Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[seashale76]

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.

Thou dost protest too much. You've made it your issue. I'm calling you on it. You have an opinion and it obviously isn't the one we hold.

More than a few people who have their pet posting topics like this- who tirelessly post when they have an audience who obviously disagree with them- are usually going through a last ditch attempt to hold onto what they've been taught to think and believe is correct. In other words, methinks you may be convicted.

It's okay. I was in your shoes once too. However, this wasn't my issue. Mine was the idea of liturgy and the Eucharist. I was like a dog who couldn't let go of that bone, and I thought I knew it all, and I exasperated those who had to endure my anti posts. Less than six months later I couldn't get enough of attending liturgy.

I see a lot of similarities in your situation and mine. Just saying.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You have an opinion and it obviously isn't the one we hold.

Odd that you would know that since I don't.

Actually, the only aspect of this where I DO have an opinion is that I don't think this should be a matter of dogma. It's STATUS is a matter where I have a bit of an opinion, but I have none of the view itself.

I regard it as moot, but that doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. It's moot how tall Mary was too but then there's no dogma on that - in any of the 50,000 denominations some insist exist.

There are, of course, two fundamental issues in the DOGMA of the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary - the view itself and it's status.

Some (like my pastor and many of my Catholic brothers and sisters, among others) embrace the view as true - as pious opinion or as doctrine or as dogma. Some hold it as not true - as pious opinion or incorrect or heresy. And most I know hold my position - we just don't have one. We don't know (and in many cases, either don't care or regard the entire matter as moot to inappropriate). I'm just neutral on the teaching, the view itself.

But, yes, it is ONE of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. Not the only, not the principle, but one. I was clearly told this is something I must accept, with docility, as dogma, as a dogmatic fact, as a matter of highest importance. And while I don't AT ALL disagree with the view, I don't hold it as DOGMA. Thus, to be a person of integrity and honesty - well, one more reason. So, while it's not a major issue, the STATUS thing is a point where I have a view. The teaching itself, I'm entirely neutral about that.

But they are two DIFFERENT issues. Both fundamental, essential and unavoidable to The DOGMA of the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary - but two different issues. I don't have an opinion on one, I do on the other.

More than a few people who have their pet posting topics like this

Yes. I don't start very many threads. You can go to my profile page and get a read out of all the threads I've started in my 4 years here. If you read thought the titles - all of them - you will get a sense of what interests me and concerns me. If you care.






.

 

[lionroar0]

But, yes, it is ONE of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. Not the only, not the principle, but one. I was clearly told this is something I must accept, with docility, as dogma, as a dogmatic fact, as a matter of highest importance. And while I don't AT ALL disagree with the view, I don't hold it as DOGMA. Thus, to be a person of integrity and honesty - well, one more reason. So, while it's not a major issue, the STATUS thing is a point where I have a view. The teaching itself, I'm entirely neutral about that.

It's my understanding that you were never a member of the CC. Did u get confirmed and partake of the Eucharist with in the CC?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But, yes, it is ONE of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. Not the only, not the principle, but one. I was clearly told this is something I must accept, with docility, as dogma, as a dogmatic fact, as a matter of highest importance. And while I don't AT ALL disagree with the view, I don't hold it as DOGMA. Thus, to be a person of integrity and honesty - well, one more reason. So, while it's not a major issue, the STATUS thing is a point where I have a view. The teaching itself, I'm entirely neutral about that.

It's my understanding that you were never a member of the CC. Did u get confirmed and partake of the Eucharist with in the CC?

1. I don't understand how your reply addresses the quote you posted from me.

2. If I leave the Starbucks, I've left the Starbucks. Any part of that you don't understand? I don't have to be the legal owner of Starbucks to leave there.

3. As you well know (because we've been over this, let's see, HOW MANY TIMES since the past 4 years????) I was an active participant in the RCC for some 5 years. And a student there for most of that time. As you well know (because we've been over this, time and time again), no, when I spoke to my priest about the Eucharist, his advise to me was to come forward, arms crossed for a blessing but not for the Body and Blood. And that's what I did. You know that. As everyone here knows (including you), I was never officially Confirmed in the RCC (or anywhere) until about two years ago when I was Confirmed in the Lutheran Church. I never said I was Confirmed in the RCC or was allowed the Sacrament there. I've made it CLEAR to you over and over and over about that, for some 4 years now. I said I left. I also left Spain two years ago, that doesn't mean I was ever a legal citizen of that country. Is there some reason why you don't want to reply to my obvious point but re-hash this issue you've had for 4 years about how I was never OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED in the RCC (when I never claimed I was)? Is there a reason you don't want to discuss the DOGMA of the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary but rather my official denominational status some years back?




.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, the phrase "...left the Catholic Church" has the sense of membership (as opposed to the act of leaving the building or location).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, the phrase "...left the Catholic Church" has the sense of membership (as opposed to the act of leaving the building or location).

I'd rather talk about the issue of the thread than how one might knowingly misinterpret a word I used. Is there a reason why a couple want to talk about the word "left" rather than the DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

If one "leaves" something, it does not state that one had official, Confirmed, Sacrament Given status. Come on. I also left my father's church - as you know, I was never officially a member there, either. I left the Starbucks last night, I never owned the place. I left Spain two years ago, I was never an official citizen of that nation. You may not be aware that not EVERYONE active in the Catholic Church is an official, Confirmed member. Maybe you aren't.

Any reason why - AGAIN - my questions on the TOPIC OF THE THREAD are ignored and such seemingly strained efforts to divert the discussion are imployed instead? Never mind, I don't want THAT to then become a diversion....






.

 

[Thekla]

I'd rather talk about the issue of the thread than how one might knowingly misinterpret a word I used. Is there a reason why a couple want to talk about the word "left" rather than the DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

If one "leaves" something, it does not state that one had official, Confirmed, Sacrament Given status. Come on. I also left my father's church - as you know, I was never officially a member there, either. I left the Starbucks last night, I never owned the place. I left Spain two years ago, I was never an official citizen of that nation. You may not be aware that not EVERYONE active in the Catholic Church is an official, Confirmed member. Maybe you aren't.

Any reason why - AGAIN - my questions on the TOPIC OF THE THREAD are ignored and such seemingly strained efforts to divert the discussion are imployed instead? Never mind, I don't want THAT to then become a diversion....






.

Elvis has left the building.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Elvis has left the building.

Elvis King of Italy

​

Elvis went from being the King of Rock to being the King of Italy.​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Elvis has left the building.

.... anything to evade the topic?




.

 

[Thekla]

.... anything to evade the topic?




.

My unanswered questions are on the previous page

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

Answered in the post following where you posted this. Again.

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

If someone doesn't have something, they don't have it. Thus, they are deprived of it.

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 ?

Quote me where I called the dogma, "sick." I'll then gladly reply. But AGAIN, I have no position and I call no position right. Or wrong. I DO wonder about the STATUS of the view, but that's another issue and one moot to any Protestants since nothing regarding how often Our Lady engaged in human reproductive activities involving a man after Jesus is born - or not, so it's relevant only in 2 or 3 denominations. Including yours. There are two issues here: the veiw and it's status. Perhaps you are confusing the two issues I've been discussing.




Let's try all this again. Note the question marks; they indicate questions for discussion.


Do you believe that the Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary teaches that Mary never once engaged in any reproductive activities (normally this would be called "sexual intercourse" or just "sex")? If you agree with our Catholic friend that the dogma has NOTHING to do with whether She did or did not - ever, then why it is called, "The EVER VIRGINITY of Mary" or "The PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary?" Why did my Catholic teachers teach us that the dogma means that "Mary never did have sex?" Why does the RCC, in it's official Catechism, apply the dogma so as to point out, "THEREFORE, Mary could not have had other children and Jesus had no siblings?" If Mary DID have human reproductive activities involving a male, then how does the only official application of this Dogma make any sense at all - if she had such human reproductive activities, doesn't it follow that she COULD have had other children? But maybe you disagree with our Catholic friend, and believe that the Dogma DOES teach that Mary never once engaged in human reproductive activities involving a male human being? If so, then why is that issue - how often Mary did or did not engage in human reproductive activities involving a male human being after Jesus was born - why is that so significant to you, why is that a subject that you believe must be discussed, taught, proclaimed, and shouted as a dogma? What is it about THAT issue that is so very, very critical, central, decisive, foundational for your denomination so as to be a dogma? And then (because I have another discussion elsewhere on this point), is it offensive to you if someone speaks of how often Mary did or did not engage in human reproductive activities involving an adult male human being after Jesus was born even through it is your view that this subject is of great significance and importance and should be taught, proclaimed and insisted upon in all the church? I'm curious about that for another discussion.

Now, if you'd rather talk about olive oil or Elvis or the various meanings of the verb, "to leave," or my Eucharistic practices during the years I worshiped in the Catholic Church - well, count me out. This thread is about the DOGMA of how often Mary _____ . I know that. You know that. All God's children know that. Someday, I'd like to be able to discuss that issue. I've not come to any conclusions on it. Protestants will discuss it with me, Catholics and EO's have been AMAZINGLY (and perplexingly) unwilling to even MENTION their own dogma, much less discuss the core teaching of it. I'm interested in WHY this issue of Mary's ___________ is SO critically important to the RC and EO, especially since the embracers of this view seem so uncomfortable with the view. Odd. Curious. But even more so, why is it DOGMA (I probably have THAT issue more with my Catholic brothers and sisters). Remember: it's NOT my view. I have no view on how often Mary had ____________ after Jesus was born, so the attacks on me just add to the extreme oddity of this view. Maybe I'm goint to get the salad dressing reply again....



Now, YES, many Lutherans hold to the view. As does my pastor. But IT'S NOT DOGMA. And the REASON my pastor holds to it, AS PIOUS OPINION (which I'm free to disagree with, which I don't, it's not in any sense binding because it's MOOT and because it has zero biblical support and the earliest Tradition is actually for silence - which is actually my current view). For my pastor, it's an issue of ecumenicity. In his view, the compelling embrace is on the side of ancient, ecumenical consensus - especially as expressed in the 7 Ecumenical Councils, in so far as such is not problematic via-a-vis Scripture. In his view, this qualifies. And I agree. Which is why it is PERMITTED pious opinion and why it is NOT declared to be HERESY. But, he agrees with me, it IS curious - and he's been of no help in my quest to understand this. And he agrees, that the response I'm getting here is not atypical. He feels that the view was finally embraced in order to get to the issue of relatives of Jesus, to say such could not exist. In a sense, the view overshoots the issue. What perhaps should have been a dogma of "Jesus had no siblings" (a doctrine NEVER embraced by the Church) got cranked out as "Mary Had No Human Reproductive Activities with an Adult Male Human Being - Ever." He embraces it because it's strong, ecumenical Tradition with no biblical problems. But he agrees with me, it IS odd. And moot. And should not be dogma. And he has no reservations using the "s" word instead of "Engaged in human reproductive activities involving an adult male human being" (as if there's any difference in meaning, as if we're not all adults here and know what the "s" word means). Sometimes it would be nice if we could just discuss things. Openly. Honestly. As adults. So that understanding can advance. I've been trying to do that for at least 7 years on this one. If I wasn't SO interested in understanding it, I would have given up a long, long time ago (which I'm pretty such is the goal of virtually all with whom I've conversed). But guess what? For better or worse, I'm one persistent dude. I don't give up. EVER.




.

 

[Thekla]

If someone doesn't have something, they don't have it. Thus, they are deprived of it.

"Deprival" typically denotes the 'removal' of something. It can denote 'not having', though customarily this would apply to a (perceived) need or right. Given the accepted sense of the word "deprived", I conclude that you seem to think that sexual activity is a "need", or that the person was sexually active and then was forcibly prohibited from it (as an abrogation of the person's will on the matter).

I am requesting that you support your position on this matter (ie, was she prohibited from having further children as an abrogation of her will, or do you consider sexual activity a "need" ?).

Quote me where I called the dogma, "sick."

You referred to the dogma as the product of an obsession (a psychiatric term).

I'll then gladly reply. But AGAIN, I have no position and I call no position right. Or wrong. I DO wonder about the STATUS of the view, but that's another issue and one moot to any Protestants since nothing regarding how often Our Lady engaged in human reproductive activities involving a man after Jesus is born - or not, so it's relevant only in 2 or 3 denominations. Including yours. There are two issues here: the veiw and it's status. Perhaps you are confusing the two issues I've been discussing.

But, as you have mentioned, within some (or one) of the protestant denominations with no official opinion, individuals may hold either opinion (dogma means opinion, position, belief). So some protestants agree with the dogma. Do you think their opinion is the result of an obsession ?
(I've asked before - no response.)

Further, "no opinion" is an opinion. It is the opinion of not having decided the matter.

Let's try all this again. Note the question marks; they indicate questions for discussion.


Do you believe that the Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary teaches that Mary never once engaged in any reproductive activities (normally this would be called "sexual intercourse" or just "sex")? If you agree with our Catholic friend that the dogma has NOTHING to do with whether She did or did not - ever, then why it is called, "The EVER VIRGINITY of Mary" or "The PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary?" Why did my Catholic teachers teach us that the dogma means that "Mary never did have sex?" Why does the RCC, in it's official Catechism, apply the dogma so as to point out, "THEREFORE, Mary could not have had other children and Jesus had no siblings?" If Mary DID have human reproductive activities involving a male, then how does the only official application of this Dogma make any sense at all - if she had such human reproductive activities, doesn't it follow that she COULD have had other children? But maybe you disagree with our Catholic friend, and believe that the Dogma DOES teach that Mary never once engaged in human reproductive activities involving a male human being? If so, then why is that issue - how often Mary did or did not engage in human reproductive activities involving a male human being after Jesus was born - why is that so significant to you, why is that a subject that you believe must be discussed, taught, proclaimed, and shouted as a dogma? What is it about THAT issue that is so very, very critical, central, decisive, foundational for your denomination so as to be a dogma? And then (because I have another discussion elsewhere on this point), is it offensive to you if someone speaks of how often Mary did or did not engage in human reproductive activities involving an adult male human being after Jesus was born even through it is your view that this subject is of great significance and importance and should be taught, proclaimed and insisted upon in all the church? I'm curious about that for another discussion.

I am not RC.

Now, if you'd rather talk about olive oil or Elvis or the various meanings of the verb, "to leave," or my Eucharistic practices during the years I worshiped in the Catholic Church - well, count me out. This thread is about the DOGMA of how often Mary _____ . I know that. You know that. All God's children know that. Someday, I'd like to be able to discuss that issue. I've not come to any conclusions on it. Protestants will discuss it with me, Catholics and EO's have been AMAZINGLY (and perplexingly) unwilling to even MENTION their own dogma, much less discuss the core teaching of it. I'm interested in WHY this issue of Mary's ___________ is SO critically important to the RC and EO, especially since the embracers of this view seem so uncomfortable with the view. Odd. Curious. But even more so, why is it DOGMA (I probably have THAT issue more with my Catholic brothers and sisters). Remember: it's NOT my view. I have no view on how often Mary had ____________ after Jesus was born, so the attacks on me just add to the extreme oddity of this view. Maybe I'm goint to get the salad dressing reply again....

Of course, this is the way you repeatedly (over the past year) characterize the matter. And, I have personally responded to this many times (over the past year).

Now, YES, many Lutherans hold to the view. As does my pastor. But IT'S NOT DOGMA. And the REASON my pastor holds to it, AS PIOUS OPINION (which I'm free to disagree with, which I don't, it's not in any sense binding because it's MOOT and because it has zero biblical support and the earliest Tradition is actually for silence - which is actually my current view).

The existence of Biblical proof is a matter of interpretation. So I certainly disagree with you on this point, and wonder why you must present your interpretation as the only valid interpretation (absolute statements such as "zero evidence").

For my pastor, it's an issue of ecumenicity. In his view, the compelling embrace is on the side of ancient, ecumenical consensus - especially as expressed in the 7 Ecumenical Councils, in so far as such is not problematic via-a-vis Scripture. In his view, this qualifies. And I agree. Which is why it is PERMITTED pious opinion and why it is NOT declared to be HERESY. But, he agrees with me, it IS curious - and he's been of no help in my quest to understand this. And he agrees, that the response I'm getting here is not atypical. He feels that the view was finally embraced in order to get to the issue of relatives of Jesus, to say such could not exist. In a sense, the view overshoots the issue. What perhaps should have been a dogma of "Jesus had no siblings" (a doctrine NEVER embraced by the Church) got cranked out as "Mary Had No Human Reproductive Activities with an Adult Male Human Being - Ever." He embraces it because it's strong, ecumenical Tradition with no biblical problems. But he agrees with me, it IS odd. And moot. And should not be dogma. And he has no reservations using the "s" word instead of "Engaged in human reproductive activities involving an adult male human being" (as if there's any difference in meaning, as if we're not all adults here and know what the "s" word means). Sometimes it would be nice if we could just discuss things. Openly. Honestly. As adults. So that understanding can advance. I've been trying to do that for at least 7 years on this one. If I wasn't SO interested in understanding it, I would have given up a long, long time ago (which I'm pretty such is the goal of virtually all with whom I've conversed). But guess what? For better or worse, I'm one persistent dude. I don't give up. EVER.

As to "moot", we've discussed this before, too (over the past year plus). Whether or not you agree with the answer is another matter altogether. To summarize, it arises from the recognition and embrace of the identity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Dorothea]

There are lots of arguments over this. I wonder if anybody could just look at this through just plain common sense. I know it would be nearly impossible, if not totally impossible to imagine this, but try. Suppose you carried God in your womb for 9 months and then gave birth to Him and raised him. How could you ever think about having anything else in you, and living the life you lived before, even if it was a married, decent life? You are forever transformed/changed after such an event. I can't think of any event as life-altering as the life of the Theotokos.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

If someone doesn't have something, they don't have it. Thus, they are deprived of it.

"Deprival" ... can denote 'not having',

Bingo. Exactly as I said.

Quote me where I called the dogma, "sick."

You referred.....

You said I called it "sick"
I asked you to quote me on that.
You didn't.

I'll then gladly reply. But AGAIN, I have no position and I call no position right. Or wrong. I DO wonder about the STATUS of the view, but that's another issue and one moot to any Protestants since nothing regarding how often Our Lady engaged in human reproductive activities involving a man after Jesus is born - or not, so it's relevant only in 2 or 3 denominations. Including yours. There are two issues here: the veiw and it's status. Perhaps you are confusing the two issues I've been discussing.

But, as you have mentioned, within some (or one) of the protestant denominations with no official opinion, individuals may hold either opinion (dogma means opinion, position, belief).

1. It seems to me you ignored what you quoted from me in your reply.

2. Yes, where there is no dogma, people may hold opinions. And often they do. Just as you'll likely find people in your congregation that like carrots and those that don't, you'll also find people in my congregation that do and that don't. But liking them does not make it a dogma, and not liking them does not make it heresy. I doubt anyone in your denomination has been excommunicated, defrocked, condemned, or burned at the stake over a passionate approval or disapproval of carrots. Opinions? YES! Dogmas? No.

3. No, it's a contradiction to say that not having an opinion is an opinion. Call it undecided - if that helps you understand this simple truth. As I've replied (so many times now), to be open is not to be closed. I don't have an opinion on whether their is life as we think of it on any of the 300+ planets found outside our solar system. I don't say it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that there IS and I don't say that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that there is NOT. I don't know. I have no opinion on that. That does NOT mean that I regard life on those planets to be a dogma or heresy, it means I don't have a view, a position, a opinion. We've been over and over this.

Let's try all this again. Note the question marks; they indicate questions for discussion.


Do you believe that the Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary teaches that Mary never once engaged in any reproductive activities (normally this would be called "sexual intercourse" or just "sex")?

If you agree with our Catholic friend that the dogma has NOTHING to do with whether She did or did not - ever, then why it is called, "The EVER VIRGINITY of Mary" or "The PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary?"

Why did my Catholic teachers teach us that the dogma means that "Mary never did have sex?"

Why does the RCC, in it's official Catechism, apply the dogma so as to point out, "THEREFORE, Mary could not have had other children and Jesus had no siblings?"

If Mary DID have human reproductive activities involving a male, then how does the only official application of this Dogma make any sense at all - if she had such human reproductive activities, doesn't it follow that she COULD have had other children?

But maybe you disagree with our Catholic friend, and believe that the Dogma DOES teach that Mary never once engaged in human reproductive activities involving a male human being?

If so, then why is that issue - how often Mary did or did not engage in human reproductive activities involving a male human being after Jesus was born - why is that so significant to you, why is that a subject that you believe must be discussed, taught, proclaimed, and shouted as a dogma?

What is it about THAT issue that is so very, very critical, central, decisive, foundational for your denomination so as to be a dogma?

And then (because I have another discussion elsewhere on this point), is it offensive to you if someone speaks of how often Mary did or did not engage in human reproductive activities involving an adult male human being after Jesus was born even through it is your view that this subject is of great significance and importance and should be taught, proclaimed and insisted upon in all the church? I'm curious about that for another discussion.


Now, if you'd rather talk about olive oil or Elvis or the various meanings of the verb, "to leave," or my Eucharistic practices during the years I worshiped in the Catholic Church - well, count me out. This thread is about the DOGMA of how often Mary _____ . I know that. You know that. All God's children know that. Someday, I'd like to be able to discuss that issue. I've not come to any conclusions on it. Protestants will discuss it with me, Catholics and EO's have been AMAZINGLY (and perplexingly) unwilling to even MENTION their own dogma, much less discuss the core teaching of it. I'm interested in WHY this issue of Mary's ___________ is SO critically important to the RC and EO, especially since the embracers of this view seem so uncomfortable with the view. Odd. Curious. But even more so, why is it DOGMA (I probably have THAT issue more with my Catholic brothers and sisters). Remember: it's NOT my view. I have no view on how often Mary had ____________ after Jesus was born, so the attacks on me just add to the extreme oddity of this view. Maybe I'm goint to get the salad dressing reply again....

Of course, this is the way you repeatedly (over the past year) characterize the matter. And, I have personally responded to this many times.

Not that I've seen. I'll review the thread.

For my pastor, it's an issue of ecumenicity. In his view, the compelling embrace is on the side of ancient, ecumenical consensus - especially as expressed in the 7 Ecumenical Councils, in so far as such is not problematic via-a-vis Scripture. In his view, this qualifies. And I agree. Which is why it is PERMITTED pious opinion and why it is NOT declared to be HERESY. But, he agrees with me, it IS curious - and he's been of no help in my quest to understand this. And he agrees, that the response I'm getting here is not atypical. He feels that the view was finally embraced in order to get to the issue of relatives of Jesus, to say such could not exist. In a sense, the view overshoots the issue. What perhaps should have been a dogma of "Jesus had no siblings" (a doctrine NEVER embraced by the Church) got cranked out as "Mary Had No Human Reproductive Activities with an Adult Male Human Being - Ever." He embraces it because it's strong, ecumenical Tradition with no biblical problems. But he agrees with me, it IS odd. And moot. And should not be dogma. And he has no reservations using the "s" word instead of "Engaged in human reproductive activities involving an adult male human being" (as if there's any difference in meaning, as if we're not all adults here and know what the "s" word means). Sometimes it would be nice if we could just discuss things. Openly. Honestly. As adults. So that understanding can advance. I've been trying to do that for at least 7 years on this one. If I wasn't SO interested in understanding it, I would have given up a long, long time ago (which I'm pretty such is the goal of virtually all with whom I've conversed). But guess what? For better or worse, I'm one persistent dude. I don't give up. EVER.

Whether or not you agree with the answer is another matter altogether. To summarize, it arises from the recognition and embrace of the identity of Jesus Christ.

Start by answering my questions above; that would REALLY help and I'd be ever so grateful.

I strongly suspect that my Christology is the same as yours. I fail to see how the nature of Jesus requires that Mary never once participated in reproductive activities with an adult male human being. Entirely lost me there. So, in the EAST, it's NOT a matter of MARY'S nature, but of Jesus'? Okay, how is the nature of Jesus impacted if, say 30 years later, Mary were to ever engage in reproductive activities with an adult male human being? And how does such substantiate this to the level of dogma? But, first, it would help me if you'd address the above questions. I realize some may be areas where the EO disagrees with the CC since it sure seems this dogma is quite different in your two denominations - leaving me wondering (again) why apostolic succession and tradition safeguards all truth if it's two different truths? Oh well - another issue for another day. If you would, address the questions above. And then explain to me how the Two Natures of Christ would be altered or destroyed if Mary were even once ..... you know? Even after Jesus' death and resurrection? Our salvation hinges on whether Mary ever once.... you know? That ACT? By HER? What is it about the nature of this act that accomplishes that? Ah, but I'm probably WAY ahead of myself. Answer the questions I've been asking first, if you would be so very kind and helpful.



.

 

[Thekla]

.



Bingo. Exactly as I said.[/quote]
Nope; it does not -- please read what I stated or use a dictionary. Deprivation is not a simple or neutral removal. The sense is much more negative than that.

You said I called it "sick"
I asked you to quote me on that.
You didn't.

Having an obsession and deriving belief from this psychiatric condition is healthy Ok, then what did you mean by saying that the EV is a dogma developed from an obsession ?

1. It seems to me you ignored what you quoted from me in your reply.

Howso ?

2. Yes, where there is no dogma, people may hold opinions. And often they do. Just as you'll likely find people in your congregation that like carrots and those that don't, you'll also find people in my congregation that do and that don't. But liking them does not make it a dogma, and not liking them does not make it heresy. I doubt anyone in your denomination has been excommunicated, defrocked, condemned, or burned at the stake over a passionate approval or disapproval of carrots. Opinions? YES! Dogmas? No.

Dogma is from the word meaning opine, considered, believe, etc. I asked which meaning of dogma you meant. So you seem to say that the belief of people within the denomination is meaningless. And you seem to think that matters of faith have equal value with a taste (or distaste) for an edible rootstock. That's curious.

3. No, it's a contradiction to say that not having an opinion is an opinion. Call it undecided - if that helps you understand this simple truth. As I've replied (so many times now), to be open is not to be closed. I don't have an opinion on whether their is life as we think of it on any of the 300+ planets found outside our solar system. I don't say it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty that there IS and I don't say that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that there is NOT. I don't know. I have no opinion on that. That does NOT mean that I regard life on those planets to be a dogma or heresy, it means I don't have a view, a position, a opinion. We've been over and over this.

What do the number of planets, or your view of the matter, have to do with the Incarnation and the realization of God's will in persons
Or perhaps you are referring to St. Maximos; could you describe what is the link you mean ?

Not that I've seen. I'll review the thread.

That would be threads - starting in 2008 (its been about a years worth).

Start by answering my questions above; that would REALLY help and I'd be ever so grateful.

First, if you would finish answering questions left unanswered from the previous page, and also the many left unanswered over the past year. (For example, from aprox. 6-8 months ago, what is dogma in the Lutheran confession, and how is the dogma derived.)

I strongly suspect that my Christology is the same as yours. I fail to see how the nature of Jesus requires that Mary never once participated in reproductive activities with an adult male human being. Entirely lost me there. So, in the EAST, it's NOT a matter of MARY'S nature, but of Jesus'? Okay, how is the nature of Jesus impacted if, say 30 years later, Mary were to ever engage in reproductive activities with an adult male human being? And how does such substantiate this to the level of dogma? But, first, it would help me if you'd address the above questions. I realize some may be areas where the EO disagrees with the CC since it sure seems this dogma is quite different in your two denominations - leaving me wondering (again) why apostolic succession and tradition safeguards all truth if it's two different truths? Oh well - another issue for another day. If you would, address the questions above. And then explain to me how the Two Natures of Christ would be altered or destroyed if Mary were even once ..... you know? Even after Jesus' death and resurrection? Our salvation hinges on whether Mary ever once.... you know? That ACT? By HER? What is it about the nature of this act that accomplishes that? Ah, but I'm probably WAY ahead of myself. Answer the questions I've been asking first, if you would be so very kind and helpful.

Both Philothei and myself have addressed this; if you would look back, then perhaps what you learn may help you to understand any further discussion.

 

[MamaZ]

LOL.. So in the scriptures when it is written that Joseph took Mary as his wife we are to assume that this is not what is meant?

 

[Thekla]

LOL.. So in the scriptures when it is written that Joseph took Mary as his wife we are to assume that this is not what is meant?

The Scriptures do not state that they were husband and wife (the English terms "husband and wife" have a different, more narrow meaning than the words used in the Greek). The English vernacular meaning of "take" in this context also has a meaning which is not conclusively confirmed in the Greek. There is no mention in the Holy Scriptures of the content of their relationship beyond betrothal, protection and householding. Further, the western understanding does not include the idea of a chaste marriage; thus, in the English terminology and understanding, one does not consider anything beyond one's immediate typical cultural experience, and the understanding rests on these buried assumptions.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

LOL.. So in the scriptures when it is written that Joseph took Mary as his wife we are to assume that this is not what is meant?

Since when does taking someone as their wife equal having sex with them?

I am sure there are many "modern" examples as well as ancient examples of marriage being something that did not always entail sex.

Not to mention that most of Christianity close to the time of Jesus and Mary wrote that Joseph was in his 80s.

I think too many of us are caught up into the unchaste and wicked society we live in of porn and adultery and divorce and abortions. But living in a country that embraces all these it is not so surprising.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Since when does taking someone as their wife equal having sex with them?

I am sure there are many "modern" examples as well as ancient examples of marriage being something that did not always entail sex.

Not to mention that most of Christianity close to the time of Jesus and Mary wrote that Joseph was in his 80s.

I think too many of us are caught up into the unchaste and wicked society we live in of porn and adultery and divorce and abortions. But living in a country that embraces all these it is not so surprising.

I have a close friend who has been "married" for over thirty years. During the entire period his wife has completely refused to engage in sexual intercourse with him. In the Catholic Church that would be grounds for annulment of the marriage. Such a living arrangement would be viewed as, at best, odd, and, at worst, sinful because it is an aberrant form of birth control.

If we apply the same standards of the Catholic Church to their avowed belief concerning the marital status of Mary and Joseph we find that it is not grounds for annulment at all, nor is it in the least bit odd, nor is it the least bit sinful as an aberrant form for birth control.

 

[bbbbbbb]

LOL.. So in the scriptures when it is written that Joseph took Mary as his wife we are to assume that this is not what is meant?

Let's not forget those pesky brothers and sisters of Jesus, too.