Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

How curious... revealing.....


Do you think your sex life is a private matter - and what is shouted about such as a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of truth - is inappropriate? And yet do a complete, absolute, total reversal when it comes to one whom we all regard as of MUCH greater esteem than you (take no offense, I'm sure you agree that She is)? Curious.... truth matters when it concerns you, but.... It's a private matter when it's your sex life, but.....



Yeah, I agree, it IS curious.... It would seem that there is much ado about how when a WIFE shares loving intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage, it makes HER defiled, impure, undevoted, uncommitted to God (or at least less so), but no mention of the husband. Oh well, that may have been an oversight on the several poster's part, maybe it makes him defiled too.






.

Nah ... read back through the thread (over years) and the protestations about the ever-virginity as dogma as a public pronouncement about someone's private sex life. I wasn't the one saying that

So if one does believe this, to the extent that one attacks publicly stated belief on the matter, then to make public inquiry on the matter regarding others, and to use illustrations referring to others sex lives, seems at the least inconsistent

Why always mention women in the illustrations, though

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

How curious... revealing.....


Do you think your sex life is a private matter - and what is shouted about such as a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of truth - is inappropriate? And yet do a complete, absolute, total reversal when it comes to one whom we all regard as of MUCH greater esteem than you (take no offense, I'm sure you agree that She is)? Curious.... truth matters when it concerns you, but.... It's a private matter when it's your sex life, but.....



Yeah, I agree, it IS curious.... It would seem that there is much ado about how when a WIFE shares loving intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage, it makes HER defiled, impure, undevoted, uncommitted to God (or at least less so), but no mention of the husband. Oh well, that may have been an oversight on the several poster's part, maybe it makes him defiled too.






.

Nah ... read back through the thread (over years) and the protestations about the ever-virginity as dogma as a public pronouncement about someone's private sex life. I wasn't the one saying that

I have a college degree, but my several readings of that sentence just can't make heads or tails of it - or how it in any sense is a response to what I posted. Perhaps you should read what I posted and then respond?

So if one does believe this, to the extent that one attacks publicly stated belief on the matter

You seem intent on reversing the positions here....


YOU are the one with a belief here.
YOU are the one with the DOGMA here.

Yes - we have two denominations that shout in the loudest, boldest way possible (dogma) that it is a dogmatic FACT of highest importance for and to all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever. No other has any proclaimations on this AT ALL - they are all "silent" (as were all the Apostles, according to Phileothei). I'm not saying it's such important issue how often women have sex up to and including the day of their death or undeath (if at all) - you are (at least in the case of one woman). I'm not saying how often ANY mother has had sex during their time on earth - not you, not my mother, not your mother - YOU are. If truth matters in matters of greatest certainty of truth, if truth matters when it comes to the sex lives of mothers (including the most esteemed one who ever has lived), then I don't think the questions from non RC and EO members are at all unreasonable, in fact, they seem mandated. Asking for WHY you shout THIS as dogmatic fact, as a matter of greatest certainty of truth, as a matter of highest importance for and to all, is not the same as "attacking" it. No one is pic'n on pur you.


Yes, that you seem to think it inappropriate to discuss (or even inquire or think about) the sex lives of mothers and yet you shout in the boldest way possible about the sex life of the most esteemed mother ever IS curious. And revealing.

Why always mention women in the illustrations, though

Yes, I agree - it IS curious. This point about how even a single case of the loving sharing of intimices within the Sacrament of Marriage means defilement, undevotion, uncommitement is always mentioned EXCLUSIVELY in reference to the wife - the woman - IS curious. Why is that? I offered maybe it was just an oversight on the part of the several in these threads that make that point. But yes - you DO seem correct on that - members of the RC and EO only bring this up in reference to WOMEN, the wife. Curious, I agree.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if you have an issue with Mariology and EV discussed I think it would be wise to take to the MSC not in a thread.

I don't understand you....


MSC is specifically for this purpose only, "Forum to make a suggestion or bring a complaint to senior staff's attention." That comes VERBATIM from the subheading of the forum. Anything else placed there would be a rule violation. You wouldn't even see it since you aren't senior staff. Why are you suggesting that the Mariology and Hagiography Forum is the wrong place to discuss Marian dogmas? Why don't you want them here - in a public forum - but in a private forum instead, one that doesn't permit such and where you'd not be aware of it? I don't understand.




.





.

 

[Dorothea]

I agree, context is important.

And I agree, this is on one level as you say.

But there are other layers, and historical reference does attest that among some Jews as detractors was the belief that Mary was indeed an adulterer (see the quote reported from Celsus that I provided).

The legitimacy of the one Christ refers to as "witness" (here father, Christ meaning God) is important. The response is to deny that the father of Christ is God, and note that Christ's actual parentage is in question.
(Of course people at that time could count months !)

Well, let's just think about this for a moment. Mary bore Christ around 15 years of age. So, we are to believe that after she had Christ, she had a bunch of other children (how many are people saying? 6 or something? Three brothers and three or a couple of sisters? Nonetheless, all of a sudden, Mary has children who are apparently as old as Christ or older. When did this happen? If they are all older, when could she have had then since her first born was Jesus, as the biblical account says. If after, how did she end up with children older than Jesus?

 

[Dorothea]

Pure and simple, washedagain, your insistence on a document from the 1st century is not a reasonable demand.

When you make a statement like...



...pardon me for thinking that you claimed the doctrine simply popped up in the 4th century. Silly me. You clearly meant something else.

Based on your posts, you'd rather blatantly ignore historical facts than to engage in conversation. You'd rather flippantly apply your own opinion as to what is or is not "valid" (without any substantiation whatsoever) than to sit down and express the foundation for your skepticism.

Sorry, but nothing at this point is going to convince you of the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary. No historical fact, no recording, not even the body of Mary herself is going to convince you.

I suppose I'll leave you with this "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe".

Here's some early Church Fathers talking about Mary as the Virgin - capital, which indicates a title...unchanged.

St. Justin Martyr (d.165), the early Church's first great apologist, describes Mary as the "obedient virgin" through whom humanity receives its Savior, in contrast to Eve, the "disobedient virgin," who brings death and disobedience to the human race:

(The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings.... And through her was he born…. (3)

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (d.202), great defender of Christian orthodoxy and arguably the first true Mariologist, establishes Mary as the New Eve who participates with Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, becoming through her obedience the "cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race":

Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a Virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.... And so it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by Mary's obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief. (4)

Mary in the Early Church - Dr. Mark Miravalle

 

[Dorothea]

Since the Bible says that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus was born, that's what I'm going to believe over people's nonsense traditions. Seriously, if Jesus was Joseph's firstborn and had brothers, where do you think those brothers came from?

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”[c]

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

I don't believe that's really researching and understanding history, the Jewish tradition, the Hebrew and Greek translations before the English ones. Apparently, you believe this even though nowhere does it say Mary had any other children, that she was the mother of any but Jesus.

 

[Dorothea]

I lost you? Okay, I'll try again.

The point of the dogma is that Mary had dedicated herself as a handmaid to the Lord, and her virginity is her state of inward purity and dedication to God, so much so that He chose her to be Theotokos, and all the implications of who Christ is based on this. Her bodily status, which you keep focusing on as if it's the entire point of the dogma, is only an outward sign of her true virginity which is her total dedication to the Lord - and this purity, by definition, precludes any passions of the flesh/mind (this is not just sexual). It is her internal purity - her true virginity - which causes her not to have sex. It isn't the fact that she didn't have sex that causes her to be a virgin. The way you focus on her sex life indicates that your understanding of the dogma is backwards.

Of course, sex does not always result in children. My point is that when other denominations (and "nondenominations") teach that Mary had other children, they are teaching that Mary and Joseph had sex. Unless you think they're teaching that Mary became pregnant with Jesus' "siblings" in some other way?

 

[Dorothea]

Again, you are getting things backwards. It is taught that Mary is The Ever-Virgin, yes. But the heart of her virginity is not that she did not have sex. You are applying your definition of virgin, one of bodily status only, to the EO dogma, and this is where you keep messing up. This was brought up much earlier in the thread and ignored. It was brought up again and totally dismissed by you for not conforming to your agenda, which is to discuss Mary's sex life because you personally don't see the relevance to this thread of defining virginity in any terms other than physical. You do not get to define the EO dogma based on your narrow definition of virginity. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Mary, in her own words, is a handmaid of the Lord. The EO position is that this is an "undisturbed orientation of the whole personal life towards God, a complete self-dedication. To be truly a "handmaid of the Lord" means precisely to be ever-virgin, and not to have any fleshly preoccupations."





I was illustrating how sex is not part of a life which is 100% devoted to God. The angels do not have sex. Humans will not have sex in heaven. Moses did not have sex after his encounter with God. Other examples have been given that demonstrate this same concept.



Read what I wrote above. There is Biblical evidence that sex is not part of 100% purity and devotion to God. St. Paul says that it is better to be celibate than to be married (1 Corinthians 7). Why do you think he says this?



Because the dogma is that Mary was the EV, which means that she was internally completely pure and devoted to God (a handmaid of the Lord). Someone who is internally a virgin will not have sex because such purity and devotion precludes the fleshly passions which are implicit in having sexual relations.

 

[Thekla]

Well, let's just think about this for a moment. Mary bore Christ around 15 years of age. So, we are to believe that after she had Christ, she had a bunch of other children (how many are people saying? 6 or something? Three brothers and three or a couple of sisters? Nonetheless, all of a sudden, Mary has children who are apparently as old as Christ or older. When did this happen? If they are all older, when could she have had then since her first born was Jesus, as the biblical account says. If after, how did she end up with children older than Jesus?

Given nursing as the primary nutritional source for the first 6 months at least, assuming nighttime feeds (normal for most if not all infants), the typical birth spacing should be 2 1/2 years.

Per studies, nursing (until recently) occurs for up to 4 years of age in most cultures.

Does anyone know of sources for infant and child feeding patterns in 1st c. Jewish communities ?

 

[Philothei]

I don't understand you....


MSC is specifically for this purpose only, "Forum to make a suggestion or bring a complaint to senior staff's attention." That comes VERBATIM from the subheading of the forum. Anything else placed there would be a rule violation. You wouldn't even see it since you aren't senior staff. Why are you suggesting that the Mariology and Hagiography Forum is the wrong place to discuss Marian dogmas? Why don't you want them here - in a public forum - but in a private forum instead, one that doesn't permit such and where you'd not be aware of it? I don't understand.




.





.

I have no problem discussing EV here or anywhere. The EFC are clean that the EV is a dogma and they were explicitly clear that her virginity was of highest importance to the Church life and to God. You must read my post in contenxt and in its totality maybe you will realize that you missunderstood what I said. I find the EV NOT a gossip to discuss it and also it is not off topic to the forum or to a Christian to discuss it. Out of all denominations I have talked to (its members) most do not see that like that at all. Some believe it; some do not others chose not to care but none ever have said that it is gossip... that is indeed a peculiar thesis to take.

It seems that all ECFs were also gossiping about Christ when they said he is sinless... meaning He is a virgin (sinless would indicate that also).

 

[Thekla]

The Bible is full of "gossip" by that definition; this one "knowing" that one, calling people virgin, using the term prostitute, stating that someone is "born of ___" , etc.

Oh my !

 

[Philothei]

IN MY OPINION, "if you were as devoted to Mary as I, it wouldn't matter if what is shouted about Her is true or not" is just the opposite of reasonable and appropriate to me.

So why would "in your opinion" be less devoted to Mary if I beleive in her EV?

-I do not need to mention it in my daily prayers to her to intercede
-I do not preach it as the number one dogmatic truth
-I do not pray to her BECAUSE of it but Her participation in the incarnation
-I do emulate and praise her for her devotion to her Son and to God like I would do also for the Apostles.


The EV for me is just one more of the mysteries that God alone understands and nothing for me "to inverstigate". I fail to see how this would dishonor the Theotokos who is the greatest among women and the most "blessed".

Devotion to Theotokos is not the only aim here but "right honor" is also a big consideration. And we as EO do not use that word pretty often as all devotion indeed should be given to Christ.

 

[Philothei]

Yes, that you seem to think it inappropriate to discuss (or even inquire or think about) the sex lives of mothers and yet you shout in the boldest way possible about the sex life of the most esteemed mother ever IS curious. And revealing.

So do the ECFs. Are they innapropriate too? That is "revealing" too is it?

 

[Philothei]

This is what I have thus far received...

a verse in scripture that says nothing of a vow nor talks of her future sexual performances.

4th century writings of the beliefs of the authors.

I have been told it is fact and that it was taught and believed from the very beginning (that would be 1st century, 33 AD) without any substantiation.

If you wanna call that evidence... OK. I find it flimsy and so do lots of other people.

washed again wrote^

I find it flimsy when out of 2,000 years we trust the flimsy... "non-evidence but opinion" of a group of Christians who call it wrong...or decide that everyone should share their opinion of sitting on the fence....While the 2,000 years old tradition of ECFs and councils should take the "back sit". This is not about "hard core evidence" as then all NT would have to be put under the same standards...Sadly it is NOT

 

[Philothei]

The Bible is full of "gossip" by that definition; this one "knowing" that one, calling people virgin, using the term prostitute, stating that someone is "born of ___" , etc.

Oh my !

That is true...I think that since the virginity of Mary was important and declared as such in the Gospel then we do not have to worry about being nosy....That would be like accusing Luke of gossiping because he calls her "Virgin Mary"...

BTW why it is in the Creed then? And why it was important she was a virgin before she gave birth to Christ? Just cuirous here..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.I think that since the virginity of Mary was important

You haven't documented that her PERPETUAL virginity was important. At all. Much less of the most important level possible. Yes - I know - you tried to say that even a single case of a wife loving sharing marital intimacies with her husband makes her impure, defiled, undevoted, uncommitted but you presented NOTHING to show this is true or how this documents that Mary Had No Sex Ever.

and declared as such in the Gospel

No. There's NOTHING in the Gospels that says Mary had no sex ever. NOTHING that says She died (or didn't) as a virgin. I think you know that.

BTW why it is in the Creed then?

It's not. It affirms Mary as a virgin at the Nativity. It says nothing about Her virginity at Her death/undeath. It says nothing about her being a PERPETUAL virgin. I think you know that.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IN MY OPINION, "if you were as devoted to Mary as I, it wouldn't matter if what is shouted about Her is true or not" is just the opposite of reasonable and appropriate to me.



.

So why would "in your opinion" be less devoted to Mary if I beleive in her EV?

I didn't say that, did I?


IN MY OPINION, part of honoring someone is telling the truth about them and respecting them. Read what you quoted from me.




.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

You haven't documented that her PERPETUAL virginity was important. At all. Much less of the most important level possible. Yes - I know - you tried to say that even a single case of a wife loving sharing marital intimacies with her husband makes her impure, defiled, undevoted, uncommitted but you presented NOTHING to show this is true or how this documents that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
.

Where has anyone said that "even a single case of a wife loving sharing marital intimacies with her husband makes her impure, defiled, undevoted, uncommitted"?

Please provide a quote.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, let's just think about this for a moment. Mary bore Christ around 15 years of age. So, we are to believe that after she had Christ, she had a bunch of other children (how many are people saying? 6 or something? Three brothers and three or a couple of sisters? Nonetheless, all of a sudden, Mary has children who are apparently as old as Christ or older. When did this happen? If they are all older, when could she have had then since her first born was Jesus, as the biblical account says. If after, how did she end up with children older than Jesus?

I am unsure why you think that the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ were older than Him. Scripture assuredly does not say this. At best, one must connect a number of implied dots to reach this conclusion.

If we can surmise that Mary was fifteen years of age when she gave birth to Jesus Christ (a fact of which scripture is silent) then it is certainly not outside the realm of probability that she and Joseph had other children following the birth of Jesus.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Given nursing as the primary nutritional source for the first 6 months at least, assuming nighttime feeds (normal for most if not all infants), the typical birth spacing should be 2 1/2 years.

Per studies, nursing (until recently) occurs for up to 4 years of age in most cultures.

Does anyone know of sources for infant and child feeding patterns in 1st c. Jewish communities ?

Let us speculate, for the moment, that Mary did not wean Jesus until He was four years old. If Mary was 15 years old when she gave birth to Him (per Dorothea) then Mary bore children when she was 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39, 43). That makes at least seven children, does it not?