Jesus is here thanks to no man [Archive] - MotheringDotCommunity Forums

DaryLLL

03-01-2004, 06:39 AM

What makes most sense to me is that the nativity scene in Matthew and Luke was written quite a while after the Jewish cult of Xtianity had gotten its start. You can watch the progress of theories about Christ by reading the letters of Paul (the authentic ones) and the 4 gospels. I disregard the pastoral tracts' opinions about Christ as mere polemics, quite political in nature. Kind of snarky.

Paul thought Jesus was given power by God at the resurrection (as are we). Paul's Christ was not a historical figure but an indwelling spirit.

Mark, the next earliest writing we have in the canon, thought Jesus was given power by God (did not become God), at his baptism. Which helps explain why Jesus would even need to be baptized.

Matthew and Luke adopted the pagan virgin birth narrative from Greek tradition. The differing geneologies represent the differing Jewish and Greek mystery religion schools of thought. Their embarrassment at the baptism question is evident.

Only John, the latest gospel with the highest Christology, thought Christ as the Logos (word) was with God from before creation, was the spirit moving over the waters. I believe Jews think this co-creator was the Shekhina however (sometimes thought of as a female named Wisdom). :dreads John does not have Jesus bother with the baptism at all. In facxt, there is confusion as to who is the Christ (Messiah), Ioannes (John) or Ioesous (Jesus). The book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man delves deeply into the John/Jesus linkage and battle for power amongst early CE Messiah cults. Facscinating window onto history.

Jesus was voted in as God, part of the trinity, at the council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Those Chrisitan bishops that objected were asked to leave the council. Their objecting letters are still extant.

I can't imagine what other forum this thread started in!

Nursing Mother

03-01-2004, 06:49 AM

Paul thought Jesus was given power by God at the resurrection (as are we). Paul's Christ was not a historical figure but an indwelling spirit.

:scratch. Thats not what my Bible says (unless you are talking about the Holy Spirit only):shrug....but like dado says, belief is a personal thing.

Paul preached that Christ was crucified and rose again.....He did indeed worship Jesus Christ the "historical figure".

Interesting link pammysue:)

DaryLLL

03-01-2004, 06:51 AM

Emphasis on Pauls' authentic letters, NM, not the later forged ones, not the Acts of the Apostles.

Nothing literalist in my post. Don't even try to understand, as it is way outside your comfort zone/system of belief you have chosen, I think.

Nursing Mother

03-01-2004, 06:53 AM

Well I wouldn't say its outside my comfort zone....

but belief zone....well yeah quite so:D

tessamami

03-01-2004, 08:08 AM

I am much more interested in the role of women in religion. I sometimes imagine a world where men have no concept of "sperm" and women are honored for giving life. Discussions of krishna, etc. are welcome by me.

If we accept the concept of virgin birth, what does that say about women, and men?

dado

03-01-2004, 08:27 AM

that's a good question. given that we now have the technology to fertilze one egg with another - skipping the sperm entirely - what does that say about the concept of virgin birth all 'round?

Very Snoofly

03-01-2004, 08:29 AM

Not sure exactly where this fits in...but I just recently learned that when Catholics refer to the "Immaculate Conception," they are in fact referring to their belief that Mary herself was conceived without the taint of original sin, not to the conception of Jesus.

This was fairly mind-boggling to me. My Protestant upbringing had taught me that Mary was an ordinary girl who was chosen by God to bear Jesus, and who in turn chose to accept God's "will" for her.

I understand--or I think I do--that the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine is supposed to indicate how far-reaching God's plan was; that he freed Mary from the taint of original sin so that he would have a "perfect vessel" in which to carry his son.

However, it strikes me as being somewhat misogynistic...that the Church chose to bestow this "immaculate" designation on Mary because it just wouldn't do to believe that an "ordinary" woman was good enough to be Jesus's biological mother.

Am I way off base for thinking so? (Or for posting that opinion...this is my first post in this forum so if I'm on shaky ground just say so!)

dado

03-01-2004, 08:47 AM

the concept of original sin has no basis in Judaism, so i'm going to avoid the hornet's nest you just kicked entirely. :D

Sean

03-01-2004, 09:02 AM

Very Snoofly: I love your user name. What's "Snoofly" mean?

Far from being off-base, you have fairly and truly summarized the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as well as its theological underpinnings. Whether it's at all "misogynistic" to suppose that an ordinary, original sin-stained human is unworthy to bear God, would be the only point of disagreement. I say it isn't, but I don't like hornets any more than Dado does, so I'll bow out.

Dado: It occurs to me that if you don't believe in original sin, then you ipso facto must believe that Mary was conceived without it. Just thought it might please you to know that we agree on something.:D

dado

03-01-2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Sean
you...must believe that Mary was conceived without it [original sin].

you bet! as are we all. :)

Very Snoofly

03-01-2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by dado
the concept of original sin has no basis in Judaism, so i'm going to avoid the hornet's nest you just kicked entirely. :D

:p

I should've added that I don't much like the idea of original sin myself, whether for mere mortals or the mother of God. In fact that kind of crystallizes why the doctrine bothers me...that Mary had to have some kind of grand intercession to be born "pure"...whereas I like to believe that we're ALL born that way.

PS Sean, I borrowed "very snoofly" from a song called "Nobody Understands Me" on Sandra Boynton's "Philadelphia Chickens" album (my daughter's favorite). Nobody understands the singer because she mostly talks gibberish..."it's very snoofly," she laments at one point. It struck me as funny. :)

barbara

03-01-2004, 09:54 AM

This is an interesting discussion, I love hearing about other's beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be. :wink )

in reply to the op...

Originally posted by tessamami
Let's discuss the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin - no man involved! Let the talking amongst ourselves begin.

I was thinking about the term "no man involved." Now assuming the belief that Mary was a virgin (which I do) then one could say no man's sperm was involved, thus making this a miricale. However I think saying "no man involved" is perhaps misleding. This was a very patriarchal society that she was living in. Men were very much involved in just about every aspect of her life. Her father was probably the one who had arranged her betrothal to Joseph and her future was dependent on Joseph's grace and love toward her. In hind sight it is easy to see that God was in control of the situation, but who knows what may have seemed like to her. How much can one's faith sustain when the circumstances surrounding conception are called into question in a society where a young woman's life is directed by the Men in her life.

Perhaps a tangent, but I thought it relevent to the discussion of the involvement of men in a women's life.

kama'aina mama

03-01-2004, 12:39 PM

I think what always struck me as the most misogynist aspect of the virgin birth theology as taught to me by the Catholics is that she was supposedly still a virgin AFTER the birth. Which is something interesting to contemplate. And chew on this: If she was without original sin and pain in childbirth is the curse of original sin... it begs the question, did Mary experience labor? In what fashion did the child exit her womb and how did she experience it?

sleeping queen

03-01-2004, 12:48 PM

I have a theory about this. I think that Jesus was not biologically Marys. I think she was just a vessel God used to send Jesus. No where in the Bible does it say Mary was with out sin. She was born sinful like the rest of us. Mary is an example of how God can just use a regular person to do his will. Jesus was perfect and without sin. Jesus was God come to earth as a man to die for our sins. I think lifting Mary up as anything more than what God had intended is a form of idolatry.

dado

03-01-2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by kama'aina mama ...she was supposedly still a virgin AFTER the birth.

so in your theology James was an immaculate conception as well?

kama'aina mama

03-01-2004, 01:18 PM

dado... First of, get the terms straight. Mary was the product of the Immaculate Conception. Jesus was the product of the Virgin Birth. Two totally different concepts.

My recollection is that the Catholic Church (and this is largely theology specific to Catholicism we are discussing) does not acknowledge any siblings of Jesus. If there were any however, they would not be products of Virgin Births. They would be proof that at some time after the birth of Jesus Mary ceased to be a virgin, one would assume in the usual manner. But that this transformation from virgin to not-a-virgin had nothing to do with either the conception or birth of Jesus.

Oh... and I did not claim this theology for my own... I simply mentioned it's existance and the interest it brings to the topic at hand.

SQ, thank you. Your judgement about the belief systems of others has been noted.

Very Snoofly

03-01-2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by dado
so in your theology James was an immaculate conception as well?

Well, Catholics do believe that Mary was "ever virgin" and that she and Joseph did not have "relations" even after Jesus' birth. (Poor Joseph! I feel for the guy.)

They also do not believe that Jesus had any siblings; or, to put it another way, they do not believe that Mary and Joseph had any children together. I guess you're referring to the scripture where Jesus refers to James as his brother--their interpretation is that Jesus meant "kinsman."

By the way, I'm not Catholic. (I'm taking RCIA classes but don't intend to confirm. Partly because of topics like this one!) Hope I'm not overstepping by talking about this stuff. If I get anything wrong please let me know!

Irishmommy

03-01-2004, 01:24 PM

I've always understood the in the original writings, they said young girl, not virgin. That was a translator's goof/deliberate change. And she was supposedly only 16 or so when Jesus was born.

Sean

03-01-2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Irishmommy
I've always understood the in the original writings, they said young girl, not virgin. That was a translator's goof/deliberate change. And she was supposedly only 16 or so when Jesus was born.
There is a bit of a disagreement about that, but not in the Gospels. You're thinking of Isaiah 7: 14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." It is true that the Hebrew word (sorry, I don't know what word that is right now) used there doesn't exclusively mean 'virgin,' but can mean young girl.

But the idea that Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth could not possibly be a translation error which the evangelists didn't intend, as they tell in detail how it all happened. Matthew 1: 18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Luke 1: 34 "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

So, either it was a virgin birth or it wasn't, but the belief that it was is not from a misreading of the Gospels.

dado

03-01-2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by kama'aina mama Mary was the product of the Immaculate Conception. Jesus was the product of the Virgin Birth. Two totally different concepts.

yikes. i was confused, lol, thanks for clearing that up.

Oh... and I did not claim this theology for my own... I simply mentioned it's existance and the interest it brings to the topic at hand.

apologies, i thought you were posting from that perspecitve.

dado

03-01-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Irishmommy
I've always understood the in the original writings, they said young girl, not virgin.

that is correct, virgin is an interesting "interpretation" of the original Hebrew. the idea of a G-d impregnating a human is not compatible with Judaism. but Sean correctly points out that in the c'ian books as we have them there is no doubt the birth is claimed as virginal.

Sean

03-01-2004, 02:01 PM

For further reading, I simply must recommend this treatise, written around 383 A.D.:
"Against Helvidius," by St. Jerome (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm)
Apparently, Helvidius was arguing that Mary was not 'ever-virgin,' based on Bible passages that suggest (1) she might have 'known' Joseph after Christ's birth, (2) He had 'brethren' including James, and (3) He is called the 'first-born.' In this tract, Jerome refutes these theories one by one, using logic and other Bible passages as his evidence. It's a lively read, even if you find it unconvincing. (Jerome was something of a curmudgeon, and he did not follow Spirituality Forum guidelines.)

dado

03-01-2004, 02:09 PM

and alternate views available here.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_brother_of_jesus.htm

personally i have no idea if the brotherhood was real or not, but i am looking to learn more about James because he does appear to have been a person of considerable import in Jerusalem immediately preceeding the destruction of the second temple. unfortunately (at least for a historical viewpoint) his sect of c'ianity was wiped out and many documents of those closest to Yeshua are probably lost forever. :(

DaryLLL

03-01-2004, 05:14 PM

Wow, the things I miss being out at work all day!

My best feeling about virign birth comes from Joseph Campbell. Warning, non-literalist interpretation ahead! He says, Jesus (and similar gods or heroes, Krishna, Buddha, many more) are born "from above," from a virgin, from the mother's or father's side or head, not to be taken literally of course, but as a representation (for those that have ears to hear blah-de-blah) that the euangelist (Greek for good news messenger) was not talking about a real birth, but a rebirth. As in born again? As in Jesus' birth is an archetype for the gnosis, wherein we can all be reborn not of the flesh but of the spirit.

Now on to the siblings question. James may have been a spiritual, cultic brother. Paul often addresses his audience as brothers.

James may have been thought to have been Jesus's actual brother (do not forget Jesus' other brothers, Simon, Judas, etc. So very odd, tho, those are also apostles'/disciples names, is it not?). He also had sisters. Not named. They all might have been old Joseph's kids by a former marriage.

Another idea about people that are supposedly Jesus' "blood relatives," (James and John Baptist) is that they were heads of competitive 1st cent cults given a subordinate role (putting them in their place) in the canon.

Non-canonical gospels (I think "everyone" should read them, :LOL) address the Mary virign question in great detail as this whole thing, taken literally, was a big embarrassment to the early church. The Infancy Gospels of James and Matthew go into exhaustive detail. The midwife checks Mary after her birth, suspiciously, and has her hand withered for her troubles. The newborn Jesus heals her hand after she confesses his Christ-ship!

Piglet68

03-01-2004, 06:19 PM

So, what I read from all this is two things:

1) no "god" could come from a "mere woman" and

2) sex makes you dirty and "sinful"

And considering the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception didn't occur to the Church until a mere 150 years ago, methinks I smell a distinctly Victorian interpretation tainting things here.

I can almost understand the concept that Mary would need to be "without original sin" to be worthy of bearing the Christ child. But it seems that the only "criteria" for being born without original sin is that your mother never enjoyed the pleasures of sex.

At the time of the scriptures, can anybody enlighten me as to whether sex was considered to be such a big deal? I suppose it must have been considering so many mythological gods were borne of virgins.

DaryLLL

03-01-2004, 06:32 PM

Was sex always a big deal? You bet, sister!

Was celibacy prized in ancient Judaism and Greek culture, tho? No, it was not.

I see evidence it all came out of Pauls' preference for the single life, and people following in his footsteps. Sex, marriage, family, were seen as a hindrance to godliness in the very early church. So was living in general. Early Xtians were in love with the idea of martyrdom.

Another tidbit about the above confusion between the prophecy in Isaiah: The Hebrew word used was almah, which means young woman. It was translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos, which does mean virgin. This problem is easily googled.

And skipping back to Mary's birth, her mother Anna's difficulty in conceiving (and heavenly help) is a midrash of the legend of Sarah and her barrenness. We see the theme yet again in Elizabeth's conceiving of John the Baptist.

dado

03-01-2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Piglet68
At the time of the scriptures, can anybody enlighten me as to whether sex was considered to be such a big deal?

oy...

Miriam and Yosef were Jews.

let me reassure on this point: Jews like sex as much as any other people. maybe even more, i don't know for sure, i haven't made a personal anthropological study. our Jewish ancestors like sex *so* much there are even mitzvot (commandments) regarding it. Talmud is full of advice on it. bottom line: if Miriam wasn't getting any, Ysof was not fulfilling his duties as a husband, because Jewish husbands have an obligation to, um, pleasure their wives.

i want to be real clear on this.

the obligation isn't on the wife to please the man, it is on the man to please the woman. he has such an obligation that failing to perform, um, adequately, is grounds for granting her a divorce.

so i don't know where the prudishness comes from, but it has nothing to do with Judiasm. and Yosef and Miriam were Jews.

DaryLLL

03-01-2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by dado
so i don't know where the prudishness comes from, but it has nothing to do with Judiasm. and Yosef and Miriam were Jews. [/B]

Maria and Joseph were proto-Xtian constructs.

:fence:

;)

dado

03-01-2004, 06:47 PM

i think that's exactly what Pat Robertson calls us.

:eek

tessamami

03-01-2004, 07:16 PM

Is oral sex Kosher?

DaryLLL

03-01-2004, 07:16 PM

I thought we were termites? :confused:

dado

03-01-2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by tessamami
Is oral sex Kosher?

no universal answer on that one. can't think of anybody who doesn't think it is - inside a proper relationship - but i don't know everybody and in Judaism there is always at least one dissenting opinion.

Kosher Sex, by Rabbi Boteach

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385494661/qid=1078191642//ref=pd_ka_1/103-7073529-3698240?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

DaryLLL

03-01-2004, 07:47 PM

Holding back from posting off-color land of milk and honey joke.

pammysue

03-01-2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Paul thought Jesus was given power by God at the resurrection (as are we). Paul's Christ was not a historical figure but an indwelling spirit.

Phillipians 2:5-8: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

Colossians 1:15-17: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 2:9: For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

2 Tim 1:9: who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time

All written by Paul.

As always, all passages are NIV. :)

kama'aina mama

03-01-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Piglet68
But it seems that the only "criteria" for being born without original sin is that your mother never enjoyed the pleasures of sex.

no... you are once again falling into the familiar trap of mistaking Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth. By virtue of a miracle, Mary (who was concieved and born in the usual fashion) was born without the blot of Original Sin on her soul (ie Concieved Immaculate) and thereafter lived a blameless life for the 13 years or so it took her to concieve the babe and be a perfect vessel for God made Man. Mary gave birth to Jesus (as the joke goes) "without the prior unpleasantness of physical intimacy" and that is refered to as the Virgin Birth. It stands to reason, however that He was also born sans Original Sin.

As to the other stuff you said about women and sex being intrinsically dirty... I would tend to agree with your assessment that this is an unavoidable interpretation of this theoligical construct. Which is why I, personally, reject it.

dado

03-01-2004, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
It stands to reason, however that He was also born sans Original Sin.

i'm not following. if Miriam could be born sinless of parents who had original sin, why couldn't Yeshua? Miriam was Jewish, until she was 12/13 she would have lead a blameless life anyway because until the point we call bar/bat mitzvah children have not taken on the responsibility for their own actions.

kama'aina mama

03-01-2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by dado
i'm not following. if Miriam could be born sinless of parents who had original sin, why couldn't Yeshua? It would seem the goal was not simply that he be born w/out sin, but born of a perfect vessel.
Miriam was Jewish, until she was 12/13 she would have lead a blameless life anyway because until the point we call bar/bat mitzvah children have not taken on the responsibility for their own actions.
Well, there you have it then. :wink

merpk

03-01-2004, 11:55 PM

:OT

... by DaryLLL
... Holding back from posting off-color land of milk and honey joke ...

:LOL

Just as I was thinking that maybe it wasn't appropriate to post an off-color "mixing meat&milk" joke ...

:eek

:bolt

Sean

03-02-2004, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Another tidbit about the above confusion between the prophecy in Isaiah: The Hebrew word used was almah, which means young woman. It was translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos, which does mean virgin.
Thanks for that info, DaryLLL. I knew that was the case, but I didn't know the words.

Of course, it pretty much shoots down the accusation that Christian translators with an agenda were responsible for that reading of Isaiah. The Septuagint was compiled by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, about 250 years before Christ was born. If you think Isaiah didn't say "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, etc., etc.," your beef is with those guys.

Sean

03-02-2004, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Piglet68
1) no "god" could come from a "mere woman"

God, by definition, can do anything. The Church's theology about the Immaculate Conception doesn't derive from any notion than God could not have done things any other way. He didn't even need to become a man at all, put to it. He didn't need to create anybody, and He didn't need to save his creatures when they rejected Him. He just did all that out of love. So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that.
2) sex makes you dirty and "sinful"

You might get that idea from a flawed reading of the Virgin Birth doctrine (which all Christians profess, not just Catholics), but I don't see how the Immaculate Conception has any bearing on that, as that doctrine has nothing to do with sex or the lack of it.

(editing this post to note that kama'aina mama has already tried to correct the widespread confusion of these two doctrines)
And considering the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception didn't occur to the Church until a mere 150 years ago, methinks I smell a distinctly Victorian interpretation tainting things here.

Whoa, just because the doctrine was pronounced definitively in 1854 doesn't mean it didn't "occur to the Church" before that. There are lots of doctrines which Catholics hold that still haven't been pronounced and defined, and may never be. These things take awhile. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was celebrated in Catholic churches at least as far back as the fifth century A.D., and the theology behind the doctrine was developed during the first and second centuries, by Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, among others.

dado

03-02-2004, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Sean
The Septuagint was compiled by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, about 250 years before Christ was born. If you think Isaiah didn't say "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, etc., etc.," your beef is with those guys.

'fraid not. earliest exant Isaiah shows "young woman", not "virgin". there is a gap of several hundred years from which we have no septuagint copies so it is not currently possible to tell when the word was "reinterpreted".

sleeping queen

03-02-2004, 06:42 AM

I'm confused. What verses in the Bible talk of the Immaculate Conception of Mary? All my years of going to church I've never heard of this.

Sean

03-02-2004, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by sleeping queen
What verses in the Bible talk of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
Want the short answer? None.

The long answer is here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm). You gotta remember, though, that the Catholic Church has always believed lots of things that aren't "in the Bible," though she would never believe anything that the Bible contradicts.

DaryLLL

03-02-2004, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Sean
, that the Catholic Church has always believed lots of things that aren't "in the Bible," though she would never believe anything that the Bible contradicts.

Just for fun, go here:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0160.asp

Comics galore to refute your notion!

Jack Chick thinks the Catholic Churhc is the whore of Babylon. And that its core beliefs are based on the words of men, not God's Word.

Sean

03-02-2004, 07:20 AM

Thanks, DaryLLL. And I never knew that the Jesuits assassinated Abraham Lincoln, either. The things I learn.

sleeping queen

03-02-2004, 08:56 AM

Sean, thanks for the link. What a very long answer.

dado

03-02-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by sleeping queen
Sean, thanks for the link. What a very long answer.

yeah. and generates lots of questions. it's pretty obvious this...

sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

...was written before the Church officially changed its position on foetal life and "quickening" and abortion. the implication is either original sin or the soul itself is not actually present at the precise moment of conception. which was, not coincidentally i suppose, the teaching at the time.

interesting.

:OT

was this reformed in Vatican II or is it still RC dogma?

1930 – Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent

Sean

03-02-2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by dado
the implication is either original sin or the soul itself is not actually present at the precise moment of conception.
Only if you're assigning a temporal sense to 'before,' instead of an ontological sense, as was intended. It's all very Thomistic. Good question, though.

was this reformed in Vatican II or is it still RC dogma?
1930 – Pope Pius XI affirms Catholic dogma that every act of sexual intercourse is a sin unless performed with a reproductive intent
Why take my word for it? See for yourself! Read Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM) to discover that your paraphrase is incorrect. The encyclical extols and celebrates marriage in glowing terms, and along the way condemns artificial birth control, not intercourse without reproductive intent. (See paragraphs 55 and 56).
Casti Connubii, Dec. 31, 1930
...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature,...
(emphasis added)
And yes, it's still very much Catholic teaching (not "dogma" legally, but not worth digressing), and ever shall be. As evidence that Vatican II did not "reform" this teaching, see Humanae Vitae (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm), by Paul VI (1968), or take a gander at the Catholic Catechism (1993), section 2370 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM).

dado

03-02-2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Sean
Only if you're assigning a temporal sense to 'before

it doesn't really matter, neither sense has meaning until the moment of conception, and then the ordering comes right back into play. do you know if there a clarification of this issue when the "animated foetua" approach was reversed? i'd love to read how they argued out of the box.

Read Casti Connubii (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM) to discover that your paraphrase is incorrect.

it wasn't my paraphrase, but my bad, i should have provided a link. but your link...is this really how it begins or am i looking at the wrong document?

How great is the dignity of chaste wedlock...

this is really really long...i'll have to get back to you on this, lol. so far i've learned mixed marriages are forbidden... :eek

Sean

03-02-2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by dado
do you know if there a clarification of this issue...
I'll get back to you, I'm trying to cook my wife's birthday dinner.

is this really how it begins or am i looking at the wrong document?
No, that's the right doc. You think it's funny because of the word 'chaste'? Cuz chaste doesn't mean celibate, it means morally decent. So a marriage where the spouses are faithful to each other is chaste. Bear in mind also, it's a translation from Latin. (See chastity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm).)

DreamerMama

03-02-2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Very Snoofly

PS Sean, I borrowed "very snoofly" from a song called "Nobody Understands Me" on Sandra Boynton's "Philadelphia Chickens" album (my daughter's favorite). Nobody understands the singer because she mostly talks gibberish..."it's very snoofly," she laments at one point. It struck me as funny. :)
:OT

We have that too! My kids love it.

Sean

03-02-2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by dado
do you know if there a clarification of this issue when the "animated foetua" approach was reversed? i'd love to read how they argued out of the box.

OK, I'm back with a fuller answer for you. First of all, that long page that explained the Immaculate Conception doctrine isn't infallible, only the doctrine itself is infallible. This is the doctrine.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.
That's the infallible part, pronounced definitively in 1854. I'm making this distinction not because I think there are errors in that explanatory page (I haven't found any), but just in case you thought I was claiming something I'm not.

Now then: Aristotle thought that life begins at the instant of conception, but ensoulment ("animation") doesn't happen until sometime later. It was actually a three-step process, whereby the fetus gets a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, then finally a rational (human) soul. I should point out that these weren't three different souls being switched out like air filters, they were the same soul being upgraded, as it were. The whole process took 40 days for baby boy fetuses, and 80 days for baby girl fetuses. It was all very silly, but this theory was what a lot of educated folks thought for many centuries. Even Catholic folks. Probably even popes and bishops.

Fortunately, it's not what popes and bishops think that's infallible; it's what they pronounce and define as dogma. And the Church's dogmatic position on "animation" was, .... nothing. The Church has never pronounced any position at all on when ensoulment occurs! Weird, huh? Obviously, Catholics believe it occurs sometime, but whether it's at the moment of conception (as most Catholics currently believe) or some other time before birth, the Church has no dogma, and never has. So Catholics can believe whatever they want about it. Or to be more precise, they may believe whatever they want about it, until further notice. After all, that might in the fullness of time become a defined dogma, too. It's a "Management Reserves the Right..." kind of thing.

(Edited. Took out the last paragraph, which discussed Church teaching on something. I really don't want to turn this thread into that kind of thread. But Dado asked, and anyone interested in the point I would have made here can read this article (http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuruprint071101.html). I hope anyone with more questions or comments about you-know-what will start a new thread.)

Jazmommie

03-03-2004, 05:02 PM

Well ready for a new view???
It is not just mine --but it is from Edgar Cayce readings -(try www.edgarcayce.org for more info oir check out library books on him if you want more detail)
"Yes,Mary was born immaculate-Ann her mother ,proclaimed that her child ,Mary ,was born without a father.
She was Jesus' twin soul-
It is a natural law ,as has been indicated by the projection of mind into matter and thus making of itself a separation to become encased in same-as man did.
Then there has been an encasement was a beginning.Then there must be an end when this would be broken;and this began at that particular period.Not the only--this particular period with Ann and then the Master AS the son;but the ONLY begotten of the Father in the flesh AS a son OF an immaculately concieved daughter!
Neither Mary nor Jesus then had a human father .They were one SOUL so far as the earth is concerned ;because otherwise she would not be incarnated in flesh,you see."
He also states that years AFTER Jesus was born-they had actual sex & had Ruth -the sister ,James , & Jude another sister of Jesus.

Jazmommie

03-03-2004, 05:09 PM

And I just read this ----

"As recorded by Matthew & ,the other Luke -these on various sides but of the house of David,as was ALSO MARY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID."-reading 5749-8
She was an Essene -a kinsman --in the direct line of David.
The Essene wedding of Mary & Joseph is described also-
"The Essenes had their divisions ,just as you will find that most churches have their groups & divisions,these were in opposite groups of the Essenes.One held to --that it can happen --the other that God makes it happen.Which comes first,the hen or the egg?"