RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 22, 2015 at 5:09 pm
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2015 at 5:13 pm by Metis.)
(June 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(June 22, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Metis Wrote: That much is true, but mary is believed to have been what we consider a minor today right? And she was thought to be married and what all that entailed to a far older man. Joseph is believed in the Catholic/Orthodox traditions to have been a much older man.
If she wasn't having sex with Joseph, she was comitting scandal surely? Making people think she was his wife when she wasn't.
After all, according to Catholic teaching if you can't have sex....You can't get married! I'm serious, that's why guys who lose the ability to get a stiffy are barred from marriage since they can't "consummate" it.
So, bearing in mind the dogmas of immaculate conception (being free from all sin) and eternal virginity.... Co-habitation at the very least if not scandal right? Cohabitation for all the non Catholics here is the Catholic social teaching that it is a sin for a male and a female to live together if they have no direct relationship to one another by blood or marriage. Previously this included simply being in a room alone with no others present to "chaperone".
See post 1588
(June 22, 2015 at 4:41 pm)Metis Wrote: Catholic/Orthodox tradition in this case, both claim the marriage was essentially orchestrated by God as a cover so Mary had someone to look after her and to give the impression Jesus was Josephs child. So she wouldn't suffer stigma for being a single mother.
This is correct, thank you.
(June 22, 2015 at 4:44 pm)Metis Wrote: Catholics don't believe James was Jesus's brother. They don't claim to know what he was but most say cousin.
It's got a fair bit of a case behind it, the word used for "brother" in the original language and context could just quite as easily mean any male relative. It's only really the Protestants who ignore the original context who say James was Jesus' brother, and even then many don't.
^Yes.
1. Am I just blind or is this post I'm quoting #1588? If it is I'm not sure what I should be looking at
2 & 3. Pleasure
(June 22, 2015 at 4:59 pm)abaris Wrote: Which, again, only became dogma with Pius IX.
Wow, I'm turning into a Catholic apologist tonight Well....I've got a degree in theology, I'm gay, I speak Italian....Suppose all I need is a fancy dress and I'd be good for a pulpit somewhere
This ain't quite how dogma always works for Catholics Abaris. Sometimes a teaching can exist in Catholicism for centuries, but it's only when a controversy kicks off they make it a dogma.
The Orthodox and Catholic Church have both long held a traditio that Mary rose bodily into heaven at the end of her life; the main disagreement historically was if she was alive or dead when it happened. It was something that had always been around, all Pius (I thought it was XII?) did was say "we believe in this". They always did if you look back at Catholic art; most of the flying virgin pictures are from the 18th century long before the Dogma was pronounced. There's Byzantine icons of it long before them even still.