| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 10:18 pm |
|
I have moved this message to a new thread to allow a better discussion.
I have a question about the perpetual virginity too. I hope it's OK if I post it in this forum.
I also hope I don't sound nit picky, but what about Matthew 1:24: Joseph "did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn son."
I don't know Greek, but I spent about an hour yesterday with my Strongs, a Greek lexicon, and a ton of notes beside different versions of the Bible trying to figure out how that "till" could be interpreted as anything but the end of a time frame of "not knowing."
I’m working on trusting both Scripture AND the Church :? But this verse is really bothering me as I try to discover more truth about Mary.
BTW – I also am praying the Rosary every day! I have never been so anxious to pray before in my life.
Laurie
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 10:23 pm |
|
Originally posted by Saint Wanna Be:
Hey Laurie, the verse you are asking about throws a lot of folks. It threw me too for a while. I then heard this very simple explanation: Joseph never "knew" Mary. "Till" means that he had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus and that he never "knew" her at all. The early Church fathers never had any issues with her perpetual virginity. That in itself truly helped me.
Peace, and please pray for me,
Keith
____________________
St.W.B.
In the Eucharist We find Emmanuel
Current time is 08:22 pm
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 10:59 pm |
|
Catholics United for the Faith have a "Faith Fact" on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. You'll find it here.
Mary's virginity before and during the birth of Jesus are miracles. Her continued virginity after the birth of Jesus is not. However, it is the consistent teaching and belief of the Church since its earliest days.
As for the use of the word "until" I can honestly say that I have not visited Australia until today. That doesn't mean I went today or that I will go tomorrow. It simply means that I did not visit Australia prior to this time.
The Catholic Church reads scripture in context, meaning that the entirety of scripture is read alongside the Sacred Tradition of which it is part, as guided by the Magisterium. You cannot take a single verse or passage in isolation and find a valid interpretation. This is the fallacy of Sola Scriptura and fundamentalist interpretations of scripture.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 12:04 am |
|
Those who wish to read for themselves St. Jerome’s Letter to Helvidius, cited in the Faith Fact referred to by Rick, may find it here. Considering that this letter was written in the 4th century, it should be of immense importance to those who struggle with these concepts.
David
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 07:31 pm |
|
The word 'Until' appears in an english expression that was common during the middle of last century.
eg He left home at 13 and never went back 'till the day he died
This does not imply that he went back on the day he died or that he went back after the day he died, only that he did not go back up to that point, and says nothing as to what occurs after that point.
Regards Dave
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 126 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26th, 2006 12:07 pm |
|
Laurie,
You are to be commended for your dogged pursuit of the truth. You will find that the Scriptures and the Church's teaching can withstand this sort of investigation and you will be rewarded with as you grow to appreciate the integrity of God's word.
You asked about the Greek expression "until" in the phrase Joseph "knew her not until she had borne a son". Matthew 1:18. From the standpoint of grammar (Greek and Hebrew), Scripture often uses a fixed time "until" to denote time "without limitation". For example, "Even to (until) old age, I am He" (Is 46:4). As St. Jerome asks: "Will He cease to be God when they have grown old?". Also, Matthew 28:20: "Lo I am with you always, until the close of the age." This does not mean Jesus is going to forsake his disciples at the end of the age.
One commentator has pointed out a second consideration: what is the intent of the writer Matthew? Is he intending to make a statement about the "before" or the "after"? It is clear his concern is to affirm the virgin birth of Jesus (in accordance with the Isaiah prophecy: ""Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us)." Matthew 1:23.
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
stephanpetersgirl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Converting to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 10:58 pm |
|
Thanks to all of you for your posts and your information. It's going to take me some time to research through all this. (My husband says "especially St. Jerome.")
 Thanks,
Laurie
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 11:51 pm |
|
stephanpetersgirl wrote: Thanks to all of you for your posts and your information. It's going to take me some time to research through all this. (My husband says "especially St. Jerome.")
Laurie, I think there is another point to be considered. Have you ever read Chaucer? How about Shakespear? How easy are they to understand?
The language of Shakespear and Chaucer is more than a millennium closer to our English today than the first English translations of scripture. That's one of the reasons it's so important to place the writings in context not only with the rest of scripture, but also with the understanding of those early writers (we call them "Fathers") who were much closer to understanding the original languages, and who had the oral teachings and recollections of their predecessors as well.
Our Church tells us that we must take all of these factors into account before we can interpret an individual passage of scripture. The meanings of words change with time. Do you think when the 1890's were nicknamed the "Gay 90's" that they were referring to an epidemic of homosexuality? A mere century ago the meaning of the word "gay" was quite different than it is today. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made a move in 1934 called "The Gay Divorcee'". Marilyn Monroe and Yves Montand made "Let's Make Love" in 1960, at a time when no one in movies had sex. There are countless other examples. Even if we assume that the word "until" has a terminal meaning, how can we be certain that the meaning was the same 2000 years ago? And of course, we also have to take translations into account, because the original manuscripts of nearly all of scripture are lost.
So which is more likely to be accurate: An interpretation of a single word of scripture, or the meaning explained by the Church in context with the greatest historians and scripture scholars who ever lived? The Church did not make up its interpretation to support the doctrine; it developed the doctrine on the basis of the interpretation of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which is not contradicted by scripture but was univerally held by the early Church for well over a millennium, as well as by the Orthodox Churches to this day, and by all of the early Protestant "reformers" as well.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 01:30 am |
|
Cajunrick,
You are certainly right about words changing meaning. While teaching Social Studies on one occasion, I used the word "booty." The students began snickering. Then it dawned on me, booty to them means, well I think you get the point.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
stephanpetersgirl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Converting to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 07:49 am |
|
Laurie, I think there is another point to be considered. Have you ever read Chaucer? How about Shakespear? How easy are they to understand?
I almost started laughing (at myself) when I read your post! I DID read Chaucer in the "original" for my ENGL402 class a few years ago. The teacher insisted that we experience English the way Chaucer wrote it, and we all struggled using the notes and the glossary for a few weeks until, suddenly, it made sense (well sorta pretty much).
I also speak a teeny, tiny bit of German, and one of my worst problems when I lived in Germany was remembering how to use prepositions, to put the money "on" my bank instead of "in" it - even now I am probably remembering it wrong.
I tutor ESL, and last week I explained to a student that the ceiling lamp was "on" the ceiling not "under" it :-)
My daughter Hannah and I read Shakespearean parts to each other - . . .
How did I divorce these aspects from my brain while I investigated a little preposition using my Strong's?
Also - I KNOW how easy it is to proof-text and manipulate Scripture. Every denomination believes they've interpreted the Scriptures correctly.
Many smiles this morning  ,
Laurie
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 08:55 am |
|
stephanpetersgirl wrote:
Also - I KNOW how easy it is to proof-text and manipulate Scripture. Every denomination believes they've interpreted the Scriptures correctly.
But only one has interpreted it consistently the same for 2000 years!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 09:36 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: stephanpetersgirl wrote:
Also - I KNOW how easy it is to proof-text and manipulate Scripture. Every denomination believes they've interpreted the Scriptures correctly.
But only one has interpreted it consistently the same for 2000 years!
Cajunrick,
I like that word "consistently." It is one of the points in favor of Catholicism, and which keeps me coming back to study and investigate. What other denomination under Protestantism has been consistent since its conception? None that I can think of. And this was one of the points I made in my defense of the Catholic faith last night. Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church to start the Anglican Church. Then the Anglican Church split apart in the U.S. into the High and Low Episcopal Churches, which split into the liberal and conservative Episcopal Churches. Then we have the Pilgrims who (I think) started out as the Plymouth Brethren, which split into the Methodist, which split into the Pilgrim Holiness (to keep themselves pure from liberal doctrine) while the Methodists were splitting into the United Methodists (liberal) and the, not sure, but I think just the plain Methodist Church. Who knows? It's all so confusing. We could then do this same analogy with the Lutheran Church.
Is it possible to actually find enough information to do a family tree of all the splits since the German and English Reformations? That would be really interesting!
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2282 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 10:56 am |
|
Then we have the Pilgrims who (I think) started out as the Plymouth Brethren, which split into the Methodist, which split into the Pilgrim Holiness (to keep themselves pure from liberal doctrine) while the Methodists were splitting into the United Methodists (liberal) and the, not sure, but I think just the plain Methodist Church. Who knows? It's all so confusing.
The Pilgrims (I assume you refer to those of the Mayflower and Massachusetts) were Puritans, a strict Calvinist sect of the 17th century. The Plymouth Brethren began later, in the 19th century, and are today considered to be a more or less typical loosely federated non-denominational sect. One of their early centers was Plymouth, England; hence the name. (The Puritans’ Mayflower sailed from Plymouth, and the Pilgrims named their New World landing Plymouth Rock, so this is probably the source of your confusion.) One of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren was John N. Darby, famous for his advocacy of Dispensationalism. (The best-selling “Left Behind” series of novels is based on a variant of this ideology).
The Methodists (I was raised Methodist in the “plain” Methodist Church, the forerunner of the United Methodist Church, which was officially formed in 1968, five years after I became Catholic) emerged in the US in the 19th century as a grass roots movement based on a variety of sources, most particularly the Wesleyan Methodist Movement within Anglicanism. They are split among half a dozen denominations in the US and about three times that number of entities worldwide. Some, like the United Methodist Church, are liberal, while others, such as the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, are conservative. All told, at least 40 different denominational traditions, each with its own trail of fragmentation, can trace their origin to the early Methodist Movement within the Church of England and the influence of the Wesley brothers. Among these are the Church of the Nazarene and the Salvation Army. In addition, Methodism was a major influence in the establishment of the Holiness Movement (those hundreds of “non-denominational denominations”) and the Pentecostals.
Attempts have been made to catalog all the splits and start-ups since the Reformation, but due to the fact that we have these “home churches” and other single-congregation entities plus loose federations of congregations without organizational superstructure to hold them together, it is really an impossible task. How does one define “denomination”? How does one keep track of ongoing splits and start-ups? How does one discover tiny groups whose existence is known only to themselves?
“It’s all so confusing.” I have to agree: a veritable Babel.
David
|
|
|
stephanpetersgirl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Converting to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 10:56 am |
|
Darlene wrote:
I like that word "consistently."
I do too. I just was reading how St. Ignatius wrote that the Eucharist was the "flesh" of Christ in the first century!
Why didn't I discover the teachings of the Early Church Fathers a decade or so ago?
Laurie
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 01:43 pm |
|
stephanpetersgirl wrote: I do too. I just was reading how St. Ignatius wrote that the Eucharist was the "flesh" of Christ in the first century!
Why didn't I discover the teachings of the Early Church Fathers a decade or so ago?
Because those who were teaching you deliberately masked those things not in agreement with their teachings. The "Flat Earth" people do the same thing.
The important thing is not that you didn't discover them a decade or so ago, but that you have discovered them now.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5458 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 01:47 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: cajunrick wrote: stephanpetersgirl wrote:
Also - I KNOW how easy it is to proof-text and manipulate Scripture. Every denomination believes they've interpreted the Scriptures correctly.
But only one has interpreted it consistently the same for 2000 years!
What other denomination under Protestantism has been consistent since its conception?
What other "denomination" has been around for 2000 years? Even if there was a Protestant denomination that has been consistent since its inception, it still would have at most half a millennium of interpretation, which is only a quarter of the history of the Catholic Church.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 11:00 am | |
|
|
