Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ, the belief regarding Mary is ancient.

Feel free to give the date of the first time when any denomination specifically taught that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. Then, we might want to compare that with Gnosticism and some of the other things you and I reject, and see which is older. I think what we will both conclude is that age is unrelated to truth.

THAT said and noted, I have often posted that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is probably the second oldest of the Marian dogmas (the Mother of God is older - and one I too embrace - but it's more of a title than anything). It's age and for many centuries universality is the cause of consideration (Lutherans do NOT reject this - or any of the Marian views - we just don't regard them all as dogma).

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.

Mostly lost there, my respected friend...

I NEVER stated ANYTHING about any conspiracies. I NEVER stated ANYTHING that ANYONE was trying to fool anyone.


I am 100% absolutely CERTAIN that Catholics today and whatever denomination(s) existed in the late 8th century when this was made dogma, are and were sincere, convinced and certain they were/are doing the rigtht thing. I hope I never implied ANYTHING to the contrary. I'm SURE that's true with Unam Sanctum, the Infalliblity of the Papacy for the RCC. I'm also SURE it's true for all Mormons believe and profess about Joseph Smith, those plates, Jesus, His Church (the LDS), etc. I tend not to question the sincerity or integrity of my brothers and sisters. That's NEVER been the issue for me (or, as far as I can tell, any of the Protestants here at CF).

The issue is truth. Truth matters (ESPECIALLY when you are talking about my Mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The RCC argues that Mary Had No Sex Ever is a matter of Truth to the highest level of certainty and importance. So, it seems good and right to me to pursue that issue. YES, you believe it to be true, just as the Davidians thought Jesus was coming behind Halley's Comet and just as Mormons believe Smith found those plates, I've NEVER doubted or questioned the sincerity or faith or intregity of any of them! But, friend, dogma is a teaching of the highest certainty - the "bar" has been raised as high as it goes, thus the substantiation for it raises with it. A "rumor" is an unsubstantiated story, no matter how popularly or anciently held. The Catholic Catechism says that to spread a rumor is to sin, and that sins are not loving. Thus, as you well know (as we ALL well know) the issue here then is this: is there dogmatic substantiation (otherwise, it's not dogma and it is a rumor), and of course, that needs to be of a nature that the RCC and CAtholics accept of others.

IF your denomination had a DOGMA that my aunt (recently departed) ALWAYS had sex "on top" of her husband, in that position, I'd kinda be asking the same qeustions. It wouldn't be NEARLY as relevant nor as emotional to me (since I love Our Blessed Lady far more than I do my now departed aunt). You telling me, "but my denomination has been saying that about her for a long time" or "but my denomination is sincere" wouldn't carry much weight vis-a-vis establishing the dogmatic truth of this sex practice OR in why it is a matter of highest importance that all 6.5 billion people know that about my aunt.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[katholikos]

Originally Posted by katholikos

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.....

No, its because you are obsessed with what we believe. Page after page of the same old blah blah blah. Gee whiz dude, let it go. If you don't like what we believe then don't believe it.

 

[Photini]

whatever denomination(s) existed in the late 8th century when this was made dogma, are and were sincere, convinced and certain they were/are doing the rigtht thing

The schism of the OO was in the fifth century.

 

[Rick Otto]

The schism of the OO was in the fifth century.

They were anethema before it cool to be anethema.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by katholikos

No, its because you are obsessed with what we believe. Page after page of the same old blah blah blah. Gee whiz dude, let it go. If you don't like what we believe then don't believe it.

He already doesn't, but I'm sure he appreciates your permission.

The hard thing for him is witnessing the rumor mill about her & just "letting it go"(on & on).
I guess he just respects her. Imagine that.

 

[katholikos]

He already doesn't, but I'm sure he appreciates your permission.

The hard thing for him is witnessing the rumor mill about her & just "letting it go"(on & on).
I guess he just respects her. Imagine that.

i liked you better in the politics thread

 

[Photini]

He already doesn't, but I'm sure he appreciates your permission.

The hard thing for him is witnessing the rumor mill about her & just "letting it go"(on & on).
I guess he just respects her. Imagine that.

I don't buy it. This thread was created to "Speak lovingly of Mary.." But it was him who came in here on post #4 and started talking about "rumors". The thread barely even got started before he came in here and derailed it. That is not respect.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't buy it. This thread was created to "Speak lovingly of Mary.." But it was him who came in here on post #4 and started talking about "rumors". The thread barely even got started before he came in here and derailed it. That is not respect.

Don't confuse respect for a thread topic with respect for Mary, sister Photini. Besides, his point is exactly about speaking lovingly of her. I wouldn't call that a derailment at all, sis.
BTW, nice pic.

liked you better in the politics thread

LOL,... "My sediments exactly." said the river.

 

[Photini]

.
BTW, nice pic.

Thanks.

 

[Photini]

Agni Parthene


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQs0MUuJKKI&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1bmJcY_59U&feature=related

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

If i take a gander at what they are referring to is that you cannot remove Tradition away from the Bible - or the NT doesnt exist.
The canon is based on Traditions selection of what canon is.

That aside, what more do you desire from me?

The summation of my thread would be it went all over the place regarding Mary. Mostly due to folks trying to suggest Mary is not important, and or perhaps the doctrines regarding her cannot be prooven in earlier writings - altho - they are in the OT. Which is older than anything of Apostolic times or later.

Its a matter of understanding the OT as the Apostles handed down in the Ancient Church[es] and ....
Lastly the summation of the thread is - speak lovingly of Mary.

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.

You can never remove the Bible from Tradition and Tradition from the Bible.

Tradition would always exist - as it did for thousands of years before ever put into some form of media. [communication]
However; the Bible relies solely on Tradition in order to exist.

Just as the Jews held unwritten tradition, so does Christianity.
And both of which existed before any form of written communication.

Nevertheless; the Holy Spirit guided Moses to be accurate in writing [in clay onto a brick type setting - which was painfully a sloooooooooooooow process] in order to keep the Tradition of Genesis intact.
Just as God led Moses to do this task, He also led the Church He built to continue oral Tradition perfectly. [uncorrupted]

If man is leery of Tradition - then he should be even more leery of the Bible.
Interesting to me, men willingly take the Bible for truth but deny the Tradition that carried it thru the ages, put it together thru men's decision, and it was those same men in the Church who decided it was led by the Spirit to be written perfectly.

What we have here is only half of the whole, and ppl accept that.

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.

Christians as a whole divided itself, God didn't do that.
It is not and hasnt been prophecied to be part of His plan.

Oral Tradition brought us many things...
Including the first books of the 1st five in the Bible.

Do you think God sat with Moses and dictated Genesis?
No, Moses knew the story of Genesis thru Tradition and thru the Holy SPirit guiding him to be accurate.

SO Who kept Tradition perfect...?
The Holy Spirit thru the use of men....just He used men to keep the Tradition intact in order to have the written.

And I am going to say it again - to deny Tradition is to deny the Bible.

Peace to you.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Feel free to give the date of the first time when any denomination specifically taught that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. Then, we might want to compare that with Gnosticism and some of the other things you and I reject, and see which is older. I think what we will both conclude is that age is unrelated to truth.

THAT said and noted, I have often posted that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is probably the second oldest of the Marian dogmas (the Mother of God is older - and one I too embrace - but it's more of a title than anything). It's age and for many centuries universality is the cause of consideration (Lutherans do NOT reject this - or any of the Marian views - we just don't regard them all as dogma).

Roughly the first date regarding Mary's perpetual virginity would be around 500 BC.

Ezechiel 44

2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.......

Mostly lost there, my respected friend...

I NEVER stated ANYTHING about any conspiracies. I NEVER stated ANYTHING that ANYONE was trying to fool anyone.


I am 100% absolutely CERTAIN that Catholics today and whatever denomination(s) existed in the late 8th century when this was made dogma, are and were sincere, convinced and certain they were/are doing the rigtht thing. I hope I never implied ANYTHING to the contrary. I'm SURE that's true with Unam Sanctum, the Infalliblity of the Papacy for the RCC. I'm also SURE it's true for all Mormons believe and profess about Joseph Smith, those plates, Jesus, His Church (the LDS), etc. I tend not to question the sincerity or integrity of my brothers and sisters. That's NEVER been the issue for me (or, as far as I can tell, any of the Protestants here at CF).

The issue is truth. Truth matters (ESPECIALLY when you are talking about my Mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The RCC argues that Mary Had No Sex Ever is a matter of Truth to the highest level of certainty and importance. So, it seems good and right to me to pursue that issue. YES, you believe it to be true, just as the Davidians thought Jesus was coming behind Halley's Comet and just as Mormons believe Smith found those plates, I've NEVER doubted or questioned the sincerity or faith or intregity of any of them! But, friend, dogma is a teaching of the highest certainty - the "bar" has been raised as high as it goes, thus the substantiation for it raises with it. A "rumor" is an unsubstantiated story, no matter how popularly or anciently held. The Catholic Catechism says that to spread a rumor is to sin, and that sins are not loving. Thus, as you well know (as we ALL well know) the issue here then is this: is there dogmatic substantiation (otherwise, it's not dogma and it is a rumor), and of course, that needs to be of a nature that the RCC and CAtholics accept of others.

IF your denomination had a DOGMA that my aunt (recently departed) ALWAYS had sex "on top" of her husband, in that position, I'd kinda be asking the same qeustions. It wouldn't be NEARLY as relevant nor as emotional to me (since I love Our Blessed Lady far more than I do my now departed aunt). You telling me, "but my denomination has been saying that about her for a long time" or "but my denomination is sincere" wouldn't carry much weight vis-a-vis establishing the dogmatic truth of this sex practice OR in why it is a matter of highest importance that all 6.5 billion people know that about my aunt.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

I believe the 5th Century [early] SO around 400 + AD.

 

[Brennin]

Roughly the first date regarding Mary's perpetual virginity would be around 500 BC.

Ezechiel 44

2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.......

That has nothing to do with Mary. This is a fine example of allegorizing to the point of absurdity.

 

[lionroar0]

That has nothing to do with Mary. This is a fine example of allegorizing to the point of absurdity.

And what other gate did Jesus pass through that no other man has?

Peace

 

[Brennin]

And what other gate did Jesus pass through that no other man has?

Peace

From the commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:

CHAPTER 44

Ezekiel 44:1-31. ORDINANCES FOR THE PRINCE AND THE PRIESTS.

2. shut . . . not be opened--(Job 12:14, Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7). "Shut" to the people (Exodus 19:21,22), but open to "the prince" (Ezekiel 44:3), he holding the place of God in political concerns, as the priests do in spiritual. As a mark of respect to an Eastern monarch, the gate by which he enters is thenceforth shut to all other persons (compare Exodus 19:24).

3. the prince--not King Messiah, as He never would offer a burnt offering for Himself, as the prince is to do (Ezekiel 46:4). The prince must mean the civil ruler under Messiah. His connection with the east gate (by which the Lord had returned to His temple) implies, that, as ruling under God, he is to stand in a place of peculiar nearness to God. He represents Messiah, who entered heaven, the true sanctuary, by a way that none other could, namely, by His own holiness; all others must enter as sinners by faith in His blood, through grace.
eat bread before the Lord--a custom connected with sacrifices (Genesis 31:54, Exodus 18:12, 24:11, 1 Corinthians 10:18).


I find their comment about the prince credible.

 

[Rick Otto]

And what other gate did Jesus pass through that no other man has?

Peace

Yeah, the gate of His own perfection.
Besides, any judgement of Mary's private matters is only speculation (on steroids ).

 

[katholikos]

Yeah, the gate of His own perfection.
Besides, any judgement of Mary's private matters is only speculation (on steroids ).

Ah, then, by that logic, the position of her having other children is also speculative.
Score!!!

 

[Thekla]

From the commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:

CHAPTER 44

Ezekiel 44:1-31. ORDINANCES FOR THE PRINCE AND THE PRIESTS.

2. shut . . . not be opened--(Job 12:14, Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7). "Shut" to the people (Exodus 19:21,22), but open to "the prince" (Ezekiel 44:3), he holding the place of God in political concerns, as the priests do in spiritual. As a mark of respect to an Eastern monarch, the gate by which he enters is thenceforth shut to all other persons (compare Exodus 19:24).

3. the prince--not King Messiah, as He never would offer a burnt offering for Himself, as the prince is to do (Ezekiel 46:4). The prince must mean the civil ruler under Messiah. His connection with the east gate (by which the Lord had returned to His temple) implies, that, as ruling under God, he is to stand in a place of peculiar nearness to God. He represents Messiah, who entered heaven, the true sanctuary, by a way that none other could, namely, by His own holiness; all others must enter as sinners by faith in His blood, through grace.
eat bread before the Lord--a custom connected with sacrifices (Genesis 31:54, Exodus 18:12, 24:11, 1 Corinthians 10:18).


I find their comment about the prince credible.

both interpretations (per Mary and the above) rely on the uniqueness, the singularity of Christ. Though I wonder where Ezekiel mentions that others will enter, though in a different "manner"; perhaps you could point this out.

 

[Thekla]

And Christ is not true God, but by participation
(metoche) even he was made God (etheopoiethe).--Arius of Alexandria

as well, Brennin, as your signature carries a reference to Arius, would you perhaps comment on your view of the virgin birth ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Feel free to give the date of the first time when any denomination specifically taught that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. Then, we might want to compare that with Gnosticism and some of the other things you and I reject, and see which is older. I think what we will both conclude is that age is unrelated to truth.

THAT said and noted, I have often posted that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is probably the second oldest of the Marian dogmas (the Mother of God is older - and one I too embrace - but it's more of a title than anything). It's age and for many centuries universality is the cause of consideration (Lutherans do NOT reject this - or any of the Marian views - we just don't regard them all as dogma).

Roughly the first date regarding Mary's perpetual virginity would be around 500 BC.

Ezechiel 44

2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.......

1. The quote isn't from a denomination, much less yours.

2. The quote doesn't specifically teach the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

3. All literate persons know that the verse you quotes doesn't so much as even MENTION Mary, sex or perpetual anything.



Note: It was stated that this dogma has 'ALWAYS been believed."
I simply asked for the evidence of that, something to substantiate the statement of fact.

I NEVER stated ANYTHING about any conspiracies. I NEVER stated ANYTHING that ANYONE was trying to fool anyone.


I am 100% absolutely CERTAIN that Catholics today and whatever denomination(s) existed in the late 8th century when this was made dogma, are and were sincere, convinced and certain they were/are doing the rigtht thing. I hope I never implied ANYTHING to the contrary. I'm SURE that's true with Unam Sanctum, the Infalliblity of the Papacy for the RCC. I'm also SURE it's true for all Mormons believe and profess about Joseph Smith, those plates, Jesus, His Church (the LDS), etc. I tend not to question the sincerity or integrity of my brothers and sisters. That's NEVER been the issue for me (or, as far as I can tell, any of the Protestants here at CF).

The issue is truth. Truth matters (ESPECIALLY when you are talking about my Mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The RCC argues that Mary Had No Sex Ever is a matter of Truth to the highest level of certainty and importance. So, it seems good and right to me to pursue that issue. YES, you believe it to be true, just as the Davidians thought Jesus was coming behind Halley's Comet and just as Mormons believe Smith found those plates, I've NEVER doubted or questioned the sincerity or faith or intregity of any of them! But, friend, dogma is a teaching of the highest certainty - the "bar" has been raised as high as it goes, thus the substantiation for it raises with it. A "rumor" is an unsubstantiated story, no matter how popularly or anciently held. The Catholic Catechism says that to spread a rumor is to sin, and that sins are not loving. Thus, as you well know (as we ALL well know) the issue here then is this: is there dogmatic substantiation (otherwise, it's not dogma and it is a rumor), and of course, that needs to be of a nature that the RCC and CAtholics accept of others.


IF your denomination had a DOGMA that my aunt (recently departed) ALWAYS had sex "on top" of her husband, in that position, I'd kinda be asking the same questions. It wouldn't be NEARLY as relevant nor as emotional to me (since I love Our Blessed Lady far more than I do my now departed aunt). You telling me, "but my denomination has been saying that about her for a long time" or "but my denomination is sincere" wouldn't carry much weight vis-a-vis establishing the dogmatic truth of this sex practice OR in why it is a matter of highest importance that all 6.5 billion people know that about my aunt.


.​

I believe the 5th Century [early] SO around 400 + AD.

I'm a tad lost to know how this reply related to what you quoted...
You rather just seem to be contradicting what you posted above.



1. Ah, so I note you are now contradicting your earlier statement that it has always been taught....

2. Would you please give the quote from around 400 AD form some denomination that specifically states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin?

3. How does this going back to 400 AD (if it does) dogmatically substantiate that it is dogmatically true? You must know that there are a number of teachings you regard as heresy (Gnosticism, Arianism, etc.) that are much older. How then does old = dogmatic substantiation?






Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.