Masculinity of God

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:51 PM']I agree, while I can't give the personal insight of a woman 

I'm not sure that is an orthodox interpretation of that Scripture.
[right][snapback]642232[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yup don't think its about roles there, but hey, i know nothing

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:00 PM']yeah....

......I am wondering, in the Old Testament, Wisdom Incarnate was the [i]Torah[/i] the word made flesh in the scripture so to speak?  So, in the light of Christ, since all scripture is Christocentric, are all Old Testament reference to Wisdom references to Christ.....(sorry again Todd!!!!!)
[right][snapback]642244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not all, because some are applied to Mary. It should also be borne in mind that scripture is polyvalent, and so there are often various layers of meaning within a given text.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:54 PM'] What good would speaking of Christ as feminine do? 
[right][snapback]642234[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i promise i am not trying to be pernicious or uncharitable, but, Christ did, although rarely reference himself analogously in feminine, maternal desription....[b]NOT[/b] that we should emphasize this by any means, NONono, not at all, but it [i]is[/i] there and it [i]is true[/i]... I really doubt Christ was like the Arnold Schwartzo type or else his closest followers ie, followers up to passion and death, would have been men and woman, and not woman and John (what i mean by this is.this is total speculation on my part.....if Christ [b]alway[/b]s appeared all manly and strong before the romans took him away, the male apostles would have had no thought to flee, it seems--cause they already had [b]already seeeen[/b] the manifestation of his glory and power (at least three of them had, james John and Peter) ...so what made them flee? maybe he just looked weak and helpless, in fact, he was physically weak, he sweat blood, physically weak at that point or maybe i should say made himself weak so we could be strong?) so although those holy cards are somewhat feminine...Christ, in beckoning, opening his arms, [i]receiving our love[/i], is acting in the feminine postiion as with the sacred heart image, which is why those holy cards maybe seem womanly

Edited July 13, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:11 PM']Not all, because some are applied to Mary.  It should also be borne in mind that scripture is polyvalent, and so there are often various layers of meaning within a given text.
[right][snapback]642257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

righto. so mary is Wisdom as well? in what way?

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:49 PM']Are you quite certain this refers to a desire for her husbands [i]role[/i]?? cause i certainly don't want that role of authority...thats alot on you all's shoulder's.....I think it is the easier role to submit to a loving authority, esp. when that authority is in conformance with Christ.  Its not really even submission really, then it becomes something greater and deeper...and then all you want is---- to do and to be everything for the love of that man, which some describe as "submission" but I see it as altogether much grander and more beautiful...  to submit to the will of the man (providing he is in conformance to God) is a mystery almost similar to entrance into the Paschal mystery.... it seems to me...and that is not hard at all....i mean it is only hard insofar as we reject it, which would be giving into the lie that God is a tyrant and not Love itself.....and if i desire his/man's role then this entrance into the mystery can never take place...and that wasen't waht i meant by disageeing with Todd before.  hha maybe i got off topic but the point is i don't know if its really saying woman desire his role....as head...cause i don't want it...lol
[right][snapback]642226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What you are describing is how it SHOULD be. And I should clarify that while we don't submit that God changed Eve so that she had this desire (an active Curse), the desire was a result of the choice that Eve made.

You are absolutely right, and by the Grace of God, through the Teachings and Sacraments of His Church we can be renewed and understand how wonderful it is to have things in order. Christ set them in order:

Eph. 5:

[quote]24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her[/quote]


But in the fall of man, God told woman that her desire would be for her husband and he would rule her. Here "desire" in this respect had become disordered.

You are right to say these things. And you are right in knowing that the burden is indeed lighter. But look around at the "feminist" movement, and you will see how this curse at the fall has gripped so many women.

[quote]Consequently, the aftermath of Eve’s sin is to be deduced from the clause “And your desire shall be toward your husband.” [b]In other words, because of her sin, and the subsequent proclivity to sin which became a punishment for the human race (i.e., concupiscence), Eve will desire to rule over Adam, but God will see to it that Adam continues to rule over her[/b].[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/mulieris--dignitatem6.htm"]http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/ar...dignitatem6.htm[/url]

[quote]Consider Adam and Eve, probably the best known story of disobedience in scripture. God commanded Adam to guard the garden and his wife. Adam was to follow God, and Eve to follow Adam. [b]Instead, Eve disobeyed her husband and followed her own wants. Adam did not stand up to his wife, but followed her instead, reversing the order of submission.[/b] God chastises Adam, assigning him a life of sweat and hardship “because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree.” (Genesis 3:17) To Eve, he awards painful childbirth, “yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16) [/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm[/url]

and...

[quote][b]God's decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” [/b](Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and [b]replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other[/b]. Indeed the story of humanity is continuously marked by this situation, which recalls the three-fold concupiscence mentioned by Saint John: the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost.[/quote]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...oration_en.html[/url]

In fact this was an excellent doc. written by our very own + Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect - approved by John Paul the Great. It really describes the wonderful role women have in the Church, etc. Very very important.



Sorry, again... Didn't want to take it off topic. But thought I'd point it out.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Jake Huether

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:11 PM']i promise i am not trying to be pernicious or uncharitable, but, Christ did, although rarely reference himself analogously in feminine, maternal desription....[b]NOT[/b] that we should emphasize this by any means, NONono, not at all, but it [i]is[/i] there and it [i]is true[/i]... I really doubt Christ was like the Arnold Schwartzo type or else his closest followers ie, followers up to passion and death, would have been men and woman, and not woman and John (what i mean by this is.this is total speculation on my part.....if Christ [b]alway[/b]s appeared all manly and strong before the romans took him away, the male apostles would have had no thought to flee, it seems--cause they already had [b]already seeeen[/b] the manifestation of his glory and power (at least three of them had, james John and Peter) ...so what made them flee?  maybe he just looked weak and helpless, in fact, he was physically weak, he sweat blood, physically weak at that point or maybe i should say made himself weak so we could be strong?) so although those holy cards are somewhat feminine...Christ, in beckoning, opening his arms,  [i]receiving our love[/i], is acting in the feminine postiion as with the sacred heart image, which is why those holy cards maybe seem womanly
[right][snapback]642258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at here, but I see nothing in the gospels to indicate that Christ was weak or feminine. Jesus allowed Himself to take on weak human nature (He was able to suffer physical exhaustion and weakness like any other man - as He experienced the Passion), but this does not mean he was particularly weak or unmanly. (As Mel Gibson said, He had to be God to take all that!)
I'm not saying He looked like Ahhnold, or some 'roid-head, but He had to withstand the rigors of a tough life of wandering, and previously worked as carpenter (when all work had to be done by muscle.), and He withstood 40 days fasting in the desert - a lot tougher than me there! So it is highly unlikely that He was some soft, effeminate, androgynous type, as portrayed in those sappy pastel holy-card images.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Socrates

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:12 PM']righto. so mary is Wisdom as well? in what way?
[right][snapback]642263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Mary is represented in the tradition as the Fountain of Wisdom, House of Wisdom, Seat of Wisdom, etc., and various biblical texts dealing with wisdom can be applied to her, bearing in mind the polyvalent nature of the texts. The same holds with texts about the Ark of the Covenant, which can also be applied to Mary, and even some Christological texts, like Psalm 16, which is applied both to Christ and the Mary.

[i]Note:[/i] The older Roman Rite tended to assign readings from the wisdom literature for Marian feasts, but for some reason this has been suppressed in the modern Roman Rite.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Jake, the following quote, which you posted, defeats your interpretation:

[quote] Instead, Eve disobeyed her husband and followed her own wants. Adam did not stand up to his wife, but followed her instead, reversing the order of submission.[/quote]

If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin. If there was no order of submission before sin, then no order was reversed, for reversal implies an existing thing which changes.

But, as your quote shows, there [i]was[/i] reversal. Therefore, Eve's curse is not her submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband, because that is precisely what was reversed by her sin, and no effect can be the cause of its own cause.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:36 PM']Eastern Orthodoxy has a different understanding of original sin, and so it really doesn't need the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the way that the Latin Church does.  Most Eastern Orthodox hold that Mary possessed the divine energies from the beginning of her existence, which would be the equivalent of the Western doctrine, but no Eastern Orthodox person would ever hold that Mary was free from the "stain" of original sin, because they don't believe there is such a thing as a "stain" of original sin.  That's an Augustinian idea, and Augustine has had no influence on the theology of the East.
[right][snapback]642145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

AAAhh! Eastern theology is soooo cool...so cool...

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:28 PM']What you are describing is how it SHOULD be.  And I should clarify that while we don't submit that God changed Eve so that she had this desire (an active Curse), the desire was a result of the choice that Eve made. 

You are absolutely right, and by the Grace of God, through the Teachings and Sacraments of His Church we can be renewed and understand how wonderful it is to have things in order.  Christ set them in order:

Eph. 5:
But in the fall of man, God told woman that her desire would be for her husband and he would rule her.  Here "desire" in this respect had become disordered.

You are right to say these things.  And you are right in knowing that the burden is indeed lighter.  But look around at the "feminist" movement, and you will see how this curse at the fall has gripped so many women.
[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/mulieris--dignitatem6.htm"]http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/ar...dignitatem6.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm[/url]

and...
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...oration_en.html[/url]

In fact this was an excellent doc. written by our very own + Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect - approved by John Paul the Great.  It really describes the wonderful role women have in the Church, etc.  Very very important.
Sorry, again... Didn't want to take it off topic.  But thought I'd point it out.
[right][snapback]642294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hhhhhhhhhmmm, interesting, well, i dunno, I guess the whole desire for authority over men just doesn't appeal to me then...(except authority in a different sense, authority to help change hearts towards God, a more subtle directing if you will, not a domination) .....at all...ok well, feminists, it seems to me, they want a distorted form of equality rather headship, or maybe they do want headship, in that case, you are perfectly right and i just don't understand modern feminism at all...

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:35 PM']Mary is represented in the tradition as the Fountain of Wisdom, House of Wisdom, Seat of Wisdom, etc., and various biblical texts dealing with wisdom can be applied to her, bearing in mind the polyvalent nature of the texts.  The same holds with texts about the Ark of the Covenant, which can also be applied to Mary, and even some Christological texts, like Psalm 16, which is applied both to Christ and the Mary.
[right][snapback]642303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
coolness...yes i was forgetting about all that...yes the Ark of the Covannent- BTW

important question for baptist friend of mine (who will not long be Baptist, LOL )

......what is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew [i]Shekinah[/i], used by St. Luke to describe the "[i]overshadowing[/i]" of the Holy Spirit upon Mary....Luke deliberetely uses the same TERMINOLOGY in Luke's Gospel AS when David danced before the Ark of the Covanent, I believe, in order to show how MARY is the NEW ark of the covanent...NOW, what is the Greek word for "overshadow" ????????? anyone?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:59 PM']coolness...yes i was forgetting about all that...yes  the Ark of the Covannent- BTW

important question for baptist friend of mine (who will not long be Baptist, LOL )

......what is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew [i]Shekinah[/i], used by St. Luke to describe the "[i]overshadowing[/i]" of the Holy Spirit upon Mary....Luke deliberetely uses the same TERMINOLOGY   in Luke's Gospel AS when David danced before the Ark of the Covanent, I believe, in order to show how MARY is the NEW ark of the covanent...NOW,  what is the Greek word for "overshadow" ????????? anyone?
[right][snapback]642342[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Although I am not positive about this, I believe that Parousia may be the equivalent of Shekinah. Both words to the best of my knowledge mean "presence" or "manifestation."

In the Byzantine tradition it is likely that the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit is not to be understood hypostatically, i.e., as an overshadowing of Mary by the hypostasis of the Spirit, but as the overshadowing of the Mary by the Holy Spirit manifested as divine energy.

The Greek word used in Luke 1:35 is [i]episkiazo[/i] (overshadow).

[infinitelord1]

i really dont know what is going on this thread but i will continue to express my opinion about who i think mary is..........i dont think mary was divine. I think that before god created the cosmos he knew that there would be a woman named mary who chose to do the right thing. Furthermore, knowing this, he chose mary to be the one to give birth to a divine being (jesus).

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:51 PM']
hhhhhhhhhmmm, interesting, well, i dunno, I guess the whole desire for authority over men just doesn't appeal to me then...(except authority in a different sense, authority to help change hearts towards God, a more subtle directing if you will, not a domination) .....at all...ok well, feminists, it seems to me, they want a distorted form of equality rather headship, or maybe they do want headship, in that case, you are perfectly right and i just don't understand modern feminism at all...
[right][snapback]642326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hit the nail on the head.
Feminism doesnt even know what femenism should be. so confusion ensues.
But your first remark...
[quote]...(except authority in a different sense, authority to help change hearts towards God, a more subtle directing if you will, not a domination) .....[/quote]
Other than motherhood, is a womans greatest gift in the life of mankind.

[Guest JeffCR07]

No catholic thinks that Mary has divinity from herself. We think that she was born in a state of supernatural grace and was confirmed in her faith by the Grace of God from the moment of her conception. She is only referenced as being divine in the sense that she has attained Final Theosis and has been divinized by God.

We do not believe her to be a part of the Godhead, or God.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:31 PM']Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at here, but I see nothing in the gospels to indicate that Christ was weak or feminine.  Jesus allowed Himself to take on weak human nature (He was able to suffer physical exhaustion and weakness like any other man - as He experienced the Passion), but this does not mean he was particularly weak or unmanly.  (As Mel Gibson said, He had to be God to take all that!)
I'm not saying He looked like Ahhnold, or some 'roid-head, but He had to withstand the rigors of a tough life of wandering, and previously worked as carpenter (when all work had to be done by muscle.), and He withstood 40 days fasting in the desert - a lot tougher than me there!  So it is highly unlikely that He was some soft, effeminate, androgynous type, as portrayed in those sappy pastel holy-card images.
[right][snapback]642301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
>>>>>>.LOL<<<<<<<<<<
haha i totally agree, in life he was totally strong...i'm not saying he was weak IN LIFE but that Christ allows himself to become weak....for the sake of making us strong with his life...
my point is if he truly revealed and kept his strength at the time leading up to and during the passion, he would have had more male disciples around when he died........they fled for a reason....they had[i] seen[/i] many many times his miraculous power, had they not? So what need they have feared......unless Christ appeared so weakened as to not be able to defend them........Now, when Christ revealed his true glory at the transfiguration.....he was doing this.... why? for one reason among others, because he knew the disciples would need [i]re-assurance that he was truly God[/i]...why...cause he was about to look like,
not just a [i]man, [/i]
but the weakest of men,
and this weakness he was taking on for the sake of his Bride the Church. So I am [i]not [/i]saying Christ was inherently weak, but that he took on weakness....and most certainly [i]looked weak[/i] and almost dead, at points...most especially he must have been weak, just from a biological perspective after sweating blood and bleeding so much....Christ not only made himself weak, but he [i]makes himself [/i]completely powerless on the cross...in the Eucharist, continually, powerless.....and I think the holy cards u reference are not accurate to display Christ's true self, but to show, like i said his act of [i]receiving[/i] our love, a more feminine attribute....

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:07 PM']divine energy.

The Greek word used in Luke 1:35 is [i]episkiazo[/i] (overshadow).
[right][snapback]642354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
YES, thats the one!

grazie!

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:48 PM']Jake, the following quote, which you posted, defeats your interpretation:
If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin. If there was no order of submission before sin, then no order was reversed, for reversal implies an existing thing which changes.

But, as your quote shows, there [i]was[/i] reversal. Therefore, Eve's curse is not her submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband, because that is precisely what was reversed by her sin, and no effect can be the cause of its own cause.
[right][snapback]642320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
well then what is the correct interpretation of this verse

saying your desire will be for your husband and then saying he will rule over you seem to be discussing two different things in the same sentence...

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:48 PM']Jake, the following quote, which you posted, defeats your interpretation:
If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin. If there was no order of submission before sin, then no order was reversed, for reversal implies an existing thing which changes.

But, as your quote shows, there [i]was[/i] reversal. Therefore, Eve's curse is not her submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband, because that is precisely what was reversed by her sin, and no effect can be the cause of its own cause.
[right][snapback]642320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Jeff,

If the quote defeats my interpretation, then I'm sure that I must have written my interpretation such that it appears to be something that isn't what I thought to be my interpretation. I'm kinda confused. I'm sure there is some form of missunderstanding, either in reading what I wrote - or me in writing what I was thinking.


[quote]If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin.[/quote]

I don't remember ever saying that there was no order of submission before the sin, for there indeed was. I was saying that the disorder of submission (its reversal that is) was an effect of Original sin. I stated that God cursed Eve with a desire for her husband - which is clear in the Book of Genesis. And I clarified in my second post that this wasn't God chaning Eve (an active Curse - which would mean that God caused a disorder). It was a curse that Eve recieved by her own action - eating the fruite. And I don't ever remember saying that Eve was cursed with "submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband". On the contrary, I said that Eve's curse was a desire for her husband to submit to her - the reversal of the original order! She want's his role, but won't have it.

If I caused any confusion, I apologize, and again didn't want to hijack the thread.

If it's still coming out funky. Just don't listen to me, but read what Papa said... That's what I meant. Haha.

God bless.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:40 PM']You misunderstood my comment, or perhaps I didn't explain the Eastern position as well as I should have.

The Eastern Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, believe that the ancestral sin of Adam has effected humanity for the worse, because by his sin Adam lost the deifying grace that he had been given contingently at the time of his creation. 

What Eastern Christians reject is the idea that human nature has been "stained" by the fall.  It has been wounded in its natural faculties, but there is no existing "stain" or evil inherently present in man, because that would be akin to the Manicheaen heresy.  Original sin is not a positive existing thing (i.e., a stain); instead, it is a lack of deifying (sanctifying) grace in the soul.  In other words, original sin is a privation of a supernatural reality, and Christ became incarnate in order to restore that gift of grace to man.
[right][snapback]642213[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Alright I understand what you are saying, however I have heard Eastern not so Orthodox I suppose --Orthodox explain Original Sin away into nothingness of course that that was false shouldn't suprise me look at all of the people who claim to be Catholic and teach garbage. However I guess it's just my western outlook I can't help but agree with Augustine on this one. It is a real thing which needs to be washed away not simply the absense of a good thing which we desire.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:21 PM']well then what is the correct interpretation of this verse

saying your desire will be for your husband and then saying he will rule over you seem to be discussing two different things in the same sentence...
[right][snapback]642391[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In the begining, the order of things was as St. Paul depicted it: The husband should be the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the Church. Adam had the responsibility to be the authority, the guide for his wife. He was to do all, even to death, for her. And she was to submit to him, as the Church submits to Christ.

But in the fall, both Adam and Eve reversed this order. Eve, therefore, was told by God that she would desire (what she had already chosen to do) her husband (i.e. his authority... his role), but that Adam would rule over her.

In otherwords... "you will desire to rule over your husband, and he will rule over you."

But again, I would point you to the link I had posted earlier. Card. Ratzinger has wonderful insight.

God bless.