Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[LOCO]

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.

Our brother Josiah appears to be confusing CC with EO.

Historically and technically speaking there is no such thing as the RCC.

RCC was a derogatory term coined by Anglicans centuries ago and it stuck. I don't have a problem with that term.

There is one Catholic Church consisting of 23 Churches and 10 Rites. The Roman Rite is one.

All of them are in Communion with Rome i.e. view the Pope as first among equals.

The Western Church uses Latin Rites i.e. one of the following:

1. Roman Rite (majority of Latin Catholics, Catholics in general)
2. Ambrosian Rite (used in Milan specifically)
3. Mozarabic Rite (used in the Iberian peninsula/Spain&Portugal)
4. Anglican Rite (used post 1980s by Anglican converts)
5. Carthusian Rite (Founded by St Bruno 1084)

The 22 Eastern Churches use either Alexandrian, Antiochan, Armenian, Chaldean or Byzantine Rites

1. Coptic Church
2. Ethiopian Church
3. Maronite Church
4. Syro-Malankar Church
5. Syrian Church
6. Armenian Church
7. Chaldean Church
8. Syro-Malabar Church
9. Albanese Church
10. Belarussian Church
11. Bulgarian Church
12. Croatian Church
13. Greek Church
14. Greek-Melkite Church
15. Hungarian Church
16. Italo-Albanese Church
17. Macedonian Church
18. Romanian Church
19. Russian Church
20. Ruthenina Church
21. Slovak Church
22. Ukrainian Church


EASTERN ORTHODOX

Prior to 1054 the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church was part of the branches of the same body—the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

1054 designates the very first major division in Christianity.

Disagreement between these two branches of Christendom had already long existed, but the widening gap between the Rome and Eastern Orthodox church increased throughout the first millennium with a progression of worsening disputes over doctrine.

To the present date, the Eastern and Western churches remain divided and separate. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras agreed to formally remove the mutual excommunication of 1054.

Throughout history though neither has doubted or challenged Our Ladys Perpetual Virginity.

Blessings

 

[Dorothea]

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.

Thanks.

 

[Dorothea]

Our brother Josiah appears to be confusing CC with EO.

Historically and technically speaking there is no such thing as the RCC.

RCC was a derogatory term coined by Anglicans centuries ago and it stuck. I don't have a problem with that term.

There is one Catholic Church consisting of 23 Churches and 10 Rites. The Roman Rite is one.

All of them are in Communion with Rome i.e. view the Pope as first among equals.

The Western Church uses Latin Rites i.e. one of the following:

1. Roman Rite (majority of Latin Catholics, Catholics in general)
2. Ambrosian Rite (used in Milan specifically)
3. Mozarabic Rite (used in the Iberian peninsula/Spain&Portugal)
4. Anglican Rite (used post 1980s by Anglican converts)
5. Carthusian Rite (Founded by St Bruno 1084)

The 22 Eastern Churches use either Alexandrian, Antiochan, Armenian, Chaldean or Byzantine Rites

1. Coptic Church
2. Ethiopian Church
3. Maronite Church
4. Syro-Malankar Church
5. Syrian Church
6. Armenian Church
7. Chaldean Church
8. Syro-Malabar Church
9. Albanese Church
10. Belarussian Church
11. Bulgarian Church
12. Croatian Church
13. Greek Church
14. Greek-Melkite Church
15. Hungarian Church
16. Italo-Albanese Church
17. Macedonian Church
18. Romanian Church
19. Russian Church
20. Ruthenina Church
21. Slovak Church
22. Ukrainian Church


EASTERN ORTHODOX

Prior to 1054 the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church was part of the branches of the same body—the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

1054 designates the very first major division in Christianity.

Disagreement between these two branches of Christendom had already long existed, but the widening gap between the Rome and Eastern Orthodox church increased throughout the first millennium with a progression of worsening disputes over doctrine.

To the present date, the Eastern and Western churches remain divided and separate. In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras agreed to formally remove the mutual excommunication of 1054.

Throughout history though neither has doubted or challenged Our Ladys Perpetual Virginity.

Blessings

Very true, LOCO. I would think because both Churches were one at the beginning and knew the proper teaching on it.

 

[Thekla]

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

I agree, but I do understand that Josiah may have a different understanding.

So, my interest is in exploring his position and method of evaluation - which is comparing the different views on Mary.

What I have found is that there is a central flaw in the tool he is using for his comparison; he is using an incorrect definition for one of his terms - a definition which disagrees with Scripture.

 

[Dorothea]

I agree, but I do understand that Josiah may have a different understanding.

So, my interest is in exploring his position and method of evaluation - which is comparing the different views on Mary.

What I have found is that there is a central flaw in the tool he is using for his comparison; he is using an incorrect definition for one of his terms - a definition which disagrees with Scripture.

Oh, ok. Thanks for explaining it to me.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.



.

I don't understand what you and Josiah are talking about.


.

Dorothea,


Let me explain (if you care)....


The point was made that there are only two possibilities in arbitration: that the proposition is normed correct OR it is normed incorrect. One must conclude it is right or wrong. I was responding solely, only, exclusively to THAT point vis-a-vis this issue of whether it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I disagreed. I work in the field of research. There are THREE possible conclusions to norming: normed positive (deemed correct as stated), normed negative (deemed to be incorrect or false), normed inconclusive (it cannot be determined, one way or the other, given the data presented. Read on....

I showed (using a non-theological example) how this THIRD option exists. And I showed that this exists not only in ever other discipline but ALSO in theology - in fact, with this very topic: The proposition here under review: That Mary made a vow to God and the precise content thereof was that she would have no sex ever, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Yes, some (namely the EOC and RCC) insist that such is normed positively, no denomination known to me norms it negatively, and ALL OTHERS hold to position # 3 - that it is normed inconclusively. So, not only is this third position POSSIBLE but it exists - in fact, if we look at this institutionally, in that framework, then the great majority of these institutions are of this third option, thus they have no formal position on this supposed "vow" or it's content or Mary's supposed sex life after Jesus was born.


Unfortunately, some chose to ignore the entire point of my post and have attempted - with profound and laser focus - to divert this thread away from the topic we are to discuss: That Mary made a vow to God and the precise content thereof was that she would have no sex ever, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER and instead try to divert the discuss to what is and is not a "denomination." I'm sure they have their reasons to try to change the subject, but I'm not going there. There are already threads on the definition of "denomination" (one or two with me as the opening poster).







.

 

[Thekla]

Unfortunately, some chose to ignore the entire point of my post and have attempted - with profound and laser focus - to divert this thread away from the topic we are to discuss: That Mary made a vow to God and the precise content thereof was that she would have no sex ever, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER and instead try to divert the discuss to what is and is not a "denomination." I'm sure they have their reasons to try to change the subject, but I'm not going there. There are already threads on the definition of "denomination" (one or two with me as the opening poster).

An analysis of the means used for a method of evaluation that has already been introduced into the thread is not a diversion, but an analysis of the method and its integrity.

Likewise I invited you to examine my argument (on the order and tense use of the dialogue between Gabriel and Mary) and provide counterpoints where you found any mistakes, etc. Apparently, you could not find a problem with my argument and thus did not respond.

Thus I also examined your method, and indeed did find a fatal flaw.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Likewise I invited you to examine my argument (on the order and tense use of the dialogue between Gabriel and Mary) and provide counterpoints where you found any mistakes, etc. Apparently, you could not find a problem with my argument and thus did not respond.

I'm glad you now want to return to the question of whether it is documented as true that Mary made a vow to God and the precise content thereof was that she would have no sex ever, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER ." I read your .... interpretation... of the verse. As I have said about that several times before, I find it both pressed and largely irrelevant to the discussion, it says NOTHING about the state of Her virginity at Her death (or was it undeath - I've asked you several times what is the EOC teaching on that). You seem to be working EXTREMELY, quite incredibly - hard to TRY to convince all that the dogma is theoretically possible. Thing is, no one has said it's not. In fact, the same angel tells us that "ALL THINGS are possible with God," so no one is contesting whether it's POSSIBLE that She died (or didn't) a perpetual virgin. But that's not the issue, is it? NO ONE has even raised that issue. THIS is about a specific VOW made by Mary to God and the particular CONTENT thereof, and whether Mary had no sex EVER, and that that is all a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Is there confirmation of such to the level claimed?







.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Josiah, why don't you look up what the EO position is on Mary's death? It's information that would take about a minute to find out, if you really want to know. And today would be a very good day to learn about it.

 

[Thekla]

I'm glad you now want to return to the question of whether it is documented as true that Mary made a vow to God and the precise content thereof was that she would have no sex ever, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER ." I read your .... interpretation... of the verse. As I have said about that several times before, I find it both pressed and largely irrelevant to the discussion, it says NOTHING about the state of Her virginity at Her death (or was it undeath - I've asked you several times what is the EOC teaching on that). You seem to be working EXTREMELY, quite incredibly - hard to TRY to convince all that the dogma is theoretically possible. Thing is, no one has said it's not. In fact, the same angel tells us that "ALL THINGS are possible with God," so no one is contesting whether it's POSSIBLE that She died (or didn't) a perpetual virgin. But that's not the issue, is it? NO ONE has even raised that issue. THIS is about a specific VOW made by Mary to God and the particular CONTENT thereof, and whether Mary had no sex EVER, and that that is all a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Is there confirmation of such to the level claimed?

that's an analysis ?

(Is this a claim for prolepsis ?)


It seems I've read this before - several times.
How can this be an analysis when it reiterates what was repeatedly stated prior to the post I asked for a counterpoint analysis to ...

 

[LOCO]

Thing is, no one has said it's not. In fact, the same angel tells us that "ALL THINGS are possible with God," so no one is contesting whether it's POSSIBLE that She died (or didn't) a perpetual virgin. But that's not the issue, is it? NO ONE has even raised that issue. THIS is about a specific VOW made by Mary to God and the particular CONTENT thereof, and whether Mary had no sex EVER, and that that is all a matter of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth. Is there confirmation of such to the level claimed?

.

Consider the original interpretation from Aramaic to Greek. First century Aramaic being the language Mary and Christ spoke .

The Greek for both "will conceive" (sullēmpsē) and "[will] bear" (texē) in Luke 1:31 are in the future middle indicative tense. The future indicative, obviously, means that it indicates something that is to take place in the future.

The middle voice means that the subject of the sentence (in this case "you"; i.e. Mary) acts in some way that conerns herself or that she is involved to a large degree in the action or the results of that action. The use of the middle voice, then, is not suprising since Gabriel is speaking of pregnancy and birth; quite obviously the mother is involved to a very great degree in pregnancy and birth.

The point of all that is to say that the middle voice simply speaks of Mary's involvement in the action but in no way changes or mitigates the fact that the verbs are most definitely in the future indicative tense.

There's no further clue as to how soon or not at all soon this future action will take place.




Mary has only one question for the angel Gabriel. And it’s a question that provides a beautiful window into Our Lady’s unique spiritual life, but one we might overlook if we don’t read the Annunciation account carefully: Mary says to the angel, "How can this be since I do not know man?"

Two important facts will help us better appreciate the significance of Mary’s question.

First, at this moment in the story we know that Mary is a virgin betrothed to Joseph, meaning that she is at the first stage of marriage. She is truly married to Joseph but not yet living with him, for she has not arrived at the second stage of marriage known as the "coming together," when husband and wife typically would begin to live in the same house and consummate the marriage.

Second, Mary has been told by Gabriel that at some time in the future she will bear a son who will be the royal Son of David, the Messiah-King. Notice the future tense: "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Lk. 1:31, emphasis added). So far, Gabriel gives no indication that the conception will take place right now or in the immediate future. In fact, the timetable is quite open-ended. Without giving any time specification, the angel simply informs Mary that she will conceive this child at some time in the future.

Now consider this: If Mary were just an ordinary Jewish betrothed woman—planning on consummating her marriage once she reached the coming-together stage—when would she expect such a pregnancy to take place? In other words, if a betrothed woman in the first century was informed by a prophet that she was going to have a child at some time in the future, when would that woman expect such a pregnancy to begin? Presumably, sometime after betrothal—after the coming together, when sexual intercourse was permitted. Spoken to an ordinary betrothed woman, such an announcement about conceiving a child would naturally point to her future married life, after consummation.

In this light, Mary’s question seems rather peculiar: "How can this be since I do not know man?" If Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph in the near future, the answer to her question should be obvious.

While she does not right now have the power to conceive a child (since she doesn’t yet "know" man sexually), if Mary intends to know Joseph after the coming together, then she evidently will be able to have a child at that point. Therefore, if Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph, her question—"How can this be since I do not know man?"—simply does not make sense.

This is why some Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen in Mary’s question an indication that she was not intending to consummate her marriage. According to this perspective, Mary raises her question because she has made a decision to remain a virgin throughout her life.

This view, advanced by theologians such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure (and even Martin Luther), explains Mary’s question not as one of doubt, but one that seeks clarification as to how she can conceive a child if she has committed herself to the Lord in virginity.

A second question often raised is, "Why would Mary accept betrothal to Joseph if she intended to remain a virgin?" Diverse explanations have been given for this unique marriage. Perhaps since remaining a single woman was not as socially feasible in the ancient world of Judaism as it is today, marriage would have provided economic stability and social protection for Mary. Perhaps the marriage was arranged. Perhaps marriage would free Mary from other men seeking her hand in marriage and thus protect her vow. Perhaps God led Mary to marriage because in His providence, He wanted to protect her reputation for the future when she would conceive by the Holy Spirit. John Paul II pondered this question, too, and offered his own suggestion:

"We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever . . . It may be presumed that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin. Moreover, the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Mary to choose virginity in view of the mystery of the Incarnation and who wanted the latter to come about in a family setting suited to the child’s growth, was quite able to instill in Joseph the ideal of virginity as well."

Blessings

 

[Thekla]

Or, LOCO, women are always and ineluctably irrational

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Consider the original interpretation from Aramaic to Greek. First century Aramaic being the language Mary and Christ spoke

Quote them in aramaic therefore. Can't? Don't have their exact words in some other language? Doubt that God translated as well as He should have? Then, I don't know how to discuss a phantom.

There's no further clue as to how soon or not at all soon this future action will take place.

That's right.

Prophecy is almost always delivered in the future tense. It does NOT mean that it will be fulfilled at the moment of one's death or undeath (and thus is irrelevant to our discussion here).

I remind you again of the ancient Catholic Tradition. You seem to basing everything on accepting, with quiet and unquestioning docility (CCC87) this Tradition, and yet you are tossing aside Catholic Tradition. That Tradition is that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY which is why you celebrated the Annunication of March 25 (do the math). The angels proclaimation is FUTURE because prophecy is proclaimed in that tense - but that tense means it could happen one micro second in the future or billions of years from now - as you keep agreeing with me, it's INDEFINITE. And yet, the Tradtion you say is to guide us, says that it happened virtually IMMEDIATELY - at least on the same day. Thus, Mary's response is appropriate and natural, isn't it? She replies in the PRESENT ACTIVE TENSE, and the most natural way to take that is as the present - not only the primary and natural way to take it but it conforms to ancient Catholic Tradition.

What you keep missing is that this verse is NOT saying, "I will die [or not die] as a virgin, I am a PERPETUAL virgin." Yes - I can see you are working really, really, really hard - amazingly pressing - so as to make it at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, however unlikely and pressed and unnatural an interpretation, but again, no one has said it's IMPOSSIBLE. It's not impossible that Mary was 15 feet tall and had 100 kids (all red-headed boys) either. But whether it's POSSIBLE is not the issue, is it? The issue before us is the confirmation you have of a specific, particular VOW Mary made to God and the specific CONTENT thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Mary says to the angel, "How can this be since I do not know a man?"


Now consider this: If Mary were just an ordinary Jewish betrothed woman—planning on consummating her marriage once she reached the coming-together stage—when would she expect such a pregnancy to take place? In other words, if a betrothed woman in the first century was informed by a prophet that she was going to have a child at some time in the future, when would that woman expect such a pregnancy to begin?

Are you saying that you asking questions and your ASSUMING what may have been going through her mind is Confirmation that Mary had this specific VOW to God and the specific CONTENT thereof and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? Are you insisting that your questions prove that?

To be frank, I can't read minds. But again, I'm more than curious why - in your use of RCC Tradition with quiet, unquestioning docility is causing you to entirely toss aside RCC Tradition, namely, that the Annunciation and Incarnation happened TOGETHER. While the text doesn't say (a point you keep making and then completely dismissing - you NEED to make up your mind), it seems more natural that this is in line with your RC Tradition and that somehow Mary was CORRECT, that the Incarnation would not be at the moment of her death (or undeath - which was it) but soon, very soon, today. Yes - I agree - Her response probably would have been different if she was wrong and understood this prophecy to be in 25 years after she and Joseph were joined and she had a plethora of children, but it makes a lot of sense if She was CORRECT and understood this as now - not 25 years in the future or (to make it relevant to our discussion here) at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath, which was it).

Presumably, sometime after betrothal—after the coming together, when sexual intercourse was permitted.

1. Which is it? Are the tenses here DEFINITE or INDEFINITE?

2. Why is your presumption, your infallible ability to read the mind of someone who lived 2000 years ago that you've never even met, why is that confirmation to the level claimed of this specific VOW Mary made to God and the specific CONTENT thereof and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?

n this light, Mary’s question seems rather peculiar: "How can this be since I do not know man?" If Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph in the near future, the answer to her question should be obvious.

1. Make up your mind: Are these verb tenses definite as to time or indefinite?

2. So, the entire confirmation is because of your infallible ability to read the mind of one you've never met, who lived 2000 years ago?

3. I tend to theorize that She would not have asked the question if she understood the fulfillment to be 25 years in the future (or even one year), and seems odd if She thought it would be at the moment of Her death (or undeath, which was it?) so that "no sex EVER" is herein confirmed. She would have asked a very different question, it seems to me. But what seems to me is not confirmation to the level claimed of this specific VOW Mary made to God and the specific CONTENT thereof and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER or that Mary Had Lotsa Sex either. Questions, speculations, self appointing self as an infallible mind reader of one never even met are not confirmation you accept from other so I'm certain you don't want us to accept such from you.



Thank you


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Kristos]

Amazon.com: The Abolition of Man (9780060652944): C. S. Lewis: Books

I will buy it for you if you promise to read it

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

Josiah, Why are you so focused on "no sex EVER"? Is that all virginity means?

For indeed the mystery of the Incarnation was for her also the mystery of her own personal existence. Her existential situation was unique and peculiar. She had to be adequate to the unprecedented dignity of this situation. This is perhaps the very essence of her particular dignity, which is described as her "Ever-Virginity." She is the Virgin. Now virginity is not simply a bodily status or a physical feature as such. Above all it is a spiritual and inner attitude, and apart from that a bodily status would be altogether meaningless. The title of Ever-Virgin means surely much more than merely a "physiological" statement. It does not refer only to the Virgin Birth. It does not imply only an exclusion of any later marital intercourse (which would be utterly inconceivable if we really believe in the Virgin Birth and in the Divinity of Jesus). It excludes first of all any "erotic" involvement, any sensual and selfish desires or passions, any dissipation of the heart and mind. The bodily integrity or incorruption is but an outward sign of the internal purity. The main point is precisely the purity of the heart, that indispensable condition of "seeing God."

This is the freedom from passions, the true apathia, which has been commonly described as the essence of the spiritual life. Freedom from passions and "desires," epithimia — imperviability to evil thoughts, as St. John of Damascus puts it. Her soul was governed by God only, it was supremely attached to him. All her desire was directed towards things worthy of desire and affection (St. John says: tetammeni, attracted, gravitating). She had no passion, thymon. She ever preserved virginity in mind, and soul, and body (Homil. 1, in Nativitatem B.V Mariae 9 and 5, Migne, Ser. Gr. XCVI, 676 A and 668 C). It was an undisturbed orientation of the whole personal life towards God, a complete self-dedication. To be truly a "handmaid of the Lord" means precisely to be ever-virgin, and not to have any fleshly preoccupations. Spiritual virginity is sinlessness, but not yet "perfection," and not freedom from temptations. But even our Lord himself was in a sense liable to temptations and was actually tempted by Satan in the wilderness

source

Does this quote mean anything to you? And before you say it, no it has nothing to do with a vow. That's not what I'm talking about. I'd just really like to hear your thoughts on what virginity means other than "no sex EVER."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, Why are you so focused on "no sex EVER"? Is that all virginity means?

1. Quote me where I said that. At all.


2. Let's say one had all kinds of implications concerning life on other planets. It would ALL depend - solely - on there BEING life on other planets. Thus, while the proposition of "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that There Is Life On Other Plants" may have implications flowing from that, it's all irrelevant apart from the propostion upon which it stems. The desire to discuss "implications" apart from the the proposition from which it stems is both impossible and, well, silly. We need to establish the proposition first.


3. Please remember the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about various implications of virginity, I suggest you start a thread on that. This thread is about a specific VOW of Mary to God, the specific CONTENT thereof, and the proposition that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[mrmccormo]

CalifornianJosiah, the problem is that posters here HAVE, on MULTIPLE occassions addressed the vow issue. They offered Holy Tradition and the Protoevangelium of James as the "evidence" you asked for. In addition, offering evidence of Mary's virginity IS IN FACT the very evidence you asked for to prove there was a vow.

After all, if it has been established that Mary remained a virgin, then that would be evidence to the possibility that she was a virgin due to a vow (which is the topic of this thread). Therefore, providing evidence that Mary remained a virgin is a key piece of evidence in this discussion of the thread topic. On the other hand, if it was established that Mary did not remain a virgin, it would be evidence to the possibility that she did not take such a vow.

According to you:

This thread is about a specific VOW of Mary to God, the specific CONTENT thereof, and the proposition that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

This thread is about the follow topics (according to your own words)

1) Mary took a vow to remain a virgin: currently being discussed
2) It is a dogmatic fact that Mary remained a virgin: currently being discussed

People are giving you PRECISELY the evidence you have asked for. Stop dodging and stop trying to tell people "that's not what this thread is about...". You are hindering true conversation when you imply the conversation is going off course when it is - in fact - EXACTLY on course.

 

[MetanoiaHeart]

1. Quote me where I said that. At all.


2. Let's say one had all kinds of implications concerning life on other planets. It would ALL depend - solely - on there BEING life on other planets. Thus, while the proposition of "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that There Is Life On Other Plants" may have implications flowing from that, it's all irrelevant apart from the propostion upon which it stems. The desire to discuss "implications" apart from the the proposition from which it stems is both impossible and, well, silly. We need to establish the proposition first.


3. Please remember the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about various implications of virginity, I suggest you start a thread on that. This thread is about a specific VOW of Mary to God, the specific CONTENT thereof, and the proposition that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

So, you're saying that we can't have a normal conversation about this, that it has to be done as a debate where the topic must remain solely on the word "vow" and nothing else will be engaged with by you. It might be a good way to "win" a debate by shutting down any conversation which is not in your favor, but it's a terrible way to try to understand a dogma which is much, much more than about Mary's bodily status. That is why I asked you if that is all virginity means to you, because it appears to be the only thing which you focus on with laser precision.

In all honesty, I think you're getting things backwards. Establishing that there was a vow, or at least establishing that Mary died without ever having sex, is not step one. The "no sex" part is only incidental to the real issue. Read the quote again.

 

[LOCO]

So, you're saying that we can't have a normal conversation about this, that it has to be done as a debate where the topic must remain solely on the word "vow" and nothing else will be engaged with by you. It might be a good way to "win" a debate by shutting down any conversation which is not in your favor, but it's a terrible way to try to understand a dogma which is much, much more than about Mary's bodily status. That is why I asked you if that is all virginity means to you, because it appears to be the only thing which you focus on with laser precision.

In all honesty, I think you're getting things backwards. Establishing that there was a vow, or at least establishing that Mary died without ever having sex, is not step one. The "no sex" part is only incidental to the real issue. Read the quote again.

California Josiah doesn't engage or respond to arguments or scriptural evidence that answer his questions.

He just keep on attacking, changes direction, introduces something new, makes snide comment here or there, always keeping Catholics, EO's and others here on the defence. And then he feigns surprise or offence when he is called on it.

I will no longer converse with him on this topic precisely because of this. It's like talking with a JackChick.com subscriber.

He is not interested in a dialogue, only in his monologues.

 

[justinangel]

California Josiah doesn't engage or respond to arguments or scriptural evidence that answer his questions.

He just keep on attacking, changes direction, introduces something new, makes snide comment here or there, always keeping Catholics, EO's and others here on the defence. And then he feigns surprise or offence when he is called on it.

I will no longer converse with him on this topic precisely because of this. It's like talking with a JackChick.com subscriber.

He is not interested in a dialogue, only in his monologues.

For this reason I absented myself from our discussion long ago.

PAX