Why are these things important?

[LilyM]

But how would Marys sin stain God? I mean…well…hes God.

He’s a God who took on real human flesh from a real human mother. He didn’t just borrow humanity like a cloak.

Now who among us is unaffected by the sin of our mothers? David said ‘in sin did my mother conceive me’ - not because he was actually the result of adultery or anything but because to be human, after the fall, is to be conceived in sin.

So Mary had to be as pure as Adam and Eve were before the fall to set that situation to rights - to bear a Son who was not conceived in sin.

 

[joshua_b]

But how would Marys sin stain God? I mean…well…hes God.

There is a lot of theology here, which means the room for endless argument as people try to understand. I’m not that brilliant, but I like to talk so I will share some thoughts on this.

Most people seem to underestimate and not truly grasp the concept of “Holiness”. The High Priest in the Temple went into the sanctuary with a rope tied around his ankle, for if he had any sin he would have died standing in the presence of God, and the rope was so others could pull him out. God can not exist in the presence of sin; it is simply not possible because it is contrary to the very essence of God. And, prior to Jesus being born, Mary’s blood flowed through Jesus veins, and Jesus’ blood flowed through Mary’s.

 

[domestichippie]

He’s a God who took on real human flesh from a real human mother. He didn’t just borrow humanity like a cloak.

Now who among us is unaffected by the sin of our mothers? David said ‘in sin did my mother conceive me’ - not because he was actually the result of adultery or anything but because to be human, after the fall, is to be conceived in sin.

So Mary had to be as pure as Adam and Eve were before the fall to set that situation to rights - to bear a Son who was not conceived in sin.

Clarify “conceived in sin” is that to say sec is sinful thus conception is? Or does that mean sin taints us and our flesh and thus taints offspring who’s nature is also sinful

 

[Robertanthony]

It’s not at all comforting to think that God would be either so powerless or so oblivious to the horror of sin that He would choose to be contained in a sinful vessel, and take on sinful flesh of Mary, when He could choose a perfect vessel and sinless flesh instead.

Besides which, I kinda sorta think raising the Son of God would be more than a fulltime job for both Mary and Joseph. Sex would have likely led to other children anyway - and do you think any child would not suffer horribly by being unfairly compared to a literally perfect older half-brother? Not to mention a potential distraction from their central task.

 

[LilyM]

Clarify “conceived in sin” is that to say sec is sinful thus conception is? Or does that mean sin taints us and our flesh and thus taints offspring who’s nature is also sinful

Sex in and of itself is not sinful - God commanded Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply (ie make love).

Of course sex CAN be sinful when misused - eg when we adulter. But this is clearly not what David was referring to - he was not the product of an adulterous relationship.

So it means that since the Fall sin has tainted all human flesh. Not that humanity was originally so - Adam and Eve were created sinless. In order to restore humanity to its original state, Christ had to be born of sinless rather than sinful flesh. So Mary had to be utterly pure and utterly free of connection with sin.

 

[domestichippie]

Sex in and of itself is not sinful - God commanded Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply (ie make love).

Of course sex CAN be sinful when misused - eg when we adulter. But this is clearly not what David was referring to - he was not the product of an adulterous relationship.

So it means that since the Fall sin has tainted all human flesh. Not that humanity was originally so - Adam and Eve were created sinless. In order to restore humanity to its original state, Christ had to be born of sinless rather than sinful flesh. So Mary had to be utterly pure and utterly free of connection with sin.

Thank you for clarifying. So was Joseph also sinless or was his role more about caring for Mary since Jesus obviously was was fathered by God and was himself God…I may be getting distracted

 

[LilyM]

Thank you for clarifying. So was Joseph also sinless or was his role more about caring for Mary since Jesus obviously was was fathered by God and was himself God…I may be getting distracted

Joseph was not sinless, nor did he have to be. He was not Jesus’ biological father. Jesus was not born of Joseph’s flesh as He was of Mary’s.

Of course Joseph’s role was to care for Jesus as a foster father, just as much as much as it was to care for Mary. But role in this sense has nothing to do with the requirement for for sinlessness, biological parentage does.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Here’s my only hang up on Jesus: He isnt fully human because he never experienced regret/guilt from sinning. Feeling responsible for a bad act is an innately human experience. Its the bleakest moment of human existence and Jesus didnt experience it.

 

[LilyM]

Here’s my only hang up on Jesus: He isnt fully human because he never experienced regret/guilt from sinning. Feeling responsible for a bad act is an innately human experience. Its the bleakest moment of human existence and Jesus didnt experience it.

Before the fall Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned and so also hadn’t experienced the regret you describe. If they had never sinned they would never had experienced it either.

Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve would have been anything other than fully human had they chosen never to eat the forbidden fruit?

See, sinless humans are still fully human. It is simply the fact that humans have become warped after the Fall that leads us to imagine that to be sinless is somehow not human.

 

[pablope]

Hi. I’m sure these queastion have been askedsomewhere and I have a lot of queastions…lil. so forgive me if I’m asking too much in one thread.

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? Ive been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

2.) Marys perpetual virginity. I accept the virgin birth. Why is it important that she remained one throughout her life? Surely that doesn’t effect who Jesus was. It is not sinful for a woman to have sec with her husband?

Please explain?

These journals may assist you further…chnetwork.org/resources/coming-home-journals/

 

[JRKH]

Hi. I’m sure these queastion have been askedsomewhere and I have a lot of queastions…lil. so forgive me if I’m asking too much in one thread.

Welcome to the forums. You have found a wonderful resource to get answers.

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? Ive been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

Tantum Ergo really covered this well in the very first response where he says:
It’s important because it’s true. That’s it in a nutshell. Jesus did not say, "This is a SYMBOL of my body, this is a SYMBOL of my blood.’ The truth of the Eucharist as being the literal (not symbolic) body and blood of Christ was taught by all Christendom for the first 1500 years. IOW, Catholic and Orthodox Christians (not to mention the very first Protestants, the Lutherans and Episcopalians) believe in a literal Eucharist to this day. Where then did the idea of its being symbolic come from? Not from Scripture and not from Christian teachings.
Add to this (which someone else mentioned) Paul’s admonishment about receiving the body and blood worthily and with discernment, lest you eat and drink judgement on yourself, and you have a matter that is of great salvific importance. We have to get this right and both the biblical and the historical evidence tells us that it is not merely symbolic.

2.) Marys perpetual virginity. I accept the virgin birth. Why is it important that she remained one throughout her life? Surely that doesn’t effect who Jesus was. It is not sinful for a woman to have sec with her husband?

Likewise there have been many very good answers to this question - but I have one small insight I’d like to add.
I would ask you to place yourself in Joseph’s sandals - knowing what Joseph knew - at the time of Jesus Birth. Joseph knew, through the visit of an angel, that Mary had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. That the child she carried was the son of the Most High God of Israel.
So - placing yourself in his sandals…God has told you that the woman you are about to marry is carrying “God’s Child”…would you feel comfortable having sex with this woman - the betrothed of God? - the Mother of God?
I can tell you that I wouldn’t!!!

Peace
James

 

[domestichippie]

Joseph was not sinless, nor did he have to be. He was not Jesus’ biological father. Jesus was not born of Joseph’s flesh as He was of Mary’s.

Of course Joseph’s role was to care for Jesus as a foster father, just as much as much as it was to care for Mary. But role in this sense has nothing to do with the requirement for for sinlessness, biological parentage does.

So how was Mary sinless if she was born of regular parents? Is that just something the holy spirit did at Christs conception? Of was she sinless throughout her life?

 

[JRKH]

So how was Mary sinless if she was born of regular parents? Is that just something the holy spirit did at Christs conception? Of was she sinless throughout her life?

As the Dogma of the Immaculate conception indicates, Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception in her mother’s womb.

This was granted by God as a “singular grace” because she was destined to be the Mother of Christ.

And yes from this it is concluded that, without “original sin” - that is the natural tendency toward sin - Mary remained sinless throughout her life.

Peace
James

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here’s my only hang up on Jesus: He isnt fully human because he never experienced regret/guilt from sinning. Feeling responsible for a bad act is an innately human experience. Its the bleakest moment of human existence and Jesus didnt experience it.

Humanity is not innately sinful. Sin is a consequence of the fall, it is NOT a consequence of ‘being human’. Therefore, in order to be fully human, it is NOT necessary to sin and then regret it.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Actually, to sin is to be less than fully human. It is allowing our animal nature to dominate our spiritual nature; thus diminishing the critical part of our human nature.

 

[domestichippie]

Thank you very much for your responses. Any other recomendedreading would be very welcome.

 

[Augustine3]

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? I’ve been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

Using the same analogy what if you told your wife “honey all we need to do is wear our wedding rings, they are a symbol of our love there’s no need to have sexual intercourse”. When a man consummates (i.e. has sexual intercourse) with his wife their two bodies become one flesh. When receive Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist our bodies become one flesh with Jesus. Jesus’ blood literally flows through your veins. There is a HUGE difference between literal and mere symbolism.

God bless,

 

[joshua_b]

Using the same analogy what if you told your wife “honey all we need to do is wear our wedding rings, they are a symbol of our love there’s no need to have sexual intercourse”. When a man consummates (i.e. has sexual intercourse) with his wife their two bodies become one flesh. When receive Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist our bodies become one flesh with Jesus. Jesus’ blood literally flows through your veins. There is a HUGE difference between literal and mere symbolism.

God bless,

There is indeed a huge difference. Jesus states “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man” you have no life within you. He then states that His flesh is real food. He leaves no room for “symbolism” or an alternate interpretation on this.

Again, through the lens of Judaism, if He is the sacrifice that reconciles us to God, this makes perfect sense. Part of the Jewish sacrificial system stated that you must eat the sacrifice for it to be acceptable. A symbol of the sacrifice is not sufficient. (This is the primary point that ultimately drew Rosalind Moss, a former Jew and evangelical convert, out of “fundamentalism” and into the Catholic faith).

I stated in another thread, that when viewed through the lens of ancient Judaism, it never ceases to amaze me how much more Catholic the Scriptures become.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you very much for your responses. Any other recommended reading would be very welcome.

You might want to look into books by Dr. Scott Hahn who is a convert to Catholicism from a Calvinist - Evangelical background where he was himself a seminary trained Minister.
HERE is a list of his many books.
Of particular interest to the questions you have asked here might be, “Reasons to Believe” - “How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith”.
Also, His book “Rome Sweet Home”, the story of his own journey into the Church might be an interesting read for you.

If you have any other questions - feel free to ask.

Peace
James

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Dr Hahn is an excellent source. His knowledge of the Bible is excellent, and it is that which brought him into the Church.

Also, he is easy, and enjoyable, to read.