Speak lovingly of Mary

[Abel1337]

Mary is lovely

 

[Thekla]

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.

I've already answered this position.

Your position rests on the assumption that some things that we do for or happen to us as a result of our relationship with Christ can be humiliating or painful.

Your position rests on secular humanism, the position that the cross is a "scandal" - this position regards the cross as "foolish" and seeks relief from participating in the self-emptying (kenosis) of Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Mary is lovely

... and I love Her with all my heart. As do many Catholics and I'm sure Orthodox. IMHO, that makes respecting Her and being concerned about what is said about Her a matter of very great concern. As Mary's heart was pierced at the sight of Our Lord on the Cross, so it can be pierced by embarrassing, painful, hurtful, offensive things being said about Her - especially dogmatically/doctrinally. And Jesus tells us all that we will all be held eternally accountable for what we say about people. Thus, IMHO, it matters.

As I noted several times in this thread, IF we were taking about whether alchemy's central affirmation of transubstantiation is dogma, or if the Shroud of Turin is the actual shroud of Jesus or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I should have exited this thread a LONG time ago. But THIS is about an extremely private, very intimate, potentially very hurtful aspect of Our Mother and the Mother of Our Lord - one I love, adore, revere and hold in highest esteem. What is said about Her matters to me, to Her and most importantly, to Jesus. Thus, this is a VERY important discussion.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Rick Otto]

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

Lionroar; 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.

You sure, bro?

Excuse me ?
Reclaiming our humanity is about SEX ?????

In part yes, but I said reclaiming her humanity is about de-literalizing metaphors.

Mysogeny is about sex !

I agree in large part.

Its about sexualizing the female body, instead of seeing a woman as a complete person.

Yes, but the depersonalization of mysogeny is also about the extended roles assigned to the sexes & the power of those roles in their suppression
of personal expression & fulfillment of our humanity.

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.

That is the truth, but not the whole truth. Fear as well as lust drives mysogeny.

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

I think mysogeny is more about personal power & fear of female sexuality.
Elevating sex is a broader problem than simple mysogeny.

Oppresion is not about sex; [/quote]
Oppression isn't only about sex.

Christ is the only answer to oppression.

Truth is liberating.

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.

Yes,... as I said, my comment & mysogeny are not only about sex, but the roles assigned to the sexes. Issues that reside within the tensions in & between patriarchal & matriarchal approaches to social order.

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 !

I agree except that the elephant in the room isn't so much sex, but the societal filter that religion has installed thru literalization of scriptural metaphors.

So the argument seems to be that we don't talk about sex and Mary because sex is "dirty" ?

Not my argument. My argument is that the myths generated by literalizing metaphors has contributed to a pattern of viewing women & identifying them primarily in terms of sexual function (other than sex itself).

Its the reformation that was repulsed by the image of Mary nursing Christ.

I haven't heard that before but it is easy to see that the reformation was primarily soteriological & most eccllesiology was left in place with only cosmetic changes.

Where is the source of that distortion? Not with EO or OO or RC. here is the origin of THAT distortion; not with the 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.

What we lack in insight we make up for in denial.

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

While part of the truth may give us an epiphany, it rarely gives us closure.

 

[MamaZ]

Mary was a lovely sister in the Lord. She was a humble handmaiden of the Lord. We see many a lovely sisters in the Lord and humble handmaidens of the Lord to this Day.

 

[boswd]

Mary was a lovely sister in the Lord. She was a humble handmaiden of the Lord. We see many a lovely sisters in the Lord and humble handmaidens of the Lord to this Day.

But none that gave birth, nutured and raised our Saviour

 

[lionroar0]

You sure, bro?

Yes. Human nature before the fall is how humanity was created.

How humanity was meant to be. This is what makes Jesus' humanity unique. This is what He got from Mary and His divinity allows us to partake(share) of this.

Just need to mention that we also partake(share) of His divinity.

His sacrifice at the Cross allow us to partake(share) in the person of Jesus.(His humanity and divinity)

In the CC this is made "real" in the Eucharist.

We directly partake(share) of the person of Jesus.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

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

Pax

- Josiah
.

That must be a Lutheran Dogma, because the CC has no such Dogma.


Peace

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by narnia59

What permission do you have to speak about her sex-life prior to her marriage?
​

Luke 1:34 and Matthew 1:25.

So, is it your conclusion that Mary's heart was pierced by the embarrassing, painful, hurtful, offensive things being said about Her - especially dogmatically/doctrinally as found in Scripture? Will Matthew and Luke be held eternally accountable for what they have said about Mary by discussing her sex life in Scripture? Isn't that an extremely private, very intimate, potentially very hurtful aspect of Our Mother and the Mother of Our Lord - one you love, adore, revere and hold in highest esteem? And if what is said about Her matters to you, to Her and most importantly, to Jesus, why are you not offended that Matthew and Luke opted to publicly announce to the world that she was a virgin at the time Christ was conceived?

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by narnia59

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.




.

What you have repeatedly 'pointed out' is that the doctrine of EV is held by two of 30,000 denominations. What is the point with the numbers if not to attempt to portray it as minority position?

And please point out anywhere in the thread where the red is not blatantly just absurd? The Catholics and Orthodox do not claim 'no position' -- that would be you and your statements that no doctrine exists one way or the other within Protestant denominations. We have never said that no substantiation is needed for our position -- we simply reject your self-defined rules as to what qualifies as substantiation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

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.

Perhaps you didn't read what you quoted from me. Again, I never remotely suggested that it is a minority position, my obvious point (as I've reminded you of twice now) is that it IS the position of those groups, thus those groups have the position. The other groups do not have an official position. Obviously, those with the position have the "burden of proof" in spite of 200+ pages of Catholics and Orthodox working very, very hard to suggest it's the other way around.

I hope this yet another explanation is helpful to you.

Did you care to discuss the Dogma? Particularly in the light of the question of this thread which is whether the discussion of how often one has had sex (or not) is distinctively LOVING toward them?


Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah








.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That must be a Lutheran Dogma, because the CC has no such Dogma.

Actually, it does. It's recorded on page 140 of my official Catholic Catechism and is paragraph #499. It reads (and I quote verbatim), "...the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity." The Catholic Church calls this dogma, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" because the dogma is that Mary is a perpetual virgin. There you are. Surely you know that. And yes, we all know what "perpetual" means and we all know what "virgin" means. One of the companions the the Catechism that my Catholic teachers gave me puts it this way on page 237, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that Our Lady remained a virgin also after the birth of Christ." Yup. There you are.

This attempt to evade the dogma strikes me as odd. Surely you do know what it is, you do believe it, you are not embarrassed by it - all this I'm confident about, but the diversion is not to topic and I don't want the diversion to be used as a diversion by the Catholics.



Now, back to the subject at hand....




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[narnia59]

Perhaps you didn't read what you quoted from me. Again, I never remotely suggested that it is a minority position, my obvious point (as I've reminded you of twice now) is that it IS the position of those groups, thus those groups have the position. The other groups do not have an official position. Obviously, those with the position have the "burden of proof" in spite of 200+ pages of Catholics and Orthodox working very, very hard to suggest it's the other way around.

I hope this yet another explanation is helpful to you.

Did you care to discuss the Dogma? Particularly in the light of the question of this thread which is whether the discussion of how often one has had sex (or not) is distinctively LOVING toward them?


Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah








.

I care to discuss why you do not find Matthew and Luke guilty of not being distinctively LOVING towards Mary for discussing how often she had sex (or not).

 

[Thekla]

In part yes, but I said reclaiming her humanity is about de-literalizing metaphors.

I thought you said mythology

But if its metaphor, the "metaphor" is deliteralized or more accurately, analyzed, by returning it to its component comparisons (deconstruction), not attempting to degrade it. But truthfully, I don't know what metaphor you're referring to... maybe you could describe it.

Yes, but the depersonalization of mysogeny is also about the extended roles assigned to the sexes & the power of those roles in their suppression
of personal expression & fulfillment of our humanity.

So a woman is "made free" by becoming a lawyer etc., rather than a traditional role ? Then all female lawyers are "saved", "redeemed", "fulfilled" ? I disagree -- suppression is a result of the fall. It is Christ that saves, not "works" a la the work ethic and which job one has (thats the distortion of 'no works theology'). We all have a "skopos" calling/purpose which may include a role -- Paul describes this and says not to be 'jealous'. Oppression is lifted by responding and 'fulfilling' our call (teleios/finishing/filling).

That is the truth, but not the whole truth. Fear as well as lust drives mysogeny.

Fear and lust are distortions, extremes. We refer to them as "passions"; the evidence of self-centerdness.

I think mysogeny is more about personal power & fear of female sexuality.
Elevating sex is a broader problem than simple mysogeny.

see above

Oppression isn't only about sex.

in this thread it is

Truth is liberating.

Yes,... as I said, my comment & mysogeny are not only about sex, but the roles assigned to the sexes. Issues that reside within the tensions in & between patriarchal & matriarchal approaches to social order.

You confuse the call from God with societal issues.

I agree except that the elephant in the room isn't so much sex, but the societal filter that religion has installed thru literalization of scriptural metaphors.

The Bible is not literature.

Not my argument. My argument is that the myths generated by literalizing metaphors has contributed to a pattern of viewing women & identifying them primarily in terms of sexual function (other than sex itself).

I don't know which "metaphors" are being literalized.
I do know Christ makes whole -- everything He does is actual. It may be described using rhetorical devices -- but that is often a function of the limit of language, not the content of what Christ does.

I haven't heard that before but it is easy to see that the reformation was primarily soteriological & most eccllesiology was left in place with only cosmetic changes.

It over-intellectualized and kicked the body out of salvation; it dualized.

What we lack in insight we make up for in denial.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be denying, but my referent in this statement was to the reformation and beyond sense of repulsion toward the body.

While part of the truth may give us an epiphany, it rarely gives us closure.

"Closure" doesn't apply, imo -- its "bearing fruit", and that happens only in Christ.

 

[narnia59]

Perhaps you didn't read what you quoted from me. Again, I never remotely suggested that it is a minority position, my obvious point (as I've reminded you of twice now) is that it IS the position of those groups, thus those groups have the position. The other groups do not have an official position. Obviously, those with the position have the "burden of proof" in spite of 200+ pages of Catholics and Orthodox working very, very hard to suggest it's the other way around.




.

It would seem to me that if you believe you never remotely suggested such a thing, and your sole intent was to present the concept that others disagree, you could simply say that other groups disagree without continually prancing out the numbers in accentuated type. It portrays the concept that you believe the actual numbers do have a significance in and of themselves, not simply noting that other groups disagree. I therefore see no need for you to continue doing so in the future, since you have asserted that your intention is to simply note that other groups disagree. I think in the future that would be sufficient to get your point across and eliminate any possible confusion as to your intent.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It would seem to me that if you believe you never remotely suggested such a thing, and your sole intent was to present the concept that others disagree, you could simply say that other groups disagree without continually prancing out the numbers in accentuated type. It portrays the concept that you believe the actual numbers do have a significance in and of themselves, not simply noting that other groups disagree. I therefore see no need for you to continue doing so in the future, since you have asserted that your attention is to simply note that other groups disagree. I think in the future that would be sufficient to get your point across and eliminate any possible confusion as to your intent.

I've address your erronious assumption 3 times now. This makes #4.
I really wonder why you are keeping this up....

Let me try #4: The point kept being made that I and Christ and those who have no position on how often Mary had sex during her lifetime must give proof that she did have sex - and that absent, it MUST be that she did not. This attempt to "turn the tables" is the keystone of a common apologetic here and in other threads on this dogma. MY point (once again) is to note who has the position (and thus has the "burden of proof" or the necessity of substantiation) and who does not. It rests with those who have the position It is MY point that on this issue, there is ONE denomination that has dogma on this (thus that ONE denomination has the burden of proof to that level, and I noted that same denomination notes that without substantiation, it is a SIN to share a story/report about a person) ONE that has doctrine on this (thus that ONE has the burden of proof to that level) and all the rest HAVE NO POSITION and thus have no burden of proof to any level. Yes, Catholics here at CF have for at least 3 years been droning on and on about the "30,000 denominations" in the world, so yes, I used their figure. I tired of those threads and I posted MANY times in response to that number - but long ago gave up, if they INSIST that there are 30,000 - I'll go with that. And have ever since. So, do the math. 30,000 minus two equals. It's not too hard. Does that mean that the one denomination is wrong? Of course not! Does it mean that the 29,998 are wrong? Of course not. And I never remotely so stated or implied and as you well know, that wasn't the context - but in spite of telling you this three times before - you insist on saying I did.

Now, why the diversions? After over 200 pages, I am increasingly of the conclusion that some here will do anything, about anything - over and over if need be - rather than discuss the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Why, I don't have a clue, but I don't want to explore my mystery - I want to discuss the dogma - even after all this. Would you now accept that any "implications" you erroniously THOUGHT I might be making in spite of the reality that I never remotely indicated such and that was not the context was simply wrong? Or will we have to go over this a dozen more times, just to divert the discussion still more? Or can we discuss the dogma?


Patience is a virtue....
BUT the topic requires the hard work here.
If it was MY mother you were talking about, I would be VERY concern.
Wait a minute... it is!






.

 

[narnia59]

I've address your erronious assumption 3 times now. This makes #4.
I really wonder why you are keeping this up....

Let me try #4: The point kept being made that I and Christ and those who have no position on how often Mary had sex during her lifetime must give proof that she did have sex - and that absent, it MUST be that she did not. This attempt to "turn the tables" is the keystone of a common apologetic here and in other threads on this dogma. MY point (once again) is to note who has the position (and thus has the "burden of proof" or the necessity of substantiation) and who does not. It rests with those who have the position It is MY point that on this issue, there is ONE denomination that has dogma on this (thus that ONE denomination has the burden of proof to that level, and I noted that same denomination notes that without substantiation, it is a SIN to share a story/report about a person) ONE that has doctrine on this (thus that ONE has the burden of proof to that level) and all the rest HAVE NO POSITION and thus have no burden of proof to any level. Yes, Catholics here at CF have for at least 3 years been droning on and on about the "30,000 denominations" in the world, so yes, I used their figure. I tired of those threads and I posted MANY times in response to that number - but long ago gave up, if they INSIST that there are 30,000 - I'll go with that. And have ever since. So, do the math. 30,000 minus two equals. It's not too hard. Does that mean that the one denomination is wrong? Of course not! Does it mean that the 29,998 are wrong? Of course not. And I never remotely so stated or implied and as you well know, that wasn't the context - but in spite of telling you this three times before - you insist on saying I did.

Now, why the diversions? After over 200 pages, I am increasingly of the conclusion that some here will do anything, about anything - over and over if need be - rather than discuss the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Why, I don't have a clue, but I don't want to explore my mystery - I want to discuss the dogma - even after all this. Would you now accept that any "implications" you erroniously THOUGHT I might be making in spite of the reality that I never remotely indicated such and that was not the context was simply wrong? Or will we have to go over this a dozen more times, just to divert the discussion still more? Or can we discuss the dogma?


Patience is a virtue....
BUT the topic requires the hard work here.
If it was MY mother you were talking about, I would be VERY concern.
Wait a minute... it is!






.

Fine, let's discuss the dogma. You've expressed multiple times your concern that it is not being distinctively LOVING towards Mary for discussing how often she had sex (or not). Please explain why you do not hold the same concern for the fact that Matthew and Luke chose to do so in Scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Fine, let's discuss the dogma. You've expressed multiple times your concern that it is not being distinctively LOVING towards Mary for discussing how often she had sex (or not). Please explain why you do not hold the same concern for the fact that Matthew and Luke chose to do so in Scripture.

1. Scripture revealing it is not me or you. It's not my denomination or yours. We BOTH accept the Bible as Authoritative. We both affirm that the words of the Bible are true, and that Authority is not self. In Luke 1:34, MARY says that at that moment, she was a virgin. We have an objective source OUTSIDE and ABOVE all of us, in writting, that states this - from the mouth of Mary. In the Matthew case, we have an Angel proclaiming them to be husband and wife and that Joseph did not know here until she bore a son.

2. Being a virgin AT THE BIRTH of Jesus was regarded as prophetic, and thus is altogether relevant. Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 and notes the necessity of the Virgin Birth (side note: the Isaiah passage is actually pretty fuzzy, I read recently that discoveries reveal that at the time, it was a firm beleif that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin, thus giving new light to the answer Herod got). It is important to the prophecy that Jesus was born to a virgin.

Here's the fundamental differences:

1. That Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus is specifically recorded, in writing, by God and comes from the mouth of Mary Herself.

2. There is a prophetic reason for this to be important, Scripture specifically says that the mother of the Messiah will be a virgin at His birth.


Now, compare this to the report that Mary had no sex EVER. Is that recorded in the Bible? No. Is it stated by Mary? No. Is it even stated by anyone who ever even met Mary? No. What is the source of this? No one knows. What is the confirmation of this? No one knows. So, who affirms the report as true? Only the same two denominations that teach it as true. And neither can confirm that they did that until centuries AFTER Mary died.


So, why is it "okay" to talk about Mary being a virgin at the birth of Jesus? Because we know it to be true, Mary Herself proclaims it, it is relevant to the Gospel since if not so then Jesus is not the Messiah. Now, how does this relate to whether Mary had sex once 30 years later? Nothing. She doesn't say so. The Bible doesn't say so. It seems the Church didn't say so for centuries. It has no relevance to anything.


Again, I've NEVER said that this "report" about Mary is false. I never said it is wrong. I've never said it was unbiblical or heresy. What I've ASKED about (and they are QUESTIONS) is:
1). WHY THIS? Why is THIS issue of whether she EVER had sex a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty - to deny such is to be a heretic and one's salvation thereby in question? WHY is whether she and Joseph ever even once shared loving, caring, marital intimacies a CRITICAL issue?
2). Where is the substantiation? We all agree there is substantiation for Mary being a virgin at His birth, for Joseph not "knowing" here UNTIL Jesus was born - because there it is, in an object, written record where God is the Author: not me, not you, not God. That's sufficient, I think. I accept it also because you do (recall my longstanding willingness to embrace any Authority that you will accept when a noncatholic points to such). This is a critical issue for Catholics since the Catholic Catechism (NOT ME) states that to share an unsubstantiated report about someone is specifically to SIN against them (it's word, NOT MINE). And it is MY view that to sin against someone is not to distinctively LOVE them (the issue of this thread): thus, substantiation to the level of the proclaimation (in your case: dogma, the highest possible level of certainty) and of a nature that the RCC itself regards as valid (or else it's not valid) when others use it, is central to the issue of whether it is sinful or loving toward the person who is the object of the report. In the case of the Virgin birth, such exists. In the case of the Perpetual Virginity, none has been offered.
3. In a couple of places, as a small addition, I noted that even if we know it to be true (and see #2), there still is the issue or privacy. Again, Mary hereself proclaimed her virginity at that time in Luke 1:34 and it is God who caused such to be penned in Holy Scripture. But where do you have anything form my mother about how often she has sex? If not directly, from God via His Scriptures?

I already know the response: The RCC insists there is an equally authoritatrive source to God: the RCC itself alone exclusively. The RCC gave permission to the RCC for the RCC to share this, and the RCC substantiated the report told by the RCC to be true because the RCC considers what the RCC teaches to be true. Friend, been there done that soooooooo often with Catholics and Mormons that I'm tired of the merry-go-round. So, instead, address the dogma.
1. Why is THIS (how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born) a matter of highest importance, most critical, why the absolute obsession with her hymen at her death? NOW, if the issue was: "Well, there was a debate about the possible Siblings of Jesus" then the dogma would be "Jesus Had No Sibs" and we both know it, so please don't go down that silly road.
2. Where is the substantiation that the CAtholic Church itself insist MUCH exist OR IT IS A SIN to spread a report about a person? Relevant because if we sin against someone, I don't think we are distinctively LOVING them. You won't accept from me, "cuz my denomination says so" or "cuz some of my denomination's Fathers said so but had nothing to support it as true" or "cuz all those who are required to accept whatever they are told with docility accept it with docility." You dont accept any of those as valid substantiation, so I'll follow your lead and also not regard them as valid substantiation.
3. Does the issue of respect and privacy matter to you at all? What about being rude? You see, I love Mary. More than myself. There is HUGE potentiality here for her to be offended, hurt, embarrassed - and therefore Her Son. H.U.G.E. Since all the Catholic women here seem to be of the view that it's rude and none of our ___ business how often they have sex, you MUST be absolutely, 100%, thoroughly, completely, dogmatically CERTAIN that Mary feels the EXACT OPPOSITE way. Because you are telling the world something normally amazingly private. And we Do have to give account for what we say. Frankly, with the seemly irrelevance, with the weak substantiation, with the H.U.G.E potentially for pain and hurt to one I love so very, very, very such - I choose to go very, very carefully here. We ARE accountable for our positions. And to give offensive - even unintentionally - is grave and great.


All that said (again), I will also repeat that I do NOT in any sense reject this teaching. I do NOT regard it as wrong or unbiblical and CERTAINLY not heretical. And I take seriously - VERY seriously - that it has an old and very strong affirmation (otherwise, I would have dismissed this and would not seek to discuss it). I accept Real Presence largely because of old and strong Tradition - but that has biblical support, there is some relevancy there and I don't see how embracing that has a HUGE potential to cause great personal pain to any of the Saints.

All this I have said and greatly expanded on MANY times before.....



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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

I'm sorry. That's just wishful thinking.

Betrothed. Angel says go ahead marry her.... he takes her as his "woman"... but they didn't get married.

alrighty then.

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

no, it's not. We just don't carte blanche believe whatever comes down the pipe. We know God has set some aside. Bible says so. Take Paul for instance. He talked about how he was celibate.

Bible doesn't say any such thing about Mary.

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

your hair splitting is wildly amusing.

of secondary note, you notice how they quote scripture for so many parts of this statement, but fob it off on some supplementary notes when they get to the key point? (what you bolded in red.) No greater evidence that there is no biblical reason to believe in PV exists than this! Thank you for posting it. They reference scripture three times in the passage, for other points. If they had any scriptural basis for what you put in bright red underline... they'd have put it in. They would have fallen over each other to write it in there. There is NO reason they would not.

it.
doesn't.
exist.

No, he has set up a false dichotomy.

He defines the doctrine as rumor because is it not explicitly defined in the Bible.

However, Catholics (and Orthodox) accept the whole of Sacred Tradition in forming doctrine, not just Scripture. The belief that all doctrine in order to be correct must be explicitly stated in the Bible is the only real rumor running amok in this thread.

It's quite easy to argue a point when you get to define the position of the other person based upon your terms and not theirs. That is what Josiah has done, which would only impress others who tend to do the same thing.

of course, that only impresses people who have decided to believe that "tradition" in the first place.

Catholics sneer at LDS.... but they use the same methodology. "because we say so." no, I don't believe the LDS is correct on much. they don't reference the bible on a lot of things.

same applies to the EO and RC's.

problem here is that you think people should accept your traditions as bona fida truth that can't be questioned, while disregarding and reviling everyone elses traditions, because they are not your own.

that's mighty obtuse!

By stating "no position" to the question of her ever-virginity, you are stating that she may or may not have had sex. There is no evidence that she was married. Your "no position" in the absence of evidence of her marriage implies that you believe that she might have had sex despite not being married.

In contemporary polite terminology, "no position" = *wink, wink* she may have been a woman of loose morals, but I'm too polite to say it. Though more polite, this supports the position of Celsus and some of the Jews that she was *indeed* a woman of loose moral character.

Nice job, Josiah.

how in the name of Ritz crackers did you come up with this?

you're injecting YOUR "she never got married" into it, and it's bringing you to a rather foolish conclusion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Thekla

By stating "no position" to the question of her ever-virginity, you are stating that she may or may not have had sex. There is no evidence that she was married. Your "no position" in the absence of evidence of her marriage implies that you believe that she might have had sex despite not being married.
​

Greetings Thekla. How did Jews get married in the NT days of Jesus?