Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Thekla]

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

Sorry; I'll try again ...

the Theotokos is a distinct person. Like all of us, she is unrepeatable. She served God in a particular way.

When we speak of her as ever-virgin, we are referring to a distinct person.
From her spiritual disposition arises her physical virginity. It is a "physical symptom" of her particular dedication to God.

This is not unlike the Biblical (NT) description of the "tongue" -- the spiritual disposition of the heart is exposed by the tongue.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

we did not say that... You are putting words in our mouths.

You are so well illustrating my point....

I HONESTLY think we all know what "virgin" means and that IS what is meant here.
It is not ALL that is meant, but it IS meant.
And, to be blunt, I HONESTLY think you know that.
We all do.

And yet....... on and on and on from the Orthodox about how that's not the case, and to even SUGGEST such is to be offensive, flaming, carnal, sex-crazed, hormone-driven.... Friend, this is YOUR dogma. And, HONESTLY, I think we all know it means that Mary had no sex. It means MORE than that, but it means that. Why you are soooooooo offended or uncomfortable by that, I just don't know. Why it angers you so, truely - genuinely - puzzles me. But I think Thekla is right - it CANNOT be understood or resolved. How can we talk about this dogma if we can't talk about Mary or virginity or perpetual? OBVIOUSLY, we can't. I tried. Several of us did. I'm left with this: Orthodox seem to have a huge discomfort with this dogma, but it's only seeming because they do embrace it. Like I said, maybe it's just one of those cultural things. Maybe there's something in Greek culture about wives and marital sex.






.

 

[Philothei]

but some EO's here have sure created a huge puzzel of contradictions

specifying?

, 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.

Imagination to accuse the EO of something like that based on what? a dogma about Mary's virginity? if we did we whould not allow any marriage we would promote only celibacy etc... I am afraid you are imagining things my friend... and spread accusations that are vain and useless...

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....

You are trying to introduce a stawman ... fine ... Go ahead but we bottom line trying to define what Ever Virginity means for EO and in theological terminology you want to remain in your "physical sense " of the word given... Stay there but stop accusing all this stuff on us... It is not fair and mislreading... and full of error on your part

 

[Philothei]

We're not uncomfortable with our doctrine- we object to you refining it in your post_Freudian manner.

I agree very well said.. It seems like a "modern time adoptation" of the "ever virginity" of Mary... Sure go ahead call it anything you please and your heart desires but do not piggybag that on us... That is not what we beleive period....

This is not our Dogma or belief but your misrepresentation of it.. The Ever virginity according to Josaih

 

[Thekla]

some help with the concept of virginity:

Chastity--sophrosyne--integrates all the elements of the human being into a whole that is virginal and interior as to the spirit, and that is why St. Paul speaks of the salvation of every mother by means of chastity.14.37 The Pauline dialectic of the circumcision of the flesh interiorizes it even to “the circumcised... heart”.14.38 The same dialectic interiorizes chastity: “He who is not spiritual in his flesh becomes carnal even in his spirit,” and again, “the virginity of the flesh belongs to a small number, the virginity of the heart should belong to all.”14.39

(14.39 - Augustine)
http://www.tuirgin.com/files/texts/orthodoxy/Evdokimov/StruggleWithGod/html/node24.html

sophrosyne , sophrosynic - in classical Greek, sophrosyne can mean "prudence, moderation, temperance". In this book, the term is used in the sense of "chastity, virginity". A sophrosynic being is one who is chaste in the structure of the spirit, integrated. The word refers to the pre-eminent quality embodied in the Virgin Mary.
Evdomikov, from here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7M...3ZSZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Sophrosyne can be a "content" of both married and unmarried Christian life. In the case of the Virgin Mary, it is a content that is expressed - in part - in her ever-virginity and 'flows' from this, her 'role' in the Incarnation, and the identity of Christ.

Please note in the first quote ( bolded) the shared definition of "virginity" (5th c.)

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

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




sorry - if I remember correctly


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.


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



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 ?

Is it spiritually important, or physically important or both ?

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 ?

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 ?

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".

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 ...

Ah, I now at least understand from where you are coming. Actually, I believe taht you and I are closer than we originally believed. Especially when you say things like "'not having sex' arises from something else" I think that we are just expressing it in slightly different ways. I believe that the reason that she was (and is) always a physical virgin is an outward symptom of her spiritual purity. And I might even say that her virgin status adds to that purity in a (positive) never ending cycle.

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

No, the content is different. However, I would argue (perhaps as would you?) that it is the spiritual state of Mary which adds the specialness to her virginity. But I started this thread to investigate whether it was possible from a Biblical and Traditional standpoint to believe that Mary maintained her physical virginity (something that I have since been convinced of by talking to some of my friends and doing some reading). I guess when I jumped back onto the thread I assumed that we were still talking about a similar thing. I believe this is what lead to some of my confusion.

 

[Thekla]

Ah, I now at least understand from where you are coming. Actually, I believe taht you and I are closer than we originally believed. Especially when you say things like "'not having sex' arises from something else" I think that we are just expressing it in slightly different ways. I believe that the reason that she was (and is) always a physical virgin is an outward symptom of her spiritual purity. And I might even say that her virgin status adds to that purity in a (positive) never ending cycle.

Yes, I do think (and thought) that there is a 'common thread' in our views on the matter. And, I agree with your further conclusion; in a sense, her physical virginity is an "icon" of her spiritual purity. They are not "separated". (Which is why the renaming "no sex ever" is a sundering of the sophrosyne of Mary.)

No, the content is different. However, I would argue (perhaps as would you?) that it is the spiritual state of Mary which adds the specialness to her virginity.

Indeed ! and in reverse, as well. The content is further enriched because of the Incarnation. But it remains a "whole", just as Mary is a 'whole' person. Not just in the sense that a person cannot be known through a separation of the person into their "components", but in the sense of sophrosyne and parthenos as dedication to God ... and wholeness as the condition that only Christ (sotir/savior/preserver), He who heals, gives.

But I started this thread to investigate whether it was possible from a Biblical and Traditional standpoint to believe that Mary maintained her physical virginity (something that I have since been convinced of by talking to some of my friends and doing some reading). I guess when I jumped back onto the thread I assumed that we were still talking about a similar thing. I believe this is what lead to some of my confusion.

I can't claim to ever know where I am in a conversation
perhaps, this is the effect of having six very verbal children too ...

Thank-you for the opportunity to discuss -- whether or not we agree is not the importance. But the opportunity to understand is lovely !

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Imagination to accuse the EO of something like that based on what? a dogma about Mary's virginity? if we did we whould not allow any marriage we would promote only celibacy etc... I am afraid you are imagining things my friend... and spread accusations that are vain and useless...

Friend, all the accusations have been toward Protestants....

What I have stated is what I was taught in the RCC about this DOGMA - that the Perpertual Virginity of Mary is that Mary was a perpetual virgin. And, it seems to ME, the EVER-VIRGIN Mary is the very same dogma: that Mary had no sex ever. This teaching, it seems, is highly offensive to some Orthodox even though they proclaim that it is a matter of highest importance and certainty that Mary was an EVER-VIRGIN. Odd. When I point out that "Ever" means ever and "Virgin" means virgin, the accusations are that I'm Fruedian, immature, carnal, sex-crazed, offensive, flaming, etc. and Staff brought in to try to silence me. Thus, the rather unavoidable conclusion.

I TRIED to explore this, but alas, Thelka seems correct - it CANNOT be with the Orthodox. There's no way to discuss Mary's virginity when we cannot discuss virginity - the very term seems offensive to those that are defending the Dogma of the Ever Virginity of Mary. WHY this situation? I don't know. I theorized it's a cultural issue of the Greeks regarding sex and marriage - but it's just a theory, I don't know. It seems we cannot know.

Stay there but stop accusing all this stuff on us... It is not fair and mislreading... and full of error on your part

Again, the accusations have been TO me, not FROM me. Friend, it's YOUR dogma - not mine. I NEVER said that Mary had sex "X" times, I've never stated ANY position about how often she had sex - if at all. I tend to lean toward the view that we don't know and it's likely none of our business, and typically we regard the private sexual practices of a couple as private - especially for people we respect and love, but this is not doctrine or dogma for me - not even a pious opinion. Friend, it's YOUR position that Mary was an EVER VIRGIN - and you've chosen to defend that dogma, while passionately arguing that to even imply that Mary was an ever virgin is offensive, flaming, immature, sex-crazed, carnal and evidently a rule violation. I give up trying to understand you. Thekla is right, this is something that CANNOT be discussed is these Orthodox, they won't permit it.

It IS very odd. Very odd indeed.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is not our Dogma or belief but your misrepresentation of it.. The Ever virginity according to Josaih

I think we've all come to realize that. The EVER VIRGINITY of Mary is a dogma in the EO but it has nothing to do with Mary, ever or virginity - and to say that it does is offensive, flaming, immature, freudian, and a rule violation. I think we all realize that, I TRIED to understand that - but alas, it's impossible to discuss this since the very thing the EO insists is true seems offensive to the EO. Oh well.... It just one of those puzzles that cannot even be discussed.





.

 

[Philothei]

Friend, all the accusations have been toward Protestants....

and you still fail to point them out ... In my estimation you said something about being cultural.. did you not?

Also what good does the "discussion" of a physical aspect of one's relation to others... is there to talk about? I do not undertand why would the "state of the physical sense" or virginity still has anything to do with the "spiritual sense" of what a virgin means those two "ideas" or "concepts" seem to fly above your understanding I agree...
We do not find it offensive but plain out incomplete.. and void of its true meaning. period. You keep insisting of putting the pressure on us while you fail to show any singn of understanding... Yes if you are not in the same page you cannot discuss anything as discussion has to use the same bar... and it seems like you lower that bar to mere "physical" sense.

The prohibition

they won't permit it.

is with you... Cause you want to set the standards for this discussion... WE explained numerous times our position. There is ONLY your perspective though, so do not try to turn the tables now.. .It is too late for that

is true seems offensive to the EO.

Question or you Josiah :

Would you explain to a teen that being a nun has to live a life in virginity or would you tell them that this nun "has no sex life"? Which of the two would you use? our of curiocity .....
Virginity is a state ... of being not in the physical sense only cause that nun maybe was not a virgin before she became a nun...But it does not matter as you see ...since it is a state not in a physical sense ONLY but a spiritual state...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Question or you Josiah :

Would you explain to a teen that being a nun has to live a life in virginity or would you tell them that this nun "has no sex life"? Which of the two would you use? our of curiocity .....
Virginity is a state ... of being not in the physical sense only cause that nun maybe was not a virgin before she became a nun...But it does not matter as you see ...since it is a state not in a physical sense ONLY but a spiritual state...

IF there was a dogma - a matter of highest importance and certainty - that, "Nuns Must Be Perpetual Virgins," I would tell that teen that it is a requirment that nuns always be virgins. And yes, that includes not having sex. It may mean a LOT more than that, but it DOES mean that. I would not tell him or her that it is offensive, carnal, immature, Freudian, sex-crazed and a rule violation at CF to say (or even mention) that nuns are to be perpetual virgins if the Dogma was "Nuns Must be Perpetual Virgins" or that the dogma is not about nuns, ever or being a virgin.




.

 

[Philothei]

IF there was a dogma - a matter of highest importance and certainty - that, "Nuns Must Be Perpetual Virgins," I would tell that teen that it is a requirment that nuns always be virgins. And yes, that includes not having sex.

that is what I would tell her/him too... But I would not replace the word virgin for "no sex ever" as that is not ONLY what the word virgin means... Do you undertand the difference?

 

[Philothei]

The practice is that nuns should live in virginity (there is no dogma ...about that only canons that are followed about monasticism) Living in virginity pressuposes the "physical idea" of living a "no sex ever" life but that is not all that it means. Living in virginity is a "state" of living a life of purity, a life that in Orthodox monasticism is a calling from God... Do you see the difference. Theotokos had a specific calling to that virginity and purity from God that is where the her life is parallel to those who live a celibant life, and beyond the ones who are "set apart" for a life in virginity and it is hardly a "skin deep" affair.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I would not replace the word virgin for "no sex ever" as that is not ONLY what the word virgin means... Do you undertand the difference?

... Just as I have stressed, over and over and over and over, to loud rebukes of me. It is NOT the ONLY meaning, but it is A meaning, it INCLUDES that. And I stated, ever so clearly and boldly, many times, the dogma in Catholicism doesn't center in that biological aspect but on spiritual ramifications, so that it may properly be understood that in Catholicism, Our Lady's virginity is more a manifestation of the teaching than the teaching itself. BUT, the teaching DOES embrace that Mary never had sex. Just as all 3 of my primary Catholic teachers said IN THOSE WORDS. As you well know, what I have stressed repeatedly in several threads on this is that I strongly suspect that in Orthodoxy too, there is a profound, deep, rich spirituality connected to this teaching that I had wished to explore with you - but no one would permit, because it is the insistence that this dogma is not that Mary was an Ever-Virgin and it's offensive, rude, carnal, immature, sex-crazed, Fruedian and hormone driven of me to even imply that. <Staff edit>

I give up. There's no way to discuss this dogma with you, or it seems, with the Orthodox. There is some issue here (I suspect some culture issue with marital sex) as I explored some years ago while reseaching the history of this dogma, it is my view that this Roman concept of sex seems to continue in the EO - but I don't know (and it seems, can't). You insist that Mary was an Ever Virgin but it's offensive to say that. Okay. Not all puzzels have a solution, and we can't discuss Mary or ever or virginity if these things are so very upsetting to some Orthodox.


:o


I'm outta here.
Before I get reported again....





.

 

[Thekla]

So why, when the word truly understood means more - cut it down to one aspect ????

We don't shave off part of a mathematical formula and call it the whole, because we know this would compromise the thing conceptually, and it would cease to be what it is - and be something different.

We don't say (for the area of a rectangle) L x W = area is the same as L = area ...

 

[Philothei]

Once visti to Greece will convience you that there is no such thing as a "cultural" or anything else hung up. We have no problem with one's sexuality I guarantee you Josiah. We do not see though ONLY skin deep. The Eastern Orthodox out of tradition use the terminology of Virgin not out of prudence. Out of respect yes...that too. We do not have hymns that refer to Theotokos "the one who had no sex ever" that is colocial (spelling) expression and not traditionally used language. Virgin in theological terminology brings out the idea of a disposition and also discribes the "state" of a person... Living in virginity is much more than "skin deep"

Here some thoughts about virginity:

Monasticism as Marriage

The reason for these interpretations and technicalities with virginity and sexual relations is because marriage and the exercising of the passions fall into different categories from the dawn of human history to the present. In other words, from the beginning of man on this planet to the establishment of Christianity, an evolution has taken place in the institution of marriage with Judaism and Christianity. Beginning with Adam, we read in Genesis that from his own body came the first woman. God blessed this first union which was between man and himself, so to speak. In essence, it was the union of the male and the female counterparts in the human person which had become two entities. The next form of marriage was between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve (Gen. 5:4). Afterwards came polygamy; and then with Christianity came monogamy. With monogamy came strict rules forbidding marriage between close relatives, first physical relatives and then, even more importantly, spiritual relatives. For the spiritual relationships established by the Church are of a higher nature than the physical. The highest state of monogamous marriage between a husband and wife is when the two look upon their spiritual union as being on a higher level than is the physical union.

On the basis that marriage is a union between two entities, male and female, we can say that chastity establishes a union between a monk or a nun and God, the man or woman representing the Church (Bride) and Christ being the Head of the Church (Bridegroom). The successful discipline of chastity brings one to the highest form of union or marriage between God and man and that is what monasticism calls spiritual virginity.

This state can be described as the equivalent state of grace and innocence which our first parents, Adam and Eve, experienced before they fell from God&#8217;s grace and found themselves to be naked. Through this brief description of marriage, we can see how mankind, in conjunction with the process of procreation, can return, individually, to the original state of union with God and the preservation of that state forever. The pursuit of this state by monastics is supported by our Lord&#8217;s words in speaking of the resurrection when He says that &#8220;in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven&#8221; (Matt: 22:30). It could very well be that monasticism is called the angeliclive because of these words of our Lord.

From this outline of the evolution of marriage in its physical and its spiritual sense, it is obvious that the institution of marriage is not in any way demeaned. God uses it to bring man back to his original state of grace and more. God Himself blessed the institution of marriage and our Lord Himself with the coming of the fullness of His Kingdom calls Himself the Bridegroom and the people, the Church, He calls the Bride. The whole idea of the evolution of marriage according to the teachings of the Church is to indicate the greater and greater control one should have for his physical passions (this is why man has no mating season, as other creatures do). Chastity, therefore, means abstinence from the flesh, abstinence on the part of the passions until they lose total control and influence on the human person. It is obvious that for one to become more and more spiritual, his physical desires and appetite must become more and more diminished. If one has the desire to rise to the realm of the spirit and to experience spiritual things, he must separate himself from that which is mundane and carnal and reminiscent of this world. He must become dead to the flesh in order to become alive in the spirit. When this is accomplished, then he can enter the highest spiritual experience of pure prayer.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/monasticism/isaiah_orthodox_monasticism.htm

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

... Just as I have stressed, over and over and over and over, to loud rebukes of me. It is NOT the ONLY meaning, but it is A meaning, it INCLUDES that. And I stated, ever so clearly and boldly, many times, the dogma in Catholicism doesn't center in that biological aspect but on spiritual ramifications, so that it may properly be understood that in Catholicism, Our Lady's virginity is more a manifestation of the teaching than the teaching itself. BUT, the teaching DOES embrace that Mary never had sex. Just as all 3 of my primary Catholic teachers said IN THOSE WORDS. As you well know, what I have stressed repeatedly in several threads on this is that I strongly suspect that in Orthodoxy too, there is a profound, deep, rich spirituality connected to this teaching that I had wished to explore with you - but no one would permit, because it is the insistence that this dogma is not that Mary was an Ever-Virgin and it's offensive, rude, carnal, immature, sex-crazed, Fruedian and hormone driven of me to even imply that, and Staff brought in to try to silence me since to suggest that this dogma includes that Mary never had sex is a Rule violation at CF.

I give up. There's no way to discuss this dogma with you, or it seems, with the Orthodox. There is some issue here (I suspect some culture issue with marital sex) as I explored some years ago while reseaching the history of this dogma, it is my view that this Roman concept of sex seems to continue in the EO - but I don't know (and it seems, can't). You insist that Mary was an Ever Virgin but it's offensive to say that. Okay. Not all puzzels have a solution, and we can't discuss Mary or ever or virginity if these things are so very upsetting to some Orthodox.


:o

So why, when the word truly understood means more - cut it down to one aspect ????

No one (known to me) ever did. Certainly not me. Read (yet AGAIN) what I have posted.

And if the word includes that Mary never had sex, why it is offensive, rude, crude, carnal, immature, sex-crazed, Frudian, and a rule violation at CF?

We don't shave off part

OBVIOUSLY, you do. WHY? I give up.

Read what I posted.







.

 

[Philothei]

Prayers Josiah... ...

 

[Philothei]

And if the word includes that Mary never had sex, why it is offensive

read the quoted source then please

 

[Thekla]

No, I said, referring to months long use of the term "no sex ever" as a renaming of an EO teaching, that this shaves off the full meaning of the term "ever virgin".

If it is needed, the archives can be used to review the threads and the persistent renaming of the EO teaching in this manner.