Speak lovingly of Mary

[Rick Otto]

Dogma standards aside, no presentation of fact exists, only presentation of belief in the supposed fact.

 

[katholikos]

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

Bookmark that post ladies and germs.

 

[katholikos]

Dogma standards aside, no presentation of fact exists, only presentation of belief in the supposed fact.

Kinda like your belief in God ?

 

[Philothei]

hahaha...
That was the most hillarius statement ever and I am not allowed to laugh too much yet...
Indeed a statement full of contradiction.

 

[katholikos]

oooh. i didn't know you were a mod

 

[Thekla]

Dogma standards aside, no presentation of fact exists, only presentation of belief in the supposed fact.

which means, it doesn't suit your standards; ok

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

which means, it doesn't suit your standards; ok

Greetings Thekla! Have you seen this thread yet

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5523201

 

[simonthezealot]

Wooweee! Bookmark that post ladies and germs!
It will no doubt come in handy later.

Here is another one to bookmark...WOOWEE
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42624307&postcount=143
Hi CC! I knew it was terryobrien80

 

[Thekla]

Greetings Thekla! Have you seen this thread yet

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5523201

yeah


(did anyone bring up the stone in Daniel 2:34, and 45 ? a prophecy of the virgin birth )

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

yeah


(did anyone bring up the stone in Daniel 2:34, and 45 ? a prophecy of the virgin birth )

I have a study on that, but it relates to the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation.

 

[Philothei]

Dogma standards aside, no presentation of fact exists, only presentation of belief in the supposed fact.

yeah.... if you are the great great.....great nephew of St. John the Baptist you can stand to that standard ....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

yeah.... if you are the great great.....great nephew of St. John the Baptist you can stand to that standard ....

Yeah, JTB is a tough act to follow alright and pretty feisty too.

Matthew 3:9 "And no ye should be thinking to say in yourselves 'a father we are having, the Abraham'. For I am say unto ye, that is able the God out of the stones, these, to raise-up children to the Abraham.

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to-me! and send Lazarus!, that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--that I am being pained in the Flame, this."

 

[lionroar0]

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" ....

Reminds me of an episode of futurama. Where there was an alien race that was always neutral and had a neutral position on everything.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Lionroar0,

"I'm right so when I say I'm right therefore I must be right, why can't you understand that" THAT reminds me of a Catholic and a Mormon debating their dogmas. Friend, IF you were stating that Mary having no sex was just your pious opinion - we likely wouldn't be having this discussion, but you are the one insisting to the very highest level that it is an issue of the greatest certainty and importance. The RCC has excommunicated people and burned them at the stake for disagreeing with its dogmas. I'm been labeled a heretic and anticatholic for much less than disagreeing with a distinctive Catholic dogma. So, friend, unless you are willing to embrace whatever the Mormon or any noncatholic dogmatically says because their denomination says its true, why should anyone hold any regard for your position because your denomination says its true? No one is accusing you of heresy, so it seems we're holding you in greater respect than the RCC is holding us.


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 142 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 entirely 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? YOU have the dogma. The "ball" is in your court. We're waiting. Waiting for something that moves this out of a sinful rumor and to the level of DOGMA, something of a nature that your denomination would accept it for a dogma of a noncatholic.



My perspective....


.




.

 

[Philothei]

I do not believe "in burning" anyone on a stick....

 

[Philothei]

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God
Fr. John Hainsworth

LAST year for the Feast of the Nativity, I gave a lecture about one of the central claims of the Christian faith: the Virgin Birth of Christ. This was all well until I used in passing the phrase “ever-virgin” with reference to the Lord’s Mother. Someone asked, “Do you actually mean that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?” I said yes, that is what the Orthodox Church teaches. The look of surprised bemusement on the audience’s faces said it all. The miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality? That’s impossible!
The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that of course it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest. The Orthodox have no difficulty, then, considering the ever-virginity of Mary a nonnegotiable fact and its alternative unthinkable. But why should this necessarily be so? Why insist on the idea that Mary (who was married, after all) did not go on to have a “normal” married life?

A Consistent and Unbroken Tradition
The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.
Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church’s history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis.

​

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/ar...rticle9174.asp

An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC–AD 50) notes that Moses “separated himself” from his wife Zipporah when he returned from his encounter with God in the burning bush. Another rabbinical tradition, concerning the choosing of the elders of Israel in Numbers 7, relates that after God had worked among them, one man exclaimed, “Woe to the wives of these men!” I cannot imagine that the fellow to the left of him replied, “What do you mean, Joe?” The meaning of the statement would have been immediately apparent.
Whether these stories relate actual events or not, they express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ. That culture understood virginity and abstinence not as a mere rejection of something enjoyable—to what end?—but as something naturally taken up by one whose life has been consecrated by the Lord’s Spirit to be a vessel of salvation to His people. The intervening centuries of social, religious, and philosophical conditioning have made us suspicious of virginity and chastity in a way that no one in the Lord’s time would have been.

​

 

[Uphill Battle]

 

[Annolennar]

Lolcats rock!

 

[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 142 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 entirely 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? YOU have the dogma. The "ball" is in your court. We're waiting. Waiting for something that moves this out of a sinful rumor and to the level of DOGMA, something of a nature that your denomination would accept it for a dogma of a noncatholic.



My perspective...


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

Calling PV "mindless dogma" is unbased.

If someone does not agree with it they would have to have proof for the opposite and unfortunately the opposition has not yet (and never will).
Furthermore althouhg cute your cartoon has no place in this thread as if the kitten is not interested ....she does not have to "participate" in this thread....LOL.....