Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thekla,


Does the EO teach that Mary did or did not ever have sex? Yes? No?

Is that teaching official? Yes? No?


Thank you for all the links, but I'm requesting your response to these two questions.


Philthei answered "yes" to the first but has yet to answer the second.




.

​

 

[Thekla]

It is an official teaching that she is aeiparthenos/ever-virgin -- the term in its full meaning.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is an official teaching that she is aeiparthenos/ever-virgin -- the term in its full meaning.

Thank you. Two questions:


Does the EO teach that Mary did not ever have sex? Yes? No?

Is that teaching official? Yes? No?


Philthei answered "yes" to the first but has yet to answer the second.




.
​

​

 

[Philothei]

I can also see where the concept of "ever virginity" is far greater than that of simply abstaining from sexual relations.

Ding ding ding you get the price .... Now question for ya:

Have you find anywhere in our tradition that virginity was explained as "no sex ever" ? Then you know why... cause that is not ONLY the meaning. Period.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Have you find anywhere in our tradition that virginity was explained as "no sex ever" ? Then you know why... cause that is not ONLY the meaning. Period.

Perhaps you forgot, you already posted,

Virgin Mary did not have sex

You have not yet answered my second question: Is that an official teaching of the EO?


Now, you MIGHT be able to understand why I've repeatedly thrown my hands in the air - in complete confusion - as to why when you say that, it's right and good. When I say the very same thing, it's rude, crude, immature, offensive, and a rule violation here at CF? THAT is what I was trying to figure out for some months. Why this HUGE offensive at your own view (remember: I have no view on how often Mary had sex - if ever)? I've put up with aweful posts, PM's, HOURS of work (along with Staff) because I said the EO teaches that Mary never had sex, but then you posted the same thing. YOU go figure, because after MONTHS of putting up with this, I gave up. It seems absolutely unavoidable to conclude that some Orthodox are extremely offended by their own teaching. And yet, I doubt that is true. A sure puzzle. Must be some cultural thing.

But I'm tired of the evasion, insults, reports and accusations. I'm tired of the "Mary had no sex but if you say that, you are immature, sex-crazed, hormone driven, carnal, horrible person - violating posting rules at CF." Tired of it, my friend. I'M NOT THE ONE with "issues" about marital sex or women or virginity - of that I'm assured.



:o





.

 

[prodromos]

Thank you. Two questions:


Does the EO teach that Mary did not ever have sex? Yes? No?

Is that teaching official? Yes? No?
​

CJ, I believe we have stated plainly what our Church teaches regarding Mary, yet you persist in focusing on one very narrow aspect. For what purpose?

John

 

[prodromos]

You have not yet answered my second question: Is that an official teaching of the EO?

It is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church that Mary remained a virgin, with everything that the term "virgin" entails. The teaching of the Church does not focus on that one specific aspect of the term's meaning which you appear to be so obsessed with. Similarly, the Church teaching about the incarnation of our Lord does not just focus on His birth, death, resurrection and ascension but on the whole of His life including His being conceived, His presentation at the temple, His fasting and suffering, His ministry and teaching. Your narrow focus on virginity as being abstinence from sexual intercourse is like insisting that the incarnation is only Christ's birth.

John

 

[Thekla]

AFAIK only Origen specifically refers to (not engaging in) intercourse in discussing the ever virginity; as I've mentioned before before the teaching is "aieparthenos" and refers to the entirety of the meaning. I don't understand why that (repeated over months) and the teaching itself (made available, iterated and linked in Mariology over months) is hard to understand. But perhaps it would behoove you to conduct your own google search, as you can satisfy your curiosity there.

The EO tends, in its teachings, to reiterate terminology and phraseology that has been used over the centuries. This particular terminology (aieparthenos) predates the origin of the English language. As stated before before over months and months it refers to both spiritual and physical virginity.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ, I believe we have stated plainly what our Church teaches regarding Mary, yet you persist in focusing on one very narrow aspect. For what purpose?

John

I agree, while it's been like pulling teeth (lol), it HAS been said that the EO teaches that Mary never had sex. THAT'S THE ISSUE. John, that's what I said is the view of the EO. And for saying that, I'm been demonized as crude, carnal, offensive, sex-obessesed, Fruedian, pathological - and more. For saying that, I've been accused - repeatedly - for violating posting rules here at CF. For some time, I TRIED to figure this out: why is the EO seemingly offended (to SUCH an extreme) by what it says is true? But I gave up. I don't know the answer. And I'm convinced I cannot because we can't talk about Mary without mentioning Mary, or perpetual without mentioning perpetual or virginity without mentioning virginity. I'm tired of being demonized as a horrible person - I'm not. And while I have a healthy male labito, I'm not sex-crazed or sexually immature or "hormone driven" or "pathological" or any of the other things I've been accused of. And I've violated no posting rules. What I've said is what those Orthodox posters themselves have said - but it's offensive, rude, sexually immature and all the rest if I say it. There IS a seeming contradiction here.


And friend, I have said - so many times I probably AM guilty of spamming, lol - that I KNOW that Mary not having sex is NOT the full teaching of this. I expressed - several times, in several threads - that in Catholicism, the dogma is that Mary had no sex but the implications of this are really the point of this, so that in some ways, her virginity is a manifestation of what is the focus. I NEVER said - in fact over and over and over and over I have said the opposite - that the Dogma of The Ever-Virginity of Mary is ONLY, SOLY about her not having had sex. BUT IT DOES INCLUDE THAT. That is what "The Ever Virginity of Mary" means. And saying that seems odd to be characterized as "offensive" "rude" "crude" "immature" "sex-crazed" "pathological" "hormone-driven" etc. The EO seems oddly offended or embarrossed by what it teaches.


As I made so very crystal clear, this dogma - like all dogmas - has implications, ramifications, spiritualities. A couple of EO's have chosen to touch - ever so briefly - on some of those. GREAT! That's very helpful! I largely agree with them. But what's odd is that the position (including the very name given to the dogma) seems so very offensive. Odd. It's not to Catholics. When I was studying Catholicism, I was told that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that Mary never had sex, and this was the result of her devotion to God and Her role as the Mother of God. Understood. The EO seems to have HUGE, ENORMOUS "issues" with the first part of that - that she never had sex. My mentioning that is the EO position (not mine - I don't have a view on this) set off a firestorm the likes of which I've never experienced in my 10 years of posting way too much on the net. And WAY inappropriate, because I'm not the pathological, hateful person I've been made out to be, and I've violated no posting rules here. I've stated what the EO states - without agreeing or disagreeing with it.

Frankly, it IS a puzzle - this huge outrage some Orthodox have with their teaching that they defend. And I've given up trying to understand it. But THIS conclusion I have made: There are STRONG issues in the East over women, virginity and marital sex. And somehow, this dogma really brings that to the surface. And it's quite distinctive from what I saw in Catholicism where there seems to be much more acceptance, comfort and embrace of this dogma. Look who got so all fired up over whether Mary ever had sex? All Orthodox....


Oh well.
I DID try.




.

 

[prodromos]

Um. When I posted that as belief of the Eastern Orthodox, I was accused of being offensive, carnal, immature, hormone-driven, sex-crazed. And posting what you just did is a Rule Violation here at CF.

You removed what Philothei posted from its context. What Philothei posted is not what you have been posting incessantly for weeks.

John

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The EO teaches that Mary had no sex ever.

Virgin Mary did not have sex

I fail to see the HUGE difference that means my statement is offensive, rude, crude, sex-crazed, immature, Freudian, pathological and a rule violation. But, oh well....



:o







.

 

[Thekla]

No, the dominant issue (please refer to the threads linked above) is the renaming of the teaching, and the shaving of the term ever-virgin into a partial and incorrect focus.

The teaching is a whole, an entire. It is Christological, Soteriological, Incarnational.

I said before and I will state again:

for the area of a rectangle, are both of the following formula true ?
L x W = area
L = area

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, the dominant issue

I never once so much as mentioned ANY dominate issue. You know that. What I said is that the EO teaches that Mary had no sex ever. And what I was told is that my saying that is not only wrong but is rude, crude, carnal, Freudian, pathological, immature, sex-crazed and a rule violation for posting here at CF. THAT is the issue I TRIED to address. But it only made it ever more clear that there is some "issue" that some Orthodox have with Mary not having had sex. I don't know what it is, but it seems widespread in the EO (note: no Catholic seems offended, I've not recieved any PM's on this from any Catholic, no accusations of my being a Pathological, Freudian, sex-crazed, immature person from them).


If really pressed, it seems these Orthodox will state that I'm right - the EO DOES teach that Mary never had sex. But if a non-Orthodox says that they do, well..... A firestorm like one has perhaps never seen before, GREAT feelings that SEEM to include embarrassment, discomfort, and more. Hard to understand. I gave up.

I'm tired of all. I've concluded there is some very deep "issues" in the East over women, marital sex and virginity - and this dogma (while very much embraced) seems to REALLY bring that out. But I need to leave it at that. Anything more is pure theorizing on my part.


.

 

[Thekla]

I never once so much as mentioned ANY dominate issue. You know that. What I said is that the EO teaches that Mary had no sex ever. And what I was told is that my saying that is not only wrong but is rude, crude, carnal, Freudian, pathological, immature, sex-crazed and a rule violation for posting here at CF. THAT is the issue I TRIED to address. But it only made it ever more clear that there is some "issue" that some Orthodox have with Mary not having had sex. I don't know what it is, but it seems widespread in the EO (note: no Catholic seems offended, I've not recieved any PM's on this from any Catholic, no accusations of my being a Pathological, Freudian, sex-crazed, immature person from them).


If really pressed, it seems these Orthodox will state that I'm right - the EO DOES teach that Mary never had sex. But if a non-Orthodox says that they do, well..... A firestorm like one has perhaps never seen before, GREAT feelings that SEEM to include embarrassment, discomfort, and more. Hard to understand. I gave up.

I'm tired of all. I've concluded there is some very deep "issues" in the East over women, marital sex and virginity - and this dogma (while very much embraced) seems to REALLY bring that out. But I need to leave it at that. Anything more is pure theorizing on my part.


.

Nope, I don't recall saying those things.
I do recall, though, previously the language in some of the questions in the previous threads was such that I would not let me CF member daughter into this forum, and the questioning re: aspects of my life and other CF members was at the least "in your face".
Nope, I don't recall pm-ing you, either.

As for the accusation of people of other cultures "having issues" - perhaps you might want to get a graduate degree in something other than Physics. Seems you may have found a new field of interest

 

[prodromos]

I agree, while it's been like pulling teeth (lol), it HAS been said that the EO teaches that Mary never had sex. THAT'S THE ISSUE.

No that's YOUR issue, and its bordering on psychosis

John, that's what I said is the view of the EO. And for saying that, I'm been demonized as crude, carnal, offensive, sex-obessesed, Fruedian, pathological - and more.

That is only because you have been stating your case in a crude, carnal and offensive manner. We know what virginity means, and it means a lot more than the purely carnal definition you are fixated on.

For saying that, I've been accused - repeatedly - for violating posting rules here at CF. For some time, I TRIED to figure this out: why is the EO seemingly offended (to SUCH an extreme) by what it says is true? But I gave up. I don't know the answer. And I'm convinced I cannot because we can't talk about Mary without mentioning Mary, or perpetual without mentioning perpetual or virginity without mentioning virginity. I'm tired of being demonized as a horrible person - I'm not.

I'm sure you are not a horrible person, but nice people, when they realise that the manner in which they are approaching a subject causes offense, do not persist in in approaching it in that manner. You on the other hand, have not changed your approach at all but have rather intensified it. Does that make you a nice person? We can only judge a tree by the fruit it produces. If you are a nice person then I would suggest that your fixation on this issue is spiritually damaging to you and would recommend that you drop it before it does you permanent harm. I say this with all sincerity as your brother in Christ.

The only reason the Church has made a specific statement on the ever virginity of Mary and not on the every virginity of Christ or John the Forerunner or John the Evangelist is that at no time in the history of the Church has anyone questioned the ever virginity of the latter three. At some point some did question the ever virginity of Mary and that is why the Church made a clear statement regarding her. When falsehood began to circulate then the Church stood up to defend the truth. The ever virginity of Christ and the two Johns is just as much the teaching of the Church as the ever virginity of Mary, it is just that the Church has not had to defend the truth regarding the former.

John

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In TRYING to understand how "The Ever Virgin Mary" does not include her not having sex and yet she never had sex, there was - I admit - a really "pulling teeth" to TRY to understand why the EO views that virginity has nothing to do with sex and her not having had sex (which is what I was told). Later, that point was yeilded. (Did I compare this to pulling teeth?) NOW, it seems at least one or two Orthodox have actually stated that Mary did not have sex. Thus, there's no longer the need to explore that whole arguement the Orthodox were making that virginity doesn't have anything to do with sex and just because She was a virgin didn't mean she didn't have sex. I think we got past that, at least in the case of a couple of Orthodox. That WAS difficult.

Again, of course, virginity is not SOLY that one has not had sex (one could well argue that the not having sex is a manifestation of the virtue, as I did in several posts). What we were trying to get through is does it INCLUDE that, does it INCLUDE that she never had sex. That took WEEKS because of all the enormous evasions, diversions, refusals - all amid the accusations, offensive, and discomfort with the issue of women, marital sex and virginity. But, I think we're past that. For some time now.

Now we have the admission (wow, AMAZING how much time, work, etc. it took) that this dogma DOES mean that Mary had no sex ever. I was correct all along (in spite of all the accusations to the contrary). As I said, that's not the full meaning of the dogma, but the dogma does say that. So, we're back the original issue: Since it is true that the EO teaches that Mary had no sex ever, why is it so amazingly rude, crude, offensive, immature, sex-crazed, patholigical, Freudian, etc. to say that? Why is it a rule violation to say that the EO teaches that Mary never had sex? THAT is what I tried so hard to understand. (And check your posts to me, my friend)

Yes, my studies are not in anthropology or psychology, and so I can only theorize. But, one thing does seem unavoidable: The EO has some enormous issues with marital sex and virginity - and this dogma sure brings it out, with a firestorm. I just don't have the acedemic training to understand it and I agree with you, it cannot be discussed with these Orthdox. Thus, the puzzle does - and will - remain.

And besides, I just too tired of all the accusations, rebukes, and characterizations of me. They aren't true. And I just don't have the time to deal with them.

The Orthodox will state that Mary had no sex ever but it's a Freudian, pathological, sex-crazed, offensive, hateful, immature thing to say that - a psychosis. And a rule violation. Okay.... Go figure, I give up.






.

 

[prodromos]

I fail to see the HUGE difference that means my statement is offensive, rude, crude, sex-crazed, immature, Freudian, pathological and a rule violation. But, oh well....

Put them back in their context and the difference is plainly apparent.

John

 

[prodromos]

In TRYING to understand how "The Ever Virgin Mary" does not include her not having sex and yet she never had sex, there was - I admit - a really "pulling teeth" to TRY to understand why the EO views that virginity has nothing to do with sex and her not having had sex (which is what I was told). Later, that point was yeilded. (Did I compare this to pulling teeth?) NOW, it seems at least one or two Orthodox have actually stated that Mary did not have sex. Thus, there's no longer the need to explore that whole arguement the Orthodox were making that virginity doesn't have anything to do with sex and just because She was a virgin didn't mean she didn't have sex. I think we got past that, at least in the case of a couple of Orthodox. That WAS difficult.

Thank you for the gross misrepresentation of what actually occurred. More fruit to judge the tree by.

I give up.

Prove it by dropping the subject

John

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

AFAIK only Origen specifically refers to (not engaging in) intercourse in discussing the ever virginity; as I've mentioned before before the teaching is "aieparthenos" and refers to the entirety of the meaning. I don't understand why that (repeated over months) and the teaching itself (made available, iterated and linked in Mariology over months) is hard to understand. But perhaps it would behoove you to conduct your own google search, as you can satisfy your curiosity there.

The EO tends, in its teachings, to reiterate terminology and phraseology that has been used over the centuries. This particular terminology (aieparthenos) predates the origin of the English language. As stated before before over months and months it refers to both spiritual and physical virginity.

Wonderful explanation!
Ignored, of course.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

John,

I never once remotely stated that Mary was not a perpetual or ever virgin. I never stated any opinion, view, doctrine or dogma about that at all. I never said that ANY veiw of that is right or wrong - I never "went" there at all.

I stated that, as I was taught the dogma in the RCC, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary teaches that Mary was always a virgin (and that DOES include in the physical, sexual sense). And that it seemed to me that "Ever Virginity of Mary" is the same - it means that Mary never had sex (and that INCLUDES in a physical, sexual sense). THAT is what this firestorm of rebuke toward me is all about - I posted that. And in doing so, I'm being offensive, hateful, rude, crude, carnal, sex-crazed, immature, hormone-driven, pathological, Freudian, and in some "borderline psychosis." And violating the rules for posting here at CF.

Now, for MONTHS, the issue seem to be that for the Orthodox, virginity does not involve sex, that aspect of the term is entirely missing in the EO understanding. So, I TRIED to explore that the term DOES mean in the East so that it is void of any aspect of sex. Round and round on that one. I tried every angle I could think of to TRY, just TRY, to understand how the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has nothign to do with whether she had sex or not. I gave up.

LATER, as the issue resumed, we seemed to have brief, parathetical statements that maybe "virgin" DOES include that aspect in Orthodoxy. Wow!!!!! So, "virgin" does include that never had sex???? So it seemed after all!!!! But it also brought us right back to the original issue: If it's true that the EO teaches that Mary had no sex ever, then why is it so very, very offensive, rude, crude, immature, sex-crazed, Fruedian, pathological, "borderline psychotic" to post that the EO teaches that Mary had no sex ever???? :o Why the HUGE offense over the statement that she had no sex ever?

There's OBVIOUSLY a lot going on here, a very profound discomfort with Mary or perpetual or virginity or about marital sex or virginity or women. And I don't claim to understand it and I agree with Thekla that it CANNOT be discussed. So, I just take what has been made so very, very obvious. And give up.





.