Speak lovingly of Mary

[LittleLambofJesus]

we are, as the body of Christ, to have the mind of Christ.

IC | XC
______

NI | KA

I love this story in John 4 and hope to translate that chapter soon [better to harmonize it to revelation]

John 4:11 Is saying to Him, the woman, "Lord! not a bucket Thou are having, and the well/frear <5421> is deep/baqu <901>, whence then Thou are having the water, the living? 12 No Thou greater are of the father of us Jacob, who gives to us the well/frear <5421>, and himself out of it drank, and sons of him , and the nurtured of him? [Genesis 29]

Revelation 9:1 And the Fifth messager trumpets, and I saw a Star out of the heaven having fallen into the land. And was given to him the key of the well/freatoV <5421> of the Abyss/abussou <12>,

 

[WarriorAngel]

Mary stated, "I AM a virgin." She said NOTHING about being a PERPETUAL virgin - her statement is entirely unrelated to perpetuality and certainly does NOT offer any dogmatic substantiation to anything of perpetuality.

I stated, "I AM a bachelor." That says NOTHING about being a PERPETUAL bachelor - my statement is entirely unrelated to perpetuality and cerainly does NOT offer any dogmatic substantiation to anything of perpetuality.

What part of that still puzzels you?

The part that leaves me perplexed is why you you keep suggesting you would state things the way you state them....in the face of KNOWING you would be married soon.

Mary was betrothed, CJ.
That means she was technically soon married to Joseph.
So her statement is proof she had in fact decided to remain a virgin and not consumate the marriage after the ceremony.

See betrothed is kind of like being engaged...
Maybe that's where you are misunderstanding her statement.

Quick definitions (betrothed)
&#9656; noun: the person to whom you are engaged
&#9656; adjective: pledged to be married

Let's take this again....

IF you were getting married and an angel came to you and said you 'would' [future tense] conceive a child and name him.....etc etc

WOULD you say 'How can that happen?'

IF you KNOW ALREADY you are getting married...[[UNLESS of course you intended to remain a virgin and not consumate the marriage]]...you would not say 'HOW can that happen?'

You would, for all intents and purposes say 'O thank you, I am so excited now!'

What part of this are you not understanding CJ??

You would not tell an angel who brot you a message, that you would be clueless to know how you were to get pregnant in the future on the threshold of being married UNLESS you already knew you HAD ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION to have relations.

CJ - aside from this single event in all of history - most ppl [who Mary believed she was just an average soul] would already know how to conceive.

When I posted that I AM a bachelor, what part of that dogmatically indicates that I am NOT a perpetual bachelor? "I AM a virgin" = "I AM a virgin." Grammar 101, my good friend.

You are telling me that in the event of your upcoming nuptials and right before your own wedding you would tell an angel that you couldnt possibly have a child...in the future ~ because the married part would not be on your mind?

Its evident that if an angel from Heaven were to speak to you of this sort of message it means a few things...
Obviously God has plans for you...
And you will have a child - and you would not ask how it would happen when you are on the verge of getting married, CJ.

Are you seeing this yet?

What you are doing - i guess - is forgetting that the angel doesnt explain HOW she will conceive a child until after she says 'How can I conceive a child? I do not know man [ie - I wont be having sex]'... even tho she knew she was getting married.
Remember the angel didnt explain she was to be impregnated by God with God until after she said 'HOW can that happen, i am not going to have relations when i get married...?'
She would and could not lie to an angel CJ.

The ancient dialogue would be updated with exactly what i just said...

We're not speaking of a theoretical possiblity, in 3 denominations (only) it is a DOGMA that Mary had no sex ever - not once, nope, never.







Frankly, to be blunt, I agree with you...
So, why do 3 denominations INSIST on discussing it as the highest level of importance?
Why make this very point DOGMA?

Glad you asked that - Because when the CC says it is dogma, that means that is the final statement and no one can argue it is not true within the believers of the Church.

And so we will not have members, clergy and what not arguing on the possibilities...and the Church will not have confusions and problems with the ancient doctrine.

IE - dogma means - it cannot be argued and this is fact. ..End of story and move on.
Thats what the Church means by dogma.

Thanks for agreeing [i think] that this is true regarding her permanent condition.

Just dont forget how old the Church is, and so she needs to always be on guard of those who think they can bring in new or strange ideas - thus once pronounced dogma, there is no longer room for discussions...or being open for heresies on the issue within the Church.

I don't know how often you and your spouse share loving, marital intimacies. Or how or where or when. Or even if you do. To be blunt but with NO INTENT of being disrespectful to you and your spouse, frankly, it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS. This is an issue between the two of you. Thus, I'm pretty uncomfortable with my telling all 6.5 billion people in the world AS A DOGMATIC FACT of the highest importance and greatest certainty that you and your spouse do it exactly 2.789 times per week. Especially since I have no information to that point and no permission from you and y your spouse.

Friend, while my parents are no "prudes" and while I HAVE been informed that they share this loving marital intimacy, I don't know how often they do it. Or when. Or how. And frankly, why does that matter to me? Why is it ANY of my business? (Would you think me a prude if I share that I really don't even want to know?).

Thus you are addressing one of my points in this DOGMA of 3 denominations. Why is it a matter of highest and greatest importance? Why is it the surpreme matter of GREAT importance for 10 year old children to know how often Mary "did it" with Joseph, if at all??????????? And, IF (and I don't know), IF you would be uncomfortable (maybe even offended!!!) by my telling the whole world that it is a DOGMATIC FACT that you and your spouse do it 2.789 times per week on average (even if that is true, and of course I have no substantiation to that point), then why are you DOGMATICALLY certain that Mary is of the exact opposite view than you and she is GLAD everyone knows this supremely private tidbit from her marriage? Seems to ME, the potential for great embarrassment, hurt, pain and even offense is HUGE - even if (EVEN IF) this is true (and you clearly have ZERO evidence that it is).



Good. Then stop trying to ask others to disprove it....

And supply substantiation adequate for the highest level of importance and certainty, substantiation that you would accept as adequate for such from a Protestant or Mormon.





Actually, Gnosticism is much older, and yet you don't accept that as DOGMA. The reality is it was NOT a teaching from the start - or at least no one has been able to offer a SHRED OF ANYTHING to support that. I've asked for just ONE person who personally knew Mary who specifically stated that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. I've even agreed to accept such from a heretic, a liar, someone with ZERO credibility - just someone who knew Mary and therefore at least THEORETICALLY could know this entirely moot and absolutely private aspect of her sex life. No one has been able to do that.

So, you have not substantiated that it is true...
You have not substantiated that it was always believed to be true (even if entirely unsubstantiated)
You haven't even substantiated that ANYONE who knew Mary - even ONE person - believed it to be true even if unsubstantiated.


Is THIS the level of substantiation you'll accept for dogma? Because if it is, then Mormonism is LIGHT YEARS more credible than this dogma.....
And is THIS the level of substantiation you'll accept for a rumor? Because if it is, Bigfoot is MUCH, MUCH less of a rumor than this one.





.

The reason the Church pronounced this was - post 1700 or 1800 AD and henceforth the idea came about that Mary had other children.

Can we discuss the whole slew of problems with this?

Well, here is a few things..

1) This would mean the OT prophecy failed. [the gate the Lord spoke of] Thus if He was not Who He claimed - then someone else would have entered in by the same gate...thus He was not God.
[Thats just one issue]
2) This would mean that somewhere in the world someone could claim direct ancestry to Jesus. A host of problems in that, for sure. If you do not agree, we could discuss this later.
3) It would imbue a certain characteristic that Mary could have actually never been a virgin when giving birth to Christ since she lost her virginity - it would bring in the question of His virgin birth in the scriptures.
4) It would cause a scandal to Mary if folks were speculating on carnal acts vs her chaste vow she gave while in the Temple.
This was in fact a normal occurrence and they were given spouses that were older as protectors not as consumating partners because they were indeed WAITING for the Messiah and the Virgin birth....and again the scandal issue if she would have been single.


Which begs the whole issue of why virgins from the Temple remained a vowed virgin... so as to have the virgin birth foretold.
And no, the Temple did not allow young women to stay with them when they came of age...because if you know the Jewish custom, a woman could not be in the Temple or synagogue when having menses. [unclean]

So basically, the Temple guarded the choosen virgins by picking much older men for the task.

Also this coincided with disguising the birth from satan.

God put together the scriptures that were foretelling [via the Holy Spirit] and He divised a great plan covering all the bases. He is brilliant.
Basically He did it in such a way that it goes in a complete perfect circle...

And who can give counsel to our God?


Does it make sense to you?

 

[katholikos]

You have it reversed.

I think that Mary's personal sex life is unimportant (frankly, none of our business). The RCC and EO regard it as a matter of highest importance.

.

Yes. We have said it, and thats that. But you keep bringing it up, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. So I ask you: Why are you so obsessed with the subject. (And if you quote me, please do not edit my words. That is improper.)

And BTW: You are wrong. We regard JESUS as the highest importance. We regard all dogmas as truth, but Jesus is the focus of our faith. Our Marion dogmas, however, seem to be the focus of your obsessions. It seems rather odd

 

[Thekla]

purposefully selective

 

[lionroar0]

2) This would mean that somewhere in the world someone could claim direct ancestry to Jesus. A host of problems in that, for sure. If you do not agree, we could discuss this later.

Da Vinci Code!!!

Peace

 

[katholikos]

lol !!

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=katholikos;Yes. We have said it, and thats that. But you keep bringing it up, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. So I ask you: Why are you so obsessed with the subject. (And if you quote me, please do not edit my words. That is improper.)

He regards Mary enough to try & stop the rumors?

And BTW: You are wrong. We regard JESUS as the highest importance. We regard all dogmas as truth, but Jesus is the focus of our faith. Our Marion dogmas, however, seem to be the focus of your obsessions. It seems rather odd

Your Church's actions speak louder than your words, mam'... and they are more at odds than in agreement(more so in the case of the other one true Church, tho).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Da Vinci Code!!!

Peace

The Muslims do one better than the Christians. When Jesus returns as 'Eessa , he will marry and have children {Muslims I assume}.

http://www.geocities.com/muslimapocalyptic/story_of_the_messiah_eessa.htm
His Marriage, Death and Deputies

............After his descension on earth, Prophet 'Eessa will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Janaza Salaat and bury him net to the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. (Tirmidhi)

After the events mentioned above, 'Eessa the Messiah will then marry, and later have children. Another 19 years of peace will elapse, and then 'Eessa will pass away (possibly at the age of 125, thus completing his 40 year term on Earth) and the Muslims will perform his funeral prayers and bury him next to the Messenger of Allah - Muhammad, Abu Bakr and 'Umar.
According to the Sayings regarding the Messiah:

1. The Promised Messiah is none other than 'Eessa son of Maryam ("Jesus");

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So I ask you: Why are you so obsessed with the subject.

No. You have it reversed.

I and NO Protestant denomination known to me on the entire planet regards the frequency in which Mary had sex (or not) to be an issue at all. But there are 3 denominations that regard the subject as DOGMA - an issue of highest importance and greatest certainty. The "obsession" is with the denominations that have DOGMA on this, not from those who argue that it's none of our business.





.

 

[katholikos]

....Your Church's actions speak louder than your words, mam'......

1) Does this symbol mean anything to you?

2) I go to Mass almost every Sunday, and I hear about the Immaculate Conception about twice a year. I hear about Jesus constantly throughour every mass. So those actions speak louder than words

CCC 134 - All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642: cf. ibid. 2, 9: PL 176, 642-643).
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#I
Catechism Of The Catholic Church

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What part of this are you not understanding CJ??

I think I understand it well. Mary said, "I AM a virgin." She didn't say, "I will forevermore remain a virgin." I'm positive you understand the difference between present tense and future tense, between being something at this moment and being something for all eternity, I'm sure you do.

Again, I AM a bachelor. That is a correct statement. But that does not dogmatically substantiate that I will forevermore and all eternity be a bachelor; it does NOT provide dogmatic evidence that I am a PERPETUAL bachelor. I'm sure you understand that.

You would not tell an angel who brot you a message, that you would be clueless to know how you were to get pregnant in the future on the threshold of being married UNLESS you already knew you HAD ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION to have relations.

No.

The angel states you WILL conceive (future tense) which could refer to any point between when that verb is pronounced until her death. It doesn't mean "Six years from now" or " fifty two year from now." It means, you WILL. Now, IF she understood it as referring to a time sixty years in the future, she might have some questions about "the change" or whatever. But Mary's immediate situation is what comes to her mind. It MAY be that she (CORRECTLY) understood that the conception would happen very soon - before her upcoming union with Joseph, it could be that's simply the first question that comes from the mind of this (likely teen) lady. But all this is pure SPECULATION. And SPECULATION is not DOGMATIC SUBSTANTIATION. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS from you that you answer is not DOGMATIC SUBSTANTIATION (with all due respect, my dear friend). Here's what we know: Mary said, "I AM a virgin." Grammar 101 tells us that means that Mary, at that point, was a virgin. Whether she believed that she'd still be a virgin when she was 65 we don't know for one very simple and good reason - she doesn't say (and no one else did, either). When I stated, "I AM a bachelor," that gives you zero information as to whether it is my hope, plan, intent or belief that I will be a PERPETUAL bachelor. ANYTHING can be "supported" by SPECULATION, but, as you well appreciate, personal SPECULATION is not DOGMATIC SUBSTANTIATION, so let's get back to the issue at hand.

You are telling me that in the event of your upcoming nuptials and right before your own wedding you would tell an angel that you couldnt possibly have a child...in the future ~ because the married part would not be on your mind?

Its evident that if an angel from Heaven were to speak to you of this sort of message it means a few things...
Obviously God has plans for you...
And you will have a child - and you would not ask how it would happen when you are on the verge of getting married, CJ.

All this is PURE SPECULATION.
We're talking about a dogma, not a theoretic possibility.
Dogma - a matter of greatest certainty.
PERSONAL SPECULATION is not dogmatic substantiation/
You know that, of course, obviously.


I"m not making ANY dogma from the 'answers' I give to the questions I ask and then imposing and imputing that into the text. I'm reading what God tells us. It says, "I AM a virgin," it does not say, "I will forevermore and for all eternity be a virgin." Present vs. future tense, you know the difference.

You SEEM to be trying to build a case over Mary's confusion about the biology of how she will bear the Son of God. As I read the text (NO DOGMA implied, just little old fallible ME alone), I see a pious young lady who is overwhelmed and confused. Whether she CORRECTLY is assuming that the conception is immediate or at least very soon (and thus the PRESENT TENSE "I AM A VIRGIN") or what, we just don't know for a very simple and entirely understandable reason - the text doesn't say. In any case, the angel "explains" to the degree she needs to know - and she accepts that (as we should). Friend, you can read, re-read and re-read the text all you want, there's NOTHING here about PERPETUAL anything. There's a faithful, pious, humble young lady being told she will give birth to the Son of God - and she's overwhelmed and confused, but she lays all that aside and lovingly accepts the miracle, mystery and ministry before her. She should be honored and venerated for that, not have all kinds of sexual SPECULATION made about her (What IS this obsession with her sex life in the RCC and EO??????????????). The Holy Family would be honored for the faith, piety and obedience (and more), not loaded and supersaturated with man's pure sexual SPECULATION about how often they "did it" (or not).

What you are doing - i guess - is forgetting that the angel doesnt explain HOW she will conceive a child until after she says 'How can I conceive a child? I do not know man [ie - I wont be having sex]'... even tho she knew she was getting married.

Remember the angel didnt explain she was to be impregnated by God with God until after she said 'HOW can that happen, i am not going to have relations when i get married...?'
She would and could not lie to an angel CJ.

The angel doesn't anwer the question about conception until she asked it because generally questions are not answered until they are asked. You seem to be imposing a LOT of pure speculation into the text...

Where does it state that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin? Friend, as you well know, it says NO SUCH THING.

The angel said you will conceive and bear a son - the Son of God.
Mary is confused about how that will happen.
The angel tells her the Holy Spirit will do it.
She accepts that.
It's a wonderful, powerful account of faith, humility, obedience and embracing the mystery. How you can turn this into a story about sex and how often she and Joseph will have sex 20 years later, well.... I constantly wonder: what IS this obsession with her sex life in the RCC and EO? Why is it being imposed, imputed into this beautiful text????? A real puzzle to me....

The reason the Church pronounced this was - post 1700 or 1800 AD and henceforth the idea came about that Mary had other children.

Thank you for your additional speculation there, but there's one reality that makes it unlikely to me. The Dogma is not "Jesus Had No Sibs." The Dogma is "Mary Had No Sex." It's not about sibs, it's about sex.

OBVIOUSLY, Mary and Joseph could have had sex and not had any kids. Certainly once! I personally know two couples, both married over 50 years, could have expressed they they "tried to have children" (I assume that means they are not all PERPETUAL virgins) but never did. One couple adopted several children (all from Asia), the other just remained a family of two. I trust that you are aware that it IS possible to have an instance of marital intimacy and not have kids, and I trust you believe those in the 8th century who made this dogma also knew that. Thus your theory here has a HUGE problem: The dogma is about sex, it's not about sibs. It doesn't say she had no children (although obviously that would be one of several things associated with this), it dogmaticly states that she had NO SEX. You DO know the difference, and so the discussion of sibs is off topic and a diversion, the issue is SEX.






.

 

[katholikos]

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, here we are coming up to 1300 posts on this thread. Thus far, what have we accomplished? I submit that the following has been accomplished:

1. We established that nobody on either side of the grand canyon has budget one iota in their beliefs. This should come as no surprised to anyone here.
2. We established that three deonominations have unique views concerning the frequency, or lack thereof, of marital relations between Mary and Joseph and that these views have been elevated to the leve of dogma, which means that all who do not subscribe to them are damned to hell forever.
3. We established that none of the posters representing any of these three denominations have been able to provide the slightest historical substantiation for this dogma.
4. We established that the Bible provides no direct accounts of Mary and Joseph engaging, or not, in marital relations. However, there are those pesky references in the Bible to the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.
5. We established that Tradition trumps the Bible for representatives of the three denominations, or that a Papal ex-cathedra statement trumps everything.

If there are any errors in my synopsis above, please note them. Likewise, please not anything I may have overlooked.

Thank you,

 

[Thekla]

2. Can't say for the RC, but the EO doesn't pretend to know who is going to hell. Also, I don't have the sense that the east and the west have the same definition of doctrine or dogma.
3. Respectfully submitted, the opposing side cannot provide historical substantiation for the accuracy of their NT (its accuracy re: the original source documents).
4. Do we need to define adelphos AGAIN (Do English dictionaries define the etymology of the city name Philadelphia as applicable to just one nuclear family in the Philadelphia region ?????).
5. Trump ? What is that in Greek . We say that the Bible is PART of Tradition (we can't prove authenticity of the existing texts of the NT either, btw).

 

[Philothei]

Well, here we are coming up to 1300 posts on this thread. Thus far, what have we accomplished? I submit that the following has been accomplished:

Do we truly need someone to set up for us an "opinion"? If anyone is capable of reading they can very well discern for themselves ...me thinks..

1. We established that nobody on either side of the grand canyon has budget one iota in their beliefs. This should come as no surprised to anyone here.

Was that ever "an agenda"? Do not think so as far as I am conserned anyhow....I would be suprised for the opposite...

2. We established that three deonominations have unique views concerning the frequency, or lack thereof, of marital relations between Mary and Joseph and that these views have been elevated to the leve of dogma, which means that all who do not subscribe to them are damned to hell forever.


No such dogma here...But yeah the incarnation can have soteriological implications for us Christians. Beliefs do play a role of how we view salvation, esp. about incarnation....

3. We established that none of the posters representing any of these three denominations have been able to provide the slightest historical substantiation for this dogma.

That is subjective as we do not have any clear cut historical evidence for other texts we use as Christians in general today. Our worshiping documents as well as some of the books in the bible are not totally "substantiated" as well. And I believe that point was adequately carried out.

4. We established that the Bible provides no direct accounts of Mary and Joseph engaging, or not, in marital relations. However, there are those pesky references in the Bible to the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.

We do not have any explicit accounts about Mary's and Joseph's marital status other than indirect references. The references to Christ's brothers or/and sisters are not established as in the Hellenistic Greek words as brother can have several meanings from breathren to cousin and nephew.. Also we see the "sisters/brothers" absence from the crucifix scene as a direct indication that confirms one more time they are not "close" relatives either to Mary or Christ.
5

. We established that Tradition trumps the Bible for representatives of the three denominations, or that a Papal ex-cathedra statement trumps everything.

Oral tradition pre-existed the Bible. Nothing more to say.

If there are any errors in my synopsis above, please note them. Likewise, please not anything I may have overlooked.

Thank you

I just did ....

You are welcome

 

[WarriorAngel]

The Muslims do one better than the Christians. When Jesus returns as 'Eessa , he will marry and have children {Muslims I assume}.

http://www.geocities.com/muslimapocalyptic/story_of_the_messiah_eessa.htm
His Marriage, Death and Deputies

............After his descension on earth, Prophet 'Eessa will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Janaza Salaat and bury him net to the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wasallam. (Tirmidhi)

After the events mentioned above, 'Eessa the Messiah will then marry, and later have children. Another 19 years of peace will elapse, and then 'Eessa will pass away (possibly at the age of 125, thus completing his 40 year term on Earth) and the Muslims will perform his funeral prayers and bury him next to the Messenger of Allah - Muhammad, Abu Bakr and 'Umar.


According to the Sayings regarding the Messiah:

1. The Promised Messiah is none other than 'Eessa son of Maryam ("Jesus");

Well the LDS have the Muslims beat.
Jesus was already here, had children and we are those descendents and when the Mormons die - they will gain their own planet in which to fill with populated humans.
[Which is why they have so many wives and children ya know]

I never asked them how come they have to die to get a planet and fill up - and yet Christ left us here to populate...

No. You have it reversed.

I and NO Protestant denomination known to me on the entire planet regards the frequency in which Mary had sex (or not) to be an issue at all. But there are 3 denominations that regard the subject as DOGMA - an issue of highest importance and greatest certainty. The "obsession" is with the denominations that have DOGMA on this, not from those who argue that it's none of our business.


.

The short answer...
Because altho it was always known and regarded since the beginning of the Church, it wasnt until some heresies [*Church term for something not orthodox nor taught in the Church] in the 1800's started rumors that Mary had other children.

THUS the dogma was defined so as to defeat the rumors and not allow them to infiltrate the Church.

Truth is truth...no matter the subject.

And also - fwiw - God was also obsessed with this detail even foretelling it in the OT.
SO as to avoid the speculations that He allowed His Mother to have more children that would be related to Him and henceforth a myriad of issues that could stem from that.

Of course - one never knows if someone doesnt try to make the claim they are related, as to mislead many to some sort of new cult - stranger things have happened.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Oral tradition pre-existed the Bible. Nothing more to say.



You are welcome

Interesting to note that the Oral Tradition lasted quite a very long time [one thousand years or so?] before Moses finally put it down on clay blocks to make record of the Oral Teaching.

Thus Genesis, altho i believe carried out by the Holy Spirit thru the ages, was only word of mouth.
As was everything in the beginning.

SO we should either trust the Holy Spirit or we deny that and all Tradition and thus we have no Bible.

Good point btw.

 

[WarriorAngel]

2. Can't say for the RC, but the EO doesn't pretend to know who is going to hell.

Aside from satan and the demons - we dont speculate on that.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Well, here we are coming up to 1300 posts on this thread. Thus far, what have we accomplished? I submit that the following has been accomplished:

1. We established that nobody on either side of the grand canyon has budget one iota in their beliefs. This should come as no surprised to anyone here.
2. We established that three deonominations have unique views concerning the frequency, or lack thereof, of marital relations between Mary and Joseph and that these views have been elevated to the leve of dogma, which means that all who do not subscribe to them are damned to hell forever.
3. We established that none of the posters representing any of these three denominations have been able to provide the slightest historical substantiation for this dogma.
4. We established that the Bible provides no direct accounts of Mary and Joseph engaging, or not, in marital relations. However, there are those pesky references in the Bible to the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ.
5. We established that Tradition trumps the Bible for representatives of the three denominations, or that a Papal ex-cathedra statement trumps everything.

If there are any errors in my synopsis above, please note them. Likewise, please not anything I may have overlooked.

Thank you,

Must be completely a matter of opinion, because i do not believe this list is accurate.

And when you choose to listen to how it actually works rather than give us all an erroneous list of statements verified only by misinformation gathered somewhere or perhaps your own ideas - then we will talk later.

 

[Photini]

I constantly wonder: what IS this obsession with her sex life in the RCC and EO?

There is no obsession here. This thread started out as a thread to "speak lovingly of Mary". It has transformed into something quite the opposite after a Protestant came in and felt the need to derail the thread. The other running thread about this subject was started by a Protestant too. It does not appear to me that the "three major denominations" are the ones with the problematic obsession. Furthermore, the fathers of the Protestant churches believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. Somewhere down the line these churches started to depart from those beliefs and began to question and ponder. The EO, RC and OO are guilty of nothing in this except for continuing to adhere to something that has always been.