . .

. . . familiar with her purity and so that calumniators would not be given the pretext to accuse her of having violated her virginity. . . .

Remember. This is a married woman (the Blessed Virgin Mary was never an unwed mother).

This would be non-sense . . .
unless . . . The Blessed Mother Mary had taken some sort of public vow.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was MARRIED when the Archangel Gabriel came to her.
If Mother Mary were pregnant (as a married woman)
there would be nothing to accuse Her of “violating”.

But if a married woman had a Numbers 30 public vow of virginity (if they were known to be a Consecrated Virgin) ,
it WOULD serve as a “violation”.

Not from her having conjugal relations per se, but from her ditching her vow of virginity (even as a married woman).
St. Basil the Great can say what he said.

ST. BASIL In Joseph, Mary had a spouse and guardian of her life, so that there would be a witness who was familiar with her purity and so that calumniators would not be given the pretext to accuse her of having violated her virginity.
— St. Basil. On The Holy Generation of Christ 3; PG 31. From Luigi Gamberno. Mary and the Fathers of the Church pp.147-148

 

[hope]

I don’t believe is ignoring anything but you have ignored the counter arguments . No you

just simply can’t square my logic with your ludicrous eigesis.

There is no logic to square. Part of logic is answering objections. You answered nothing in my post. Part of which showed that your statements are false. Nothing is refuted so I must assume that you can’t.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The “proof” is common sense and the text.

So you know more than those before Augustine.

You have wounded yourself with your own sword.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You answered nothing in my post.

I answered. You ignored. Whatever works best for you though.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

the Blessed Virgin Mary was never an unwed mother)

There’s literally a chant titled Hail Unwedded Bride to the Virgin.

 

[JimG]

The readings aren’t confusing. But this thread has gone confusingly downhill.

 

[Cathoholic]

So you know more than those before Augustine.

You have wounded yourself with your own sword.

Good grief.

 

[hope]

I answered. You ignored. Whatever works best for you though.

This is your answer and I didn’t ignore it.

No you just simply can’t square my logic with your ludicrous eigesis.

I have answered your post.
I pointed out to you that your claim that no one before Augustine held that the scripture implied a vow was not correct. I gave you many links to this falsity which you claimed to have read but you obvious didn’t since you made the claim that they didn’t provide any evidence which I than quoted and as usual you ignored.
You have been corrected about how long the betrothal was. No answer.
You keep claiming that conception happened immediately. When several people have pointed out to you that the words of Gabriel was for a future event. Ignored
The Homily of St Gregory. Ignored
You answered? Not once. Not with any real cohesive arguments. Not to me or to @Cathoholic
Are you Catholic under the Pope? It would explain why you want to undermine the virginity of Mary.

 

[Cathoholic]

For the other readers here.

St. Basil WAS before St. Augustine.

And no ancient Church Father ever denied the Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity. They all matter-of-factly asserted it (as St. Jerome mentioned when looking back at the ancient Church Fathers even in HIS day which was the late 300’s early 400’s A.D.).

Remember. The Blessed Mother had undergone Kiddushin (with St. Joseph).

The Blessed Virgin Mary is thus already MARRIED when the Archangel Gabriel appears to Her.

That’s WHY an angel from Heaven can say to St. Joseph he should take his “WIFE” (into his home- that is “Nisuin”) . . .

MATTHEW 1:22b-23 “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your WIFE,
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, A VIRGIN shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emman′u-el”

(which means, God with us).

.

To this day Jewish people still have Kiddushin and Nisuin. Just they do those ceremonies together now.

Even a Catholic wedding is like Kiddushin and Nisuin.

Kiddushin is the equivalent of marital vows, etc. at the Catholic Church in the afternoon.

Nisuin, is taking your bride into your home (or your room, or whatever) that night.

They are no longer spread out.

But you are still married before the wife goes into the home (room, etc.) of the groom. They are still husband and wife while dancing together at their reception that evening.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was a married woman when St. Gabriel the Archangel appeared to Her at the Annunciation. (Even if Nisuin were still 12 months away. Even if Nisuin were five YEARS away! Saint Mary is a married woman in Luke 1.)

Sts. Mary and Joseph had already undergone the marriage ceremony. They had already undergone Kiddushin.

Knowing that, it is even more nonsensical to assume St. Mary would NOT know HOW She could become pregnant, UNLESS . . . .

. . . . UNLESS she was a consecrated virgin (which that “consecration” is almost certainly a community public event perhaps in the Temple itself concerning Her “vows” that Numbers 30, just matter-of-factly alludes to regarding the “vow” per se).

A consecrated virgin, even a married one,
would never know HOW they COULD possibly become pregnant,
assuming they INTENDED to REMAIN a consecrated virgin. (That is what we are seeing In Luke 1.)

And of course Mother Mary IS a “Consecrated Virgin”.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Are you Catholic under the Pope?

When you can’t prove a point your adversary is.now.a heretic.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And no ancient Church Father ever denied the Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity

Yet none before Augustine spoke of a vow.

 

[Cathoholic]

Yet none before Augustine spoke of a vow.

Yet none before Augustine denied a vow.

And none AFTER Augustine said he was wrong for over a thousand years.

Common sense. Self-evident.

ST. AUGUSTINE "Surely, she would not say, ‘HOW shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question! “In being born of a Virgin who CHOSE to REMAIN a Virgin even BEFORE she KNEW who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And He wanted virginity to be of FREE CHOICE even in that woman in whom He took upon Himself the form of a slave.”
— St. Augustine. Holy Virginity 4:4. 401 A.D.

Cathoholic (deferring to ST. AUGUSTINE) "Surely, she would not say, ‘HOW shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question! “In being born of a Virgin who CHOSE to REMAIN a Virgin even BEFORE she KNEW who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And He wanted virginity to be of FREE CHOICE even in that woman in whom He took upon Himself the form of a slave.”

Cathoholic (deferring to common sense) "Surely, she would not say, ‘HOW shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question! “In being born of a Virgin who CHOSE to REMAIN a Virgin even BEFORE she KNEW who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And He wanted virginity to be of FREE CHOICE even in that woman in whom He took upon Himself the form of a slave.”

@Julius_Caesar saying WHY the MARRIED Blessed Virgin Mary
would be so confused concerning
HOW She could possibly conceive and bear a son . . . . .

Julius_Caesar Remember Joseph had yet to take her into his house.

.

Well I guess that ices the cake. That settles it. Now I know that a married woman cannot know where kids come from because . . . “Joseph had yet to take her into his house.”

OK.