Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[mrmccormo]

I don't. I don't deny it either. I'm seeking the truth of the matter.

Let's show some honesty here: if you're seeking the truth, why do you go back and re-edit your posts? Why do you CONTINUE to ignore huge chunks of people's posts while only picking out a few questions that you want to address?

This isn't the behavior of a truth-seeker. It is the behavior of someone who wants to feel the thrill of being "right" on an internet forum.

You seem to be unaware that of the 50,000 + denominations some Catholics insist exist, 49,998 of them don't ACCEPT or DENY anything about Mary's personal sex life after Jesus was born. For now, I'm "there" too.

50,000 or 20,000 or 1 billion...I've seen all sorts of numbers as to how many denominations there are. None of the numbers are quantified.

If you know your denominations so well, then you'd know that out of those (supposed) 50,000, about 49,000 of them came up in the last 100 years? I'd hardly use an appeal to majority to prove your point.

Also, there are more than two Christian denominations who hold to the virginity of Mary. Saying "only tow believe that" is false.

Then isn't the whole point that Joseph would NOT want to love one who is so faithful to God also an assumption and not an historical fact?

We're arguing symatics here, and you have a horrible grasp on the concept of "burden of proof". I'll do my best to help you understand:

The early church holds the belief "Mary remained a virgin". What is their proof? The church is the pillar of truth and the church's job is to faithfully preserve the deposit of God's Word. If you believe in the Bible, within the context of the Bible, the church has fulfilled it's obligation of "proof".

You believe in the Bible, don't you? Didn't Luther teach "sola scriptura"? Every corner of the Christian church - from Jerusalem to Rome - taught that Mary remained a virgin. These same Christians built your Bible.

I find it interesting that you are willing to deny the early church's authority on the virginity of Mary, but you are also willing to accept the early church's authority on the canon of Scripture. That tells me that you are appealing to an authority higher than the church itself, higher than the Bible itself! What is that authority, might I ask? Is it your intellect? Is it "logic"? So far, your arguments seem very "logical".

Actually, that's your claim. You've not offered ANYTHING but your claim.

Now, quote from just 5 people who lived when the Apostles did that said it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Just 5. Quote them. Date the writing. Otherwise, all you've done is make a baseless claim. ANYONE (that can type) can do the same - doesn't make it true (unless you're saying that it does)

If you want me to personally look up some quotes, allow me some time (the Orthodox and Catholics here are likely a better source). However, I will point out that the father of your Lutheran doctrine of "original sin" was Augustine, who strictly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Also, why was Mary called "the Virgin Mary" by the early church if she was not a virgin? If she had sex with Joseph, she clearly was not a "virgin" any longer. Why would the church make so grave an error as to continually call her "virgin"? There is also a book called the "Protoevangilum" (sp?) recorded in about 120 A.D that gives the details of Mary's life. This book explicitly state that Mary remained a virgin, though i do not know if the Catholics or Orthodox hold this book as "true" or what place it had in the early church.

 

[mrmccormo]

Quotes! Since you're a Lutheran, CaliforniaJosiah, I thought it most appropriate to start with Mr. Martin Luther himself:

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

"reposed on her knees" simply means "rested on her knees". If she had other children, Luther clearly didn't know about it since he said Jesus alone rested on Mary's knees.

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)

Hmm.

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)

Hmm?

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . (That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)

Hmm?

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her (That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)

Hmm, indeed!

If you can find me any references where Luther later recanted of these beliefs, I'd be happy to hear them! More quotes on the way.

 

[mrmccormo]

As far as early church fathers, let's see if any of them had something to say about it:

In the late 4th century, a man named Helvidius taught that Mary was not actually a virgin (among some other things). St. Jerome refuted him not long after. Please note that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli all appealed to St. Jerome's insight on the matter, and all the mentioned Reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Other church fathers like St. Augustine (though he was not the only one) appealed to the image of the Eastern Gate in Ezekiel 44 as an exact image of Mary's virginity: "the gate is shut, only the Lord will enter through it". Augustine (to whom Luther appeals for the doctrine of "original sin") taught that "Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband"


St. John Chrysostom held that Mary was a perpetual virgin as well. So did Epiphanius of Cyprus. So did Athanasius. So did Dydimus the Blind. So did Hilary of Poitiers. So did Siricus. So did Cyril of Alexandria. So did Pope Leo. So did Gregory of Nyssa. All of these would be classified as "early church writers".

But if we just want to use the Bible, where does the Bible say that Mary and Joseph were married? After all, wouldn't you agree that it would have been immoral for Mary and Joseph to have sex if they were NOT married? Again, we have a double standard here: we expect the Bible to explicitly tell us that Mary did not have sex, yet we give the Bible a free pass and do no expect it to tell us that they were actually married (only "betrothed").

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In the late 4th century, a man named Helvidius taught that Mary was not actually a virgin (among some other things).

Quote, please.

How does that prove that She had no sex EVER?

How did he know this normally private marital tidbit?

If I quoted an LDS "father" that agrees with an LDS teaching, perhaps noting Joseph Smith finding those plates but 300 years after the fact (that removed isn't even possible yet), would you accept that as valid confirmation?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hmm? Hmm, indeed!

Hmmm what?

Everyone know that Luther embraced this teaching. As pious opinion and not doctrine or dogma. Is your point that everything Luther said is Confirmation to the highest degree possible that it is a dogmatic fact? Want me to read what he said about the Papacy? Would you accept all that as undisputable evidence of dogmatic fact?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, that's your claim. You've not offered ANYTHING but your claim.

Now, quote from just 5 people who lived when the Apostles did that said it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Just 5. Quote them. Date the writing. Otherwise, all you've done is make a baseless claim. ANYONE (that can type) can do the same - doesn't make it true (unless you're saying that it does)



.

If you want me to personally look up some quotes, allow me some time

Sure.


I will keep reminding you meanwhile.

the "Protoevangilum" (sp?) recorded in about 120 A.D that gives the details of Mary's life. This book explicitly state that Mary remained a virgin, though i do not know if the Catholics or Orthodox hold this book as "true" or what place it had in the early church.

Document that date for the authorship of this rejected book.

Quote where it says Mary had no sex ever or that She died a virgin.

I'll wait for that, too.






.

 

[mrmccormo]

Hmmm what?
Everyone knows that Luther embraced this teaching. As pious opinion and not doctrine or dogma.

Quote, please. Prove it. Evidence, please. Show me how "everyone" knows that Luther held those as "pious opinions".

Based on those numerous quotes, Luther clearly believed and taught and preached (why would he preach an "opinion"?) that Mary remained a virgin.

Frankly, you've run out of rebuttals. You asked for evidence and it was given. You asked for quotes and they were given. You asked for quotes with dates and they were given. You asked for quotes of early church fathers and they were given. Can I get anyone else's call on this one? Am I neglecting to address any of CalifornianJosiah's doubts?

And hilariously, you have STILL failed to tell us what sort of "proof" you'd like. Every time someone gives you proof, you change gears. You dismiss it or say "quote it" without quoting or proving any of your own refutations. I'm amazed that such a skeptic like you was able to become a Lutheran. Are you sure you're not an atheist?

Your posts are now amounting to nothing more than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "La la la la la!" If you are interested in discussion, perhaps you should..you know... actually participate in this discussion. People in this thread have been more than willing to offer evidence, give quotes, cite sources, and give explanations. In return, all that has been said in response is "PROVE IT!".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Based on those numerous quotes, Luther clearly believed and taught and preached (why would he preach an "opinion"?) that Mary remained a virgin.

.

Yes, we all know it was his pious opinion and never presented as dogma.

Now, what is your point? Are you now insisting that whatever Luther said IS the mandated confirmation of dogmatic fact so that if Luther ever wrote something, that ergo means it is a dogmatic fact? If so, let me quote him on the Catholic papacy because what he wrote IS confirmation of dogmatic fact. If not, then why in the world are you mentioning Luther's opinion? Are we going to hear about the Jews next? Or just the papacy?


No, I never asked for Luther's personal opinion, and frankly I don't know why you regard such as normative. YOU indicated you'd supply 5 quotes from the time of the Apostles (first century) that confirm the Mary Had No Sex EVER. Surely you don't think Luther lived in the First Century, do you?




.

 

[mrmccormo]

CalifornianJosiah, you've still failed to show us why a quote needs to be from the 1st century for it to be accepted as dogma. Other than the Bible itself, you will have a hard time finding ANY quotes from the first century on ANY topic. You have this assumption that "if it wasn't said in the first century, then it's not true", but that is simply an assumption. Care to quantify it?

I'm taking your refusal to answer my mountain of quotes as an admission of defeat. As of right now, you have lost this argument until you can

a) prove why we need to take quotes from the 1st century alone, and
b) tell us specifically what other "proof" you need

As far as the Luther quotes go, I'm trying to get you to see outside of your own limited, willfully-ignorant viewpoint on the history of the Church even if it means beating you over the head with your own professed denomination. Surely you can see the merit in my tact.

 

[Kristos]

Until he reads "The Abolition of Man" he will never understand the error in his philosophy.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CalifornianJosiah, you've still failed to show us why a quote needs to be from the 1st century for it to be accepted as dogma.

You CONTINUE to get our veiws confused. YOU are the one saying it's ALWAYS been believed that Mary Had No Sex EVER - I'm just waiting for your confirmation of YOUR point. YOU are the one saying you'd provide quotes from contemporaries of the Apostles that teach that Mary Had No Sex EVER but instead you gave a quote from Luther (perhaps believing him to have lived in the first century). Remember - YOU are the one with the DOGMA, not me.

you will have a hard time finding ANY quotes from the first century on ANY topic.

Again, you keep getting our positions reversed. I never said ANYTHING about what was or was not believed always or from the beginning or from the time of the Apostles. You did. You are the one who said you'd supply at least 5 quotes from the time of the Apostles (first century - none is believed to have lived much past 100 AD), I didn't. YOU are the one with the DOGMA that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all (this issue of Mary's sex life after Jesus was born) and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Not me. I currently have no view on that. Nor does 49,998 denominations. Yours does.






.

 

[mrmccormo]

CalifornianJosiah, until you can offer compelling evidence as to why we must use 1st century quotes since you were the one who asked for this in the first place, and until you can also explain why all the other quotes do not count as the "evidence" you asked for, then I consider any post you make to be the flailings of a man who has lost an argument.

You have been buried in evidence. Sticking your head out of the dirt and muttering "show...me...the proof" does not negate the fact that you have been buried.

 

[LinuxUser]

I wonder if the reason people are so angry with Mary and so eager to drag her through the mud is that they don't want to believe it is possible for humans to be so submissive to God's will, and free from sins. If we drag her down to our level, it makes being a Christian so much more comfortable.

I believe you nailed it. Some hate the idea of works so much that they don't think anyone could obey that totally because, well they see it as trying to work for Salvation. I never had a problem with this but I can see how many Christians would.

 

[washedagain]

I wonder if the reason people are so angry with Mary and so eager to drag her through the mud is that they don't want to believe it is possible for humans to be so submissive to God's will, and free from sins. If we drag her down to our level, it makes being a Christian so much more comfortable.

Hi

Who is angry with Mary and who is dragging her through the mud? Are you talking about people here on this board? If so, tell me what they are saying and I will assist you in setting them straight... this is the mother of our Lord we are talking about! Grrrrrrrrrr.... that would make me very upset if someone was trash mouthing Mary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LinuxUser]

Frankly, you've run out of rebuttals. You asked for evidence and it was given. You asked for quotes and they were given. You asked for quotes with dates and they were given. You asked for quotes of early church fathers and they were given. Can I get anyone else call on this one? Am I neglecting to address any of CalifornianJosiah's doubts?

You did fine. If in court you have proved your point with much circumstantial evidence and the jury should find in your favor against the defendant

 

[Philothei]

by California Josiah:
1. Those that say it's true say it's true (the Tradition argument) - even though it seems admitted none of them had ANY possibility of knowing this tidbit and they seem to admit none of them gave ANY confirmation or evidence of such - just that they say that they say that they are correct.
Just like the Holy Trinity... no evidence ...or even Christ's celibacy... It does not say so in the Bible still we all beleive it.
2. That if we REALLY stretch things (perhaps changing verb tenses in the process), if we do some "really deep thinking" and if we do some "analysis" it's POSSIBLE (theoretically anyway) that this could be true (it doesn't necessary make it impossible anyway) or perhaps it at least makes it theoretically possible that Mary's INTENTION was to have no sex ever. But none of that confirms that Mary died a virgin, only that it MIGHT be theoretically POSSIBLE if - IF - we do some "really deep reading" of the text and "deep analysis." If any Calvinist did this with any Calvinist view, well - we can hear the laughter even now, can't we?
No sensical argument as the EV was there from the 150 AD...calvinism was not!
3. Mary made a vow to God to never had sex - and thus it is a dogmatic fact that She did not. But no evidence whatsoever has been supplied that She made ANY vow to God about anything.
Same as above look @ 1.
4. They know how Joseph felt about Mary's sex life (how has never been disclosed) and that Joseph would have loved Mary less because of Her faith and obedience, so much less that he could not share his love for her in this normal marital way. (Odd, because most men are MORE willing to share their love where they love than when they don't). In any case, NOTHING has been presented to document that Joseph would only share intimacies with a wife he didn't love or respect.

God's own plan of the incarnation is just greater than a vow made on earth than one made in heaven . Case closed. Mary and Joseph's marriage was "unique" case. The incrnation is not an ordinary event...period!

5. That this dogma actually is "about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term). This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex." (quoting verbatim an EO poster).
Ridiculous that is not a true statement... I think there is a missunderstanding here. Having sex is part of marriage not the actual marriage. Or an elderly couple who has no relations then they are not married? Sex is part of it but not all that a marriage is.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

by California Josiah:
1. Those that say it's true say it's true (the Tradition argument) - even though it seems admitted none of them had ANY possibility of knowing this tidbit and they seem to admit none of them gave ANY confirmation or evidence of such - just that they say that they say that they are correct.

2. That if we REALLY stretch things (perhaps changing verb tenses in the process), if we do some "really deep thinking" and if we do some "analysis" it's POSSIBLE (theoretically anyway) that this could be true (it doesn't necessary make it impossible anyway) or perhaps it at least makes it theoretically possible that Mary's INTENTION was to have no sex ever. But none of that confirms that Mary died a virgin, only that it MIGHT be theoretically POSSIBLE if - IF - we do some "really deep reading" of the text and "deep analysis." If any Calvinist did this with any Calvinist view, well - we can hear the laughter even now, can't we?


No sensical argument as the EV was there from the 150 AD...calvinism was not!

So what? I'm entirely lost as to what your comment has to do with what I posted or with providing the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Your partners here have claimed it's ALWAYS been believed, and FROM THE BEGINNING (which was defined as 33 AD), and "FROM THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES" (before 100 AD).

You seem to disagree with your fellow believers. Okay. Could you supply 5 quotes from 150 AD (or before) that state that Mary Had No Sex EVER? And then, if you can, explain how they knew this? Why they are telling this normally private piece of information of the wedding bed?

3. Mary made a vow to God to never had sex - and thus it is a dogmatic fact that She did not. But no evidence whatsoever has been supplied that She made ANY vow to God about anything.

4. They know how Joseph felt about Mary's sex life (how has never been disclosed) and that Joseph would have loved Mary less because of Her faith and obedience, so much less that he could not share his love for her in this normal marital way. (Odd, because most men are MORE willing to share their love where they love than when they don't). In any case, NOTHING has been presented to document that Joseph would only share intimacies with a wife he didn't love or respect.

God's own plan of the incarnation is just greater than a vow made on earth than one made in heaven . Case closed...period!

No confirmation needed? Is that always true with dogmas? IF someone had a dogma that Joseph Smith found two plates near his home, then case closed....period?" If somehow said that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have a 'love child' together then case closed....period!" When does truth matter and when it is like here just dismissed as irrelevant? Is this true for other denominations or just yours?

5. That this dogma actually is "about the typical male view about sex: that men deserve to have sex. That no-one may refuse a man's desire to have sex. It's about taking offense at women having any agency, about owning their bodies and their "voice" (to use the Feminist term). This is about the possibility that a man might be refused sex." (quoting verbatim an EO poster).

Ridiculous that is not a true statement...

It's a verbatim quote from an EO poster.

Sex is part of it but not all that a marriage is.

Who said it was?






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hi

Who is angry with Mary and who is dragging her through the mud? Are you talking about people here on this board? If so, tell me what they are saying and I will assist you in setting them straight... this is the mother of our Lord we are talking about! Grrrrrrrrrr.... that would make me very upset if someone was trash mouthing Mary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know this, I haven't been on staff in GT for years, but I just have a hunch. Just a hunch....

If we were having all these discussions NOT about the most esteemed religious female in the history of humanity, but just a person here - say a female staffer - no one particuarly special - and the whole thing was how often she has sex (not dogmatically, not as a matter of most importance to the worlds' 7 billion people, not a matter of greatest certainty of Truth - just how often she has sex), I have a hunch all participants would be banned. Not warned, banned. And yet.... here we are. Having that very discussion. Only not about some lowly female staffer but Mary! Not just kickin' around talk about her sex life but insisting that it's a matter of greatest importance to all and a matter of greatest certainty. Interesting. Curious. Very curious.


Oh, well. Back to the issue. Does truth matter? Also where Mary is concerned and where sex is the issue? If something is divisive and declared to be a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, should it have confirmation to match? Or at least something more than, "if we REALLY read deeply and REALLY do a deep, deep thinking about all this, it's at lease theoretically POSSIBLE since God Himself said that ALL THINGS are possible" or "Those who said it's true said it's true?" or "This is about women saying no to their husbands when it comes to sex!" If those apologetics wouldn't work if we were discussing a female staffer here at CF, why should the apologetic be conclusive to the point of greatest certainty of Truth if we are discussing Mary?


Well, let's see....






.

 

[Thekla]

I don't know this, I haven't been on staff in GT for years, but I just have a hunch. Just a hunch....

If we were having all these discussions NOT about the most esteemed religious female in the history of humanity, but just a person here - say a female staffer - no one particuarly special - and the whole thing was how often she has sex (not dogmatically, not as a matter of most importance to the worlds' 7 billion people, not a matter of greatest certainty of Truth - just how often she has sex), I have a hunch all participants would be banned. Not warned, banned. And yet.... here we are. Having that very discussion. Only not about some lowly female staffer but Mary! Not just kickin' around talk about her sex life but insisting that it's a matter of greatest importance to all and a matter of greatest certainty. Interesting. Curious. Very curious.


Oh, well. Back to the issue. Does truth matter? Also where Mary is concerned and where sex is the issue? If something is divisive and declared to be a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth, should it have confirmation to match? Or at least something more than, "if we REALLY read deeply and REALLY do a deep, deep thinking about all this, it's at lease theoretically POSSIBLE since God Himself said that ALL THINGS are possible" or "Those who said it's true said it's true?" or "This is about women saying no to their husbands when it comes to sex!" If those apologetics wouldn't work if we were discussing a female staffer here at CF, why should the apologetic be conclusive to the point of greatest certainty of Truth if we are discussing Mary?


Well, let's see....

But Josiah, you did use your mother's sex life as an example previously, and repeatedly asked about mine as well.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

This is an important (in fact central) conceptual nuance that has been deliberately avoided in this thread, and like discussions in this forum.

The concepts of sophrosyne, agia (set aside/holy), and the broader yet deeper meaning of chastity have been entirely skipped. Yet these are central to the discussion.

Hi

I've been reading along with this thread, and I'd love to see these concepts get more attention, too.

I thought that the reason for the dogmas about Mary were not so much specifically about her, but about what they say about Christ. So, I agree that discussing any other woman's "sex life" would be in poor taste, but this discussion isn't really about Mary and sex. It's about the incarnation of Christ and what her virginity says about that. When God occupies a space, it is Holy and set apart from the ordinary, and that would logically apply to the Theotokos, as well.

::resumes lurking::