Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Thekla]

I am quite confused. You state that it has to do with dedication and sophrosyne. But is it not an integral part, (although you call it legalism and secularism) that Mary did not have sexual relations, to BE a perpetual virgin? The reasoning aside, it IS pretty much the "meat" of the belief, correct?

I'm NOT getting the dichotomy here.

To insist that a part of the definition of virginity (which is also the whole of the legal definition) is the whole of the (Christian) definition is factually wrong. And it refocuses the content and meaning of the term to a system which is not Christian. It allows secularism to win over Christianity. It makes John the Baptist more about intercourse than about Christ -- is that what we find remarkable about the Forerunner ? Is the lack of intercourse what we remember Elias for ? These were also ever-virgin.

As I asked before, was Hosea's marriage to a prostitute (commanded by God) all about intercourse ?

If we assent to the changing of the Christian definition of virgin to the secular, we refocus the whole.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I do hope the explanation makes some sense (as I never know)

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I don't think there was much to diagree with

Yeah, I was talking more about the people that, yet again, implied that I thought that I was proving that Mary was a virgin for life.

IIRC

What does IIRC stand for?

mutually decided to practice celibacy within marriage.

Correct which would imply that sex is not a necessity for marriage.

There is a Jewish teaching that the flack between Moses and his wife was over his practicing continence ... (As I understand it, as well as the period of continence as preparation, this time frame could be extended per a close experience of God.)

Well, I guess this would depend on which wife you are referring to. When Moses marries the Cushite woman, his brother and sister give him flak. This is probably due to the fact that, being a Cushite, she was actually above him in class and they thought he was being presumtuous. (hence why in the passage the text is very clear to note that Moses was in fact not presumptuous but instead very humble).

It seems that there is an insistence that the secular and legal definition of virgin is the only understanding of the term. This is factually incorrect.

I am not disagreeing with this necessarily but you need to provide proof that when the text was written (or at least early on in the tradition) that there was more to the definition than just the secular one.

that the dogma is that Our Lady never had sex.

I am still confused. This is what the dogma is. Why are people arguing against this. I understand arguing that it is not true, but why argue that this is not what is stated?

I am not interested in continuing a discussion where the EO doctrine is so rudely renamed by someone who is not EO.

I don't see how anyone is being rude to the EO. The doctrine that is being discussed (and was brought up by me in the first post) is that of the idea that Mary never had sex. Sure, there are spiritual applications to that doctrine, but my original post and this thread is about whether or not Mary was a virgin for life and therefore whether or not she ever had sex. If she had sex, then she is not a virgin. If she never had sex then she is a virgin.

I am not interested in continuing a discussion where the EO doctrine is so rudely renamed by someone who is not EO.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the sum-total of the Theotokos is that she was (is) a virgin. However, whether or not she was a perpetual virgin is an important aspect of her life and our spirituality.

To insist that a part of the definition of virginity (which is also the whole of the legal definition) is the whole of the (Christian) definition is factually wrong.

But to a large extent it really was about legalism. The definition of virginity that the NT assumes is the Torah definition which essentially would be a woman who had not known a man. I am not saying that this has no spiritual application or implication (not at all, in fact it has many such as the ones that you have listed) but Mary being a virgin has everything to do with whether she had sex.

And it refocuses the content and meaning of the term to a system which is not Christian.

No it doesn't. Not unless you want to posit that the system that the people in the New Testament were using and the system that the writers of the New Testament were using and the system that the Church Fathers were using is somehow not Christian. The doctrine in question is about the virginity (lack of sex) of Mary.

It makes John the Baptist more about intercourse than about Christ -- is that what we find remarkable about the Forerunner ?

Have you ever stopped to wonder why John was an ever-virgin? It is because he was meant to remain pure (which is also one of the reasons that Mary is said to have remained a virgin). However, that purity comes from not ever having sex. Somehow, his virginity, in a very real way, adds to his purity and therefore his credibility. Likewise, you are right, there are implications to Mary's ever-virginity. However, without the 'secular' definition of virginity, the fact that she never was with a man, these implications would be impossible because it the purity of Mary comes (at least in part) from the virginity of Mary. So, it may sound vulgar to our modern ears, but much time was spent in days of old talking about whether Mary ever had sexual relations and it is still important today, hence my original post.

As I asked before, was Hosea's marriage to a prostitute (commanded by God) all about intercourse ?

No, of course there were implications and symbolism. But the actual command was to marry and have sex with a prostitute. No one seems to be arguing that the perpetual virginity would not have greater implications. The argument is whether the doctrine is possible.

Incidentally, since my original post, I think it is more than possible and would say that the ever-virginity of Mary is the most likely scenario.

 

[Uphill Battle]

To insist that a part of the definition of virginity (which is also the whole of the legal definition) is the whole of the (Christian) definition is factually wrong. And it refocuses the content and meaning of the term to a system which is not Christian. It allows secularism to win over Christianity. It makes John the Baptist more about intercourse than about Christ -- is that what we find remarkable about the Forerunner ? Is the lack of intercourse what we remember Elias for ? These were also ever-virgin.

As I asked before, was Hosea's marriage to a prostitute (commanded by God) all about intercourse ?

If we assent to the changing of the Christian definition of virgin to the secular, we refocus the whole.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I do hope the explanation makes some sense (as I never know)

I don't understand, Thekla, but I am trying to, honest.

 

[Philothei]

Sure, there are spiritual applications to that doctrine

We see everything through the incarnation... She was in a disposition of being a virgin... it is more than skin deep ...Virgin has a religious connotation not a secular one.. We have said this before over and over... but does not seem to penetrate... *sign*....

Why would we want to use terminology that was not used in the Bible or the Fathers?


That is beyong me.

 

[Thekla]

Then a quick comparison: a woman who hates and slanders Christ, but has never had intercourse, is a virgin.

Is this virgin the same as the Theotokos -- they are both virgins.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Is this virgin the same as the Theotokos -- they are both virgins.

Of course this person is not the same as the Theotokos. She did not give birth to God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Then a quick comparison: a woman who hates and slanders Christ, but has never had intercourse, is a virgin.

Is this virgin the same as the Theotokos -- they are both virgins.

A virgin is one who has not had sex.
And "ever" or "perpetual" stresses that such is always the case - forever.


Some seem to want it both ways: They claim it's a matter of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE that Mary never once had sex but that it's moot if she ever had sex or not - indeed, to so much as hint about whether she did or didn't have sex is highly offensive and indicates one who is sex-crazed, immature, hormone driven, and seeks to hurt and offend all who love Mary.





.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why would we want to use terminology that was not used in the Bible or the Fathers?

Virgin = one who has not had sex.
Always = forever.


The DOGMA is named "The Ever-Virgin Mary" (Orthodox) and "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" (Catholic) because the dogma is that Mary never had sex. Words mean things. It's why the EO and CC chose these words - because they mean them.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

a woman who hates and slanders Christ, but has never had intercourse, is a virgin.

.... So, contrary to any dictionary, that's your definition of "Virgin." A female who hates and slanders Christ and has not had intercourse." That's your interpretation of Luke 1:27? If so, I disagree.



.

 

[Philothei]

I think we are all over the 6th grade class here.... and we need no tranlsation ...lol... Anyone who is under 12 please raise their hands .....ROLF........

 

[Philothei]

 

[Philothei]

.... So, contrary to any dictionary, that's your definition of "Virgin." A female who hates and slanders Christ and has not had intercourse." That's your interpretation of Luke 1:27? If so, I disagree.

that is ridiculous... no one is saying this. You all support that to be a virgin is all about skin deep and that is why ANY virgin would be okay... to replace the Mother of God... We are saying it has to do with a disposition... the term virgin is much more than just skin deep. It involves a person that also has a personality that resembles that of a virgin in thought and mind. ..... not only the physical sense....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

that the dogma is that Our Lady never had sex.

I am still confused. This is what the dogma is. Why are people arguing against this. I understand arguing that it is not true, but why argue that this is not what is stated?

Some argue both sides...
It IS the dogma - Mary Had No Sex Ever.
A matter of highest importance - this fact!
But the statement is good if an Orthodox says it, but it's offensive, immature, and inappropriate if any other repeats it.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

a woman who hates and slanders Christ, but has never had intercourse, is a virgin.

that is ridiculous... no one is saying this.

Actually, someone is. Just not me.



.

 

[Thekla]

Hope its ok to answer some now, some later ...

What does IIRC stand for?

sorry - if I remember correctly

I am not disagreeing with this necessarily but you need to provide proof that when the text was written (or at least early on in the tradition) that there was more to the definition than just the secular one.

Compare - John "lifted" the term "logos" and "filled it" with Christ. The early Christians lifted the term "episkopos" and gave it a similar but now Christian filled meaning. Consider, some gnostics taught "abstaining from marriage", both Christ and Paul support virginity. Are Christ and Paul gnostics, or there in a difference in understanding.

I am still confused. This is what the dogma is. Why are people arguing against this. I understand arguing that it is not true, but why argue that this is not what is stated?

The virginity of the Theotokos arises from, is the result of a spiritual disposition. The renaming "no sex ever" is skin-deep.

I don't see how anyone is being rude to the EO. The doctrine that is being discussed (and was brought up by me in the first post) is that of the idea that Mary never had sex. Sure, there are spiritual applications to that doctrine, but my original post and this thread is about whether or not Mary was a virgin for life and therefore whether or not she ever had sex. If she had sex, then she is not a virgin. If she never had sex then she is a virgin.

The spiritual disposition has as a result a physical fact. If it is the physical that gives rise to the spiritual all virgins would be Saints.

Further, we have used the terminology "ever-virgin" for centuries - and it is Christian terminology. "No sex ever" redirects the understanding to a physical understanding alone, and shaves the origin of the state from the ever-virginity of Mary.

What is the point of renaming ? Shall we also rename Trinitarian doctrine ?

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the sum-total of the Theotokos is that she was (is) a virgin. However, whether or not she was a perpetual virgin is an important aspect of her life and our spirituality.

Is it spiritually important, or physically important or both ?

But to a large extent it really was about legalism. The definition of virginity that the NT assumes is the Torah definition which essentially would be a woman who had not known a man. I am not saying that this has no spiritual application or implication (not at all, in fact it has many such as the ones that you have listed) but Mary being a virgin has everything to do with whether she had sex.

So then, the term "logos" is uneffected by its use in the Gospel of John, and the term episkopos is still a political term with legal and military overtones ? Yes, logos is used in relation to speak in Genesis, and retains its meaning "word, reason, etc" but are not somewhat altered and richer for their Christian use over centuries ?

No it doesn't. Not unless you want to posit that the system that the people in the New Testament were using and the system that the writers of the New Testament were using and the system that the Church Fathers were using is somehow not Christian. The doctrine in question is about the virginity (lack of sex) of Mary.

It includes the meaning of no intercourse. The iteration of the doctrine came later, and is more extensive. Even Paul notes that remaining virgin allows one to be more focused on God. Does he locate this teaching soley in the fact of sex ?

Have you ever stopped to wonder why John was an ever-virgin? It is because he was meant to remain pure (which is also one of the reasons that Mary is said to have remained a virgin). However, that purity comes from not ever having sex. Somehow, his virginity, in a very real way, adds to his purity and therefore his credibility. Likewise, you are right, there are implications to Mary's ever-virginity. However, without the 'secular' definition of virginity, the fact that she never was with a man, these implications would be impossible because it the purity of Mary comes (at least in part) from the virginity of Mary. So, it may sound vulgar to our modern ears, but much time was spent in days of old talking about whether Mary ever had sexual relations and it is still important today, hence my original post.

Again, the condition of "not having sex" arises from something else, is a "symptom" of the something it arises from. Not having sex is a part, not the whole. Likewise, "be fruitful and multiply" arises from something, it is not "about sex".

No, of course there were implications and symbolism. But the actual command was to marry and have sex with a prostitute. No one seems to be arguing that the perpetual virginity would not have greater implications. The argument is whether the doctrine is possible.

Which came first - the purpose or the physical ? In this case, too the physical arises from the spiritual purpose - the meaning is not an "add-on" to the physical fact. The physical fact "flows from" the spiritual purpose.

I hope this makes sense ...

 

[Philothei]

It IS the dogma - Mary Had No Sex Ever.
A matter of highest importance - this fact!
But the statement is good if an Orthodox says it, but it's offensive, immature, and inappropriate if any other repeats it.

we did not say that... You are putting words in our mouths. We say Ever Virgin or if we say that "she had no sex ever" anywhere in our services please please tell or if the Bible or the Fathers say it... please tell us where...

 

[Thekla]

Of course this person is not the same as the Theotokos. She did not give birth to God.

No, not the same as the Theotokos, but she can also be called a virgin.

They are both virgin -- is the content of their virginity the same ?
Do both examples of "virgin" arise from a spiritual condition ?

 

[Thekla]

.... So, contrary to any dictionary, that's your definition of "Virgin." A female who hates and slanders Christ and has not had intercourse." That's your interpretation of Luke 1:27? If so, I disagree.



.

I guess I wasn't clear -- that is not at all what I mean !
Virgin has a different content in reference to Mary, and in Christian usage in general.



But if we want to keep the non-Christian use of terms, then:
Holy Trinity means "blessed clover", and the three faced gods/goddesses of the Celts ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You all support that to be a virgin is all about skin deep and that is why ANY virgin would be okay... to replace the Mother of God...

No one (known to me) has remotely, wildly, suggested such a thing.

What seems to be in huge debate is if the DOGMA of "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" or "The Ever-Virgin Mary" means that Mary had no sex ever. NO ONE remotely ever suggested that's ALL it means - certainly not me, as I made ever so clear over and over and over and over - in more than one thread. As I stated, from my understanding (which is from the Catholic perspective, not Orthodox) it means MUCH more than that - but it DOES mean that. But, in suggesting that, I've been flamed, rebuked, called immature, sex-crazed, hormone driven, offenive, and more. And staff has been dragged in to try to silence me on that.

All I've tried to understand is the unique Orthodox seeming discomfort with their own dogma, this "Mary Had No Sex - that's a matter of highest importance! But if you say it, you are a horrible, horrible, offensive person!" thing. It's a point not found in Catholicism. My Catholic teachers explained to me that the dogma is this: Mary had no sex ever. But this is seen in a broader context and with the focus is on the spirituality of it; in some ways, her virginity is a manifestation of something deeper that is really the point of the dogma. But what some Orthodox have made so very evident, is that while they seem to admit that "virgin" has SOMETHING to do with sex, we can't say that and to even remotely suggest such is to be immature, carnal, sex-crazed, etc (or so I've been told). I don't know what the "hang-up" is in the EO with sexuality or virginity, or why this huge seeming discomfort with the dogma here - but I agree with Thekla that it seems IMPOSSIBLE to discuss it; I don't know HOW to discuss a matter of virginity without speaking of virginity, of how to discuss her sexuality if we can't so much as mention the word<Staff edit>. But it sure strikes me as odd.


As I posted, IMHO, this is the oddest of all the unique dogmas of the RCC and EO. And it's one that I've studied a lot. I think I understand it from the RCC perspective, but some EO's here have sure created a huge puzzel of contradictions, a seeming discomfort with something they insist is true. But, right now, I'm chucking it up to American vs. Greek cultures. Or maybe a morality thing. I embrace marital sex as a beautiful gift from God, not a dirty thing that defiles and makes the wife (but it seems not the husband) "impure." There seems to be a lot of "baggage" on the EO side of this, quite distinct from the CC understanding. Again, I suspect it's more a matter of culture than anything. But I gave up. We CANNOT talk about virginity if we cannot talk about virginity, we can't talk about this dogma because the very dogma seems offensives to those that embrace it - odd as that seems and probably IS only seeming....


Oh, well....
Even knows I tried, LOL.
Several did.







.