Chocolate Jesus angers Catholics
NYC gallery inundated with angry calls ahead of display during Holy Week
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:33 a.m. CT March 30, 2007
NEW YORK - The Easter season unveiling of an anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ, dubbed “My Sweet Lord” by its creator, has infuriated Catholics preparing to observe some of their holiest days of the year.
The 6-foot sculpture by Cosimo Cavallaro was to debut Monday evening, four days before Christians mark the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on Good Friday. The final day of the exhibit at the Lab Gallery inside Manhattan’s Roger Smith Hotel was planned for Easter Sunday.
“This is one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever,” said Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League, a watchdog group. “It’s not just the ugliness of the portrayal, but the timing — to choose Holy Week is astounding.”
The gallery’s creative director, Matt Semler, said the Lab and the hotel were overrun with angry telephone calls and e-mails. The gallery was considering its options, he said.
“We’re obviously surprised by the overwhelming response and offense people have taken,” said Semler, adding that the Holy Week timing was a coincidence.
The artwork was created from more than 200 pounds of milk chocolate, and it features Christ with his arms outstretched. The Cavallaro creation does not include a loincloth.
A publicist for the gallery said the artist was not available for comment.
Cavallaro, who was raised in Canada and Italy, is best known for his quirky work with food as art: Past efforts include repainting a Manhattan hotel room in melted mozzarella, spraying 5 tons of pepper jack cheese on a Wyoming home and festooning a four-poster bed with 312 pounds of processed ham.
At least Jesus wasn't depicted with an erection, like some Renaissance masters did in their paintings of Him on the cross. I read about that in the book "Nudity and Christianity". Maybe, Greg.
I did a search on it and could not find any decent photos. Seems all there is are news. The only photos I saw was the same one from the back, not the front.
The internet is a surprising thing. You can find pictures of every perversion out there, but cannot find a naked Christ.
If you click on the link at the bottom of the original message, it will take you to the MSNBC site which has a video (it shows the first frame when the page loads) that will show a frontal view of the sculpture.
I guess it didn't come up the first time I checked it! thanks.
That was not a bad depiction at all! Why in the world do they think this is bad? For some reason, we cannot get over the fact that Jesus can be nude on occasion! They are so prudish, they cannot even accept Jesus' version of nudity! If they cannot accept Jesus, they never will accept us! What are we next to Jesus?
When you are under a Roman crucifixion, you do not have a choice! It's not like Jesus said, "Sure, lets get naked while we are at it!" Or "Sorry, I don't mind the crucifixion part, but could you at least let me keep a loin cloth on? I'm a bit prudish you know." or as some would think "I'm the LORD! I don't do naked!"
He was naked folks! The man spoke the TRUTH! Get over it!...sorry, preachin' to the choir again.
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
I clicked on the link that Laura showed. Only saw a single shot of the front, down to just above his pubic area. Could be something there they didn't like; I guess.
Some Catholics have trouble believing that Mary ever had sex. They follow the Koran story that Joseph was older and had been married and had children from that marriage and that he never had sex with Mary, even after Jesus was born. The Bible calls Jesus their firstborn. Guess he could be called that of the Mary and Joseph union, but I like to think that he was the first child of a few that came later.
I would like to respond as a Catholic. The furor over this does not refect the position of the Catholic Church. Only the Pope and Bishops in communion with the Pope can do this.
Jesus was naked when he was crucified. Christopher West talks about this in his series on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. There are even a couple of old (Catholic) paintings of a naked crucified Jesus!
The current "Catholic" view is an example of American Puritanism which has eve crept into the Catholic Church. Catholicism is a very sensual religion. We worship with our bodies. There is a physical (body) component of each Sacrament. Initially people were baptised naked.
As to Jesus being the first born. This was a title given to each first born child, whether there ever was another. Jesus did not have any blood brothers or sisters otherwise he would have been sinning on the cross when he told the Beloved Disciple (John) "Behold your mother" He would not have been honoring his mother because he would have been giving her care over to someone not his brother. Note, there is no word in Hebrew or Aramaic for cousin, all were known as brother and sister.
Mary was the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son and the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was the "God Bearer", hence Theotokos. The word mother does not mean creator. My mother did not create me but she did give birth to me. She is my mother. Just as Mary was the Mother of Jesus who was God. Therefore, she deserves the title "Mother of God", even though she does not preceed God, is not worshiped, and certainly is not equal to God. Catholics honor Mary for her "Fiat" (Yes) and because she is God's greatest creation. She interceeds for us, just as you can if you pray for me. Our prayers are directed to God, but God can choose to let the saints hear them and unite their prayers with ours.
Don't assume a few promimant Catholics speak for the Church. There is 2000 years of development of Theology - all in full agreement with the Bible. This development effectively deals with all these issues which so many people (including Catholics) get wrong when they shoot their mouths off and don't do their homework.
Mary is my mother and I will come to her defense, just as any good son should.
Thanks for your post. As you probably already know, we are naturists (nudists) and we do realize that Jesus was probably (I say probably because we do not have proof in hand) baptised naked and of course, we do know that he was crucified naked and it appears from the wording of scripture, that he was resurrected naked. Its possible that he even appeared before the disciples in the room naked, but that is a far fetched idea that I will not try to tackle nor worry about.
And thanks for reminding us that not all Catholics think alike any more than Baptists or Methodists. We also recognize that American Catholics do have some theological issues with European Catholics.
I think one of the problems of America is that we do not have a king. That is good on one level, but can be bad on another. We do not understand what it is like to have one ruler we consider as a permanent King and dependant on blood lines to carry out the leadership. We value freedom so much that we forgot we even have it. We end up taking our freedom and lord it over others as if it were our right, yet not allow ourselves to be lorded over.
We do not understand who or what Jesus is. We have lost our ability to truely honor, love and respect our leadership. We do not understand why other nationalities get upset over us making issues of leadership. They respect their leadership, we do not. Therefore, we will have the most propblem with our respect towards Jesus (by comparison).
I do not have a problem with the "chocolate" Jesus, since he was using a play on words (sweet Jesus) and using Chocolate as a medium for his work, just like someone would use chalk, paint, watercolors, marble, clay or wood. No difference to me. I am an artist, so I understand it. And do not people see "Jesus" and "Mary" in clouds, tree trunks, upside down pictures, broken window panes or whatever their imaginations can make that made an accidental image, then go and lay flowers and prayers and make pilgrimages? So the man used chocolate! Get over it!
Jesus was nude at his crucifixion, so I see no problem with that either. Holy week? Why not? That was when he was crucified. This Thursday night will be Maundy Thursday (Mandatum or mandatory to attend). Our church will be observing Maundy Thursday.
I think we need to respect what God has done for us and be humbled by it. If anything, these people should have been humbled to see the vulnerability of Jesus (their King) and how much he put himself into mans hands, yet fully trusting the Father to carry raise him back up again!
I find it interesting the idea of Jesus being the only son, since I have always been taught that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Did he? It appears that he did, but if no word for "cousin" is available, then what did they call their cousins? Is is brother and sister? And when Jesus died, it would be correct to allow the second son to take on the mother, but is that always true and was it a wise dicision? Should John be the one to take her? Did Jesus already talk to his brothers and sisters and all agreed that John should take her? We cannot make absolutes in this case. I would agree that Jesus considered his whole family, including all humanity as his bretheren, but following Jewish tradition, which Jesus did up to a point, we can consider other possibilities.
Do these alternative views of whether Jesus had any actual siblings from his mother Mary make or break his ministry? No. If you really want to make a point, they were "half" brothes and sisters anyway, since Joseph was not his father. God is.
I would not worry over whether Jesus had any siblings or not, but trust in his ministry and saving grace and that He is fully God and fully man. He IS God who came to earth and became man and took flesh back to heaven with him, so humanity is now united with heaven and God, the Trinity.
Humanity or flesh is no longer "sin". We do sin, but it is not by definition, sin, for Jesus reclaimed and redeemed us all.
Lets celebrate this week with a new respect for our King!
All hail, the King!
Boyd Allen
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
Thanks for your reply. I have to admit a lack of knowledge concerning catholicism (did I spell it right?), and you have explained a few things that I had questions about. Of course, I still have questions, because what I see of some Catholic beliefs doesn't line up with the Bible as you said they do, but... that'll be for another day.
My question to you now is this- If you can say "Mary is my mother and I will come to her defense, just as any good son should.", then why would it have been a sin for Jesus to identify Mary as John's mother? I don't understand where the differance is.
You seem to be someone who can give us a sound, reasonable discussion from a viewpoint (Catholic) that most of us probably don't have that great an understanding of. Please stay with us, and let's talk.
I don't see why we need to debate the Protestant vs Catholic positions on Transubstantiation of the Host, the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. in a forum on naturism and Christianity.
We can take either side of these issues and still come out in the naturist camp.
I would prefer that we find another forum to settle those issues. There's far too much naturism to discuss here.
Steve's point is well-taken that a Catholic who opposes the statue cannot speak on behalf of the church.
It is plain to see that some Protestants and some Catholics do not think it sacrilege to depict the Savior nude upon a cross. I don't think we even have to be naturist to admit that Jesus was nude at his crucifixion nor does it require a total assent to naturism to approve or at least tolerate this very realistic icon.
We talk about and mention things other than Christianity and how naturism fits into our Christian lives on this board all the time. I honestly don't think it's that much of an issue.
I, personally, would look forward to any discussion that Kevin and Steve (and others) as I think some Catholic ideals can be a bit mysterious to many. But, obviously, you must have a response to a question before it can be termed a discussion. My interest is piqued! I'm waiting for the discussion...
I have already mentioned to you in a private letter that I have no problem with this discussion. There is no need to going to Kevin and telling him differently what I have already approved.
I also gave my "approval" just above Kevins post, (which was before Kevin posted) and you decided to respond to Kevin instead.
It would be a good idea to read my post as well to get the full picture.
Naturism is the subject.
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
... but let's see what Boyd has to say, shall we? I believe he posted below...
As for MY opinion, what better place for this discussion? Too many other sites are so exclusive that anything other than one tiny subject gets boo'ed out of the room. Those places strike me as cold and judgemental and too rigid. I had hoped we could be a little more open than that.
Ths place shouldn't strictly be about discussions on nudism from a Christian point of view; it should be about nudists and Christians ... about people. To learn about people you have to have a relationship... and that means opening yourself up. Otherwise, how will anybody else ever feel like thay can open up to us?
Re: Prefer that we take non-naturist issues elsewhere
April 6 2007, 11:56 PM
You have more tact than I so I defer and agree. Your point is even more poignant when the substance of the non-issue is misleading. I have enjoyed this board for a long time but see it straying more and more and more (leading to my recent loss of temper). I too have many other interests (skydiving, flowers, Asian Studies, and coral reefs) am gay and am a recovering alcoholic but I do not inject these issues into this board. I find appropriate outlets for discussion and do it where others are not so easily misled when I'm full of it. I'd hate to see this board suffer the same fate that so many others have when they are drawn astray by "experts" with an agenda and an uninformed "audience."
Thank you all for your warm friendly responses. I am a new naturist and from my very limited experience have believed that naturists are very welcoming, non-judgemental, friendly people. The responses definately prove that point.
I will respond to the question but will take a bit of time to write the words so I can briefly and clearly explain the Catholic position on cousins, brothers, sisters and why Catholics believe that Jesus gave Mary as a mother to all of us.
I plan to be very careful to not start a debate, only explain what Catholics believe. Debates rarely accomplish anything, but I do greatly enjoy discussions and learning about the beliefs of others.
I probably can explain the Catholic position much better because I grew up in an Evangelical Church (off shoot of Lutheran) and I attended a Methodist Church as well. I converted to Catholicism 4 years ago and have done considerable study. I am pretty much fluid in both languages (Catholic and Evangelical/Protestant) and have found that many of the disagreements are actually misunderstandings due to differences in understanding of the meanings of words and concepts.
Personally, I find it a shame that so many Catholics do not understand the true meaning of sex and the body. They repress their sexuality and bodyness because of ignorance. Here I do not mean strictly sexual intercourse rather I mean the essence of being male and female and how our bodies express that.
I have a Question. I guess it's on topic? Why are priests forbidden to marry? Peter was believed to be the first Pope and he clearly was married. Just wondering. happy2beadam
Priest take a vow of celibacy in the Latin Rite Church. There are about 21 Rites in the Church - different liturgical traditions in the celebration of the Mass arising out of different areas of the world. In the Orthodox (or Eastern Rite) Church Priests can marry. Some Orthodox are in complete communion with the Pope and others are not. That split occurred around 1000 AD.
Celibacy for Priests is a disipline, not a doctrine, so the Chruch could change it. It likely won't and shouldn't. The disipline is that a Priest exxentially marries the Church and lives out his vocation in a heavenly way because in heaven we are not given to marriage, but are focused on God. Also some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom. This is figurative.
You know that it is hard to be married and have those obligations and still serve others. In the past, one of the reasons Christianity spread ot Europe was because celibate monks were not viewed as a threat. The evangelized but did not seek money or women, so they were accepted.
For a more complete explanation, study the Theology of the Body. This is a body of work that every christian naturist should study. It talks alot about being naked, shame, the purpose of the body, Marriage, the gift of self, etc.
I'll be looking foreward to reading what you have to say.
I agree also with what you said about the differances between a discussion and a debate (arguement). I thouroughly enjoy a give-and-take discussion/debate (debate in the formal sense), but I dislike an arguement where neither side seems willing to listen to the other.
Like I said in my other post. Self-proclaimed experts clutter otherwise useful discussions. Let's not have it here.
"Steve" says:
"I am a new naturist" [OK.]
"I converted to Catholicism 4 years ago" [OK.]
"I have done considerable study." [Where?]
"I can briefly and clearly explain the Catholic position" [?]
"I plan to be very careful to explain what Catholics believe." [????]
As a psychologist I see the telltale signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder at work here and will betcha 1000 to 1 that "Steve" can only regurgitate the "education" he got courtesy of the Christopher West "get religion at home" self-study kit. As a Catholic, when the psuedo-knowledge is set aside, the lack of actual understanding is evident and appalling.
Do you do this evaluation on everyone that you have a forum discussion with? I would hate to see the results of that evaluation, as I think that all of us have our faults; but we also all have those that we hold as role models or guides in our Christian walks. Steve is simply sharing, if you have an opposing view, perhaps you could present it in a more...diplomatic way. Let Steve talk, if we feel something is a bit off or just plain wrong, we'll catch it (with the help of the Lord!) and work it out.
Your compassion and tolerance are admirable. Each of us has faults to be sure but others are here to learn so it is critical we do not mislead those who may be less informed (and may be impressionable and unable to "catch" unsupported hogwash). Opinions should never be presented as the beliefs of an entire religion as if the opinions are divinely inspired. I believe Boyd's contrasting demeanor when expressing religious opinions should serve as the guide.
Simon, Steve's comments echo what I have heard about the Roman Catholic Church from my sister; she has been a Catholic for more than three decades, holds a master's in medieval history, and spent more than a year in a convent. (She still thinks of herself as a "lay nun," so when I call her "sister" it has a double meaning. ) We may disagree with views like hers and Steve's, but it does no good to bring such terms as the above to the discussion.
I'll be a little bit more direct that Laura. Boyd has asked to co-moderate here, and I haven't used that authority in a while, but I think that this applies.
We always welcome alternate views and opinions, because that is one of the ways that we can grow, but this is most definately not a place to throw around accusations or call names. Let's behave like adults, shall we?
If you have differances of opinion, fine, but please present them a little less aggressively, and certainly more tactfully. You can disagree without attacking or condemning another's view-point. Remember, we aren't supposed to do or say anything that doesn't build up another. If you want only to tear down... my suggestion would be for you to find somewhere else to do it.
My apologies for my lack of tact, it stems from sheer frustration. As I said above I have enjoyed this board for a long time but have seen it stray more and more. I have a lot of other interests am gay and a recovering alcoholic but I refrain from injecting these ssues into this board. There are more appropriate outlets where others are not so easily misled when I'm full of "it." If not controlled, this board will suffer the same fate so many others have when drawn astray by experts with a questionable agenda. Attempts to use the board as a pulpit do not benefit anyone and are best stifled.
"If" you had read this whole thread you would realised that Steve was specifically asked a question to which he responded. That being said what does, "use the board as a pulpit" mean in this context? The only person that I've even thought of as being behind a pulpit here over the last few months is someone that goes by the name of Simon.
I would agree that there can be ideas and discussions that are best left alone. Usually, however, that is a decision that should rightfully be left to Boyd. This is HIS board, remember.
Boyd has asked me to help watch over what happens here, and there are others who have helped safe-guard the discussions, and usually that goes okay, but you have to be careful when you try to "protect us"- it's easy for you yourself to come off as the one sounding overly "out-there", as apparently in this case. What was brought up was a direct answer to questions that soomeone else brought up, and it was made clear to be a personal opinion, and then without apparent cause or warning you attacked those statements, using very demeaning language.
I can understand replies made in anger- I've been guilty of the same thing- but we all need to learn how to disagree, and voice those disagreements, in ways that will not be immediately dismissed as ranting by those who read them. It's hard for somebody to take posts of the sort you were making seriously, even if you are correct (which I am not saying you are).
We all have things that we believe that most others will have a hard time accepting, and most of us are adult enough to make our own educated decisions when it comes to adapting of modifying those beliefs. Disagreements and discussion are a large part of how we learn and grow, when we bounce alternate points of view off each other. We NEED to disagree, but we need to do it respectfully.
And y'know, when we decide to make a post- to put what we think and believe out there for everybody to see- if we really want to be known as followers of Christ... we need to make sure that what we commit to lines up with what Scripture tells us. If it doesn't... we're done already. Can we all read what we've written and say that it's in accord with the Word of God?
Question -If you can say "Mary is my mother and I will come to her defense, just as any good son should.", then why would it have been a sin for Jesus to identify Mary as John's mother? I don't understand where the difference is.
Catholics believe that Mary is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. That vessel contained manna (the Bread of life), the 10 Commandments (the Word - Logos), Aaron's Staff (High Priest). Mary's womb contained the same. Also, King David danced before the Ark and John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth's womb (same Hebrew word danced=leaped). There are many more prefigurements (also called typology).
Look at Mt 1:25 "Joseph knew her not until she bore a son" Look at the story of King David (2 Samuel 6) whose wife Michal scorned him after he danced before the ark. She had not child until the day of her death. So this says what happened before but does not presume to speak to what happened after. Michal did not have a child after her death. The Matthew verse does not say that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus' birth...just that he didn't before.
As to brothers, Mt 13:55&56 implies Jesus had brothers. Mt 27:56 says Marry the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Jn 19:25 talks about the 3 Marys including Mary the wife of Clopas. Somewhere in the Bible, Clopas and Zebedee seem to be the same guy (just as Simon, Peter & Cephas are all the same guy)
So the task is to find brothers of Jesus who had the same mother. The cross-correlation study of the 4 gospels make this a difficult thing to prove.
Another parallel is name change God changes the name of significant people Abram=Abraham, Jacob=Israel, Simon=Peter, Mary=”Full of Grace”. Catholics pray “Hail Mary, Full of Grace”, but actually the Archangel Gabriel says “Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you” in Lk 1:28. This is a title God gives to Mary and a name change. (This is also the basis for the Catholic claim of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary was concieved without sin, her title was "Full of Grace". Jesus was still her Savior but he saved her before she walked off the cliff", rather than after like the rest of us. Catholics do not worship Mary, we venerate her -hold her in high regard.)
Elizabeth acknowledges Mary particularly when she says “Who am I that the mother of my lord should come to me” and “Blessed are you among women”. The Queen Mother (see OT Bathsheba approaching Solomon) is held in high honor. The Queen was always the Mother because the king had so many wives. The Queen Mother held a lot of power and influence.
So tradition was that the responsibility for parents fell to the oldest male and upon his death to the next oldest male. This was so strong a tradition, that Jesus would have been dishonoring his mother and brothers by doing otherwise. Should we assume that if Jesus did have brothers, they would not have been responsible enough so that Jesus would have to give this family responsibility to another? Jesus had to keep the commandment to honor his father and mother and giving her care to a non-family person would have been violating that. Remember not one bit of the law passed away but was completly fulfilled by Jesus,who was without sin.
John 19:26, when Jesus have his mother “woman” to the disciple, Catholics believe he gave us to all believers as our mother. Look to Genesis when it talks about the “seed of the woman” crushing the head of the serpent or in Revelation 12:17 where it says the dragon went to make war on the rest of her offspring. (This is why Jesus calls his mother “woman” - ties with the OT prophesy)
I have very briefly talked about things which multiple books have been written. The comparison of OT to NT is inexhaustible. If you want to learn more, you may need to study, I have just quickly outlined the Catholic teaching. Remember, this is not to convince you but to tell you what Catholics believe and what the Church teaches.
I have heard of some of these analogies, but one thing you wrote which I disagree with,
"Look at Mt 1:25 "Joseph knew her not until she bore a son" Look at the story of King David (2 Samuel 6) whose wife Michal scorned him after he danced before the ark. She had not child until the day of her death. So this says what happened before but does not presume to speak to what happened after. Michal did not have a child after her death. The Matthew verse does not say that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus' birth...just that he didn't before."
"Joseph knew her not until she bore a son" and then "The Matthew verse does not say that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus' birth...just that he didn't before." Actually it does. "until" is that word we are looking for. Otherwise it would probably say he "did not" and left out the "until".
I do not see the connection with Micheals scorn to Mary. She was punished, Mary was not and she never had children because either David refused her the relationship, or she was literally baren by miracle. Again, Mary's situation is totally different. She was not being punished but was being respected by her husband, and again, it say "until she bore a son" or "until after". That does imply that he did "know" her.
I do like the picture of David dancing before the ark, with Mary being represented by the ark and John (in the womb) jumping.
Trying to prove that she had no children and that Joseph never had any sexual relations with her is not only putting her up too high, but trying too hard to make a "virgin" out of her, which the bible never made claim to. It is much easier to prove Jesus' occasional nudity than to prove Joseph and Marys permanent non-sexual relations.
If you want to play with analogies, lets go further: That would fly against Gods plan of the church growing and humanity continuing on the next two plus thousand years! If we want a picture, how many siblings do you think Jesus had if he had any? 1, 5, 7? Lets say that wonderful number of seven! Seven churches of the apocolypse. Why not?
Mary would not have discontinued her lack of relationship with Joseph any more than God would discontinue his relationship with man. In fact, if anything, that relationship was very special and probably stronger.
But to say how many children she had would be impossible, but I would say it is more impossible to say she didn't.
One example that leads me to believe he did was where his disciples said "your mother, brothers and sisters are looking for you" which was meant literally, where he replied with his famous answer of "everyone" being his mother, brother and sister. Why would he say that if they were using it figuratively already?
Others refer to someone being his brother as apposed to his spiritual brother. Those were literal comments, not figurative. They know who they are in Christ, but sometimes someone has to be pointed out in a literal way and they were not trying to be cute or give a special message. Simply said, they were his brother of the same mother, Mary.
Again, I think its easier to prove Jesus occasional nudity in public than it is to prove Mary had no more children.
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
The analogy of Mary and Michal is really a false one. I was just trying to show the context of the word "until". I agree that the verse in Matthew cannot be used to prove Mary's virginity, but niether can it be used to say that Mary and Joseph engated in the marital embrace after.
We should remember that none of us use the true Bible, since it was written in Greek and Hebrew. We all use interpetations of the Bible, since we read it in English. Frequently the full meaning can be lost or twisted (as we know by those condemning all nudity). Another point of trivia is that the Table of Contents, the Chapter designations and the Verse designations are not really part of the Bible. The ToC was established in the 4th century, the chapters and verses in the 10th or 13the centuries. Of course the ToC became an issue between the Catholics and the Protestants again in the 16th century.
Another thing to ponder comparing Mary to the Ark is that in the OT, the man who touched the Ark (to prevent it from falling off the ox cart) was struck dead. That is when King David sent the Ark to the House of Obededum for 3 months prior to bringing it to Jerusalem. Similarily, Mary visited Elizabeth for 3 months. Would Joseph likewise have been struck dead if he had marital relations with Mary. Catholics also believe that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, That is how she concieved and God always follows the law. Marriage first, Children second. In this analogy Joseph would have been commiting adultury if he had maritial relations with her.
Tim Staples, a Catholic convert from Assemblies of God, has a tape series where he talks for 10 or 12 hours about this kind of stuff. He brings out nothing new that has not been consistant with the Catholic Church teaching throughout the ages.
Remember, I am not trying to convice you but rather point out some things that the Catholic Church teaches.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain a bit about what Catholic believe.
I appreciate the spirit in which you have engaged us in dialogue. So often such discussions degenerate into the equivalent of "Is so!" "Is not!" rolls eyes
We Protestants tend to go with the simplest interpretation of Scripture when it makes sense--the "plain sense." Here's a verse that seems to call the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity into serious question: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?..." (Mark 6:3) Four brothers, and at least two sisters; not only did they apparently consummate the marriage, but they seem to have been busy! lol At least, if you take the text's plain sense. Remember, too, that Nazareth was a relatively small community by modern standards; everybody knows everybody else, and their mothers, in small towns. Nor is anybody else mentioned as the father. (This indicates that Joseph may have died before the time this Scripture details, supporting the tradition that he was no young man when he married Mary.)
I cite this Scripture, not to score points, but to try to understand an apparent conflict between Church traditions and the Bible's plain sense. Thanks again for the dialogue, and for being so polite about it.
Naturism is part of the larger ancient struggle between grace and legalism
April 1 2007, 2:13 PM
Steve,
I have read that nude baptism's demise coincided with the demise of baptism by immersion.
Recently the Pope urged a return to baptism by immersion, the methodology of the early church.
Puritanism should not be regarded as the foundation of the Protestant movement. It never held sway over all of us. It was a reformation movement within the church of England. The church of England broke from Rome because of King Henry VIII's desire for a male heir to the throne of England and was in bad need of reform.
The Anabaptists of the continent may have contributed toward the general climate of legalism as well.
I do not think that the Lutherans bear equal responsibility. There seems a clear tendency toward openness and grace early in their history and the greater Germanic acceptance of nudity to this day seems to bear me out.
The Puritans should be emulated in many ways; they had a great zeal for devotion to the Lord. Unfortunately, they came to pursue legalism and prudishness as a means of attaining holiness.
I come to this forum from the Methodist perspective. We were originally a pietistic movement within the Anglican church, separate from the Puritan movement. We were Anglican at first, but were badly misunderstood and were driven out. We did not leave of our own volition.
But we retained apostolic succession despite the rejection by the apostate elements within the Anglican church and carried the office of bishop and doctrinal purity to the Methodist churches of the United Kingdom and the American colonies. But while Methodist doctrine has remained intact, the Methodist culture has been somewhat influenced by the widespread prudishness that took hold in the colonies and to some extend in the UK.
In recent years many individual Methodists have sought to be both biblical and grace-oriented.
Legalism is a natural tendency for all people of faith. You can trace its origin back before the beginning of Christianity to the Pharisees.
From the day that God provided a blood sacrifice to cover Adam and Eve's sin, God has been a God of grace, but humanity has always tended toward prudishness and legalism when we wander from God and his grace.
Grace and the walk of faith are the foundation for Christian naturism.
When we return to God, we return to grace, freedom and faith.
When we return to Eden in the spiritual sense, returning to the nudity of Eden is a natural consequence of this state of mind.
In general I agree with your analysis of legalism vs. Grace. That we are saved by Grace is something that all Christians can agree on “Sola Gratia”
You are correct that Puritanism is not the basis of Protestantism. The Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church still have many similarities with the Catholic Church. For example, all have proscribed liturgy, which tends to preserve certain truths. Puritanism is an offshoot of Protestantism.
In general Americans are kind of wacky when it comes to sexuality. We are so sexually obsessed yet repressed. This repression then becomes exhibited in pornographic ways and leads to objectification of the body.
Christianity (and the Catholic Church) has a debt to Evangelicals because they brought back a missionary spirit to the world and a new emphasis on grace through the Holy Spirit. Personally, I think Evangelicals need to shed some of the Puritanical/Anabaptist/Victorian views of the body. This repression has even crept into most American Catholics.
We should all remember that God created us spit and body. We worship God with both our spirit and body. It is not true as so many have tried to propose that the spirit is good and the body is bad. This is dualism and a heresy that the Catholic Church has condemned in the past. In some ways, this has arisen again in modernism.
The extreme modern body shame is the work of the devil. The “father of lies”, has tried mislead Christians throughout the ages. Sometimes he succeeds but in the end the “gates of hell shall not prevail".
"... all have proscribed liturgy, which tends to preserve certain truths."
Liturgy preserves tradition, which may or may not be truth.
To me, strict adherance to tradition can easily cause a loss of the "heart" of worship. It becomes something you do by repetition instead of because of desire. And just because "this is the way it's always been done", that doesn't mean that it's the right way to do it...
I see your point. Liturgy preserves. The meaning and concepts right or wrong get preserved as well. Yes too often liturgy removes the heart element. This is only maintained by studying the liturgy and what it is trying to teach. Another error is to think liturgy is meaningless and then deviate. Who knows if the deviation is towards the truth or away from it.
Humans love routine. If the routine is eliminated, we tend to recreate a new routine or liturgy. All worship services follow some standard format, be it formal or informal.
This has been a very pleasant exchange. If you have nay more questions, I will do my best to give honest non-donfrontational answers.
We have deviated far from the discussion of naturist and nudity issues but background on approaches to life can be helpful in understanding and furthering openness of the body.
Let's not turn this usually enjoyable board into a pulpit for self-proclaimed "experts" to spout hogwash. "Steve" would have us ignore the reaction of the mass of the Christian community and listen instead to "Christopher West" who is little more than a modern day snake oil salesman selling bunk to anyone with a checkbook and little sense. I don't take medical advice from a window washer and I like to know an "expert's" credentials before I waste a moment listenting to their dribble whether it be from Christopher West or "Steve." Come on.
Steve, unless I missed it somewhere, has never claimed to be an "expert" on Catholicism but simply a member of the Catholic community. This is a discussion forum, and this discussion has been handled in a calm, and Christian way. If you dislike Steve's comments and the discussion that is occurring - don't read it. Other members of this forum have enjoyed Steve's willingness to share his views as a Catholic (that are shared by some, as well as disagreed with by some within Catholicism) and have been or are questioning the reasoning behind those views, as well as the interpretations of the Biblical texts.
Regardless of whether or not you continue reading this particular thread, I must say, there is a better way to change discussion topics than insulting or berating others. Imagine if you were asked to explain complex things about your own denomination to a group of others that had widely varied knowledge, or lack of knowledge, about it to start with. It's a lot to take on.
In stark contrast to the vast majority of those who contribute here, there are a few who most certainly present themselves as "experts." Review the dominant demeanor and contrast it to a statement such as this:
"Don't assume a few promimant Catholics speak for the Church. There is 2000 years of development of Theology - all in full agreement with the Bible. This development effectively deals with all these issues which so many people (including Catholics) get wrong when they shoot their mouths off and don't do their homework."
In conjunction with other statements, the claim of elevated/expert status is evident. Worse, to say that 2000 years of theological development are "all in full agreement with the Bible" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is dimestore religious jibberish.
As I said above, compassion and tolerance are admirable but there must be some responsiblity lest others be led astray by "false prophets".
Not any Catholic can speak for the whole Church with the exception of the Pope. I certainly am no expert. Neither should we presume that a few prominent experts speak for all Catholics.
I believe that nothing taught in the Catholic Church is contrary to the Bible. If I did not believe this, I could not be Catholic and call myself Christian. So it follows that I would believe that the Catholic development of theology has occurred over the past 2000 years and is consistent with the Bible. You have to admit, over the past 2000 years, Catholic scholars have had a lot of time to reflect on the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and develop deeper understandings of those truths or to refine their deceptive argument such that the common man would not easily be able to determine the error. You choose.
As to a false prophet, I would be a false prophet if I did taught contrary to the faith I profess to believe in.
What it really comes down to is the question of whether Catholics are idol worshipers or not. We believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus - body, blood, soul and divinity. We worship the Eucharist because it is God. If Catholics are wrong then we worship an idol.
Like most of you I also have a personal relationship with Jesus, but I venture to guess this relationship may be somewhat different for each of us as well.
I am truly impressed with the charity I received from the Christian naturists on this forum. Thank you for your openness in letting me explain my beliefs which I try to conform to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
I encourage everyone to strive to live their own beliefs.
Thank you again for your spirit of charity, Steve. I could only wish that this charity would extend to allow the Church hierarchy to let non-Catholic Christians receive Holy Communion with Catholic Christians, since we all believe in the same God and worship the same Lord, Jesus of Nazareth our Savior and our coming King. But even so, you will not hear me say that any Catholic is not my brother in Christ, unless his life shows that he is hypocritical and/or disobedient to God. And that last applies to non-Catholic Christians too.
Please consider the possibility that even if you are wrong about the infallibility of the the Church through the ages, that God can do his work through us in spite of our imperfections and even some misunderstandings.
To be more specific, I think that whether you believe in a literal or figurative transubstantiation of the host, you have participated in holy communion with your fellow parishioners and with God himself. God is honored either way.
Rachel, wife of Jacob in her ignorance worshipped idols in addition to the living God. God was merciful to her. There were consequences for her error, (no small one), yet she was chosen to give birth to the Joseph and Benjamin, two men who figured prominently in Jewish history.
Adulterous Judah repented of his mistreatment of Tamar and their child became next in the Messianic line.
I could cite additional scriptural examples of godly men who had moments of great moral failure.
I understand that the Church has repudiated the longstanding doctrine of purgatory.
I don't believe that this misunderstanding has consigned millions of Catholics to Hell. It can now be seen as false doctrine, but not a damnable heresy.
Yes there are cults that have so completely reimagined Jesus that he bears no resemblance to our risen Lord. But I don't think that applies to most of the guests in this forum.
The security of your salvation rests in Christ, not in human institutions, not even institutions founded by God.
I'm waiting for the discussion...