Speak lovingly of Mary

[CathNancy]

I honor Mary and love her, but the focus of my life is on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who is my God, and it only He whom I worship. I would wager that this is also true for my RC, EO, and OO Christian brothers and sisters.

God Bless,
Nancy

 

[katholikos]

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,

The errors is that we have established no such thing. Mountains of evidence have been given to support Marian doctrines but you just refure to accept them. There for your statement, "none of the posters representing any of these three denominations have been able to provide the slightest historical substantiation for this dogma" is untrue.

 

[Kristos]

She can't. Sorry

so sad to hear that. What did you assume that I meant? That the Theotokos can save my soul? That she can forgive my sins? If that's what you assumed, then you assumed wrong! These things can only be done by God.

[BIBLE]
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
[/BIBLE]

If I see only Christ in the judgement seat, then why would I ask Mary to save me? In a similar way, then I would ask why does Paul claim that he will save some in Corinthians?

[BIBLE]
1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
[/BIBLE]

Simply, because it's not the same thing.

 

[lionroar0]

We don't worship Mary.

Yes you do..

We don't worship Mary.

Yes you.

We don't worshp Mary.

Yes you do..........

Is there a pattern here????

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We don't worship Mary.

Yes you do..

We don't worship Mary.

Yes you.

We don't worshp Mary.

Yes you do..........

Is there a pattern here????

Peace

Yes, no one is stating WHICH definition of "worship" is being used.
AMAZING how much "what I mean is...." prevents this sort of thing.

BTW, I worship Mary.


Now, can we get back to the issue of dogmatic substantiation of a nature Catholic accept of noncatholics for the dogmas of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary? Because the Catholic Catechism states that to share an unsubstantiated story (no matter how popularly and anciently held) is a sin and thus is UNLOVING (the specific point of this thread)....







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

No.

You said it was the Protestants who are "obsessed" with how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born. I noted that NO Protestant denomination (known to me) has ANY dogma or doctrine (or even an official OPINION) on this matter - or anything else related to the sexual practice of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. There are only 3 denominations known to me that do (two of which represented by posters in this thread), and they insist - to the very highest level of importance and certainty - that Mary "did it" not once. Ever. Hope. This, they INSIST, is critical and place it on the very highest level of importance. Thus, IMHO, having NO OPINION is being less obsessed than having BINDING INERRANT DOGMA of the highest importance and greatest certainty in this matter of her frequency of sex.


To your other issue, you have NOT established that this dogma was always taught and believed, much less that it is true.



.

 

[katholikos]

holy moley.
i guess the guy with the biggest font wins ?

 

[Brennin]

holy moley.
i guess the guy with the biggest font wins ?

LOL

 

[katholikos]

We don't worship Mary.

Yes you do..

We don't worship Mary.

Yes you.

We don't worshp Mary.

Yes you do..........

Is there a pattern here????

Peace

 

[Photini]

holy moley.
i guess the guy with the biggest font wins ?

That, or using CAPS for every other word, and lots of colors.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, no one is stating WHICH definition of "worship" is being used.
AMAZING how much "what I mean is...." prevents this sort of thing.

BTW, I worship Mary.


Now, can we get back to the issue of dogmatic substantiation of a nature Catholic accept of noncatholics for the dogmas of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary? Because the Catholic Catechism states that to share an unsubstantiated story (no matter how popularly and anciently held) is a sin and thus is UNLOVING (the specific point of this thread)....







.

Um, the specific point of this thread was that we speak lovingly of Mary.

And the Catechism does not state that...
It would seem someone is elaborating (with an added definition) .

No.

You said it was the Protestants who are "obsessed" with how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born. I noted that NO Protestant denomination (known to me) has ANY dogma or doctrine (or even an official OPINION) on this matter - or anything else related to the sexual practice of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. There are only 3 denominations known to me that do (two of which represented by posters in this thread), and they insist - to the very highest level of importance and certainty - that Mary "did it" not once. Ever. Hope. This, they INSIST, is critical and place it on the very highest level of importance. Thus, IMHO, having NO OPINION is being less obsessed than having BINDING INERRANT DOGMA of the highest importance and greatest certainty in this matter of her frequency of sex.


To your other issue, you have NOT established that this dogma was always taught and believed, much less that it is true.



.

CJ, the belief regarding Mary is ancient.
[see if this sounds logical to you]
You cannot possibly think the OO and EO and CC all got together after the reform and decided to try to fool the protestants. Right?

Clearly you are not grasping a few historical facts.

IF the doctrine [or should say - the truth] of Mary and her perpetual virginity and her purity, and her bodily going directly to Heaven was a creation or distortion -- it could not exist within the OO if in fact these doctrines did not exist....prior to the schism.

Yet - you ask repeatedly where we can find them.

Here is the simple fact of the matter staring us in the face - the OO schismed shortly after the ecumenical council - and therefore whatever ancient doctrines that existed prior to that schism and stayed within the Church ...is proof positive that even if it was not written down in detail [as you insist must be done] the oral Tradition did in fact exist and survived.

Trust me - aside from being in schism, the OO were also isolated from the Church due to a problem back in that time. [it may have been political and something about ownerships of land etc- i cannot recall the details]

SO for all intents and purposes, you look at an isolated Church - see they held onto the Traditons - then you know for fact the oral Tradition survived even if they could not be reached to teach them these things later.

IE - here is a good modern day version...
If a group of folks see an event take place - but are seperated [immediately] onto different islands without telephones or messages in bottles and they refuse to speak to one another but a police man or reporter goes to each island and finds that all the folks are telling the same story 70 years later - and none of them have been able to communicate with the other...
Then you know that the very last event before they were taken away to isolated islands - means that they didnt get to confer about the incident and yet they were able to retain the same information.

SO now the final analysis comes to this --~~> SInce they didnt get to 'make some sort of conspiracy theory together' and yet all recant the same event - that they are all telling the truth...arent they?

SEE why it is significant that the Tradition has been passed down since the beginning??

Even if the writings came later - all the Churches held to these significant doctrines and beliefs.
That is ORAL teaching at work, and powered by the Holy Spirit.

That, or using CAPS for every other word, and lots of colors.

I might need to take that....

 

[katholikos]

How did a thread devolve from saying loving things about Jesus' mother to all this sex stuff. Is it really that hard for protestants to speak lovingly of Mary? Are they so scared about possibly sounding Catholic if they praise the mother of our Lord that they can't even bring themselves to speak lovingly of her? Wow, what a shame.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

How did a thread devolve from saying loving things about Jesus' mother to all this sex stuff.

Perhaps because the RC has a DOGMA about her sex life.
And, of course, the RC Catechism states that to spread a rumor (no matter how popular or ancient) without substantiation is to sin and thus is unloving (the issue of the opening post - is this spreading of stories about Mary distinctively LOVING?).
Thus, there is one issue before us: Does the RCC have dogmatic substantiation of a nature it would accept from noncatholics for this Dogma that Mary had no sex EVER so that it is not a rumor, a sin, and unloving? For several pages (and centuries) we've been asking for such but so far nothing as been offered.

Is it really that hard for protestants to speak lovingly of Mary?

I love, adore, revere, and in a certain sense worship Our Blessed Lady as chief among the saints and the Mother of God. I hold her in highest esteem.


Perhaps that's why I'm concerned about what people say about her. I care about what people say about my earthly mother whom I love and respect - and even more for my spiritual Mother whom I love and respect even more.

If people dogmatically insisted that my earthly mother always has sex "on top" (I'm a single guy, sorry, I don't recall what that's called) and insist on telling all 6.5 billion people them this sexual tidbit about my mom, and insist that it is DOGMA - the highest level of importance, I suppose I'd be concerned about that, too. Especially if she was dead and couldn't defend or speak for herself on this. But less so than with Mary.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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).

Thanks Thekla for your prompt response. I apologize for my delay but I have been amazingly busy recently.

2. You are quite correct concerning the EOC and OOC position on the dogma. If I am not mistaken (which I admit I can easily be) the RCC believes that if one does not embrace the dogma of the RCC one cannot be saved. They tend to do a dance around the issue as to who this may be exactly, but the principal is established that in the RCC it is essential to embrace all of their dogma to be saved.
3. I understand your view but do not see it as being directly pertinent to the OP. However, if you wish to add it as an additional statement here I would not object to it at all as it has been discussed to great length on this thread.
4. My point was that these passages are problematic, at best, in relation to the OP and, for many, provide a level of evidence.
5. My point here is that non-biblical, or, rather abiblical (depending upon one's views) takes precedence.

Thanks again.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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..

The problem is that newcomers to the thread are not likely to wade through all of the posts and the thread, as is typical, has evolved during its process.

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

I agree entirely. However, given the tone of some posters there seems to be an anticipation that opinions will be altered. On other forums here at CF I have seen opinions radically change during a discussion of an issue.

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.

As I pointed out to Thekla, we could probably put this into another statement of summary here. I think there was more than enough discussion about it and apologize for having overlooked it.

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.

We are in agreement about any explicit accounts then. As I pointed out to Thekla, the passages about brothers and/or sisters are problematic at best and provide evidence for others, depending on several factors. However, I do not think these passages lack bearing on the OP.

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

The difficulty with Oral tradition is that was oral and we have no documentation until many centuries later, thus making it impossible to verify. Unfortunately, there were many oral statements, as well as written statements, which were rejected as being heretical, even though their proponents did not think so. Christians as a whole do agree on the written tradition, the Bible, although they may not share the same views regarding their understandings of the Oral tradition.

I just did ....

You are welcome

Thanks again.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

At least Thekla and Philothei had the grace to point out errors they perceived. I hoped for a better response from you.

However, if you would care to post your own summation of the thread to this point I would be quite interested to read it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The errors is that we have established no such thing. Mountains of evidence have been given to support Marian doctrines but you just refure to accept them. There for your statement, "none of the posters representing any of these three denominations have been able to provide the slightest historical substantiation for this dogma" is untrue.

Am I to understand that my first point was in error and that someone somewhere on this thread has changed their opinion? If so, please show me their post?

Please direct me to the posts which provided "mountains of evidence". In a Mormon forum I was recently provided a mountain of evidence in the form of personal revelation. An ex-cathedra statement made by the Pope in 1950 is not a mountain of evidence. I believe that all CJ has requested is evidence in the form of historically verifiable accounts. If these have been provided, please direct me to them.

Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

holy moley.
i guess the guy with the biggest font wins ?

Yes, I've noticed that on other threads, as well. I don't see any pattern, though, as to one group employing this device, have you?

 

[Thekla]

Thanks, bbbbbbb !

in the interest of clarifying this further:
1. I really don't like to speculate too much, as I haven't studied the matter sufficiently to attempt a reasonable comment.
3. perhaps a general statement on verification in general; as we are using the Bible to 'uncover' fact, it would seem only reasonable that we consider the authenticity of the witness (Bible) we use as a source for that fact. In "doing history", sources without such verification may be considered spurious. In this sense, the charge that 'Tradition' is an unverified source should include the Bible as it is tradition that verifies it. To the latter point, I do not mean EO/OO/RC tradition, but the lack of any certain documentation to authenticate the NT -- in this sense, all Christians rely on tradition for verification of the NT texts.
4. Given the term used for evidence, and the clear definition of the term as well as its attested, authenticated meaning and use (of which Philadelphia - Egypt, Asia Minor as ancient cities and the meaning of the word - is one example, and the writings of ancient Greek authors another), it seems a moot point for either side.
5. but again, the EO/OO/RC see the ever-virginity as a Biblical teaching; the difference between us (our -your and mine - respective view on where the teaching is supported) is interpretive. In summary, the teaching (from the EO/OO/RC) perspective is neither non-Biblical nor aBiblical, but fully Biblical.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks, bbbbbbb !

in the interest of clarifying this further:
1. I really don't like to speculate too much, as I haven't studied the matter sufficiently to attempt a reasonable comment.
3. perhaps a general statement on verification in general; as we are using the Bible to 'uncover' fact, it would seem only reasonable that we consider the authenticity of the witness (Bible) we use as a source for that fact. In "doing history", sources without such verification may be considered spurious. In this sense, the charge that 'Tradition' is an unverified source should include the Bible as it is tradition that verifies it. To the latter point, I do not mean EO/OO/RC tradition, but the lack of any certain documentation to authenticate the NT -- in this sense, all Christians rely on tradition for verification of the NT texts.
4. Given the term used for evidence, and the clear definition of the term as well as its attested, authenticated meaning and use (of which Philadelphia - Egypt, Asia Minor as ancient cities and the meaning of the word - is one example, and the writings of ancient Greek authors another), it seems a moot point for either side.
5. but again, the EO/OO/RC see the ever-virginity as a Biblical teaching; the difference between us (our -your and mine - respective view on where the teaching is supported) is interpretive. In summary, the teaching (from the EO/OO/RC) perspective is neither non-Biblical nor aBiblical, but fully Biblical.