Speak lovingly of Mary

[Photini]

If I put a pic that big of the pope in my signature will I get a staff notice?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If I put a pic that big of the pope in my signature will I get a staff notice?

Could be. If not I will just turn off show siggys

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't think CJ has ever attempted to prove that Mary and Joseph did engage in marital relations. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. I believe his point has been that it is impossible to state with complete certainty anything concerning Mary's marital relations with Joseph at all so that any dogma concerning them is misleading because a dogma is a statement of absolute and positive certainty to be held by the faithful.

As I have stated before, NO Protestant denomination known to me has ANY dogma (or doctrine or even some official teaching) regarding Mary's sex life at all. There are only 2 denominations known to me that have ANY view about this (and it's DOGMA in both cases), they both teach that Mary had no sex EVER - nope, not once. And this, they insist, is a matter of highest importance.


As I have stated before, I don't know anything about Mary's sexual practices after Jesus was born. Frankly, I don't know why it matters why, how, or how often she and Joseph had sex - if at all.

And as I have stated before, to be blunt and with NO offense intended, I honestly don't understand why it is anyone's business. I don't know how often my own parents have sex or my sister and her husband. I assume they did or do (ie they are not virgins) since I'm here and my sister is pregnant. But I don't know how often they do it, or how or frankly anything else about their sex lives. And (please don't think me a prude for saying this), I don't think it's any of my business. This is ENTIRELY between them and their spouses.


Again, NO Protestant denomination has ANY dogma, doctrine or even official opinion about Mary's sex life or how often she had intercourse after Jesus was born (if at all). It's moot, it's private, it's none of our business. AND God is understandably silent and respectful on this point in His Holy Scriptures - perhaps we should be too.

CJ, if you read this, feel free to provide your input as to the correctness of what I have written. Thanks.

Again, if someone insisted that it is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty that my mother always has sex "on top" and thinks it essential that all 6.5 billion people on the planet KNOW that she always has sex "on top," I would be concerned about that - above all because I love and respect my mom (the issue of this thread). Three issues would immediately come to my mind:

1) Is this true? If it's proclaimed as dogma, then it's proclaimed a matter of highest certainty and relevance, so the "bar" of substantiation is as high as it goes. And so it should be! This is my mom you're talking about!!! AND this is an extremely private, personal issue with a HUGE potential to offend, embarrass and hurt her - and therefore me. I'd want to know: How do you dogmatically KNOW this? Where is the dogmatic substantiation? Because I love and respect my mom (thus, I agree with the Catholic who started this thread and this IS an issue about love and respect). I love our spiritual Mother even more than I love my mom, so all this is greater when we are speaking of Mary....

2) Why does this matter? WHY is it sooooooooo critical to you (and you believe for all 6.5 billion people on the planet) what sex position my mother uses?

3) Do you have my mother (and probably father's) permission to tell everyone this little sexual tidbit from her supremely private intimate life?


Now, I spoke of another aspect of my mom's intimate sharing with my dad because obviously she's not a perpetual virgin (HELLO, I'm here) but it's the same thing - it's an aspect of her personal, private sharing of loving marital intimacies.




Bottom line:

Again, this thread gets to the "heart" of the issue - LOVE and RESPECT (thank you WarriorAngel!).
A 'rumor' is a popularly held unsubstantiated story or report.
The Catholic Catechism specifically states that to share such is a SIN.
Sinning against someone is UNLOVING and DISRESPECTFUL.
So, there is one central, key, critical issue here:
When sharing this extremely personal, potentially hurtful, entirely moot isssue: where's the substantiation? Is it to the level required of DOGMA and is it of the nature that Catholics would accept of noncatholics?





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

An admission which verifies there is insufficient substantiation for dogma SCORE! (lol)

Which might be why NO Protestant denomination known to me has any dogma about Mary's personal, private sex life after Jesus was born...

Two denominations do.

If we love and respect Mary (the issue of this thread), it better matter if this dogmatic sharing of this supremely private, entirely moot, potentially hurtful story is true. I care what people say about my mother (because I love and respect her).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks, bbbbbbb

I do think we are getting rather closer to a common statement of sorts, although perhaps not what was expected at the outset.

My primary interest here (CF) is to address misunderstandings; in this issue (the ever-virginity or not) both sides can be shown to rely on "a tradition" to support their position.

I do thank you, btw, for your willingness to engage in serious, fair, and respectful discussion on the matter. What a blessing !

Regards,
in Christ !

Thanks, Thekla. I wanted to take the time to answer your reply well, so I was delayed until today and apologize for the delay.

I agree that we are getting much closer to a common statement, although it was not what was anticipated when I initiated my statement. However, I think it to be essential that the facts of the matter be presented in a calm and civilized manner.

I think the crux of misunderstanding probably lies in the definition of "tradition". If the Bible is viewed as being outside of Tradition and as being inerrant and the primary (if not sole) foundation for Christian belief, then the argument can be, and has been, made that there is no direct scriptural teaching on the issue. If it is viewed as part of Tradition and not the only foundation for Christian belief, its significance is weakened. In either case I think there is agreement that there is no explicit teaching in the Bible about the perpetual virginity (or lack thereof) or Mary nor, indeed, much concerning Mary at all.

If Tradition is defined as including the Oral Tradition, proof of the perpetual virginity of Mary is equally difficult to provide simply because of the unwritten and unrecorded nature of that Tradition. CJ's point that there are no records of anyone in the first century who actually knew Mary and who attested to any statement of her marital status (or lack thereof) with Joseph should be taken as a matter of fact, despite the obvious implications. I think his point was that because we have no verification of this dogma from significant (and I use that word guardedly) records, one cannot make a dogmatic statement about it.

This would not be problematic, I think, for most Christians had not the Pope elevated this belief to the level of a dogma and, thereby, anathematized all who would question or doubt it. Given the known facts of the matter, I do not believe that one can honestly insist that it is possible to believe this dogma except as a matter of faith in the Pope and the RCC being correct.

It is a blessing to engage in calm, collected discussion. I thank you for that.

In Christ,

BBBBBBB

 

[Annolennar]

If Tradition is defined as including the Oral Tradition, proof of the perpetual virginity of Mary is equally difficult to provide simply because of the unwritten and unrecorded nature of that Tradition. CJ's point that there are no records of anyone in the first century who actually knew Mary and who attested to any statement of her marital status (or lack thereof) with Joseph should be taken as a matter of fact, despite the obvious implications. I think his point was that because we have no verification of this dogma from significant (and I use that word guardedly) records, one cannot make a dogmatic statement about it.

This would not be problematic, I think, for most Christians had not the Pope elevated this belief to the level of a dogma and, thereby, anathematized all who would question or doubt it. Given the known facts of the matter, I do not believe that one can honestly insist that it is possible to believe this dogma except as a matter of faith in the Pope and the RCC being correct.

I might be a bit off, but I think you've just brushed the idea of dogma "de fide tenenda" as opposed to "de fide credenda".

"De fide credenda" is doctrine that is explicitly stated in the deposit of faith and demands faith based on the Word of God as revealed through Scripture and Tradition.

"De fide tenenda" is that which is not explicitly stated, but does not contradict Scripture or Tradition and follows from it logically, implicitly, or intrinsicly. This type of doctrine only demands faith as part of a larger faith in the Holy Spirit's guarantee of infallibility and authority to the Magisterium, not in and of the doctrine itself.

The Marian doctrines, if I'm not mistaken were "de fide tenenda" until defined by the respective Popes Pii, at which point they were explicitly defined by Tradition and thus became "de fide credenda".

The support for them from the Scripture side of things remains on the "tenenda" level, though. Basically, in the absence of Scripture that explicitly states otherwise, the Traditional view is accepted.

 

[Thekla]

hi, bbbbbbb -

no need to apologize for delays; life happens, and I would prefer a considered though 'slow' discussion to a quick but shallow one !

I think the crux of misunderstanding probably lies in the definition of "tradition". If the Bible is viewed as being outside of Tradition and as being inerrant and the primary (if not sole) foundation for Christian belief, then the argument can be, and has been, made that there is no direct scriptural teaching on the issue. If it is viewed as part of Tradition and not the only foundation for Christian belief, its significance is weakened. In either case I think there is agreement that there is no explicit teaching in the Bible about the perpetual virginity (or lack thereof) or Mary nor, indeed, much concerning Mary at all.

This is where things may become more difficult, as it encompasses both the matter of what "Tradition" is, and what the Bible "is". You have, I think, rightly identified differing definitions of what the Bible "is", but the matter goes further. To use a generalized or secular view, tradition includes what is passed on, lived, culture, etc. And tradition (from this view) is not unlike intuition: there, but not verifiable, traceable. A conundrum occurs when trying to wrest the Bible away from "tradition" or "Tradition"; the authenticity of the Bible itself is not verifiable or traceable. Per the NT, we do not have the original writings themselves extant (possibly because, during the persecutions, not only were Christian homes and Churches - see the Edict of Milan for mention of communaly held property for meeting - seized, but the writings held within the Churches were marked for destruction by the authorities). Without the original writings for use in comparison, the Bible itself becomes "tradition". Although there is wide similarity in the later extant copies, there is no way to compare these to the originals for accuracy.

There is also the matter of the "inerrancy of text" and text as central (or sole) to Christian belief. I can understand how this view would have arisen as heir to the Reformation (if one hasn't tradition available, one uses what is available and treats it as central). As an aside, to those who have lived under the "Islamic yoke", this centrality of text versus the wider "experience of doing Christianity/the Way/Tradition" is especially repugnant; it was Islam that first referred to Christians as "People of the Book". We are not people of the book but "People of Christ".

As for inerrancy of the text, there is also the matter of language and "tradition". As we have seen here, with adelphos, it is through tradition that we understand text. Our culture influences the way we understand the terms we use. In this sense, our Bibles have been shown to be "different" because of language. (I am still intrigued that my dad, not raised Christian ie no "traditioning", reads the NT in koine and has a theology that is very "Eastern Orthodox". Where did he get such a theology so "foreign" to most Protestant theology ? ) To one accustomed to the vernacular and written use of adelphos in secular Greek, the term is quite different than the English understanding when one applies one's experience to the reading of the text.

As to this last matter, I think it best to refer to the teachings as explicit or not based on language/culture (things of tradition, included in and defined by the same even in the secular sense). One must also reference "interpretation" when stating 'explicit or not'. Acceptable forms of interpretation ARE "tradition". This is why they vary between traditions; although the type interpretation used presently in the west is familiar and accepted, it is no less a form of "tradition" than acceptable forms of interpretation in Eastern Orthodoxy.

In a sense, we are getting close to identifying that there is a different "mindset" behind our respective positions. And I reiterate, we both rely on our respective "traditions"; one is not more nor less "tradition" than the other.

To summarize, we can say: in the non-RC western tradition, the teaching of the ever-virginity is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

I will continue in a second post, as my computer sometimes shuts down without warning

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

......and it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that she had sex either.

1. Sounds like you are agreeing there is no dogma here. Welcome to the Protestant position and you have just moved close to heresy (from the RCC perspective).

2. I never mentioned "proof" or "beyond a shadow of doubt." I only said substantiation of a nature you'd accept for a Protestant dogma that you don't accept - just a level, equal "playing field."




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

in this issue (the ever-virginity or not) both sides can be shown to rely on "a tradition" to support their position.

What "tradition" am I relying on when I hold that it cannot be dogmatically substantiated how often Mary and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus was born (if at all)?






.

 

[Thekla]

To continue a bit on the first matter:

The NT is not verifiable, therefore it is read and understood through a variety of "traditions". In the most basic sense, one can plausibly interpret the text in a variety of ways. For example, it is plausible to state that Christ's appearance to the disciples and others after the Resurrection is metaphoric, not actual; the NT writers were expressing in acceptable literary terms a sense of comfort by recalling Him. As there is a lack of historical documentation on the matter, this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It is also reasonable to say that the earthquake, the darkening of the sun that are recorded as occuring at the crucifixion are also "literary devices".

Why do you and I not adhere to these plausible interpretations ? Because we compare this interpretation against something. We compare against tradition and against belief (which is also neither traceable or verifiable). As my (Greek) grandfather would repeat often, "pistis means TRUST, not belief". Yes, we say the Holy Spirit has directed us, but this is also not verifiable.

So neither our Bible nor our interpretation can be verified; the verification we resort to is "tradition" in the Holy Spirit.

As you mentioned Oral Tradition, before I respond to the next paragraph, I would like to point something out. There are persistent requests for written witnesses, which makes sense per the western non-RC tradition ( as both religiously but also culturally we live in a culture of the written word - it is our tradition of literacy that guides the way we verify, learn, think and perceive). This leaves out oral means of learning, but also leaves out another sort of tradition: doing. The NT is a written record; in the EO "tradition", we consider Christ's teachings to include not only what He said, but what He did (baptism, for example). Some of what He did seems to be treated - in our presently literate culture - as optional (not teachings).

In receiving the NT, as it is not verifiable as authentic, all Christians are assenting to oral tradition and "doing" tradition. We all treat what was "done" (the NT was used/a form of doing - by Christians) as valid. There is written tradition on the authenticity of the NT, but it is sparse especially when used to compare the actual contents of the NT.

Tradition then includes what is written, what is said, and what is done/practiced.

 

[Thekla]

Finally, before I begin a response to the next paragraph, it seems to me important to clarify the meaning of "dogma".

"Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed (kerygma) or reserved to members of the household of faith (dogmata), we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition. Both sources have equal force in true religion. No one would deny either source - no one, at any rate, who is even slightly familiar with the ordinances of the Church. If we attacked unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentionsÂ[wash my mouth] - or rather, we would reduce the Gospel teachings to bare words" (Paragraph 66)
-- "On the Holy Spirit", St. Basil the Great (4th century)

It seems in our discussion, from an EO perspective, by the term "dogma" what is actually meant by you is what is more accurately "kerygma".

 

[katholikos]

Quick Catholic POV: Dogma is defined Doctrine.

Doctrine is doctrine. But when it has been defined infallibly (no offense Thekla ) that is when it becomes Dogma.

That is not to say that other doctrines are any less true necessarily. They just have not all been dogmatically defined, perhaps because they are not in dispute.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To continue a bit on the first matter:

The NT is not verifiable, therefore it is read and understood through a variety of "traditions". In the most basic sense, one can plausibly interpret the text in a variety of ways. For example, it is plausible to state that Christ's appearance to the disciples and others after the Resurrection is metaphoric, not actual; the NT writers were expressing in acceptable literary terms a sense of comfort by recalling Him.

As there is a lack of historical documentation on the matter, this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. It is also reasonable to say that the earthquake, the darkening of the sun that are recorded as occuring at the crucifixion are also "literary devices".

Greetings Thekla. Ah watch out girl, you may be labeled as a gnostic heretic

Much of my view of the book of Revelation is metaphoric, symbolic with lots of OC Hebrew symbolism in it.

Do you believe that resurrection in Revelation is "metaphoric"? How about the 2nd coming of Jesus in the future? How do we determine what is and is not metaphoric another words. Peace.

Ezekiel 37:10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army. 11 Then He said to me, "Son of adam, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!'

Luke 2:34 And blesses them, Simon, and said toward Mariam, the mother of Him, "Lo, this-one is set/lying for the Falling and Ressurection/ana-stasin <386> in many to-the Israel, and into a Sign spoken against"-- [Ezekiel 37 "valley of bones]

Reve 11:11 And after the three days and half a spirit/breath of life out of the God into-came in them, and they stand/esthsan <2476> (5627) upon their feet, and great fear falls upon those seeing them.

Reve 20:5 The rest of the dead-ones not live until should be being finished the thousand years. This the Resurrection/ana-stasiV <386>, the First/prwth <4413>.

 

[Thekla]

Greetings Thekla. Ah watch out girl, you may be labeled as a gnostic heretic

at least it should be evident that I am not an Ebionite

Much of my view of the book of Revelation is metaphoric, symbolic with lots of OC Hebrew symbolism in it.

Do you believe that resurrection in Revelation is "metaphoric"? How about the 2nd coming of Jesus in the future? How do we determine what is and is not metaphoric another words. Peace.

oh my ... whose meaning of metaphor and symbol ????

I might say symbolic, but in the older Greek sense of the word -- as in "together participatory/interpenetration with an outward appearance (epiphenomenon/epiphaneia) as "mark" which recalls/makes apparent the whole (including the parts that participate). Whew ! My description feature is not working, sorry !

But mostly, I think the resurrection and second coming are not metaphoric. I do think there is imagery in Revelations that will be more evident (or understood) in retrospect. For example, I find it fascinating that the creation account of Genesis is written as something "seen". And that the order of creation found there is paralleled in science (for example, the celestial bodies - it is now known - had to come before life, for only one of the 3 types of stars has carbon as a byproduct, and carbon is needed for life forms. Awesome, imo !)

As measure, there is Tradition, and those who are more spiritually mature, to measure against. And, as you are admirably well acquainted with, the prophecies, shadows and "typos" of the OT whose fruition we see in the NT is a retrospective measure.

Ezekiel 37:10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army. 11 Then He said to me, "Son of adam, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!'

Luke 2:34 And blesses them, Simon, and said toward Mariam, the mother of Him, "Lo, this-one is set/lying for the Falling and Ressurection/ana-stasin <386> in many to-the Israel, and into a Sign spoken against"-- [Ezekiel 37 "valley of bones]

Reve 11:11 And after the three days and half a spirit/breath of life out of the God into-came in them, and they stand/esthsan <2476> (5627) upon their feet, and great fear falls upon those seeing them.

Reve 20:5 The rest of the dead-ones not live until should be being finished the thousand years. This the Resurrection/ana-stasiV <386>, the First/prwth <4413>.

and I leave these because the scripture you cite in your posts is, for me, "heartening" -- thank-you

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

BOTTOM LINE.....


"Rumor" = a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story.

According to the Catholic Catechism, to spread a rumor is a sin.
Sins are not loving toward the victim of such.

Thus, in the dogma of The PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary, there is a report that Mary did not have intercourse ever, not once.

No one denies that the report is popularly held (it could not be a rumor if it were not)

The issues before us are:

1) Is this report about Mary having had no sex ever substantiated (so as not to be a rumor) to a degree required of a matter stated to be of highest possible importance and certainty and (even more critical) in a manner which the RCC itself acknowledges as valid and suffient for noncatholics?

2) Why is this issue of how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) a matter of highest importance ?

IMHO, I would add a third point: Since this is an extremely private and personal issue (one most married couples would not want spread to all the 6.5 billion people of the world as an issue of highest importance for them to dogmatically know), do we have the permission of Mary to speak so boldly and openly to everyone of all ages about this supremely private, personal, intimate aspect of her marriage and sexuality?


IMHO, the question of our good, respected Catholic friend WarriorAngel gets right to the heart of this question. Because I love, adore, revere and esteem Our Blessed Lady, because she is the Mother of God, because I LOVE and RESPECT her more than my own mother, I am enormously concerned that what is said about her (especially as dogma) is true. I'd rather take no stand than to spread something that is unconfirmed, unsubstantiated, unauthorized by Her, and has such a huge, enormous potential to hurt, offend and embarrass Her - and thus Her Son.


So far, in all these 138 pages, no one has offered a SHRED of ANYTHING that gives any credence at all to this extremely personal and potentially hurtful story about our Mother . Only that it meets the "popularly held but unsubstantiated" qualification of a rumor. NOTHING of substantiation at all - at BEST an argument that, "well, it's theoretically possible!!!!! (yeah, it's theoretically possible that she was 8 feet tall, had pink hair and loved fish tacos, too - that hardly qualifies as substantiation). NOTHING but "Hey, 3 denominations believe this and 29,997 don't so it MUST be dogma!" NOTHING but "it's an old idea - almost as old as Gnosticism and a l of heresies, so it MUST be dogmatically correct!" I don't think our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters accept these arguments when others use them, why should anyone accept them when they do?


Now, if this were a DOMGA of "You can get 10 billion angels on the head of a pen but you can't get even one more" then I guess we could all just shake our heads and chuck this up to yet another example of the RCC making dogma out of pure human speculation. But, in MY heart, this is a matter of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NATURE. This is not just speculation. It's not just an obsession with sex (and IMHO a nonbiblical view of such). It's about a person. One we LOVE and RESPECT (the issue of this thread). Since I care if you dogmatically insist that my mother always has sex "on top" without any substantiation that its true and without any permission from my mother to share this with every human being on the planet for centuries to come as a matter of highest important BECAUSE (B.E.C.A.U.S.E.) I love and respect her, how much more should we all be concerned about the marital intimacies of Our Blessed Lady, OUR Mother, whom we love and respect even more?



My perspective....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Rick Otto]

What about her menses? Is there a tradition about that?
That is one of the main sources of mysogeny.

 

[Philothei]

Bottom line 138 pages and all the Bible based Christians have not added an iota to substantiate further that:

1. Virgin Mary indeed had more children
2. Find anywhere in the BIble that directly witnesses about Joseph having "actually" married Mary not ONLY betrhothled her....Actually calling Joseph the Betrothled instead of the husband points to the same conclusion.
3. Have found anywhere in the Bible that claimes directly she is Not Ever Virgin....


On the contrary we have:
1,800 years of millions of Christians believing in the EV.
Currently also a small percentage of Non-denominational Protestant churches not believing in the EV while still the overwhealming majority of the two bigger churches believe in the EV of Mary.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Bottom line 138 pages and all the Bible based Christians have not added an iota to substantiate further that:

1. Virgin Mary indeed had more children
2. Find anywhere in the BIble that directly witnesses about Joseph having "actually" married Mary not ONLY betrhothled her....Actually calling Joseph the Betrothled instead of the husband points to the same conclusion.
3. Have found anywhere in the Bible that claimes directly she is Not Ever Virgin....


On the contrary we have:
1,800 years of millions of Christians believing in the EV.
Currently also a small percentage of Non-denominational Protestant churches not believing in the EV while still the overwhealming majority of the two bigger churches believe in the EV of Mary.

How come it isn't 100% of them that believe in it. Who are the ones in those 2 Major Churches/Denominations that do not believe it? Just curious.
To me, it matters little whether she remained one or not.

 

[Philothei]

Hey LLOJ,
Glad to see that at least you are not of those who totally take the other stance... If I were protestant I think I would "respect" Theotokos.... just the same... and give the benefit of the doubt about her PV.

I have no idea who are those denominations... I know about the two major Churches though

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hey LLOJ,
Glad to see that at least you are not of those who totally take the other stance... If I were protestant I think I would "respect" Theotokos.... just the same... and give the benefit of the doubt about her PV.

I have no idea who are those denominations... I know about the two major Churches though

Greetings Philo! Ok let me rephrase if I may be so humbly bold.

Why is it only just a majority of the 2 BIGGER CHURCHES view the EV and not 100%.

Currently also a small percentage of Non-denominational Protestant churches not believing in the EV while still the overwhealming majority of the two bigger churches believe in the EV of Mary.