Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Thekla]

But is this the only conclusion and characterization that can be said of the issue ?

 

[Philothei]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XOV34vsjfg


I liked the lyrics... for our Circular .... go around thinking here...

Yesterday a child came out to wonder,
Caught a dragonfly inside a jar.
Fearful when the sky is full of thunder
And tearful at the falling of a star.

And the seasons, they go 'round and 'round
And the painted ponies go up and down...
We're captive on the carousel of time.
We can't return, we can only look behind from where we came
And go 'round and 'round and 'round in the circle game.

Then the child moved ten times round the seasons,
Skated over ten clear frozen streams.
Words like 'when you're older' must appease him,
And promises of someday make his dreams.

Chorus

Sixteen springs and sixteen summers gone now,
Cartwheels turn to car wheels through the town.
And they tell him, 'Take your time, it won't be long now,
'Till you drag your feet to slow the circle down.'

Chorus

So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty,
Though his dreams have lost some grandeur coming true
There'll be new dreams, maybe better dreams and plenty,
Before the last revolving year is through...

Beautiful song by Joni Mitchelll BTW...


..................................................................

 

[Philothei]

[/size][/font][/color]

What is so laughable about this comment? truly no clue here... If that is only what you have to comment on the virginity of Mary... then I would not laugh...

 

[Uphill Battle]

this is in case anyone in here does not realize what "ever virginity" means

ever virginity. ever=always virginity= in a state of never having sex.

hence, no sex ever. I know you don't like the way CJ says it, but the dogma of perpetual virginity IS the assertion that Mary never had sex. It's plain and simple. I just think it's argued about, because you view it as disrespectful.... but IMHO, I fail to see how it's any more descriptive than "perpetual virgin."

If the touch of Christ does indeed heal, if indeed healing is from God, then having the God-man in ones womb would seem to indicate a healing, and necessitate that sexual activity would result in a child (assuming that bareness is an unnatural condition, or not unlike an illness) unless the ability to bear children were the result of the Fall.

even in healthy adults, every sexual congress does not result in a child. It's an interesting though you put out... but hardly something that could be considered anything more than rumination.

Tradition. you dont like the answer. move on with your life. you ridiculously obsess over this issue.

wouldn't you say that the ones who state that it MUST be believed that Mary is an ever virgin, are in some part, likewise obsessed about her sex life, or lack thereof?

What is so laughable about this comment? truly no clue here... If that is only what you have to comment on the virginity of Mary... then I would not laugh...

it's laughable to state that all the girls were virgins before marriage, or that you could possibly know that. There were laws in the OT regarding women found not to be a virgin at their marriage. Check it out. If they were always all virgins, the law wouldn't need to exist.

 

[Philothei]

it's laughable to state that all the girls were virgins before marriage,

oh yeah and why would there be a law if the norm was "not to be a virgin" then or be questionable? Actually the fact that such law existed safeguards my point being girls "had to:" be virgins or they defiled their father's name and brought shame.. .Why would Theotokos be born of such pious parents disobey them and wanted to "defame" her bridal bed? It does not make sense since the appearance of such law reinforces the fact there was no need for the evangelist declaring that we know she was of a noble birth that is her family were pious Jews who lived according to the law. Also the fact she lived at the temple safeguards her virginity. The intention of the Evangelist calling her virgin was for eternity if one understands the Greek clearly.. It does help to know Greek maybe you should take a class UB..

Deut 22:13-29:

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html

 

[Philothei]

I know you don't like the way CJ says it,

yeah because it is circular, reduntant and plain out boring ....lol... since we are not in first grade anymore

 

[Philothei]

UB....

Here is what the Before the Foundation said... Did you get his point?

Originally Posted by Philothei

anyhow...for what it is worth the fact that that couple had no kids does not point to the fact that Theotokos remained Virgin in her marriage ...It just reinforces it. Because is she did indeed had kids with Joseph then how would you feel about her being ever Virgin? That is all what is been said. We are not stupid we know that not ALL couples who do not have kids still can have marital relations...
​

Thank you for actually reading my post Philothei

 

[Thekla]

even in healthy adults, every sexual congress does not result in a child. It's an interesting though you put out... but hardly something that could be considered anything more than rumination.

just to add (quoting myself ):
A lifetime of sexual activity without issue is typical of a fertility problem, or the use of contraceptive device or method which exceeds the statistical rate of success for any form of (pre 20th c.) birth control method.

wouldn't you say that the ones who state that it MUST be believed that Mary is an ever virgin, are in some part, likewise obsessed about her sex life, or lack thereof?

I don't understand how this would indicate an "obsession", though. For example, I don't know of any recorded exhaustive treatment (ie tomes perhaps, or extensive patristic commentary talking about intercourse etc. AND perhaps this can be shown as evidence to support the charge of obsession) of the matter - the characterization of "obsessive" seems to indicate an 'imagined account' of the sort of discourse engaged in within thew EO, RC etc. Frankly, the narrowing of the meaning of "sex" to intercourse (when it also means gender) and the narrowing of the term virgin to intercourse alone (when its meaning is broader in Christian use anyway) along with the repetitive, insistent and bombastic tone (as opposed to a willingness to engage in converstaion on the matter) is far more characteristic of the term "obsession".

I do understand that terms are narrowed for the purpose of more efficient communication in discussion, but the problem here is that the manner of the narrowing of the terms involves re-naming and re-defining the content of someone else's stated belief.

 

[Thekla]

Just to add: this would seem to imply that the use of the term "virgin" itself would indicate an obsession with intercourse (where virgin is narrowed to a legal or secular meaning).

If this is the case, the Bible comes off as more than a little "sex obsessed".

 

[Thekla]

then, there are the other understandings of the term "virgin",

for example extra-virgin

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Anybody want to reply to my post?

 

[Thekla]

Anybody want to reply to my post?

I don't think there was much to diagree with IIRC, a betrothed was part of another's household (Malachi and Esther, but would need to review the matter); if this is the case, the matter would seem not to be conclusive. As for intercourse within marriage, in the EO there are some who have mutually decided to practice celibacy within marriage. (And we are encouraged to do so during the fasting periods). Hence, the idea of a celibate "marriage" by mutual agreement is not an odd notion in EO.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, BeforeTheFoundation, you may be able to fill in some "info gaps". 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.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

ever virginity. ever=always virginity= in a state of never having sex.

hence, no sex ever. I know you don't like the way CJ says it, but the dogma of perpetual virginity IS the assertion that Mary never had sex. It's plain and simple. I just think it's argued about, because you view it as disrespectful....

Of course....


But, no, I don't think Catholics or Orthodox typically see this dogma as disrespectful to Our Lady. Some Protestants do, but I doubt many of them do.



.

 

[Philothei]

then, there are the other understandings of the term "virgin",

for example extra-virgin

mmmm... that reminds me to make a greek salad...

 

[Thekla]

But again, the use of the term "virgin" is not solely found in its relation to intercourse. It is (as Reader Iakovos pointed out) related to the sense of dedication and to 'sophrosyne' as well. It is in this fuller sense that it is meant in (EO) Christian use. To strip the word of its meaning is to miss the teaching, its soteriological and Christological source.

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.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But again, the use of the term "virgin" is not

solely found in its relation to intercourse

Of course. No one remotely suggested that it does.
But it does include that. And, at least from my 3 primary Catholic teachers, that is the overwhelming and primary meaning.

Odd, to me, that some (more Orthodox than Catholic, from my limited experience) seem to evade, deny, and do all humanly possible to suggest otherwise - as if embarrassed by the very dogma they are trying to support and defend (although, I do not beleive they are embarrassed by it).


Friend, I went over and over on this in two threads on this topic. AGREEING that the dogma has many powerful connotations and spiritual applications entirely unrelated to the issue of sex BUT that the dogma is that Our Lady never had sex. The result was a plethora of attacks on me, aweful PM's, Reports of my posts to Staff, accusations of being "a sexual pervert" and worse. To ME, that is perhaps the most revealing aspect of the discussion.


From MY limited experience on the net, the "hate" has been entirely in one direction (and it's not from Protestants to Catholics or Orthodox). And the evasion of what is OBVIOUS is the biggest "puzzle" of all. But it cannot be explored here at CF without causing aweful, intensively personal, attacks and involving the Staff in attempts to join in this. Very odd. Very odd indeed.

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.

No. What I have witnessed, mostly from Orthodox, is a denial of the definition of the words and intensive, personal attacks on anyone who notes that - as if embarrassed by the dogma (again, (I realize such isn't true - but reading the posts, it would seem an unavoidable conclusion).

Look, I was active in Catholicism for 5 years. I have never "cut the ties" there and still occasionally worship among Catholics and have LOTS of good Catholic friends (including my best friend of some 10 years, my sister and my brother-in-law). I understand and APPRECIATE the spirituality of Marian devotion AND I SHARE A GREAT DEAL OF IT. When one says, "Our devotion and spirituality vis-a-vis this dogma isn't about sex" I TOTALLY, COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY AGREE - as I have made ever so abundantly clear here over and over and over and over again. To no avail. But, again, the ISSUE is the lack of confirmation of the obvious: the dogma is this - Mary Had No Sex Ever. That's not the "end" of the applications, spirituality, devotion, etc. realted to it (in fact, such has little to do with that) but that IS the dogma. Catholics not only "admit" that but clearly state that. As the Catechism, Handbook, etc. all state. And as did all my Catholic teachers. This "the dogma is not about sex - you pervert, immature, hormone driven jerk!" stuff is what is puzzeling.


IMHO, of all the unique RCC and EO dogmas, this may well be the strangest. And I've probably probably studied it the most for that reason (trying to get a handle on it). And it DEFINATELY is the one Catholics and especially (as I've stunningly learned here at CF) is the most difficult for them to discuss. Interesting.





.

 

[Thekla]

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

The explanations have been given repeatedly, and the response has perhaps acknowledged the argument, but claimed the core meaning is actually an add-on, a sort of "cute bonus to the doctrine, but not the thing itself".

I'm sorry you were attacked.
There was a great deal that was unsavory and disrespectful in those discussions.

But without any indication that respectful discussion can occur on this matter, I'd rather acknowledge that no discussion can occur.
Discussion requires listening, and listening is an act of friendship that allows discussion to occur.

I do not refer to John the Baptist and Forerunner as "no sex ever", nor will I assent to that terminology being applied to the Theotokos or Christ. I do not reassign the mission of the Forerunner as being "about intercourse" and thus skip his calling and ministry in its fullness.

 

[Thekla]

AGREEING that the dogma has many powerful connotations and spiritual applications entirely unrelated to the issue of sex BUT that the dogma is that Our Lady never had sex.


.

This is an example of the issue at hand: I explained on the previous page (and referred to Rdr. Iakovos's explanation there) that in EO Christianity "virginity" includes the idea of dedication and sophrosyne. Your use of virgin is legalistic and secular NOT EO Christian.

And no matter how often it has been explained that the doctrine of the ever-virginity flows form the Soteriological understanding of Christ you insist otherwise. In short, your repetition in the face of repeated explanation seems to assume that we either:
1. don't know what we believe
2. are engaging in a cover-up
Clearly, there is no need to make any further explanation where there is no trust on the part of the reader.


I will not assent to the secularization of Christianity or EOChristian terminology.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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.