Thoughts on JPII and Virginal Superiority
I was reading Theology of the Body, the series entited 'Virginity for the Sake of the Kingdom' in "Life According to the Spirit". I just had some reactions to certain things he talked about that I just wanted to put into words so I wouldn't forget, and could look back on later:
p. 264 - ...continence for the kingdm of heaven in man's earthly life...[is] a king of exception to what is rather a general rule of this life...That such an exception contains within itself the anticipation of the exchatological life without marriage and proper to the "other world"...is not directly spoken of here by christ. It is a question indeed, not of continence in the kingdom of heaven, but of continence for the kingdome of heaven. The idea of virginity or of celibacy as an anticipation and eschatological sign...
Are we all in union and communism with each other and God in heaven? But does that mean physicall too? With our glorified bodies?
p. 267 - Such a human being [in heaven where people no longer marry], man and woman, indicates the eschatological virginity of the risen man. In him there will be revealed, I would say, the absolute an deternal nuptial meaning of the glorified body in union with God himself through the "face to face" vision of him, and glorified also through the union of a perfect intersubjectivity.
But if that's the case, is risen man really a virgin? If every conjugal act is symbolic of the loving union and communion with God, then a perpetual union and communism is a perpetual state of consummation. A virgin to other humans but the perpetual lover of God. But that's not quite right...you'd be renouncing other people...
p. 268 - The marriage of Mary and Joseph...conceals within itself, at the same time, the mystery of the perfect communion of the persons, of the man and hte woman in the conjugal pact, and also the mystery of that singular continence for the kingdom of heaven. This continence served, in the history of salvation, the most perfect fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit.
But how is that a 'conjugal pact' if Mary was perpetually virginal? There was no union or consummation, definitely a church requirement.
p. 269 - Such a continence must have impressed itself on [the disciples'] consiousness as a particular trait of likeneses to Christ, who had himself remained celibate "for the kingdom of heaven"...[which] attaches a particular meaning to that spiritual and supernatural fruitfulness of man which comes from the Holy Spirit...
Why is it for the kingdom of heaven? How is it supernatural?
p. 273 - From the context of the Gospel according to Matthew (MR 19:10-12), it can be seen sufficiently clearly that here it is not a question of diminishing hte value of matrimony in faor of continence, nor of lessening the value of one in comparison with the other. Instead, it is a question of breaking away from, with full awareness, that which in man, by the Creator's will, causes him to marry, and to move toward continence.
How does this make continence seem like a good thing? Consciously going against what God created your bodies for to know and understand him? Perhaps there are two ways to understand the union and communion? Physical (husband and wife) and spiritual (continence)?
p. 273-4 - By choosing continence for teh kingdom of heaven, man has the knowledge of being able in that way to fulfill himself differently and, in a certain way, more than through matrimoney, becoming a "true gift to others" (cf GS 24).
Is it really more, or more in the spiritual way? It's still kind of then saying understanding in the physical way is then less, and while good, not as good - when they're both different, like men and women are different.
p. 275 - In Christ's words recorded in Matthew (MT 19:11-12) we find a solid basis for admitting only this superiority, while we do not find any basis whatever for any disparagement of matrimony...
Mt( 19: 11-12) - p. 262 - Replying to the disciples who said, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry", "Not all men can receive the precept, but only those to whom it is given For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He whoe is able to receive this, let him receive it.
p. 275 - Certainly, he [Christ] said that this is an exceptional vocation, not a common one. In addition he affirmed that it is especially important and necessary to the kingdom of heaven. If we understand superiority to matrimony in this sense, we must admit that Christ set it out implicitly. However, he did not express it directly. Only Paul will say of those who choose matrimony taht they do "well". About those who are willing to live in voluntary continence, he will say that they do "better" (1 Cor 7:38).
I still don't see how Christ recognized this as 'superiority'. He's definitely implying that it was exceptional, important and necessary. The Church's Tradition stems from the Pauline belief doesn't it? Virginity is especially importnat to the kingdom of heaven above and marraige is especially important for our beinge and understanding on earth below. Virginity may be superior in the spiritual sense, but not the physical. And what about the resurrection? At which resurrection of our glorified bodies we are in perpetual consummation with the Lord, or else there'd be no reason for our bodies at all glorified in heaven. Because of the physical resurrection, there must be some great merit for the physical understand of God that is not superceded by the spiritually virginal.
Maybe? ?? ?? ??
p. 264 - ...continence for the kingdm of heaven in man's earthly life...[is] a king of exception to what is rather a general rule of this life...That such an exception contains within itself the anticipation of the exchatological life without marriage and proper to the "other world"...is not directly spoken of here by christ. It is a question indeed, not of continence in the kingdom of heaven, but of continence for the kingdome of heaven. The idea of virginity or of celibacy as an anticipation and eschatological sign...
Are we all in union and communism with each other and God in heaven? But does that mean physicall too? With our glorified bodies?
p. 267 - Such a human being [in heaven where people no longer marry], man and woman, indicates the eschatological virginity of the risen man. In him there will be revealed, I would say, the absolute an deternal nuptial meaning of the glorified body in union with God himself through the "face to face" vision of him, and glorified also through the union of a perfect intersubjectivity.
But if that's the case, is risen man really a virgin? If every conjugal act is symbolic of the loving union and communion with God, then a perpetual union and communism is a perpetual state of consummation. A virgin to other humans but the perpetual lover of God. But that's not quite right...you'd be renouncing other people...
p. 268 - The marriage of Mary and Joseph...conceals within itself, at the same time, the mystery of the perfect communion of the persons, of the man and hte woman in the conjugal pact, and also the mystery of that singular continence for the kingdom of heaven. This continence served, in the history of salvation, the most perfect fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit.
But how is that a 'conjugal pact' if Mary was perpetually virginal? There was no union or consummation, definitely a church requirement.
p. 269 - Such a continence must have impressed itself on [the disciples'] consiousness as a particular trait of likeneses to Christ, who had himself remained celibate "for the kingdom of heaven"...[which] attaches a particular meaning to that spiritual and supernatural fruitfulness of man which comes from the Holy Spirit...
Why is it for the kingdom of heaven? How is it supernatural?
p. 273 - From the context of the Gospel according to Matthew (MR 19:10-12), it can be seen sufficiently clearly that here it is not a question of diminishing hte value of matrimony in faor of continence, nor of lessening the value of one in comparison with the other. Instead, it is a question of breaking away from, with full awareness, that which in man, by the Creator's will, causes him to marry, and to move toward continence.
How does this make continence seem like a good thing? Consciously going against what God created your bodies for to know and understand him? Perhaps there are two ways to understand the union and communion? Physical (husband and wife) and spiritual (continence)?
p. 273-4 - By choosing continence for teh kingdom of heaven, man has the knowledge of being able in that way to fulfill himself differently and, in a certain way, more than through matrimoney, becoming a "true gift to others" (cf GS 24).
Is it really more, or more in the spiritual way? It's still kind of then saying understanding in the physical way is then less, and while good, not as good - when they're both different, like men and women are different.
p. 275 - In Christ's words recorded in Matthew (MT 19:11-12) we find a solid basis for admitting only this superiority, while we do not find any basis whatever for any disparagement of matrimony...
Mt( 19: 11-12) - p. 262 - Replying to the disciples who said, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry", "Not all men can receive the precept, but only those to whom it is given For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He whoe is able to receive this, let him receive it.
p. 275 - Certainly, he [Christ] said that this is an exceptional vocation, not a common one. In addition he affirmed that it is especially important and necessary to the kingdom of heaven. If we understand superiority to matrimony in this sense, we must admit that Christ set it out implicitly. However, he did not express it directly. Only Paul will say of those who choose matrimony taht they do "well". About those who are willing to live in voluntary continence, he will say that they do "better" (1 Cor 7:38).
I still don't see how Christ recognized this as 'superiority'. He's definitely implying that it was exceptional, important and necessary. The Church's Tradition stems from the Pauline belief doesn't it? Virginity is especially importnat to the kingdom of heaven above and marraige is especially important for our beinge and understanding on earth below. Virginity may be superior in the spiritual sense, but not the physical. And what about the resurrection? At which resurrection of our glorified bodies we are in perpetual consummation with the Lord, or else there'd be no reason for our bodies at all glorified in heaven. Because of the physical resurrection, there must be some great merit for the physical understand of God that is not superceded by the spiritually virginal.
Maybe? ?? ?? ??
posted by Silabella @ 1:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home