Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

I read your posts. There are two numbers involved:

1. The 50,000 figure that "some Catholics" (and you for your own purposes) use.

2. The number 2 which is your opinion of how many denominations hold to the EV of Mary.

These two numbers are inconsistent because within that 50,000 figure, you would find way more than TWO denominations who hold to EV because they count each jurisdiction of Eastern Orthodox and each of the Eastern Catholic churches and each of the Oriental Orthodox churches (etc etc etc) as individual denominations.

In fact, no matter which number of denominations you use, it is more than TWO which hold to the EV of Mary. You have heard of the Oriental Orthodox, right? Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox, right? Or how about the Assyrian Church of the East which is not in communion with Rome, the EO or the OO?

Where do you get your figure that there are only two denominations that hold this belief?

I don't care what number you use for the total denominations - that isn't my point at all. What I do care about is that you be honest and consistent when comparing the total number with how many hold to the EV of Mary. So if you say 50,000 then you need to look at those 50,000 and count how many of them hold to it. If you want to use the number 300, then you need to count how many of the 300 hold to it.

You can't just say it's 2 of 50,000 when it is not. That is lying.

Not to mention the use of the definition of Church which is not consistent with Christian teaching (as demonstrated in the Holy Scriptures).

Denomination is a term for a particular Church of aggregate of local Churches. The Christian definition of Church (Ekklesia) is "called out" - meaning that the Church is made up of persons. (A dogma or idea of any sort cannot be "called out of" because ideas do not "hear").

Thus, denomination does not mean an aggregate of dogmas, but persons who adhere to a number of beliefs in common.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Look: the point was suggested that "logically" there are only two options - it's dogmatically correct or it's dogmatically incorrect. You noted such is "intellectual honesty." I pointed out that's neither logical or intellectually honest (and in fact, is entirely rejected in research - which happens to be my vocation). There is a third option: it cannot be determined either way. Where you got off on a tangent is that I noted what those supporting this dogma (being nice) claim - that there are some 50,000 + denominations (not my claim!) - and that actually, if so, the HUGE majority are in that third camp that you and the other dismissed as "logically" and "intellectually honesty" didn't permit. It matters not if you change the number to one Catholics don't claim - 5,000 or 500 or any number you like, it's still true that the majority are in a position you denied can exist. It not only "logically" can - it does.



.

In fact, no matter which number of denominations you use, it is more than TWO which hold to the EV of Mary. You have heard of the Oriental Orthodox, right? Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox, right? Or how about the Assyrian Church of the East which is not in communion with Rome, the EO or the OO?

Where do you get your figure that there are only two denominations that hold this belief?

I don't care what number you use for the total denominations - that isn't my point at all. What I do care about is that you be honest and consistent when comparing the total number with how many hold to the EV of Mary. So if you say 50,000 then you need to look at those 50,000 and count how many of them hold to it. If you want to use the number 300, then you need to count how many of the 300 hold to it.

You can't just say it's 2 of 50,000 when it is not. That is lying.

As you know (because you have repeatedly STRESSED it), the "50,000" number is not mine.

As you know, you have repeatedly been invited to submit WHATEVER numbers you like - I've ENTIRELY exempted you from ANY reality in such. Make it up, out of thin air if you want. AS YOU KNOW, it doesn't change the point.

I responded to a series of posts that argued that there are only two possible conclusions, "Logically" "Intellectually honest." As you know, THAT is the issue I responded to (although you continue to entirely ignore the post). What I stated is that there is a THIRD option. Namely, that there is insufficent data on which to conclude EITHER WAY. This option exists - in all disciplines, in all research (I make my living in research). It is both "logical" and "intellectually honest" - and it EXISTS as an option. Where you seem to have desired to divert this thread is that I tried to show it exists on THIS question, too. Yes - I used an institutional framework because I'm having this discussion with Catholics and Orthodox that have such and have argued consistently in that framework throughout this whole discussion and yes I used a CATHOLIC claim because I'm largely talking to Catholics. But it makes no difference what numbers of denomination you like - the reality of my point is the same, and you know that. The reality is there is a third option- to be nonconclusive, to not declare this as "correct" OR "incorrect", as "dogma" or "heresy." And yes - I think MOST denominations are actually in that camp declared to be non-existent.

Again, for what I think is the 4th time, suggest any number of denominations you like. List which ones have a DOGMA that Mary Had No Sex EVER. List those that have a DOGMA that "Mary Had Lots of Sex." Then list those that have no DOGMA at all on how often She had sex during all her time on earth. I think you will confirm my point: There IS a third option - it's not only "possible" but it actually exists - in Christianity, on this very point. And I suspect you'll discover it's actually the most common position among the world's denomintions. None of us have any way of knowing what is among the world's 2 billion individual Christians but I SUSPECT you'll find that that third position DOES exist. I'm one. Thus, my point, AS YOU WELL KNOW (IF you read the post you keep suggesting you're replying to).





.

 

[Thekla]

Well, you chose to change everything - the entire discussion. From the issue of truth and an institutional/historic framework (your position so far) to one of current individual embrace - you want to know what percentage of the 2 billion or so current believers fall into the 3 camps regarding the position: "It is a dogmatic fact of highest possible importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever." Those that state: "This is correct!" Those that state, "This not correct." And those that state, "It cannot be determined adequately." The problem with your desire to go off in this entirely new direction is I'm not aware of any data on it, do you have a recent, worldwide, reliable, scientific poll on that question? I don't. Unless you do, I don't know how to discuss what you now would rather discuss - you've derailed this to a very short dead end.



Look: the point was suggested that "logically" there are only two options - it's dogmatically correct or it's dogmatically incorrect. You noted such is "intellectual honesty." I pointed out that's neither logical or intellectually honest (and in fact, is entirely rejected in research - which happens to be my vocation). There is a third option: it cannot be determined either way. Where you got off on a tangent is that I noted what those supporting this dogma (being nice) claim - that there are some 50,000 + denominations (not my claim!) - and that actually, if so, the HUGE majority are in that third camp that you and the other dismissed as "logically" and "intellectually honesty" didn't permit. It matters not if you change the number to one Catholics don't claim - 5,000 or 500 or any number you like, it's still true that the majority are in a position you denied can exist. It not only "logically" can - it does.

I missed your edit in my response to you, sorry.

I think you do not understand.

In these last posts, I am only discussing the method of comparison you chose to use - by denomination.

A denomination is the name for a Church or number of local Churches. Thus, a denomination is actually a name (see the etymology and definition for the term denomination) of a particular Church or Churches, and Church is persons - per the Christian definition.

Thus the method of comparison you have selected - by number of denominations - does not honor the Scriptural definition of Church.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thus the method of comparison you have selected - by number of denominations - does not honor the Scriptural definition of Church.

AGAIN, if you want to change the framework of the discussion from a corporate, institutional one, from history of Councils and authorities of corporate entities - I'm MORE than willing!!! I'm be GLAD (very glad) to do that. I'm a really nice guy and I try to meet people more than half way, as you well know - so I was fully cooperating in YOUR framework. But sure, if you want to abandon all except what is embraced by the two billion or so Christians today hold - I'm game (of course, there goes everything you and the other supporters of this dogma have posted so far). But as I mentioned, MY problem with that (just speaking for me) is I know of no data on that. IF you have some solid, recent, worldwide, scientific survey of a full cross section of Christians on this question: "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?" then please enter it into the discussion. Otherwise, I think your suggesting interesting but impossible. You'd abandon your whole framework (oddly) and sent us down a very, very short dead end.

But MY point remains: There IS a third option (both logically and "being intellectually honest"): There is not JUST "it is correct!" or "it is incorrect" (dogma or heresy), there is a third option: it cannot be determined to either. This third option not only exists in logic and in research, but it's actually quite common (I even gave a nontheological example). AND it exists in Christianity AND on this topic. Now, if you want to abandon your whole framework and speak only of individual believers, then you should KNOW this option exists - I'm one of them.






.

 

[Thekla]

I'll try to simplify it:

To start, here is the definition of "denomination":

noun
1 a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.
• a group or branch of any religion : Jewish clergy of all denominations.
2 the face value of a banknote, a coin, or a postage stamp : a hundred dollars or so, in small denominations.
• the rank of a playing card within a suit, or of a suit relative to others : two cards of the same denomination.
3 formal a name or designation, esp. one serving to classify a set of things.
• the action of naming or classifying something : denomination of oneself as a fat woman.

I assume the first definition of "denomination" is the one being used, so here it is again:

1 a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.

Working from the idea that any term is a short stand-in for it's definition
(for example, virgin = no sex), we can say denomination = a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.

Then, we can do the same for "Church" in the definition of "denomination"
(remember, virgin = no sex, denomination = autonomous branch of the Christian Church).

So we get:
Denomination = autonomous branch of the Christian called out ones (Ekklesia).

Thus, it is clear that a denomination = an autonomous branch of the Christian called out ones.

"Called out ones" are of course people, persons.

A denomination is made up of persons.

Thus, when comparing by denominations, we should actually be comparing numbers of persons, not the name of the aggregate that the persons attend.

 

[Thekla]

AGAIN, if you want to change the framework of the discussion from a corporate, institutional one, from history of Councils and authorities of corporate entities - I'm MORE than willing!!! I'm be GLAD (very glad) to do that. I'm a really nice guy and I try to meet people more than half way, as you well know - so I was fully cooperating in YOUR framework. But sure, if you want to abandon all except what is embraced by the two billion or so Christians today hold - I'm game (of course, there goes everything you and the other supporters of this dogma have posted so far). But as I mentioned, MY problem with that (just speaking for me) is I know of no data on that. IF you have some solid, recent, worldwide, scientific survey of a full cross section of Christians on this question: "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?" then please enter it into the discussion. Otherwise, I think your suggesting interesting but impossible. You'd abandon your whole framework (oddly) and sent us down a very, very short dead end.

Do you mean to say that a Church = ideas, not persons ?

That is not a Scriptural definition of Church.

A particular denomination is an aggregate of persons who accept particular beliefs in common.

Still persons, though.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

As you know (because you have repeatedly STRESSED it), the "50,000" number is not mine.

I have not repeatedly stressed it. I have merely stated it because you do, in order to be consistent. I don't care whose number it is. You use it, and it's your use of it that I'm addressing. In other words, it is the way you use the number that I have a problem with, not the number itself. (I don't agree with it, but that isn't my point.)

As you know, you have repeatedly been invited to submit WHATEVER numbers you like - I've ENTIRELY exempted you from ANY reality in such. Make it up, out of thin air if you want. AS YOU KNOW, it doesn't change the point.

And again, I don't care what number you use as long as you are consistent and honest with the two numbers involved, as I explained in my last post. If you say 50,000 then you need to look at all 50,000 and see exactly how many hold to EV, and it is more than TWO (your number). YOUR figure that there are only 2 denominations holding to EV is wrong, and it is a direct lie to say that 2 of the 50,000 hold to EV.

Be honest. Be consistent. That is my point.

And I'm skipping the rest of your post (I did read it) because it has nothing to do with the point I was making, which was really quite simple, and frankly I'm very surprised you are having such a hard time grasping it. Either that, or you're gas-lighting me, in which case I'm done with this conversation.

 

[Thekla]

As I have more time now, I thought to try a more detailed response, as you seem to not quite understand what I am saying.

AGAIN, if you want to change the framework of the discussion from a corporate, institutional one, from history of Councils and authorities of corporate entities - I'm MORE than willing!!! I'm be GLAD (very glad) to do that.

I am not iterating my own position, but engaging in an analysis of and response to your method of evaluation.

Your method requires making a comparison of beliefs held by different denominations. Only your definition of "denomination" is Scripturally incorrect and inconsistent with the Christian definition. I have demonstrated this error in previous posts.

In the above paragraph you use the term "corporate". The term "corporate" (from corpus/body) in Christian usage refers to the "body of Christ". The Church is the body of Christ, the body of Christ is made up of persons.

I'm a really nice guy and I try to meet people more than half way, as you well know - so I was fully cooperating in YOUR framework. But sure, if you want to abandon all except what is embraced by the two billion or so Christians today hold - I'm game (of course, there goes everything you and the other supporters of this dogma have posted so far). But as I mentioned, MY problem with that (just speaking for me) is I know of no data on that.

As before, I am not abandoning "my framework"; instead, I am pointing out that there is a problem - your framework may be fine on the face of it. But, your framework is made up of particular components, and one of your components is deeply flawed. The flaw is that you use a false definition of denomination, in abrogation of even the Scriptures.

IF you have some solid, recent, worldwide, scientific survey of a full cross section of Christians on this question: "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?" then please enter it into the discussion. Otherwise, I think your suggesting interesting but impossible. You'd abandon your whole framework (oddly) and sent us down a very, very short dead end.

That indeed may be another flaw in your framework or method.

At this point, it seems that your framework or method may be altogether untenable.

On the other hand, as only God can 'see' the human heart, and He alone is judge, as Christians (if we believe what is recorded that God says or claims), then we can return to the idea that persons gathering as Church/es aggregating and using a common name (denomination, from the word meaning "name") accept the beliefs taught as dogma in their groups.

So, for example, if one denomination has as dogma the belief that Christ really and truly actually Resurrected from the dead, well it seems (short of claiming to be able to judge the human heart of each) reasonable to assume that each person accepts this -- or will leave.

But MY point remains: There IS a third option (both logically and "being intellectually honest"): There is not JUST "it is correct!" or "it is incorrect" (dogma or heresy), there is a third option: it cannot be determined to either. This third option not only exists in logic and in research, but it's actually quite common (I even gave a nontheological example). AND it exists in Christianity AND on this topic. Now, if you want to abandon your whole framework and speak only of individual believers, then you should KNOW this option exists - I'm one of them.

I was not aware that there was a third option to your framework - it seems to be an analysis of validity through comparison.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have not repeatedly stressed it. I have merely stated it because you do

You entirely ignored EVERYTHING else and took that line and changed it to bold font. You have repeatedly returned to the specific number - trying to suggest that it's my claim when you stressed - with embolden font and laser focus - that it's a claim of "some Catholics" (I'm not Catholic, as you might know).

Be honest That is my point.

Mine, too - which is why I'm TRYING to get at the point of honesty and truth. Since it is claimed by the RCC and EOC (dogma nowhere else) that it is a dogmatic fact of highest possible importance and greatest certainty of TRUTH that Mary Had No Sex EVER, honesty and Truth are relevant (even if it's just MARY we're talking about and not some woman here at CF). And since it is claimed this is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty - the substantiation obviously needs to match that. Yes, it is about honesty and truth and intellectual integrity.

As you know, my point in the post is that there are NOT just two possible "logical" "intellectually honest" options: It is correct OR it is false, dogma or heresy. As you know, the entire point of the post is that there is a third option - logically and in practice: the third being NEITHER, that there is insufficient data on which to declare either position. I gave a nontheological example (did you read it?). AND this also applies in theology AND to this very topic. As I noted, there ARE denominations that take the first position (It is confirmed that it IS a dogmatic fact of highest possible importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER) - albeit only the CC and EO, there appear to be NONE that take the second position ("It is confirmed that it is NOT a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex Ever), but it seems every other denomination is of the third possibility. THUS, this third option not only exists in logic and in practice, but also in Christian theology and even on THIS subject. As you know, that was the point of the post. Why you decided to have a huge debate with ME over what you stressed (by focusing SOLELY on that and by making it in bold font) is not my view -I don't know. Perhaps you'll drop it.






.

 

[Thekla]

a = l x w

area = length x weight

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

You entirely ignored EVERYTHING else and took that line and changed it to bold font. You have repeatedly returned to the specific number - trying to suggest that it's my claim when you stressed - with embolden font and laser focus - that it's a claim of "some Catholics" (I'm not Catholic, as you might know).




Mine, too - which is why I'm TRYING to get at the point of honesty and truth. Since it is claimed by the RCC and EOC (dogma nowhere else) that it is a dogmatic fact of highest possible importance and greatest certainty of TRUTH that Mary Had No Sex EVER, honesty and Truth are relevant (even if it's just MARY we're talking about and not some woman here at CF). And since it is claimed this is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty - the substantiation obviously needs to match that. Yes, it is about honesty and truth and intellectual integrity.

As you know, my point in the post is that there are NOT just two possible "logical" "intellectually honest" options: It is correct OR it is false, dogma or heresy. As you know, the entire point of the post is that there is a third option - logically and in practice: the third being NEITHER, that there is insufficient data on which to declare either position. I gave a nontheological example (did you read it?). AND this also applies in theology AND to this very topic. As I noted, there ARE denominations that take the first position (It is confirmed that it IS a dogmatic fact of highest possible importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER) - albeit only the CC and EO, there appear to be NONE that take the second position ("It is confirmed that it is NOT a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex Ever), but it seems every other denomination is of the third possibility. THUS, this third option not only exists in logic and in practice, but also in Christian theology and even on THIS subject. As you know, that was the point of the post. Why you decided to have a huge debate with ME over what you stressed (by focusing SOLELY on that and by making it in bold font) is not my view -I don't know. Perhaps you'll drop it.






.

Ah, so you are gas-lighting me. Okay. It's dropped.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I was not aware that there was a third option.

I know. It's why I posted what I did. There were a couple of others who (interestingly) didn't seem to know that.

YES, it is both local and "intellectually honest" to embrace one of THREE possibilities.

1. A position may be deemed correct.
2. A position may be deemed incorrect.
3. A position may be deemed as unable to determine.

ALL THREE are possible - logically.
And in practice (I work in research, this is the stuff I do 40 hours a week)


The example I gave you is this proposition: "There is life on other planets." The statement made becomes the issue arbitrated. To the standard expressed.

Yes, logically and in practice, the statement might be arbitrated in one of three ways:

It is arbitrated that:
1. The statement is correct (normed positive is the technical language)
2. The statement is incorrect (normed negatively)
3. The statement cannot be normed, there is no conclusion, there is insufficient data for a decision with finality.
Yup.
THREE options.
the third comes up a LOT.

Now, all scientist known to ME would arbitrate that the position here being normed would be #3. We just don't have enough information (it's actually NONE) to answer the question one way or the other. We need additional data.


Now, if it was stated, "It is an indisputable FACT of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER" is a position open to review. It then is arbitrated to the level claimed. yes, there are THREE (not two) possible and logical conclusions of that arbitration: 1) It is correct (as conveyed), 2) It is incorrect, 3) It is unable to be determined, thus no position is embraced (either way).


As I noted, we seem to have two denominations that have position #1.
It seems we have none that have position #2.
It seems all the rest (whatever number you want to give there) have #3.


IF you want to take this out of them realm of institutions, Councils, history, etc. and view it rather in terms not of what denominations dogmatically hold what and instead how individuals "feel" - then we need the data (or else we are going to end up in #3). We at least need a solid, scientific, reliable, worldwide poll of Christians on the specific issue: Is it a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?" If you have data from such a survey, enter it into the discussion. Otherwise, you've given us no choice but to all embrace # 3 on that - we have insufficient data (actually NONE) on which to arbitrate the position of what percentage of the world's believers hold to # 1, #2 or #3 on that question.





.

 

[Thekla]

I know. It's why I posted what I did. There were a couple of others who (interestingly) didn't seem to know that.

YES, it is both local and "intellectually honest" to embrace one of THREE possibilities.

1. A position may be deemed correct.
2. A position may be deemed incorrect.
3. A position may be deemed as unable to determine.

ALL THREE are possible - logically.
And in practice (I work in research, this is the stuff I do 40 hours a week)


The example I gave you is this proposition: "There is life on other planets." The statement made becomes the issue arbitrated. To the standard expressed.

Yes, logically and in practice, the statement might be arbitrated in one of three ways:

It is arbitrated that:
1. The statement is correct (normed positive is the technical language)
2. The statement is incorrect (normed negatively)
3. The statement cannot be normed, there is no conclusion, there is insufficient data for a decision with finality.
Yup.
THREE options.
the third comes up a LOT.

Now, all scientist known to ME would arbitrate that the position here being normed would be #3. We just don't have enough information (it's actually NONE) to answer the question one way or the other. We need additional data.


Now, if it was stated, "It is an indisputable FACT of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER" is a position open to review. It then is arbitrated to the level claimed. yes, there are THREE (not two) possible and logical conclusions of that arbitration: 1) It is correct (as conveyed), 2) It is incorrect, 3) It is unable to be determined, thus no position is embraced (either way).


As I noted, we seem to have two denominations that have position #1.
It seems we have none that have position #2.
It seems all the rest (whatever number you want to give there) have #3.


IF you want to take this out of them realm of institutions, Councils, history, etc. and view it rather in terms not of what denominations dogmatically hold what and instead how individuals "feel" - then we need the data (or else we are going to end up in #3). We at least need a solid, scientific, reliable, worldwide poll of Christians on the specific issue: Is it a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?" If you have data from such a survey, enter it into the discussion. Otherwise, you've given us no choice but to all embrace # 3 on that - we have insufficient data (actually NONE) on which to arbitrate the position of what percentage of the world's believers hold to # 1, #2 or #3 on that question.

Please see the context of my use for "the third option"; the context was of method. Ie, a "third option" referred to (in my post) methodological framework, not supposition and outcome.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

As I noted, we seem to have two denominations that have position #1.
It seems we have none that have position #2.
It seems all the rest (whatever number you want to give there) have #3.
.

Where do you get your figure of "two" for #1?

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

I'll try to simplify it:

To start, here is the definition of "denomination":


I assume the first definition of "denomination" is the one being used, so here it is again:

1 a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.

Working from the idea that any term is a short stand-in for it's definition
(for example, virgin = no sex), we can say denomination = a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.

Then, we can do the same for "Church" in the definition of "denomination"
(remember, virgin = no sex, denomination = autonomous branch of the Christian Church).

So we get:
Denomination = autonomous branch of the Christian called out ones (Ekklesia).

Thus, it is clear that a denomination = an autonomous branch of the Christian called out ones.

"Called out ones" are of course people, persons.

A denomination is made up of persons.

Thus, when comparing by denominations, we should actually be comparing numbers of persons, not the name of the aggregate that the persons attend.

This seems the most reasonable course of action to me.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by washedagain 20 views and no one wants to tackle this? Interesting.

How is it interesting?

In that case, LLOJ subscribes, tho I really have to admit that threads on Mary do not excite me that much :o

 

[Dorothea]

So the question becomes (continuing from the last post):

which method - comparing denominations, or comparing the population of persons within denominations - should be used for the analysis ?

The answer may vary depending on one's personal belief but, tmk, all denominations teach that the Church is the body of Christ and is made up of persons.

I don't understand what you and Josiah are talking about. There are no Orthodox "denominations" because we aren't one.

 

[Dorothea]

I read your posts. There are two numbers involved:

1. The 50,000 figure that "some Catholics" (and you for your own purposes) use.

2. The number 2 which is your opinion of how many denominations hold to the EV of Mary.

These two numbers are inconsistent because within that 50,000 figure, you would find way more than TWO denominations who hold to EV because they count each jurisdiction of Eastern Orthodox and each of the Eastern Catholic churches and each of the Oriental Orthodox churches (etc etc etc) as individual denominations.

In fact, no matter which number of denominations you use, it is more than TWO which hold to the EV of Mary. You have heard of the Oriental Orthodox, right? Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox, right? Or how about the Assyrian Church of the East which is not in communion with Rome, the EO or the OO?

Where do you get your figure that there are only two denominations that hold this belief?

I don't care what number you use for the total denominations - that isn't my point at all. What I do care about is that you be honest and consistent when comparing the total number with how many hold to the EV of Mary. So if you say 50,000 then you need to look at those 50,000 and count how many of them hold to it. If you want to use the number 300, then you need to count how many of the 300 hold to it.

You can't just say it's 2 of 50,000 when it is not. That is lying.

What are "Some Catholics?" Please, oh please tell me that Josiah isn't calling us the RCC? I see this so often in these forums. If I or you or Thekla or Philothei were RCC, we'd be a member of that Church. We are not. I love my RCC brethren, but we ARE NOT the RCC!!! If I misunderstood, I am sorry.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

What are "Some Catholics?" Please, oh please tell me that Josiah isn't calling us the RCC? I see this so often in these forums. If I or you or Thekla or Philothei were RCC, we'd be a member of that Church. We are not. I love my RCC brethren, but we ARE NOT the RCC!!! If I misunderstood, I am sorry.

You'll have to ask him who "some Catholics" are because he's the one who insists that "some Catholics" claim there are 50,000 denominations. I don't think he's talking about us; after all, he's claiming that the RCC and EO are the only two "denominations" which hold to the EV of Mary, so I assume he knows we're different.

You're right that Orthodoxy isn't a denomination, but I'm not sure it's worth trying to explain that to him. That's why I didn't bother with it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't understand what you and Josiah are talking about. There are no Orthodox "denominations" because we aren't one.

Yeah. You would think not

http://www.christianforums.com/t6948799/
Roman Catholic and Orthodox denominations?