How could mary be a virgin?

[narnia59]

[/size][/font]

Read what you quoted from me.

I realize that you don't seem to know what adiaphoron or pious opinion is. I realize that. It's been explained to you over and over and over, but I realize you don't understand the concept. Oh, well....

To know if something is regarded as dogma, you should do what I have repeatedly directed you to do. Is it officially declared to be such? Is it embraced as such? Are pastors defrocked over it? Are people excommunicated or anathmatized over it? As you have been told repeatedly, Luther embraced this PIOUS OPINION (yup, quite passionately). There were Lutheran pastors who DISAGREED with it (equally passionately). Did Luther anathmatize, excommunicate, condemn, defrock them? Nope. He just disagreed with them. I realize the whole concept of adiaphoron is not understood by you, and I don't think I can do anything more about that. If you want to continue to contradict all the Lutherans here about the status of this veiw in Lutheranism, then quote from some of the 300+ Lutheran denominations in some official declaration that it is dogma. Give me examples of pastors excommunicated and defrocked over this issue. Otherwise, maybe you should accept what all the Lutherans here at CF have told you, it's not dogma, it's adiaphoron, it's pious opinion. A Lutheran LIKE ME is permitted to NOT embrace the view. A Lutheran LIKE MY PASTOR is permitted to embrace the view. And (if my pastor is correct), Lutherans LIKE MOST OF ITS PASTORS may actually disagree with the view. This should tell you: it's not dogma. But, for some reason.....








Wow. NO DENOMINATION on the planet or in all of Christian history has done this more than the RCC. Have you seen the official Catholic Catechism, all 800 pages of it? I have (read every single word and looked up all the Scripture footnotes in it, too). I've noted all it says - and all it does not say.

Funny, too, because when I was in the RCC, one of my Catholic teachers taught limbo and another did not. For CENTURIES, Transubstantiation was a debated (and usually rejected) theory. Then later, it became more accepted (but still debated). Then later, it came an official teaching (but it was still okay to not teach it). Then later, it became doctrine. Then after Luther's death, it became dogma. Hum.

Every official doctrinal action of the RCC (and it's FAR from finished with this!) is doing exactly what you are condemning. And no one does it more than your denomination.

Does it seem at least interesting to you that originally, the church was silent on how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born. The earliest Tradition is SILENCE (um, my position!). LATER, there came a disputed view that she was so deprived. LATER, it was declared she never did have sex. Isn't it interesting we have a picking and choosing of which later, disputed view was embrace - to replace the earlier Tradition of silence?






AGAIN, quote for me the Lutheran congregations where this is official dogma.

AGAIN, I could quote a Catholic who believes that the Pope is NEVER infallible (actually, I could quote MANY). Does that indicate that the official position of Catholicism is that the Pope is NEVER infallible? You seem to be confusing the views of individuals with the official believe of denominations. IF you want to change the subject of the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex Ever to "what do each of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world think about this?" we can, but I'd be sure MANY of the Catholics should have a LESS CATHOLIC view than I do (I actually know several with a LESS Catholic view on this than I have). But I don't know why you want to not discuss the dogma of the RCC and would rather discuss what 2.2 billion Christians think about this.




.

Yes, I have read the catechism.

You did not reply to my request for this list of people who have been excommunicated and defrocked by the Catholics church (or the Orthodox) who have expressed disbelief in this doctrine? Who are they?

And I already provided you one instance, but I'll do so again with another. Both the Missouri Synod and WELS Lutherans profess the Book of Concord to be binding doctrine.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod accepts the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and subscribes unconditionally to all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God. We accept the Lutheran Confessions as articluated in the Book of Concord of 1580 because they are drawn from the Word of God and on that account regard their doctrinal content as a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and as authoritative for all pastors, congregations and other rostered church workers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Lutheran Confessions

13. We believe that the three ecumenical creeds (the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian) as well as the Lutheran Confessions as contained in the Book of Concord of 1580 express the true doctrine of Scripture. Since the doctrines they confess are drawn from Scripture alone, we are bound to them in our faith and life. Therefore all preaching and teaching in our churches and schools must be in harmony with these confessions, and we reject all the errors that they reject.
What WELS Believes - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

And the Book of Concord says this:


IV. That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary. Afterwards He suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God, will come to judge the quick and the dead, etc., as the Creed of the Apostles, as well as that of St. Athanasius, and the Catechism in common use for children, teach.
Smalcald Articles - Book of Concord

24] On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

100] Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

I generally tend to take the view of official doctrinal statements of an organization as to what they view being doctrine, not the opinions of individuals. But if you can find me something where these groups have specifically said in a statement of faith that they do not view these particular statements in the Book of Concord as not being 'binding', that would prove your point.

In the meantime, if honesty is your intent, when you make statements regarding the Catholic and Orthodox and your issue with our making this belief doctrine, you should include, and some Lutherans. Specifically those who hold to the contents of the Book of Concord as being true and binding doctrine.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod accepts the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and subscribes unconditionally to all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God. We accept the Lutheran Confessions as articluated in the Book of Concord of 1580 because they are drawn from the Word of God and on that account regard their doctrinal content as a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and as authoritative for all pastors, congregations and other rostered church workers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Yup. Now, show that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is regarded as dogma (or even doctrine) in the particular LCMS (now that we're talking about 1 or 2 Lutheran denominations - out of over 300).
You don't seem to believe any of the Lutherans here or Lutheran history or Lutheran practice in this regard.

if you can find me something where these groups have specifically said in a statement of faith that they do not view these particular statements in the Book of Concord as not being 'binding', that would prove your point.

We need to look to history to see the status of various things. There were many Lutheran pastors and teachers in Luther's day, known to Luther, who did NOT embrace the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. None of them was excommunicated, defrocked or anathmatized over the issue - they just disagreed. Thus, was it DOGMA? Nope.

I already revealed to you that in the LCMS, there are pastors like mine that hold to the view. Most (according to him) hold to MY view - that I don't have a view. Some (according to him) hold to a view that she probably did have sex after Jesus was born. They were all ordained. they are all in good standing. No bishop has excommunicated, defrocked or anathmatized ANY of them. So, is it dogma? I think the answer is OBVIOUS - except to you.

If honesty is your intent, when you make statements regarding the Catholic and Orthodox and your issue with our making this belief doctrine, you should include, and some Lutherans. Specifically those who hold to the contents of the Book of Concord as being true and binding doctrine.

For some reason, you kept wanted to embrace a double standard: What individuals may or may not embrace (in various ways) when speaking of Protestants, but the official dogmas when speaking of two denominations - the RCC and EO. Friend, if you want to talk about what each of the 2.2 billion Christians currently view, then I'll note all the Catholics I know that disagree with dogmas of the RCC and conclude, "Thus the RCC doesn't teach that." Or I could note that nearly all the members of the RCC teach tha the world is round and thus post that such is therefore dogma in the RCC. But you don't seem to want to do that, you want to talk about the official position of the RCC - which you agree is that it's dogma that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN (ie no sex ever).



.

 

[jckstraw72]

why does CJ turn every thread into a thread about the Ever-Virginity? Who is really obsessed? Should we ask why?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

why does CJ turn every thread into a thread about the Ever-Virginity?

The title of the thread is, "How could Mary be a virgin?"

It's not my thread. I didn't start it.

As for why 2 or 3 denominations (out of the claimed 50,000) regard this issue as one of dogmatic importance, that I simply don't know. You'll need to join with me in trying to determine that from the 2-3 that do, the rest have no view (and certainly no dogma) on the issue at all - one way or the other.



.

 

[jckstraw72]

this thread is not about the EV and yeeeeeet ...

 

[seashale76]

The title of the thread is, "How could Mary be a virgin?"

It's not my thread. I didn't start it.

As for why 2 or 3 denominations (out of the claimed 50,000) regard this issue as one of dogmatic importance, that I simply don't know. You'll need to join with me in trying to determine that from the 2-3 that do, the rest have no view (and certainly no dogma) on the issue at all - one way or the other.



.

You didn't read the OP clearly. The person who started this thread started another thread questioning the fact that Mary was a virgin who gave birth- implying she had sex to conceive Jesus. He was also claiming Christ was borne through an act of sin on the part of his mother. This guy was trolling and intentionally trying to stir things by also saying that after giving birth he didn't think she could be considered a virgin anymore as he assumed her hymen was no longer intact. That's what this thread is about NOT the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. You're off topic. Aren't there other threads on this board where you can take it? You and I both know there are.

The fact that you're trying to justify your posts in this thread by the OP tells us that you agree with the OP?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The OP assumes two things: that Mary's hymen broke when Jesus was born (the dogma of Perpetual Virginity states that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus)

But the OP also assumes that breaking one's hymen is a sinful act. I'm sorry but there are plenty of cases where a woman's hymen breaks prior to sexual intercourse through nothing sinful. Even if Mary's hymen broke during the birth of Jesus (and we believe that it didn't), that doesn't make it a sin.

Both points are ridiculous.

 

[Breckmin]

Define virgin.

Why does the hymen have to be in tact to be a virgin???????

Why would anyone believe that it would have to stay in tact during the
vaginal birth of a baby?

This makes absolutely no sense.

Virginity should be based on "act" - NOT on biological tissue. Some one could
have an operation to remove that part of the body and still be a virgin.

At what point has virginity slipped into a biological morphology rather than an
issue of abstinence?

Plus, CaliforniaJosh is easily on topic in this thread...

ANYTHING that relates to the doctrine of Mary being a virgin would still be on topic.

 

[Breckmin]

My Catholic teachers expressed that CURRENTLY, the RCC hesitates to state definitively who is or is not "saved" or even will be "saved." Nonetheless, views are declared dogmas primarily in order to condemn those that hold to varient views, the purpose is to anathamatize those that disagree.

This type of nonsense is exactly why there are Protest:ants.

Salvation is not based on peripheral theology....it is based on how you
view Jesus and how much you trust in His Perfect Sacrificial Atonement.

You can reject all sorts of dogma and still be saved by the Power of the
Sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross.

This type of corruption in the Holy church of Jesus Christ should anger
all of us....and Josh is correct to point this out.

Give me the Deity of Christ and His Perfect Sacrifice on the Cross for
my sins...and I will desire to know nothing except Christ and Christ crucified.

Run....don't walk to the nearest exit...when people require more.