Mary as ever virgin

[mythbuster1]

And indeed, while there is no guilt in marital relations, it did make one ritually unclean until evening. After sex, a couple had to bathe, and could not approach the sacredness of God until the following evening. For this reason, the priests had to separate from their wives before their service in the Sanctuary, and could only return to their wives after their service was complete (from the time of David, there were established 24 courses of priests, each of which would serve two weeks per year, plus all the priests would serve during the major festivals, in order to accommodate the unusually large number of sacrifices that would be offered at those festivals).

Likewise, a man was forbidden to have relations with his wife during her period and for a week thereafter, as well as for a period of at least forty days after childbirth, because contact with those fluids had made her unclean. She had to purify herself by ritual bathing and wait the allotted time before she could return to her husband.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

Are you Mormon?

That question came out of no where. No I am a believing and practicing Roman Catholic who goes to Mass daily and studies and does the spiritual exercises daily. Once on this web site one used to be able to check my profile on that but I don’t see it any more. On my web site www.scripturescholar.com I have a short bio.
Grace and peace,
Bruce

 

[mythbuster1]

The superiority of virginity over the married state lies in the self-sacrificial nature of the celibate life. Denying oneself licit pleasures to better serve God is a noble act and merits reward, provided that it is lived out. Not all can endure such self-denial, and these ought to marry, lest they sin. Those who do have the discipline to deny themselves worldly pleasures for the sake of the Kingdom of God are blessed even more than those who use worldly pleasures properly, for God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

 

[joeybaggz]

for God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

And those who chose marriage don’t diligently seek him. Baloney!

 

[Agathon]

mythbuster1:

for God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

And those who chose marriage don’t diligently seek him. Baloney!

Since you ask us to read Paul in the context of his time, I suggest you do the same for @mythbuster and read the line in the context of the whole sentence.

 

[joeybaggz]

Yea, it’s the words “even more” that I really don’t agree with. I did read the whole sentence. It is the odor of those who are married and having and raising children, obviously utilizing their sexual facilities, are somewhat inferior to celibates.
My point is that far too many baptized Catholics turn their back on the church because of the constant denigration of marriage and its physical component. There’s too much perception that the RCC considers sex as “a necessary evil” and passages like the one referenced do nothing to dispel that “smell.”

 

[ShowersofRoses]

No one is denigrating marriage at all. Marriage is holy and a gift from God. So, because it is SUCH a good thing, it makes it all the more wonderful when priests, nuns, or brothers SACRIFICE having such a good thing and instead consecrate themselves to God alone. They sacrifice a good, holy thing to devote themselves to prayer and serving the Church. Cloistered nuns who devote themselves to praying for the salvation of souls 365 days a year? That’s more than I can do. They sing and pray the Liturgy of the Church…they pray because I can’t do that. And I love them for it.

When Paul says that married women cannot devote themselves to God the way unmarried woman can, he’s just stating plain fact. As soon as you get married and start having kids, that is a huge distraction. Kids take almost all of your attention and energy. It was that way for me. But those in religious orders sacrifice having a family and children to devote themselves entirely to serving others. They don’t have the freedom to just take a week off and go hiking. They have a commitment that is higher than anything else. Just think of what would be lost if we didn’t have their devotion and prayers. And priests, who are in the Person of Christ for us…they have a high and beautiful calling. But that doesn’t take away the fact that fathers and mothers also have a high and wonderful calling. It’s just a different path.

I don’t find the Church’s position on sex and marriage as trying to make sex appear evil, at all. In fact, it’s because we reverence the holy act of marriage so much, that the Church has been fighting so vehemently to protect it as a sacred act of unity that should only happen in the Sacrament of Marriage. The Church is trying to protect the dignity of all married individuals in this narcissistic, worldly culture, because that dignity extends to protecting the rights of the unborn and protecting us from divorce, remarriage, etc.

 

[SusanneT]

Isn’t the point that at the time of Christ there was already a long established principle of the virgin being dedicated to the service of the Gods which all who became aware of the blessings conferred on Our Lady would have understood.

Furthermore although the vocation of the overwhelming majority of women has always been marriage and motherhood a special status has always been confired upon women who are virgins either before and in advance of marriage or who have consciously chosen a celibate life.

By emphasising that Our Lady remained a lifelong virgin, and thus physically and spiritually pure whilst at the same time following the vocation of motherhood her extraordinarily special status is confirmed.

 

[NJada]

I’m sorry if you didn’t like how my post was worded. I’m not sure how to state the plain truth of the Catholic Faith any more simply. Not to mention the seriousness that our salvation is at stake in our obligation as Catholics to accept all the Church’s teachings.

Before you did not believe this dogma because you weren’t aware of its existence (understandable, hardly anyone knows every Catholic dogma), but now that it is made known to you, you now have the choice to willingly accept the Church’s teachings or willingly reject her authority. Regarding any given dogma, we can either accept it without seeking an explanation, we can accept it and seek an explanation, or we can reject it: but the Church only permits the first two to the faithful, although she cannot force anyone to accept her teachings.

Everyone has some trouble with certain of her teachings at some time or another–I certainly have struggled with some–but we all have to recognize that because of our fallibility, and that what seems true to us is not always true, God has given us His Church to faithfully define the truth and interpret Scripture without error. If we think “that doesn’t sound right,” that’s a good opportunity to go study and find out why. So we must exercise our reason, but ultimately be willing to resign our limited reasoning ability to the Church’s judgment.
So I am sorry if any of my wording choice was uncharitable. I have honestly never heard such statements by a Roman Catholic before as,

If it dogma as you say, it stinks.

The great thing about councils and “infallible” doctrines is that since they are human constructions…

and I’m a little unsure of what to say to that. I’m worried about your faith.
This is the Catholic Faith. Nobody will force you to believe it, but either you believe it or you don’t. Dogmas mean what they say, and they say what they mean.

“Dogma: Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life.”
(Fr. John Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary)

 

[NJada]

And the scripture cited, Mt 19:11-12 doesn’t quite support this contention of superiority.

As I said before, I’m not certain the quote from Matthew 19 is the one Pius XII was referring to. He is the authority who cited the Gospel, not me. Although I hear your point about it seeming ambiguous (although St. Paul’s letter alone suffices in any case)–whether it was that or some other verse Pius XII and the Council of Trent drew from to support the preference for celibacy, I trust the Church’s judgment in interpreting Holy Scripture, that she sees its meaning clearly by the Holy Spirit. The Church could not define it as dogma unless it is true. The Church’s judgment is evidence enough: it would not be considered evidence by a non-Catholic, but we are Catholics.

It isn’t a competition: both are good! But one is better. Just in case I was not clear enough about how the Church does not denigrate marriage, but only cherishes it (while prizing celibacy even more), in my first post I quoted from the Catechism, this:

“Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it [marriage] makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.” (CCC 1620).

I like the saying the Franciscans have about the vow of holy poverty (which applies just as well to the vow of chastity):
“Giving up good things for better things.”

The Church has battle various heresies which were against marriage, where she affirmed Jesus’ teaching that marriage is from God, is good, and has great dignity. There is nothing bad about it at all. Nobody is denying the goodness of marriage by affirming the preference for celibacy.

If you didn’t read the whole article and want to return to the article I posted before (http://www.religious-vocation.com/), you might take a look at the section, “Does This Mean That Marriage Is Inferior?” I think you will appreciate it.

Last thing: As I also said in my last post, it is not that the consecrated religious are superior to the married faithful, but that the consecrated state of life is superior to the married state of life. A consecrated religious person can still go to Hell; and as I said, a married person has every opportunity in their state in life to attain to Christian perfection and holiness. But the consecrated religious person has more of an opportunity in their vocation (to which he or she may or may not be faithful) to attain to a greater degree of perfection and holiness.

There is a current thread on CAF about lay Saints, many (or most) of whom were probably married: in case having learned of this dogma has shaken your faith in the Church in some way, you might take a look at that thread.

If you are a married man with children, you are very blessed by God! If you aren’t but you want to be, you have chosen a good thing!
Have a blessed Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

It isn’t a competition: both are good! But one is better. Just in case I was not clear enough about how the Church does not denigrate marriage, but only cherishes it (while prizing celibacy even more), in my first post I quoted from the Catechism, this:

“Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it [marriage] makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.” (CCC 1620).

I like the saying the Franciscans have about the vow of holy poverty (which applies just as well to the vow of chastity):
“Giving up good things for better things.”

Thank you for your posts…I think you explained the Church’s teaching on this subject really well.

 

[joeybaggz]

I’m a little unsure of what to say to that. I’m worried about your faith.

No need to be. My faith is fine. And I appreciate the charity in your posts. I won’t use words like “stink” again. It was used as a means of emphasis. Not that I don’t believe in Church teaching. I just think some of it (the word I won’t use). Not in light of where we are as a people today.

Though I doubt it, we might be talking past one another in a way. I have no problem with the virginity of the Blessed Mother. I do consider her choice superior to the rest of mankind. I do, and will continue, to object strenuously to the word, “superior” in relation to all the rest of us. You state this teaching is an infallible doctrine of the church. I need to know where it was proclaimed “from the Chair of Peter.” Secondly, you cite Pius XII and the Council of Trent in support of your understanding of church position. Pius was 80 or so years ago, Trent was 16th century. At those times, it was held that the celibate life was superior to the married state. Arrogant, yes, but the thinking of the times. And then again, it was about the time of Pius and his successors that the % of Catholics turning their back on the church began its sad climb. Possibly because people rejected that “arrogant” attitude??

Reading the passage in Matthew from both the original KJV and the NAB, they are remarkable similar. There is no other passage from Jesus himself that would support the idea that virginity is superior to the married life.
If that is the case, then it has to be something the Church (and its celibate leaders) made up. Not based on the Lord’s words recorded in scripture. If it is a man made doctrine, it is subject to change. I am not arguing for the elimination of or an admission of error on the part of the Church, I simply believe that the emphasis is not correct. That God does not “rank” his sacraments, and that both are equal in the eyes of God.

And as I have said in a number of other posts, infallible means that the church will not teach error. It doesn’t mean that every proclamation of the church is absolutely correct. I reiterate, show me where the consecrated life and its superiority has been proclaimed as an infallible teaching “from the Chair of Peter” or by unanimous voice of all the Bishops and I accept it. Then again, infallible teachings can be nuanced and explained further in a formal manner by the Magesterium. If Trent unanimously proclaimed this, then IMO it needs to be fleshed out a little better.
My great concern is not only my own salvation, but also the almost 80% of baptized Catholics who have left the church. I will take a stand against anything that causes that trend to continue. And no, I don’t have a Messiah complex, I just think it is a tragic loss.

 

[Wesrock]

Yea, it’s the words “even more” that I really don’t agree with. I did read the whole sentence. It is the odor of those who are married and having and raising children, obviously utilizing their sexual facilities, are somewhat inferior to celibates.
My point is that far too many baptized Catholics turn their back on the church because of the constant denigration of marriage and its physical component. There’s too much perception that the RCC considers sex as “a necessary evil” and passages like the one referenced do nothing to dispel that “smell.”

Where’s the denigration?

 

[joeybaggz]

Where’s the denigration?

Understand your question. I use the term as an impression vis-à-vis the supposed “superiority” of the consecrated state. I see where that could be a little unclear.

 

[Wesrock]

But there’s no actual denigration of marriage here. That misconstrues what’s being said.

 

[joeybaggz]

No but it is the impression given that IMO causes many to consider (and eventually) leave the RCC. When you are told that you are not as good as the nun in the local convent, another denomination that doesn’t say that seems more to one’s liking.

 

[Wesrock]

I mean, I feel that’s a disordered concern. Most of us could do better but are okay on the path we are on. We’re told to do good works, so are we offended at the idea that someone who honestly spends and hour in prayer each day, goes to daily mass, and volunteers every day to help the homeless and the imprisoned and the elderly in a Christian fashion might be more spiritual than ourselves if we’re using much if our leisure time on watching TV or reading or hobbies?

We should be less concerned about comparing ourselves to others or the idea that yes, some people do lead more spiritually oriented and less worldly lives than us (celibacy itself is not a guarantee of it in and of itself, of course).

 

[joeybaggz]

I mean, I feel that’s a disordered concern.

What, my concern that the majority of living baptized Catholics have turned their back on the RCC?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I mean, I feel that’s a disordered concern.

What, my concern that the majority of living baptized Catholics have turned their back on the RCC?

No. I meant concern that by choosing marriage you’re a bad person.

 

[joeybaggz]

No. I meant concern that by choosing marriage you’re a bad person.

Aahhh, I see. I grew up in the Pre VII church. The nuns pounded into our heads that everyone who is a priest or nun is holy and God loves them very much, and we little crumb crushing, ankle biting, curtain climbing little rug rats were an abomination before God and probably would end up on hell. (well, not always THAT bad:wink We learned, subliminally, that if something was good, the opposite was bad. This is an association that a great many people automatically make.
What I am “arguing” against is just that sort of impression. That because virginity/the consecrated life is so good, its opposite is, if not bad, at least inferior. And it is that impression I believe that is a contributing factor in so many people leaving the church because they can not live up to an expectation that is subliminally, and in the case of many of the posts on this thread, factually stated.