Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

It might ALSO entail many things. But none of that negates that it also means "no sex."

Virginity (as before) includes the sense of a disposition.
It is a complete giving and dedication of self to God (Mary says "my soul magnifies the Lord -- ie, per Genesis, the whole person).
It indicates a disinterest in the things of the world, and a personhood set off from worldly standards and towards the things of God.
It is a singularity of purpose, of harmonia with God.

In Christ we find wholeness - whether married or not.
For those called to marriage, one's spiritual path is through/in God with another as one.
Those who are not called to marriage find their wholeness entirely in God.

 

[Thekla]

So 2 people who are betrothed but never married, there is still perpetual duty of care? I have a hard time envisioning this happening in any other case.

As before, it is the case with couples that I know (neither are EO or RC, btw ) who married but did not engage in conjugal relations (in both cases one spouse has died). Both husbands had medical conditions (AIDS, the virulent form of MS). Both were deeply loving relationships.

In other instances, among my friends are couples where the development of a medical condition has led to a complete lack of conjugal relations. But, the love - and "caring for" continue. (In one instance, medical personnel recommended divorce claiming that without sex the husband would not have his "needs met". He was furious; to his thinking, this denigrated the core of marriage. It does to my way of thinking as well. They are still married.)

 

[Thekla]

παραλαμβάνω (to take)

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

 

[Thekla]

There is no dogma on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born in Lutheranism. There's only dogma on this in two denominations - the RC and EO.

No, I meant any/all Lutheran dogmas.
I had of course gathered that there were none which referred to the Theotokos.

1. Mary was a woman.

2. In the discussion earlier, of how the loving sharing of marital intimacies, the entire point was about MARY (a woman, you probably agree) and how it would make HER (a woman) less pure, less devoted, less committed to God - even a single case of such. There was no mention of Joseph.

3. I gave you a case for you to discuss, involving the sex life of a woman so as bring some similarity to the case here of an issue involving the sex life of a woman. If it makes you uncomfortable talking about the sex life of a woman (and I can understand that, in spite that that being an issue ENORMOUS to you, not me), then switch it to your father.

Men can be virgins, too.

Why virginity can only be used in reference to females is beyond me.

But, I know of no reason that one must illustrate the point in such a manner.

I know of no other person in history who was asked to bear Jesus Christ.

Why then would any other person be an illustration for what is singular in all eternity ?

Quote me where I said, "It's all about sex."

Is it not at al about sex? Does "The Ever Virgin Mary" and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" not have to do with sex? Does it mean that Mary may have had sex thousands of times but still is the Ever Virgin Mary? The Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Please see your previous posts (2 or 3 years worth) on the matter; virgin is persistently accompanied in your posts by "no sex ever".
Should be easy to find; the terminology "no sex ever" has not infrequently appeared against black text as red text.

Again, there is no dogma about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. I can't list them because there are NONE. I realize you REALLY seem to desire to divert the whole discussion away from the issue here and your denomination, but you know the rules of CF and I think you realize what the topic is. It's really not very complicated.

Understood.

But a comparison based on what is dogmatic in Lutheran belief would be instructive.



By comparing what is dogma in the EO and what is dogma in the Lutheran Church.

Here is a start:

The Nicea-Constantinople Creed is dogmatic in the EO.

Is it dogmatic in the Lutheran Church ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Virginity (as before) includes the sense of a disposition.

Does it also include having not had sex?

It is a complete giving and dedication of self to God

Ah, so do you agree that even a single case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage makes the wife less pure, less devoted, less committed - it so diminishes the wife's relationship to God?

IF so, please document.

IF so, please confirm that ergo Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of fact that Mary Had No Sex EVER. After all, your mother likely had sex at least once and yet (if you think it true) such made her less pure.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, I meant any/all Lutheran dogmas.

It is a teaching that Mary was a virgin at the Annunciation and at the Nativity of Our Lord. While not a teaching, per se, Lutherans embrace the TITLE for Mary, "Mother of God." Lutherans often teach the various aspects of Mary that Scripture records in the words therein, although that doesn't make those details (that she gave birth in Bethlehem, for example) dogmas, per se. That's the full and complete content of our teachings on this subject.


But this discussion is not about what my denomination teaches about Mary, NONE OF WHICH YOU DISAGREE WITH. It's about the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's about a specific vow you claim Mary made to God and the precise content thereof, and the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I realize you desperately want to divert the discussion to other teachings and other denominations, and I understand that, but it's not permitted by the rules and it's best that we stay on topic.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The idea that God and Mary were married comes lock, stock and barrel from Mormonism. I know of NOTHING in Scripture that remotely so indicates (and thus supports polygamy and that the incarnation was a result of a PHYSICAL act between Mary and God). Nope. NOTHING remotely says any of that.

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."
Luke 1, 35

In ancient Jewish culture the expression "to lay one's power over" (resuth) a woman was a euphemism for marital relations.

This is news to me, my Catholic teachers never taught us the LDS teaching that God literally had sex with Mary and thereby married her so that God and Mary are husband and wife. The LDS teaches all that, it's news to me that the RCC also teaches that. But then, Mary wasn't a virgin, was she? Frankly, I find this LDS view (and it seems RCC one) kind of discusting, and embracing a very wrong view of the nature of God.


But we really should stick to the issue at hand: The confirmation that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of this vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.




.

 

[Thekla]

Does it also include having not had sex?

Someone who has had no sex can still to have the spiritual quality of 'virginity'. A disposition which is not in harmonia with God - for example self-centered/vain, greedy - which not be spiritually virginal.

The term is more than its medical usage.

Ah, so do you agree that even a single case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage makes the wife less pure, less devoted, less committed - it so diminishes the wife's relationship to God?

Not at all.
But Paul is clear on the matter, so you can refer to him on this matter. The difficulties he describes cannot be said to be ineluctable, but his words are instructive.

IF so, please document.

I'm not sure what you mean, nor have you described you standard re: acceptable documentation.

IF so, please confirm that ergo Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of fact that Mary Had No Sex EVER. After all, your mother likely had sex at least once and yet (if you think it true) such made her less pure.

I'm not sure how you would know what I think on matters I have not commented on ...

I do know that my mother was not called by God to bear Jesus Christ. Knowing what I do of her relationship with God, and the course and Christian witness of my mother's life, I do believe she was called to marriage, not celibacy.

 

[Thekla]

It is a teaching that Mary was a virgin at the Annunciation and at the Nativity of Our Lord. While not a teaching, per se, Lutherans embrace the TITLE for Mary, "Mother of God." Lutherans often teach the various aspects of Mary that Scripture records in the words therein, although that doesn't make those details (that she gave birth in Bethlehem, for example) dogmas, per se. That's the full and complete content of our teachings on this subject.


But this discussion is not about what my denomination teaches about Mary, NONE OF WHICH YOU DISAGREE WITH. It's about the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's about a specific vow you claim Mary made to God and the precise content thereof, and the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I realize you desperately want to divert the discussion to other teachings and other denominations, and I understand that, but it's not permitted by the rules and it's best that we stay on topic.

Actually, I am not "interested" in Lutheran dogma (or lack of dogma) re: the Theotokos.

I am interested in all Lutheran dogma; for example, is it dogma in the Lutheran Church that Christ is fully God, fully man ?

Is the Holy Trinity dogma in the Lutheran Church ?

If one in the Lutheran Church states a belief that the Holy Spirit is a creation, is the persons belief not in accord with Lutheran dogma on the Holy Spirit ?

I hope these examples will help you to understand what I am 'looking for'; maybe to respond to each of my examples (above) directly with the Lutheran dogma on each.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ah, so do you agree that even a single case of loving, mutual sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage makes the wife less pure, less devoted, less committed - it so diminishes the wife's relationship to God?

IF so, please document.

IF so, please confirm that ergo Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of fact that Mary Had No Sex EVER. After all, your mother likely had sex at least once and yet (if you think it true) such made her less pure.

Someone who has had no sex can still to have the spiritual quality of 'virginity'.

I see.

So....


1. Why has it been stressed that even a single case of the loving sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage makes the wife less pure, less devoted, less committed? Does it impact such or not?

2. Then why the apologetic that Mary made this specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow was "I shall die a virgin," and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact that Mary Had No Sex EVER because if she had even a single case of such loving sharing, it would make her defiled and not the Mother of Our Lord - even if retroactrively? It seems to me you just completely dismissed the whole apologetic. And brought us back to square one.





.

 

[Thekla]

I see.

So....


1. Why has it been stressed that even a single case of the loving sharing of intimacies within the Sacrament of Marriage makes the wife less pure, less devoted, less committed? Does it impact such or not?

That's what you've said, though I don't recall this being stated by others.

Can you provide a post # for the claim so I can take a look ?

2. Then why the apologetic that Mary made this specific vow to God, the precise content of said vow was "I shall die a virgin," and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact that Mary Had No Sex EVER because if she had even a single case of such loving sharing, it would make her defiled and not the Mother of Our Lord - even if retroactrively? It seems to me you just completely dismissed the whole apologetic. And brought us back to square one.

Huh ?

You've stated your conclusions as the conclusions of others; could you provide the argument, the "how" of the conclusion you state ?

 

[Thekla]

CaliforniaJosiah,

perhaps you missed this post
(when the thread moved to the next page) --

Actually, I am not "interested" in Lutheran dogma (or lack of dogma) re: the Theotokos.

I am interested in all Lutheran dogma; for example, is it dogma in the Lutheran Church that Christ is fully God, fully man ?

Is the Holy Trinity dogma in the Lutheran Church ?

If one in the Lutheran Church states a belief that the Holy Spirit is a creation, is the persons belief not in accord with Lutheran dogma on the Holy Spirit ?

I hope these examples will help you to understand what I am 'looking for'; maybe to respond to each of my examples (above) directly with the Lutheran dogma on each.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's what you've said, though I don't recall this being stated by others.

Evidently, it doesn't matter. You are declaring it false. I tend to agree with you. We'll see if Phileothei disagrees with you.


So, the question stands: Where is the confirmation of this specific vow you claim Mary made to God, that the precise content of said vow was "I shall die or undie as never had sex," and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? That's the issue. Again, I'd likely accept whatever YOU would accept as confirmation that, "it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that my mother will have had sex 7654 times at the moment of her death (or undeath, if you prefer)."




What have we gotten so far?


1. "We have nothing from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, all the biblical penmen, and everyone who lived before 220 AD." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


2. "The first person we know that said ANYTHING about this is Turtullian from about 220 AD who denies it." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


3. "It is at least theoretically POSSIBLE that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are not the children of Mary and ergo it is IMPOSSIBLE that Mary even once had sex." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


4. "The ancient tradition of the Church that the Incarnation and the Annunciation is wrong, and when Mary answered the angel in the present active tense, she meant to use the future perfect: "I AM virgin" actually should have been, "I will die - or not - having not had sex even once." If I post, "I am a virgin" (as I could), that is confirmation that at the moment of my death (or undeath) I will have had sex not once. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


5. "God had sex with Mary ("virginity" here be defined as no sex WITH A HUMAN, she's not a virgin in the sense of having not had sex) and thus is married to her, polygamy NEVER existed among the Jews, ergo Mary never married Joseph and ergo never had sex with him - just God." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?(I realize this actually is not an apologetic the RC accepts - but it's heard, including here).


6. From the Third Century on, we seem to be able to find some who believe this and they do believe it. None even attempts to reveal it as true, but they do believe it. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?



Again, IF it was stated that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth that your mother - at the moment of her death (or undeath if you prefer) will have had sex 7654 times, what would YOU accept as confirmation? Look at the 6 things above.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Thekla,


You must have missed this. I'll repost it for you:

It is a teaching that Mary was a virgin at the Annunciation and at the Nativity of Our Lord. While not a teaching, per se, Lutherans embrace the TITLE for Mary, "Mother of God." Lutherans often teach the various aspects of Mary that Scripture records in the words therein, although that doesn't make those details (that she gave birth in Bethlehem, for example) dogmas, per se. That's the full and complete content of our teachings on this subject.


But this discussion is not about what my denomination teaches about Mary, NONE OF WHICH YOU DISAGREE WITH. It's about the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's about a specific vow you claim Mary made to God and the precise content thereof, and the confirmation to the level claimed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I realize you desperately want to divert the discussion to other teachings and other denominations, and I understand that, but it's not permitted by the rules and it's best that we stay on topic.

.

 

[Thekla]

Evidently, it doesn't matter. You are declaring it false. I tend to agree with you. We'll see if Phileothei disagrees with you.


So, the question stands: Where is the confirmation of this specific vow you claim Mary made to God, that the precise content of said vow was "I shall die or undie as never had sex," and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? That's the issue. Again, I'd likely accept whatever YOU would accept as confirmation that, "it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that my mother will have had sex 7654 times at the moment of her death (or undeath, if you prefer)."




What have we gotten so far?


1. "We have nothing from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, all the biblical penmen, and everyone who lived before 220 AD." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


2. "The first person we know that said ANYTHING about this is Turtullian from about 220 AD who denies it." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


3. "It is at least theoretically POSSIBLE that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are not the children of Mary and ergo it is IMPOSSIBLE that Mary even once had sex." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


4. "The ancient tradition of the Church that the Incarnation and the Annunciation is wrong, and when Mary answered the angel in the present active tense, she meant to use the future perfect: "I AM virgin" actually should have been, "I will die - or not - having not had sex even once." If I post, "I am a virgin" (as I could), that is confirmation that at the moment of my death (or undeath) I will have had sex not once. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


5. "God had sex with Mary ("virginity" here be defined as no sex WITH A HUMAN, she's not a virgin in the sense of having not had sex) and thus is married to her, polygamy NEVER existed among the Jews, ergo Mary never married Joseph and ergo never had sex with him - just God." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?(I realize this actually is not an apologetic the RC accepts - but it's heard, including here).


6. From the Third Century on, we seem to be able to find some who believe this and they do believe it. None even attempts to reveal it as true, but they do believe it. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?



Again, IF it was stated that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth that your mother - at the moment of her death (or undeath if you prefer) will have had sex 7654 times, what would YOU accept as confirmation? Look at the 6 things above.

To be honest, Josiah, I can understand why you might find any dogma hard to accept.

It seems Lutheranism has no dogma/s.

If one cannot state with any certainty (dogma) even that God is,
then even discussion of "dogma" would be untenable.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So, the question stands: Where is the confirmation of this specific vow you claim Mary made to God, that the precise content of said vow was "I shall die or undie as never had sex," and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? That's the issue. Again, I'd likely accept whatever YOU would accept as confirmation that, "it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that my mother will have had sex 7654 times at the moment of her death (or undeath, if you prefer)."


.

It seems Lutheranism has no dogma/s.

It seems you'd rather discuss some OTHER view of some OTHER denomination.

Who said that Lutheranism has no dogmas? I gave you the teachings of Lutheranism on Mary. ALL of them.

What have we gotten so far?


1. "We have nothing from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, all the biblical penmen, and everyone who lived before 220 AD." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


2. "The first person we know that said ANYTHING about this is Turtullian from about 220 AD who denies it." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


3. "It is at least theoretically POSSIBLE that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are not the children of Mary and ergo it is IMPOSSIBLE that Mary even once had sex." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


4. "The ancient tradition of the Church that the Incarnation and the Annunciation is wrong, and when Mary answered the angel in the present active tense, she meant to use the future perfect: "I AM virgin" actually should have been, "I will die - or not - having not had sex even once." If I post, "I am a virgin" (as I could), that is confirmation that at the moment of my death (or undeath) I will have had sex not once. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


5. "God had sex with Mary ("virginity" here be defined as no sex WITH A HUMAN, she's not a virgin in the sense of having not had sex) and thus is married to her, polygamy NEVER existed among the Jews, ergo Mary never married Joseph and ergo never had sex with him - just God." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?(I realize this actually is not an apologetic the RC accepts - but it's heard, including here).


6. From the Third Century on, we seem to be able to find some who believe this and they do believe it. None even attempts to reveal it as true, but they do believe it. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?



Again, IF it was stated that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth that your mother - at the moment of her death (or undeath if you prefer) will have had sex 7654 times, what would YOU accept as confirmation? Look at the 6 things above.

To be honest, Josiah, I can understand why you might find any dogma hard to accept

Is that your way of saying you find the apologies presented as underwhelming? That YOU would not accept the same if the issue was your mother's sex life?



Remember: Of all the denominatons on the planet, only the RCC and EOC have a view on how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. The others are silent (just as Phileothei stated were the Apostles). IF you are going to step out and declare THIS a matter of highest importance of all to all, a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth, a dogmatic fact - shouldn't it have something to confirm it, something you'd accept? Remember too: when a Protestant presents something (even if its just his/her own personal opinion) there is a universal cry from all non Protestants that such much prove it (witness the reaction here to a couple of non RC and EO members) suggesting that Jesus may have had brothers! But when the tables are turned - even to a FAR, FAR higher level (dogma), even concerning what is normally a private matter (how often do you have sex?), well - certainty a DOGMA requires AT LEAST the same "bar" don't you think? What we've all witnessed is a far, far lesser (to non-existent) bar, a far weaker apologetic of a far greater declared matter.







.

 

[Thekla]

It seems you'd rather discuss some OTHER view of some OTHER denomination.

Who said that Lutheranism has no dogmas? I gave you the teachings of Lutheranism on Mary. ALL of them.



Is that your way of saying you find the apologies presented as underwhelming? That YOU would not accept the same if the issue was your mother's sex life?



Remember: Of all the denominatons on the planet, only the RCC and EOC have a view on how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. The others are silent (just as Phileothei stated were the Apostles). IF you are going to step out and declare THIS a matter of highest importance of all to all, a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth, a dogmatic fact - shouldn't it have something to confirm it, something you'd accept? Remember too: when a Protestant presents something (even if its just his/her own personal opinion) there is a universal cry from all non Protestants that such much prove it (witness the reaction here to a couple of non RC and EO members) suggesting that Jesus may have had brothers! But when the tables are turned - even to a FAR, FAR higher level (dogma), even concerning what is normally a private matter (how often do you have sex?), well - certainty a DOGMA requires AT LEAST the same "bar" don't you think? What we've all witnessed is a far, far lesser (to non-existent) bar, a far weaker apologetic of a far greater declared matter.







.

Josiah -

I have answered so many of your queries.

I have explained my reason for asking what Lutheran dogmas are; it is in the interest of establishing a ground of understanding for subsequent communication.

I could not find a list of Lutheran dogmas using internet search, so I asked you.

I still think it is hard to understand or consider any dogma if one comes from the living experience of no dogma.

Your questions have been re: dogma which includes the Theotokos many times over the past two or three years that you have been asking the same questions. Persons more capable than myself have answered.

I honestly think that your repeated asking of the same questions despite ample and exhaustive answers points to some reason for asking other than the most obvious reason.

I am left with several possibilities.

For one, the conceptual and spiritual task of "understanding" is foreign to the ground of your lived experience. In this case, no answer will be satisfactory.

But I am further saddened that there is no solid ground in Lutheranism; that one cannot even say dogmatically that the Holy Spirit is not a creature. That Lutheranism cannot dogmatically state that Christ is fully God, fully man or even that God is. This lack of firm foundation is reflected in the snipping/slipping/shifting of standards, of definition, of firm ground in your posts.

I do hope you find the answers you are looking for, but I rather think it will require something other, something more than the questions you are repeatedly asking. And no matter what you end up believing on this matter, I do think some further stretching is needed. Perhaps a different line of questions, a different approach, a different sort of investigation.
A different or overlapping ground of understanding.

The dialogue requires each party to stretch a bit, to gain an overlapping understanding of "other". It requires making the other "subject", not object, but the center of the 'field of vision' in empathy, to become "in sympathy". This is hard enough between humans. But doing the "work" of dialogue with others among us is actually a learning template in a sense of coming to communication with the One Who is most Other whilst being complete Center - with God.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Thekla,
The Lutheran dogmatic statements are found in the Book of Concord, which is made of a number of documents:

+ Preface to the Book of Concord
+ The Ecumenical Creeds
+ The Augsburg Confession
+ The Defense of the Augsburg Confession
+ The Smalcald Articles
+ The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
+ The Small Catechism
+ The Large Catechism
+ The Epitome of the Formula of Concord
+ The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

Luther himself did believe in the ever-virginity of Mary. Later Lutherans (including most of the conservative branches) typically hold the ever-virginity of Mary to be pious opinion.

That being said, the 4th Article of the Smalcald Articles includes the phrase semper virgo but only in Latin, not in the German:

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

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thekla,


Luther himself did believe in the ever-virginity of Mary. Later Lutherans (including most of the conservative branches) typically hold the ever-virginity of Mary to be pious opinion.

Thank you, GreekOrthodox...


More accurately, typically conservative Lutherans hold that the ever-virginity of Mary is acceptable pious opinion. Some embrace it, some do not, most appear to me as I am for now - silent. The denomination itself holds no view at all.

That being said, the 4th Article of the Smalcald Articles includes the phrase semper virgo but only in Latin, not in the German:

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

Well (and accurately) stated.

In the 16th Century, the common TITLE for Mary when writing in Latin included that. It is only a TITLE, and only in the Latin translation. The fact that it is missing in the original German is telling. In the Confessions, to be doctrine, it is usually accepted that it must be an article of teaching (not simply a title or passing notation), it must be accomplanied by Scripture noted to support it, and it must be regarded as in some sense binding (for example, those not holding it being defrocked or excommunicated). This issue does not qualify. It IS at times a pious opinion, it IS a permitted teaching, it is not an official teaching, much less doctrine, much less dogma.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah -

I could not find a list of Lutheran dogmas using internet search, so I asked you.

AGAIN, I have given you ALL of them related to the topic of this thread. I realize you seem extremely intent on diverting the discussion to other topics and to the views of other denominations, but we are to abide by the rules here at CF, aren't we?

Lutherans teach that Mary was a virgin at the Annunication and at the Nativity.

Lutherans use the TITLE of "Mother of God" although it is a title, not a dogma.

Lutherans teach a number of things about Mary that are taken, verbatim from printed words in the texts (Often from Luke and Matthew) - simply to repeat what Scripture verbatim states.

NONE of these things would you disagree with.

There you are. The ENTIRE, all-encompassing, total and complete list of Marian teachings in Lutheranism.







In an attempt to return to the issue of the thread...

So, the question stands: Where is the confirmation of this specific vow you claim Mary made to God, that the precise content of said vow was "I shall die or undie as never had sex," and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? That's the issue. Again, I'd likely accept whatever YOU would accept as confirmation that, "it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that my mother will have had sex 7654 times at the moment of her death (or undeath, if you prefer)."




What have we gotten so far?


1. "We have nothing from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, all the biblical penmen, and everyone who lived before 220 AD." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


2. "The first person we know that said ANYTHING about this is Turtullian from about 220 AD who denies it." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


3. "It is at least theoretically POSSIBLE that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are not the children of Mary and ergo it is IMPOSSIBLE that Mary even once had sex." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


4. "The ancient tradition of the Church that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened on the same day is wrong, and when Mary answered the angel in the present active tense, she meant to use the future perfect: "I AM virgin" actually should have been, "I will die - or not - having not had sex even once." If I post, "I am a virgin" (as I could), that is confirmation that at the moment of my death (or undeath) I will have had sex not once. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?


5. "God had sex with Mary ("virginity" here be defined as no sex WITH A HUMAN, she's not a virgin in the sense of having not had sex) and thus is married to her, polygamy NEVER existed among the Jews, ergo Mary never married Joseph and ergo never had sex with him - just God." Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?(I realize this actually is not an apologetic the RC accepts - but it's heard, including here).


6. From the Third Century on, we seem to be able to find some who believe this and they do believe it. None even attempts to reveal it as true, but they do believe it. Compelling? For a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth?



Again, IF it was stated that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all, a matter of greatest certainty of truth that your mother - at the moment of her death (or undeath if you prefer) will have had sex 7654 times, what would YOU accept as confirmation? Look at the 6 things above.





.

.



.