Mary as ever virgin

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

OsculeturMeOsculo:

The Virginal life is higher than that of married people

Where did you get that from and in whose eyes?

The Apostle Paul.

It must be remembered that Paul was writing in a time when the thought Jesus was coming back, “IN THEIR LIFETIME” While Paul’s words are meant in a pious or complimentary way, they must be taken in light of the times in which they were written. I don’t think the operative thinking of the church in this day and age is that virginity is somewhat higher, more noble, or “better” than the married state. In fact, when I think of it, there is no sacrament of Virginity; there is a sacrament of Matrimony; one instituted by Christ himself.

 

[godisgood77]

It must be remembered that Paul was writing in a time when the thought Jesus was coming back, “IN THEIR LIFETIME” While Paul’s words are meant in a pious or complimentary way, they must be taken in light of the times in which they were written. I don’t think the operative thinking of the church in this day and age is that virginity is somewhat higher, more noble, or “better” than the married state. In fact, when I think of it, there is no sacrament of Virginity; there is a sacrament of Matrimony; one instituted by Christ himself.

I tend to agree with you that virginity is not a higher state… however, I believe JPII reinforced Paul’s words back in the 1980’s… I like the first reading from this past Sunday… where Peter says ‘"In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.’…

Side question…if Mary and Joseph didn’t plan to have children, doesn’t that contradict the teaching that primary end of marriage is procreation?

 

[Agathon]

It must be remembered that Paul was writing in a time when the thought Jesus was coming back, “IN THEIR LIFETIME”

But did Paul actually believe this?

 

[joeybaggz]

I tend to agree with you that virginity is not a higher state… however, I believe JPII reinforced Paul’s words back in the 1980’s… I like the first reading from this past Sunday… where Peter says ‘"In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.’…

Side question…if Mary and Joseph didn’t plan to have children, doesn’t that contradict the teaching that primary end of marriage is procreation?

JPII was totally and wholly dedicated to Mary. I think his motto was “Totus tuus.” or something like that; totally yours. JPII has great devotion to Mary and he wanted all of us to share in its riches.

As to Mary and Joseph not planning to have children, there is something to consider. Their marriage was “holy” (sacramental as a term was not operative there), and they probably could have had children if they were so inclined. But there are some factors at play. Was Joseph much older than Mary with children from a previous marriage? Were Mary and Joseph both Essenes who took permanent vows of virginity? And might Joseph, realizing who was the actual Father of her son, decided it best to refrain? We don’t know. And remember, in a dream, Joseph was told by (someone from above - an angel, God Himself) not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, into his home. Somehow I think that certainly validated the union.
And, the primary ends of marriage are the procreation of children and the unitive bonding of the couple through a mutually exclusive giving of themselves to the other in an intimate act of love.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Where did you get that from and in whose eyes?

St. Paul, I forget which letter.

 

[JanetF]

(name removed by moderator) Wins the Internet award for the day!!!

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

If Paul’s letters were only intended to for the time in which they were written, why are they part of scripture, which is eternal?

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

It must be remembered that Paul was writing in a time when the thought Jesus was coming back, “IN THEIR LIFETIME”

But did Paul actually believe this?

Well, one day, hopefully, you and I will have to ask Paul himself. However, Paul received his instruction from people who actually walked and talked and lived with Jesus Himself. Read many of the Lord’s words to the apostles and you can see where they might have gotten that idea. So, the short answer to your question is, yes, I think Paul actually did believe it.

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

Where did you get that from and in whose eyes?

St. Paul, I forget which letter.

And again, I reiterate as I said to Agathon, Paul wrote at a time where the apostles believed that Jesus was coming back IN THEIR LIFETIME. That would color his words and the perceptions on which they were based.

 

[kew_65]

It has to do with Mary being the new ark of the covenant. I don’t worry about it.

 

[jcrichton]

Correct!

It does not take away from Jesus’ Divinity either way.

So why so much sauce?

Challenge of Church’s Authority. Those who engage in such hold that if the Church is wrong in one Teaching then she must be wrong in others.

Now, lets say that the Church is wrong–would the Church be at fault for placing the Virgin’s virginity at a high esteem? Would Jesus be diminished by such belief?

Conversely, why is it that those who want to disprove the perpetual virginity of the Virgin (claiming some sort of “spiritual”/“Scriptural” correctness) fail to observe that they disrespect the Virgin as they not only fight the Catholic view of her perpetual virginity but have pushed her out of Scriptures as they fully ignore her, even and in spite of the Holy Spirit prophesying that all generations will call her Blessed?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

St. Paul goes on a rant (just messing) as he explains that those who are married/engaged to be married are divided as they have a responsibility to their spouses (and children/future children); while those who are living a chaste and celibate life can offer all of themselves (more time and freedom for Worship and things pertaining to God as ministry services) to God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It must be remembered that Paul was writing in a time when the thought Jesus was coming back, “IN THEIR LIFETIME” While Paul’s words are meant in a pious or complimentary way, they must be taken in light of the times in which they were written. I don’t think the operative thinking of the church in this day and age is that virginity is somewhat higher, more noble, or “better” than the married state. In fact, when I think of it, there is no sacrament of Virginity; there is a sacrament of Matrimony; one instituted by Christ himself.

Yeah… and Jesus was against it, right?

Wait, Jesus didn’t marry, did He?

St. Paul remained a chaste and celibate servant and conjoined others to follow his example.

While it is true that there was an imminent expectation of the Parousia, you jump to make such error a point of teaching–thusly, you make St. Paul’s Teaching void and erroneous.

So then the Command to have the Bishops and Deacons married only once–to not take another wife even at the death of their present wife, that’s also an error St. Paul Taught?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The problem is with relativism.

Was Abel’s offering Received as the same as Cain’s?

Abel offered the best. Cain offered whatsoever.

If a person remains a virgin and offers him/herself to God, would that not be a better offering than those who only as a second thought offer whatever they can “salvage” for God to Him?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If Paul’s letters were only intended to for the time in which they were written, why are they part of scripture, which is eternal?

This is part of the problem that we have when we want to accommodate Scriptures (God’s Revelation) to what we want to believe/accept.

Did St. Paul Write only because he wanted to lord his position over the Believers or was he Inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Let us look at his claim that Jesus was the Rock that Gave the Living water to the Hebrews, in their desert trek… was he Inspired or was he just making “scholarly” guesses?

Yes, he separates his admonition from God’s Command, but clearly, he is Inspired by the Holy Spirit to Teach the Church:

6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 10 But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. 11 And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife. (1 Corinthians 7)

…and what does Jesus say about remaining in a virgin state?:

11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. (St. Matthew 19)

So St. Paul is not preaching a weird mandate; he is mirroring Jesus’ Word and Example–Jesus calls it a Gift from Heaven… one that not all are able to experience!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

And again, I reiterate as I said to Agathon, Paul wrote at a time where the apostles believed that Jesus was coming back IN THEIR LIFETIME. That would color his words and the perceptions on which they were based

Only if he were to be self-involved and not Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[godisgood77]

If a person remains a virgin and offers him/herself to God, would that not be a better offering than those who only as a second thought offer whatever they can “salvage” for God to Him?

Yes, offering oneself to God through virginity is a better offering than a second thought or a salvage offering …

That is not what marriage is… two become one in sacrament… is two not better and more of an offering than one?

 

[joeybaggz]

While it is true that there was an imminent expectation of the Parousia, you jump to make such error a point of teaching–thusly, you make St. Paul’s Teaching void and erroneous.
/quote]

No. my point is simply that interpretation and understanding of Paul’s words and how they apply to a present day understanding needs to be seen in the light of the time they were written.

Edited to add. I find the idea of inspiration by the Holy Spirit to be a reference that is used in a utilitarian manner. We Catholics often attempt to explain inconsistencies in the Scripture that it is an inspired book written by fallible men. Ergo, there are discrepancies in its interpretation. Then when someone wants to defend a particular personal idea, they fall back on it is “inspired” by the Holy Spirit therefore it is absolutely true as written in 70 A.D. and is true and unassailable doctrine for everyday since. Which one is it. Interpretation based on historical understanding or the bible is perfect and absolutely factual.
Hmmmm … protestants have a word or two for that. Sola Scriptura.

 

[Crocus]

because sex made one unclean and therefore not holy

This is not correct. God created sex between married persons to be good and holy, binding the man and woman in love, sharing in creation of new life.

 

[Agathon]

There’s natural and there’s supernatural. Marital sex is natural. Virginity is supernatural.