perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Kliska]

That was actually a great post, Kliska. Kudos!

lol Thanks… I think.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hmmm… I do partake in the Last Supper each and every Sunday. I do not persecute Christ by being an Episcopalian and to say so is actually really rude. I hope that is not what you were getting at and I simply took your words out of context.

He didn’t say that you, or any Episcopalian, was persecuting Christ. He was merely pointing out how strongly Christ identified with His Church; so much so that Saul’s persecution of the Church was interpreted by Christ as persecution of Him, personally.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Well, I won’t suggest that we should put that in a closet, nor will I dismiss your concern with a snort and a “That was before Vatican II.” But at the same time, don’t ignore everything *since *Vatican II either.

Thanks, Peter (for not snorting). I have been truly trying to learn and understand Catholicism better for about half a decade—much longer, actually, in a more leisurely sort of way. Certainly I wouldn’t ignore everything since VII, but at the same time the apparent differences pre- and post-VII are something I am unable to sweep under the rug, and they make it hard for me to see the CC as a house unified rather than a house divided. Once again that belongs on another thread, though.

 

[Peter_J]

the Catholic Church is okay with intercommunion with some groups like the Polish National Catholic Church, without requiring agreement with dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.

The bolded bit above is indeed an aspect of the Catholic faith that confuses me. So, they will accept and recognize a whole Church that doesn’t hold certain things about Mary dogmatically, but they will not accept an individual that does the same. As a “low-church” protestant that kind of thinking doesn’t make sense to me.

It would take me a very long post to explain … and even then I probably couldn’t do justice to it. So rather than trying to convince you that it makes sense, I’m taking the much less ambitious goal of unconvincing you of the supposed strangeness of it.

Let’s say John Jackson is a baptized Christian who believes everything that the PNCC believes (but disagrees with Rome on e.g. the Immaculate Conception), but is all on his own. If he goes to a Roman priest and requests communion, the priest will likely deny him (excepting special circumstances).

But now suppose that, a year later, John Jackson joins the PNCC. Even though his beliefs have not changed, a Roman priest would then have no problem giving him communion because he situation has changed: he’s no longer on his own, he is part of a PNCC diocese, subject to a PNCC bishop, etc.

 

[Kliska]

It would take me a very long post to explain … and even then I probably couldn’t do justice to it. So rather than trying to convince you that it makes sense, I’m taking the much less ambitious goal of unconvincing you of the supposed strangeness of it.

Let’s say John Jackson is a baptized Christian who believes everything that the PNCC believes (but disagrees with Rome on e.g. the Immaculate Conception), but is all on his own. If he goes to a Roman priest and requests communion, the priest will likely deny him (excepting special circumstances).

But now suppose that, a year later, John Jackson joins the PNCC. Even though his beliefs have not changed, a Roman priest would then have no problem giving him communion because he situation has changed: he’s no longer on his own, he is part of a PNCC diocese, subject to a PNCC bishop, etc.

I think you have done a really good job explaining it. But I think this is where the different life experiences and perspectives comes in and it still is all so strange to me. Why? Because John Jackson is the exact same person with the exact same beliefs as he was a year ago. I can’t see, in NT times, him being turned away and then accepted a year later because someone else didn’t turn him away.

In essence, John Jackson is communing with Rome “through the backdoor” so to speak, although obviously the PNCC wouldn’t want it looked at that way. To put this all in a different perspective I live in a part of the country where there is very little population. So, if John lived here too and wanted to find a PNCC to join, it would be a literal 5 hour drive one way, most likely. Do you see the issue I have where a church becomes so exclusionary that it becomes untenable, and perhaps uncharitable?

 

[eddie_too]

it is entirely understandable why many non-catholics struggle with the infallible proclamations regarding the BVM.

is the RCC in actuality using Mary as a stumbling block for non-catholics? for someone, not familiar with all that the RCC teaches and has not in faith assented to what the RCC teaches, it might appear that the RCC is doing exactly that.

separating some teachings of the RCC from the rest and using that alienation to oppose the teachings lends itself to serious error. the faith promulgated by the RCC is an integrated whole.

in addition, another aspect to consider when learning about the Marian doctrines that i see, is that the RCC cannot minimize the importance of the the Marian doctrines because they are facts. just like the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity are facts even though they remain mysteries. they are the created reality of almighty God. they are a real and true part of salvation history. the RCC, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, cannot deny the truth and the Marian doctrines are part of that truth.

no one can adequately prove the truth of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, yet, because they are true, they are infallible doctrines of the RCC.

an important axiom for christians is that faith precedes reason when it comes to understanding the truth and reality…

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I think you have done a really good job explaining it. But I think this is where the different life experiences and perspectives comes in and it still is all so strange to me. Why? Because John Jackson is the exact same person with the exact same beliefs as he was a year ago. I can’t see, in NT times, him being turned away and then accepted a year later because someone else didn’t turn him away.

Here’s an (imperfect) analogy.

Suppose a boyfriend and girlfriend are engaged to be married. Totally committed to each other for life.

The Church would deem sinful any marital relations before their marriage, but would encourage as holy the exact same thing afterwards.

 

[Lochias]

These two got me. Are you stating that one needs to be Catholic in order to be fully united to Christ?

Once a person has been educated on the matter? Yes.

 

[Lochias]

Oh oh. Don’t let PR see the underlined.That should be "fitting’ and not “neccessary”

Yep.

Friend Lochias, the IC was not necessary, but fitting for the Majestic King to be conceived in a pure and undefiled womb.

Very well, I stand corrected.

I do think “fitting” doesn’t underscore correctly just HOW fitting the PV is. When I say “necessary”, I mean “necessary” in the sense that, because God chose this way to bring Christ into the world, a human mother who had been intimate with other males would not have done.

It’s Jesus, after all.

 

[Lochias]

Lochias, I want to briefly say that I think using the Westboro Baptist Church as a proof against Sola Scriptura makes for a weak argument. I think the WBC is one of the many fruits of the “new” (post-Reformation) concept of religious liberty. But that’s for another thread.

If the WBC didn’t use the EXACT same arguments for their position as some other Protestants on this thread are using for theirs, I would agree with you.

But they are. That can’t be denied. The POV that the aforementioned Protestants are espousing here is the SAME POV that led to the formation of the WBC.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Kliska]

it is entirely understandable why many non-catholics struggle with the infallible proclamations regarding the BVM.

is the RCC in actuality using Mary as a stumbling block for non-catholics? for someone, not familiar with all that the RCC teaches and has not in faith assented to what the RCC teaches, it might appear that the RCC is doing exactly that.

separating some teachings of the RCC from the rest and using that alienation to oppose the teachings lends itself to serious error. the faith promulgated by the RCC is an integrated whole.

in addition, another aspect to consider when learning about the Marian doctrines that i see, is that the RCC cannot minimize the importance of the the Marian doctrines because they are facts. just like the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity are facts even though they remain mysteries. they are the created reality of almighty God. they are a real and true part of salvation history. the RCC, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, cannot deny the truth and the Marian doctrines are part of that truth.

no one can adequately prove the truth of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, yet, because they are true, they are infallible doctrines of the RCC.

But that’s the point; there are issues here that “outsiders” can see that are extraordinarily important. The question becomes; if I were at Pentecost and heard Peter preach, what was he preaching? He was preaching and extolling Jesus Christ. Those that believed what he was preaching joined the ranks of the church that very day and were baptized that very day. But today that couldn’t happen. Someone would have to go through RCIA and agree to all the dogmatic teachings of the magisterium and the Popes through the whole history of the Catholic church, including things that don’t have to do with the gospel message directly.

Again, in effect, the RCC/ECC has now made the assumption of Mary a defining factor of who is and is not a part of the church, hence affecting their salvation (in the eyes of the RCC/ECC).

 

[eddie_too]

kliska,

why, in your opinion, do you think the Church provides the organization, the order and the understanding of the faith given us by Jesus?

 

[Kliska]

kliska,

why, in your opinion, do you think the Church provides the organization, the order and the understanding of the faith given us by Jesus?

This confuses me a bit, because I’m not RC, or EC for that matter. I believe in the one church, I just obviously don’t think the RCC/ECC is “it.” The body of Christ is truly made up of all believers, not just ones with particular labels. But that is totally off the topic.

The point is that laying out Marian dogma that one MUST agree with in order to be a Catholic in good standing makes specific beliefs about Mary (not Jesus) a salvational issue in the eyes of the RCC/ECC. As CS Lewis said; a dessert on one side, and a jungle on the other.

 

[eddie_too]

kliska,

i just ask for your opinion, not proof or evidence.

also, the RCC totally agrees with you that there is only one Church begun by Jesus.

it even agrees that people who do not profess the RC faith are members of that Church.

in this area of theology, it seems to me (and i am hesitant to speak for you but will proceed anyway ), that your main misunderstanding (my characterization not intended to offend) is that the fullness of the faith does not reside in any one christian sect.

now, if i have not mischaracterized the point at which you and i have arrived, my response is that if the fullness of the faith does not reside in any one christian sect, where does it reside? and, a follow-up question, has the fullness of the faith disappeared from the earth?

 

[Peter_J]

I think you have done a really good job explaining it. But I think this is where the different life experiences and perspectives comes in and it still is all so strange to me. Why? Because John Jackson is the exact same person with the exact same beliefs as he was a year ago. I can’t see, in NT times, him being turned away and then accepted a year later because someone else didn’t turn him away.

In essence, John Jackson is communing with Rome “through the backdoor” so to speak, although obviously the PNCC wouldn’t want it looked at that way. To put this all in a different perspective I live in a part of the country where there is very little population. So, if John lived here too and wanted to find a PNCC to join, it would be a literal 5 hour drive one way, most likely. Do you see the issue I have where a church becomes so exclusionary that it becomes untenable, and perhaps uncharitable?

I plan to respond to this (and hopefully more) this afternoon. But for the moment I’ve start a new thread, so as not to get this thread away from the Marian doctrines topic:

Rome and intercommunion

 

[Kliska]

kliska,

i just ask for your opinion, not proof or evidence.

also, the RCC totally agrees with you that there is only one Church begun by Jesus.

it even agrees that people who do not profess the RC faith are members of that Church.

in this area of theology, it seems to me (and i am hesitant to speak for you but will proceed anyway ), that your main misunderstanding (my characterization not intended to offend) is that the fullness of the faith does not reside in any one christian sect.

now, if i have not mischaracterized the point at which you and i have arrived, my response is that if the fullness of the faith does not reside in any one christian sect, where does it reside? and, a follow-up question, has the fullness of the faith disappeared from the earth?

Jesus says to us that He is Truth. We are told how to become a member of Christ Himself, anyone that does that has Truth because they have, and are a part of, Christ. You may be a hand, and I may be a foot, but we are all Christ and are all united in the Truth of Him. I fully understand that isn’t the teaching of the RCC/ECC but that is my view. I can’t be a foot and not a foot at the same time, I’m either a member of His body, or I’m not… it’s kind of like not being able to be a “little pregnant;” either you are or you are not.

You as a hand and me as a foot are part of the One Body and should be able to commune as such as we are siblings in Christ. I’m speaking here, in this thread on a particular Marian idea, as something that the RCC/ECC deems worthy enough to divide us should we disagree on it (for example, the Assumption).

 

[eddie_too]

not only the RCC considers it important enough to divide us, so do you.

 

[Kliska]

not only the RCC considers it important enough to divide us, so do you.

No, I don’t. You can commune with me whenever you want… but not according to the RCC/ECC. You could be a part of any of the churches I’ve been to without having to give up the idea of the IC of Mary, or her PV, or her assumption.

 

[eddie_too]

but, it is important enough to you to keep you from full communion with RCs.

you claim that the RCC cannot know that the PV, the IC and the Assumption are true. therefore, it makes no sense to require belief in them.

that also can be said of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and every other theological doctrine given us by and through Christ.

doctrines received through faith can never be proven factual in this world. they will be proven factual in heaven.

 

[ffg]

The path is through Christ my friend. Not sure what path you are taking or assume I am on but there is ONE path and that path is Christ.

Is there no path to get to Christ, does your path start at Christ?

I find it interesting how this simple concept is so incredibly ignored, yet followed by the same people, as there are multiple religions.

Ready - Some and certain people guide us to God.

Mary is most happy when we find her Son, she exists as our heart to pump us to the brain of the body of Christ.

Who can claim to be the brain of this operation? God alone right?

It sure seems a lot easier to get to the brain through the natural path to it.

I certainly wouldn’t want to tell God his Mom was nice, but I ignored her in my life because I was focussed on finding Him.

What is a most logical response? Perhaps ‘Well it sure would have been easier for you if you just asked her where I AM.’