Teaching of the Catholic Church I am having trouble with...that make me doubt others

[Zooey]

May your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist jump in for a minute?

I believe firmly in the perpetual virginity of Mary…I was taught it as a child growing up in the Free Methodist Church! I was taught it by my saintly Methodist grandmother, who learned it from her Mennonite Brethren parents.
I was shocked the first time I ever heard any other suggestion–How could anyone believe that this woman, who was set apart as the mother of our Lord, was ever not a virgin… I spoke with a Methodist pastor at the time about it ( circa 1965-1970), & he said that the belief that Mary had other children, that she was not a perpetual virgin was going to end with vast numbers of people losing their faith in the virgin birth…

This is a very new teaching, in other words. It was only a few decades ago that all Christians–Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant–believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
I first heard it in a Baptist church…I managed not to show the full degree of my shock.

I just wanted to put a little backgound material in here, to explain that this is NOT something that the CC “invented”; it was, until recently, a part of standard, orthodox Christian doctrine.

 

[Kendy]

Zooey:

May your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist jump in for a minute?

I believe firmly in the perpetual virginity of Mary…I was taught it as a child growing up in the Free Methodist Church! I was taught it by my saintly Methodist grandmother, who learned it from her Mennonite Brethren parents.
I was shocked the first time I ever heard any other suggestion–How could anyone believe that this woman, who was set apart as the mother of our Lord, was ever not a virgin… I spoke with a Methodist pastor at the time about it ( circa 1965-1970), & he said that the belief that Mary had other children, that she was not a perpetual virgin was going to end with vast numbers of people losing their faith in the virgin birth…

This is a very new teaching, in other words. It was only a few decades ago that all Christians–Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant–believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
I first heard it in a Baptist church…I managed not to show the full degree of my shock.

I just wanted to put a little backgound material in here, to explain that this is NOT something that the CC “invented”; it was, until recently, a part of standard, orthodox Christian doctrine.

I think the idea is a little more than a few decades old.

 

[Kendy]

VociMike:

Would all of this make sense to you if Mary had been a sinner? Would you then fully understand why God became incarnate, suffered and died? I know I wouldn’t.

Well, it would not seem inconsistent and I take some comfort in consistency.

 

[Zooey]

Sherlock:

…Also, the apparition at Lourdes provided an affirmation of the Immaculate Conception as well.
.

With respect… The reference to Lourdes was, IMHO, almost guaranteed to cause more problems than it solved…
I mean, I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, & I believe that she was immaculately conceived, & the best I can do is maintain a polite http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif skepticism as to whether the words of the apparition were/ were not actually real…
For someone who has never even, perhaps, heard of Lourdes, it is simply confusing. (After all, even Catholics are under no obligation to believe in private revelations…even when said revelations support CC doctrines. ).
The material in the Bible about the Ark of the Covenant is, perhaps, the best proof–again, IMHO.

God bless.

 

[TNT]

A Catholic is required to believe all that the Church infallibly teaches BECAUSE it has been revealed by God, in Christ, Her Head.
This is called Divine Faith which is the ONLY salvific Faith. Human Faith; believing because WE think it is true or doubting because WE may not comprehend it, is not Salvific Faith, nor is it Catholic.

We can use all kinds of Apologetics for any belief of the Catholic Faith. But in the end, we are required to accept ALL that the Church Infallibly teaches, whether apologetics has satisfied our interest not.
We believe because God has revealed it through His Church…the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
(Eph).

 

[VociMike]

Kendy:

Well, it would not seem inconsistent and I take some comfort in consistency.

And yet it is perfectly consistent for Jesus, fully God and fully man, to have both a perfect divine Father and a perfect human mother.

 

[Kendy]

TNT:

A Catholic is required to believe all that the Church infallibly teaches BECAUSE it has been revealed by God, in Christ, Her Head.
This is called Divine Faith which is the ONLY salvific Faith. Human Faith; believing because WE think it is true or doubting because WE may not comprehend it, is not Salvific Faith, nor is it Catholic.

We can use all kinds of Apologetics for any belief of the Catholic Faith. But in the end, we are required to accept ALL that the Church Infallibly teaches, whether apologetics has satisfied our interest not.
We believe because God has revealed it through His Church…the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
(Eph).

I understand what you mean, but you should understand that what you have just said presupposes believing a lot of other things such as the nature of the church. So, it’s not particularly helpful to someone who is questioning a particular church teaching, and doesn’t believe all those other things.

I also think it’s funny that so many people are saying, “the church says therefore I believe it so there” on this issue since I have found you guys (people on this forum) to be generally to be good at defending yourselves with logic and scripture so far.

Kendy

 

[Zooey]

to TNT:
Yes, I :yup: understand that! But neither Kendy nor I are Catholic…
My point is, that although the content of a private revelation may be approved by the CC, because it contains nothing opposed to Catholic faith, that does not make it compulsory to believe the revelation…
Now, I have no problem believeing that Mary was a perpetual virgin; I have believed it all my life. I have no problem believeing that she was indeed conceived without sin…In fact, it makes perfect sense to me. But, while I believe those things, & while I believe that Lourdes is indeed the site of miraculous happenings, I remain somewhat skeptical as to the actual facts as to what was said there…How much more then, is it likely that this subject (private revelations) is going to be a stumbling block to someone who is not familiar with the whole subject?

As I read this thread, I perceived that there was a problem with one point of the discussion, which point might well have been let lie. I think that the subject of private revelations is one that is the least easy for most non-Catholics to understand…

God bless.

 

[Kendy]

VociMike:

And yet it is perfectly consistent for Jesus, fully God and fully man, to have both a perfect divine Father and a perfect human mother.

Well, I don’t find it inconsistent…mysterious and consistent are not the same thing. In the case of the incarnation, I think it glorifies the love and power of God, but in the case of Mary, if she is without sin, a second Eve, after the fall, then it opens up a bunch of questions, which to me seem inconsistent with God’s revelation and purpose. Perhaps, it’s why I refered to her as the catholic church’s demi-goddess earlier. I have no trouble with a sinless divine being, but I find a post-fall human one very unsettling for the reasons previously stated.

Anyway, we are obviously talking past each other at this point.

 

[Kendy]

Zooey:

to TNT:
As I read this thread, I perceived that there was a problem with one point of the discussion, which point might well have been let lie. I think that the subject of private revelations is one that is the least easy for most non-Catholics to understand…

God bless.

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding you, but generally, I don’t have a problem with private revelation if they are not inconsistent with scripture.

 

[St.Eric]

Is it just me or should someone start a new “MAry” thread?

 

[CARose]

Kendy:

… I also think it’s funny that so many people are saying, “the church says therefore I believe it so there” on this issue since I have found you guys (people on this forum) to be generally to be good at defending yourselves with logic and scripture so far.

Kendy

Hi Kendy,

Hope you don’t mind my weighing in, I’ve been following your posts this evening, and have been impressed by your openness to exploring what the Church teaches and why we Catholics believe what we believe.

I can understand that as an explanation, this does little for you, especially when you are seeking to understand a teaching of the Church from outside full membership. Know that for those of us who accept that Christ established One Church, against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, and that this Visible Church is the Catholic Church, that we have humbled ourselves to accept that this body of Christ far exceeds our own meek abilities to understand the fullness of a Divine Christ.

So, when we are lost in our lack of understanding, sometimes we need to let go and let God bring us to full understanding. I can’t tell you how many times in recent years I have been confused on a teaching of the Church, and after deciding to stop fighting the church in my pride, I have ascented to the authority of the Church and prayed for understanding. Within a very short time, I have found that the Holy Spirit has provided me with an article, a book, a radio program, a conversation with a friend or some other means to clear up all that previously confused me.

I know this doesn’t directly address this question of yours, but it does explain why you keep getting this answer. God works in mysterious ways and will bring understanding to those who humbly ask.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Kendy]

CARose:

Hi Kendy,

Hope you don’t mind my weighing in, I’ve been following your posts this evening, and have been impressed by your openness to exploring what the Church teaches and why we Catholics believe what we believe.

I can understand that as an explanation, this does little for you, especially when you are seeking to understand a teaching of the Church from outside full membership. Know that for those of us who accept that Christ established One Church, against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, and that this Visible Church is the Catholic Church, that we have humbled ourselves to accept that this body of Christ far exceeds our own meek abilities to understand the fullness of a Divine Christ.

So, when we are lost in our lack of understanding, sometimes we need to let go and let God bring us to full understanding. I can’t tell you how many times in recent years I have been confused on a teaching of the Church, and after deciding to stop fighting the church in my pride, I have ascented to the authority of the Church and prayed for understanding. Within a very short time, I have found that the Holy Spirit has provided me with an article, a book, a radio program, a conversation with a friend or some other means to clear up all that previously confused me.

I know this doesn’t directly address this question of yours, but it does explain why you keep getting this answer. God works in mysterious ways and will bring understanding to those who humbly ask.

God Bless,

CARose

Again, this doesn’t fit the patten I have noticed on CAF so far, which tells me that Marian theology is particularly difficult for everyone to swallow.

Anyway, I think you guys should stick with the ark of the covenant story. So, far it makes the most sense

Kendy

 

[TNT]

Kendy:

I understand what you mean, but you should understand that what you have just said presupposes believing a lot of other things such as the nature of the church. So, it’s not particularly helpful to someone who is questioning a particular church teaching, and doesn’t believe all those other things.

I also think it’s funny that so many people are saying, “the church says therefore I believe it so there” on this issue since I have found you guys (people on this forum) to be generally to be good at defending yourselves with logic and scripture so far.

Kendy

Fair enough. You indicate you are comfortable with consistency.

1. Infallible teaching:
   Mary was conceived without Original Sin. ie did not need Baptism, nor needed to die into corruption.
2. Infallible teaching:
   Mary is the Mother of a Person who is God.
3. Infallible teaching:
   All others were conceived in Original Sin.
   Therefore Joseph was conceived in Original Sin.
   Infallible teaching:
4. Original Sin is passed by propagation, not imitation. That is it passes into humanity by way of reproduction.

Now, we have spouses (Mary & Joseph) that are completely incompatible in relation to their Original Sin.
If Mary and Joseph have biological children:
A. They had No Original Sin. Thus did not need a Savior at birth, and were of equal status of Mary but not by the Holy Spirit, but by genetics from Mary.
B. They had Original Sin (dieing into corruption, etc.)
C. They had 1/2 of Original Sin.
D. Mary who had no Original Sin, produced children who did have Original Sin. (B & C).

If Mary and Joseph have biological children:
A. Those offspring were biologically related to God Almighty…
B. They are biological half brothers and sisters to God Almighty.
C. They are somehow completely exempted from biological consequences to God Almighty.

Final question:
Was it necessary for Mary to have more children?
Was God in her womb and for 30 years in her near constant presence of Almighty God, not sufficient for either her or Joseph?
If it was NOT necessary, then why does anyone insist that she did?
The ancient Church never taught that she did.
The Bible never says anyone but Jesus was the child of Mary.

What say you?

 

[Zooey]

Kendy:

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding you, but generally, I don’t have a problem with private revelation if they are not inconsistent with scripture.

But, when two (or more) people are disagreeing as to the proper interpretation of Scripture, I personally find that bringing in private revelations as “proof” tends to leave me feeling like somebody changed the rules, or the subject…

St Eric:

I think that, yes, the subject of apparitions is probably a subject for a separate thread…( I think that is what you meant?)

 

[CARose]

Let’s see if we can work through some of the questions / concerns you’ve raised regarding Mary.

Earlier you said …

Kendy:

I am sure they were awed. I don’t mean they took the birth of Jesus very lightly. However, I suppose doing the time that Jesus was in her womb it would have been inappropriate, but I am not sure how this works once he is no longer in her body. I am not convinced that she remains permanently the spouse of the Holy Spirit… assuming that it was she was to begin. I hope I am not being antagonistic. I don’t mean to be. I just find it very strange. Marian theology is, for me, the hardest thing to believe in the catholic church.

(emphasis mine, as it came up again later)

How would you describe the relationship between Mary and Jesus’s Father? Did Mary have any opportunity to decide her participation in being the Mother of Christ, or was this simply done to her by an all powerful God. Did her free-will have anything to do with the coming of Christ through her motherhood?

I can’t imagine a God who would force a woman to carry His child, rather, when the Angel comes to her, her response is “may it be done unto me, according to Thy Word”. She accepts Christ, even knowing that the crime for being pregnant before being married, or pregnant by someone not her husband, that she should be stoned to death. How is she to explain a virgin pregnacy? What is to prevent her from the sentence of death. And yet, she trust in God, unlike Eve who fell for Satan’s lie that death would NOT follow disobedience. She believed that life would come through obedience, despite the common wisdom that should have left her quite fearful.

So, anyway, I wonder what role you assign to the relationship between Mary and the Father of her child?

I wonder if you believe Mary’s response to the news that she was to bear a son (she was betrothed but not yet married) meant anything in the story of our salvation?

CARose

 

[CARose]

Kendy:

Again, this doesn’t fit the patten I have noticed on CAF so far, which tells me that Marian theology is particularly difficult for everyone to swallow.

Anyway, I think you guys should stick with the ark of the covenant story. So, far it makes the most sense

Kendy

Actually, the times when I have submitted to the wisdom of the Church have had nothing to do with Mary. I came to them when I was totally NOT in agreement with the Authority of the Church. I actually left the Church for quite a while because I stopped believing in Mary, and it was after I realized that Jesus was absolutely true and remained present to save us from our sins that I started exploring the story of Mary on my own, seperate from what the Church was teaching.

I kind of worked it out that if Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin (at that point I wasn’t personally even convinced of this which most Protestants accept), then either He & His mother were liars, or someone (both?) were crazy. If that was true, he certainly wasn’t God. Due to circumstances in my life (God gave me a serious dose of Faith, long story for another time) I knew that he was God, therefore, Mary had to be a virgin when Christ was born.

Then, as I studied scripture, I came to accept that all it taught in Old Testiment foretold the story of an ever virgin Mother of our savior.

Did you know that the journey of the Tabernacle, as David brought it to Jerusalem foretold Mary’s journey to visit her cousin Elizabeth, right down to the duration of her visit in the hill town (same town even). It gives you shivers when start to study the story in detail.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Kendy]

1. Original Sin is passed by propagation, not imitation. That is it passes into humanity by way of reproduction.

**Kendy: But since Marie was born of human parents how did the orginal sin skip her? Everything you said depends on this, I think. **

Was it necessary for Mary to have more children?
Was God in her womb and for 30 years in her near constant presence of Almighty God, not sufficient for either her or Joseph?
If it was NOT necessary, then why does anyone insist that she did?
The ancient Church never taught that she did.
The Bible never says anyone but Jesus was the child of Mary.

What say you?

**Kendy: I say it that it not necessary for her to have children, but since she was married to Joseph, one might think that they did…unless you accept all the other things you mention. That’s what married people do. If she had children, it would not in anyway diminish her in anyway not does it seem obvious to me that this would be an insult to Jesus. Growing up, I always wondered about the passages in the bible where it was said Jesus’s brothers wanted to speak to Him since I was taught that she was always a virgin. While I have heard your explanations for this, I think they avoid the most obvious conclusion— that his bothers were indeed that.

Lastly, I am not particularly invested in her virginity or the lack thereof since I don’t think the absence of virginity would make her unholy in anyway. Nor do I think her virginity makes her more Holy.**

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

CARose:

Let’s see if we can work through some of the questions / concerns you’ve raised regarding Mary.

Earlier you said …
(emphasis mine, as it came up again later)

How would you describe the relationship between Mary and Jesus’s Father? Did Mary have any opportunity to decide her participation in being the Mother of Christ, or was this simply done to her by an all powerful God. Did her free-will have anything to do with the coming of Christ through her motherhood?

I can’t imagine a God who would force a woman to carry His child, rather, when the Angel comes to her, her response is “may it be done unto me, according to Thy Word”. She accepts Christ, even knowing that the crime for being pregnant before being married, or pregnant by someone not her husband, that she should be stoned to death. How is she to explain a virgin pregnacy? What is to prevent her from the sentence of death. And yet, she trust in God, unlike Eve who fell for Satan’s lie that death would NOT follow disobedience. She believed that life would come through obedience, despite the common wisdom that should have left her quite fearful.

So, anyway, I wonder what role you assign to the relationship between Mary and the Father of her child?

I wonder if you believe Mary’s response to the news that she was to bear a son (she was betrothed but not yet married) meant anything in the story of our salvation?

CARose

I agree with the things you said in the first paragraph about her consent and risk, but I am not sure where you are going with it.

Now, as for her relationship with the Holy Spirit. I have a hard time calling it a marriage in the traditional sense. I think the Holy Spirit caused her to bear Jesus, but calling her the spouse of the spirit raises, for me at least, that demi-goddess issue I brought up earlier.

And Mary’s response is not irrelevant. Her willingness to accept God’s call is noteworthy. Is there a specific thing you think that I should et out of this that I am not getting.

Kendy

 

[CARose]

Well, if you go back to the Ark of the Covenant again, you recall that it was Holy, unblemished. You’ve also learned that in the old covenant that God could not exist in contact with evil. How then do you explain, if Mary wasn’t born without sin, that she was capable of carrying Christ in her womb. Remember, this was before his crucifixion, so she couldn’t simply pray the sinners prayer for salvation, there had to be another mechanism to bring her right with the Lord in preparation for carrying Christ within her, as we, through baptism have the Holy Spirit reside within us.

It’s already been stated on this thread that she was saved from her sin by God applying the salvation of Christ to her before she was conceived. As Catholics, we believe that since Christ is God, and God is eternal, outside of time, therefore his sacrifice is outside of time. If it happened outside time, it can be applied either before or after it’s occurance in time. This is what applies to Mary.

CARose