Mary's Virginity And Sinlessness

[the lumberjack]

okay, and one more thing...props to my wife for bringing this back to me...I would have totally forgot about it.

now, we all can agree when the Bible says that the man "KNEW" the woman...and they "KNEW" one another...what its talking about...

so, holding to that, how can you think that Mary was still a virgin after Joseph "knew" her?

in Matthew 1:24-25

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 [b]And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son[/b]: and he called his name JESUS.

the definition of "know":
[quote]1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel

a) to become known

2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of

a) to understand

b) to know

[b]3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman[/b]

4) to become acquainted with, to know[/quote]

Joseph KNEW Mary...he didn't get acquainted with her...he didn't understand or perceive her...she didn't become known to him...he KNEW her...

love.

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack,

Here are a few quotes to help explain some of the more recent issues presented.
I intend to pick up where we left off on the Rev 12 discussion in the near future, I have not yet had time to read the article you gave but I look forward to it. I hope this information helps.

[quote]The title "Woman" is not a sign of disrespect, it is the opposite -- a title of dignity. It is a formal mode of speech equivalent to the English titles, "Lady" or "Madam."

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

"The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatara, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it" (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor's Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus' reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. 'Woman' (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)" (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, "In his reply, the use of 'Woman' does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)" (p. 1076).

The fact it is not a title of disrespect should be obvious from the fact that Jesus, as an obedient Son who fulfilled the Torah perfectly, would never have spoken irreverently to his mother. His perfect fulfillment of the Torah includes a perfect fulfillment of the command, "Honor your father and mother," which in the literal Hebrew is "Glorify your father and mother." This is why the corban custom was so wrong -- because it left one's parents scrounging for food and money and thus publicly humiliated, violating the command to glorify your father and mother by seeing that they are not publicly shamed by being reduced to begging. To publicly speak irreverently of his mother is something that Jesus would never have been able to countenance. Actually, the way Jesus is using the term -- at the two key junctures in John's Gospel where Mary appears -- is symbolic and emblematic of her role in redemptive history. Whereas Eve was the First Woman, Mary is the Second Woman, just as Adam was the First Man and Jesus was the Second Man (1 Cor. 15:47).[/quote]
Also consider these words of Our Lord before you give full assent to your theory:
"How ingeniously you get around the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said: Do your duty to your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death." (Mark 7:8-11).

This seems to apply too:
[quote]"As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you nursed!' But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" (Luke 11:27-28).

Anti-Catholics assume (1) that because there is a compliment in this passage and (2) that Mary is mentioned in the compliment and (3) that the compliment appears to be rebuffed that it is Mary who is being complimented and that Jesus is rebuffing the idea that Mary ought to be honored. This is a total misreading of the passage.

First, while there is certainly a compliment in the passage, Mary is not the one being complimented. The woman says two things to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore you" and "Blessed … are the breasts at which you nursed." The source of Mary's blessedness in this passage is the fact she had a Son as marvelous as Jesus. What the woman was a saying was, "Your mother is so lucky to have a Son like you!"

Who is that complimenting? If a woman came to you and said, "Your mother is so lucky to have a son like you"-or, if you are female-"Your mother is so lucky to have a daughter like you," who would she be complimenting? Your mother? No, she'd be complimenting you.

Thus, though there is a compliment in the passage, and though Mary is mentioned in the compliment, Mary is not the one being complimented-Jesus is.

Only an anti-Catholic agenda that is blindly bent on finding verses to use against the Catholic view of Mary at every possible opportunity would even think of twisting this verse's compliment of Jesus into an instance where Jesus chooses to publicly dishonor (publicly refuse to honor) his mother. Christ, as the one who fulfilled the Ten Commandments perfectly, perfectly fulfilled the command "Honor your father and mother," which would be better rendered "Glorify your father and mother," and which principally has in mind not letting one's parents be publicly shamed through one's actions or inaction (which is why the Pharisaical corban practice of denying them support in their old age violates the command; one's inaction through corban lets them be publicly shamed by being reduced to destitution).

Second, the Greek word here translated "rather" (menoun) does not have anything like the adversive force in Greek that "rather" does in English. It is simply an emphatic particle normally rendered "and." Thus, if Bibles had italics for emphasis, the passage would better be translated: "He said, '*And* blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" He is not denying what she said, he is emphatically adding something to what she said.

Jesus is not simply rebuffing the woman and rejecting her compliment; he is focusing her attention not just on his own special stature-which both she and he acknowledged-but also on her own obligation to fulfill the commandments of God-something a Messianic enthusiast might lose sight of. He wanted her response to him to be more than mere hero- or celebrity-worship; he wanted a true change of life in response to his preached message-the word of God. Thus he is not rejecting her compliment; he is rejecting any kind of mere hero-worship (the "Jesus Christ, Superstar" effect) that does not result in her changing her a life as a result of his message. He is far from rejecting the idea of his own exalted status or of the fact that his mother was very blessed to have a Son like him.

Anyone who has been using this passage to attack the Catholic view of Mary should seriously ask himself whether he cares more about finding verses against the Catholic position or about what Scripture really says and whether anti-Catholic prejudice has been blinding him to the real meaning of the Scriptures-here and elsewhere. [/quote]

[quote]A Dishonored Mother?

Many people seem to be under the impression that Jesus was not without sin, because they believe he did NOT keep all the commandments perfectly.
They insist that on several occasions he purposely dishonored his own mother in public, failing blatantly to keep the command, "honor your father and your mother."
But such blindness to the profound relationship between a mother and her son can only be explained by family therapists. Instead here is the true context of the Scriptural passages in question.

First we have:

John 2:3-5
When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

Was Jesus, in front of the servants, being disrespectful to his mother by addressing her as "woman" with a seemingly defiant question? That can hardly be the case, if he really did keep perfectly every single commandment. The words, "honor your father and your mother" lose in translation from the original Hebrew a deeper, more profound meaning which says, "give glory to your father and your mother." And this is exactly what Jesus is doing at Cana. As the consummate teacher, he recalls for us the words in Genesis prophesying his coming.

Genesis 3:14-15
The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this........I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

At Cana, Jesus reveals to all present that his mother is more than she appears; she is the "woman" prophesied in Genesis, Jesus being her seed. When he questions, "what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come," he is certainly prompting a specific response as he does throughout his ministry. And so she responds by instructing the servants, "do whatever he tells you," thus initiating Jesus' public ministry of miracles and confirming the enmity between the woman and the serpent. The word "enmity" literally means total and absolute opposition. Only a person who can never ever succumb to the temptation of the serpent can possibly be considered at enmity with the serpent. Genesis describes two persons who fulfill this prophesy, the woman and her seed.

Second we have:

Luke 11:27-28
As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

Some people interpret this passage as a rebuke to a compliment given to Jesus' mother. But the woman who cried out "Blessed is the womb that bore you....etc", was not paying any respects to Mary, but to Jesus himself, in essence saying, "Blessed is your mother for having such a wonderful son." Mary is blessed, she says, because Jesus is the blessing upon her.

This situation is analogous to an honor student being told, "Your mother is blessed to have a child such as you." The compliment in intended toward the student. But Jesus being, also the incarnation of perfect humility, graciously fields this compliment and redirects praise upon his own mother, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it." For he knew that his mother represented the epitome of hearing the word of God and keeping it. Instantly we are reminded of the annunciation.

Luke 1:38
And Mary said, "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word."

Finally, we have :

Mark 3:32-35
And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

On this occasion after it was announced, "Your mother and brothers are here," Jesus replies "Who are my mother and brothers?" is he taking pot shots at Mary in public, and dishonoring his mother? What an absurd accusation! No indeed, what he really is teaching is that he elevates his followers to status of family members, holding up his very own mother as the standard of relationship he intends there to be in his kingdom.

Do they who object to honoring Mary not preach a "personal relationship with Christ?" What do they mean if not a familial relationship? Therefore, what higher standard of unity is there than blood relative? Thus Jesus continues his teaching - "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" In essence he is saying to the crowd - YOU are my immediate family, that is the relationship I want in my kingdom.
And once again he connects for us, "Whoever does the will of God," is my mother! She who perfectly acquiesced in the will of God shows us the example of how to become members of the family of Jesus.

Never believe anything other than this. Jesus kept to perfection all of the commandments, especially this one, "Honor your father and your mother." [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

A few more things, and then hopefully we can get back to Rev 12 and all that.

[quote]Those who see in this phrase (Joseph did not know her until...) a hint that the marriage was later consummated overlooks a most significant fact: the very use of ‘know’ stands in the imperfect tense, not in the aorist, and therefore lays the stress on the duration of the period throughout which Joseph and Mary abstained from intercourse. The meaning is that Joseph had no carnal knowledge during the period which preceded the birth of her son. This interpretation suits the context perfectly, for the whole of Mt. 1:18-25 is concerned with the virginal conception of Jesus and its consequences for paternity. If the author had wished to imply that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage, it is more likely that he would have used here the Aorist. (John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament)

The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus. Even anti-Catholic protestant scholars admit this fact.

2 Sam. 6:23: "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until [heos, LXX] the day of her death."
Mt. 22:44: “'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, til [heos] I put thy enemies under thy feet'?”.
1 Tim. 4:13?: "Until [heos] I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching."

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.
But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.[/quote]
This has some good points:
[quote]The New Testament critic who is concerned only with literary forms and Greek particles and reconstructions from source traditions and the Fundamentalist who is concerned only with proof-texts and constantly changing private interpretations are both in the same boat. They cannot see the Gospels as stories of real people with real feelings. Their artificial reconstructions of Jesus and Mary are the by-products of arbitrary speculation of which they can never be certain. The image of Mary as the merciful mother, on the other hand, is the portrait given us in the Gospels - a portrait consistently interpreted as such by the Christian community for 20 centuries.

The second truth we must grasp in understanding Mary's appearances in the public ministry is that Jesus was Mary's Son. Again, much as it knows little of true motherhood, the modern world is becoming less and less familiar with the traditional relationship of child to parent. In almost every culture and society, children were taught not just to love and obey their parents but to show them reverence - and not just in their youth but throughout their lives. For the Israelites this duty of reverence was commanded by God in the Ten Commandments: "Honour thy father and mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." [Deuteronomy 5:16]. In Hebrew the word for "honour" was actually "glorify."

In their writings on the public ministry of Jesus as it relates to Mary, many Fundamentalists and Liberals seem to have no idea at all of this reverential bond between child and parent. Ignoring idioms, nuances and humorous figures of speech they assume quite naively that Jesus would break one of the Ten Commandments by disrespecting and even rebuking His mother. The words of Jesus Himself are sufficient to refute these misguided assumptions: "How ingeniously you get around the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said: Do your duty to your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death." (Mark 7:8-11).

Conveniently, the critics ignore or downplay the fact that for the first thirty years of His life, Jesus was subject to Mary and that the first miracle of Jesus' ministry was performed at the request of His mother. Again, at the end of His life, His main concern is His mother whom He turns over to the care of John. It is true indeed that Jesus often used rhetorical devices to emphasize a point He was making - and this of course can be said about passages such as Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28 where He was emphasizing the intimacy of His relationship with those who do His will. We should read these verses in the same interpretive spirit in which we read Jesus' words in Luke 14: 25-27: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." If we adopt the Fundamentalist mode of interpretation we would understand this latter passage literally - and a literal interpretation would be quite the opposite of what our Lord had in mind. But the Fundamentalist insists on literalism when it suits his agenda without taking into account the wisdom of historic interpretation.

All those who ignorantly attribute irreverence to Our Lord would do well to heed what Methodius said in 847 A.D.: "He Who said, Honor your father and your mother, that He might observe His own decree gave all grace and honor to His Mother."

Thirdly, the utterances of Jesus in His public ministry have to be considered in the context of His paramount focus on doing the divine will. Luke 2:49-51, Matthew 12:48-50, Mark 3:33-5, Luke 8:21, Luke 11:27-8 and John 2:4 are sometimes cited as instances of Jesus slighting and even rebuking Mary. Some have cited them in arguing that Mary is not given any position of special importance by her Son. Such allegations are, of course, arbitrary interpretations of these passages and must be judged both by a study of the passages themselves and in the light of Scripture as a whole.

We realize first that each one of these passages concern Mary's appearances in her Son's public ministry (except for the incident in which Jesus was away at the Temple for three days). Every one of the appearances is in one way or another a manifestation of Mary's merciful nature - whether it is concern for her Son or for others. Both mother and Son knew that Jesus' mission came first - it was Mary who said "Do whatever he tells you" - and had to be recognized as being of paramount importance. Nevertheless Mary could not but be merciful, could not but be a mother just as Jesus could not but do His Father's will.

In His preaching Jesus focused very specifically on the supreme importance of "doing the will of the Father." "My food is to do the will of him who sent me," He says. And in the Lord's Prayer he teaches us to pray, "Thy will be done." At Gethsemane He even says to the Father, "Not my will, but thine be done." The passages under consideration at the beginning of this section were meant to re-emphasize this fundamental theme of focusing on the will of the Father: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." "Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."

The clearest evidence that no slight to Mary is intended is the fact that Jesus makes statements similar to the passages above about honor paid even to Him! "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say." (Luke 6:46). "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21). True: we must adore and honor our Lord and Savior. But the highest form of adoration and honor is to do His will.

How does the message of doing "the will of the Father" apply to Mary we might ask? On the one hand, there is no doubt from these verses - and from the historic Faith - that Mary's importance does not come simply from being the Mother of Jesus. On the other hand, these verses give us the ground rules for assessing the importance of any person in the eyes of God. And it is in relation to these "rules" that we understand the true importance of Mary and her place in salvation history. She is important and honored primarily for one thing: she did the will of the Father: she obeyed. "And blessed is she that believed." (Luke 2:45). This passage in fact tells us why the image of Mary as the new Eve is so appropriate: Mary's humble acceptance of the Father's invitation is the true reason for her greatness and it is her obedience which made possible the Incarnation. She became the mother of Jesus because she did the will of the Father and it is for doing His will that we honor her. It is curious that Fundamentalists who preach "faith without works" ignore, first, the fact that in the passages above Jesus is in fact calling us to the "work" of doing the "will of the Father" and, secondly, that Mary's life is the clearest example, after Jesus Himself, of "doing the will of the Father" in the Gospels. Truly she is the second Eve just as He is the second Adam.

Scripture tells us that just as "whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven" is brother, sister, and mother to Jesus, whoever does the Father's will is a child of Mary. In Revelation 12 we read about "the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelation 12:17). The new Eve whose obedience in doing the will of the Father made possible the redemption of humanity is now the mother of all those who strive to adhere to His will.

The salvific mission of the new Adam and the new Eve would have been in vain if the faithful do not focus on doing the will of the Father. The purpose of the Incarnation was to lead humanity to salvation and the path to salvation is doing the will of the Father.

The analysis of the Eastern Orthodox theologian John Breck is of importance here:

He replies with a rhetorical question, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" The answer is, "whoever does the will of God." The purpose of this exchange, however, is not to diminish the importance of those closest to Jesus. Rather, it is to reply to an obviously burning issue within St. Mark's own community: just who constitutes Jesus true "family"? Recalling Jesus' insistence on doing the will of God, Mark distinguishes Jesus physical family from his eschatological family, which can, of course, incorporate his own family members. As he did so often, Jesus here takes an earthly question and transforms it into an eternal truth: only those are genuine members of his family or body, who hear, receive, interiorize and act upon the Word that he, Jesus, embodies and proclaims. 16

Even the crudest literalist has to admit that in Luke 11:27 ("But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.") Jesus does not actually say that Mary is not blessed. And those who accept the inspiration of the Scriptures have to affirm that Mary is indeed "blessed" in so great a manner that she will be acclaimed by "all generations". Earlier in Luke we see the angel announcing "Blessed art thou among women" [Luke 1:28] and then Elizabeth "filled with the Holy Ghost" proclaiming: "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." (Luke 1:42). Mary herself says "Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:48). What is more the angel has already told Mary that "thou hast found favor with God." (Luke 1:30). Jesus then could not be contradicting what has already been affirmed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Protestant theologian Margaret E. Thrall gives one way of translating Luke 11:28 in her Greek Particles in the New Testament with particular attention to "rather" [menoun]: "What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself, but (menoun) in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness lies." 17

Similarly M. Galizzi notes "that the adversative 'rather' is not fully exact, because the Greek participle 'does not have adversative shadings' and is better translated 'even more', that is: 'even more blessed are they who hear.'"18[/quote]
God bless brother.

[phatcatholic]

lumberjack......................your reply?

[the lumberjack]

to the FIRST REALLY long quote...

ok, so he was being respectful to Mary from the cross....He still didn't call her Mother...just as it says, He called Mary Magdalene woman after He came out of the tomb...does that mean that Mary Magdalene was His mother as well?

the second really long quote...

[b]menounge {men-oon'-geh}[b] - rather as it is used in Luke 11:27-28, NOT (menoun), and we all know that even 1 letter in the greek makes a difference in what the word means...this is in the concordance...not my bible. and the only definition it has listed is:

[i]1) nay surely, nay rather[/i]

which would both indicate that Christ WAS saying what He was saying...and not the other.

I'll read the REEEEEALLLLLY LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG one later... its way too long for me to read at work...


and a real quick post to the last one...

seems like a little too many maybes and shoulda coulda's to be dancin around the verse like that...I see what the other verses are saying... but in 2 Sam. 6:23, if its saying that she didn' have kids from some point in time UNTIL the day she died, then why doesn't the verse in Matthew mean the same? "and he knew her not from the day she was pregnant UNTIL she had given birth to her first born..."

it also points out that thru the WHOLE passage, it talks of Jesus and the concept of His virginal birth...then why all the sudden would it switch to talking about Him being GOD'S first born....if He was "the only begotten son" of God? It is making reference to Mary, and the fact that He was the first born of her...stating that there were others...

love.

[Jericho923]

i want to trut the church and defend the doctrin but this is probably one point which i always avoid!!! ahhhh! i need faith

[Hananiah]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Mar 19 2004, 01:26 PM'] seems like a little too many maybes and shoulda coulda's to be dancin around the verse like that...I see what the other verses are saying... but in 2 Sam. 6:23, if its saying that she didn' have kids from some point in time UNTIL the day she died, then why doesn't the verse in Matthew mean the same? "and he knew her not from the day she was pregnant UNTIL she had given birth to her first born..." [/quote]
The Greek preposition used in Matt 1:25 which is translated as "until" is [i]heos hou.[/i] It does not necessarily terminate the action of the main clause. All it means is that the action of the main clause continues up to the point when the "until" is reached. Whether or not the action continues after the until is reached can only be determined by context. Thus, all Matt 1:25 teaches is that Mary was a virgin up to the point of Jesus' birth. Whether she remained a virgin afterward is not specified.

The Septuagint and extra-Biblical Greek literature often use [i]heos hou[/i] in situations where the action of the main clause clearly continues after the "until" is reached. For example, [i]Jospeh and Aseneth[/i] speaks of a woman who cried "until the sun went down" and then kept crying afterward. Obviously, the action of the main claus (crying) did not terminate when the sun went down. [i]4 Maccabees[/i] speaks of a man who remained orthodox in his religion until he entered heaven. Obviously, he didn't cease being orthodox when he entered.

[Laudate_Dominum]

lumberjack, please read both of my posts carefully. I can tell that you didn't read then entirely because your points are answered already in these posts.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

BUMP!

lumberjack isn't around these days, but this thread was really fun.

bumped for Apotheoun (sorry it jumps around like crazy, it was hard to stay on track. most of the arguments I had hoped to make were only being setup, never got around to tying it all together and presenting cogent arguments).

peace.

[Aloysius]

what ever happened to lumberjack?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 9 2004, 03:46 PM']BUMP!

lumberjack isn't around these days, but this thread was really fun.

bumped for Apotheoun (sorry it jumps around like crazy, it was hard to stay on track. most of the arguments I had hoped to make were only being setup, never got around to tying it all together and presenting cogent arguments).

peace.[/quote]
Laudate_Dominum,

That was very interesting reading. I too have an interest in the concepts of [i]personal extension[/i] and [i]corporate personality[/i], and in fact the paper I wrote for my Theological Foundations class at Franciscan University was on applying those concepts to the Church as the perpetual extension of the incarnation throughout time. I began with an investigation of the use of those concepts in the Old Testament and went on to show how they bear on the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ. Although I didn't include the idea of [i]totality conception[/i] in my paper, that notion clearly informs the Church's understanding of the nature of the fall of man in Adam, and of his redemption in Christ (the new Adam).

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 10, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 10 2004, 05:04 AM'] Laudate_Dominum,

That was very interesting reading.  I too have an interest in the concepts of [i]personal extension[/i] and [i]corporate personality[/i], and in fact the paper I wrote for my Theological Foundations class at Franciscan University was on applying those concepts to the Church as the perpetual extension of the incarnation throughout time.  I began with an investigation of the use of those concepts in the Old Testament and went on to show how they bear on the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ.  Although I didn't include the idea of [i]totality conception[/i] in my paper, that notion clearly informs the Church's understanding of the nature of the fall of man in Adam, and of his redemption in Christ (the new Adam).

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
I can't wait to meet and discuss.

What were your main sources for personal extension and corporate personality? I am interested because if there are good books out there that I am unaware of I should like to read them.
In [u][i]The Mysteries of Christianity[/i][/u], Scheeben discusses the nature of the fall of man in Adam and relates this to our redemption in Christ in a radically profound way. I would like to go back and read that section, keeping totality conception in mind. I believe there is a lot there, to say the least.

What really interests me of late is how the development of technology (seen as an axis in the development of human society in general) has brought about an alienation in man, not originating in technology as such (I don't condemn it as evil in itself), but how the strivings of humanity (in particular techno-industrial strivings), proceeding without reference to God, become an expression of fallen man's fundamental disharmony. Many such ideas have been converging in a sort of holistic, Theologically informed interpretation of history and technology. There is a pattern, the pattern of salvation history, which is played out in an antithetical fashion. Might you recommend any books which may be of use on this quest? I know I've hardly alluded to much, but even loosely related texts would be welcomed.

books, books, books, books!!!!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 12:41 AM'] What were your main sources for personal extension and corporate personality? I am interested because if there are good books out there that I am unaware of I should like to read them.
[/quote]
Here is the whole list of the works cited and consulted for my paper, of course not all of them deal with corporate personality and personal extension:

Works cited:

Bouyer, Louis. Liturgical Piety. (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1955).

-----------------. The Paschal Mystery. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1950).

Deferrari, Roy Joseph, Editor. The Fathers of the Church. (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953). Volume 21. St. Augustine's Confessions.

-----------------. The Fathers of the Church. (New York: Fathers of the Church,
Inc., 1955). Volume 30. St. Augustine's Letters 165-203.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961).

Johnson, Aubrey R. The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961).

Koehler, Ludwig. Old Testament Theology. (London: Lutterworth Press, 1957).

Mersch, Emile, S.J. The Whole Christ. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1938).

Moehler, John Adam. Symbolism or the Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences Between Catholics and Protestants. (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1906).

Schaff, Philip, Editor. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1965).

The Liturgy of the Hours: The Office of Readings, According to the Roman Rite. (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1983).

Works consulted:

Thornton, L. S. The Common Life in the Body of Christ. (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1946).

Mersch, Emile, S.J. The Theology of the Mystical Body. (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1955).

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Aug 10 2004, 05:04 AM'] Laudate_Dominum,

That was very interesting reading.  I too have an interest in the concepts of [i]personal extension[/i] and [i]corporate personality[/i], and in fact the paper I wrote for my Theological Foundations class at Franciscan University was on applying those concepts to the Church as the perpetual extension of the incarnation throughout time.  I began with an investigation of the use of those concepts in the Old Testament and went on to show how they bear on the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ.  Although I didn't include the idea of [i]totality conception[/i] in my paper, that notion clearly informs the Church's understanding of the nature of the fall of man in Adam, and of his redemption in Christ (the new Adam).

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
I would most enjoy reading that paper. My approach has been similar (although only a matter of personal study rather than a formal academic endeavor). The main difference would be that I apply these concepts toward elucidating a Biblical Theology of Mary as exemplar of the Church (laying a foundation for discussing the whole spectrum of revealed Marian doctrines). Working with these concepts led to the shedding of a great deal of light upon particularly Luke-Acts and John-Revelation. It also opened up considerable avenues of exploration through OT allusions and typologies particularly from the prophets. An outgrowth of this was the identification of various themes contained in Vatican II (principally Lumen Gentium) which remarkably parallel many seemingly neglected elements of Luke-Acts (and to a lesser extend the Johannine corpus). My personal conviction being that the hand of God is truly and marvelously at work in these documents (Vatican II), despite the harsh polemics of so many critics these days, and the bastard interpretations of the various liberal hi-jackers.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 01:42 AM'] I would most enjoy reading that paper. My approach has been similar (although only a matter of personal study rather than a formal academic endeavor). The main difference would be that I apply these concepts toward elucidating a Biblical Theology of Mary as exemplar of the Church (laying a foundation for discussing the whole spectrum of revealed Marian doctrines). Working with these concepts led to the shedding of a great deal of light upon particularly Luke-Acts and John-Revelation. It also opened up considerable avenues of exploration through OT allusions and typologies particularly from the prophets. An outgrowth of this was the identification of various themes contained in Vatican II (principally Lumen Gentium) which remarkably parallel many largely neglected elements of Luke-Acts (and to a lesser extend the Johannine corpus). My personal conviction being that the hand of God is truly and marvelously at work in these documents (Vatican II), despite the harsh polemics of so many critics these days, and the bastard interpretations of the various liberal hi-jackers. [/quote]
My emphasis has been on the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, one person with her head. I became interested in this theological idea when I read St. Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos, and eventually found what I believe to be the two best studies on this topic: (1) The Whole Christ, by Emile Mersch, and (2) The Common Life in the Body of Christ, by L. S. Thornton. I'd never really thought of applying this to Mariology, but the idea is intriguing. The various levels of typology and interpretation are quite staggering. I mean, the Church is the Body of Christ, the spotless Bride of Christ, the Mother of the Faithful, the New Eve, etc., and of course many of these types apply to Mary as well. In addition, the Church is our Virgin Mother for she gives birth to the sons of God through the baptismal font, which is her womb, this and other ideas can be found throughout the Church Fathers, and once again the Church and Mary are connected. I also remember reading Julian of Norwich's "Divine Showings" and she saw Christ as our Mother, and after reading her "revelations" I came to understand why she made that connection. The Church is our Mother, she is also the Body of Christ, and is one person with her Mystical Head, and so it is true to say that Christ is the Whole Church, and since He is the Church and the Church is our Mother, Julian called Christ our Mother. Now, this is all based on her private revelations and on connecting various types and mysteries to one another, and so it is of limited value, but it is intriguing nonetheless. There is an ancient homily from the second century that speaks of Christ as the Eternal Male and the Church as the Eternal Female, and speaks this way in connection with the narrative of the creation in Genesis 1. But I digress. I'll have to give more consideration to the Marian dimensions in connection with the Church and corporate personality.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 11, 2004 by Apotheoun

[MorphRC]

Mariam Tracts.

[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/0002Catholic.htm#Mary"]http://www.catholicapologetics.net/0002Catholic.htm#Mary[/url] & Other Saints

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 11 2004, 07:27 AM'] Mariam Tracts.

[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.net/0002Catholic.htm#Mary"]http://www.catholicapologetics.net/0002Catholic.htm#Mary[/url] & Other Saints [/quote]
that's a great collection! one more cool link to add to my favorites.

thanks

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 02:41 AM'] What really interests me of late is how the development of technology (seen as an axis in the development of human society in general) has brought about an alienation in man, not originating in technology as such (I don't condemn it as evil in itself), but how the strivings of humanity (in particular techno-industrial strivings), proceeding without reference to God, become an expression of fallen man's fundamental disharmony. Many such ideas have been converging in a sort of holistic, Theologically informed interpretation of history and technology. There is a pattern, the pattern of salvation history, which is played out in an antithetical fashion. Might you recommend any books which may be of use on this quest? I know I've hardly alluded to much, but even loosely related texts would be welcomed.

books, books, books, books!!!! [/quote]
Apotheoun,

I don't know if you say this part of my earlier post because I edited the post and added it later.

God bless

[Madonna]

Regarding Mary's Virginity:

I used to think that it wouldn't be a big deal if Mary had consummated her marriage to Joseph. I talked to some men about it, and they said if they were Joseph, they wouldn't dare to enter a place where the Lord had been. That's a "don't even go there" kind of deal. I think it's a matter of reverence. Mary was Holy ground.

Edited August 11, 2004 by Madonna

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 11 2004, 11:28 AM'] Apotheoun,

I don't know if you say this part of my earlier post because I edited the post and added it later.

God bless [/quote]
Yes, I did notice it. I think much of modern man's struggle with nature is founded upon the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, all of which in their own way attacked the sacredness of time and the world. The Catholic sacramental worldview sees the incarnation as redemptive for man, but also for the entire cosmic order. I wrote a paper at San Francisco State University in which I briefly touch on this rupture between the sense of the sacred and the natural world, and although it doesn't address everything you've mentioned in your post, it is related, at least in a minor way, to what you are saying.

Here is a link to that paper: [url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p38.htm"]The Sin of Idolatry and the Catholic Concept of Iconic Participation[/url]

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 11, 2004 by Apotheoun