Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Philothei]

Thekla, since it was stressed that "virgin" form the EO perspective is spiritual and not physical, that it is defined DIFFERENTLY than in the west, I think my quest to understand what is meant by this spiritual but not physical virginity was in order and appropriate. I think the diversion, evasions, and personal attacks on me were not.

there are many sources in this thread as well as the others that point to the differene of the EO understanding it is in your court to "read" instead of posting here....the spiritual sense of virginity it was explained to you numerous times..

virginity is purety of the heart it is disposition and "thesis" (position) of the heart.

 

[Philothei]

I gave up. SOMETHING HUGE is underpinning all this discomfort the EO seems to have with its OWN dogma. I don't know what it is. I've shared my theory.

glad you admit that it was your theory...

Prayers....

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

There was a thread specifically on the EO teaching of ever-virginity.
Two EO authors were quoted extensively and the original essays linked.
Given the exclusively physical and repeated sexual references in the bulk of the posts preceding this thread, it became abundantly clear that the spiritual content of the term had either been 'obliterated through repetition or was never understood.

In the (previous) dogma thread, and in other threads, there was an attempt to explain the fuller understanding (the full definition and soteriological, Incarnational and Christological origin of the "need to doctrinally state the evr-virginity of the Theotokos). We never got there - it was just back to discussions about sex. Your not infrequent response to these attempts of ours was along the lines of "what does this have to do with the dogma of 'no sex ever'". Either the spiritual aspects were too unfamiliar, foreign or apparently ignored - so we could get 'round (and then repeat) a discussion about sex, other people's sex lives, etc., It seemed needed by EO posters to try and return the conversation to the full EO meaning of virgin. Frankly, I was left with the notion that the western Christian definition of virgin was militantly and exclusively a matter of coitus.

My discussions with my parents re: the sexual character of the posts in these threads was met with distress. It was my father's observation that the secular sense of morality (as personalised as opposed to God centered) seemed to have invaded yet another 'corner' of Christianity, and that this was lamentable indeed. (We discussed postings in the Mariology forum for the umpteenth time on Friday). I guess my "hang-ups" come from my parents as well.

I would think that if the EO understanding of ever-virginity had been grasped 8 months ago, or 6 months ago, or even more recently, we wouldn't have been talking about sex so much here.

This is, without oubt, the best post I have read to date on GT. The identification of communication problems is clear, and the course of action is easily identified. If CJ does not understand this, thre is truly no point in moving forward with dialogue WRT our doctrine, its philosophical/biblical/theological underpinings, or for that matter, the subject of sexual relations. Perhaps a separate thread re. the EO understanding of biblical, pure, and healthy sex would be in order- although I suspect his contribution would involve further inquiries into the bedroom of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. IOW, fruitless and pointless.

 

[Philothei]

There was a thread specifically on the EO teaching of ever-virginity.
Two EO authors were quoted extensively and the original essays linked.
Given the exclusively physical and repeated sexual references in the bulk of the posts preceding this thread, it became abundantly clear that the spiritual content of the term had either been 'obliterated through repetition or was never understood.

In the (previous) dogma thread, and in other threads, there was an attempt to explain the fuller understanding (the full definition and soteriological, Incarnational and Christological origin of the "need to doctrinally state the evr-virginity of the Theotokos). We never got there - it was just back to discussions about sex. Your not infrequent response to these attempts of ours was along the lines of "what does this have to do with the dogma of 'no sex ever'". Either the spiritual aspects were too unfamiliar, foreign or apparently ignored - so we could get 'round (and then repeat) a discussion about sex, other people's sex lives, etc., It seemed needed by EO posters to try and return the conversation to the full EO meaning of virgin. Frankly, I was left with the notion that the western Christian definition of virgin was militantly and exclusively a matter of coitus.

My discussions with my parents re: the sexual character of the posts in these threads was met with distress. It was my father's observation that the secular sense of morality (as personalised as opposed to God centered) seemed to have invaded yet another 'corner' of Christianity, and that this was lamentable indeed. (We discussed postings in the Mariology forum for the umpteenth time on Friday). I guess my "hang-ups" come from my parents as well.

I would think that if the EO understanding of ever-virginity had been grasped 8 months ago, or 6 months ago, or even more recently, we wouldn't have been talking about sex so much here.

best post ... I think you should be given the best post of the year award for the Mariology forum

Proskynw to this!

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Philothei; he question of Ever virginity is again that if Theotokos was the one to be so involved in the incarnation and give birth to the God-man who was by birth God and man in one hypostases, why would God let anyone else to be born out of her?

Because she is willing & able? Because it is part of living, being a mother & wife. Because Joseph deserved to have James & the others. Etc., etc., etc.

Why would God allow in the world to exist the dna of Christ?

They wouldn't, having had different fathers.

The fact that she had no children does not prove her virginity that is true.

Very reasonable.

On the other hand though why would she take any chances if she knew that God's will was to be undefiled "until" the end of the ages?

It isn't defiling. They were married.

Her "physical" virginity was a mere "tool" to approach the Lord in humility, purity and prayer and complete devotion to her calling It is not by any means a pointer to a life without marital relations.

I agree. The point of her virginity fulfilled the prophecy. After that, marital relations would be normal.

 

[Rick Otto]

I would think that if the EO understanding of ever-virginity had been grasped 8 months ago, or 6 months ago, or even more recently, we wouldn't have been talking about sex so much here.

Perhaps you didn't grasp something yourselves.
If the meaning & importance of the term "virginity" isn't the physical facts, why insist on it being physical fact?

 

[Philothei]

Because she is willing & able? Because it is part of living, being a mother & wife. Because Joseph deserved to have James & the others. Etc., etc., etc.


They wouldn't, having had different fathers.


Very reasonable.

It isn't defiling. They were married.

I agree. The point of her virginity fulfilled the prophecy. After that, marital relations would be normal.

Theotokos was "by choice" a virgin for life... so to say that relations were "normal" for her is not right and it has no bearing on "any marriage" She chose that and Joseph... Their convenant was broken as she had a child "outside" of that "marital chamber" did she not? So...no that was not an ordinary marriage situation. Basically she was "married" in the eyes of the people but 'legally" not married neither was she married in the eyes of God thus she had no 'responisibility' to 'prove' it by having a marital relation with Joseph.

 

[Philothei]

Perhaps you didn't grasp something yourselves.
If the meaning & importance of the term "virginity" isn't the physical facts, why insist on it being physical fact?

It is both and Theotokos was not ONLY a virgin with the physical sense but also a virgin in the broader spectrum of virginity that overexceeds the physical sense. You think 2,000 years we would not have "grasped" it and the 200 years trad...of people's doubts have anything valid to bring forth?

 

[Rick Otto]

You think 2,000 years we would not have "grasped" it and the 200 years trad...of people's doubts have anything valid to bring forth?

Ignorance is constantly underestimated.
Can anyone answer the question?

 

[Thekla]

Perhaps you didn't grasp something yourselves.
If the meaning & importance of the term "virginity" isn't the physical facts, why insist on it being physical fact?

The discussion was about a particular person for whom virginity was both physical and 'spiritual'.

 

[boswd]

Ignorance is constantly underestimated.
Can anyone answer the question?

Your boy Johnny Calvin believed in her forever Virginity.

 

[simonthezealot]

Your boy Johnny Calvin believed in her forever Virginity.

His words say he believed Mary had no additionalo kids and that scripture could be translated to kinfolk...then in that same commentary he says this...
“he is called First-born, but for no other reason than that we may know that he was born of a pure virgin, and who never had had a child.” It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us.”

 

[simonthezealot]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xv.html

25. And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

 

[katholikos]

His words say he believed Mary had no additionalo kids and that scripture could be translated to kinfolk...then in that same commentary he says this...
“he is called First-born, but for no other reason than that we may know that he was born of a pure virgin, and who never had had a child.” It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us.”

Then it is fair to say he had no position either way ??????

 

[simonthezealot]

Then it is fair to say he had no position either way ??????

Precisely, anyone saying otherwise is simply parsing his words to meet their ends.

 

[katholikos]

Precisely, anyone saying otherwise is simply parsing his words to meet their ends.

Well, from my POV, better that he have no opinion than to deny the Dogma

 

[simonthezealot]

Well, from my POV, better that he have no opinion than to deny the Dogma

I understand and am glad your not in the camp of promoting him one way or the other because those who are simply are being disengenuos.

 

[Kristos]

I think it's a fair and scholarly conclusion, that the Bible alone does not directly support either view.

So, anyone claiming to use the Bible alone should not come to any other conclusion.

 

[Philothei]

So if we only believed what is ONLY stated in the Bible.. I guess many things like marrying your children and so forth that are not mentioned in the Bible are ok to practice and believe?

 

[simonthezealot]

I think it's a fair and scholarly conclusion, that the Bible alone does not directly support either view.

So, anyone claiming to use the Bible alone should not come to any other conclusion.

You have a point there.