Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Philothei]

Well, I have no dogma on how often you have sex.

Does that mean I don't care to form a dogma on that? Might it rather mean that either I don't consider how often you have sex to be an issue of highest importance to all people? Or simply that I don't have sufficient data on which to dogmatically state?






.

Both accounts are weak as to form NO OPINION as they point to the fact that one would be of the opinion that EV is not real. If someone debated for years against the EV that is enough proof that he is indeed concerned about the matter not "being on the fence" about it. Most folk who are NOT concerned they accept that BOTH sides could be equally wrong or right thus they are not apt to investigate either side. When one engages in a debate to investigate for one position he has to take the opposing "anti-thesis" to do so. If one knows from the beginning he cannot support either one....IMHO there is no point in proving the other wrong.... as both can be also right! Makes sense?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If She did have sex, that would have no meaningful impact on this dogma?

.

Yes.

I'm amazed by that, but it doesn't change the discussion. This thread is about a particular VOW that is claimed Mary made to God, the precise CONTENT thereof, and the documentation of it being a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER - whether you insist it is a matter of highest importance AND of no meaning or not.




.

 

[Philothei]

Because you said it was true. Does it matter if it is?

Because you gave that as the basis of an apologetic for this Dogma. The apologetic is irrelevant if it's not true.

Only begotten Son of God and this is not dogma? EV is bound to the incarnation .. Having kids by the Ever Virgin does not HAVE to be a dogma since the EV takes care of it... makes sense?

 

[mrmccormo]

I'm amazed by that, but it doesn't change the discussion. This thread is about a particular VOW that is claimed Mary made to God, the precise CONTENT thereof, and the documentation of it being a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER - whether you insist it is a matter of highest importance AND of no meaning or not.




.

If you are so concerned about the vow, why do you dismiss the Protoevangelium of James and early church history?

Or do you still insist that we produce a record that someone pre-100AD believed that Mary took a vow of chastity? No, we don't have to prove that they simply believed that she remained a virgin, but that she took a vow of chastity and someone heard her do it.

If you're interested in the vow, please explain why you dismiss the Protoevangelium and the writings of early church fathers?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Having a no position indeed IMHO means someone does not care to form one


.

Well, I have no dogma on how often you have sex.

Does that mean I don't care to form a dogma on that? Might it rather mean that either I don't consider how often you have sex to be an issue of highest importance to all people? Or simply that I don't have sufficient data on which to dogmatically state?


.

Both accounts are weak as to form NO OPINION as they point to the fact that one would be of the opinion that EV is not real. If someone debated for years against the EV that is enough proof that he is indeed concerned about the matter not "being on the fence" about it. Most folk who are NOT concerned they accept that BOTH sides could be equally wrong or right thus they are not apt to investigate either side. When one engages in a debate to investigate for one position he has to take the opposing "anti-thesis" to do so. If one knows from the beginning he cannot support either one....IMHO there is no point in proving the other wrong.... as both can be also right! Makes sense?

Sorry, no.


Your point was "Having a no position indeed IMHO means someone does not care to form one."


I offered that perhaps the reason would be that either they consider it not of greatest importance AND/OR that they have insufficient basis in which to be dogmatic. You didn't reply to that.


There's no evidence (well, presented) that Mary, Joseph, Jesus, ANY Apostle or anyone who lived in the First Century (and perhaps second and third) had any position on this (you've claimed otherwise but haven't yet presented anything). Is that confirmation that ergo they did not care to form one? Or could it also be possible that they just didn't consider how often couples have sex to be a matter of highest importance for all to know or perhaps just didn't have sufficient data to state as an issue of greatest certainty? Do you see that possibility?





.

 

[Dorothea]

I'm amazed by that, but it doesn't change the discussion. This thread is about a particular VOW that is claimed Mary made to God, the precise CONTENT thereof, and the documentation of it being a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER - whether you insist it is a matter of highest importance AND of no meaning or not.




.

Why did you cut off what I said? That is undermining my response to you and cutting off exactly what my response said.

I believe she made a vow by what she said to the angel Gabriel. My personal opinion and observation. Also, do you know of any virgins/celibates in the Bible that used the word "vow" or said they were vowing to be a virgin or celibate? Can you find that somewhere in the OT or NT?

Again, the reason why Mary was a virgin was because of all the evidence given to you. The reason why it is dogma is because it protects the Incarnation of Christ and His two natures.

 

[Philothei]

Simply put : incarnation of the ONLY begotten Son of God =Ever virginity of Mary : No sex; no kids...no siblings.... End of story

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs" (at least that I know of).
Nor is that the dogma we can discuss here.
THIS thread (and the permitted discussion) is about the dogma of 2 denominations that Mary Had No Sex EVER.





.

You don't understand the dogma because you are insisting that the essence of it is that Mary "had no sex EVER." Her bodily status is only incidental.

If she did not have sex due solely to a medical condition and not because of her internal purity and dedication to God, there would be no dogma. Her virginity would be meaningless. It is her internal purity and dedication to God (being a handmaid of the Lord) that is central to the dogma, not that she had no sex ever.

 

[Philothei]

Sorry, no.


Your point was that to have no dogma on a position is to be weak.

weak? what do you mean?

 

[Philothei]

Sorry, no.


Your point was that to have no dogma on a position is to be weak.

You consider both sides having a weak argument.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You consider both sides having a weak argument.

Well, my CURRENT view is that there is not sufficient basis to say that it IS a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER (thus, I"m not agreeing with two denominations) AND that there is not sufficient basis to say that it is NOT a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER (a position of no denomination).

What has been presented on both sides seems either weak or irrelevant - CLEARLY of a nature no Catholic would accept of a non-catholic for any teaching, much less a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty.

Actually, as I read the "summery" offered earlier in this thread of all the RC and EO apologetics on this, and kept noting the emphasis on how weak each point is, I could not help but think each is actually a FAR, FAR better defense of the position of the other 49,998 denominations - silence, what SEEMS to be the position of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles and everyone who even had the theoretical possibility of knowing Mary (much less knowing this detail of Her sex life up to the day of her death or undeath.


BUT, because I think what is said about Mary matters, I care about this. Truth matters where it comes to the most esteemed human ever to have lived, the Mother of Our Lord, and mine. IF you shouted that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for all 7 billion people to know and the greatest certain to Truth that my mother will have sex 782 times during her lifetime, I'd be concerned about the Truth of that, too! AND why you consider that SO very, very, very important for all to know. But my mother is not important, so how very much more does this matter about Mary?



.

 

[Philothei]

But my mother is not important, so how very much more does this matter about Mary?

simple : your mother is NOT Theotokos!

and circular we go

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV


.

If that's the required evidence of a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, then let's see the confirmation of that. I want to be MUCH "nicer" than Protestants are treated here, so rather than mandating that you prove that at least 51% of ALL believers from 33 AD through today affirmed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER, I'll make it ever so easy for you: Quote from just 2 Christians who lived before 100 AD who state that Mary had no sex ever. Just two (not 51% of all Christians ever to have lived), I don't even question whether they are Christians or not. But be sure it's before 100 AD and that the point of the quote is that She NEVER had sex. I'm just making this MUCH easier to you. I'll wait for that.

Why?

​

​

Because you said it was true. Does it matter if it is?

Because you gave that as the basis of an apologetic for this Dogma. The apologetic is irrelevant if it's not true.





.

 

[Philothei]

You do not see either side being stronger...but as weak so why would it matter what else thinks? Namely what the Church of 2,000 views? Cause the EV is common dogma in both RC and EO and ONLY 200 years ago people started to be "on the fence" with this. That does not prove the numbers that are put forth. Do the math:

2,000 years by x number of living and dead RC and EO christians

 

[Philothei]

.




[/size][/color][/font]

​

Because you said it was true. Does it matter if it is?

Because you gave that as the basis of an apologetic for this Dogma. The apologetic is irrelevant if it's not true.





.[/size][/color][/font]

I was not the one bringing about the "numbers" into the conversation You did Josaih. It is not an "apologetic" but what one can conclude from the dogmatic truth that is declared by our Church (EO And RC) together. We have million denominations in the Protestant church but we have not the numbers.... Thus it is false to say that there are Millions of denom. without having millions of faithful. The majority of the faithful is with the bigger churches namely RC and EO together in this case.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Having kids by the Ever Virgin does not HAVE to be a dogma since the EV takes care of it... makes sense?

No. It makes no sense at all.

Unless you are willing to supply the data from biology that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child. You seem to be confusing Mary having no other kids with it being a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary had no SEX ever. The issue is sex, not kids - unless again, you will enter into the discussion your substantiation that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child being born.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV


.

I was not the one bringing about the "numbers" into the conversation You did Josaih.

Um, no. The quote is from you, not me.

YOU are the one offered as an apologetic to this dogma that (and this is a verbatim quote from YOU), "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV."


YOU are the one saying that "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV." I simply noted that the statement should be true to be regarded - so I asked for the confirmation of such. I made it as easy as possibility could be. You seem to not be interested in whether what you said is true, does this apply to what others say is true, as well?


You are the one who posted, "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV." Will you substantiate it as true?






.

 

[Philothei]

#151 It was firstly brought up here...

 

[Philothei]

Um, no. The quote is from you, not me.

YOU are the one offered as an apologetic to this dogma that (and this is a verbatim quote from YOU), "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV."


YOU are the one saying that "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV." I simply noted that the statement should be true to be regarded - so I asked for the confirmation of such. I made it as easy as possibility could be. You seem to not be interested in whether what you said is true, does this apply to what others say is true, as well?


You are the one who posted, "The majority of the people who are christian in this earth since 33 AD believed in the EV." Will you substantiate it as true?






.

I already did:
St. Jerone,Athanasius, the council of Constantinople, the Protoevangellion etc.

 

[mrmccormo]

What has been presented on both sides seems either weak or irrelevant - CLEARLY of a nature no Catholic would accept of a non-catholic for any teaching, much less a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty.

I think this is your most telling post, CalifornianJosiah.

For some of us, listening to what the early church said and practiced is important. Indeed, to our Catholic and Orthodox friends here, it is of the utmost importance, because these teachings and t(T)raditions are interwoven with the fabric of their church.

On the other hand, you couldn't care less what any church father says. You see no problem in accepting a piece of what one church father says and then disregarding anything else you don't agree with. Case in point: when I presented Martin Luther's stance and Augustine's stance on the perpetual virginity of Mary, you didn't bat an eye. You dodged. Your buffet style of taking a few doctrines here, adding in a few doctrines there isn't unique, but it is most certainly inconsistent, and it's most certainly not the same method that the rest of us here are applying.

So, ultimately, you have to come to the realization that people in this thread view "proof" in a fundamentally different way than you do. You want a written document from pre-100AD or a VHS tape or something like that (while completely brushing aside any and all other forms of evidence).

That's fine. None of us here can force you to believe something, nor can we impose our own guidelines of proof on to you.

However, don't be so surprised or dismissive of people who have decided to consider all of what a church father says, not just bits and pieces.