A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
But living sinlessly (according to Catholicism) isn’t just pure right action, it is also right thought and feeling, so your analogy fails.
- Status
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
According to Catholic Theology the Virgin Mary is:The wisdom literature of the Bible (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job etc) all point to the fear of the LORD as the beginning of wisdom (Pr.1:7)
Fear of course isnt slavish abject fear but a proper respect and awe of God.
Clearly, Mary is supremely wise
-Eternally Virgin, both physically (meaning that she never lost her hymen) and practically.
-Without Sin (meaning that she never had any lustful thoughts of any kind).
-Untroubled by the normal pain of labor during the Christ Child’s birth.
-And many Catholic theologians have speculated that she was untainted by a woman’s monthly cycle (she never had a period). Though I am unsure whether or not this is official Church doctrine.
Moreover, according to the doctrine concerning the Assumption of Mary, the Virgin Mary was physically and spiritually taken into Heaven at the end of her life.
How could such a passionless, sheltered, unnatural (or at least supernatural) creature possibly be wise in the conventional sense?
Here’s a non-Catholic definition for a bit of context.
Wisdom:
- The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.
- Common sense; good judgment: “It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things” (Henry David Thoreau).
3. a. The sum of learning through the ages; knowledge: “In those homely sayings was couched the collective wisdom of generations” (Maya Angelou).
b. Wise teachings of the ancient sages. - A wise outlook, plan, or course of action.
- Wisdom Bible Wisdom of Solomon.
P.S. I highlighted the most relevant part of the definition.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Sorry… But I can’t just stand idly by while you continue to grossly misrepresent Catholic teaching. You have just committed an error we Catholics are often accused of - that is, equating the Blessed Virgin Mary with God. Nowhere in Catholic teaching will you find it written that “Mary was eternally virgin”.
Only God is eternal. In other words, (in our best effort using human terminology), only God is from everlasting to everlasting.
What*** is ***presented as worthy of acceptance for our belief is the perpetual virginity of Mary : She is a virgin before Christ’s birth, during Christ’s birth, and after Christ’s birth.
The question still stands :
NeedImprovement:
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
I further note that it wasn’t the first time on this thread where you claim the Catholic mindset to be a certain way, when in actuality it isn’t. Yet substantiation for these claims remains predominantly absent. Surely you are aware that if one continues to set up false premises for argumentation, while their own credibility continues to wane, they will eventually end up arguing only with themselves ?
Perhaps you could do a great service to your credibility and begin to substantiate said claims : Maybe you could start with this one :
If it is, as you claim, true that
What are you hoping to achieve here ?
Perhaps you could do a great service to your credibility and begin to substantiate said claims : Maybe you could start with this one :
If it is, as you claim, true that
Then it shouldn’t be any trouble for you to cite from the “many” Catholic theologians you have read , say 7 or even 5 of them… with a few links to their articles thrown in … to give us a chance to read their comments for ourselves. I’m not arguing one way or the other on this point. What I am saying, is that in most instances where you have claimed a Catholic mindset on this thread and have tried to establish it as a premise , you rarely, if ever, substantiate that claim ; and that frequently what you’re claiming is , to put it politely , inaccurate.
What are you hoping to achieve here ?
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
It isn’t really my favorite subject, but for anyone who, since it has been brought up, would now wish to read more on the question *“Was Mary like other women in her biological cycle?” * , we would be least likely to be offended reading an in-depth paper on the question, provided by the University of Dayton, aptly entitled **Where Angels Fear to Tread ** .
It doesn’t bear the opinions of many theologians per se, but much of it does agree with what AngryAtheist8 has proposed in the fourth point of post # 62. , including the opinion of the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
The paper equally contains the opinion put forth by Ms. Sonya Orleth entitled , A Different View , proposing a compelling argument that menstruation would not have had to have taken place in the case of our Blessed Mother, prior to the Annunciation, if the “power of the Most High overshadowed Her” when She was carrying the first mature egg - that is, at Her first ovulation .
Ms Orleth notes:
Ms. Sonya Orleth :
It doesn’t bear the opinions of many theologians per se, but much of it does agree with what AngryAtheist8 has proposed in the fourth point of post # 62. , including the opinion of the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
The paper equally contains the opinion put forth by Ms. Sonya Orleth entitled , A Different View , proposing a compelling argument that menstruation would not have had to have taken place in the case of our Blessed Mother, prior to the Annunciation, if the “power of the Most High overshadowed Her” when She was carrying the first mature egg - that is, at Her first ovulation .
Ms Orleth notes:
Ms. Sonya Orleth :
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I don’t see how this really contradicts my main point:shrug:
L
_L
Guest
Simply not having original sin doesn’t make a person super human, clearly Adam and Eve were not wise enough to not be fooled by satan in the garden and they had no sin. Wisdom and Holiness do not go hand in hand IMO. There are plenty of people who are very holy but are simply not the wisest, their heart may be in the right place but that doesn’t mean their intellect and ability to be wise must follow suit in the same way.
B
Benadam
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Of course, all analogies fail at some point, but I am certain that you understand the concept. Someone can be able to sin—in action as well as in thought and feeling–but not sin.
And actually, as I think about it, the analogy applies quite well to “thought and feeling”: this woman does not have any desire to** think or feel **that she needs to drink from that water in the stream, based on her elevated position.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
It would have been nice if you had provided a link or other citation, showing the source of your information. BTW, a hymen can be lost (or broken) in more ways than through sexual intercourse. I don’t know what the Church teaches about the Virgin Mary on this point; I am just mentioning it. It is quite common from what I understand.
As for sin, you seem to list only one: lustful thoughts of any kind. Are you inferring that the Virgin Mary lied, stole, (I want to type “murdered” but just can’t bring myself to associate that word with the Holy Mother), and engaged in a plethora of other sins? I think that “Without Sin” means exactly what it says - Without Sin. ANY sin.
Is a monthly cycle “tainting?” That is a poor choice of words. It is that monthly cycle that allows a time of fertility. If it were not for that monthly cycle children would not be conceived or born.
It is true that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul.
Passionless? This woman is the Ark of the Covenant! She carried the baby Jesus in her womb and gave birth to him. Here is her Magnificat (hardly the words of a passionless woman).
aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/the-magnificat–canticle-of-mary/article/302
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord,
my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He
has looked with favor on His lowly servant.
From this day all generations will call me
blessed: the Almighty has done great things
for me, and holy is His Name.
He has mercy on those who fear Him
in every generation.
He has shown the strength of His arm,
He has scattered the proud in their conceit.
He has cast down the mighty from their
thrones, and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich He has sent away empty.
He has come to the help of His servant Israel
for he has remembered His promise of mercy,
the promise He made to our fathers,
to Abraham and his children forever.
Passionless? Never.
I think that Mary, a very young woman, who expressed her understanding of her role in the Passion of Christ in a way which belied her years, was and is extremely wise. She certainly judged what is true, right, and lasting, exhibited remarkable insight, knew of the promises made to Abraham (a sage?) and Israel and her acceptance of her mission shows excellent judgment. She accepted her mission even though it could have been her death - she trusted in God. This shows a wise outlook, plan, and course of action.
The Theotokos - a very wise woman indeed.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Perhaps I missed it amidst all the (may I call them) irreconcilable definitions. I understand you were endeavoring to make several points on this thread , though I’m not sure I understood from a coherent Catholic perspective, which point is meant to be the main one, I suspect chiefly due to the wording with which they were framed.
S
Samuel_Maynes
Guest
Dear Marybeloved,
No one who was close to Jesus could fail to be wise, in the sense of enlightened, way beyond normal. However, as with many of the disciples, a lot of what Jesus said passed over Mary’s head, and on some of the deeper issues of his mission, she did not understand him.
Jesus may be our judge, but Mary may be our intercessor with Jesus. However, it should be noted that she has an uneven record in this regard. While she may have moved Jesus to turn the water into wine, later on, she was unsuccessful in altering his mind. You might feel that Jesus was being a bit hard on his mother at that point, but apparently he could not indulge her in more important matters affecting his mission.
One can only imagine the incredible things Jesus must have come out with when he was young, and how Mary thought and pondered on these things in her heart. After the annunciation to her by the angel Gabriel, Mary was naturally thrilled with expectation that her son would be a supernatural king. She probably saw her job as preparing him for the throne of David.
During his early ministry, no doubt she rejoiced in his success, but after Cana, her high spirit sank low. Nearer the end, when it all seemed to be going terribly wrong, she was very worried for her son. However, the spirit of defeatism was not Mary. She may have been a bit stoic, but she was always steadfast. Despite her natural motherly concern, she never wavered in her obedience to the requirements of her indwelling spirit of God, in submission to the cross of Jesus.
Mary was too smart for her own comfort, and I believe she saw/felt it coming. She tried to influence her son, because she thought he could just perform another miracle, and everything would be alright. She loved Jesus, despite the fact that she did not understand why it had to turn out that way. He could have performed a miracle, but it wouldn’t have been right, and the Father concurred with Jesus plan, in as much as it also fulfilled his will to teach his children on earth a lesson, heavy with meaning and emotional significance.
Mary had faith that Jesus knew the mind and the will of the Father, and she knew that he was one with the Father in their Spirit. She did not have our books, so she “watched what God did and obeyed perfectly,” but she suffered because she did not understand him, and the exclusively spiritual nature of his mission 2000 years ago.
Let’s face it, what happened to her son broke Mary’s heart, and she suffered terribly because she was not wise enough to understand. It is only in his return as Christ - the almighty supreme oversoul of all humankind (other religions included, if they will), that Mary’s vision will be fulfilled, and there will be an age of light and life - peace and harmony.
I don’t think the biblical Mary ever really lost faith in either Jesus or the Father, but she was deeply anguished for her son, and cruelly disillusioned by the turn of events that led to the crucifixion.
Vanity thy name is woman. Mary was a woman. Therefore, naturally Mary was vain? No! Mary was not vain. I think being close to Jesus made Mary go about with a permanent smile in the early days, but later, she may have had a premonition of the crucifixion, and was grief-stricken at the prospect she saw. As a dutiful parent, she tried to intervene, to implore Jesus to save himself and all his believers from the Sanhedrin and the Romans - not out of pride or pity for herself, but because she did not fully understand Jesus spiritual mission, and what it entailed.
I imagine that somewhere along the line, the nasty turn of events (which she must have foreseen to some extent with great foreboding), broke Mary’s heart. After all, the widow’s son was the love of her life.
I don’t think that Mary had any personal ambitions, but I think she was naturally ambitious for her son. Mary may have been a saint, but she was not a God, and what human mother would not have high expectations, after what she went through. Who in her position wouldn’t have expectations of worldly, as well as heavenly glory for such a Son?
Unfortunately, neither Mary nor the disciples fully understood that Jesus mission was strictly spiritual, and that he (and perhaps she with him) will return as the Christ, whom we speculate will be the head of the Almighty Supreme Oversoul of all humankind, physically stepping onto the world stage (incarnating again) - Jesus glorified.
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
No one who was close to Jesus could fail to be wise, in the sense of enlightened, way beyond normal. However, as with many of the disciples, a lot of what Jesus said passed over Mary’s head, and on some of the deeper issues of his mission, she did not understand him.
Jesus may be our judge, but Mary may be our intercessor with Jesus. However, it should be noted that she has an uneven record in this regard. While she may have moved Jesus to turn the water into wine, later on, she was unsuccessful in altering his mind. You might feel that Jesus was being a bit hard on his mother at that point, but apparently he could not indulge her in more important matters affecting his mission.
One can only imagine the incredible things Jesus must have come out with when he was young, and how Mary thought and pondered on these things in her heart. After the annunciation to her by the angel Gabriel, Mary was naturally thrilled with expectation that her son would be a supernatural king. She probably saw her job as preparing him for the throne of David.
During his early ministry, no doubt she rejoiced in his success, but after Cana, her high spirit sank low. Nearer the end, when it all seemed to be going terribly wrong, she was very worried for her son. However, the spirit of defeatism was not Mary. She may have been a bit stoic, but she was always steadfast. Despite her natural motherly concern, she never wavered in her obedience to the requirements of her indwelling spirit of God, in submission to the cross of Jesus.
Mary was too smart for her own comfort, and I believe she saw/felt it coming. She tried to influence her son, because she thought he could just perform another miracle, and everything would be alright. She loved Jesus, despite the fact that she did not understand why it had to turn out that way. He could have performed a miracle, but it wouldn’t have been right, and the Father concurred with Jesus plan, in as much as it also fulfilled his will to teach his children on earth a lesson, heavy with meaning and emotional significance.
Mary had faith that Jesus knew the mind and the will of the Father, and she knew that he was one with the Father in their Spirit. She did not have our books, so she “watched what God did and obeyed perfectly,” but she suffered because she did not understand him, and the exclusively spiritual nature of his mission 2000 years ago.
Let’s face it, what happened to her son broke Mary’s heart, and she suffered terribly because she was not wise enough to understand. It is only in his return as Christ - the almighty supreme oversoul of all humankind (other religions included, if they will), that Mary’s vision will be fulfilled, and there will be an age of light and life - peace and harmony.
I don’t think the biblical Mary ever really lost faith in either Jesus or the Father, but she was deeply anguished for her son, and cruelly disillusioned by the turn of events that led to the crucifixion.
Vanity thy name is woman. Mary was a woman. Therefore, naturally Mary was vain? No! Mary was not vain. I think being close to Jesus made Mary go about with a permanent smile in the early days, but later, she may have had a premonition of the crucifixion, and was grief-stricken at the prospect she saw. As a dutiful parent, she tried to intervene, to implore Jesus to save himself and all his believers from the Sanhedrin and the Romans - not out of pride or pity for herself, but because she did not fully understand Jesus spiritual mission, and what it entailed.
I imagine that somewhere along the line, the nasty turn of events (which she must have foreseen to some extent with great foreboding), broke Mary’s heart. After all, the widow’s son was the love of her life.
I don’t think that Mary had any personal ambitions, but I think she was naturally ambitious for her son. Mary may have been a saint, but she was not a God, and what human mother would not have high expectations, after what she went through. Who in her position wouldn’t have expectations of worldly, as well as heavenly glory for such a Son?
Unfortunately, neither Mary nor the disciples fully understood that Jesus mission was strictly spiritual, and that he (and perhaps she with him) will return as the Christ, whom we speculate will be the head of the Almighty Supreme Oversoul of all humankind, physically stepping onto the world stage (incarnating again) - Jesus glorified.
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
W
Wardog
Guest
I think the pain in childbirth experienced by women is explained in Genesis; it was Eve’s punishment for her sin. So whether or not you like it, it is by design.Yes, more evidence that if we are designed, its not an intelligent design
For instance, women can easily die in childbirth.
This is** not **an intelligent design (assuming that the designer was benevolent and all-powerful).
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
But since our Sinfulness is a defining characteristic of fallen humanity (according to the Catholic Church) the Virgin Mary’s sinless nature means she was not human in any meaningful sense.Of course, all analogies fail at some point, but I am certain that you understand the concept. Someone can be able to sin—in action as well as in thought and feeling–but not sin.
And actually, as I think about it, the analogy applies quite well to “thought and feeling”: this woman does not have any desire to** think or feel **that she needs to drink from that water in the stream, based on her elevated position.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Yes, more evidence that if we are designed, its not an intelligent design
For instance, women can easily die in childbirth.
This is not an intelligent design (assuming that the designer was benevolent and all-powerful).
Yes, more evidence that if we are designed, its not an intelligent design
For instance, women can easily die in childbirth.
This is not an intelligent design (assuming that the designer was benevolent and all-powerful).
So the design was intelligent but purposefully cruel then?
P
PRmerger
Guest
By your own words she is indeed not a member of “fallen humanity”.
So, yes, you are quite correct in saying that Mary’s sinless nature means she was not a member of fallen humanity.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, the design was perfect but the designees messed it up.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
A reasonable demand.
One of my sources is an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (link: newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm).
Here’s a quote from the article for some perspective on just how unnatural the Virgin Birth supposedly was:
•that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits.
- Status