File: 1769543285892397.png (1.24 MB, 793x1725)

1.24 MB PNG

>>41930100
Previous thread >>41871751

Please pray for me >>41885824

My ears are too prominent both stick out too far and one sticks out significantly farther than the other so they're not symmetrical. I already went for an otoplasty consultation and he told me this about my ears but I can't afford the surgery.
Please pray for both of my ears to be 30 degrees out or less so they’re no longer very above average of prominence. Please pray for them to not be so overly prominent like they are now and please pray for them to be very symmetrical.

My nose is not symmetrical and has a dorsal hump. Please pray for my nose to be symmetrical and please pray for it to not have a dorsal hump.

Please pray for me to have a low and attractive looking hairline and for me to then maintain that for many years in the future.

Please pray for me to be significantly less ugly.

My eyesight isn't great unless I have glasses or contact lenses in. I currently can not afford laser eye surgery for this and I can't afford lots of contact lenses. Please pray for me to have 20/20 eyesight soon or to be able to afford contact lenses and laser eye surgery like LASIK or smile and for me to tolerate contact lenses and or surgery for a extremely long time

Please pray for me to remain not homeless, not dead, not hospitalized, not imprisoned and not severely disabled

The plot was to have Christianity be my containment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPshCgiuuZs

>>41931413
women are more afraid to die / less willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause / less likely to learn to use weapons in their free time / less likely to cope and use their hate in direct violence (because they're more afraid to die) and use others cope mechanisms
And yes most of this seems to be biological

File: plantinga.jpg (47 KB, 601x382)

47 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MClVP85R1rs

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_lZXRkbq6NY

>>41931413
It's closer to compatablism one thing people have issue with is not understanding God isn't limited to our perception. God experiences everything all at once simultaneously while also seeing every single potential.
It's why God really doesn't like murder especially of Children. It removes all potentials God can see the person they could have become but due to free will they were snuffed out before realizing that or even having a chance.

And before someone tries to bring up God in the OT those people were engaged in unrepentant child sacrifice to the core of their civilizations.

>>41931662
>God in the OT
Which elohim in the OT? El Elyon, the Father of Jesus? Or Yahweh/Satan?

>>41931768
The God of Abraham that the Jews kept pissing off with child sacrifice and erecting shrines to other gods in his temple.

>>41931777
Thank you, anon. Divine trips confirm El Elyon, and not the child-killing demon of the Mosaic narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5JatsvIrMlA

File: 'negative_theology'_is_se(...).jpg (45 KB, 600x379)

45 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QozzGdZCzUg

>>41931857
The people who serve the demonic hate saying the name of Christ. They'll use all sorts of names so that was an interesting moment.

Christ is my homeboy.
He's my opposite, but nonetheless.
Here, receive my Seed, open wide.
>Black Mass
>Drink Deep from the Cup of my Fornication
>Receive my Word for my Word is Law
>Swallow it down...
..l..

>>41931979
Silence.

File: 1746850716870.jpg (105 KB, 565x800)

105 KB JPG

>>41930100
i am starting new exercises under the catholic tradition, i basically follow the theology of songs of songs imagine my own soul as a female longing in desire for the lover (male, god). in that sense, the small soul can comune with the big god in what is notted as a mystic nupcial engagement

there is this thing in catholicism where the mysticism comes hand in hand with profound erotic connotations, specially nuns and females are way more profound and proper to experiencie this kind of mysticism based on the inner erotic desire and longing

i think this idea to seek god as a lover and see your own soul in a femenine manner is very effective when it comes to approach god in a mystical way, i already made some threads about it. a good example of someone who sets this record even as a male mystic is saint john of the cross

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Sb4Yqx5lny0

>>41930100
SMT Metatron goes so hard

>>41932076
It is the Greatest Love Story and it does work. Men usually go down the Marian path since it is easier to love a Mother and she leads you to her Son.

Another path is uniting your heart to Jesus. I have born good results with this "Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto thine."

Aite. How many of you are actually going to church/mass/whatever-you-call-it every Sunday? I feel like these threads just breeds people who just wants to LARP and not really practice the basics + alpha

>>41932648
I reluctantly go to the somewhat decent novus ordo mass at 3 minutes walking from home only on Sundays to fulfill it, because there are no traditional liturgy places in my small city forsaken by God and Traditionis Custodes is in effect

>>41932648
Good question. The Gospel is so simple even children can grasp it.

What is to be gained from “getting into the weeds?”

Are you all religious as fuck? Or is this some irl lore nerd shit?

>>41933141
both

>>41932648
I try to go at least two times a week. If more evening Masses were offered in my parish, I would probably go more often.

File: Baptism late in life.png (300 KB, 1076x648)

300 KB PNG

Why do you think of this logic: to delay baptism until the end of your life, so all your sins are forgiven?

on rejecting all that Thomistic nonsense: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Wbb4TH9Kv2w

>>41935394
Catholicism and Orthodoxy have become a Neo-Thomist vs Neo-Palamist online battleground
When will we actually read the other Saints and realize that Aquinas is as distinct from Palamas as he is from, say, Bonaventure? And that this is all just in-group differentiation to breed opposition against ourselves?
A house divided against itself cannot stand

>>41935448
I agree, anon. It's time to flush Aquinas and read better theologians.

>>41934471
The thief in the cross was never baptized and his sins were forgiven. Christians should get baptized as a public declaration of their faith, but baptism is not a “magical ritual” that takes away sin.

>>41935509
>baptism is not a “magical ritual” that takes away sin
Amen.

You have a good illustration of the "Top of the Tree". The Branches, Leaves and Fruits... etc.
Invert the chart, there you shall find the Roots, the Inverted Kha-Bhal-Ha holds the Key to Satan's Realm. Satan has His own Trinity. Satan has his own Priesthood. Many of them are in the 'Church Buildings'.

>>41935535
And Thomas Aquinas was his most faithful servant.

>/ceg/ hates Aquinas now
Truly how you know this board is dead and full of newfags

>>41935509
Yeah. By JESUS. The Thief on the cross is also one of only 3 peolle confirmed to be in heaven.

>>41932648
When I am not a sinful gooner in the throws of vice?
Once a week at least to fulfill obligation.
I also will go to adoration as often as possible.

File: problems_with_divine_simp(...).jpg (62 KB, 600x382)

62 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FerkMF8jAQ

>>41935714
I like the black nails, Mr. Mullins.

>>41935766
They're a bit cringe, for sure. But way less so than the doctrine of divine simplicity.

>>41935448
average 4chan user lacks intellect and can't take this advice

>>41932076
Sophiology is seeing God as feminine and retaining your masculine identity
As Christ is the manifold wisdom (Sophia) of God.

It should also be noted that this loving desire for God is not "carnal". Carnal union is a symbol for divine union, but divine union is spiritual. You don't literally go into it thinking with your third leg.

55 days until I get baptized. Glory to God!

>>41936399
Yup and if you do you probably are messing up. People crap talk some of the female saints but if you read they were reprimanded and admitted they let things get unnatural.

>>41936331
No God and Jesus are not feminine due to God creating Adam based on his image and Jesus being the New Adam.

This is where Mary comes in clutch. She is the new Eve. She is your mother. You live her and she in turn leads you to the Father and the Son. Also the love is a son to a Mother so there shouldn't be anything weird cropping up... there better not be.

Yeah, the whole 'Divine Union' thing gets pretty gay.
I've done the whole shebang on the 'Good side'
I got tired of 'letting Christ into my Heart'.
He can suck my dick.
Virgin nuns or hawt bitches???

>>41936524
No the bible literally says Jesus is the Sophia of God, and Sophia is spoken of with feminine pronouns in Proverbs 8-9 and book of wisdom and sirach. This is explicit, I'm not reading anything into the text, you just have to dot the lines.
God would need to contain both masculinity and femininity in order for these aspects to have a causal foundation. Making it Mary just turns Mary into God.

>>41936567
Ah thank you. Sorry sometimes people say some wacky things and you gotta be careful.

And obviously if Mary becomes God that is a problem. I love her dearly but some Catholics take it to a dangerous level even she would be like "Okay tone it down a bit this is about My Son not me."

>>41936532
In the Name of Jesus Christ I ask the lord God to silence you and cover this thread with the divine blood of Christ. May the Lord empower Guardian Angeles of the anon of good hearts to protect them. I petition the Virgin Mary intercede.

>a fucking fish

>>41936682
I think humans need a motherly aspect of God to accompany the Father, and unfortunately only the Syriacs seemed to retain that designation for the Holy Spirit. Mary seems to have become a stand in, in that regard, and I think God is ok with that as long as it doesn't become idolatry. Even when you examine Mary's role in Catholic theology, she seems to have co opted a lot from the Spirit, like interceding for prayers and co-redeemer (which thankfully Leo seems to have finally denounced) and sinlessness.

>>41930100
Bro looks like a digimon

>>41936776
I mean Jesus literally declares Mary is the Mother of the Church which was in the Gospel of John which John in the Revelations of John explicitly outlines that Mary is the Mother of the Church.

I don't know about the Holy Spirit being maternal. But the Holy Spirit does have Wife Energy. Though delving deep into the Holy Spirit is a dangerous path.

>>41936942
You are misusing the words explicitly and literally.
When Jesus says that Mary is the mother of John, it seems more obvious to me that he is charging John to be her caretaker, which would not be unusual in that day and age for a widow who may not have anyone else to care for her.

What seems more theologically substantive to me is when Jesus says that all women who do the will of God is his mother. This does not bring Mary down, it brings all godly women up.

>>41936695
Out of respect I will leave your thread.

>>41936980
John himself contextualizes that Mary is the Mother of the Church in Revelations. The Revelations of John.

So John the person tasked with taking Mary into his home contextualizes her as the Mother of the People who follow Jesus aka the Church.
15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus

>>41936980
I agree with your second part mind you.

>>41940257
>>41940263

File: Lewls.png (578 KB, 640x855)

578 KB PNG

>>41930100

File: Grace of baptism.png (483 KB, 1378x1648)

483 KB PNG

>>41935509
It does though. Scripture says so and the early Christians believed so as well.

>>41938726
You're reading Mary's identity into the text

File: jesus_is_not_god_in_john.jpg (89 KB, 689x361)

89 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEUlm1SbRBs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXsGzsfw6Eo

>>41941902
You are reading her out of the text.

>>41943386
Ah yes another video of Dan McClellan twisting the Bible around
I can't stand him, for a scholar he doesn't seem knowledgeable at all, he thinks he disproved the Trinity with Divine Name theology, yet doesn't realize that Divine Name theology admits that there's a hypostasis of God known as his Name which can appear to humans as The Angel of the Lord, meaning the Second Person of the Trinity is in Genesis all the time and the Ancient Hebrews knew
But no he says the Trinity is a later philosophically invention, yeah sure the terminology is from the Roman period, but that doesn't mean anything, the Bible waa taken and interpreted, and since the Bible speaks of God, his Name and his Spirit, their relationship was explained through technical terminology

>>41934471
It's backwards logic.
Also a bit of a gamble.

You should be baptised as soon as you discern your personal obligation to the church includes that sacrament, not as late as possible. Repent before it's too late.

Infant baptism in fact, is simply getting ahead of that discernment.
Don't wait to get baptized, do it as soon as possible. Even if that means the discernment is that of your godparents.

Which is it's own mixed bag, honestly. Personally, my own godparents really didn't do so much to ensure I was raised in the faith.
That was my grandparents and father working, just as soon as I expressed a natural interest.

>>41935448
People who haven't been thinking about this shit since childhood love systemic theology (particular schools of thought) because you can read a list of works by a dude and get answers to tricky questions that flow necessarily from their chosen predicates.

Problem is once you bring those predicates themselves into question, they often have relied on taking them for granted that they can struggle to argue for them effectively.

>>41935509
>>41935512
Plenty of people are never baptized*with water*, or know the name of Jesus.
He can still save them.

Baptism is actually effective at obliterating sin.
That's not an exaggeration, it is a means of grace endowed to the church.

If you want to call that "magic", then you'd be calling Jesus a sorcerer too just like the Pharisees.
You "publicly" declaring your faith is basically meaningless. Again, something the Pharisees did.

Baptism is effective not because it's symbolic, but because the rite is endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit and confers graces and an indelible mark upon the soul.

>>41941902
No, he is not.

>>41943945
The Trinity is established by the first Epistle of John, though it's clear just from reading the gospels.

Most "scholars" have never been catechized. People who read scripture without the faith of Christ have a veil over them, which obscures it's true meaning.

Is it allowed to read the New Testament Apocrypha? Should I read them?

Arguing aside I heard an interesting perspective.
We have had an age of the Father and the Son. But we have not had an age of the Holy Spirit. A priest was theorizing that the 1000 years of peace before the time of antichrist will be the age of the Holy Spirit.

It was interesting.

>>41944187
I mean you can but you need to be aware they're not approved because they were either Gnostic or the sources were shaky.

>>41944187
That would depend on exactly which works you're referring to.
Nobody says you aren't *allowed* to read them.

But teaching that they are scripture is prohibited.

The ones I can find support for, in the oldest complete manuscripts and from direct quotes and references from the commentary of church fathers (an enormously useful resource for determining what writings were recognized or at least known about ante-Nicene) are Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Basically everything else is suspect to me. There are probably edge cases I forgot about or aren't aware of, but these two and *especially* the Epistle of Barnabas I have found edifying.

Your gospels of Mary, Judas, Barnabas, etc aren't compelling (that so called gospel of Barnabas especially being filled with obviously disqualifying anachronisms and being used by Muslims as a cudgel) and often I've found enemies of the faith using them as a weapon.

So, which ones are you talking about personally.
Reference the church fathers for mentions of those works, if you find nothing that's usually a good sign they weren't well received in antiquity.

>>41930100
Why does it seem like Christians are so behind when it comes to Esoteric practice, like in a public sense? Judaism has kabbalah and esoteric studies at its core, and many sect's dedicated to the study of esoteric Judaism. I'm not particularly familiar with how prevalent it is in Islam but I know Sufi's make up a large portion of it's believers.

most Catholics would have a hard time Identifying any of the traditions listed in the above most. much less some random protestant. So why is it that the esotericism is so under-practiced in modern Christianity?

>>41944241
>Esoteric practice, like in a public sense

If you're advertising it, as is the case in literally every single one of these threads where dude posts photos of all the different shrines he sets up with shit he probably bought off the internet and does who knows what with afterwards, it becomes no longer esoteric but a public display.

Basically, that is a contradiction in terms.

>>41944241
Because the faith isn't elitist in intellectual terms. It is for both the poor and the rich, for the ignorant peasant and the aristocrat. Compare this to ancient sects like the platonic Academy.
And the NT does show God having a preference for the people in lower class so wanting it to be mainly esoteric is nonsense.

File: harmony_7.jpg (142 KB, 597x473)

142 KB JPG

>>41930342
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2026/02/the-rebellious-mind-of-king-charles

>>41944205
>>41944229
Thank you. I will pass then.
I found a huge collection of Apocrypha for sale yesterday and I thought while it seems interesting there's probably a very good reason why they aren't included in The Bible. Wanted to make sure, so I came here to ask.
I will be getting a collection of the Desert Fathers' writings instead.

>>41930100
Doctor Doom?!

>>41946247
I'll take the World.
I prefer it to gay heaven.
Hendrix is playing tonight.
We have Slipknot opening.

>>41946250
Isn't Slipknot one of the gayest and corniest bands in the Universe?

>>41946272
Huh? I couldn't hear you over the screaming.
Forgive me.

Just be thankful I'm not posting blasphemous pictures like you find plastered all over other parts of the chan, okay?
Try /mlp/ sometime, they're a friendly bunch.

>>41946250
Good luck rotting away and being forgotten

>>41944187
Yes and you should, especially the earliest texts such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Ascension of Isaiah, 2 Enoch, etc...
>>41944203
The age of the Spirit started with the Franciscans, or it started with the Reformation, or it will start soon, your pick
>>41944241
It got subsumed into what we today call "Occultism", two centuries ago this was all well known, being "Born Again" comes from the mysticism of Johann Arndt and Paracelsian views on the Sacraments creating and nourishing the new Spiritual Body
As for Catholicism specifically, the decline came about from first the Council of Trent, then the Quietist controversy, which moved Catholics to Masonry (see Martinism) for this
>>41944289
Democratic in its mystery, Christianity is aristocratic by its gnosis
>>41945974
It was during his Christian Hip-hop phase

>>41932648
I'm English, literally every church where I live is gay.

>>41938726
Haydock gloss:
>By this woman, interpreters commonly understand the Church of Christ, shining with the light of faith, under the protection of the sun of justice, Jesus Christ. The moon, the Church, hath all the changeable things of this world under her feet, the affectations of the faithful being raised above them all. -- A woman: the Church of God. It may also, by allusion, be applied to our blessed Lady. The Church is clothed with the sun, that is, with Christ: she hath the moon, that is, the changeable things of the world, under her feet; and the twelve stars with which she is crowned, are the twelve apostles: she is in labour and pain, whilst she brings forth her children, and Christ is in them, in the midst of afflictions and persecutions. Challoner.
Ven. Mary of Agreda in City of God, Book 1, Chapter 8 understands the woman as the Mother of God and the child as Jesus Christ rather than the Church. Had the Church been intended, the Holy Ghost would probably have said in verse 5, "And she brought forth a woman-child," rather than "man-child," because the Church is known as the Bride of Christ.

>>41944241
>Why does it seem like Christians are so behind when it comes to Esoteric practice, like in a public sense?
I know what you mean, but the public face of esoterism is really nothing other than exoterism. Whether the general public is aware that an esoteric doctrine exists, or whether there are many aspirants known to be following the path, is unimportant from the esoteric point of view.
>>41946552
>It got subsumed into what we today call "Occultism"
Fin de siècle occultism is a reconstruction of Christian esoterism. It absorbed some of the texts but not their spirit.
The reason why an esoteric path is more or less well known in a given time and place is only a matter of providence. A given spiritual path will become available without fail at exactly the moment the aspirant is ready for it, neither sooner nor later.
Sage for double post

Fuck I'm just going to copy paste my reply
>>41944003
>>41943754
Mary's name is not mentioned in the text, and it is referencing future events that have not yet occurred. You may have your opinions but I would not revolve doctrine around it. Consider how wrong the Jews were about their messianic prophecy interpretations, we don't want to make the same mistake by committing ourselves to assumptions just because our favored institutions tell us.

>>41947576
>>41947623
>and it is referencing future events that have not yet occurred
Well, all the visions in the Apocalypse are related in the past tense, so it's not so easy to determine which of them pertain to the future and which to the past. If you accept the premise that divine visions are symbolic representations of eternal truths, then there is no reason why they could not be applied simultaneously to past, present, and future. Cf. Joachim of Fiore's Book of Concordances for a way of reading the scriptures like this.
To me it makes little sense to affirm that Mary is the Mother of the Church but then deny that she is Co-Redemptrix, since both ideas really come from the proto-evangelion. Also, "Behold thy mother" certainly implies a duty of obedience on St. John's part, and it is generally understood that as the only faithful Apostle at Calvary, he stands for the whole human race in that moment.
Good material for meditation with Lent approaching.

>>41947637
>Also, "Behold thy mother" certainly implies a duty of obedience on St. John's part, and it is generally understood that as the only faithful Apostle at Calvary, he stands for the whole human race in that moment.
Why do you favor this text as opposed to the one with more explicitly spiritual connotations: "all who do the will of God are my mother"?

>>41947675
I don't favor either one, as both are the words of Christ, and neither can fail to carry deeply spiritual connotations. As for "all who do the will of God are my mother," does He not demonstrate by these words on the one hand, and Luke 2:51 on the other, "He was subject to them," that He recognizes Mary as His mother because she is faithful to the Father and not because of their blood relation? This then gives the explanation why He would bind St. John to her through an obligation of filial piety, because she does the will of God and therefore would not lead him otherwise than to Christ.

>>41947723
Yes exactly, we are on the same page with everything you just typed
I only was arguing against using that scripture to justify some sort of unique position for Mary as "mother of the church" or as the figure in revelations. I believe the Holy Spirit deserves some consideration as Mother considering the feminine nuances for the Spirit of the Hebrew and Arabic languages (preserved by the Syriacs and the Jewish Shekhinah) and the motherly terminology as well (born of the Spirit).

Is /ceg/ the most enlightened or the most heretical Christian forum? Or both?

>>41947756
I would hope nobody here claims to be "enlightened".
Heresy on the other hand doesn't actually mean much historically considering how much it's been thrown around. The point of the good Samaritan parable is that the "heretic" went away justified. Jesus said whatever judgement we use against others will be used against us.

>>41947754
>Hebrew and Arabic languages
Sigh
Aramaic*
I really need to type slower

>>41947762
What if they're really enlightened though? Wouldn't you like to be around enlightened people and learn from them?

>>41947784
Sure but I don't think they would say "I'm enlightened, learn from me" they would just say things that are true, and it'd be on me to be intellectually honest enough to accept them.

>>41947754
>>41947770
Catholic theology calls Mary the spouse of the Holy Ghost. I don't know of any scripture or tradition stating that Christ wanted His disciples to call God their mother, and I'm sure that He had good reasons for not leaving such a teaching in the deposit of faith, despite the fact God must have an infinite degree of all the perfections of a mother as the ultimate source of all motherhood.
Ruach has indefinite gender, but maybe the feminine nuance can be explained by the following: Shekinah is feminine, but as far as I know it refers to His presence in the Tabernacle, so the feminine gender makes sense here. God is omnipresent, so His manifestation in some place would be a function of its receptivity of His grace. In Genesis ruach is used where it is translated "the spirit of God moved over the waters," so again there is an active and a receptive component, where the waters assume the form of the breath moving over them. The feminine connotation seems more strongly associated with the effects of the spirit than the nature of the spirit itself. Thus also "born of the Spirit." Interestingly St. Thomas Aquinas concludes in the Summa that the proper name of the Holy Ghost is Gift, as if God calls Him "Ruach" with respect to His effects on the soul.

>>41947874
>Catholic theology calls Mary the spouse of the Holy Ghost
>don't know of any scripture or tradition stating that Christ wanted His disciples to call God their mother, and I'm sure that He had good reasons for not leaving such a teaching in the deposit of faith
First of all, the Syriac tradition preserved the Holy Spirit as mother. It was very short lived though as Syriac Orthodox became enveloped in the more broad ideas of Orthodox over time. Secondly, apply the "I'm sure he had good reasons for not leaving such a teaching" to the much later developments of the Catholic Church (like the doctrines if Mary).
>Ruach has indefinite gender
No it is not, it is a feminine word
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7307.htm
Now I am NOT saying this proves anything, only that imo a greater case can be build both biblically and traditionally for the Holy Spirit as mother. As to why this is never spelled out explicitly, well neither is the doctrine of the Trinity. But we see hints. And I think the hints are more clear than the ones you're asserting for Mary.

>>41947904
Catholic doctrine does not develop. There is a distinction between what is believed in the Catholic faith and what is defined. Whatever is defined by a later Pope or Council must, in order to get to that point, have been believed by the Church from the time of the Apostles.
Why did the Syriac church address the Holy Ghost as mother? Do you know? This is precisely why I bring up Mary's title as spouse of the Holy Ghost, it's understood that they operate as if one ("Mediatrix of all graces") and that she is like a quasi-incarnation of the Third Person.
>No it is not, it is a feminine word
As far as I know it is feminine when it refers to a body part (breath) but this is not the word's only definition, it has masculine uses and furthermore lacks the usual Hebrew suffix for a feminine noun.
>And I think the hints are more clear than the ones you're asserting for Mary.
I'm not the anon who asserted that there is biblical evidence for calling Mary the mother of the Church, I'm the one who replied with the Catholic exegesis of Apoc. XII that does not refer to her as such where it very well could have. But neither do I like to base my religion on hints of any kind. That is opinion not faith.

>>41948084
>Why did the Syriac church address the Holy Ghost as mother?
Because Spirit is grammatically feminine in their language, just like it is in Hebrew and Aramaic.
>she is like a quasi-incarnation of the Third Person.
What does this actually mean in simple language
>As far as I know it is feminine when it refers to a body part (breath) but this is not the word's only definition, it has masculine uses and furthermore lacks the usual Hebrew suffix for a feminine noun.
It doesn't need the suffix, the core word/noun "Ruah" is feminine.
>But neither do I like to base my religion on hints of any kind. That is opinion not faith.
I know you probably felt smart typing this, but the standard is neither possible nor biblical. Even Christ choosing to teach through parables is speaking in hints rather than explicit teaching. Biblical prophecy is given in symbolic hints rather than "x will do y" matter of factly. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from hints.

>>41948151
>Because Spirit is grammatically feminine in their language, just like it is in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Grammatical usage doesn't suffice here, I'm looking for theological reasons. I'd be interested to know.
>What does this actually mean in simple language
"Spouse of the Holy Ghost" comes from Luke 1:35, expressed in the Apostles Creed "conceived by the Holy Ghost," and as our Lord said in Matthew 19 of spouses, "they two shall be in one flesh." So they are as intimately united as possible without speaking literally of incarnation.
>It doesn't need the suffix, the core word/noun "Ruah" is feminine.
Apparently it is masculine in Exodus 10:13 where it is translated as "wind" rather than "breath." Your comment on this?
>I know you probably felt smart typing this
Not particularly. If I felt smart then I would probably also feel more confident in my own guesswork, but I don't.
>Even Christ choosing to teach through parables is speaking in hints rather than explicit teaching.
He gave the explicit teaching to the Apostles, cf. Matthew 13:11, "to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," etc. Here our Lord explicitly states that those to whom His words seem obscure (to whom they seem to be hints, in other words) have rejected His grace. Likewise the dogma of the Trinity is an explicit tradition. Whatever scriptural proofs for it might be furnished are beside the point that Christ taught it to the Apostles who handed it down to their successors and so on.

>>41948203
>Grammatical usage doesn't suffice here, I'm looking for theological reasons. I'd be interested to know.
The only thing I have to offer is the already present Jewish doctrine of the Shekhinah, as well as their belief that the Holy Spirit is a feminine aspect of God (they didn't believe the Holy Spirit is God like we do). The Syriacs very likely could have inherited this stream of thought. "Born of the Spirit" is in itself a feminine statement as well, men do not give birth. Conjecturally, I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply taken as a given, as why would we have a God Father and God child but no God mother? Making Mary into this would be either insufficient as Mary isn't God, or idolatry.
>Apparently it is masculine in Exodus 10:13 where it is translated as "wind" rather than "breath." Your comment on this?
Where did you get that from? I don't think it is masculine there.
Sorry if I sounded rude in my previous reply. I don't want to us to get caught up in semantics.

>>41930100
NOBLE VOICE: FUCK YOU

>>41948326
>The only thing I have to offer is the already present Jewish doctrine of the Shekhinah, as well as their belief that the Holy Spirit is a feminine aspect of God (they didn't believe the Holy Spirit is God like we do). The Syriacs very likely could have inherited this stream of thought. "Born of the Spirit" is in itself a feminine statement as well, men do not give birth. Conjecturally, I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply taken as a given, as why would we have a God Father and God child but no God mother? Making Mary into this would be either insufficient as Mary isn't God, or idolatry.
Mary isn't God, but then to the Jews, as you rightly point out, neither is the spirit of God, nor the Shekinah. So if this is the stream of thought that the Syriacs inherited, it seems like something has gotten changed or confused.
I'm not sure that I have a satisfactory answer for why we don't call God the Mother. But I can think of some plausible reasons. First, if the Holy Ghost were the Mother, then it would be reasonable to say that the Son proceeds from the Father and the Mother, but instead we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Second, especially in the Western tradition, motherhood is associated with potentiality and matter (e.g., the Latin materia is derived from mater, mother). So this lends itself perhaps too easily to the error that God the Mother would be a body.
>Where did you get that from? I don't think it is masculine there.
Check this out
https://openbible.com/strongs/exodus/10-13.htm
"By morning the east wind had brought the locusts." Here the verb ending for "nasa," to bring, is masculine, where the subject of the sentence is "ruach"
>Sorry if I sounded rude in my previous reply. I don't want to us to get caught up in semantics.
No worries, anon, if someone gets rude up in here I try to remember that it's board culture anyway.

>>41930100
How much of the Talmud does this general understand?

>>41948559
Specifically I seek elucidation about the concept of the Golem.

I'll just post the whole thing BUT
Catholic and Orthodox Traditions both say that this is referring to BOTH Mary and the Church.

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”

>>41948608
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

>>41948448
>So if this is the stream of thought that the Syriacs inherited, it seems like something has gotten changed or confused.
Yes they became Christian and inherited the New Testament. They were among the first Christians ever, converting when even Jesus was still alive on earth (Matthew 4:24).
>First, if the Holy Ghost were the Mother, then it would be reasonable to say that the Son proceeds from the Father and the Mother, but instead we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.
I don't think the word "proceeds" is meant to convey some sort of origin, it's an indication of roles within the Trinity.
Maybe it's worth noting, though I hesitate to put too much weight behind this, that in Jewish society an adult male would have authority over his mother in a households hierarchy, although this is probably more pragmatic than anything spiritual. I'm only saying that if the Holy Spirit does fulfill a maternal role within the Godhead, it does not mean it could not still proceed from Christ. You even see Mary submitting to Jesus as an adult man.
>"By morning the east wind had brought the locusts." Here the verb ending for "nasa," to bring, is masculine, where the subject of the sentence is "ruach"
I can't understand why this would shift ruach from feminine?

>>41948608
>>41948614
Verse 17 is likely the origin of the phrase "our holy mother the Church," but when the woman clothed with the sun is interpreted as Mary, then the man-child has to mean Jesus. Mary of Agreda does interpret "the rest of her offspring" as the Church. FWIW she claims that the book containing this interpretation was dictated to her by the Blessed Virgin herself.
>>41948656
>Yes they became Christian and inherited the New Testament. They were among the first Christians ever, converting when even Jesus was still alive on earth (Matthew 4:24).
But Christ came to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it. The Jewish tradition prophesied the coming of Christ, there should be nothing in it that contradicts the Gospel. If the ruach is not God but the Holy Ghost is, then these are two different things. A patristic interpretation of Genesis 1 equates the ruach with "what pagan philosophers call the Soul of the World," not the Holy Ghost. Since this is an esoterism general I will mention that this would be equivalent to the alchemical "spiritus," the life force, which is evidently also the Jewish concept of ruach and the Muslim understanding of the Arabic cognate ruh.
>I don't think the word "proceeds" is meant to convey some sort of origin, it's an indication of roles within the Trinity.
Can you elaborate on this? I don't know how to understand the concept of procession except precisely as a relation of (eternal) origin.
>I can't understand why this would shift ruach from feminine?
Hebrew verbs agree with their subjects in gender and number.

>>41948711
There's no contradiction, one would just presume that the syrians adapted their theology as more was revealed to them.
>Can you elaborate on this? I don't know how to understand the concept of procession except precisely as a relation of (eternal) origin.
No sorry I don't get it either. My only point was that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son wouldn't (necessarily) disqualify the Spirit from fulfilling a maternal role.
>Hebrew verbs agree with their subjects in gender and number.
That's interesting. I don't think it undermines the point though, that the Holy Spirit as the maternal aspect has both traditional and biblical roots.

Also the Holy Spirit can't be your mother because it is your Spouse. The Holy Spirit isn't married to God it is married to you.

>>41948808
We are betrothed to Jesus/Sophia

>>41948769
Gotta run but I'll try to respond quickly here. Surely Christ revealed the Trinity to the Syrians, but whether ruach in Genesis refers specifically to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity doesn't seem to be a point of universal agreement. I think I agree that there is sufficient reason to attribute a maternal aspect to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, simply because it is a perfection, and all perfections are named after Him; but insofar as it might be something appropriate to the Holy Ghost and not the Father nor the Son, I see the close relationship between the Holy Ghost and our mother Mary there. Well, I'm just recapping what I have already set down. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
>>41948808
>>41948815
I want to return to this from a more esoteric standpoint when I have time.

>>41948835
>but insofar as it might be something appropriate to the Holy Ghost and not the Father nor the Son, I see the close relationship between the Holy Ghost and our mother Mary there.
Same, I just don't think it's taken to its fullest capacity, that is to say, Mary is loved and revered as a sort of uniquely divine mother, but there MUST be a maternal aspect that is truly worthy of worship in order to be truly satisfactory. At least that's my take, I am aware that I may be wrong on any front and hesitate to fully commit myself here.
Jesus as Sophia, I am much more comfortable with though.
Thank you likewise.

>>41948897
Well God the Father would have the maternal within him. Not to say God is feminine but logically if Adam was made in his image and Eve came from the rib inside of Adam. Then the Maternal is within the Father.

Theorizing anyway. I'm sure if I spent enough time I could make this scriptural.

>>41948964
Posting at myself.

I guess that would be Mary actually.

>>41948964
I meant in terms of how God relates to us. He chose to relate to us as a Father and a Son (and daughter if we count Sophia, which seems appropriate to me), it seems conspicuous to me that the maternal aspect is absent. I don't think I'm just conjecturing this, I think I've provided enough scriptural and traditional context to assert that this stream of thought is not an innovation on my part, and I think the development of Mariology indicates a spiritual desire within man (I'd daresay by design) for this divine Mother aspect. I think the Greeks couldn't apprehend it because they didn't speak Hebrew, or it's sister languages.

>>41949032
The Mother is the Church, and Israel, and Mary. I get what you are saying though it's interesting to ponder.

>>41949055
The church is the bride of the son
Or the husband of Sophia

File: 1769877586628936.png (648 KB, 1080x1071)

648 KB PNG

>>41949076
But the Church is also our Mother and Refuge.
Though the Father is God and the Son is God.
So the Church being the Wife of one would be the Wife of All 3 meaning the Church is the Mother and the Bride.

Holy Spirit where do you fit in this?

>>41948897
>but there MUST be a maternal aspect that is truly worthy of worship in order to be truly satisfactory
Seems reasonable to me, yeah.
>>41949076
The Church cannot be simultaneously the wife and the husband of the same Logos. The Bride or Church means the soul, or the unanimity of many souls, as St. Bernard of Clairvaux says. But when the Logos is addressed as Sophia, the one speaking is not the soul but rather Wisdom's true and rightful possessor, who is so completely merged with Wisdom as to go beyond any sense of being a soul or any other limiting essence.
"I am black but beautiful, ye daughters of Jerusalem," fittingly describes the divine Gloom, the Unknowing of all transitory things that is true spiritual knowledge.
St. Bernard's commentary on the Canticle initially treats this verse as written in the person of the Bride, but halfway through her comely blackness is predicated of Christ instead. The Bride emulates the blackness of Christ; the Sun of Righteousness has tanned her skin. Blackness and beauty represent the outward and inward aspects of the humility, respectively; esoterically, unawareness of the outward world of forms hidden beneath the "curtains of Solomon," or the heavenly firmament, and the knowledge of the inward light of God that is its complement.

>>41949446
Dude, Song of Solomon is just the original swirl anthem.

Sure it applies to man and God too, multiple senses of scripture and all that, but for real though literally that's one of Solomon's Aethiopian concubines.

Moses had an Aethiopian side bitch too. In fact, Miriam was so peeved that God struck her with leprosy because irony.

Yes, when the Hebrews came out of Egypt they brought some Aethiopians with them, and Moses taking one of them as a second wife signaled that it was perfectly acceptable for the rest of Israel to incorporate them.

>>41948711
Dude, the church are adopted into God's family as brothers with Christ. Just as Joseph adopted Jesus into the house of David.

There is absolutely no contradiction there.

Mary is the physical mother of God, but the spiritual mother of the church because it is the *body of Christ*.

>>41947637
>makes little sense to affirm that Mary is the Mother of the Church but then deny that she is Co-Redemptrix

It makes perfect sense once you understand what implicitly goes into that specific devotional title.
The people who are most serious about it say that Mary offered her own son to God at the foot of the cross.

Problem is, that's a priestly role of sacrifice which belongs to Jesus alone, not to Mary.
So yeah, Leo is right to clamp down on that. He's not going to ban it, just tell people who use it in devotion not to publicly advertise it.

Mediatrix of all Graces has no such baggage and is perfectly fine to use.
And in fact, it's almost trivial to prove this title is actually proper.

>>41947623
Jesus' name isn't mentioned in Isaiah either.

That's not a real argument.
Mary is the mother of the church, she is the church. Our holy mother church, our ecclesia matrix.

The body of Christ, you know the one gotten through the Incarnation?
It is made from her body.

Jesus was made flesh through her, she suckled him from her teat milk.
That means the precious blood shed on the cross, God's own perfect and sinless human blood, came from her alone and no other.

Why is the Holy Spirit the Coolest guy?

>>41949714
Because he is the personification of the love which reciprocally proceeds in spiration from the Father and the Son.

Without the two persons of Father and Son, lover and beloved, that love itself would not exist.

God is love, so not only are the two persons in love eternal but the love that is shared between them is also personally eternal.

God's essence was entirely complete, exceeding in perfection, before anything at all was made.

Since this divine essence is love itself, it necessarily follows that the Trinity is not only biblically true but also necessarily true.
Since any God which is lacking in love cannot be said to be omnipotent, since that purported God would be lacking in the ability to love eternally.

Omnipotence itself, is logically necessary in order to speak of any power at all, since it is the relational source and ultimate gauge of all powers.

>>41949628
You're right.
>>41949665
Was Pope St. Pius X unserious about it? It is his indulgence granted to those who address her as such that appears in the Raccolta.
God did not require Mary's permission to be born, but He asked for it anyway, and she consented. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word." In the order of grace, that is, according to God's good pleasure, the work of the Redemption was made to depend on her cooperation. This was repeated when Jesus began His public ministry at Cana by His mother's express request. She understood well at that moment that she was sending Him on the road to Calvary. There is no priestly power (and let us call it what it is: a power granted by the indelible mark of priesthood, not a mere role as president of an assembly) implied by any of this except for that of the Eternal High Priest, her divine Son, although for what it's worth, the Queen of Heaven quite obviously has greater authority than the Pope. But what other people might say about this title is nothing to me.

>>41949844
First, I'd like to say you shouldn't take what I have to say as definitely true or necessarily representative of doctrine.
But I'm not lying, and this is all according to my personal understanding.

That granting of indulgence is in fact within his prerogative.
There are certain powers which are invested in the church leadership, binding and loosing.
Even if the reason or even intent of a man's personal ruling are deficient in certain virtues, through the power of the office they are in fact still effective.

The misuse of these powers, Jesus said would be punished.

So even if a devotional title is not entirely proper, the indulgence attached to its *faithful* use is still effective through the Spirit of it's application.

That's why someone can be actually excommunicated from the visible church, even if such an excommunication is actually unjust.

While the particular graces bestowed to the visible church through the sacraments are withheld, these sacraments being obligatory to Christians blessed with knowledge of the truth, these graces were never the sum total of God's power.
He has always been able to save the unbaptized of water, and even the excommunicate.
Someone can be outside the visible church, but still attached to the invisible and mystic body of Christ through this own fidelity to his personal life and faith.

>God did not require Mary's permission to be born, but He asked for it anyway, and she consented.

Mary's *fiat* really was a requirement to reverse Eve's disobedience.
When God created mankind and said it and the whole of the creation is good, it's Mary and their Son's own body he had first in mind.
And that's despite his foreknowledge of Eve's transgression.

God did not force Mary to consent.
If he had, that would obliterate the very meaning of the word.

cont

>>41949929
Also granting an Indulgence isn't that big of a deal anyway.
I mean it is a huge deal within the economy of grace and salvation if you are offering them up for suffering souls in Purgatory.

A ton of things you do during the day gains partial Indulgences and just praying the Rosary is enough for a Pleniary Indulgence. You still have to attend Mass to actually get the indulgence.

>>41949844
>>41949929
>She understood well at that moment that she was sending Him on the road to Calvary.
I agree.
She is the very first repository witness to *both* his Incarnation and his death.

Insofar as the Christian church both declares he came in the flesh, and died for us, she is *the* principal witness to these enormous pillars of the gospel. She was present both at his birth, and at his death. And another Mary (not a coincidence even a little bit) witnessed to the empty tomb.

She was playing dumb when pretending to not understand his mission in his hometown, it was all according to the program.
Same reason he told his disciples not to declare that he is the Christ.

>the Queen of Heaven quite obviously has greater authority than the Pope
You sure about that?

Did the Queen Mother of the house or David have more power over his retinue than his chosen steward?

Of course Mary has more personal authority than any *single* Pope does, but when you consider the office itself that Peter was invested with, I can't say she ever loosed anyone from circumcision or the ban on eating of shrimp or bacon.

>>41949959
Also I guess indulgences are more akin to how Karma works in Hinduism again other religions can get things right. The key difference being Jesus outweighs the sin. Indulgence are for healing the soul and helping others.

Did Jesus give the keys to Mary, or Peter?

Spoiler alert, Peter is in the proverbial driver's seat when it came to the Council of Jerusalem, and was given the vision of the cornucopia or foods, which is why James (who personally headed that particular congregation) defers to his personal ruling as regards the dispute.

If Sola Scriptura was something the first generation church held to, we would still be cut, not eating shrimp and bacon, and avoiding mixed fibers.

Christ gave his chosen men real power to bind and loose according to the law which they had received from Moses.
Because the children of the true law and the new covenant are not of the flesh, but of the faith of Abraham.

Since Christ's church includes the gentiles, men of all nations and not necessarily those who descend from Abraham and Israel by blood, they cannot be held to blood pact of Mosaic law and its ceremonial requirements of purity. Necessarily, since this church is undivided, this fact releases even those Jews from these bans imposed upon them after Moses broke the tablets of the covenant because of the golden calf.

However, this first generation had the wisdom to retain the strictures given to Noah, that the faithful refuse the partaking in blood, and bind them to all those in good knowledge of the faith together with the sexual taboos do enumerated in the Mosaic law.

>>41935554
https://pawlineepistles.substack.com/p/the-trouble-with-thomists

>>41949446
>The Church cannot be simultaneously the wife and the husband of the same Logos.
I think from the perspective of a personal relationship, we can
Because a man cannot be joined in union to another man, so we would be joined to the feminine aspect of Christ, which is Sophia
This completes the one child of the Father and Spirit (I'm using carnal language to describe something spiritual) as both daughter and son in one.
We see Jesus as Sophia fully personified as feminine in Proverbs 8 and 9, but it goes a bit further in book of wisdom (or more rightfully called book of Sophia).
I am not arguing against anything you're saying btw, at least not necessarily since I've never looked into that, but I'm pretty confident that what I'm saying has biblical credibility too.
>>41949685
>Jesus' name isn't mentioned in Isaiah either
Yes it is, as Emmanuel. He's elsewhere in scripture called Adonai and Sophia. Jesus does not have one name and this is all easily laid out from the bible alone, it needs no external influence like what you're asserting about Mary.
Btw I'm not particularly against the idea that the figure IS Mary. You're entitled to that opinion. Only the formulation of doctrine around this opinion. UNLESS you're willing to concede that everything you typed is your opinion, and not a matter of doctrine.

Try thinking about the episode of the Golden Calf as if it were the original sin of the nation of Israel.

Literally just before this happened, they had the ten commandments given to Moses.
These are the original conditions of the Old Covenant, which if they obeyed God promised them the world. OFC, that did not happen.
After, the priesthood was taken away from the tribes but reserved for the sons of Levi. Likewise, further conditions were imposed upon them as a means of correction and building them into a nation worthy of receiving the presence of the Almighty.

Well there was a similar condition in the Garden of Eden.
All Adam really had to do was not eat of that tree's fruit. All the other trees were fair game, except that one.

But he did anyways, for reasons, and the lawful penalty imposed upon him after this happened was literally death.
This is at least part of the reason why Paul writes that the letter of the law is death, but the spirit of the law gives life.

What Jesus does in his new covenant is supercede the penalty of death incurred by Adam, and the penalty of the ceremonial law incurred by the people of Moses.

This is why it's written that the new covenant is unlike that made with Moses. Like Adam, of whom Jesus is the new, it is made with men of every nation and not just the men of one nation. Men from every nation can receive citizenship in Christ's kingdom, and not just those with blood relation to Israel. And this is through Jesus' own faith.

>>41949929
>>41949959
>>41949961
>>41949976
There's a lot here.
What you say about the possibility of unjust excommunications and the abuse of ecclesiastical authority squares with what I read in the Summa, XP Q. 21 A. 4, except this: to be actually outside the visible Church is one thing, to appear to be outside it is another. If a man humbly submits to an unjust excommunication, which Aquinas says would add to his merit, in this respect he manifests obedience to the visible Church and thus a degree of membership in it.
However, I do not think that St. Pius erroneously granted the indulgence.
>You sure about that?
Yes. Precisely because of her perfect humility, God has exalted her above every other creature. The reverence (and thus obedience) due to her, hyperdulia, is second only to the Blessed Trinity, who she can never contradict. If Mary were to say one thing and the Pope another, it would be far better to listen to Mary. This seems to have actually happened viz. Fatima, by the way.
>I can't say she ever loosed anyone from circumcision or the ban on eating of shrimp or bacon.
Did Saint Peter do this of his own accord, or was he doing the will of our Father?
Was Saint Peter so privileged with God that he could have convinced Him to work His first public miracle, simply because he was the one who asked? The priesthood and the papacy are stupendous prodigies of grace: they encompass the Magisterium, the power of the Keys, and above all the power to call God Himself to the altar for man. But Mary gets whatever she wants from God, and she wants nothing apart from what God wants. This cannot be said even of the papacy as a whole.
>Also I guess indulgences are more akin to how Karma works in Hinduism
The doctrine of karma is poorly understood in the west. It would be an interesting discussion but takes us too far afield just now. It's essentially unrelated to the idea of temporal punishment due to sin, though this is an example of one of the fruits of karma.