B
brian_custer
Guest
ok, guy
let’s bring this topic down to sewer of biology
let’s bring this topic down to sewer of biology
- Status
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I think the issue is what the Council fathers understood by such expressions when they allegedly infallibly said what we must believe on the matter.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Why is biology a “sewer”?
B
brian_custer
Guest
i am no prude; but talking about the “hymen” w/ regard to BVM?; not going there
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Well the Early Church wasn’t squeamish about discussing such things when theology was at stake.
That is the very reason we are all teasing the issue out.
We are advised it is still a matter of infallibility, if not religious assent of mind and will, that we must believe Jesus’s birth was a miraculous spiritual caesearian, an intact biological sign of virginity and absence of birth pains.
The embarrassed official pronouncements of recent times attempt to side step this very clear ancient tradition by asserting that the theological teaching of “virginity during birth” does not commit to any particular biological explanations.
Some of us find that somewhat disingenuous - it is very clear what biological meaning tradition meant by that VDB phrase. If it does not mean something biological then the VDB phrase adds nothing at all to the common place teaching all Catholics accept that the Virgin knew no man ever.
That is the very reason we are all teasing the issue out.
We are advised it is still a matter of infallibility, if not religious assent of mind and will, that we must believe Jesus’s birth was a miraculous spiritual caesearian, an intact biological sign of virginity and absence of birth pains.
The embarrassed official pronouncements of recent times attempt to side step this very clear ancient tradition by asserting that the theological teaching of “virginity during birth” does not commit to any particular biological explanations.
Some of us find that somewhat disingenuous - it is very clear what biological meaning tradition meant by that VDB phrase. If it does not mean something biological then the VDB phrase adds nothing at all to the common place teaching all Catholics accept that the Virgin knew no man ever.
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
To my mind, it’s really disordered. That people should even be discussing it. What an insult to Our Lady.
B
brian_custer
Guest
wait a second. i’ve had 3 children delivered by c-section
it is major surgery
who’d’ve done that in ancient judea?
stop over-thinking this
Jesus was born in in the normal fashion; wow how is is that such a crisis of faith?
it is major surgery
who’d’ve done that in ancient judea?
stop over-thinking this
Jesus was born in in the normal fashion; wow how is is that such a crisis of faith?
B
BlackFriar
Guest
BC I would have to observe you seem to have little idea of what the main chance is here nor the positions of your interlocutors.
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
You know guys, I suggest reading Jesus of Nazereth, the Infancy Narratives.
@Hope1960
@Hope1960
B
BlackFriar
Guest
You really mean the Infancy Gospel of James methinks 
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
The Chuch has not decided upon that detail. It was miraculous however:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 204:
Virginity from Catholic Encylopedia
Vermeersch, A. (1912). Virginity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm
Last edited:
R
runningdude
Guest
A “smiley face” does not make your statement any less rude. State your objection so that I may respond, or go away. Your choice.
Last edited:
A
anikins
Guest
Just curious why it is an insult to talk about biology?
B
BlackFriar
Guest
???
The only thing rude I can see here is your “go away” comment.
Gods peace be with you.
The only thing rude I can see here is your “go away” comment.
Gods peace be with you.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Do you find it strange that the Church allegedly teaches Jesus’s birth is a great miracle yet is unable to articulate what the miracle physically consists in…at all. Even the Eucharist, which strictly speaking is a miracle of faith rather than of the senses, is clearly articulated in that Jesus is bodily present and the bread transformed.
Could the mystery miracle of the Nativity simply be one of faith also … simply the mystety of the incarnation that one who is pure Spirit can take on human flesh…something anathema to the Jews.
That seems to be the third joyful mystery of the Rosary anyway.
Ive never thought of it in terms of intact body parts and passing through Marys side like Buddha.
Maybe I and others have been mistaken for many decades re the Rosary.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Why wasnt it disordered for theogians and scholars of the past.
Is it so for modern writers of the scholarly articles I attached above.
Youve had your say…and others politely disagree and have stated why.
Why do you keep coming here to check on this topic that grieves you so?
Is it so for modern writers of the scholarly articles I attached above.
Youve had your say…and others politely disagree and have stated why.
Why do you keep coming here to check on this topic that grieves you so?
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
The issue is what the early Church Fathers would have said. Modern day science has nothing to do with it.
D
De_Maria
Guest
You’re confusing the doubts and understanding of some, to the articulation of the Church. I believe the Church has perfectly described the miracle.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
At least you are more honest/realistic than others about what the ancients regarded the miracle to be.
However I believe you have gone off the rails if you are unable to discern that more recent Magisterial expressions, if any, are now trying to side step and pussy foot around that ancient articulation.
The ancient teaching of the miracle has become problematic and, unlike other teachings such as usury, slavery, geocentrism, grace in Protestant Churches…a satisfactory workaround hasnt been found yet.
For myself the workaround is clear. Like geocentrism the Church was blinded by the understandably limited horizons of its time. It is absurd to believe that an ancient eastern culturally determined biological symbol must at all costs be maintained as intact for Marys perpetual virginity to be maintained.
Like geocentrism the Church will one day have to declare it got it wrong.
Ancient Councils may well have declared on such matters but if it is a matter of biology rather than faith or morals it cannot expect infallibility to operate even if it mistakenly thought it did.
The Church does not pronounce infallibly on miracles of nature and private revelations when it “approves” them. You may believe them if you wish.
That is where I see this “mystery” of the Nativity going in time.
However I believe you have gone off the rails if you are unable to discern that more recent Magisterial expressions, if any, are now trying to side step and pussy foot around that ancient articulation.
The ancient teaching of the miracle has become problematic and, unlike other teachings such as usury, slavery, geocentrism, grace in Protestant Churches…a satisfactory workaround hasnt been found yet.
For myself the workaround is clear. Like geocentrism the Church was blinded by the understandably limited horizons of its time. It is absurd to believe that an ancient eastern culturally determined biological symbol must at all costs be maintained as intact for Marys perpetual virginity to be maintained.
Like geocentrism the Church will one day have to declare it got it wrong.
Ancient Councils may well have declared on such matters but if it is a matter of biology rather than faith or morals it cannot expect infallibility to operate even if it mistakenly thought it did.
The Church does not pronounce infallibly on miracles of nature and private revelations when it “approves” them. You may believe them if you wish.
That is where I see this “mystery” of the Nativity going in time.
Last edited:
R
runningdude
Guest
If you do not find the statement “Don’t quit your day job” rude, I do not know what to tell you.
Last edited:
- Status