S
setarcos
Guest
Kind soul would you please expand on what the essence of existing is and how one has a greater or lesser existence than another? Thank you so much.
- Status
S
setarcos
Guest
Thank you so much for giving your opinion. Brief though it was and without explanation.
Concerning #1 nowhere in scripture does it say Mary said “Yes” to anything. If you go back and reread the pertinent verses you will see that Mary was told what was to happen before hand by the Angel. She was not asked if she would, she was not asked if she agreed to it, she was informed most directly what would happen. First she was very troubled, then afraid, then told what would befall her, she questioned the possibility, then she accepted her fate. But not by saying yes to anything…from the context of the previous verses we clearly see a young girl reacting as any young girl would have done, being brought up in the culture she was, she was afraid and confused, then hopeful that what the Angel said would come true. But why hopeful? Because she was to birth Jesus? Yes and no. Remember the Angels description of her child to be. The crucifixion or any mention of the sorrow she was to experience was conveniently left out. Mary at this point had no idea but that she would give birth to a great King who would rule forever. The status this would give her in her culture would have been every young woman’s dream come true.
The verse usually cited for her “yes” answer is I believe, Luke 1:38"…may it be done to me according to your will" or “let it be done…”
This statement indicates hope that the Angels message will come true. Not an affirmation that it will come true. The Angel still had to reassure her doubt before her statement in Luke 1:37. At this point Mary has accepted the description of her fate and hopes it comes true. What girl wouldn’t? It sounds like a fairy tale so far and one blessed by God. But accepting ones fate as I’ve said before is not saying yes to ones fate. Though clearly she would have said yes given the choice considering the message given. Hardly a hard choice to make when ignorant of the future.Notice Mary is not addressing the Lord with her statement. She is addressing the Angel and his message in hopes that the message the Angel carries will come true. She still has doubt. She has to go visit her cousin before she finally relinquishes her doubts. Only then do we see a verse referencing her belief and we still see no sign that she understood anything about what was to befall her son. Mary’s song of praise is coming from someone who thinks the battle is already won and by Gods grace her son will bring piece to Israel and rule forever. Not from someone who is aware that her son will be crucified and Israel will be far from being at piece yet. She has no clue.
As to #2 the problem is that unless the concept of Mary and her importance in Christ’s revelations to the apostles were merely made up Ad hoc by later disciples of Jesus through scriptural speculation, which would have given a reasoning behind their silence towards her, Mary should have been given a central role in their message right along with Christ. Any Christological abuses should have at least partially concerned Mary as well. Mary holds such an important and central place within the Church concerning her sons message and our salvation that some import should have been given to us by the early Church. After all she is the only biblical figure to have specific dogma created specifically concerning their status. For some reason this simply did not happen. She virtually disappears from mention but once after the crucifixion.
#3 I agree. But we shouldn’t make up his reasons for him. If his reasoning is unknown, we should be silent concerning them. However all scripture was made for teaching. If it was recorded this way, especially given the unusual and attention getting nature of the phrase, it most certainly is presenting us with a discoverable and perhaps important reasoning. To merely ignore such things because they seemingly present problems with a theory but to whole heartedly accept other things which give trouble to others theories is hardly a charitable thing to do.
#4 The problem here is the immaculate conception. A pure soul has no fear. Fear has no existence within the nature of a pure and innocent soul untainted by original sin. Fear became existent with and because of original sin. Fear is a consequent of its stain upon our spirits. Mary had fear. Ergo this is a contradiction which needs to be explained if we are to retain the concept of Mary’s immaculate conception.
Blessings to you
J
James248
Guest
F
friardchips
Guest
Hi. If I may…you are assuming a lot, by jumping ahead too quickly.
Mary’s answer is a “yes”, by her willingness to comply. Nevertheless, I have thought about that too, in the past, that the Angel did word the forthcoming event as if the event was to happen in no uncertain terms. For me, the ‘no uncertain terms’ means two things: that Mary was prepared; thus, pointing to her Immaculate Conception, and, that God knows in advance, our choices; hence, the time and place is perfect timing, for her to be asked. Of course, it can also be seen as the Angel telling her what would happen, if, she were to say, “yes”. Being human, she could have said “no”, but this was unlikely, considering her immaculate holiness.
Yes and no. Her life as a young girl in those times, would have had some of the same worldly pressures, which would have presented themselves in gravely dangerous terms, in any woman’s mind. However, to say she responded as any young would have reacted, is not quite accurate, because first of all, not every young woman would have had so much humility that they could converse properly with an Angel, and not just any angel; second, her pondering upon the possibilities, were not fear-induced considerations, but faith-filled questions, where she went inward to prayer, in order to draw from her faith. Her ‘being afraid’ was only when first seeing an angel appear in front of her, which could also have been shock, which soon turned to the reality of being faced with a huge undertaking, as she wondered what the Angel meant, after his words during the greeting. Pope Benedict XVI wrote about this in one of his books.
Mary was told that she would give birth to a Son, and given clear indication of the fact that He would be the Son of God, and would be a King. Mary would have been intelligent and able to articulate not only what the Angel was saying, after having pondered no doubt over Scripture in her mind, to gain clarity before answering, but also the dangers that would come with being the mother of a king, let along the Mother of God.
The very fact that she was the Immaculate Conception means that she would not have thought about this in a worldly way.
Same difference.
I think her answer consists of faith, hope and love - faith that it would be so, hope that it would come to pass unaffected by overwhelming perils, and love, because she loved God.
Your emphasis seems off-key, as you are following persistently, your own theory, which is what I said to you at the start. It is Mary’s future now, only because she said: “Let it be done…according to your Will”.
Many girls wouldn’t. And not a fairytale. If an Angel appeared then this was announcing something real, not make-believe. Her certainty was assured because of the very fact that God asked her to be the Mother of God. And while Mary would not have known every detail, who would, she certainly would have deduced a lot more than what you consider her capable of knowing, going by your wording. Pope Benedict XVI even admitted that there would have been things Mary knew that we don’t. As I said before, the holiness of someone who obviously knows their religion, and very well, no doubt, coupled with the fact that she was so holy that Angels could approach her, added to the fact that she was so holy that she was asked to be Jesus’ Mother, and so holy that she was obviously prepared for this moment, by God Himself, and so always intended by God to be Jesus’ Mother, means we can assume quite logically that she knew a lot more than what any girl would be able to deduce and probably far more than even the most eminent minds do now.
F
friardchips
Guest
If an Arch Angel visits you, you know something is going to happen.
Not sure what you are suggesting here. Our Lady is pregnant already with Jesus inside her growing, when she goes to visit Elizabeth. Why would she still be in doubt when she is already pregnant. The order: The Annunciation, The Visitation, the Nativity…she is full of joy when she goes to visit Elizabeth, and animated by faith, as we witness.
Our Lady would have been exceedingly knowledgeable of Scripture - there are various verses that speak of the Sacrificial Lamb, as is shown throughout - because Mary consistently went back to Scripture, pondering over the verses, for clarity. Considering the clear and present dangers of people such as Herod, and Romans with their Emperors, I am sure she knew there would be enormous danger ahead. It would be sensible, as far as we know, to think that she did not know what would befall her Son, though we do not know, in fact. But nowhere does it say that she does know He will be killed until later on. Mary knows full well, going by the words in her Song, that she knows of past struggles, yet is so humble that she is willing to undertake anything and everything for God, as His humble Handmaiden. This willingness would be so powerfully joyful that her joys would be bound up with her suffering.
The reasons for the Apostles’ silence over Mary’s holiness is not because it was made up later - this is not a reasonable premise.
She was.
Revelation details the Woman wearing a crown. The early Church did honour Our Lady. As does Scripture, itself.
There are many resources for learning that are free - the CCC, which guards the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition), which both flow “from the same Divine wellspring”, and books and books. There is no problem here, and I can assure you, that everything regarding Our Lady makes perfect sense.
No problem to be had.
Being afraid is a perfectly natural response. A survival instinct. A part of being human. And there are many types of fear. One can be afraid, for obvious reasons. Scripture doesn’t speak of Our Lady being terrified though, or scared beyond an acceptable level. Yet, she would have had a heightened awareness, and certainly being afraid would come in useful when averting danger. Being afraid can be a very healthy respect for the elements.
F
friardchips
Guest
Scripture doesn’t state a fear in unhealthy terms. Because Mary was and is the Immaculate Conception, having been born with no Original Sin or the consequences, doesn’t mean that she was not human. You could say the same about Jesus during His Agony, and He was sinless. Adam and Eve were human, before and after the Fall, so is everyone else. From another angle, one could say that the situation after the Fall also brought about danger, in the sense that the fear-emotion was to be exercised from that point onward, and so it is not that Adam and Eve had no fear, but that before the Fall, maybe they had no reason to be afraid, but afterwards, when existence is in a fallen state, they would have had reason: to survival. So when Our Lady was Immaculately Conceived, she was not living in the era before the Fall, but afterwards, when being afraid is a required-emotion for human-beings, in many circumstances. Of course, Our Lady’s incomparable humility could suggest to us that her ‘being afraid’ was also one of awe, being faced with an Angel. The Bible often speaks of the ‘fear of God’ but this apparently also can be interpreted as awe. Not a shrieking bewilderment and terror but a loving awe and respect for His Almighty Holiness.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
.
What consequences/effects were you thinking of?
Death, aging, the normal bodily ailments, ignorance … we have no solid reason to believe she did not suffer these things like everyone else removed from the Garden of Eden.
F
friardchips
Guest
Hi. Our Lady was not born with Original Sin and therefore did not suffer inordinate desires - she was totally preserved from all sin.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
Thanks.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You stated below Mary did not suffer the consequences of OS.
Are you now saying you meant just one consequence…concupiscence?
The reference you gave above says nothing of “inordinate desires”.
Have you a clear Magisterial reference on this point perhaps?
F
friardchips
Guest
Sin is inordinate desire but another way of putting it (same difference) - a result of the Fall that came about by Adam and Eve’s falling into acting upon temptation: after this, came Original Sin. People who are baptized have Original Sin wiped away but are still left with a pull towards sinfulness.
From the link I provided:
*'493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
“Let it be done to me according to your word. . .”’*
‘139 Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:140’
‘As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143’
‘498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark’s Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus’ virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 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."153’
'511* The Virgin Mary “cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation” (LG 56). She uttered her yes “in the name of all human nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.’***
Another link:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
*'IN BRIEF
413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).
414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.
415 “Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him” (GS 13 § 1).
416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
**417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).
419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).**
420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20).
421 Christians believe that “the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . .” (GS 2 § 2).’*
This last link is probably more along the lines of what you require and is worth reading.
Thanks.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes I did read your original link which actually says nothing explicit to support your rather specific “inordinate desires” which I feel is both too limiting and ambiguous.
Your CCC refences are considerably better, but here they speak of “inclination to sin” which I feel is a better paraphrase of concupiscence than “inordinate desire”.
As originally asked can you refernce a Magisterial source that uses your own phrase? Or it it your own.
You also didn’t respond to my other question. What are the other consequences of OS that Mary didn’t incur apart from concupiscence…or did you mean just concupiscence?
I believe you will find you are strictly speaking mistaken here. Concupiscence is more like an effect of sin than sin itself. It is an inordinate act not desire that is properly said to be sinful.
Often concupiscence is likened to straw that gathers around a workplace. It leads to dangerous fires but is not actually fire itself.
Protestants of course differ from Catholics on this point.
F
friardchips
Guest
Hi.
‘418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).’
‘2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’
This is one example. And I would imagine that we could go through all sins such as lust, and other ways in which we can sin, which Mary was preserved from being in danger of committing.
Stick to the Catechism, though. If the Catechism says ‘inclination to sin’ then this is right. I have used this term in the past, on frequent occasion. As well as Concupscience and other terms.
Mary was sinless. She was preserved from all sin.
I think what we are discussing here, are the after-effects of Original Sin. If you never suffered from OS, then you will not ever have had a temptation to sin (inclinations) that are the left-overs of OS.
Our Lady was and is the Perpetual Virgin (Dogma).
We are on the same page, yes? I don’t know how Protestants think, but I am interested in understanding, if you wish to shed some light on what they think in this regard
Thanks.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes, this is the standard definition I believe is preferable to your expression.
Yes lust is an example of a disordered desire but this quote says nothing about identifying it with concupiscence itself.
Lust and concupiscence are not the same (though meanings of course partially overlap) therefore disordered desire and concupiscence cannot easily be conflated as the same.
As I suggest, “disordered desire” does not capture all that the Church teaches re concupiscence and I would avoid the expression myself.
As you cannot find a Magisterial statement yet that actually identifies the two expressions I believe I am correct here.
Certainly Mary had no gravity or inclination towards disordered emotions as we do.
That doesn’t mean she didn’t experience the usual fears, anxieties, joys and human attractions we fittingly suffer from in dangerous or friendly situations.
To be human is to suffer emotions caused by nature or others as we rationally perceive the meaning of the situations we find ourselves in whether attractive or repulsive (concupiscible appetite) or arduous (irascible appetite).
Concupiscence due to original sin means our emotional reactions tend to be disordered (excessive emotion or lacking due emotion). Mary’s were always poised and appropriate for any given situation.
This does not mean Mary had no libido. If situations called for it she would have been well able to allow herself to experience great sexual desire, or great courage or saving “cowardice” or whatever best served the moment.
In some situations it is not disordered to experience excessive (ie very strong) emotion.
Strong sexual desire in the bedroom is certainly reasonable.
Strong fear in life threatening situations is quite reasonable.
And so on.
Yes, I am suggesting this is what you need to be doing
.I think you are a little over confidently treading where angels fear to tread.
Concupiscence is a very subtle and difficult teaching that those who have not been formally theologically trained should be very wary of paraphrasing on.
I believe you will find you are mistaken to state that those without OS cannot be “tempted”.
We know that Eve was tempted by the serpent and Jesus by the Devil so this indicates unhelpful confusion and ambiguity in the way you have expressed things in your paraphrase here.
SO those without OS can be tempted from without by one’s enemies.
Well I think I know where you are coming from but it isn’t quite on the same page as full Catholic teaching and in certain areas I believe there are a few things you haven’t fully averted to.
F
friardchips
Guest
Hi. Please read and comment on all parts of the most, if you must. Otherwise, no one gets anywhere:Yes, this is the standard definition I believe is preferable to your expression.
Yes lust is an example of a disordered desire but this quote says nothing about identifying it with concupiscence itself.
Lust and concupiscence are not the same (though meanings of course partially overlap) therefore disordered desire and concupiscence cannot easily be conflated as the same.
As I suggest, “disordered desire” does not capture all that the Church teaches re concupiscence and I would avoid the expression myself.
As you cannot find a Magisterial statement yet that actually identifies the two expressions I believe I am correct here.
Certainly Mary had no gravity or inclination towards disordered emotions as we do.
That doesn’t mean she didn’t experience the usual fears, anxieties, joys and human attractions we fittingly suffer from in dangerous or friendly situations.
To be human is to suffer emotions caused by nature or others as we rationally perceive the meaning of the situations we find ourselves in whether attractive or repulsive (concupiscible appetite) or arduous (irascible appetite).
Concupiscence due to original sin means our emotional reactions tend to be disordered (excessive emotion or lacking due emotion). Mary’s were always poised and appropriate for any given situation.
This does not mean Mary had no libido. If situations called for it she would have been well able to allow herself to experience great sexual desire, or great courage or saving “cowardice” or whatever best served the moment.
Yes, I am suggesting this is what you need to be doing
I think you are a little over confidently treading where angels fear to tread.
Concupiscence is a very subtle and difficult teaching that those who have not been formally theologically trained should be very wary of paraphrasing on.
I believe you will find you are mistaken to state that those without OS cannot be “tempted”.
We know that Eve was tempted by the serpent and Jesus by the Devil so this indicates unhelpful confusion and ambiguity in the way you have expressed things in your paraphrase here.
SO those without OS can be tempted from without by one’s enemies.
Well I think I know where you are coming from but it isn’t quite on the same page as full Catholic teaching and in certain areas I believe there are a few things you haven’t fully averted to.
‘2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’
Thanks.
F
friardchips
Guest
Hi. Please read and take into consideration all parts of the posts if you must comment on them. Otherwise, no one gets anywhere, as you will take out of context what is being said. I have had experience of people doing this before:
‘2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’
If you search for yourself you will see that the ‘Church teaching’ in the Catechism uses the term ‘disordered’ all over the place.
Mary did not have disordered emotions, full stop.
Maybe you don’t mean to, but can actually go back and read over the posts, and please stop putting words in my mouth.
What do you mean by’usual’. This is a very vague comment.
Our Lady has always had a pure heart. Her psyche and intellect were in tune. Emotions are only a part of what we are.
Human desire is not wrong. However, Our Lady was pure of heart and her whole being was for God. You seem to be limiting in your mind the level of grace she was filled with, to the level of just anyone. Again though, you are putting words in my mouth. If you can’t properly respond to posts then please don’t, because it makes it impossible to have a discussion.
Angels don’t fear to tread. Demons do however fear to tread where Our Lady is concerned.
What we are dealing with in this subject is beyond what we have spoken about because to understand it we have to reach into the study of - mainly - the intellect and the psyche: two of three aspects of the soul, even to begin understanding. And I am not prepared to get into that now.
People who have been baptised still have inclinations to sin, and can be tempted…
Our Lady was never tempted to sin. The temptation is not there. To understand this, you have to understand and connect the dots of lots of other things, which so far you haven’t been given the resources to understand. Or you don’t wish to understand them.
You have not read the posts or at least not understood them. I can assure you, that I have been over such thoughts many times, in many discussions, and not just on here, and I can assure you that very clear reasons have been given as to why it is that Our Lady was not tempted to sin, with the examples you have given. Now I could easily scrutinize with a fine toothcombe, all your theories as to why it is you are mistaken in taking an inferior position on the matter, but tend to feel that this is a subject that has come up before - very old ground - over and over like a hamster wheel. Your level of understanding here is not what I have a problem with; the problem is your rather scathing tone. And out of respect for myself, I am not obligated to respond while you persist in this manner.
You haven’t actually proved anything because you have persistently throughout this ‘discussion’ put words in my mouth. You are proving or disproving your own theories.
Please don’t just read the Catechism; pray it.
You need to understand it before we speak again and this is not going to be overnight as I am finding it difficult to have discourse with someone who keeps taking my words from posts out of context to (seemingly) use against me.
Thank you.
‘2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.’
- I know lust in not the whole of concupiscence, which is why I said I was giving an example, amongst others.
If you search for yourself you will see that the ‘Church teaching’ in the Catechism uses the term ‘disordered’ all over the place.
Mary did not have disordered emotions, full stop.
Maybe you don’t mean to, but can actually go back and read over the posts, and please stop putting words in my mouth.
What do you mean by’usual’. This is a very vague comment.
Our Lady has always had a pure heart. Her psyche and intellect were in tune. Emotions are only a part of what we are.
Human desire is not wrong. However, Our Lady was pure of heart and her whole being was for God. You seem to be limiting in your mind the level of grace she was filled with, to the level of just anyone. Again though, you are putting words in my mouth. If you can’t properly respond to posts then please don’t, because it makes it impossible to have a discussion.
Angels don’t fear to tread. Demons do however fear to tread where Our Lady is concerned.
What we are dealing with in this subject is beyond what we have spoken about because to understand it we have to reach into the study of - mainly - the intellect and the psyche: two of three aspects of the soul, even to begin understanding. And I am not prepared to get into that now.
People who have been baptised still have inclinations to sin, and can be tempted…
Our Lady was never tempted to sin. The temptation is not there. To understand this, you have to understand and connect the dots of lots of other things, which so far you haven’t been given the resources to understand. Or you don’t wish to understand them.
You have not read the posts or at least not understood them. I can assure you, that I have been over such thoughts many times, in many discussions, and not just on here, and I can assure you that very clear reasons have been given as to why it is that Our Lady was not tempted to sin, with the examples you have given. Now I could easily scrutinize with a fine toothcombe, all your theories as to why it is you are mistaken in taking an inferior position on the matter, but tend to feel that this is a subject that has come up before - very old ground - over and over like a hamster wheel. Your level of understanding here is not what I have a problem with; the problem is your rather scathing tone. And out of respect for myself, I am not obligated to respond while you persist in this manner.
You haven’t actually proved anything because you have persistently throughout this ‘discussion’ put words in my mouth. You are proving or disproving your own theories.
Please don’t just read the Catechism; pray it.
You need to understand it before we speak again and this is not going to be overnight as I am finding it difficult to have discourse with someone who keeps taking my words from posts out of context to (seemingly) use against me.
Thank you.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
If “an example” only partially exemplifies a concept it cannot be used as a basis for providing an accurate definition.
An elephant is an example of a mammal.
That doesn’t mean mammals must have long noses.
“Usual emotion” means Mary experienced the same emotions as we do - however hers were always well ordered and appropriate to the situation. Ours are usually all over the place, too much, too little or the wrong emotion.
When you actually have clearly argued responses or can quote more explicit Magisterial statements you are welcome to come back to me on this.
I have based my responses on exactly what you wrote, you may have intended things differently but I cannot read your mind sorry, only your actual words.
Your “logic” and statements are somewhat loose and therefore inaccurate.
There is nothing more to say.
Other than that Jesus (and therefore Mary) could be tempted as the Bible explicitly says so quite apart from mainstream dogmatic theology (read Aquinas who directly answers this very question) in his Summa.
And yes, Mary, because she had full mastery of her emotions, unlike us, had a potentially more passionate libido than anyone…if occasion ever arose which would make it ordinate for her to use it. As she chose to live as a Virgin for life dedicated wholly to God she chose never to ignite it for any man, including Joseph who agreed. But she could and would have had she not chosen a life of virginity.
F
friardchips
Guest
Please stop using sources as if you have read them, when you clearly haven’t. This is a misuse. And please stop using Biblical truths to support mis-truths. This too, is a misuse.
You clearly just want an argument. I am on here to occasionally have a conversation with those that do not persist in error with their fingers in their ears but are open to learning.
You can squeeze out mis-truths with as many fancy equations as you like but it doesn’t change the fact that you clearly haven’t studied and pondered and written about such things before.
If you had changed your tone and stopped making unfounded accusations then I might have changed my desire to have dialogue with you but you didn’t so I won’t. I don’t negotiate with trolls.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You have presented a number of opinions that do not align with either the Bible, logic or mainstream dogmatic theology in the way you expressed them.
If you are unable to provide actual explicit Magisterial quotes or a well reasoned response to the points raised then few here will be convinced by your unusual assertions. I presume you are here, like myself, to lead people to a correct understanding of Catholic faith rather than just speculate in a completely free floating way.
This is an apologetics forum after all.
I have the equivalent of a M.Theol majoring in Aquinas whose conclusions I have helpfully summarised and applied for you. I am guessing you are a young fellah who hasn’t done much more than Secondary School RE, the Catechism, lots of unassisted reading. Unfortunately that isn’t nearly enough to confidently opine on subtle points where even angels fear to tread … regardless of how much prayerful reflection you may undertake. I suggest your over defensive personal comments above do little to assist your Christian credibility here.
Goodbye, there is really nothing more to say or observe on your storm in a teacup reactions.
F
friardchips
Guest
Indeed.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
This post is in need of moderator review.
- Status