Speak lovingly of Mary

lionroar0 · Oct 16, 2008

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2195

From the missouri synod web site.

Q. I've heard that Martin Luther believed in Mary's immaculate conception, in her perpetual virginity and in praying to her. Is this how Lutherans still view Mary today?
A. Like Luther himself, Lutherans hold Mary in high esteem for the chosen role she played in God's plan of salvation. Lutherans have never objected to denoting Mary as the "Mother of God" (theotokos, "God-bearer"), since she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus was and is indeed God. Since the Son of God was and is sinless, it is evident that some miraculous "exception" was made in the conception of Jesus through Mary that prevented original sin from tainting the Christ-child. This accounts for Luther's comments about Mary being "entirely without sin" (as far as the conception was concerned). Lutherans today are not bound to Luther's personal views regarding how this was accomplished; in any event, it is clear from Luther's other and later writings on Mary that he did not hold to the view that Mary was personally devoid of all sin (which would mean that she would have had no need of forgiveness or salvation). Luther also held to the semper virgo (the perpetual virginity) of Mary. This, again, is a personal view to which Lutherans today are not bound. Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue.
In his early years Luther was still greatly influenced by his rigorous Roman Catholic and monastic training. In his later writings he clearly rejects invocation to Mary and/or the saints as having no Scriptural mandate or promise. None of this undermines the opening sentence of this e-mail, which should be underscored as the final word on this issue.

Peace

Rick Otto · Oct 16, 2008

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.

It's kinda like "the elephant in the room, isn't it? The large truth no one dare verbalize.

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.

Almost believable in its attempt at "lnnocence by Association", that statement doesn't quite escape its ad copy flavor in trying to direct our attention away from the practical effects of mythologizing about both Catholicism & Mary - provision of a subtle unconscious source, cover & legitimization for mysogeny & oppression of women. It both reveals & emboldens our attitudes about female sexuality, notions of a celibate priethood, & exclusion of women from positions of ecclesiastical power.

By reclaiming her humanity, we liberate our own. Literalizing metaphors dooms them by denying the reality of God they reflect.
That is a failure of faith, not a deepening of it my friend.

Thekla · Oct 16, 2008

Rick Otto said:
It's kinda like "the elephant in the room, isn't it? The large truth no one dare verbalize.

Almost believable in its attempt at "lnnocence by Association", that statement doesn't quite escape its ad copy flavor in trying to direct our attention away from the practical effects of mythologizing about both Catholicism & Mary - provision of a subtle unconscious source, cover & legitimization for mysogeny & oppression of women. It both reveals & emboldens our attitudes about female sexuality, notions of a celibate priethood, & exclusion of women from positions of ecclesiastical power.

By reclaiming her humanity, we liberate our own. Literalizing metaphors dooms them by denying the reality of God they reflect.
That is a failure of faith, not a deepening of it my friend.

Excuse me ?

Reclaiming our humanity is about SEX ?????

Mysogeny is about sex ! Its about sexualizing the female body, instead of seeing a woman as a complete person. Mysogeny is about so elevating sex, so objectifying a woman's body that I can't even feed my infant in public because society has so sexualized the female breast.

Its about so elevating sex that Mary - or anyone - can't be a "human" without sex.

Oppresion is not about sex; Christ is the only answer to oppression. He alone allows me to reclaim my body, and the body is reclaimed and fulfilled finally at the resurrection. If the body is what defines me, if its sex that is the 'height', then why are we not given in marriage in heaven ? If my freedom is found in my "sexuality", why don't Christians have sex in the temple, like the pagans -- elevating sex as the fulfillment of personhood belongs to pagan practice, not Christian.

The elephant in the room is the societal filter that aligns woman's oppression and freedom with sex. A society that is so dualistic that it sees sex and women as the greatest height and the most debased expression. Thats not balance, and its dehumanizing !

So the argument seems to be that we don't talk about sex and Mary because sex is "dirty" ? Its the reformation that was repulsed by the image of Mary nursing Christ. Where is the origin of THAT distortion; not with the EO or OO or RC. Yeah, I'm dancing around the elephant -- the one that distortion dropped into the room. The distortion that I am made person and fulfilled as - object, in sex. That everything must be about sex. That my personhood, or Mary's virginity is "about sex". Thats repressive -- my personhood, Mary's virginity is about Christ NOT sex.

Its about the culture that replaced communion with the birth control pill !

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

narnia59 said:
What permission do you have to speak about her sex-life prior to her marriage?

Luke 1:34 and Matthew 1:25.

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.

Whoever suggested that it is a minority position????

What I've been pointing out is that it IS a position in those two denomination. It's not in all the others. There has been a very, very focused and strong attempt for over 200 pages to suggest that the RCC and EO have no position and thus no substantiation is needed by them, there's no teaching or condemnation by them but that the other 29,998 denomination have dogma on this issue and they must prove it. THAT is what I've addressed - they've got it reversed.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

lionroar0 said:
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.

I not only didn't miss them, but I've actually posted the Catechism on this long, long before you did. I gave the Catechism's official definition of the dogma (which I note you skipped in your quotes). And in enbolden font, noted that it is that Mary is a Perpetual Virgin (which probably is why the RCC gave the title they did to this dogma). I quoted your post and did the same there. Thank you. We've had some CAtholics and Orthodox trying to suggest that the dogma is otherwise but you corrected them. It's always helpful when a Catholic corrects Catholics, as you did.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

lionroar0 said:
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.

Interesting, this time you skipped the Catechism's definition of the dogma. I'll supply it for you: CCC # 499 : The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity.

That's it. There's the definition of the dogma. Verbatim from the Catechism (although, oddly, you skipped it in your quotes.

Yes, we all know what "perpetual" means, as the Church affirms. It means always, forever, without exception. And yes, we all know what "virgin" means, one who has never had sexual intercourse.

Note that the dogma is about Mary.
That it is insists that she is a perpetual virgin.
That's it.
Probably the reason why the title the CC gave to this dogma is "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."

Now, did you want to discuss that dogma in light of the issue of this thread, if the dogmatic spreading of THIS particular issue (how often Mary had sex) is distinctively and especially LOVING toward her.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

Thekla said:
I have stated neither; I accept the OT prophecies re: the Theotokos. I accept her witness of chastity stated in response to Gabriel.

I understand that, thank you. So, you accept as substantiation THE INTEPRETATION of your specific denomination of certain texts. You admitted the texts themselves say no such thing, but your specific denomination has a particular INTERPRETATION of them and it's that specific particular INTERPRETATION of them that you used to support the doctrine. We all well understood that point way back then when you made it. Here's the problem: You don't accept that as valid, as I asked of you and as you made clear. The Mormon looks at the verse about "other sheep" for example and while he admits it doesn't actually say that Jesus will visit the Americas and found His Church here, that is the INTERPRETATION of the LDS denomination of that verse and so the denomination's INTEPRETATION is the substantiation - not the text. As I recall the discussion (and maybe it was with another Catholic or Orthodox), that was rejected as silly and circular and no substantiation at all. Goose/gander. Since you reject the rubric of a denomination's own INTERPRETATION of a text that admittedly doesn't teach the point being used to substantiate the self-same view by the self-csame teacher is rejected as silly, circular and not valid, well, thus it is. Therefore, the Catholic/Orthodox has informed me to not regard a denomination's own INTERPRETATION of a text as valid substantiation, well, that's what I've been doing. I DO understand how you connect the dots (and have since I was 13 years old), just as I understand how the Mormon connects the dots. But I'd like to stick to the topic here .

Thanks again.

Pax

- Josiah

.

lionroar0 · Oct 16, 2008

Rick Otto said:
It's kinda like "the elephant in the room, isn't it? The large truth no one dare verbalize.

Almost believable in its attempt at "lnnocence by Association", that statement doesn't quite escape its ad copy flavor in trying to direct our attention away from the practical effects of mythologizing about both Catholicism & Mary - provision of a subtle unconscious source, cover & legitimization for mysogeny & oppression of women. It both reveals & emboldens our attitudes about female sexuality, notions of a celibate priethood, & exclusion of women from positions of ecclesiastical power.

By reclaiming her humanity, we liberate our own. Literalizing metaphors dooms them by denying the reality of God they reflect.
That is a failure of faith, not a deepening of it my friend.

Dude. One Dogma Immaculate Conception. Born with out the stain of original Sin.

Born with a complete human nature and not a wounded one.

Can't get any more human then that.

Peace

lionroar0 · Oct 16, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
I not only didn't miss them, but I've actually posted the Catechism on this long, long before you did. I gave the Catechism's official definition of the dogma (which I note you skipped in your quotes). And in enbolden font, noted that it is that Mary is a Perpetual Virgin (which probably is why the RCC gave the title they did to this dogma). I quoted your post and did the same there. Thank you. We've had some CAtholics and Orthodox trying to suggest that the dogma is otherwise but you corrected them. It's always helpful when a Catholic corrects Catholics, as you did.

.

Bait and switch.

I did not correct them.

All of the quotes I posted said nothing about sex but about Christ sanctifying Mary.

In other words God setting a person aside for Himself.

It's about The Incarnation.

Peace

Thekla · Oct 16, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
CaliforniaJosiah said:

I understand that, thank you. So, you accept as substantiation THE INTEPRETATION of your specific denomination of certain texts.
You admitted the texts themselves say no such thing, but your specific denomination has a particular INTERPRETATION of them and it's that specific particular INTERPRETATION of them that you used to support the doctrine.

Click to expand...

No, I have not "admitted" that the verses say "no such thing". I used the word interpretation because that is a standard usage when speaking about understanding.

Conversely, by claiming the verses say no such thing, you seem to claim you do not interpret but understand "actually". I disagree.

We all well understood that point way back then when you made it. Here's the problem: You don't accept that as valid, as I asked of you and as you made clear. The Mormon looks at the verse about "other sheep" for example and while he admits it doesn't actually say that Jesus will visit the Americas and found His Church here, that is the INTERPRETATION of the LDS denomination of that verse and so the denomination's INTEPRETATION is the substantiation - not the text. As I recall the discussion (and maybe it was with another Catholic or Orthodox), that was rejected as silly and circular and no substantiation at all. Goose/gander.

Click to expand...

It seems - per your statements - that "sola scriptura" accepts any "interpretation" that can be supported in the text.

Do you accept the LDS understanding ? I don't - and I have explained why.

Since you reject the rubric of a denomination's own INTERPRETATION of a text that admittedly doesn't teach the point being used to substantiate the self-same view by the self-csame teacher is rejected as silly, circular and not valid, well, thus it is. Therefore, the Catholic/Orthodox has informed me to not regard a denomination's own INTERPRETATION of a text as valid substantiation, well, that's what I've been doing. I DO understand how you connect the dots (and have since I was 13 years old), just as I understand how the Mormon connects the dots. But I'd like to stick to the topic here .

Click to expand...

Yet you call Joseph Mary's husband without any substantiation from the text.

Click to expand...

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

Thekla said:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

I understand that, thank you. So, you accept as substantiation THE INTEPRETATION of your specific denomination of certain texts.
You admitted the texts themselves say no such thing, but your specific denomination has a particular INTERPRETATION of them and it's that specific particular INTERPRETATION of them that you used to support the doctrine.

No, I have not "admitted" that the verses say "no such thing". I used the word interpretation because that is a standard usage when speaking about understanding.

As I recall, the obvious was freely admitted: the texts quoted don't say that Mary had no sex ever. BUT your specific denomination INTERPRETS the texts to be teaching that - this, the text doesn't support the doctrine, the specific denomination own interpretation of the texts supports the doctrine of the self-same denomination embracing the interpretation of its own self. Obviously. I thought this had been admitted pages and pages ago (perhaps not). Again, if we accept your rubric here as valid , then we must accept that when the LDS interprets the verse about "other sheep" to mean Jesus would visit the Americas and found His Church here, you are required to accept that rubric as valid substantiation for the LDS claim that He did - it's own interpretation of a text is the substantiation: not the text, but it's own interpretation of the text. I'm sure you understand this. I thought we already concluded this is not valid rubric; you don't accept it, I don't accept it, the RCC and EO don't accept it.

Conversely, by claiming the verses say no such thing, you seem to claim you do not interpret but understand "actually". I disagree.

I think all literate people agree that none of the verses you quoted state that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Ones believing such to be true may interpret the verses to imply that, just as Mormons interpret verses (such as "other sheep") to imply that their doctrines are true. Sure. Pretty easy to do. IF you will accept this rubric as authoritative when the Mormon does it, I'll accept it as authoritative when you do it, I couldn't be more fair. But then I think we long ago establsihed that this is not a valid rubric for substantiation.

Josiah said:
Josiah said:

Since you reject the rubric of a denomination's own INTERPRETATION of a text that admittedly doesn't teach the point being used to substantiate the self-same view by the self-csame teacher is rejected as silly, circular and not valid, well, thus it is. Therefore, the Catholic/Orthodox has informed me to not regard a denomination's own INTERPRETATION of a text as valid substantiation, well, that's what I've been doing. I DO understand how you connect the dots (and have since I was 13 years old), just as I understand how the Mormon connects the dots. But I'd like to stick to the topic here .
.

Click to expand...

Yet you call Joseph Mary's husband without any substantiation from the text.

I'm reading and re-reading the quote from me to see where I did that, but I can't find it.

I agree that it cannot be dogmatically shown that Mary was married (thus, there is no dogma in any denomination known to me). However, I'd point you to Matthew 1:19, "Because Joseph HER HUSBAND..." and Matthew 1:20, " Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary home AS YOUR WIFE." And Matthew 1:24, "Joseph took Mary home AS HIS WIFE." Does this dogmatically substantiation that they were married? No denomination says so, but I think it's a reasonable pious opinion normally held outside the Othodox denominations. I won't be a party to yet ANOTHER attempt to divert this discussion away from Marian dogmas.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

lionroar0 said:
Bait and switch.

Actually, in all your supplied snippets (thank you, BTW), you forgot to include the Catechism's definition and statement of the dogma (I assume a slip up on your part and not intentional). I supplied it. I will again, CCC # 499 : The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity.

There you are. The Catholic Church names this dogma, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" and it defines the dogma as confessing, "Mary's real and perpetual virginity." That's it.

Now, does it draw a plethora of implications from this dogma? Sure. It's true of all dogmas in all denominations, but they all hinge on the dogma. And we're talking about the dogma. I know what that dogma is. I'm very confident you do, too. Why over 200 pages of Catholic and Orthodox attempts to divert the discussion from the dogma is a bit of a puzzle to me - I don't think it is because they don't know it or believe it or are embarrassed by it, not at all, but for some reason, there has been 200 + pages of attempts to divert and evade the dogma/doctrine. Odd, I think. Anyway, I'm sure you just neglected to give the definition of the dogma from your Catechism, nothing intentional there on your part, and I supplied it.

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

lionroar0 · Oct 16, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
As I recall, the obvious was freely admitted: the texts quoted don't say that Mary had no sex ever. BUT your specific denomination INTERPRETS the texts to be teaching that - this, the text doesn't support the doctrine, the specific denomination own interpretation of the texts supports the doctrine of the self-same denomination embracing the interpretation of its own self. Obviously. I thought this had been admitted pages and pages ago (perhaps not). Again, if we accept your rubric here as valid , then we must accept that when the LDS interprets the verse about "other sheep" to mean Jesus would visit the Americas and found His Church here, you are required to accept that rubric as valid substantiation for the LDS claim that He did - it's own interpretation of a text is the substantiation: not the text, but it's own interpretation of the text. I'm sure you understand this. I thought we already concluded this is not valid rubric; you don't accept it, I don't accept it, the RCC and EO don't accept it.

I think all literate people agree that none of the verses you quoted state that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Ones believing such to be true may interpret the verses to imply that, just as Mormons interpret verses (such as "other sheep") to imply that their doctrines are true. Sure. Pretty easy to do. IF you will accept this rubric as authoritative when the Mormon does it, I'll accept it as authoritative when you do it, I couldn't be more fair. But then I think we long ago establsihed that this is not a valid rubric for substantiation.

I'm reading and re-reading the quote from me to see where I did that, but I can't find it.

I agree that it cannot be dogmatically shown that Mary was married (thus, there is no dogma in any denomination known to me). However, I'd point you to Matthew 1:19, "Because Joseph HER HUSBAND..." and Matthew 1:20, " Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary home AS YOUR WIFE." And Matthew 1:24, "Joseph took Mary home AS HIS WIFE." Does this dogmatically substantiation that they were married? No denomination says so, but I think it's a reasonable pious opinion normally held outside the Othodox denominations. I won't be a party to yet ANOTHER attempt to divert this discussion away from Marian dogmas.
.

Sloppy translation and editing aside. IF something is explicitly in the Scriptures there would be no need for a Dogma.

Peace

Thekla · Oct 16, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
CaliforniaJosiah said:

As I recall, the obvious was freely admitted: the texts quoted don't say that Mary had no sex ever.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do - but not in the language you prefer.

BUT your specific denomination INTERPRETS the texts to be teaching that - this, the text doesn't support the doctrine, the specific denomination own interpretation of the texts supports the doctrine of the self-same denomination embracing the interpretation of its own self.

Click to expand...

No, that is your position - not mine.

Obviously. I thought this had been admitted pages and pages ago (perhaps not). Again, if we accept your rubric here as valid , then we must accept that when the LDS interprets the verse about "other sheep" to mean Jesus would visit the Americas and found His Church here, you are required to accept that rubric as valid substantiation for the LDS claim that He did - it's own interpretation of a text is the substantiation: not the text, but it's own interpretation of the text. I'm sure you understand this.

Click to expand...

Again, your assertion -- this insistence betrays the distortion of the "Sola Scriptura" position.

I thought we already concluded this is not valid rubric; you don't accept it, I don't accept it, the RCC and EO don't accept it.

Click to expand...

If this is a "we" conclusion, please cite the post from me that shows your conclusion.

I think all literate people agree that none of the verses you quoted state that Mary Had No Sex Ever.

Click to expand...

Are you implying that I'm illiterate

Ones believing such to be true may interpret the verses to imply that, just as Mormons interpret verses (such as "other sheep") to imply that their doctrines are true. Sure. Pretty easy to do. IF you will accept this rubric as authoritative when the Mormon does it, I'll accept it as authoritative when you do it, I couldn't be more fair. But then I think we long ago establsihed that this is not a valid rubric for substantiation.

Click to expand...

You accept it when you do it

I'm reading and re-reading the quote from me to see where I did that, but I can't find it.

I agree that it cannot be dogmatically shown that Mary was married (thus, there is no dogma in any denomination known to me). However, I'd point you to Matthew 1:19, "Because Joseph HER HUSBAND..." and Matthew 1:20, "

Click to expand...

You really need to do something about your translation -- the word means betrothed/husband/man. Are you willing to dogmatically state that the word can only mean husband ??? And then define that all husbands without exception have intercourse with their wives ?

Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary home AS YOUR WIFE." And Matthew 1:24, "Joseph took Mary home AS HIS WIFE." Does this dogmatically substantiation that they were married? No denomination says so, but I think it's a reasonable pious opinion normally held outside the Othodox denominations. I won't be a party to yet ANOTHER attempt to divert this discussion away from Marian dogmas.

Click to expand...

same thing for yuni -- betrothed/virgin/widow/wife/woman

(or do you wish to claim that Christ was married to the woman with the issue of blood, Mary, and every other female He addressed using this word ?)

Thekla · Oct 16, 2008

Catholic and Orthodox attempts to divert the discussion from the dogma

EO and RC define dogma somewhat differently

lionroar0 · Oct 16, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Actually, in all your supplied snippets (thank you, BTW), you forgot to include the Catechism's definition and statement of the dogma (I assume a slip up on your part and not intentional). I supplied it. I will again, CCC # 499 : The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity.

There you are. The Catholic Church names this dogma, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" and it defines the dogma as confessing, "Mary's real and perpetual virginity." That's it.

Now, does it draw a plethora of implications from this dogma? Sure. It's true of all dogmas in all denominations, but they all hinge on the dogma. And we're talking about the dogma. I know what that dogma is. I'm very confident you do, too. Why over 200 pages of Catholic and Orthodox attempts to divert the discussion from the dogma is a bit of a puzzle to me - I don't think it is because they don't know it or believe it or are embarrassed by it, not at all, but for some reason, there has been 200 + pages of attempts to divert and evade the dogma/doctrine. Odd, I think. Anyway, I'm sure you just neglected to give the definition of the dogma from your Catechism, nothing intentional there on your part, and I supplied it.

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah.

Bait and switch.

What you provided.

Actually, in all your supplied snippets (thank you, BTW), you forgot to include the Catechism's definition and statement of the dogma (I assume a slip up on your part and not intentional). I supplied it. I will again, CCC # 499 : The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity.

Here is what I provided.

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

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications...&subSecNum=0&headernum=0&ParNum=484&ParType=5

So people can see themselves.

Peace

lionroar0 · Oct 16, 2008

Thekla said:
EO and RC define dogma somewhat differently

Yep.

It's pretty neat to see the sameness, simaleraties(sp?) and differences.

Peace

lionroar0 · Oct 16, 2008

Actually, in all your supplied snippets (thank you, BTW), you forgot to include the Catechism's definition and statement of the dogma (I assume a slip up on your part and not intentional). I supplied it. I will again, CCC # 499 : The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity.

Further more your snippett( as edited as it is) is not a definition of the Dogma. It is a confession. It's a statement of faith.

Peace

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

lionroar0 said:
Josiah said:

Actually, in all your supplied snippets (thank you, BTW), you forgot to include the Catechism's definition and statement of the dogma (I assume a slip up on your part and not intentional). I supplied it. I will again, CCC # 499 : The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity.

Click to expand...

Here is what I provided.

Mary-"ever-virgin"
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity

Yup. That's the dogma/doctrine. We all know that. Maybe that's why the RCC names this dogma, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary?" Probably.

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 16, 2008

lionroar0 said:
Josiah said:

I agree that it cannot be dogmatically shown that Mary was married (thus, there is no dogma in any denomination known to me). However, I'd point you to Matthew 1:19, "Because Joseph HER HUSBAND..." and Matthew 1:20, " Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary home AS YOUR WIFE." And Matthew 1:24, "Joseph took Mary home AS HIS WIFE." Does this dogmatically substantiation that they were married? No denomination says so, but I think it's a reasonable pious opinion normally held outside the Othodox denominations. I won't be a party to yet ANOTHER attempt to divert this discussion away from Marian dogmas.

.

Click to expand...

Sloppy translation and editing aside. IF something is explicitly in the Scriptures there would be no need for a Dogma.

1. There is no dogma of "Mary - The Unmarried Bride." The dogma we are discussing is "Mary Had No Sex Ever."

2. I think the Scriptures I quoted give a basis for the PIOUS OPINION of all but Orthodox that Mary and Joseph were husband and wife, but again, that's not a dogma and that's not the dogma we are discussing here. That dogma is about Mary and it's that she had no sex ever. The particular issue of this thread is if it is distinctively LOVING toward her to insist that all the world and all generations KNOW (to the level of dogma) how often Mary had sex - if at all. Is THAT distinctively LOVING toward HER. No Catholic or Orthodox yet has insisted that they would regard it as supremely honoring, extremely important for all the world to know, and above all LOVING if we all knew and accepted as doctrine/dogma how often they have had sex, so there is some question about that issue.

Thank you again.

Pax

- Josiah

.

Speak lovingly of Mary

Coffee drinker

The Dude Abides

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

Coffee drinker

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Coffee drinker

Coffee drinker

Coffee drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency