Which came first? Scripture or Tradition?

[Cat_Herder]

Unfortunately, we are expected to believe in something that is not in accordance with Holy Scripture.

I already told you that Jesus was naturally born and that there is no Church teaching contrary to that. Will you please stop trolling?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Cat Herder: As a recent convert to the Catholic faith, the Church welcomes you. I was baptized and confirmed Catholic many years ago, and I just discovered from the Catechism that this is a teaching of the Catholic church.

Where are you getting this from?
CCC 503:

Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. “He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and **naturally son of his mother ** as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures.”

 

[zarthan]

There is no contradiction here. Mary submitted herself to the law of Moses just as Jesus was in the preceding verse:

As with the Church teachings regarding Mary, these Scripture passages are more about Jesus than about Mary. He was raised in accordance with the law of Moses so that he might fulfill it.

rocketrob

Rocketrob:
If you are defending the Church’s teaching on upholding the physiological virginity of Mary even while giving birth to Jesus Christ, then you are a faithful Roman Catholic. I must uphold the integrity of Holy Scriptures, the reality of the motherhood of Mary, and the reality of Jesus Christ as actually have been born naturally of his mother.

We are warned by the apostle John that ‘whoever denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.’ I realize that the Catholic church does not deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, but it allowed the spurious writing of the ‘Proevangelium of James’ to persuade itself that Mary’s womb was not opened during the birth of Jesus Christ.

We know that various sects of gnostics denied that Jesus Christ actually took on a fleshly nature, and that he ‘appeared to have been crucified’. It is my opinion that the “Proevangelium of James” could have been written by such a gnostic.

Rocketrob, you and faithful traditional Catholics are like the Rechabites of Jeremiah’s days, I and other biblicists are like the Bereans of the apostle Paul’s days. God sees our hearts and knows whose are His.

 

[rocketrob]

Rocketrob:
If you are defending the Church’s teaching on upholding the physiological virginity of Mary even while giving birth to Jesus Christ, then you are a faithful Roman Catholic. I must uphold the integrity of Holy Scriptures, the reality of the motherhood of Mary, and the reality of Jesus Christ as actually have been born naturally of his mother.

Thank you, I take that as a compliment. Are you also a faithful Roman Catholic?

I am simply upholding what the Church and Scripture teach about Mary and Jesus…nothing more, nothing less. I don’t know a lot about the ‘spurious’ writing that you reference…mostly because it is in fact ‘spurious’ and not part of the Canon of Scripture.

I believe what you believe to be claiming as an official teaching of the Church is something that ‘some’ have proposed, but it is not an officially recognized Church teaching. And so it seems like you’re hanging an awful lot on a ‘straw man’ argument.

Mary was a virgin before Jesus’ birth and remained a virgin after his birth. In other words, she ‘knew not man.’ And Jesus’ birth did not violate her consecrated virginity. That’s what the Church teaches because it is true. In all humans, virginity and giving birth would be mutually exclusive events, obviously. But this was not the case with Jesus who was conceived of both the divine Holy Spirit and His human mother Mary.

I also know that Church teaching cannot contradict Sacred Scripture:

CCC 97
“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10), in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

If there appears to be a contradiction, it is the result of a misunderstanding of one, the other, or both. Upholding the integrity of Sacred Scripture is entirely Catholic…this is in fact the job of the Magisterium of the Church.

rocketrob

 

[zarthan]

Thank you, I take that as a compliment. Are you also a faithful Roman Catholic?

I am simply upholding what the Church and Scripture teach about Mary and Jesus…nothing more, nothing less. I don’t know a lot about the ‘spurious’ writing that you reference…mostly because it is in fact ‘spurious’ and not part of the Canon of Scripture.

I believe what you believe to be claiming as an official teaching of the Church is something that ‘some’ have proposed, but it is not an officially recognized Church teaching. And so it seems like you’re hanging an awful lot on a ‘straw man’ argument.

Mary was a virgin before Jesus’ birth and remained a virgin after his birth. In other words, she ‘knew not man.’ And Jesus’ birth did not violate her consecrated virginity. That’s what the Church teaches because it is true. In all humans, virginity and giving birth would be mutually exclusive events, obviously. But this was not the case with Jesus who was conceived of both the Holy Spirit and His human mother Mary.

I also know that Church teaching cannot contradict Sacred Scripture:

If there appears to be a contradiction, it is the result of a misunderstanding of one, the other, or both. Upholding the integrity of Sacred Scripture is entirely Catholic…this is in fact the job of the Magisterium of the Church.

rocketrob

Rocketrob: I am confused by your post. Previously, you stated that the physical virginity of the Virgin Mary was not compromised when Jesus Christ our Savior was born. In quoting the Catholic catechism you commented that the church did not give the details of how such a ‘birth’ happened. Now, you define virginity strictly from the absence of sexual activity, eventhough the Catechism makes it quite clear that her physical virginity was not broken in giving birth to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Secondly, you say that this is not official Catholic teaching, yet my understanding is that it is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church. Can you give me some documentation that proves otherwise? As far as being a faithful Catholic, I deemed it inappropiate to continue receiving the Eucharist once I learned that this is the official teaching of the Catholic church.

 

[rocketrob]

Rocketrob: I am confused by your post.

What I’ve stated is that

1.) The Church teaching on this matter is what I previously posted from CCC 499.

2.) That this teaching does not contradict Scripture, even the passage from Luke 2:23-24 that you referenced.

In addition, Church teaching proclaims that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine:

CCC 464
“The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.”

In addition, the Church teaches the following regarding the motherhood of Mary and her virginity:

Mary’s divine motherhood

CCC 495
Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

CCC 503
Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. “He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed . . . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures.”

CCC 506
Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt,” and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will. It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: “Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ.”

The burden is on you to prove that the Church teaches something about how Jesus was physically born that contradicts Scripture and somehow denies the True nature of Christ that the Church specifically maintains and has maintained in the face of the heresies that you referenced in your prior post. I hope you will re-read the related sections of the Catechism to determine if you really disagree with anything that is taught there: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3p2.shtml

This is something obviously very important to you, and I think you have misunderstood what the Church actually teaches. I hope you keep pursuing this for your own sake. I do not believe that I will be able to help by saying any more than what I’ve already said.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[zarthan]

What I’ve stated is that

1.) The Church teaching on this matter is what I previously posted from CCC 499.

2.) That this teaching does not contradict Scripture, even the passage from Luke 2:23-24 that you referenced.

In addition, Church teaching proclaims that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine:

In addition, the Church teaches the following regarding the motherhood of Mary and her virginity:

The burden is on you to prove that the Church teaches something about how Jesus was physically born that contradicts Scripture and somehow denies the True nature of Christ that the Church specifically maintains and has maintained in the face of the heresies that you referenced in your prior post. I hope you will re-read the related sections of the Catechism to determine if you really disagree with anything that is taught there: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3p2.shtml

This is something obviously very important to you, and I think you have misunderstood what the Church actually teaches. I hope you keep pursuing this for your own sake. I do not believe that I will be able to help by saying any more than what I’ve already said.

Sincerely,
rocketrob

Rocketbob: So this the official teaching of the Catholic church from CCC 499:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”

You say this teaching does not contradict Luke 2:23-24, yet it does if one accepts the fact that the Virgin Mary had to be purified for forty days for her issue of blood in giving birth to Jesus Christ. She offered the prescribed offering as defined in Lev.12. She also brought Jesus Christ to the temple to consecrate unto the LORD as the firstborn male who opened her womb as defined in Exodus 13:1-2.

Thus, the womb of the Virgin Mary was opened in giving birth to Jesus Christ, and there was some bleeding involved in giving such a birth. Now, if by faith you and the Catholic Church believe that she offered this prescribed offering not because she was polluted with blood, but out of obedience to the law, then your faith and the faith of the Catholic church is in an unproven premise…a tradition that does not go back to the apostles.

Sincerely, Michael/zarthan

 

[rocketrob]

Rocketbob: You say this teaching does not contradict Luke 2:23-24, yet it does if one accepts the fact that the Virgin Mary had to be purified for forty days for her issue of blood in giving birth to Jesus Christ. She offered the prescribed offering as defined in Lev.12. She also brought Jesus Christ to the temple to consecrate unto the LORD as the firstborn male who opened her womb as defined in Exodus 13:1-2.

your faith and the faith of the Catholic church is in an unproven premise…a tradition that does not go back to the apostles.

Sincerely, Michael/zarthan

You put your entire faith on the first premise that is in bold above. That is perhaps a ‘straw man’ argument that you yourself can neither prove nor disprove these centuries after the event of Christ’s birth occurred. In all honesty, I’m not really concerned about whether the birth of Jesus did or did not cause Mary to bleed. I guess you may have been right above…I look at consecrated virginity in the manner that it is defined today…primarily a complete devotion (ie, marriage) to God, and therefore a lack of physical relations. Apparently there is some other ‘deeper’ meaning of virginity that I’m not fully aware of?

In addition, if there were blood present, would it not have also included the blood of Christ as well…the blood that consecrates everything? Now, I’m getting way out of the zone of what I know and don’t know here…so I’m not going to pursue this thought much further.

However, if you are going to hold to this premise, then you need to convince yourself why Jesus had to also be circumcised as stated in the preceding verse of Luke.

Regarding the second bold statement above…there is a lot in there. And we’re getting off topic from this thread. The one thing that I do know is that the Apostles and Fathers of the Church (ie, the very earliest Christians) upheld the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

rocketrob

 

[zarthan]

You put your entire faith on the first premise that is in bold above. That is perhaps a ‘straw man’ argument that you yourself can neither prove nor disprove these centuries after the event of Christ’s birth occurred. In all honesty, I’m not really concerned about whether the birth of Jesus did or did not cause Mary to bleed. I guess you may have been right above…I look at consecrated virginity in the manner that it is defined today…primarily a complete devotion (ie, marriage) to God, and therefore a lack of physical relations. Apparently there is some other ‘deeper’ meaning of virginity that I’m not fully aware of?

In addition, if there were blood present, would it not have also included the blood of Christ as well…the blood that consecrates everything? Now, I’m getting way out of the zone of what I know and don’t know here…so I’m not going to pursue this thought much further.

However, if you are going to hold to this premise, then you need to convince yourself why Jesus had to also be circumcised as stated in the preceding verse of Luke.

Regarding the second bold statement above…there is a lot in there. And we’re getting off topic from this thread. The one thing that I do know is that the Apostles and Fathers of the Church (ie, the very earliest Christians) upheld the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

rocketrob

Rocketrob:

Above all else, my purpose in pursuing this topic relates to my understanding of the salvation that we have in our Lord Jesus Christ.

You see, I believe Romans 8:3-4 “God sent His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

And, Hebrew 4:15 “We have a high priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities, for he was tempted in every way as us, yet without sin.”

My faith and these scriptures tell me that our Lord Jesus Christ dwelt in a fallen physical body as all of us. The difference is that our Lord Jesus Christ though he was tempted as we are tempted, never sinned. No human being who ever has walked this earth has done so. It is by the Spirit of our over-coming Lord Jesus Christ that we are able to be saved from our sins which is the proclivity to sin as a result of our weak sinful flesh nature.

This is the understanding that God has given me of our salvation in Jesus Christ, and I thank Him for this salvation. There are teachings of the Catholic church which conflict with this understanding and the ‘supernatural birth’ of Jesus Christ set the whole issue off.

sincerely, Michael/zarthan

 

[rocketrob]

Rocketrob:

Above all else, my purpose in pursuing this topic relates to my understanding of the salvation that we have in our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the understanding that God has given me of our salvation in Jesus Christ, and I thank Him for this salvation. There are teachings of the Catholic church which conflict with this understanding and the ‘supernatural birth’ of Jesus Christ set the whole issue off.

sincerely, Michael/zarthan

Well, I guess in summary we continue to disagree that any teaching of the Church Magisterium contradicts the Scriptures that you reference, or any Scripture for that matter.

Interestingly enough, you seem to be doing personally the same thing for which you condemn the Church…interpreting Scripture (as well as other non-scripture writings) on your own authority and adding to it or making errors regarding what’s written based on your own personal revelations or understandings. The difference is that the Church has the God-given authority, per Scripture, to both authentically interpret Scripture and preserve the Faith as originally handed on from God to the Apostles.

I pray that you will continue to wrestle with this so that you may eventually come back to the Church.

rocketrob

 

[zarthan]

Well, I guess in summary we continue to disagree that any teaching of the Church Magisterium contradicts the Scriptures that you reference, or any Scripture for that matter.

Interestingly enough, you seem to be doing personally the same thing for which you condemn the Church…interpreting Scripture (as well as other non-scripture writings) on your own authority and adding to it or making errors regarding what’s written based on your own personal revelations or understandings. The difference is that the Church has the God-given authority, per Scripture, to both authentically interpret Scripture and preserve the Faith as originally handed on from God to the Apostles.

I pray that you will continue to wrestle with this so that you may eventually come back to the Church.

rocketrob

Yes, I am doing that. Almost 40 years ago I was given a gift from God…the gift to search and understand the sacred Scriptures. This anointing is described by the apostle John:
1 John 2:27: “And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth .”

Do I listen to other teachers? Yes, I have all the volumes of the Ante-Nicene church fathers. The difference is that I only speak for myself, and not for the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. My understanding of the salvation that we have in our Lord Jesus Christ can not be compromised.

The peace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

 

[Andrea22]

Zarthan & Rocketrob

What IS virginity? What is the significance of it?

Do you think that Christ has the ability to restore the virginity of a woman who has repented for her sexual sins or who was sexually abused? While he may not be able to restore her physical Virginity, does he have the ability to restore her in a spiritual way?

Taking these two into account, when can a woman be said to be authentically a Virgin?
Is it when man says she is one (i.e. because she’s never been physically touched) or when Christ says she is one? (i.e. when she’s never been touched and when he’s restored her virginity)

 

[Cat_Herder]

Thus, the womb of the Virgin Mary was opened in giving birth to Jesus Christ, and there was some bleeding involved in giving such a birth. Now, if by faith you and the Catholic Church believe that she offered this prescribed offering not because she was polluted with blood, but out of obedience to the law, then your faith and the faith of the Catholic church is in an unproven premise…a tradition that does not go back to the apostles.

So, you say Mary was defiled by her baby… Who happens to be God. Thus, you have made God the author of sin. You go so far as to say that the body of Jesus was fallen. How could the crucifixion of a fallen body take away sin?

 

[zarthan]

So, you say Mary was defiled by her baby… Who happens to be God. Thus, you have made God the author of sin. You go so far as to say that the body of Jesus was fallen. How could the crucifixion of a fallen body take away sin?

I did not say that Jesus Christ, the Son of God polluted his virgin mother, Mary. I was paraphrasing from Leviticus chapter 12. where ritual purification from blood is required of the mother when she gives birth to a child.

I am only quoting scripture: “God sent His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh”.

The pure, spotless soul of our Lord Jesus Christ ‘was made to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might the righteousness of God in him’. Isaiah 53 says that ''his soul was made an offering for sin. “The life (soul) of the flesh is in the blood”. The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is precious because it is the representation of his spotless, sinless soul. In his body he bore our infirmities. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ was sanctified because he never sinned, nevertheless he had a body like you and me.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I did not say that Jesus Christ, the Son of God polluted his virgin mother, Mary. I was paraphrasing from Leviticus chapter 12. where ritual purification from blood is required of the mother when she gives birth to a child.

What does ritual purification have to do with sin?

 

[zarthan]

Zarthan & Rocketrob

What IS virginity? What is the significance of it?

Do you think that Christ has the ability to restore the virginity of a woman who has repented for her sexual sins or who was sexually abused? While he may not be able to restore her physical Virginity, does he have the ability to restore her in a spiritual way?

Taking these two into account, when can a woman be said to be authentically a Virgin?
Is it when man says she is one (i.e. because she’s never been physically touched) or when Christ says she is one? (i.e. when she’s never been touched and when he’s restored her virginity)

Andrea22: Jesus Christ our Savior is able to spiritually restore anyone who has repented of their sexual sins, and heal those who been sexually abused and are imprisoned by shame. Mary Magdalene may have been the woman who had poured a costly jar of perfumed oil upon the head of our Lord Jesus shortly before his betrayal. What did Jesus say of this woman? “Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of in memory of her.” (Matt.26:13)

Virginity or even chastity is ultimately a condition of the human heart above and beyond physical purity. One can be pure physically, but have a heart that is not. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8.)

 

[zarthan]

What does ritual purification have to do with sin?

You ask a good question. Ritual purification of all sorts, often was a means of keeping the body free from disease. So outward purification was considered a necessity in an age which had no antibiotics or vaccinations. Something like 'cleanliness is next to godliness". Ritual purification had become an obsession to the Pharisees and scribes in the days of our Lord Jesus. In the eyes of our Lord Jesus, the evil that comes forth from the heart is what defiles a person.

So to answer your question, it has not so much to do with sin as we know it, but with outward sanctity and healthy hygiene. (This is my humble opinion.)

 

[Cat_Herder]

You ask a good question. Ritual purification of all sorts, often was a means of keeping the body free from disease. So outward purification was considered a necessity in an age which had no antibiotics or vaccinations. Something like 'cleanliness is next to godliness". Ritual purification had become an obsession to the Pharisees and scribes in the days of our Lord Jesus. In the eyes of our Lord Jesus, the evil that comes forth from the heart is what defiles a person.

So to answer your question, it has not so much to do with sin as we know it, but with outward sanctity and healthy hygiene. (This is my humble opinion.)

So then, what is the problem?

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus had nothing other than a natural birth.

Mary retained her virginity, yes, but how does it follow that Christ’s birth was not natural? Every definition of the word “virgin” refers to someone who has not had sexual intercourse. It has nothing to do with delivery.

 

[zarthan]

So then, what is the problem?

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus had nothing other than a natural birth.

Mary retained her virginity, yes, but how does it follow that Christ’s birth was not natural? Every definition of the word “virgin” refers to someone who has not had sexual intercourse. It has nothing to do with delivery.

The Catholic church does not teach that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ naturally. The Catholic church states that Mary remained a virgin physically when giving birth to our Lord Jesus. (She did not bleed in bringing forth Jesus.) They do not explain how Jesus was born, only that it was a miracle of some sort. “Mary Ever-Virgin”…before, during, and after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Catholic church does not teach that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ naturally.

Actually, she does.

The Catholic church states that Mary remained a virgin physically when giving birth to our Lord Jesus.

Yes she does.

(She did not bleed in bringing forth Jesus.)

Non sequitur, and not relevant.

They do not explain how Jesus was born, only that it was a miracle of some sort. “Mary Ever-Virgin”…before, during, and after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Where do you get the idea that giving birth to a child destroys virginity?