Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption/Dormation of Mary...

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm afraid I've gotten a bit lost about what the contention is, perhaps?

It seems to be about the status of the belief of the PV of the Theotokos among various Traditions?

Yes. I posted that IMO the PVM is a doctrine in the EOC. This comment seems to have been extremely offensive to our brother (which of course was NEVER, remotely, my intent).

I have not given my view on this topic (frankly, I don't yet have one) so I've never stated anything to support it OR to deny it - either way. And I'm "on record" for stating I think there is very valid basis for accepting this as "pious opinion" and that I do NOT regard it as "heretical" in any sense whatsoever. MY interest (consistently) has been on the STATUS of the teaching, and that's the issue I've been sharing.

Of course the Orthodox Church holds this as a teaching.

Frankly, I was stunned to gather from our friend the opposite..... Maybe it was the word "doctrine" or "dogma" that was so very, very offensive - although those ARE the words that keep appearing in all the Orthodox literature I could find. But it was stressed that unless the source had a clear nihil obstat or imprimatur then we are forbidden in this forum from sharing our thoughts (to be honest, I didn't know the EOC had those designations on writings..... learn somethin' every day).

I doubt a person could attend a single service and remain in doubt about that fact.

.... I honestly didn't think it was incorrect and would be so offensive and would NEED to be documented by specific nihil obstat or imprimatur Orthodox writings. CERTAINLY, I did not mean the enormous offensive that was taken.; I'm truly sorry my comment seemed to cause anger...

Forgive the interruption, but that might help some of us who might be observing? Thank you.

Thank you!


I know - I honestly do - this is a topic where some are very, very easily offended and angered; and I AM sensitive to that. I do NOT - as it has been stressed - embrace OR deny the PVM as doctrine/dogma (I don't even know if the EOC makes a distinction there). I AM more than willing to fully embrace all who believe it and hold to it as pious opinion (since I do NOT hold it to be heretical AND because I AM aware of its ancient roots). I have NEVER been the least interested in proving it false OR in proving it true since again, my position is I am - currently anyway - uncertain that EITHER of those positions can be documented TO THE LEVEL OF DOGMA.

To put it another way, I'm not discussing the validity of the belief PER SE, I'm discussing the status: the two points being inseparable.


I HOPE that helps.....



Thank you!


Blessings


- Josiah






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Scriptures don't discount the possibility of Mary having only one child - Jesus.

There are at the least hints in the Scripture that she remained virgin; the use of Virgin (as a title/appellation) in early texts are a route of investigation that is less obvious in translation. (The view of those expert in the language of the NT Scriptures, who did not need to learn this language, might be worthy of consideration as well - many of these were well educated.)




.

I simply don't accept that HINTS in Scripture and POSSIBILITIES from Scripture are the sound basis for divisive, condemning DOGMA - matters of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of fact possible, impacting eternal salvation of souls. If HINTS and POSSIBILITIES were sound basis, I think we'd be compelled to accept a LOT of things none of here do. After all, Scripture itself boldly asserts that "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD." All things..... possible. But I disagree that THEREFORE all things are dogmatic facts of highest importance possible and greatest certainly of fact possible which impacts the salvation of souls.


Perhaps there is enough here to "justify" pious opinion - but DOGMA?????? The very reality that defenders of DOGMA are insisting it's just "possible" and there are only "hints".... and that silence on this prevailed for a long time and from Mary, Joseph, and all the Apostles..... that, to ME, seems to undermine the entire insistence on its dogmatic status. I'm NOT saying it's wrong, just that the arguments actually seem to be hurting the insistent status.



.

As the EOC is not a Sola Scriptura adherent Church, I think your standard re: explicit in Scripture might be an mis-application of your standard to others.

It was you that spoke of SCRIPTURE.


IMO, I think you "missed" the point of my reply. Sorry.




Thank you.


Blessings


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

It was you that spoke of SCRIPTURE.


IMO, I think you "missed" the point of my reply. Sorry.




Thank you.


Blessings


- Josiah





.

I agree, I did; I noted that the verses on this topic are not explicit but do more subtly point indeed to Mary's continuing virginity.

My second response to you was directed specifically to your statements re: doctrine and Scripture in this case. It seems possible that, given your affiliation with a SS Church, your observations would be valid in your own tradition but are mis-applied in pre-SS Churches.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I agree, I did; I noted that the verses on this topic are not explicit but do more subtly point indeed to Mary's continuing virginity.

My second response to you was directed specifically to your statements re: doctrine and Scripture in this case. It seems possible that, given your affiliation with a SS Church, your observations would be valid in your own tradition but are mis-applied in pre-SS Churches.

Of course, I didn't apply them to any church or any person. I simply am sharing MY perspective and concerns..... only speaking for me. I think that's typically what we do in discussion forums?

And of course, was responding to your emphasis on Scripture.



I hope we're "okay"




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

Of course, I didn't apply them to any church or any person. I simply am sharing MY perspective and concerns..... only speaking for me. I think that's typically what we do in discussion forums?

And of course, was responding to your emphasis on Scripture.



I hope we're "okay"




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Of course we're okay

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes. I posted that IMO the PVM is a doctrine in the EOC. This comment seems to have been extremely offensive to our brother (which of course was NEVER, remotely, my intent).

I have not given my view on this topic (frankly, I don't yet have one) so I've never stated anything to support it OR to deny it - either way. And I'm "on record" for stating I think there is very valid basis for accepting this as "pious opinion" and that I do NOT regard it as "heretical" in any sense whatsoever. MY interest (consistently) has been on the STATUS of the teaching, and that's the issue I've been sharing.




Frankly, I was stunned to gather from our friend the opposite..... Maybe it was the word "doctrine" or "dogma" that was so very, very offensive - although those ARE the words that keep appearing in all the Orthodox literature I could find. But it was stressed that unless the source had a clear nihil obstat or imprimatur then we are forbidden in this forum from sharing our thoughts (to be honest, I didn't know the EOC had those designations on writings..... learn somethin' every day).




.... I honestly didn't think it was incorrect and would be so offensive and would NEED to be documented by specific nihil obstat or imprimatur Orthodox writings. CERTAINLY, I did not mean the enormous offensive that was taken.; I'm truly sorry my comment seemed to cause anger...



Thank you!


I know - I honestly do - this is a topic where some are very, very easily offended and angered; and I AM sensitive to that. I do NOT - as it has been stressed - embrace OR deny the PVM as doctrine/dogma (I don't even know if the EOC makes a distinction there). I AM more than willing to fully embrace all who believe it and hold to it as pious opinion (since I do NOT hold it to be heretical AND because I AM aware of its ancient roots). I have NEVER been the least interested in proving it false OR in proving it true since again, my position is I am - currently anyway - uncertain that EITHER of those positions can be documented TO THE LEVEL OF DOGMA.

To put it another way, I'm not discussing the validity of the belief PER SE, I'm discussing the status: the two points being inseparable.


I HOPE that helps.....



Thank you!


Blessings


- Josiah






.

I'm honestly not sure of concrete divisions between "dogma" and "doctrine" in the Orthodox Church in many cases. There are certainly non-negotiables, to be sure. If I were pressed to enumerate them, I would say that the Nicene Creed is a good place to start. It might even be a good place to end.

The Orthodox Church is just not as concerned as some others may be (to varying degrees) with spelling out all the why's and wherefore's and placing things into categories. I've seen the EV of the Theotokos referred to as both a dogma and a doctrine, which was one reason I used the word "teaching".

I don't think denying or doubting it would bar one from communion, but I'm not positive. I know that doubts concerning the divinity of Christ will do so - for one's own good. One would really have to discuss it with a priest and receive a pastoral response. Doubts are recognized, and the Church tries to help strengthen a person as they sort through them. Rebellion is likely another matter that would need a different sort of pastoral help.

I guess I just don't see what all the fuss is about. While I don't really advocate a person seeking a Church on the basis of which one agrees with the beliefs they already hold, that is what most people do in reality, and everyone is certainly free to do so. On that basis, I don't understand objecting to what any particular Church, tradition, or denomination requires as dogmatic belief. There are certain things I disagree with that are dogmatized by the Catholics, for example, and others I disagree with that are dogmatized by the Baptists. Probably other denominations as well. But since I'm not any of those ... ? Likewise, there are probably things the Orthodox Church holds as truth that others don't agree with.

It just seems like a rather intense conversation, and I'm not quite sure what about or why. But then again, each of us holds our faith as very important, and I understand that discussion gets very close to the hearts of people at times. No insult is intended.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm honestly not sure of concrete divisions between "dogma" and "doctrine" in the Orthodox Church in many cases. There are certainly non-negotiables, to be sure. If I were pressed to enumerate them, I would say that the Nicene Creed is a good place to start. It might even be a good place to end.

The Orthodox Church is just not as concerned as some others may be (to varying degrees) with spelling out all the why's and wherefore's and placing things into categories. I've seen the EV of the Theotokos referred to as both a dogma and a doctrine, which was one reason I used the word "teaching".

I don't think denying or doubting it would bar one from communion, but I'm not positive. I know that doubts concerning the divinity of Christ will do so - for one's own good. One would really have to discuss it with a priest and receive a pastoral response. Doubts are recognized, and the Church tries to help strengthen a person as they sort through them. Rebellion is likely another matter that would need a different sort of pastoral help.

I guess I just don't see what all the fuss is about. While I don't really advocate a person seeking a Church on the basis of which one agrees with the beliefs they already hold, that is what most people do in reality, and everyone is certainly free to do so. On that basis, I don't understand objecting to what any particular Church, tradition, or denomination requires as dogmatic belief. There are certain things I disagree with that are dogmatized by the Catholics, for example, and others I disagree with that are dogmatized by the Baptists. Probably other denominations as well. But since I'm not any of those ... ? Likewise, there are probably things the Orthodox Church holds as truth that others don't agree with.

It just seems like a rather intense conversation, and I'm not quite sure what about or why. But then again, each of us holds our faith as very important, and I understand that discussion gets very close to the hearts of people at times. No insult is intended.

THANK YOU for those kind (a very helpful - to me) words.....

I never remotely intended anything "intense" and I'm sure at a loss why one or two morphed this in that way....

I understand that discussion gets very close to the hearts of people at times.

Nail on head.... I DO understand how that happens and I'm EAGER to forgive when I sense that and REJOICE when forgiven when I do it (however unintentionally). People often forget..... these are not purely academic subjects!!! What is in my heart in terms of my faith is precious, treasured stuff - and I assume it's the same for others.

Again, I deeply appreciate your kindness....



- Josiah





.

 

[MKJ]

The EOC doesn't have nihil obstat or imprimatur so I am not sure what that was all about. Even within a Catholic context, I don't know that I would make too much of them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nihil obstat (Latin for "nothing hinders" or "nothing stands in the way") is a declaration of no objection to an initiative or an appointment.

Apart from this general sense, the phrase is used more particularly to mean an "attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals". The Censor Librorum delegated by a bishop of the Catholic Church reviews the text in question, but the nihil obstat is not a certification that those granting it agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed in the work; instead, it merely confirms "that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals."

The nihil obstat is the first step in having a book published under Church auspices. If the author is a member of a religious institute and if the book is on questions of religion or morals, the book must also obtain the imprimi potest ("it can be printed") of the major superior. The final approval is given through the imprimatur ("let it be printed") of the author's bishop or of the bishop of the place of publication.

One ought not to read too much into the meaning of Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur.

 

[Liberasit]

I am puzzled at the use of Latin expressions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am puzzled at the use of Latin expressions.

Why?

 

[Liberasit]

Why am I puzzled? Why not? Because I communicate in the wonderful language of English, perhaps?

I have my suspicions about the appearance of the level of educatuon, but I hope I am wrong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why am I puzzled? Why not? Because I communicate in the wonderful language of English, perhaps?

I have my suspicions about the appearance of the level of education, but I hope I am wrong.

The majority of Catholic Christians are not English speaking. So The Catholic Church uses her ancient tongue to define doctrine. Then people from each language group can translate from Latin into their tongue. It makes matters easier because everybody goes to one source language and translates into their own native tongue.

 

[Liberasit]

The majority of Catholic Christians are not English speaking. So The Catholic Church uses her ancient tongue to define doctrine. Then people from each language group can translate from Latin into their tongue. It makes matters easier because everybody goes to one source language and translates into their own native tongue.

The IP was Anglican so had no pretentiousness of RC.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The IP was Anglican so had no pretentiousness of RC.

I thought that the Original Poster was a Lutheran.

 

[Liberasit]

I thought that the Original Poster was a Lutheran.

I don't think there was Latin in the OP. It was curiously dropped in down thread.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

In the West Roman Catholicism has basically set the jargon for Christian Theology. Especially in a Traditional subforum expressions like Nihil Obstat, Imprimateur, Filioque, Christus Victor, Substitutionary, Sola Scriptura, are going to be pretty common. Of course, those which aren't Latin are fairly regularly Greek in origin: eschatology, parousia, liturgy, evangelism, pentecost, homoousios, etc.

 

[MKJ]

English has always tended to borrow phrases from Latin for specialized uses, even apart from the question of something like the nihil obstat, which is actually being used as a Latin phrase by the Holy See. Legal language, scientific language, medical language - all of them have some common Latin phrases that come up often if you are discussing more technical subjects.

 

[PaladinValer]

English has always tended to borrow phrases from Latin for specialized uses, even apart from the question of something like the nihil obstat, which is actually being used as a Latin phrase by the Holy See. Legal language, scientific language, medical language - all of them have some common Latin phrases that come up often if you are discussing more technical subjects.

That, and a fair portion of English finds a Latin root, thanks to the Norman Invasion of 1066, and the slow but steady advent of Middle English.

 

[MKJ]

The IP was Anglican so had no pretentiousness of RC.

Nihil obstat and imprimateur refer to designations given by the Holy See to certain printed materials. There are English translations of the words, but that isn't how they are used - it is more like a brand name. So, a book that doesn't contain outright theological error according to Catholic teaching will be stamped with "nihil obstat" and that will be included on translations in other languages.

PV was suggesting that unless a source is stamped with these things, it is best not to take what it says about Catholic teaching too seriously. I would not go so far as that, but it is a good indication that there are not serious errors of certain kinds.