T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Those ‘well intentioned images’ were Christian teaching for 1500 years and even continued with the Protestant reformers–at first.
It is the equally ‘well intentioned images’ of a ‘no longer perpetual virgin’ that are ‘new’ teaching. . .Mary’s perpetual virginity is an old teaching, indeed.
So, with great respect, it is really not those who point to how beautiful and how ‘like us’ it ‘makes’ Mary and Joseph to be a ‘real’ family who are articulating 'as GOOD a truth – if not better!" than this supposedly 'unBiblical, late, <> of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but rather, attempting (albeit with good intentions) to impose ‘their’ <> as AT LEAST AS VALID as the original and authentic teaching. And from there it is a small step to insisting that the ‘first’ teaching (in its ‘surrealism’) was a MISTAKE and the ‘new’ teaching is the ‘real reality’. After all, that’s how the Eucharist was ‘changed’ from Real Presence (how surreal!) to ‘symbol’ (how much more ‘practical’ and ‘human’ a concept).
It is precisely because authentic Catholic Christian teachings are ‘difficult’ that we know that they are indeed true. But after some 2000 years, when most of us come to our faith being ‘born into it’, being able to ‘read it’, we tend to lose sight of how ‘miraculous’ it is that Christ came ‘born in a stable’. To the people of that time, power meant WEALTH and prestige, and for the power of GOD HIMSELF to be born humble and poor was a SHOCKING idea–so shocking that many Jews (the chosen people) were never able to overcome their ‘practical human understanding’ of what the Messiah SHOULD BE to actually see the Messiah AS HE WAS.
Think about it. Do we want a God ‘just like us’ who ‘happens’ to be God. . .or do we want GOD who happens to have chosen to come to us to show us what ‘being fully human’ should BE?
It is the equally ‘well intentioned images’ of a ‘no longer perpetual virgin’ that are ‘new’ teaching. . .Mary’s perpetual virginity is an old teaching, indeed.
So, with great respect, it is really not those who point to how beautiful and how ‘like us’ it ‘makes’ Mary and Joseph to be a ‘real’ family who are articulating 'as GOOD a truth – if not better!" than this supposedly 'unBiblical, late, <> of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but rather, attempting (albeit with good intentions) to impose ‘their’ <> as AT LEAST AS VALID as the original and authentic teaching. And from there it is a small step to insisting that the ‘first’ teaching (in its ‘surrealism’) was a MISTAKE and the ‘new’ teaching is the ‘real reality’. After all, that’s how the Eucharist was ‘changed’ from Real Presence (how surreal!) to ‘symbol’ (how much more ‘practical’ and ‘human’ a concept).
It is precisely because authentic Catholic Christian teachings are ‘difficult’ that we know that they are indeed true. But after some 2000 years, when most of us come to our faith being ‘born into it’, being able to ‘read it’, we tend to lose sight of how ‘miraculous’ it is that Christ came ‘born in a stable’. To the people of that time, power meant WEALTH and prestige, and for the power of GOD HIMSELF to be born humble and poor was a SHOCKING idea–so shocking that many Jews (the chosen people) were never able to overcome their ‘practical human understanding’ of what the Messiah SHOULD BE to actually see the Messiah AS HE WAS.
Think about it. Do we want a God ‘just like us’ who ‘happens’ to be God. . .or do we want GOD who happens to have chosen to come to us to show us what ‘being fully human’ should BE?