• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Speak lovingly of Mary

Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
ALL the attacking is from your end.

I thought you insisted that it was doctrine, not dogma?

I NEVER said that it is a rumor. Over and over I've made that clear. Nor have I said that it's wrong or unbiblical or unreasonable or impossible or heretical. I've noted WHAT THE CATHOLIC CATHECHISM (NOT ME!!!!!! READ IT THIS TIME, NOT ME!!!!!!) says that if a report ABOUT A PERSON (read those words this time, "ABOUT A PERSON) is not substantiated, then it is a rumor and it is a SIN (as I've noted, that's the RCC's term, NOT MINE) to spread it. Substantiation is the point for the RCC. I have written several times, that I don't know what the EO's stand on that is, I've asked a few times but it was always ignored, I don't know if the EO believes that if the ones spreading a story say it's true therefore it's fully substantiated to the level of doctrine or dogma and thus isn't a rumor, I don't know, you've never answered by questiona bout that. What I've said is that IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, according to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, when speaking of a PERSON (such as Mary), it is a SIN (their word, not mine) to spread a report about them unless it is substantiated.


YOU are the one doctrinally insisting that Mary had no sex EVER.
YOU are the one telling everyone. THIS is SO important!!!!!!
YOU are the one judging others (including me).
YOU are the one who is responsible before God at the Judgment for the truthfulness of this obsessive insistence of yours about Our Lady's sexual practices or not, and for any hurt, pain, embarrassment or offense such MIGHT cause to Her and Her Son.

You noted that Christ is silent on this point.
So am I.
So are the 29.998 denominations that are in the same "camp" with Jesus on this.

This is not what I asked you...go back and answer it... if you want to dialogue without straw man or quoque... just answer the post...CJ...
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Philothei said:
This is not what I asked you...go back and answer it... if you want to dialogue without straw man or quoque... just answer the post...CJ...


Okay, here's the post:

You are not wrong because you have no position... IMO it is the attacking you do on those who do... and as far as I am conserned attacking a dogma as a rumor is a straw man... as even if we give you the evidence you will still go on doubting it... Thus your issue is not to be convienced or to "examine" the issue rather to declare that those who have a position on the issue are at "fault" .... Lucky you the same can apply to any dogma though even for God ....since there is no evidence He exists either thus the "method" of scrutinizing that dogma can be applied for your premise too.... Thus you by sitting on the fence... you have to sit there for all dogmas that have to do with faith... even God...


I can't find any questions or even a question mark.

I did address your accusation that I'm attacking and the other issues here. Several times. What I posted this time was:



Josiah said:
ALL the attacking is from your end.

I thought you insisted that it was doctrine, not dogma?

I NEVER said that it is a rumor. Over and over I've made that clear. Nor have I said that it's wrong or unbiblical or unreasonable or impossible or heretical. I've noted WHAT THE CATHOLIC CATHECHISM (NOT ME!!!!!! READ IT THIS TIME, NOT ME!!!!!!) says that if a report ABOUT A PERSON (read those words this time, "ABOUT A PERSON) is not substantiated, then it is a rumor and it is a SIN (as I've noted, that's the RCC's term, NOT MINE) to spread it. Substantiation is the point for the RCC. I have written several times, that I don't know what the EO's stand on that is, I've asked a few times but it was always ignored, I don't know if the EO believes that if the ones spreading a story say it's true therefore it's fully substantiated to the level of doctrine or dogma and thus isn't a rumor, I don't know, you've never answered by questiona bout that. What I've said is that IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, according to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, when speaking of a PERSON (such as Mary), it is a SIN (their word, not mine) to spread a report about them unless it is substantiated.
Josiah said:
YOU are the one doctrinally insisting that Mary had no sex EVER.
YOU are the one telling everyone. THIS is SO important!!!!!!
YOU are the one judging others (including me).
YOU are the one who is responsible before God at the Judgment for the truthfulness of this obsessive insistence of yours about Our Lady's sexual practices or not, and for any hurt, pain, embarrassment or offense such MIGHT cause to Her and Her Son.

You noted that Christ is silent on this point.
So am I.
So are the 29.998 denominations that are in the same "camp" with Jesus on this.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
We didn't have the luxury when the likes of Celsus came to call

Celsus, not a Christian, denied that Mary was a virgin AT THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD. Another doctrine for another day and thread. No one here is discussing whether Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord. And that's NOT the issue of the dogma/doctrine before us. It says that she was ALWAYS a virgin, perpetually, she NEVER had sexual intercourse. Apples and oranges.

 
Upvote 0
Celsus, not a Christian, denied that Mary was a virgin AT THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD. Another doctrine for another day and thread. No one here is discussing whether Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord. And that's NOT the issue of the dogma/doctrine before us. It says that she was ALWAYS a virgin, perpetually, she NEVER had sexual intercourse. Apples and oranges.


You should look into history more: your fence leaves you supporting the Ebionite position as well. I do expect you will decry some of their teachings, but this isn't the point. They were a 1st c. sect; the 1st c. Christians were already fighting the battle on the matter.

As for Celsus, the matter still stands. There is no evidence that Mary was married; "no position" on her ever-virginity still implies the possibility of immoral behavior. Your "no position" on the ever-virginity of Mary still aligns with the content of Celsus' teaching: that she had dubious morals.

I understand you can't speak out on what you don't know; but for those who received the dogma (its internal teaching) there is a responsibility to maintain it. And if you know her moral character to be beyond reproach, should you fail to say so ?

You do have your "rumored to be authentic" NT (which, as we have noted, some translators mess with). I do wonder why you don't demand authenticity for the text you consult to question the PV ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
They were a 1st c. sect; the 1st c. Christians were already fighting the battle on the matter.

Celsus said NOTHING about the dogma/doctrine before us, which is that Mary had no sex EVER. More diversions on your part.





While you agree that Christ and Scripture are silent on this, you also state that silence on a subject makes us wrong and dangerous. While you seem to suggest that it is a matter of supreme respect, highest honor and above all LOVING to tell the whole world how often Mary had sex during her entire lifetime, it seems to not be in your case. While you insist that Mary might be offended that Her Son and I and 29,998 denominations have no dogma or doctrine on how often she had sex, you insist she is honored above all that you insist she had sex not once. For reasons not clear to me, what you regard as private is nonetheless to be supremely public; what you seem to be suggesting is none of our business for you is everyone's business to the level of doctrine for Mary.

If after my parents died, someone arose and started emailing everyone, texting everyone, putting up websites, doing all they can to inform all the peoples of the earth that my mom "did it" on average of 2 times per week, I'd have 3 issues:
1). Why are they so obsessed on THIS issue? Why is the issue that Mom had sex THIS many times a matter of such great emphasis? Of course, the issue before us is many times greater since it's not my mom we're talking about, it's Mary. And it's not one person, it's two denominations. And it's not just "I say" but an issue of doctrine and dogma! The RCC says that to deny a dogma is to be a heretic and ones salvation is in question!!!
2). How do they know this? I lived at home for 16 years, and I don't know how often they have sex. Of course, in this matter, it's much,much, much greater. Because the RCC says (not me) that to spread a story about a person that is not substantiated is to SIN against them (its word, not mine), thus substantiation is the whole issue. And again, it's not just my mom, this is Mary!
3). What permission do you have to spread this, even if you know it's true? IF the first two things were attained, I'd still regard my parents sex lives together to be a private, marital issue. I wouldn't discuss it with others EVEN IF I KNEW (to the level of dogma or doctrine) what it was. Whatever happened to privacy, respect? Is EVERYTHING about EVERYONE now public property to discuss willy-nilly? Now, all this is MUCH, MUCH greater in this subject. Because two of the supposed 30,000 denominations call this a matter of highest importance to tell the whole world. THIS!!!!! The RCC says that to deny it is to be a heretic and thereby salvation is questionable.


Again, the dogma is that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
It's not that Mary had no other kids.
It's not that Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord.
It's not that Mary was sinless or pure or undefiled.
It's not that Mary held the sinless Christ.
It's not that Mary was unmarried.
It's not that Mary did no immoral act.
It's that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
Let's say on topic.





.






.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
While you agree that Christ and Scripture are silent on this, you also state that silence on a subject makes us wrong and dangerous.

No, I have stated neither; I accept the OT prophecies re: the Theotokos. I accept her witness of chastity stated in response to Gabriel.




While you seem to suggest that it is a matter of supreme respect, highest honor and above all LOVING to tell the whole world how often Mary had sex during her entire lifetime, it seems to not be in your case. While you insist that Mary might be offended that Her Son and I and 29,998 denominations have no dogma or doctrine on how often she had sex, you insist she is honored above all that you insist she had sex not once. For reasons not clear to me, what you regard as private is nonetheless to be supremely public; what you seem to be suggesting is none of our business for you is everyone's business to the level of doctrine for Mary.

As far as I know, your denomination (per my questions and your silence) has neither dogma nor doctrine. Why would anyone expect they would speak on "any" matter ?

If after my parents died, someone arose and started emailing everyone, texting everyone, putting up websites, doing all they can to inform all the peoples of the earth that my mom "did it" on average of 2 times per week, I'd have 3 issues:
1). Why are they so obsessed on THIS issue? Why is the issue that Mom had sex THIS many times a matter of such great emphasis? Of course, the issue before us is many times greater since it's not my mom we're talking about, it's Mary. And it's not one person, it's two denominations. And it's not just "I say" but an issue of doctrine and dogma! The RCC says that to deny a dogma is to be a heretic and ones salvation is in question!!!
2). How do they know this? I lived at home for 16 years, and I don't know how often they have sex. Of course, in this matter, it's much,much, much greater. Because the RCC says (not me) that to spread a story about a person that is not substantiated is to SIN against them (its word, not mine), thus substantiation is the whole issue. And again, it's not just my mom, this is Mary!
3). What permission do you have to spread this, even if you know it's true? IF the first two things were attained, I'd still regard my parents sex lives together to be a private, marital issue. I wouldn't discuss it with others EVEN IF I KNEW (to the level of dogma or doctrine) what it was. Whatever happened to privacy, respect? Is EVERYTHING about EVERYONE now public property to discuss willy-nilly? Now, all this is MUCH, MUCH greater in this subject. Because two of the supposed 30,000 denominations call this a matter of highest importance to tell the whole world. THIS!!!!! The RCC says that to deny it is to be a heretic and thereby salvation is questionable.

Your parents were active participants in the Incarnation :confused:


Again, the dogma is that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
It's not that Mary had no other kids.
It's not that Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord.
It's not that Mary was sinless or pure or undefiled.
It's not that Mary held the sinless Christ.
It's not that Mary was unmarried.
It's not that Mary did no immoral act.
It's that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
Let's say on topic.

We've been over the passages in scripture before.

And, as you know, there is no evidence that Mary married. And her statement of chastity. Unless she behaved immorally - what would that mean ?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,800
1,310
✟478,340.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Of course, in this matter, it's much,much, much greater. Because the RCC says (not me) that to spread a story about a person that is not substantiated is to SIN against them (its word, not mine), thus substantiation is the whole issue. And again, it's not just my mom, this is Mary!




.
I still find it quite remarkable that you believe you can define the grounds for what constitutes 'substantiation', and then judge others based upon your standard. As far as I am concerned, the belief is quite substantiated, it in no way qualifies as a rumor, anything the catechism says about rumors is not applicable, and your point is quite moot.

If the standard of substantiation is the whole issue though, then perhaps you would address Thekla's question as to how you can reject the standard for substantiation which is applied to the Marian doctine, yet then feel perfectly comfortable in applying the same standard to your acceptance of the NT?
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,800
1,310
✟478,340.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If after my parents died, someone arose and started emailing everyone, texting everyone, putting up websites, doing all they can to inform all the peoples of the earth that my mom "did it" on average of 2 times per week, I'd have 3 issues:
1). Why are they so obsessed on THIS issue? Why is the issue that Mom had sex THIS many times a matter of such great emphasis? Of course, the issue before us is many times greater since it's not my mom we're talking about, it's Mary. And it's not one person, it's two denominations. And it's not just "I say" but an issue of doctrine and dogma! The RCC says that to deny a dogma is to be a heretic and ones salvation is in question!!!
2). How do they know this? I lived at home for 16 years, and I don't know how often they have sex. Of course, in this matter, it's much,much, much greater. Because the RCC says (not me) that to spread a story about a person that is not substantiated is to SIN against them (its word, not mine), thus substantiation is the whole issue. And again, it's not just my mom, this is Mary!


.
But I assume you'd be okay if they discussed your mother's sex-life before she was married? Because you don't seem to think that's a problem with Mary, don't feel it was inappropriate for people to speak about or write about it etc. So why in your view is it okay for you to talk about her sex-life before she's married and to be 'obsessed' with it, but then completely inappropriate to mention anything about after she's married?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,800
1,310
✟478,340.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What permission do you have to spread this, even if you know it's true? IF the first two things were attained, I'd still regard my parents sex lives together to be a private, marital issue. I wouldn't discuss it with others EVEN IF I KNEW (to the level of dogma or doctrine) what it was. Whatever happened to privacy, respect? Is EVERYTHING about EVERYONE now public property to discuss willy-nilly? Now, all this is MUCH, MUCH greater in this subject. Because two of the supposed 30,000 denominations call this a matter of highest importance to tell the whole world. THIS!!!!! The RCC says that to deny it is to be a heretic and thereby salvation is questionable.



.
What permission do you have to speak about her sex-life prior to her marriage? And let's do remember, that 2 of the 3 major branches of Christianity, representing about 65% of all Christians accept this doctrine, so your repeated attempts to present it as a small minority position fall quite flat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You may believe it's ABOUT anything you like.
But the DOGMA is this: MARY IS A PERPETUAL VIRGIN.
"Perpetual" = Always, forever, without exception.
"Virgin" = one who has never had sexual intercourse.
Mary had no sex ever.
That's the dogma.

Now, you can draw whatever implications, conclusions, thoughts, etc. that you like FROM that, but that does not change the dogma. We all know what the dogma is.


.

We sure do what the dogma is. It's about the uniqueness of the person of Christ.

It seems that you missed my posts. I will repost them so that they are easier to read.



http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm


487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

Peace


 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
http://www.kofc.org/un/publications/...=484&ParType=5


Mary-"ever-virgin"
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. 154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." 155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin". 156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. 157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". 158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. 159 501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love." 160

Peace
 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
154 Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880.
CITED TEXT:

St. Leo the Great, Epistle Lectis dilectionis tuae (449): DS 291
Likewise the only-begotten and eternal [Son] of the eternal Father "was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary". This temporal birth in no way diminishes or adds to the eternal birth, but is entirely expended in restoring man who had been deceived so that he might conquer death and destroy by his own strength the devil who had dominion over death. For we cannot conquer the author of sin and death unless [the Son] takes up our nature and makes it his own, he whom neither sin can defile nor death restrain.
Indeed he was conceived by the Holy Spirit within the womb of the virgin mother, who bore him without losing her virginity just as she conceived without losing her virginity.
St. Leo the Great, Epistle Lectis dilectionis tuae (449): DS 294
Consequently, the Son of God entered into these lowly conditions of the world, after descending from His celestial throne, and though He did not withdraw from the glory of the Father, He was generated in a new order and in a new nativity. In a new order, because invisible in His own, He was made visible in ours; incomprehensible [in His own], He wished to be comprehended; permanent before times, He began to be in time; the Lord of the universe assumed the form of a slave, concealing the immensity of His majesty; the impassible God did not disdain to be a passible man and the immortal [did not disdain] to be subject to the laws of death. Moreover, He was generated in a new nativity, because inviolate virginity [that] did not know concupiscence furnished the material of His body. From the mother of the Lord, nature, not guilt, was assumed; and in the Lord Jesus Christ born from the womb of the Virgin, because His birth was miraculous, nature was not for that reason different from ours. For He who is true God, is likewise true man, and there is no falsehood in this unity, as long as there are alternately the lowliness of man and the exaltedness of the Divinity. For, just as God is not changed by His compassion, so man is not destroyed by His dignity. For each nature does what is proper to it with the mutual participation of the other; the Word clearly effecting what belongs to the Word, and the flesh performing what belongs to the flesh. One of these gleams with miracles; the other sinks under injuries. And just as the Word does not withdraw from the equality of the paternal glory, so His body does not abandon the nature of our race.
Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 427
If anyone says that the holy glorious ever-virgin Mary is falsely but not truly the Mother of God; or (is the Mother of God) according to relation, as if a mere man were born, but as if the Word of God became incarnate [and of her] from her, but the birth of the man according to them being referred to the Word of God as being with the man when he was born, and falsely accuses the holy synod of Chalcedon of proclaiming the Virgin Mother of God according to this impious conception which was invented by Theodore; or, if anyone calls her the mother of the man or the mother of the Christ, as if the Christ were not God, but does not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because God the Word, born of the Father before the ages, was made flesh from her in the last days, and that thus the holy Synod of Chalcedon confessed her (to be), let such a one be anathema.
Pope Pelagius I, Letter (557): DS 442
Of this holy and blessed and consubstantial Trinity I believe and I confess that one person, that is, the Son of God in these last days descended from heaven, without leaving the Fatherly seat nor the government of the world, and that the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, that this Word and Son of God mercifully entered the womb of the same holy Virgin Mary and from her flesh united to herself flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul; nor that the Son of God first created flesh and afterwards came into it but as it is written, "wisdom built herself a house" so that as soon as there was flesh in the womb of the Virgin, it was the flesh of the Word of God, whence, without any permutation or change of the Word or of nature's flesh, the Word and Son of God was made man, one in both natures, that is, the divine and human natures, and that Christ Jesus true God and the same true man proceeded, that is, was born, while his mother's virginity remained intact: for the Virgin remained such in bearing him just as she had in conceiving him. On account of this we confess that the same blessed virgin Mary is truly Mother of God: for she bore the incarnate Word of God. Therefore one and the same Jesus Christ is the true Son of God and also true son of man, perfect in divinity and likewise perfect in humanity, so that he exists totally in what is his and totally in what is ours; and by a second birth he took up from man, his mother, what he was not, in such a way that he did not cease being what by the first birth, from the Father, he was. For this reason we believe him to be from two natures and in two natures which remain undivided and unconfused: undivided certainly because even after the assumption of our nature the one Christ remained and remains Son of God: unconfused, however, because we believe the natures to be so united in one person and subsistence that each retains its properties and neither is converted into the other. And therefore, as we have often said, we confess one and the same Christ to be true Son of God, and the same to be true son of man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and consubstantial with us according to humanity, like us in all things except sin; able to suffer in the flesh, the very same unable to suffer in divinity. We confess that he freely suffered in the flesh under Pontius Pilate for our salvation, died in the flesh, rose the third day, in the same flesh glorified and incorruptible, and . . . ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.
Lateran Council (649): DS 503
If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him?], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.
Creed of the Council of Toledo XVI (693): DS 571
Hence, although the works of the Trinity are inseparable, still we faithfully profess . . . that it was not the whole Trinity that took up flesh, but only the Son of God, who is begotten before all ages from the substance of God the Father, was born of the Virgin Mary at the end of the ages as the Gospel testifies when it says "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". . . . The angel's greeting when he says that the Holy Spirit will come upon her and proclaims that the power of the Most High, which is the Son of God the Father, will overshadow her, shows that the entire Trinity cooperates in the flesh of that same Son. And as the Virgin acquired the modesty of virginity before conception, so also she experienced no loss other integrity; for she conceived a virgin, gave birth a virgin, and after birth retained the uninterrupted modesty of an intact virgin.
Council of Trent (1555): DS 1880 Since the depravity and iniquity of certain men have reached such a point in our time that, of those who wander and deviate from the Catholic faith, very many indeed not only presume to profess different heresies but also to deny the foundations of the faith itself, and by their example lead many away to the destruction of their souls, we, in accord with our pastoral office and charity, desiring, in so far as we are able with God, to call such men away from so grave and destructive an error, and with paternal severity to warn the rest, lest they fall into such impiety, all and each who have hitherto asserted, claimed or believed that Almighty God was not three in persons and of an entirely uncomposed and undivided unity of substance and one single simple essence of divinity; or that our Lord is not true God of the same substance in every way with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or that He was not conceived of the Holy Spirit according to the flesh in the womb of the most blessed and ever Virgin Mary, but from the seed of Joseph just as the rest of men; or that the same Lord and our God, Jesus Christ, did not submit to the most cruel death of the Cross to redeem us from sins and from eternal death, and to reunite us with the Father unto eternal life; or that the same most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of the omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.

Don't see the word sex there.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
CITED TEXT:

Lumen gentium 57
This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother.(288) This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it,(10*) when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword would pierce the mother's soul, that out of many hearts thoughts might be revealed.(289) When the Child Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the things that were His Father's business; and they did not understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed kept these things to be pondered over in her heart.(290)
NOTES
288) Cf. Lk. 1, 41-45.
289) Cf. Lk. 2, 34-35.
290) Cf. Lk. 2, 41-51.
Supplementary Notes (*) (10) Cfr. Conc. Lateranense anni 649, Can. 3: Mansi 10, 1151. S. Leo M., Epist. ad Flav.: PL S4, 7S9. - Conc. Chalcedonense: Mansi 7, 462. - S. Ambrosius, De inst. virg.: PL 16, 320.

Don't see the word sex there either.

Peace
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philothei
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
156 Cf. LG 52.
CITED TEXT:

Lumen gentium 52
Wishing in His supreme goodness and wisdom to effect the redemption of the world, "when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, ..that we might receive the adoption of sons".(283) "He for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary."(1*) This divine mystery of salvation is revealed to us and continued in the Church, which the Lord established as His body. Joined to Christ the Head and in the unity of fellowship with all His saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory "of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ".(2*)
NOTES
283) Gal. 4, 4-5
Supplementary Notes (*)
(1) Credo in Missa Romana: Symbolum Constantinopolitanum: Mansi 3, 566. Cfr. Conc. Ephesinum, ib. 4, 1130 (necnon ib. 2, 665 et 4, 1071); Conc. Chalcedonense, ib. 7, 111-116; Cow. Constantinopolitanum II, ib. 9, 375-396. (2) Canon Missae Romanae.

Don't see the word sex there either.

The PV of Mary is about the Jesus. It's about Jesus and the uniqueness of His person. Not about having or not having sex

Peace
 
Upvote 0

lionroar0

Coffee drinker
Jul 10, 2004
9,362
705
54
✟35,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah
You may believe it's ABOUT anything you like.
But the DOGMA is this: MARY IS A PERPETUAL VIRGIN.
"Perpetual" = Always, forever, without exception.
"Virgin" = one who has never had sexual intercourse.
Mary had no sex ever.
That's the dogma.

Now, you can draw whatever implications, conclusions, thoughts, etc. that you like FROM that, but that does not change the dogma. We all know what the dogma is.


As you are so fond of stating Catholics have to submitt to the teachings of the Church and no where in the those quotes from the CCC has the word sex in it.

So no it's not what I want to belive but, it's about the Truth that the Church has protected.

The idea that God can set aside a person for Himself is just too foreign to the humanism and secularism that has invaded protestanism.

Peace
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.