Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

quote=Philothei;Jesus sanctified Mary's womb. You got it backwards oops...

Click to expand...

Oops,... it doesn't matter because it's as wrong forward as it is backward.

He is like us as he is fully human and fully God.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware you are fully human & fully God.

Been born like us in every possible way is not what it is at hand here ....

Click to expand...

No? And yet it is all about how His birth was different from ours. Interesting how you come to these counter-intuitive conclusions.

Rick Otto said:

Not until it had been immaculated.


Only in a certain narrow sense.

It's a fictional structure of your imagination that allows scapegoating and escape from personal responsibility under the cover of false piety.

Click to expand...

Brought back the analyst's couch

Nah, just looked at the situation from street level.

How can one avoid responsibility by .....comforming to piety.... when one needs to comform to do it .....ahh that is a taugh thing to understand for us pious christians ...tsk..

It would seem the opposite is true... To avoid an higher ethical living one choses to bring down the standards.... to street level so one has no worries...makes sense?

Rick Otto said:

Nah, just looked at the situation from street level.

Click to expand...

How is that ?
This statement is not much to go on...

Philothei said:

How can one avoid responsibility by .....comforming to piety.... when one needs to comform to do it .....ahh that is a taugh thing to understand for us pious christians ...tsk..

It would seem the opposite is true... To avoid an higher ethical living one choses to bring down the standards.... to street level so one has no worries...makes sense?

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that if a wife shares marital intimacies with her husband, that's impious, a "street level" morality? A moral, pious wife would refrain from such?

Does any of this apply to the husband? If he so shares, is HE also less pious, less moral, more "street level?" Or is it just the wife?



.

Nope ...we have a say in Greece "whatever the fox cannot reach she hangs it" go figure... If you cannot reach a ceertain level you bring down the standards... It has nothing to do with what you are talking about Josiah The Mother of God was an one case we said it before it has nothing to do with our relationship with our spouses...Leave that alone...Christ was a human but also God his incarnation was a "special event" you think? Piety has to do with honoring someone... why would honoring Chrit with her piety Virgin Mary makes her into a less human is beyond me...when we have millions nuns and monks is beyond my understanding y'all...

I said "false piety", not piety, ma'm.
You won't have to ask for explanations of relevancy & you'll waste less time addressing non-issues if you don't skip over significant modifiers like the adjective "false".

Simply conformity to traditional forms of expression of it, doesn't produce it because it is a spiritual state, not a physical one.

Thekla; "How is that ? This statement is not much to go on..."

Click to expand...

It isn't meant to be. I didn't find the analyst's couch reference correlative, but I didn't want to be inhospitable.

She's less human by virtue of being more divine. By being immaculate, she acquires a quality none an aspire to. She's even given a pass on normal marital relationship for the sake of this vainly imagined "purity" that obsessive honoring insists is real.

But none of it is 'beyond me'. Rather it is beneath us... or should be.

Rick Otto said:

I said "false piety", not piety, ma'm.
You won't have to ask for explanations of relevancy & you'll waste less time addressing non-issues if you don't skip over significant modifiers like the adjective "false".

Simply conformity to traditional forms of expression of it, doesn't produce it because it is a spiritual state, not a physical one.

Click to expand...

What is "authentic piety"; given the stated objections, is it required to be sexually active in order to be authentically pious ?

It isn't meant to be. I didn't find the analyst's couch reference correlative, but I didn't want to be inhospitable.

Click to expand...

How are you able to assess my motivations without knowing me ?
Your analysis is conducted without personal interaction or dialogue; this seems to me to be a form of condescension.

She's less human by virtue of being more divine. By being immaculate, she acquires a quality none an aspire to. She's even given a pass on normal marital relationship for the sake of this vainly imagined "purity" that obsessive honoring insists is real.

But none of it is 'beyond me'. Rather it is beneath us... or should be.

Click to expand...

So in order to be a full human one must be sexually active
What is the origin of this requirement ?
Why do you use the term "obsessive"; why is the counterargument ,from two persons in this discussion now, an appeal to psychiatric nomenclature (quotes on the word, or not).
How is not having sex "beneath us" ?
Is John the Baptist or the prophet Elias also an example of a human become subhuman by voluntary abstinence ?

Simply conformity to traditional forms of expression of it, doesn't produce it because it is a spiritual state, not a physical one.

Click to expand...

A spiritual state can produce a physical state. A physical state can also produce a spiritual state.

.


Let's pretend, for the sake of discussion, that it can be substantiated from Scripture, Mary or at least someone who at least met Mary, that Mary never once had _______. We all know the reality, but let's just go with it, okay?

Some questions:

1. So what? Why is that a matter of highest importance - dogma?

2. Does such make Mary holier, purer, than a wife who DID have marital _____ at least ONCE with her spouse within the Sacrament of Marriage in her life?

3. Would it have made JOSEPH holier, purer, sinless?

4. Would it have made JESUS holier, purer, sinless?

5. Let's say an otherwise entirely orthodox and true believer in Christ does not hold it as a DOGMATIC FACT of highest importance and greatest certainly that Mary never ONCE had ________; he/she regards such as perhaps too personal to even think about. Why would his/her salvation thus be in serious jeoprody, why would he/she be regarded as highly offensive for not wanting to consider something he/she regards as offensive?

6. What is it about how often a wife has _____ or not that makes it a matter of Dogma?


Thank you!


.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.


Let's pretend, for the sake of discussion, that it can be substantiated from Scripture, Mary or at least someone who at least met Mary, that Mary never once had _______. We all know the reality, but let's just go with it, okay?

Some questions:

1. So what? Why is that a matter of highest importance - dogma?

2. Does such make Mary holier, purer, than a wife who DID have marital _____ at least ONCE with her spouse within the Sacrament of Marriage in her life?

3. Would it have made JOSEPH holier, purer, sinless?

4. Would it have made JESUS holier, purer, sinless?

5. Let's say an otherwise entirely orthodox and true believer in Christ does not hold it as a DOGMATIC FACT of highest importance and greatest certainly that Mary never ONCE had ________; he/she regards such as perhaps too personal to even think about. Why would his/her salvation thus be in serious jeoprody, why would he/she be regarded as highly offensive for not wanting to consider something he/she regards as offensive?

6. What is it about how often a wife has _____ or not that makes it a matter of Dogma?


Thank you!


.

Click to expand...

All asked by you and answered numerous times over the course of many many months (about 12, actually); it is advised that you read the threads where this was addressed previously.

When did Mary make a vow of chasity? Before or after she married Joseph?

Why not break off the engagement? The perpetual virginity theory really needs to
make some sense with respect to marriage.

Mary is NOT God's wife...she is His adopted daughter. Adopted by the price of
the blood of her Savior whom she bore.

Thekla said:

All asked by you and answered numerous times over the course of many many months (about 12, actually); it is advised that you read the threads where this was addressed previously.

Click to expand...

I think Josh's questions are valid ones and asked with respect.

If you never answer them with logic, then he is going to keep asking them
until you respond with logic.

If all you have is some gross extrapolation involving a single word adelphos
and how it should be interpreted then you are going to miss
the practicality of Mary being a wife and a mother just like other women
in her time period...in her culture.

Mary was a widow after Joseph died. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mary was the mother of Joseph's children....there is nothing wrong with that.

Mary was the mother of Jesus - the Holy Son of God who is one with the
Father. There is nothing wrong with Mary still being provided for through
Joseph as her husband...and there is certainly nothing wrong with Joseph
having an intimate relationship with HIS WIFE Mary.

It doesn't change ANYTHING about Jesus being God.

It doesn't change ANYTHING about Mary being a servant of God.

IF you have this false view that Mary is somehow the wife of the Holy
Spirit...THEN you don't understand that miracles don't define marital
relationships... they ARE related to relationships...but they don't define
marriage.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.
2. Does such make Mary holier, purer, than a wife who DID have marital _____ at least ONCE with her spouse within the Sacrament of Marriage in her life?

Click to expand...

I think this speaks volumes about the Catholic church's unhealthy view
of sexual intimacy even in marriage. It is a GOOD thing...not a bad thing.

The result is often children. We would expect Jesus to have half brothers
and sisters through Mary and Joseph.

There is NO reason NOT to expect otherwise...UNLESS you have an
unhealthy view of Mary - or an idolatry of Mary.

Mary can still be the greatest woman who ever lived and have 3 to 6 or
7 kids other than Jesus. It doesn't take ANYTHING away from her.

Breckmin said:

I think Josh's questions are valid ones and asked with respect.

Click to expand...

If you are interested, I will post the links to the previous threads (over aprox. a year) where Josiah's questions and the answers are given. Just let me know.

If you never answer them with logic, then he is going to keep asking them
until you respond with logic.

Click to expand...

They have been answered (and have included links to those who are more well equipped to answer, including well regarded academics, ECFs, priests, etc.).

If all you have is some gross extrapolation involving a single word adelphos
and how it should be interpreted then you are going to miss
the practicality of Mary being a wife and a mother just like other women
in her time period...in her culture.

Click to expand...

It is the English translation that leads some to a conclusion which is not conclusive in the original language of the Holy Scripture. The term is far more open ended than the clumsy translation of brother. The point has consistently been made that to conclusively state that "adelphos" in this cotext means "child born of Mary" is not supported by the terminology.

It is understandable that one would revert to the default understanding of the English term "brother" in one's era and culture. It is not so understandable that given contrary linguistic, cultural and historical evidence for the Greek of the passages, one would not admit that other explanations are also likely.

Mary was a widow after Joseph died. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mary was the mother of Joseph's children....there is nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what point/s you mean to make by this statement. Perhaps you would be willing to clarify.

Mary was the mother of Jesus - the Holy Son of God who is one with the
Father. There is nothing wrong with Mary still being provided for through
Joseph as her husband...and there is certainly nothing wrong with Joseph
having an intimate relationship with HIS WIFE Mary.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can provide conclusive evidence from Holy Scripture that Mary and Joseph had children together.

It doesn't change ANYTHING about Jesus being God.

It doesn't change ANYTHING about Mary being a servant of God.

Click to expand...

But this would seem to suggest that facts are only iterated where they change the nature of the thing under discussion ?? I am not sure what you are getting at here.

IF you have this false view that Mary is somehow the wife of the Holy
Spirit...THEN you don't understand that miracles don't define marital
relationships... they ARE related to relationships...but they don't define
marriage.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean here about relationships and miracles; those who miraculously healed are not in some sense changed or affected ? Or that the Incarnation did not have an effect on human persons, but had some other purpose ? Nor do I know why you relate this to Mary ...

Breckmin said:

When did Mary make a vow of chasity? Before or after she married Joseph?

Why not break off the engagement? The perpetual virginity theory really needs to
make some sense with respect to marriage.

Mary is NOT God's wife...she is His adopted daughter. Adopted by the price of
the blood of her Savior whom she bore.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this is a good time to return to the Lukan passages which cover the announcement of the Incarnation to Mary.

On the second point - what would have likely happened to Mary if she were alone and pregnant ? As for Joseph not breaking the betrothal subsequent to his discovery of Mary's pregnancy (an automatic contract-breaker), he was instructed not to. The purpose of Mary having a protector and provider for herself and the Child should be obvious.

Breckmin said:

There is NO reason NOT to expect otherwise...UNLESS you have an
unhealthy view of Mary - or an idolatry of Mary.

Click to expand...

Don't you think it unlikely that these are the only likely origins of the view; that there can be no other source for the view except those you find objectionable ? Doesn't that rather load the dialogue and, due to this bias , make any true dialogue unlikely ? Or posit that even where the other person states other than these options for the origin of their view, this is not the case ?

.

Breckmin said:

I think Josiah's questions are valid ones and asked with respect.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

And IMHO are addressed to the core of the issue.


We have two things here:

1. A very strong, bold position regarding Mary's ____ life after Jesus was born.

2. An insistence that such is a matter of extreme, upper most, greatest importance: it's dogma.

I actually have little interest in the first. I have no position at all in the matter - and frankly find such amazingly moot (which no doubt impacts my thoughts on #2). The only oddity I find is that those that have this extremely bold insistence on the topic seem to find the topic, well, uncomfortable. Odd for something they hold so passionately and regard as so important. If I insisted, as a matter of highest importance, that we should all eat more lima beans, I doubt I'd regard lima beans as disagreeable to talk about. Oh well, just one of MANY puzzles in this discussion. But as I said, the first issue here - Mary's ____ life after Jesus was born isn't a matter of great interest to me personally, I just want to know why it is a matter of such AMAZING fasination and importance to two denominations, the RC and EO.

The second issue is of GREAT interest to me. It is, in fact, PART of one reason that I no longer participate in the Catholic Church. It's not that I disagree with this position (again, I have no position; I regard no position as right or wrong, I just don't have one), it's that I question why THIS - how often Mary had _____ after Jesus was born - is a matter of extreme fasination, uppermost importance, something on which our salvation depends. THAT is my primary interest, I'm been trying to understand the STATUS this issue of Mary's ___ life has been given.






.

Breckmin said:

I think this speaks volumes about the Catholic church's unhealthy view
of sexual intimacy even in marriage. It is a GOOD thing...not a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Sex in marriage within the Catholic Church is not just considered good, it is considered Holy.