Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

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

it is!!! an overwhelming majority!!! the 2 churches are the majority of Christerndom put together....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

it is!!! an overwhelming majority!!! the 2 churches are the majority of Christerndom put together....

How come there has to be 2 of them?

 

[Rick Otto]

it is!!! an overwhelming majority!!! the 2 churches are the majority of Christerndom put together....

It's the "putting them together" part that requires a theo-optical illusion.

 

[lionroar0]

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%.

At one point in history it was 100%. I'm including the churches that appeared after the reformation. As best as I have been able to observe. Sometime around the enlightenment this changed.

Not sure why. I think that it would be a good idea to research when documents(as in not the scriptures) started to appear that stated that Mary was not Ever-Virgin and had other children.

Peace

 

[katholikos]

According to the Catholic Catechism, to spread a rumor is a sin.....

..and according to the Catholic Catechism, you are a heretic. Now what?
I enjoy quoting the Catechism

 

[Annolennar]

..and according to the Catholic Catechism, you are a heretic. Now what?
I enjoy quoting the Catechism

Hehehe! The actual matter at hand aside, that made me laugh.

 

[katholikos]

.

 

[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....


.

.. and according to the Catholic Catechism, you are a heretic.

1. Actually, a heretic is a Catholic who DENIES a teaching of the Catholic Denomination. I don't DENY the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and I'm not a registered member of a congregation legally affiliated with the Catholic Denomination, thus I'm not a heretic.


2. You are shown one of my comments to be correct. You have nothing except that your denomination says it's true. You reject that apologetic when the LDS uses it, just as Mormons reject it when you do it. I think you are both correct to reject it. "I say so!" is not dogmatic substantiation. It remains a popularly held unsubstantiated rumor. It remains a very personal, potentially hurtful story about an extremely personal aspect of a person's life for which you have absolutely nothing to substantiate it. It is a potentially unkind, hurtful rumor. And the Catechism says that for a Catholic to spread a rumor is to sin. And sins are not loving.






.

 

[katholikos]

Gonna sic the Mormons on me now? LOL
Mighty weak

 

[Annolennar]

1. Actually, a heretic is a Catholic who DENIES a teaching of the Catholic Denomination. I don't DENY the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and I'm not a registered member of a congregation legally affiliated with the Catholic Denomination, thus I'm not a heretic.


2. According to the LDS, you are a heretic on several issues. How does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary and Joseph were entirely deprived of a normal, healthy, blessed loving sharing of intimacies after Jesus was born?

Wait, so in one sentence you claim that a heretic is a Catholic who denies Catholic teaching, and then you say that according to the LDS we are heretics? That doesn't make much sense.

A heretic is someone who espouses heresy. Heresy being "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox", according to the Oxford English dictionary. You, sir, are a heretic. Most people, even Catholics in fact, are heretics from someone's point of view.

3. You are shown one of my comments to be correct. You have nothing except that your denomination says it's true. You reject that apologetic when the LDS uses it, just as Mormons reject it when you do it. I think you are both correct to reject it. "I say so!" is not dogmatic substantiation. It remains a popularly held unsubstantiated rumor. It remains a very personal, potentially hurtful story about an extremely personal aspect of a person's life for which you have absolutely nothing to substantiate it. It is a potentially unkind, hurtful rumor. And the Catechism says that for a Catholic to spread a rumor is to sin. And sins are not loving.

Nobody has shown anything you've said to be correct, because your argument amounts to theological squirming based on a handful on nonsensical assumptions that Catholics do not share with you, and have no desire to share with you.

I think what you've managed to show is that there is no really good evidence to reject the Marian doctrines, and that it takes quite a bit of twisting things up and wiggling around theologically to even constitute a semi-coherent argument that they "might be" bad.

Surely you realize this? I mean, surely you don't expect us to take the arguement you're using seriously? I ask because, had you posted it once, I would have thought it to be a mildly interesting rhetorical device. But since you insist on posting at every opportunity, I have to wonder if you've yet to realize how silly it sounds from our point of view.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think what you've managed to show is that there is no really good evidence to reject the Marian doctrines

1. I don't reject it. I actually don't reject anything in Catholicism.

2. What I DO reject is your epistemology that if something cannot be proven to be false, it therefore is dogma. You can't prove that Mary was not 8 feet tall, had pink hair and a love for fish tacos and yet you don't embrace any of those things as DOGMAS, thus you reject your own position.

3. You have simply joined the "let's turn tables" tactic of our Catholic and Orthodox friends in this forum. YOU are the ones with the dogma about Mary's sex life. There are two denominations that dogmatically insist on how often she and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus was born, 2 out of the 30,000 denominations Catholics insist exist. The other 29,998 have no dogma (or doctrine or teaching or even an official opinion) about her sex life. Thus, we have no position to support. You do. And it's DOGMA so it needs dogmatic substantiation. This "prove it ain't so!" is just silly evasion and frankly an obvious admission that it has no substantiation. Rumor - a popularly held unsubstantiated report. To spread a rumor is to sin and to sin against someone is NOT to love them, thus the point of this thread created by our Catholic friend.






.

 

[MamaZ]

Hehehe! The actual matter at hand aside, that made me laugh.

So now what does the C Cat. say a heretic is?

 

[Annolennar]

1. I don't reject it. I actually don't reject anything in Catholicism.

2. What I DO reject is your epistemology that if something cannot be proven to be false, it therefore is dogma. You can't prove that Mary was not 8 feet tall, had pink hair and a love for fish tacos and yet you don't embrace any of those things as DOGMAS, thus you reject your own position.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with the first statement, despite the fact that it blatantly contradicts the second statement, because you obviously have no idea what Catholic epistemology is.

Do you seriously want us to argue with you about some position you made up, and defend it as if it was Catholic belief?

3. You have simply joined the "let's turn tables" tactic of our Catholic and Orthodox friends in this forum. YOU are the ones with the dogma about Mary's sex life. There are two denominations that dogmatically insist on how often she and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus was born, 2 out of the 30,000 denominations Catholics insist exist. The other 29,998 have no dogma (or doctrine or teaching or even an official opinion) about her sex life. Thus, we have no position to support. You do. And it's DOGMA so it needs dogmatic substantiation. This "prove it ain't so!" is just silly evasion and frankly and obvious admission that it has no substantiation. Rumor - a popularly held unsubstantiated report. To spread a rumor is to sin and to sin against someone is NOT to love them, thus the point of this thread created by our Catholic friend.

.

I've told you before, playing the numbers game with Catholics is dangerous...

If you take all the "denominations" and add up their adherents, the vast majority of Christians believe in the Marian doctrines. Sure, the Church could pull a "Reformation" and split up their people into tons of tiny sects, and then we could claim that there are more groups who believe in Marian doctrines, but we happen to value that unity.

Whats more, its the apostolic belief, so you've got the weight of history on the side of the Marian doctrines.

So come back with some proof, not to mention a legitimate argument, and maybe you'll get something more than snide remarks in response.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I've told you before, playing the numbers game with Catholics is dangerous...

If you take all the "denominations" and add up their adherents, the vast majority of Christians believe in the Marian doctrines. Sure, the Church could pull a "Reformation" and split up their people into tons of tiny sects, and then we could claim that there are more groups who believe in Marian doctrines, but we happen to value that unity.

I reject your entire apologetic there because I agree with your first statement: Playing the numbers game is dangerous. And I might add: moot.

Whats more, its the apostolic belief, so you've got the weight of history on the side of the Marian doctrines.

1. Actually, Gnosticism is older. Does that mean it's more true? I disagree with your epistemology that old = dogmatic fact.

2. Since no one has shown that those in the first century embraced that Mary Had No Sex EVER, it would seem the older position is to have no position - which is the Protestant stance on her sex life after Jesus was born. I think history is on the side of Protestantism here.

So come back with some proof

You seem to have joined with the other Catholics and Orthodox here in the "let's try to turn the tables" tactic. Friend, I have no dogma about Mary's sex life to prove. I never mentioned anything about proof. And it's YOU with the DOGMA about how often she and Joseph did it (or not). YOU are the one with the story that needs to be substantiated to the level required of dogma and in a manner that your denomination accepts from noncatholics for a dogma - the ball is in YOUR court.


Waiting with anticipation....


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

Friend, I have no dogma about Mary's sex life to prove.

which makes it ever more obvious that you are here to imply contraversy... rather to "state" your posistion....as you admit to have "no position".... That is why no one seems to engage with you since ...you have "no poisition" ....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

which makes it ever more obvious that you are here to imply contraversy...

No.

YOU insist that it is DOGMA that Mary had no sex EVER.
YOU are the one with the dogma.
YOU have the "burden of proof" the requirement for substantiation.

I never "implied" anything beyond my personal opinion that frankly, how often a couple has sex is generally not a matter of highest importance for all 6.5 billion people on the planet but generally is a matter between the two of them, but I didn't state that is dogma, just my personal view.

Since the RCC has a very long history of condemning, accusing, anathematizing, proclaiming heresy, inquasisions, and dispatching Christians a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke, I find it ironic that you'd regard it as inappropriate to hold people accountable for what they dogmaticly insist is fact.


A rumor is a popularly held unsubstantiated story or report.
The Catholic Catechism says to spread such is a SIN.
To sin against someone is NOT to love them (the issue of this thread).
Thus: there is one issue here: Is this DOGMATIC story about the supremely private, intensively personal, potentially embarrassing aspect of Mary's intimate relationship with her husband SUBSTANTIATED to the level of dogma and in a manner and nature that the RCC itself accepts from noncatholics?
Because if not, then the Catholic Catechism seems to suggest the RCC is sinning against Our Blessed Lady and thus NOT loving her.
My OWN concern is far short of that.
I LOVE Mary.
Thus, I CARE what is said about her.
Why, BECAUSE I love her.
She's my Mother.








.

 

[MamaZ]

So I guess where there is no proof of this dogma then it is classified as an old wives tale..

 

[Thekla]

So I guess where there is no proof of this dogma then it is classified as an old wives tale..

an absence of "kerygma" does not indicate an absence of "dogma"

 

[Rick Otto]

an absence of "kerygma" does not indicate an absence of "dogma"

Yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, yet no conclusion (dogma) can be drawn unless your standard of dogma shifts from presentation of facts to presentation of belief in the existence of unpresented facts


Kerygma (Greek: κήρυγμα, kérugma, pronounced "kay-roog-ma") is the Greek word used in the New Testament for preaching (see Luke 4:18-19, Romans 10:14, Matthew 3:1). It is related to the Greek verb κηρύσσω (kērúss&#333, to cry or proclaim as a herald, and means proclamation, announcement, or preaching.
The New Testament teaches that as Jesus launched his public ministry he entered the synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah the prophet. He identified himself as the one Isaiah predicted in Isa 61. The text is a programmatic statement of Jesus' ministry to preach or proclaim (Kerygma), good news to the poor and the blind and the captive.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, yet no conclusion (dogma) can be drawn unless your standard of dogma shifts from presentation of facts to presentation of belief in the existence of unpresented facts


Kerygma (Greek: ???????, kérugma, pronounced "kay-roog-ma") is the Greek word used in the New Testament for preaching (see Luke 4:18-19, Romans 10:14, Matthew 3:1). It is related to the Greek verb ??????? (k?rúss?), to cry or proclaim as a herald, and means proclamation, announcement, or preaching.
The New Testament teaches that as Jesus launched his public ministry he entered the synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah the prophet. He identified himself as the one Isaiah predicted in Isa 61. The text is a programmatic statement of Jesus' ministry to preach or proclaim (Kerygma), good news to the poor and the blind and the captive.

I referenced St. Basil the Great on the definition of "dogma" in EO; I hoped it would help to know that "dogma" in Eo does not have the same definition you use. IE, a standard is being applied that does not exist in those whom you apply the standard to ...