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.
How come there has to be 2 of them?it is!!! an overwhelming majority!!! the 2 churches are the majority of Christerndom put together....
Greetings Philo! Ok let me rephrase if I may be so humbly bold.
Why is it only just a majority of the 2 BIGGER CHURCHES view the EV and not 100%.
..and according to the Catholic Catechism, you are a heretic. Now what?According to the Catholic Catechism, to spread a rumor is a sin.....
..and according to the Catholic Catechism, you are a heretic. Now what?
I enjoy quoting the Catechism
Josiah said:BOTTOM LINE.....
"Rumor" = a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story.
According to the Catholic Catechism, to spread a rumor is a sin.
Sins are not loving toward the victim of such.
Thus, in the dogma of The PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary, there is a report that Mary did not have intercourse ever, not once.
No one denies that the report is popularly held (it could not be a rumor if it were not)
The issues before us are:
1) Is this report about Mary having had no sex ever substantiated (so as not to be a rumor) to a degree required of a matter stated to be of highest possible importance and certainty and (even more critical) in a manner which the RCC itself acknowledges as valid and suffient for noncatholics?
2) Why is this issue of how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) a matter of highest importance ?
IMHO, I would add a third point: Since this is an extremely private and personal issue (one most married couples would not want spread to all the 6.5 billion people of the world as an issue of highest importance for them to dogmatically know), do we have the permission of Mary to speak so boldly and openly to everyone of all ages about this supremely private, personal, intimate aspect of her marriage and sexuality?
IMHO, the question of our good, respected Catholic friend WarriorAngel gets right to the heart of this question. Because I love, adore, revere and esteem Our Blessed Lady, because she is the Mother of God, because I LOVE and RESPECT her more than my own mother, I am enormously concerned that what is said about her (especially as dogma) is true. I'd rather take no stand than to spread something that is unconfirmed, unsubstantiated, unauthorized by Her, and has such a huge, enormous potential to hurt, offend and embarrass Her - and thus Her Son.
So far, in all these 138 pages, no one has offered a SHRED of ANYTHING that gives any credence at all to this extremely personal and potentially hurtful story about our Mother . Only that it meets the "popularly held but unsubstantiated" qualification of a rumor. NOTHING of substantiation at all - at BEST an argument that, "well, it's theoretically possible!!!!! (yeah, it's theoretically possible that she was 8 feet tall, had pink hair and loved fish tacos, too - that hardly qualifies as substantiation). NOTHING but "Hey, 3 denominations believe this and 29,997 don't so it MUST be dogma!" NOTHING but "it's an old idea - almost as old as Gnosticism and a l of heresies, so it MUST be dogmatically correct!" I don't think our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters accept these arguments when others use them, why should anyone accept them when they do?
Now, if this were a DOMGA of "You can get 10 billion angels on the head of a pen but you can't get even one more" then I guess we could all just shake our heads and chuck this up to yet another example of the RCC making dogma out of pure human speculation. But, in MY heart, this is a matter of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NATURE. This is not just speculation. It's not just an obsession with sex (and IMHO a nonbiblical view of such). It's about a person. One we LOVE and RESPECT (the issue of this thread). Since I care if you dogmatically insist that my mother always has sex "on top" without any substantiation that its true and without any permission from my mother to share this with every human being on the planet for centuries to come as a matter of highest important BECAUSE (B.E.C.A.U.S.E.) I love and respect her, how much more should we all be concerned about the marital intimacies of Our Blessed Lady, OUR Mother, whom we love and respect even more?
My perspective....
.
.. and according to the Catholic Catechism, you are a heretic.
1. Actually, a heretic is a Catholic who DENIES a teaching of the Catholic Denomination. I don't DENY the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and I'm not a registered member of a congregation legally affiliated with the Catholic Denomination, thus I'm not a heretic.
2. According to the LDS, you are a heretic on several issues. How does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary and Joseph were entirely deprived of a normal, healthy, blessed loving sharing of intimacies after Jesus was born?
3. You are shown one of my comments to be correct. You have nothing except that your denomination says it's true. You reject that apologetic when the LDS uses it, just as Mormons reject it when you do it. I think you are both correct to reject it. "I say so!" is not dogmatic substantiation. It remains a popularly held unsubstantiated rumor. It remains a very personal, potentially hurtful story about an extremely personal aspect of a person's life for which you have absolutely nothing to substantiate it. It is a potentially unkind, hurtful rumor. And the Catechism says that for a Catholic to spread a rumor is to sin. And sins are not loving.
I think what you've managed to show is that there is no really good evidence to reject the Marian doctrines
So now what does the C Cat. say a heretic is?Hehehe! The actual matter at hand aside, that made me laugh.
1. I don't reject it. I actually don't reject anything in Catholicism.
2. What I DO reject is your epistemology that if something cannot be proven to be false, it therefore is dogma. You can't prove that Mary was not 8 feet tall, had pink hair and a love for fish tacos and yet you don't embrace any of those things as DOGMAS, thus you reject your own position.
3. You have simply joined the "let's turn tables" tactic of our Catholic and Orthodox friends in this forum. YOU are the ones with the dogma about Mary's sex life. There are two denominations that dogmatically insist on how often she and Joseph had intercourse after Jesus was born, 2 out of the 30,000 denominations Catholics insist exist. The other 29,998 have no dogma (or doctrine or teaching or even an official opinion) about her sex life. Thus, we have no position to support. You do. And it's DOGMA so it needs dogmatic substantiation. This "prove it ain't so!" is just silly evasion and frankly and obvious admission that it has no substantiation. Rumor - a popularly held unsubstantiated report. To spread a rumor is to sin and to sin against someone is NOT to love them, thus the point of this thread created by our Catholic friend.
I've told you before, playing the numbers game with Catholics is dangerous...
If you take all the "denominations" and add up their adherents, the vast majority of Christians believe in the Marian doctrines. Sure, the Church could pull a "Reformation" and split up their people into tons of tiny sects, and then we could claim that there are more groups who believe in Marian doctrines, but we happen to value that unity.
Whats more, its the apostolic belief, so you've got the weight of history on the side of the Marian doctrines.
You seem to have joined with the other Catholics and Orthodox here in the "let's try to turn the tables" tactic. Friend, I have no dogma about Mary's sex life to prove. I never mentioned anything about proof. And it's YOU with the DOGMA about how often she and Joseph did it (or not). YOU are the one with the story that needs to be substantiated to the level required of dogma and in a manner that your denomination accepts from noncatholics for a dogma - the ball is in YOUR court.So come back with some proof
Friend, I have no dogma about Mary's sex life to prove.
which makes it ever more obvious that you are here to imply contraversy...
So I guess where there is no proof of this dogma then it is classified as an old wives tale..
Yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, yet no conclusion (dogma) can be drawn unless your standard of dogma shifts from presentation of facts to presentation of belief in the existence of unpresented factsan absence of "kerygma" does not indicate an absence of "dogma"
I referenced St. Basil the Great on the definition of "dogma" in EO; I hoped it would help to know that "dogma" in Eo does not have the same definition you use. IE, a standard is being applied that does not exist in those whom you apply the standard to ...Yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, yet no conclusion (dogma) can be drawn unless your standard of dogma shifts from presentation of facts to presentation of belief in the existence of unpresented facts
Kerygma (Greek: ???????, kérugma, pronounced "kay-roog-ma") is the Greek word used in the New Testament for preaching (see Luke 4:18-19, Romans 10:14, Matthew 3:1). It is related to the Greek verb ??????? (k?rúss?), to cry or proclaim as a herald, and means proclamation, announcement, or preaching.
The New Testament teaches that as Jesus launched his public ministry he entered the synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah the prophet. He identified himself as the one Isaiah predicted in Isa 61. The text is a programmatic statement of Jesus' ministry to preach or proclaim (Kerygma), good news to the poor and the blind and the captive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?