Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

no one talked about that ... We say she is ever virgin
Thanks waiting for your reply.

Does "virgin" to you have nothing to do with intercourse?
Are you saying that She is a PERPETUAL VIRGIN but that the RCC and EO are entirely silent on whether she ever had intercourse or not? I must say, I studied this for some years when I was active in the Church and that would all be "news" to me. And to my Catholic teachers.



My dictionary:

Perpetual = lasting or enduring forever.
Virgin = One (especially a young woman) who has not had intercourse.

If you don't like what these words say, I'm confused why you are defending what they are saying as the highest matter of importance and certainty? Why would you be offended by something you insist is loving and respectful to dogmatically tell everyone and insist that they accept?





.

 

[Philothei]

Was it helpful to you in explaining my thoughts/feelings about all this and Our Mother?

What is better to call her Ever virgin or "no-sex-ever"? ... what is more respectuful? in your opinion ...

 

[Philothei]

Does "virgin" to you have nothing to do with intercourse?
Are you saying that She is a PERPETUAL VIRGIN but that the RCC and EO are entirely silent on whether she ever had intercourse or not? I must say, I studied this for some years when I was active in the Church and that would all be "news" to me. And to my Catholic teachers.

ha??? What does this mean? She is ever-virgin she has had no relation with a man period that is what it means in the EO and as far as I know RC.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What is better to call her Ever virgin or "no-sex-ever"? ... what is more respectuful? in your opinion ...

They mean exactly the same thing.

Love and respect would require that this matter of dogma be substantiated as dogmatically true; seems to ME there should also be some authorization from Our Lady that this should be told to everyone as a matter of highest importance. But "no sex ever" and "perpetual virgin" mean exactly the same thing at least in the western world, again, does the term "virgin" to the Orthodox mean someone who has had sex or is the term entirely unrelated to that issue? Does "perpetual" not mean ever or forever to the Orthodox, does it mean frequently or have nothing at all do do with whether or how often it happens?



Unlike Mary, I will actually inform you that I'm a virgin. That means one thing: I"ve never had sex. You are hereby authorized to say that I'm a virgin and to say I've never had sex (they mean exactly the same thing). I can't say anything about "perpetual," (LOL) - I'm 20 years old and still single, but it is my intent until I'm married... Now, do you have a quote and authorization such as this from Our Blessed Lady? I don't from you, but I note that you are married. I'm certain you'd not be offended or hurt or angry but rather you would regard it as very loving and respectful if I told all 6.5 billion people as a matter of highest importance and certainty how often I've been told you and your beloved have sex or not (if anyone had told me - I would hope they would be loving and respectful enough to not do so - but that's a whole other issue here, how did the RCC and EO learn this?).


My sister in Christ, I don't know how often my parents have sex. Or what positions they use or frankly anything about it. I'm pretty sure they are not perpretual virgins (because I'm pretty sure I am one of their children) but I know nothing about their frequency or anything else. Don't think me a prude for this, but I honestly don't regard it as my business - this is an issue between the two of them, and from all I could tell from my years at home, I gathered they had a blessed sharing in that regard. I suppose, MANY years after their deaths, sometime might come along and say they had sex in a certain position and 2.5 times per week on average. If I was still alive, I've been raising the same issues I am here in this thread because our Catholic friend who started this thread hit the nail on the head - this all has to do with love and respect for Our Mother (and I might have added, why is this a matter of highest importance for all to know and accept?). Frankly, I know less about Mary in this regard and I love Her even more. Seems to ME my love and respect for her and her marriage suggest much the same as it does for my earthly mother and her marriage. Now, read my "explanation" post to you (long as it is) again.




.

 

[Philothei]

What does your third and forth paragraphs have to do with the topic?

What your explicit sexual talk has to do with the topic?

 

[Philothei]

They mean exactly the same thing.

Love and respect would require that this matter of dogma be substantiated as dogmatically true; seems to ME there should also be some authorization from Our Lady that this should be told to everyone as a matter of highest importance. But "no sex ever" and "perpetual virgin" mean exactly the same thing at least in the western world, again, does the term "virgin" to the Orthodox mean someone who has had sex or is the term entirely unrelated to that issue? Does "perpetual" not mean ever or forever to the Orthodox, does it mean frequently or have nothing at all do do with whether or how often it happens?



Unlike Mary, I will actually inform you that I'm a virgin. That means one thing: I"ve never had sex. You are hereby authorized to say that I'm a virgin and to say I've never had sex (they mean exactly the same thing). I can't say anything about "perpetual," (LOL) - I'm 20 years old and still single, but it is my intent until I'm married... Now, do you have a quote and authorization such as this from Our Blessed Lady? I don't from you, but I note that you are married. I'm certain you'd not be offended or hurt or angry but rather you would regard it as very loving and respectful if I told all 6.5 billion people as a matter of highest importance and certainty how often I've been told you and your beloved have sex or not (if anyone had told me - I would hope they would be loving and respectful enough to not do so - but that's a whole other issue here, how did the RCC and EO learn this?).


My sister in Christ, I don't know how often my parents have sex. Or what positions they use or frankly anything about it. I'm pretty sure they are not perpretual virgins (because I'm pretty sure I am one of their children) but I know nothing about their frequency or anything else. Don't think me a prude for this, but I honestly don't regard it as my business - this is an issue between the two of them, and from all I could tell from my years at home, I gathered they had a blessed sharing in that regard. I suppose, MANY years after their deaths, sometime might come along and say they had sex in a certain position and 2.5 times per week on average. If I was still alive, I've been raising the same issues I am here in this thread because our Catholic friend who started this thread hit the nail on the head - this all has to do with love and respect for Our Mother (and I might have added, why is this a matter of highest importance for all to know and accept?). Frankly, I know less about Mary in this regard and I love Her even more. Seems to ME my love and respect for her and her marriage suggest much the same as it does for my earthly mother and her marriage. Now, read my "explanation" post to you (long as it is) again.




.

\\

This is ridiculous example... and quite disturbing no one is talking about that at all... What you say has no bearing on the topic... I told you before but you insist on saying the same...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

http://members.aol.com/linden59/bvm.html





Speak lovingly.

Ok, I will speak lovingly of mary just as the OP ask.

And with that LLOJ bows out.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What does your third and forth paragraphs have to do with the topic?

What your explicit sexual talk has to do with the topic?

It IS the topic.

"Virgin" = One (especially a young woman) who has not had sexual intercourse.
When you insist on telling all 6.5 billion (including children) that it is a matter of highest importance that they know and docilicly accept that Mary was a perpetual virgin OBVIOUSLY what you are saying is that Mary never once had sex. It's YOUR teaching , not mine. I shouldn't be rebuked for what you insist MUST be told and believed as a matter of highest importance.



I love, adore, revere, and in a sense worship Our Blessed Lady, who is the Mother of God and chief among the saints. I love her more than my own mother.

BECAUSE of this, I respect her and believe that we must speak the truth about her. All generations are to call her blessed! The issue of this thread, created by our Catholic friend IS EXACTLY THE POINT HERE: Is it distinctively loving and respectful to spread stories about someone if it is not substantiated that such is true? However well intended. However popular the rumor.

I realize that those in 3 denominations believe it IS true, of course they do. In fact, they insist that it is true to the very highest level of certainty and importance. Okay. I accept that they BELIEVE it is, just as Mormons believe some things about Joseph Smith and millions believe in Bigfoot and alien abductions - I'm NOT at all, in any way or to any degree, questioning anyone's sincerity here. It is a nearly universal characteristic of rumors that they are popularly held to be true. We all know that. So, the issue is singular: Is it TRUE (not, do many believe it is)?

The Catholic Catechism (correctly, I believe) states that to spread a rumor (a popularly held, often believed but unsubstantiated story or report) is a sin. It specifically lists spreading rumors as an common violation of the command: "Bear no false witness." My accompany book to the Catechism explains that rumors are often popular, usually believed and may be spread innocently BUT (it stresses) it is a horrible sin for it bears false witness - and the one doing so is aware that they story carries with it no substantiation. The RCC calls spreading rumors to be a SIN. IMHO, sinning against someone is not loving them. Do you agree? Do you follow me?

Now, IF we were talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, or even whether it is DOGMA that Bigfoot exists, maybe the rumor would be fairly "harmless" (can sin be harmless?). But this obsession about Mary's supremely private, extremely intimate, altogether personal "relationships" with her husband hardly seems harmless. It seems enormous in its potential to offend, hurt, embarrass and even anger. AND I know all the Catholics and Orthodox agree with me on this. No Catholic or Orthodox married person is posting that it is a matter of supreme importance for all 6.5 billion people on the planet (kids included) to KNOW to the highest degree of certainty how often they have sex with their spouse (if at all). The very thought of such causes them to reply with offense and perhaps anger, and perhaps with a "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, BOZO!" And, I completely agree with them. I just wonder why they are SO sure, SO entirely certain - to the very highest level of certainty - that Mary has a 180 degree different feeling about this. And of course, they KNOW how often they have sex, they don't know how often Mary did, it's a rumor. Read the next paragraph.

When people ask, our of love and respect for Our Blessed Lady, how do you KNOW this to be true and what permission do you have to share this (VERY necessary questions), the odd thing is: no one replies. All we get is pages and pages of "The ones who believe it believe it!" Okay, that's typically how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving). Perhaps we get, "It's believed by lots of people!" Okay, that's typicially how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving) - and the same could be said of alien abductions or Bigfoot. Sometimes we get the "a wife sharing loving marital intimacies with her husband makes her defiled, sinful, horrible, dirty, impure - and Mary can't be those things." It doesn't substantiate a thing and reveals a pretty sexist, unbiblical view of women, marital intimacies and the Sacrament of Marriage. Occasionally one offers some Scriptures, but OBVIOUSLY they don't teach that Mary always remained a virgin, as all immediately notice. The view is simply IMPUTED into the texts - it is the INTERPETATION of the texts that "supports" the view, not the texts. All this is very obvious. Read on...

Now, we are speaking of faith here, not mathematics, so of course I don't expect a "bar" of proof. ALL I've asked for, ALL ANY PROTESTANT HERE HAS ASKED FOR, is "substantiation" of a nature and level that you'd accept from others. If I said, "It is dogma that Philothei has sex 2.6 times per week, on average" - what substantiation for that would YOU regard as sufficient to verify that statement to the level of dogma? Or if a Mormon says, "it is dogma that God has a Grandma" (It's not, although many Mormons do believe that - it probably does qualify as a Mormon rumor, just not dogma), what substantiation form that Mormon would you accept? Read on...

OF COURSE, you can (just like the Mormon) insist, "It's true because the one spreading the rumor says it is." And if you accept that from the Mormon, I'll accept it from you. But what you need to acknowledge is that this isn't substantiation at all, of any nature or level, it's just looking in the mirror. AGAIN, if we weren't talking about someone I so very much LOVE and RESPECT (the issues of this thread!), if this were about Bigfoot or whatever, I probably wouldn't care. But this is entirely about the surpremely private sex life of my Mother. The potential here for hurt, pain, anger, offense to Her and thus to Her Son is ENORMOUS!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE I love Our Blessed Lady, I think we need more than, "the one who is spreading the rumor about her says it's true." And it seems obvious, that's all you got.





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

OF COURSE, you can (just like the Mormon) insist, "It's true because the one spreading the rumor says it is." And if you accept that from the Mormon, I'll accept it from you.

I lied, here I am again . From what I read of the OP a lot of the views concerning mary is also based on apparitions. Did any of those say she was always a virgin?

 

[Philothei]

I lied, here I am again . From what I read of the OP a lot of the views concerning mary is also based on apparitions. Did any of those say she was always a virgin?

Now you have to bow again when you come in.... Did your parents teach you any manners? *just kidding*....

Although I do give you an A for good mannersand calling Mary Ever Virgin .....or not even calling her anything at all...

At the same token no... I am not sure that Mary would talk about herself in apparitions... at least I have not heard it by my tradition although we can do a search to see ....

My grandma saw her and she told her to leave the house the next day as the communists were after her.... Most of the times she appears to people who are in danger... even if people are not asking for that. This is from stories I personally have heard from friends and family. I also have heard that she does not appear to those who are in need not to those who are already believers..... Example?

My own father who was an agnostic...
She came to him prior to his surgery... not a so safe one and he did recognize her in his dream and she did told him her name ...to find out later there was a monastery in Greece named after that specific name she gave him.... Coincidence ??? What more important if Theotokos thought my father believing her ever -virgin....how come she wasn't offended?


Does that answer your question?

 

[Philothei]

If I said, "It is dogma that Philothei has sex 2.6 times per week, on average" -

poor example. Where do we say anything about this? Ever-virginity has to do with "staying celibant" in marriage and you are either a celibant in marriage ro not

 

[Philothei]

that Mary has a 180 degree different feeling about this. And of course, they KNOW how often they have sex, they don't know how often Mary did, it's a rumor. Read the next paragraph.

You can repeat this as many times you want you have no proof for the opposite anyways... The belief of Ever virginity cannot be refuted from the Bible and in this thread and others it has been well substantiated. Rumor is when it has not been "radified" by the Church... and it has.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You have no proof for the opposite anyways...

I find your rubric most remarkable and more than a little dangerous...



So, a story is dogmatically factual and must be spread around anywhere to anyone as long as I can't PROVE that it's wrong. Really? That seems to be what you are saying...

So if someone tells me that one of my profs has sex with several students in the class, if I can't PROVE this false, then it's dogmatically true and I am to share it as a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty with all the world's 6.5 billion people and they must accept it with docility. Wow. A remarkable position!

The belief of Ever virginity cannot be refuted from the Bible

Jesus' visit to the Americas and establishment of His Authoritative Church here as the LDS cannot be refuted from the Bible, either. The Bible says NOTHING about His being in the Americas for founding any denomination - here or anywhere else. So, since it cannot be refuted by the Bible, therefore , your position states, it is DOGMA that Jesus visited the Americas and founded the LDS as His Church, and this is the highest level of certainty and importance which all the world must know and accept with docility or be a heretic whose salvation is in question.

Mary being 8 feet tall, having pink hair, a hankerin for fish tacos and 52 girls and 48 boys can't be refuted from the Bible either (the Bible says NOTHING about her heighth, hair color, favorite foods or any children - thus it CANNOT be refuted that what I said is true). Thus, according to your rubric, it's therefore DOGMA - the highest level of certainty and importance that Mary was 8 feet tall, had pink hair, loved fish tacos and had 100 children. I find this position of "it's dogma unless the Bible refutes it" to be very amazing (and more than a little dangerous).

I guess, by the rubric you are defending here, I could just make up anything I want about you. No matter how personal or private or potentially embarrassing or hurtful or offensive. IF I CANNOT PROVE IT FALSE and if it's not refuted in the Bible, then it's dogma. I can (indeed must) spread it around and tell all 6.5 billion people on the earth that it's DOGMA that (fill in with any rumor about you - don't matter what) and if they don't accept it as true with docility, they are a heretic . AND in keeping with the point of this thread, it is your position that my spreading this about you everywhere to everyone as dogma is distinctively LOVING toward you. Wow. I find your position surprising, remarkable and (to be blunt) disturbing.


Did you know it is the rule in every system of epistemology known to me that the one making the claim has the "burden of proof."






.

 

[Philothei]

Your prof, the big foot, etc....are not in any reseamblance have anything to do with the Theotokos... Your paradigms could be from the Bible... but what they have to do with Theotokos it beats me aswell all others here...

 

[Philothei]

it's therefore DOGMA - the hightest level of certainty and importance that Mary was 8 feet tall, had pink hair, loved fish tacos and had 100 children. Are you realizing the worthlessness and danger in your rubric here?

that is not what is been said about Theotokos though ... What is said is not some outrageous claim as the one you state... let me ask you though...


It is not in the Bible that we should water our plants... Does this mean using your logic it is not allowed to do so?

Just because the ever-virginity is NOT as black and white in the Bible that means that it is not true or it is not appropriate to say so?

Show me where in the bible it says that we should not "think that Theotokos" is ever-virgin??? that we are not "allowed" to think of her as such?

Even so Theotokos says that she "knows no man" you keep insisting that she is not an ever virgin .... I think that you are the one who at fault here....not us.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

what they have to do with Theotokos it beats me

I addressed your epistemological rubric. You stated, "You have no proof for the opposite...The belief of Ever virginity cannot be refuted from the Bible." Thus, your stated position is that DOGMA exists unless I have proof to contrary or the Bible refutes it.

Okay. Then spreading a story about my profs sexual "adventures" is not only appropriate and loving (the point of this thread and context of our discussion) and it's DOGMA - the highest level of certainty and importance that all must be told and must accept with docility because the rubric you extended and defended has been met: I can't PROVE he didn't do these things and the Bible doesn't refute (the Bible never even mentions him). I find your rubric remarkable and surprising (and dangerous). I was HOPING (maybe even expecting) that you'd realize the error of your rubric with my examples but.....




.

 

[Thekla]

As per my earlier post(s): based on CJs standards, all Christians should only use those portions of the NT which can be verified authentic based on extant 1st c. texts.
The authenticity of the rest of the NT is a RUMOUR.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just because the ever-virginity is NOT as black and white in the Bible that means that it is not true or it is not appropriate to say so?

You raise two entirely different issues....

1. Does the reality (you are now admitting) that the rumor is not substantiated mean that it's false? OF COURSE NOT (which is just one reason why I've insisted the view is not heresy). But, again, does that make it dogma? If it's POSSIBLE, does that make it DOGMA? Is it POSSIBLE that Mary was 8 feet tall? Sure. Is it DOGMA that she was?

2. Perhaps you are disagreeing with the Catholic Church and arguing that some rumors aren't sinful but rather respectful and loving (not sure I agree with you on that, but okay). IF we were talking about Bigfoot, I might not be too concerned. MAYBE no one is going to be hurt too much over whether your Denomination insists as a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty that all must know and accept with docility that Bigfoot exists. (Well, there IS that matter of people being declared heretics, condemned in inquasisions, and perhaps dispatched to heaven early smelling like smoke because they don't accept as dogma that Bigfoot exists). BUT, we're talking about my Mother here. We're talking about someone I love, adore, revere, hold in highest esteem and in a sense worship. I love Her more than my earthly mother. (THIS is the point of this thread, you know). THEREFORE, I care what people say about her - especially dogmatically. I CARE if it's true or false. I CARE how she feels about it. This particular rumor deals with a supremely personal, intensively private, extremely intimate aspect of her marital live - one with HUGE potential for offensive, hurt, pain, embarrassment and even anger. I do not want to hurt Our Blessed Lady (and thus Her Son). As I've tried to point out to you, this is not a matter of pure acedemics - this is an extremely personal issue about Our Mother. Now, IF you had told me: "I'd be HONORED and feel very respected and loved if everyone would tell the whole world about my sex life with my husband!" then I'd be apt to chuck this all up to a huge conflict in values between us, but you don't seem to be of that opinion.

Show me where in the bible it says that we should not "think that Theotokos" is ever-virgin??? that we are not "allowed" to think of her as such?

Where does it say that we should not think that Joseph Smith is God's Prophet and Christ's Apostles for the Founding of His Restored Church as the LDS? Where does it say you are not allowed to think that? Are you beginning to see the error of your rubric here?


Maybe your point is you can think that my Prof has sex with all the cute girls in my class because the Bible doesn't specifically say anything about my Prof or the coeds in my class. I think your argument surpremely weak - and frankly disagree with you. But we're not talking about what you privately THINK. We're talking about the story being made DOGMA, spread around the world to those of all ages, told as a matter of highest importance and certainty, it must be a accepted as dogmatically true with docility and to not do so is to be a heretic and as my Catholic priest pointed out, heaven is not populated by heretics.

Even so Theotokos says that she "knows no man" you keep insisting that she is not an ever virgin .... I think that you are the one who at fault here....not us.

It's frustrating that OBVIOUSLY you don't read what I post....

I've NEVER remotely even suggested that she had sex. Or not. YOU are the one with the dogma. You keep trying to turn the tables....

Yes, she said to the angel at the Announciation (in present tense) that she was a virgin. Everyone agrees with that. Everyone agrees she was a virgin then. I could rightly say, "I am a virgin." "I have not known a woman." Sister, OBVIOUSLY, that has nothing to do with saying, "And I will forever more be a perpetual virgin and will NEVER EVER have sex, not once." I hope you can see the difference. ?



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

Given the lack of evidence for the authenticity of the bulk of the NT, do you think that much of what you believe is based on rumor ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As per my earlier post(s): based on CJs standards, all Christians should only use those portions of the NT which can be verified authentic based on extant 1st c. texts.
The authenticity of the rest of the NT is a RUMOUR.

AGAIN, according to the Catholic Catechism, it is a sin (and thus UNLOVING - the point of this thread) to spread an unsubstantiated story. Thus, the issue is whether it is substantiated. What I've said is that such is to be done in a manner and to a level that the Catholic Church would accept as valid from other, there's no reason for us to accept a substantiation from Catholics that they deny as authoritative, valid or sufficient. We both accept the infallible authority of Scripture. We all accept the fallible authority of history. The context of what you are stating is that a Catholic posted used a third type of substantiation: popularity and historicity. The argument was made that it is DOGMA - the highest level of certainty, (NOW READ THIS) "because it has always been believed." Of course, this is an "authority" that Catholics and the RCC reject so it fails at that point, but I simply and only asked that the statment be substantiation. Since the whole argument was that " it's true because it was ALWAYS believed," THEREFORE I asked for some verification of that. I could have asked for statements from every century since creation showing that all homo sapiens believe the rumor about Mary's sex life, but I often make things very simple for our Catholic friends and I limited it to just one century - the First. Since the whole argument was that it's true "because it was ALWAYS believed" and this stated as objective fact, therefore the Catholic has some verification for that. All I did was ask for verification of a historical statement of fact that was used as substantiation for the rumor. Friend, if I said that it's a historical fact that Joseph Ratzinger stated that Luther was right and the Catholic Church is wrong, I just have a hunch you'd ask for that to be verifed and substantiated. I did the same. Did anyone quote everyone (or even just one person) from the First Century that believed that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin (not that it was true, just that it was believed - the rumor existed)? Nope. So, no Scriptures to confirm it. No evidence that it was always even around. Anything else? So far, all we've gotten in all these pages is: "The rumor is dogmatic fact because the one spreading it says it is."




.