Respect and Spreading Rumors and Our Lady.....

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Rumor: noun

1. General talk not based on confirmed information. Gossip. Hearsay.
2. An unconfirmed report, story or statement in general circulation.


My mother taught me that it's disrespectful to spread rumors, even if well intended. The Catholic Catechism teaches that such is a violation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Thus, no matter how sincere or well intended, to talk of something based not on confirmed information is to gossip and spread rumors - a sin.


I love and hold Our Blessed Lady in highest esteem, as chief among the saints. IN A CERTAIN SENSE, I adore, revere and worship her. For that reason, I will not participate in the spreading of rumors or gossip about her - thus potentially offending, embarrassing and causing her pain (and therefore, also her Son).


God's Holy Scripture tells us very little about her. We know that she is the Mother of Our Lord (and thus the Mother of God), we know that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born, we know that all generations will call her blessed. That we can confirm.


Now, rumors about her began centuries after her death/undeath and LONG after the death of anyone who ever so much as met her. All of these rumors are entirely moot to anything whatsoever. Some of them are potentially very embarrassing, offensive and hurtful. None of them are confirmed by God's holy Scripture or anything from the First Century (and usually the second and often later). Therefore, while it's POSSIBLE that they are true (it's also POSSIBLE that she was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and lived entirely on tacos), there's no confirmation of such and therefore, it is, by definition, gossip and rumor.


I will adorate Our Lady for what we know, what is confirmed, what God told us. That is MORE than enough! BECAUSE I love, honor and respect her I will not participate in late, unsubstantiated rumor and gossip - even though I am certain such is sincere and well-intended and POSSIBLE (as would be her obsession with tacos). I'm not saying that it's a LIE (heresy) that Mary Had No Sex EVER! only that it's gossip I won't participate in by spreading it. It's moot, it's absolutely none of anyone's business, it's potentially highly hurtful and embarroussing, and it's unsubstantiated by anything that has any credibility.


Thoughts?



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Quijote]

My mother taught me that it's disrespectful to spread rumors, even if well intended.

I like how your mom thinks

 

[bbbbbbb]

I agree. It most assuredly has been disrepectful and probably downright embarrassing to Mary to find folks spreading fables and rumors about her perpetual virginity and assumption, thereby stealing glory from her beloved Son, to whom all glory and thanksgiving is due. So, I say, stop this malicious rumormongering.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I agree. It most assuredly has been disrepectful and probably downright embarrassing to Mary to find folks spreading fables and rumors about her perpetual virginity and assumption

I AM concerned about that...

I don't - for a second - question the sincerity of anyone here; IMHO the devotion to Our Lady is genuine and deep. But I wonder if it's causing some lack of sensitivity where it is very needed.

For example, I have been informed that there is NOTHING that a first century Jewish bride would regard as MORE private, more intimate, less anyone's business than her own sex life with her beloved husband (ie how often they "do it" etc.). For such marital intimacies to be discussed - even among close relatives - just didn't happen and would be profoundly embarrassing, not that they were "prudes" in any Victorian sense, it was just consider to be a PRIVATE matter. And yet, centuries later, the issue of how often this loving couple had sex (or not) was declared as a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty. Now, I suppose, perhaps, that IF the Scriptures stated that Mary and Joseph were entirely and absolutely deprived of a normal, blessed, marital sharing of intimacies after Jesus was born, well - if God can reveal this, I suppose we could. But He did not (no surprise). And I suppose Mary could choose to reveal this profoundly personal and private sexual matter about her dead husband but there is ZERO evidence that she did. What we have is an entirely unsubstantiated view - from LONG after the death of Joseph, Mary and anyone they ever met - "revealing" this profoundly private marital issue without a shred of anything to remotely support and substantiate it. Thus, technically, it's a rumor. And according to the Catholic Catechism, rumors are sins. But, all that aside, with the enormous potential to profoundly hurt Our Lady, with the complete lack of anything to substaniate this, with it's absolute irrelevance to anything at all, why would anyone want to RISK sinning against her (and her Son) and profoundly hurting and embarrassing her, especially if they truly love her (as I'm sure they do) and such serves no purpose? Always been a puzzle to me....

The Assumption of Mary seems beniegn but also entirely moot and unsubstantaited. I doubt it causes her pain, but it might embarrass her. It's even later than the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever. False rumors, no matter how well intended, are embarrassing....

I wonder, too, why what God choose to tell us about her isn't enough? Why do all these late rumors NEED to be dogmas? Isn't it enough that she is the Mother of Our Lord, the Mother of God, Chief among the Saints? Isn't that suffient reason to adore her? Who needs all these rumors?


?

So, I say, stop this malicious rumormongering.

I don't think it's "malicious." I think it's potentially hurtful and embarassing, and it's obviously unnecessary and moot.


There is a common (and usually mistaken) Catholic belief that because most Protestants won't participate in these rumors that THEREFORE they despise and hate Our Lady. This is horribly wrong. I won't participate in these NOT because I don't love her but percisely because I do.



Thank you for the discussion.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Rick Otto]

I like Mary.

 

[MamaZ]

I don't know much about Mary from the scriptures only that she is now with Christ clothed in her heavenly home until the ressurection of Her body then I will meet her one day. I know she is my sister in the Lord.

 

[Isaiah 53]

I agree. It most assuredly has been disrepectful and probably downright embarrassing to Mary to find folks spreading fables and rumors about her perpetual virginity and assumption, thereby stealing glory from her beloved Son, to whom all glory and thanksgiving is due. So, I say, stop this malicious rumormongering.

Someone should tell these guys to stop spreading rumors....

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." (Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.)

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know." (Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.)

"I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin" (John Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic)

 

[Anglian]

We know from Holy Scripture that the rumours started in her own lifetime; calling the Lord 'the son of Mary' was tantamount to accusing Him of being illegitimate since it was Jewish practice to call the child the son of the father; so in that sense there's no getting away from it.

But the Blessed Theotokos bore that rumour as part of her obedience to the will of God; and the blessed St. Joseph, who was first minded to put her away, had the truth revealed to him so that he did not do so. She also had to bear seeing her beloved son tortured and crucified; again, with no complaint about her fate; her obedience to the will of God was absolute.

She was the tabernacle who bore the Son of God; she is the pattern for our obedience to the will of the Lord. Much of the information we have about her in Scripture is from Luke, who tells us he did his researches from eye-witnesses. To dismiss totally the other traditions from the early Church which are outside the canon is to treat them in a way which the early Christians did not. The Protoevangelion of St. James, although never more than apocryphal, was very popular for a long time in the East, especially in the Syriac Church which retained (as it still does) the Aramaic language. It is a very sweet book, and one can see why popular piety led to its being read. My favourite passage is this from Chapter 7 where the blessed Virgin is taken to the Temple as a 3 year old child:

The he [the priest] sat her down on the third step of the altar, and the Lord God poured our grace upon her. And she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.

And I love her too.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

Someone should tell these guys to stop spreading rumors....

I couldn't agree more.

 

[narnia59]

I agree. It most assuredly has been disrepectful and probably downright embarrassing to Mary to find folks spreading fables and rumors about her perpetual virginity and assumption, thereby stealing glory from her beloved Son, to whom all glory and thanksgiving is due. So, I say, stop this malicious rumormongering.

Now I am really confused. I thought the general non-Catholic, non-Orthodox position has been that she's dead and can't hear us. So how is it that she is now embarrassed by the things we say?

 

[Kristos]

I AM concerned about that...

I don't - for a second - question the sincerity of anyone here; IMHO the devotion to Our Lady is genuine and deep. But I wonder if it's causing some lack of sensitivity where it is very needed.

For example, I have been informed that there is NOTHING that a first century Jewish bride would regard as MORE private, more intimate, less anyone's business than her own sex life with her beloved husband (IE how often they "do it" etc.). For such marital intimacies to be discussed - even among close relatives - just didn't happen and would be profoundly embarrassing, not that they were "prudes" in any Victorian sense, it was just consider to be a PRIVATE matter. And yet, centuries later, the issue of how often this loving couple had sex (or not) was declared as a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty. Now, I suppose, perhaps, that IF the Scriptures stated that Mary and Joseph were entirely and absolutely deprived of a normal, blessed, marital sharing of intimacies after Jesus was born, well - if God can reveal this, I suppose we could. But He did not (no surprise). And I suppose Mary could choose to reveal this profoundly personal and private sexual matter about her dead husband but there is ZERO evidence that she did. What we have is an entirely unsubstantiated view - from LONG after the death of Joseph, Mary and anyone they ever met - "revealing" this profoundly private marital issue without a shred of anything to remotely support and substantiate it. Thus, technically, it's a rumor. And according to the Catholic Catechism, rumors are sins. But, all that aside, with the enormous potential to profoundly hurt Our Lady, with the complete lack of anything to substaniate this, with it's absolute irrelevance to anything at all, why would anyone want to RISK sinning against her (and her Son) and profoundly hurting and embarrassing her, especially if they truly love her (as I'm sure they do) and such serves no purpose? Always been a puzzle to me....

The Assumption of Mary seems beniegn but also entirely moot and unsubstantaited. I doubt it causes her pain, but it might embarrass her. It's even later than the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever. False rumors, no matter how well intended, are embarrassing....

I wonder, too, why what God choose to tell us about her isn't enough? Why do all these late rumors NEED to be dogmas? Isn't it enough that she is the Mother of Our Lord, the Mother of God, Chief among the Saints? Isn't that suffient reason to adore her? Who needs all these rumors?


?




I don't think it's "malicious." I think it's potentially hurtful and embarassing, and it's obviously unnecessary and moot.


There is a common (and usually mistaken) Catholic belief that because most Protestants won't participate in these rumors that THEREFORE they despise and hate Our Lady. This is horribly wrong. I won't participate in these NOT because I don't love her but percisely because I do.



Thank you for the discussion.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Virginity and consumation of a marriage was everybody's business back then. You might want to do a little research before make such ridiculous, self-serving statements.

As far as your other statements - just sounds like rumors to me. Nice you have an opinion. Everyone around here does. How about some meat with those potatoes?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Now I am really confused. I thought the general non-Catholic, non-Orthodox position has been that she's dead and can't hear us. So how is it that she is now embarrassed by the things we say?

That post goes into my "believe it or not" folder

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Kristos;Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Virginity and consumation of a marriage was everybody's business back then. You might want to do a little research before make such ridiculous, self-serving statements.

Some things (like the Rumor Mill) never change.

As far as your other statements - just sounds like rumors to me. Nice you have an opinion. Everyone around here does. How about some meat with those potatoes?

Consider it the "Cost of Doin' Business".
Now eat your vegetables.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

just sounds like rumors to me. Nice you have an opinion. Everyone around here does. How about some meat with those potatoes?

I agree....

One can embrace the late, unsubstantiated opinion that Mary's body was assumed into heaven upon her death (or undeath, depending on your version of the dogma) and/or that Mary was deprived of a normal, blessed, loving sharing of marital intimacies and that she and her husband had sex EXACTLY 0.00000 times per week and that this is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainly. You can also embrace the rumor that Jesus visited the Americas and founded His Church here or that after death we have "spirit children" on other planets. I agree - you MAY embrace these rumors - but to quote to old Wendy's commerical: Where's the beef? Where's the substantiation? Because, according to the Catholic Catechism, to spread an unsubstantiated view is gossip and a sin.

But here's my point: Whether Jesus visited the Americas and founded His Church here is not likely to cause anyone pain or embarrassment. Sharing rumors about one's extremely private, extremely personal, most intimate aspects of one's marriage has a high potential to do that. My love, adoration, reverence and devotion for Our Blessed Lady doesn't need late, unsubstantiated, potentially hurtful and embarrassing rumors. What Scripture confirms about her is more than enough - I don't need to invent other stuff and in the process, spread gossip (a sin) and possibly hurt Our Lady and thus her Son. My LOVE for her won't do that to her and her Son.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We know from Holy Scripture that the rumours started in her own lifetime; calling the Lord 'the son of Mary' was tantamount to accusing Him of being illegitimate since it was Jewish practice to call the child the son of the father; so in that sense there's no getting away from it.

Scripture tells us that Our Lady was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born. It says nothing about the frequency or nature or practices of sex between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born. Nor does anything else in the First Century.

Much of the information we have about her in Scripture is from Luke

None of which substantiates the late DOGMAS of The Immaculate Conception, Mary Had No Sex Ever or Assumption of Mary.

The Protoevangelion of St. James, although never more than apocryphal, was very popular for a long time in the East, especially in the Syriac Church which retained (as it still does) the Aramaic language. It is a very sweet book, and one can see why popular piety led to its being read.

Nothing in it substantiates the late DOGMAS of The Immaculate Conception, Mary Had No Sex Ever or the Assumption of Mary.

This rejected, noninspired, noncanonical book was referenced by that shady character Origen as confirming the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever but of course anyone who has actually read the book (as I have several times) know that - here again - Origen was simply wrong. His mistake may, nonetheless, be the origin of this dogma (hard to know for sure). But this rejected book does NOT substantiate a single Marian dogma.

And I love her too.

As I totally respect. As a Protestant, I do too.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Josiah,

Thank you for the comments, with which I quite agree on the whole, since my own Church does not hold the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Nor was I suggesting that the Protoevangelion supported such later dogmas. I think you're a little hard on Origen. After all, the Church only condemned some of his ideas, and then only long after his death. he remains one of the most creative and deep thinkers ever to have applied a prayerful intellect to matters of the Faith.

The Protoevangelion remained popular in the East well into the fourth and fifth centuries, not because it supported any dogmas, but because it is a charming account of the early life of the Blessed Theotokos. We are all, of course, free to take it with a pinch of salt as large as Lot's wife, but I can understand why ordinary Christians found it so delightful.

As I say, the later dogmas announced by the Roman Catholic Church are its business, and are not, as far as I know, ever reference by resort to the Protoevangelion.

Thanks, too, for helping refute the misconception that our Protestant brothers and sisters do not also love the Blessed Virgin.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

quote=Kristos;Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Virginity and consumation of a marriage was everybody's business back then. You might want to do a little research before make such ridiculous, self-serving statements.
​

Some things (like the Rumor Mill) never change.

As far as your other statements - just sounds like rumors to me. Nice you have an opinion. Everyone around here does. How about some meat with those potatoes?
​

Consider it the "Cost of Doin' Business".
Now eat your vegetables.

They might even like it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYEXzx-TINc
​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Dear Josiah,

Thank you for the comments, with which I quite agree on the whole, since my own Church does not hold the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Nor was I suggesting that the Protoevangelion supported such later dogmas.

I've found that it often is by Catholics. So much so, that I've read it (and printed it out - verbatim and in its entirety) in these discussions, including here at CF.

The Protoevangelion remained popular in the East well into the fourth and fifth centuries, not because it supported any dogmas, but because it is a charming account of the early life of the Blessed Theotokos. We are all, of course, free to take it with a pinch of salt as large as Lot's wife, but I can understand why ordinary Christians found it so delightful.

... and I have never DENIED any of RCC Marian dogmas, never labeling or regarding ANY of them as "heretical" (that label seems to be aimed in one direction in my discussions with my Catholic friends). Many Lutherans (including Luther himself) embraced and embrace them (as does my pastor); I tend to regard them as moot and lacking dogmatic status - but I NEVER have questioned the spirituality involved or the sincerity and blessing of the devotion. The issue is generally one of dogmatic status - since this is what separates Lutherans and Catholics on this issue. My pastor doesn't regard me as a heretic because I do not embrace (or reject) the Assumption of Mary nor does he teach it as a doctrine that must be believed (he doesn't teach it at all).

As I say, the later dogmas announced by the Roman Catholic Church are its business, and are not, as far as I know, ever reference by resort to the

Protoevangelion.

Of course, those in place in 1520 ARE a concern for Lutherans since they are the basis for our excommunication, and those of Trent some decades later because they are the basis of the RCC's "burning the bridges." Of course, many "issues" are later than that (Assumption of Mary, Immacuate Conception of Mary, Infalliblity of the Papacy, etc. - the gap has widened considerably since the 16th century).

Thanks, too, for helping refute the misconception that our Protestant brothers and sisters do not also love the Blessed Virgin.

My love, esteem, admiration, devotion and yes - in a certain sense - worship of Our Blessed Lady is a signficant part of my spirituality. Lutherans do embrace the dogma of Mary as the Mother of God and certainly that she was a virgin at the birth of our Lord - although we leave the other issues around Her to "pious opinion" (as we Protestants call it).

It is my love for Her that is my motivation to discuss these issues. Because, IMHO, love and respect are closely linked. And respect and truth are closely linked. If something is false - no matter how piously expressed - is still false and IMHO not respectful or loving. I care - passionately - that Our Lady is not hurt (and therefore, Her Son). BUT (and that's a really, really big but there, lol) I do NOT - for a second - question the sincerity, devotion or spirituality of those whom I question. I know their heart and so I KNOW better. What I wonder about is the truth of the dogma. Nonetheless, I "tread lightly" in these Marian threads ( or at least I intend to) because I KNOW we're talking hearts here and not just theology. FEW things in Christianity are more difficult to objectively discuss, IMHO, than Our Blessed Lady....


Pax

- - Josiah



.

 

[prodromos]

Scripture tells us that Our Lady was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born. It says nothing about the frequency or nature or practices of sex between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born.

And yet Protestants often insist that Matthew 1:25 plainly states that Mary and Joseph did have sex after Jesus was born, which is completely contrary to what you posted in the your second post

For example, I have been informed that there is NOTHING that a first century Jewish bride would regard as MORE private, more intimate, less anyone's business than her own sex life with her beloved husband (ie how often they "do it" etc.). For such marital intimacies to be discussed - even among close relatives - just didn't happen and would be profoundly embarrassing, not that they were "prudes" in any Victorian sense, it was just consider to be a PRIVATE matter.​

Does this mean you have finally come around to the understanding that Matthew is simply informing us that Jesus was not the result of a sexual union between Joseph and Mary and nothing more?

John

 

[prodromos]

And I suppose Mary could choose to reveal this profoundly personal and private sexual matter about her dead husband but there is ZERO evidence that she did.

Why would she need to say anything at all. Jesus' brethren were among the first members of the Church in Jerusalem. It would have been plainly obvious to all that they were older than Jesus and thus could not have been children of Mary. Vice versa, if they were all younger than Jesus then it would have been plain to all that they were children of Mary. The Church, which began in Jerusalem and included the brethren of our Lord, has always maintained the former.

The Assumption of Mary seems beniegn but also entirely moot and unsubstantaited. I doubt it causes her pain, but it might embarrass her. It's even later than the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever.

In 451 when Emperor Marcion and Empress Pulcheria requested that the Jerusalem Patriarchate provide the relics of the Theotokos to be enshrined in a church built in her honour in Constantinople, it was then that the Patriarch Juvenal informed them of the fact of her bodily assumption, knowledge that had long been retained by the Church in Jerusalem.

These were not rumors but knowledge retained by the Church in Jerusalem. Knowledge that had been passed on from one generation to the next.

John