Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I asked you a question how do you "allow" for people to have that "pious belief" in the EV but at the same time you say that you do not know... if the EV is true or not. Why you do not start by asking your fellow parishioners those who believe in EV why they do so? I mean if you do not know either way why believe in it anyways. If I were you I would not believe it since your church does not take a stand.... That is the contradiction right there...

Already addressed. Yours is a denomination greatly admired because it does what you seem to be denouncing - keeping silent.


Again, is there a DOGMA/HERESY in the EO about whether you must vote for Obama? Marry the man you did? Does that mean you are not permitted in the EO to have a view on those issues? If you didn't marry the man you did, would you be denied the Holy Sacrament and excommunicated? I was told by an EO poster here at CF that the EO does NOT declare Transubstantiation (as currently defined by the RCC) as DOGMA or HERESY - thus doing what you seem to be condemning.

No one "starts" by asking parishioners anything. One "starts" by noting that there is a long held, ecumenically embraced view that is NEITHER supported or denied by Scripture. It thus perhaps should not be declared HERESY and we must excommunicate, condemn and burn at the stake all who hold to the view OR insist on such as a matter of salvation, but it is a permissible view. My Lutheran pastor embraces the view that Mary Had No Sex Ever, I leave the question open. Neither of us is regarded by any Lutheran denomination as Heretics to be burned alive and neither of us is regarded by any Lutheran denomination as holding to a matter of highest importance and certainty necessary for salvation. It's not HERESY or DOGMA - it is permitted pious opinion. BTW, one of my fellow Trustees in my congregation is a big Ford fan. I like Toyotas. Neither of us is insisting that the other be excommunicated or that either of us is going to hell. And neither of us is insisting that the issue is one of highest importance and certainty vis-a-vis salvation. We both have opinions. My mother voted for Obama, I voted for McCain. We're still friends and still respect each other, and either of us is charging the other with heresy.




Now, where is your stronger biblcial and early tradition substantiation that Mary Had Sex Not Once After Jesus was Born - dogma in 3 denominations - as opposed to the biblical and early Tradition of being silent on the question (the position of 49,997 denominations)?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

still you have not answered my question....but I have a thread for that now so I do not derail this one.

For this you are asking it was told before you just havet to re-read the 3-4 threads available already since July that deal with the Ever virginity in the EO and yes we are positive that EV is a fact and we do have a dogma and our parishioners are not "put on a stick" to burn never did we ever burn anyone for not believing in the EV they just left the Church. No one is getting ex-communicated for not believing because if they do then...they leave the EO church by themselves.... No need to take such meassures.... Sorry to say but I take offense to say the EO burn people and calling them heretics.. We call them unbelievers to the EV of Mary that is all

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Now, where is your stronger biblcial and early tradition substantiation that Mary Had Sex Not Once After Jesus was Born - dogma in 3 denominations - as opposed to the biblical and early Tradition of being silent on the question (the position of 49,997 denominations)? Why is the issue of how often Mary and Joseph shared loving, marital intimacies a matter of highest and greatest importance to you and your denomination: a matter of DOGMA and HERESY? And where is the proof that so it was with Jesus, Mary, and the Apostles rather than the rather stunning SILENCE on the issue from Jesus, Mary and the Apostles (as well as earliest Church Fathers)?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Philothei]

Maybe ask your pastor who believes in the EV himself that would be a good start you think?

Because if he does believe in it then he himself should have the substantiation for it

 

[Philothei]

BTW we are not a denomination but a Church and so is RC and OO too

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Maybe ask your pastor who believes in the EV himself that would be a good start you think?

I have. He accepts it AS A MATTER OF PIOUS OPINION because it is a matter NOT denied by Scripture but with a strong, historic, ecumenical Christian embrace. I accept it as such.

I leave it an open issue because it is not substantiated by Scripture or earliest Tradition and because Scripture and Tradition seem to better affirm SILENCE on the issue.

We don't disagree, ultimately. We BOTH agree that as a matter of Dogma, silence is best.

BTW, he drives a Honda. I drive a Toyota. Neither of us accuses the other of heresy on that point. We're both Republicans.





.

 

[Philothei]

I have. He accepts it AS A MATTER OF PIOUS OPINION because it is a matter NOT denied by Scripture but with a strong, historic, ecumenical Christian embrace. I accept it as such.

I leave it an open issue because it is not substantiated by Scripture or earliest Tradition and because Scripture and Tradition seem to better affirm SILENCE on the issue.

We don't disagree, ultimately. We BOTH agree that as a matter of Dogma, silence is best.

BTW, he drives a Honda. I drive a Toyota. Neither of us accuses the other of heresy on that point. We're both Republicans.





.

Okie then you accept him having that belief ... based on your reasoning. Now if we beleive based on ours why is that a problem to you? That is what I do not understand. And before you tell me his is a "pious opinion" and mine is a "dogma" (for I know you will so we can go circular again ) I say the end result is belief... in EV the fact you accept his belief but reject or doubt mine is not logical... at least it does not justify your condemn to the dogma .... It becomes rather a legalistic play of sorts... with words CJ because in actuallity you accept your own pastor's opinion to have merit. and as a consequence you accept ours; since it is the same belief. Logistics (dogma or pious opinions) thay have no value when it comes to beliefs and faith


*And BTW you drive the Toyota and he drives Honda....I drive Subaru...hehehe we are all good republicans! *

 

[Thekla]

I do wonder why the relatively recent idea of "Sola Scriptura" is anachronistically applied to the Churches which predate the scriptural canon ?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I do wonder why the relatively recent idea of "Sola Scriptura" is anachronistically applied to the Churches which predate the scriptural canon ?

Well, because those churches reserve for themselves the right to judge others with regard to worship. They cannot help it. It began by judging the Pope an "anti-Christ," and the precedent set became the modus operandi.
And yet, should they be judged as incorrect, heretical, or the like, they become apoplectic. There is a profound blind spot amongst a substantial number of Protestants, particularly among the zealous, as to their own philosophical stance.
This is the mark of spiritual adolescence, or if you will, immaturity. Or, if you will, unmitigated audacity.

Take for example CJs peculiar form of denial. He claims to be agnostic wrt the EV because of the lack of written ante Nicene sources, allegedly, for the view. He fails to acknowledge or even see the lack of ante nicene sources supporting the canon of 27, and some letters in particular. He accepts the 27 by faith, but does not accept the EV on the same terms. This is arbitrary and capricious on his part, a fact he will dispute lest he be confronted by the unreason in his supposed reason.

Most strikingly, he is much more accomodating than most of his persuasion.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Okie then you accept him having that belief ... based on your reasoning. Now if we beleive based on ours why is that a problem to you? That is what I do not understand.

I cannot say "for you" since I don't know it's status in your denomination. It's dogma in the RCC: the highest level of importance. One is a HERETIC (likely hellbound) if one knowingly doesn't affirm it as such.

IF you are conveying that in the EO, MY position that I don't know (or frankly care) how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus is born would be perfectly okay and accepted as valid and good (at least as a Christian position), then perhaps we aren't in disagreement....


As you may know, many have been dispatched to heaven a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for not affirming LESS than dogmas. This is dogma in the RCC.

And BTW you drive the Toyota and he drives Honda....I drive Subaru...hehehe we are all good republicans! *

Subaru's are good cars, too!

My mother is a registered Democrat. I don't question her salvation because of it. I hope you would not, either.





.

 

[Philothei]

Dogma or not it is still a belief me and your pastor shares... the fact it is a dogma does not change that we (your pastor and me) believe the same thing.... If you will continue to call it dogma for me... as a mandatory belief then ok. do so but in reality it does not change the facts and they are : we both believe in EV.

The rest of your post is irrelevant and I am not RC so I truly cannot answer..
As far as your mom why would I be judgmental like that ?( LOL) I have better things to do that chasing people to see what political colors they carry I was joking with ya

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Dogma or not it is still a belief me and your pastor shares...

Yes, but it's pious opinion in my denomination. I don't know about in the EO, but it's dogma in the RCC. A pious opinion is NOT regarded as necessary to believe - and one may disagree with it or simply neither embrace or deny it (as is my position in this regard.).

As I noted, people have been dispatched to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for not embracing a DOGMA (in full conviction that they were thus headed for hell). Dogma is pretty serious stuff, LOL.... IMHO, when one states that something is a matter of highest importance and certainty, when people's salvation is questioned because they don't embrace as view as a matter of highest certainty and importance, then the LEAST they should be able to do is substantiate that it's true. Perhaps we disagree....


Let me try a non-religious example. My degree is in physics. Many I know are quite passionate in their belief that there is life on other planets (perhaps very different life, perhaps very elementary life - but life). I'm of the view that I just don't know - and have no opinion. Now, those that hold to the "life elsewhere" veiw are the first to admit that there actually is zero evidence for such NOW - and thus it's still very much just a theory (in the NON scientific sense of that), an opinion. Nothing denies the possibility, but nothing confirms it - it just seems very likely to many. But, I'm not regarded as an invalid, stupid, 'heretical' person because I simply embrace that we just don't have enough evidence NOW to say. No one thinks a bit less of me for the position I hold. Nor do I think one bit less of them for the position they hold since they are the first to admit that NOW it's only an opinion without evidence. Now, are there DOGMAS in physics? Oh, you better believe it! Some of which probably shouldn't be - but life on other planets is in no sense one of them.


As far as I can tell, the Bible and all the early Tradition of the Church is SOLIDLY on the side of silence on the issue of how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) which is the official position of 49,997 denominations (of the 50,000 some Catholics say exist). It's also my position. At least dogmatically.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are contradicting yourself Josiah because if you do not believe it then why "some of the Protestants" in your church do?

Where did I say I don't beleive it?

The fact you call it in your church "pious opinion" does not make is lesser of a belief... It is still a belief but why believe it if it might be wrong? It does not make any sense... You either believe it IMHO or you do not.

The STATUS is different. Do you believe that mac and cheese tastes good? Is such regarded by your denomination has a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; that to hold otherwise places one's salvation in serious question, that one is thereby a heretic?

ONCE AGAIN, in Protestantism, a "pious opinion" is just that - AN OPINION, one not contrary to Scripture. Now, does the view that Mary had sex never qualify? IMHO, yes. It is a valid "pious opinion" - and one held by some Lutherans. However, to my knowledge, never has dogmatic subscription to such been a requirement of anyone for anything in Lutheranism and to my knowledge, no one has been burned at the stake or excommunicated or even defrocked for not subscribing to that view. It is a PERMITTED pious OPINION. It's not DOGMA.

Why would a church allow for such a dichotomy in belief. The Church is supposed to lead you to the "right dogma" not to lead you to doubt..

... that coming from one from a denomination that doesn't declare Transubstantiation to be DOGMA or HERESY. That has not made a dogmatic declaration in 1000 years?

Are members of the EO allowed to be passionately in favor of socialize medicine in the USA AND also to be passionately opposed to such? If so, does it mean that Truth doesn't matter in the EO? Does NOT having a Dogma on the subject lead Orthodox Christians to doubt all the dogmas it does have?



This thread involves TWO issues:

1. The view that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That is the view we are discussion - that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies with her husband. It involved how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). So, to discuss the topic, we are REQUIRED to discuss the issue of frequency of sex, since that is the topic.

2. It's STATUS as dogma in the RCC and EO. This is particularly significant for ANY Protestant in such a discussion because there is no Protestant denomination that has a DOGMA on this - one way or the other, thus pious opinions on both (or neither side) of this question of how often She had sex are permitted for us but NOT for Catholics or Orthodox. It's STATUS is central to the discussion for Protestants. And I'm now Protestant. IF you were to say, "it is my own pious opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual, blessed sharing of marital intimacies within the Sacrament of marriage so that She never once had sex" then you and I have no "problem." But if it's dogma in the EO as it is in the RC, then it's an entirely different situation and it's now a divisive point between us that SHOULD be discussed: why do you regard it as dogma?

I've raise the two issues BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED. We cannot discuss the view without discussing how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). And we cannot discuss why we are divided on this without discussing why you regard it as dogma (for that IS the dividing issue between the RC/OO and Protestants since we don't deny the teaching, only the dogmatic status of it). Unless you desire exclude this topic from all discussion at CF (and that would include any and all mentions of this teaching in the Orthodox Forum), then we MUST be able to discuss it. And that means discussing the frequency of sex in the life of Mary, and critically, the issue of it's dogmatic status since THAT is the main point of division between us (Protestants NOT denying the teaching, just the dogmatic status).




.

 

[narnia59]

Where did I say I don't beleive it?



The STATUS is different. Do you believe that mac and cheese tastes good? Is such regarded by your denomination has a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; that to hold otherwise places one's salvation in serious question, that one is thereby a heretic?

ONCE AGAIN, in Protestantism, a "pious opinion" is just that - AN OPINION, one not contrary to Scripture. Now, does the view that Mary had sex never qualify? IMHO, yes. It is a valid "pious opinion" - and one held by some Lutherans. However, to my knowledge, never has dogmatic subscription to such been a requirement of anyone for anything in Lutheranism and to my knowledge, no one has been burned at the stake or excommunicated or even defrocked for not subscribing to that view. It is a PERMITTED pious OPINION. It's not DOGMA.





... that coming from one from a denomination that doesn't declare Transubstantiation to be DOGMA or HERESY. That has not made a dogmatic declaration in 1000 years?

Are members of the EO allowed to be passionately in favor of socialize medicine in the USA AND also to be passionately opposed to such? If so, does it mean that Truth doesn't matter in the EO? Does NOT having a Dogma on the subject lead Orthodox Christians to doubt all the dogmas it does have?



This thread involves TWO issues:

1. The view that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That is the view we are discussion - that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies with her husband. It involved how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). So, to discuss the topic, we are REQUIRED to discuss the issue of frequency of sex, since that is the topic.

2. It's STATUS as dogma in the RCC and EO. This is particularly significant for ANY Protestant in such a discussion because there is no Protestant denomination that has a DOGMA on this - one way or the other, thus pious opinions on both (or neither side) of this question of how often She had sex are permitted for us but NOT for Catholics or Orthodox. It's STATUS is central to the discussion for Protestants. And I'm now Protestant. IF you were to say, "it is my own pious opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual, blessed sharing of marital intimacies within the Sacrament of marriage so that She never once had sex" then you and I have no "problem." But if it's dogma in the EO as it is in the RC, then it's an entirely different situation and it's now a divisive point between us that SHOULD be discussed: why do you regard it as dogma?

I've raise the two issues BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED. We cannot discuss the view without discussing how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). And we cannot discuss why we are divided on this without discussing why you regard it as dogma (for that IS the dividing issue between the RC/OO and Protestants since we don't deny the teaching, only the dogmatic status of it). Unless you desire exclude this topic from all discussion at CF (and that would include any and all mentions of this teaching in the Orthodox Forum), then we MUST be able to discuss it. And that means discussing the frequency of sex in the life of Mary, and critically, the issue of it's dogmatic status since THAT is the main point of division between us (Protestants NOT denying the teaching, just the dogmatic status).




.

CJ, did you ever answer my question in this post?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512-13/#post52920058

Specifically, how you think it is so incorrect for the Catholics and Orthodox to have a doctrine regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, but do not have the same thoughts regarding many Lutherans having a "binding" view of her virginity remaining inviolate during the birth of Christ, even though Scripture is not explicit in this regard?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where did I say I don't believe it?




The STATUS is different. Do you believe that mac and cheese tastes good? Is such regarded by your denomination has a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty; that to hold otherwise places one's salvation in serious question, that one is thereby a heretic?

ONCE AGAIN, in Protestantism, a "pious opinion" is just that - AN OPINION, one not contrary to Scripture. Now, does the view that Mary had sex never qualify? IMHO, yes. It is a valid "pious opinion" - and one held by some Lutherans. However, to my knowledge, never has dogmatic subscription to such been a requirement of anyone for anything in Lutheranism and to my knowledge, no one has been burned at the stake or excommunicated or even defrocked for not subscribing to that view. It is a PERMITTED pious OPINION. It's not DOGMA.






... that coming from one from a denomination that doesn't declare Transubstantiation to be DOGMA or HERESY. That has not made a dogmatic declaration in 1000 years?

Are members of the EO allowed to be passionately in favor of socialize medicine in the USA AND also to be passionately opposed to such? If so, does it mean that Truth doesn't matter in the EO? Does NOT having a Dogma on the subject lead Orthodox Christians to doubt all the dogmas it does have?



This thread involves TWO issues:

1. The view that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That is the view we are discussion - that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies with her husband. It involved how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). So, to discuss the topic, we are REQUIRED to discuss the issue of frequency of sex, since that is the topic.

2. It's STATUS as dogma in the RCC and EO. This is particularly significant for ANY Protestant in such a discussion because there is no Protestant denomination that has a DOGMA on this - one way or the other, thus pious opinions on both (or neither side) of this question of how often She had sex are permitted for us but NOT for Catholics or Orthodox. It's STATUS is central to the discussion for Protestants. And I'm now Protestant. IF you were to say, "it is my own pious opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual, blessed sharing of marital intimacies within the Sacrament of marriage so that She never once had sex" then you and I have no "problem." But if it's dogma in the EO as it is in the RC, then it's an entirely different situation and it's now a divisive point between us that SHOULD be discussed: why do you regard it as dogma?

I've raise the two issues BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED. We cannot discuss the view without discussing how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). And we cannot discuss why we are divided on this without discussing why you regard it as dogma (for that IS the dividing issue between the RC/OO and Protestants since we don't deny the teaching, only the dogmatic status of it). Unless you desire exclude this topic from all discussion at CF (and that would include any and all mentions of this teaching in the Orthodox Forum), then we MUST be able to discuss it. And that means discussing the frequency of sex in the life of Mary, and critically, the issue of it's dogmatic status since THAT is the main point of division between us (Protestants NOT denying the teaching, just the dogmatic status).




.​

Did you answer my question?

Yes. MANY times, including in my post you quoted.

Did you answer any of the questions I raised in the post you quoted? No.

Specifically, how you think it is so incorrect for the Catholics and Orthodox to have a doctrine regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, but do not have the same thoughts regarding many Lutherans having a view of her virginity

It seems you didn't read the very post you quoted from me.
If you read it, you'll see I've replied. Several times now.



This thread involves TWO issues:

1. The view that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That is the view we are discussing - that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies with her husband. It involved how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). So, to discuss the topic, we are REQUIRED to discuss the issue of frequency of sex, since that is the topic.


2. It's STATUS as dogma in the RCC and EO. This is particularly significant for ANY Protestant in such a discussion because there is no Protestant denomination that has a DOGMA on this - one way or the other, thus pious opinions on both (or neither side) of this question of how often She had sex are permitted for us but NOT for Catholics or Orthodox. It's STATUS is central to the discussion for Protestants. And I'm now Protestant. IF you were to say, "it is my own pious opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual, blessed sharing of marital intimacies within the Sacrament of marriage so that She never once had sex" then you and I have no "problem." But if it's dogma in the EO as it is in the RC, then it's an entirely different situation and it's now a divisive point between us that SHOULD be discussed: why do you regard it as dogma?

I've raise the two issues BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED. We cannot discuss the view without discussing how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). And we cannot discuss why we are divided on this without discussing why you regard it as dogma (for that IS the dividing issue between the RC/OO and Protestants since we don't deny the teaching, only the dogmatic status of it). Unless you desire exclude this topic from all discussion at CF (and that would include any and all mentions of this teaching in the Orthodox Forum), then we MUST be able to discuss it. And that means discussing the frequency of sex in the life of Mary, and critically, the issue of it's dogmatic status since THAT is the main point of division between us (Protestants NOT denying the teaching, just the dogmatic status).




.

 

[narnia59]

Yes. MANY times, including in my post you quoted.

Did you answer any of the questions I raised in the post you quoted? No.








It seems you didn't read the very post you quoted from me.
If you read it, you'll see I've replied. Several times now.



This thread involves TWO issues:

1. The view that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That is the view we are discussing - that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies with her husband. It involved how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). So, to discuss the topic, we are REQUIRED to discuss the issue of frequency of sex, since that is the topic.


2. It's STATUS as dogma in the RCC and EO. This is particularly significant for ANY Protestant in such a discussion because there is no Protestant denomination that has a DOGMA on this - one way or the other, thus pious opinions on both (or neither side) of this question of how often She had sex are permitted for us but NOT for Catholics or Orthodox. It's STATUS is central to the discussion for Protestants. And I'm now Protestant. IF you were to say, "it is my own pious opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual, blessed sharing of marital intimacies within the Sacrament of marriage so that She never once had sex" then you and I have no "problem." But if it's dogma in the EO as it is in the RC, then it's an entirely different situation and it's now a divisive point between us that SHOULD be discussed: why do you regard it as dogma?

I've raise the two issues BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED. We cannot discuss the view without discussing how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). And we cannot discuss why we are divided on this without discussing why you regard it as dogma (for that IS the dividing issue between the RC/OO and Protestants since we don't deny the teaching, only the dogmatic status of it). Unless you desire exclude this topic from all discussion at CF (and that would include any and all mentions of this teaching in the Orthodox Forum), then we MUST be able to discuss it. And that means discussing the frequency of sex in the life of Mary, and critically, the issue of it's dogmatic status since THAT is the main point of division between us (Protestants NOT denying the teaching, just the dogmatic status).




.

I've very much read your post, which is what results in my question. A simple question, but you refuse to answer.

First of all, the red is false. Most Protestants do indeed deny the teaching, not simply the dogmatic status.

But you are the one who is diverting the thread from its topic (the perpetual virginity of Mary) to pointing to what you see as a problem that the Catholic and the Orthodox consider this doctrine. You are saying that is the basic issue at hand. Hence it becomes a fair topic to discuss across the board.

So my question is very much pertinent to the discussion, since you have made not the teaching itself the point, but the fact that it is dogma. That points the discussion in the direction of whether or not faith groups should exercise binding dogma on their members that is not explicit in Scripture. You keep making the point no.

But as I've pointed out, the Lutherans (at least the Missouri Synod and others who hold the Book of Concord to be binding doctrine) do the same thing. So, do you hold them to the same standard?

Of if you prefer, this thread can discuss the actual topic (the perpetual virginity of Mary) instead of creating a side issue as to whether or not churches can have dogma that is not explicitly Scriptural. But if you're going to create the side issue, then please be willing to discuss it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes. MANY times, including in my post you quoted.

Did you answer any of the questions I raised in the post you quoted? No.








It seems you didn't read the very post you quoted from me.
If you read it, you'll see I've replied. Several times now.



This thread involves TWO issues:

1. The view that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That is the view we are discussing - that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies with her husband. It involved how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). So, to discuss the topic, we are REQUIRED to discuss the issue of frequency of sex, since that is the topic.


2. It's STATUS as dogma in the RCC and EO. This is particularly significant for ANY Protestant in such a discussion because there is no Protestant denomination that has a DOGMA on this - one way or the other, thus pious opinions on both (or neither side) of this question of how often She had sex are permitted for us but NOT for Catholics or Orthodox. It's STATUS is central to the discussion for Protestants. And I'm now Protestant. IF you were to say, "it is my own pious opinion that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual, blessed sharing of marital intimacies within the Sacrament of marriage so that She never once had sex" then you and I have no "problem." But if it's dogma in the EO as it is in the RC, then it's an entirely different situation and it's now a divisive point between us that SHOULD be discussed: why do you regard it as dogma?

I've raise the two issues BECAUSE THEY ARE REQUIRED. We cannot discuss the view without discussing how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). And we cannot discuss why we are divided on this without discussing why you regard it as dogma (for that IS the dividing issue between the RC/OO and Protestants since we don't deny the teaching, only the dogmatic status of it). Unless you desire exclude this topic from all discussion at CF (and that would include any and all mentions of this teaching in the Orthodox Forum), then we MUST be able to discuss it. And that means discussing the frequency of sex in the life of Mary, and critically, the issue of it's dogmatic status since THAT is the main point of division between us (Protestants NOT denying the teaching, just the dogmatic status).




.

First of all, the red is false. Most Protestants do indeed deny the teaching, not simply the dogmatic status.

Most Protestants think the Earth is round, too. That doesn't mean it's DOGMA in ANY Protestant denomination. I could quote surveys done of what the typical American Catholic believes, too - but I have a hunch you'd say that's moot to what the RCC actually holds.

Of the 50,000 Protestant denominations that some Catholics here insist exist, I know of NONE that has any dogma on how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. Now, some individual Protestants have an opinion on the matter, but then some Catholics have an opinion that Obama is great and that brats must be boiled in beer rather than water. I think you're oddly changing the topic.

The principle issue of division of 2 or 3 denominations with the other 49,997 is NOT how often Mary had sex, because the other 49,997 have no dogma on that. In fact, I don't think any of them even has a doctrine or teaching or official opinion! The principle issue is the STATUS of the view. Why is this matter of how often Mary shared loving, mutual intimacies with her spouse within the Sacrament of Marriage a matter of DOGMA? That IS the primary point. The point we disagree on.

this thread can discuss the actual topic (the perpetual virginity of Mary) instead of creating a side issue as to whether or not churches can have dogma that is not explicitly Scriptural. But if you're going to create the side issue, then please be willing to discuss it.

There are, of course, TWO issues:

1. The view, which is that Mary had no sex ever. We can discuss the substantiation for this, to the level declared (dogma - the highest possible level). I'd likely accept any nature of substantiation that the RCC accepts from others, I'm not likely to accept substantiation that it rejects as invalid. However, as you well know, just like at least 49,997 denominations, I have no view on this. If one wants to hold to a pious opinion that Our Lady was do deprived - that's totally okay with me. If one wants to hold to a pious opinion that She was not so deprived, that's fine too. To be blunt, I just don't regard it as relevant to ANYTHING WHATSOEVER and I regard the whole discussion as a tad inappropriate (I don't even discuss how often my mother or sister has sex - MUCH LESS the Mother of Our Lord!!!!!!!!!).

2. The divisive point is the STATUS of this view. THAT'S where the disagreement lies. THAT'S the divisive point. THAT'S where we disagree. Kinda relevant PERSONALLY since I "left" the Catholic Church in large part because I do not dogmatically agree with a very few of it's dogmas (I don't necessary REJECT them, I just don't dogmatically embrace them). It IS one of the major issues between the RCC and the original Protestants. Transubstantiation, for example, is no longer simply ONE medieval Scholastic theory, it's DOGMA that it so declared in 1551 in order to condemn and anathmatize Luther (albeit after his death) for he did not hold it as dogma (which, of course, it wasn't in his lifetime). Yes, ANY discussion of how often Mary had sex MUST include the status of that view. For it's not the equal of how many planets exist in our solar system or whether brats should be boiled in beer or if water is okay. For a couple of denominations, it's NOT adiaphoron, it's NOT a matter of pious opinion. It's DOGMA. We cannot discuss one part of this without the other: to discuss this dogma of a couple denomination, we MUST discuss the issue of how often Mary had sex and why this is regarded as an issue of highest importance and relevance and certainty.





.

 

[Thekla]

1. The view that Mary Had No Sex EVER. That is the view we are discussing - that Mary was deprived of a normal, healthy, loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies with her husband. It involved how often Our Lady had sex (if at all). So, to discuss the topic, we are REQUIRED to discuss the issue of frequency of sex, since that is the topic.

.

I'm a bit confused by your statement; perhaps you could clarify the following points:

1. Where does the Bible state that Joseph was Mary's husband (in the sense conferred by the English term "husband") ?

2. Do you believe that lack of sexual activity is a "deprivation"; by what reasoning do you hold this position ?

3. Do you find it acceptable that some Lutherans hold this opinion, or do you also point out to fellow Lutheran's the (per your previous characterization) 'sickness' of their pious opinion ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where does the Bible state that Joseph was Mary's husband (in the sense conferred by the English term "husband") ?

Doesn't. It's probably implied but it doesn't explicitely so state. A good reason why of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, only 3 have any dogma about how often Mary had sex.

I don't have any dogma about Mary's marital status or how often Our Lady had sex after Jesus was born. IF AT ALL. Nor do 49,997 denominations. Heck, I don't even have an OPINION on the matter. Thus, it's not MY issue. It's yours.

Since the other 49,997 denominations have no dogma (or even doctrine or official teaching, or in nearly all cases, even an opinon on the subject), the "burden of proof" to the level of dogma is not theres (they have no view to support or depend). It's yours.

Now, how does your point that we don't know if Mary and Joseph were "husband and wife" substantiate that Mary had no sex ever? Now, if you could quote a passage that says they were NOT - then I'd yield the point (but remember, the other 49,997 denominations don't say she had sex).


Do you agree with our Catholic friend that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has nothing to do with whether she ever had intercourse so that in the EO, it would be entirely appropriate and acceptable for your priest next Sunday to state in his homily that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that Mary had sex 421 times - that would be perfectly acceptable in view of the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Or, in light of this dogma, would it be assumed in light of the Dogma that Mary never engaged in such?



.

 

[Thekla]

Doesn't. It's probably implied but it doesn't explicitely so state. A good reason why of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, only 3 have any dogma about how often Mary had sex.

hmmm ... "probably implied" is a bit "twice removed" - I'm not certain what you mean.

Dogma ... this means to have an opinion, or a belief; so if the majority of denominations have neither opinion or belief on the matter they by definition have no "dogma" on the matter. I'm not certain why having/not having an opinion is so remarkable.

I don't have any dogma about Mary's marital status or how often Our Lady had sex after Jesus was born. IF AT ALL. Nor do 49,997 denominations. Heck, I don't even have an OPINION on the matter. Thus, it's not MY issue. It's yours.

How is having "an opinion" any more of an issue than "not having an opinion"

Since the other 49,997 denominations have no dogma (or even doctrine or official teaching, or in nearly all cases, even an opinon on the subject), the "burden of proof" to the level of dogma is not theres (they have no view to support or depend). It's yours.

If you have no position, why are you so interested in the opinion of others ? What is the actual value or goal of your "taking an interest" in what you do not hold ?

Now, how does your point that we don't know if Mary and Joseph were "husband and wife" substantiate that Mary had no sex ever? Now, if you could quote a passage that says they were NOT - then I'd yield the point (but remember, the other 49,997 denominations don't say she had sex).

I was merely pointing out that your use of the term "husband" (in English) was inconsistent with your lack of opinion where Holy Scripture is silent.

Do you agree with our Catholic friend that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has nothing to do with whether she ever had intercourse so that in the EO, it would be entirely appropriate and acceptable for your priest next Sunday to state in his homily that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that Mary had sex 421 times - that would be perfectly acceptable in view of the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Or, in light of this dogma, would it be assumed in light of the Dogma that Mary never engaged in such?

I'm having a hard time making a clear question out of your example; could you help by making a clear question on the matter ? It also seems that either you don't have a clear sense of the ethos of the EO, or that you are using the term "dogma" in both (or neither) its ecclesiastical and literal sense; which meaning do you mean ?



.[/quote]