Speak lovingly of Mary

[MamaZ]

"blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe".

This was not speaking of Mary here but about Christ.. For we have not seen Christ but we believe in Him. We have witnessed His workings in our life in a powerful way.

 

[MamaZ]

Anyone wants to answer? I would be curious to know how it can be supported since the EO would not have a probelm with such claim due to the Tradition already that deals with the issue.... but... how others could claim it since the Bible is obviously moot to this issue?

Yes we can.. For there is no mention of any of this in scripture.. Since scripture is truth then what goes beyond the written is classified as nonsense and can be cast away from us..For God sanctifys us in HIS word.. Not in rumors and nonesense..

 

[Philothei]

Yes we can.. For there is no mention of any of this in scripture.. Since scripture is truth then what goes beyond the written is classified as nonsense and can be cast away from us..For God sanctifys us in HIS word.. Not in rumors and nonesense..

Nowhere in the Bible it describes Mary's wedding either.. Furthermore it does not even states that Christ was never married too... If the Bible does not state he was celibant how come we "know" that he was not married? Just because the Bible does not declare it?....Again it does not say that he was celibant either... Celibacy can be a rumour as well....

 

[Philothei]

The reason why Davince Code was so powerful was that for those who are based ONLY on the Bible cannot prove that Christ was celibant ...as it is void of any confirmation. Just like the Holy Trinity there is absolute no mention of the term.....the term Celibant Christ is nowhere in the bible to be found what so ever...

Gladly those of us based on the sacred Tradition we have plenty of writings that point to both Christ's celibacy and holy Trinity....

 

[MamaZ]

Nowhere in the Bible it describes Mary's wedding either.. Furthermore it does not even states that Christ was never married too... If the Bible does not state he was celibant how come we "know" that he was not married? Just because the Bible does not declare it?....Again it does not say that he was celibant either... Celibacy can be a rumour as well....

Did not have to describe her wedding.. But is does witness to that Joseph took Mary for his wife..

 

[MamaZ]

Also witnesses to and he kept her a virgin until..

 

[MamaZ]

The reason why Davince Code was so powerful was that for those who are based ONLY on the Bible cannot prove that Christ was celibant ...as it is void of any confirmation. Just like the Holy Trinity there is absolute no mention of the term.....the term Celibant Christ is nowhere in the bible to be found what so ever...

Gladly those of us based on the sacred Tradition we have plenty of writings that point to both Christ's celibacy and holy Trinity....

you have it all backwards.. The scriptures witness nothing to the very fact that Christ WAS married.. Therefore it was rumor and nonesense.. The word trinity is not in scripture but the scriptures sure do witness the three being one..

 

[Philothei]

The scriptures witness nothing to the very fact that Christ WAS married..

''

it does not confirm to the opposite either... So if the Holy Trinity is not there either as it is not are we to assume you go by "faith" only? Because both are missing from the Bible the fact that Christ was celibant and the words "holy trinity"... the baptism scene is by far a proof ... Other things are manifested in the bible ... we do not dogmatize them and call them a name and then create a theology around them.. right?

 

[MamaZ]

So when someone comes and brings vain imaginations we take them to the scriptures to prove them.. Nothing about Mary being a PV nor queen nor mediator nor any of the other qualities men have given her.. Therefore it is rumor and can be cast away . For God will be true and all men liars..

 

[MamaZ]

IF we have the testimony of men. The testimony of God is greater.

 

[narnia59]

So when someone comes and brings vain imaginations we take them to the scriptures to prove them.. Nothing about Mary being a PV nor queen nor mediator nor any of the other qualities men have given her.. Therefore it is rumor and can be cast away . For God will be true and all men liars..

God will indeed be true.

There is no amount of praise or honor we can give to Mary that is more than has already been bestowed upon her by God when he created her for the purpose of being the mother of Christ.

We can simply choose to assent to what God had done, or deny it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

For 154 pages, all we've gotten is "the ones spreading the rumor say it's true." Odd, because the RCC doesn't accept this apologetic from anyone else (it has dispatched some to heaven ahead of schedule smelling like smoke for one saying something without adequate substantiation to support the view).

I've NOT required that the dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER be substantiated by Scripture alone or even by Mary and/or Joseph (the only two people that would know if it's true). I've ONLY asked for substantiation of a level required of a dogma and of a nature that the RCC itself accepts from others. So far, for over 150 pages, we've just received apologetics and arguments that the RCC itself condemns, rejects and ridicules so it's probably appropriate for non Catholics to do the same?



Let us NOT FORGET:

1. The issue of this thread is: Is the dogmatic spreading of this extremely intimate, intensely personal, potentially painful and altogether moot story about Mary's sex practices distinctively LOVING toward her?

2. There is only one dogma from 2 or 3 denominations on this issue, and the "burden of proof" - the necessity of substantiate - is entirely theirs. All their attempts to evade this substantiation that the RCC insists must exist and to "turn the tables" on others just makes it obvious their "hand" is empty.

3. The RCC officially insists that to spread a story that is unsubstantiated is a SIN. Thus, the issue is substantiation - not if it is popularly held or believed to be true.




Listen, I love, adore, revere, and in a sense worship Our Blessed Lady, who is the Mother of God and chief among the saints. I love her more than my own mother.

BECAUSE of this love, I respect her and believe that we must speak the truth about her. All generations are to call her blessed! The issue of this thread, created by our Catholic friend IS EXACTLY THE POINT HERE: Is it distinctively loving and respectful to spread stories about someone if it is not substantiated that such is true? However well intended. However popular the rumor.

I realize that those in 2 denominations believe it is true, of course they do. In fact, they insist that it is true to the very highest level of certainty and importance. Okay. I accept that they BELIEVE it is, just as Mormons believe some things about Joseph Smith and millions believe in Bigfoot and alien abductions - I'm NOT at all, in any way or to any degree, questioning anyone's sincerity here. It is a nearly universal characteristic of rumors that they are popularly held to be true. We all know that. So, the issue is singular: Is it TRUE (not, do many believe it is)?

The Catholic Catechism (correctly, I believe) states that to spread a rumor (a popularly held, often believed but unsubstantiated story or report) is a sin. It specifically lists spreading rumors as an common violation of the command: "Bear no false witness." My accompany book to the Catechism explains that rumors are often popular, usually believed and may be spread innocently BUT (it stresses) it is a horrible sin for it bears false witness - and the one doing so is aware that they story carries with it no substantiation. The RCC calls spreading rumors to be a SIN. IMHO, sinning against someone is not loving them. Do you agree? Do you follow me?

Now, IF we were talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, or even whether it is DOGMA that Bigfoot exists, maybe the rumor would be fairly "harmless" (can sin be harmless?). But this obsession about Mary's supremely private, extremely intimate, altogether personal "relationships" with her husband hardly seems harmless. It seems enormous in its potential to offend, hurt, embarrass and even anger. AND I know all the Catholics and Orthodox agree with me on this. No Catholic or Orthodox married person is posting that it is a matter of supreme importance for all 6.5 billion people on the planet (kids included) to KNOW to the highest degree of certainty how often they have sex with their spouse (if at all). The very thought of such causes them to reply with offense and perhaps anger, and perhaps with a "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, BOZO!" And, I completely agree with them. I just wonder why they are SO sure, SO entirely certain - to the very highest level of certainty - that Mary has a 180 degree different feeling about this. And of course, they KNOW how often they have sex, they don't know how often Mary did, it's a rumor. Read the next paragraph.

When people ask, our of love and respect for Our Blessed Lady, how do you KNOW this to be true and what permission do you have to share this (VERY necessary questions), the odd thing is: no one replies. All we get is pages and pages of "The ones who believe it believe it!" Okay, that's typically how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving). Perhaps we get, "It's believed by lots of people!" Okay, that's typicially how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving) - and the same could be said of alien abductions or Bigfoot. Sometimes we get the "a wife sharing loving marital intimacies with her husband makes her defiled, sinful, horrible, dirty, impure - and Mary can't be those things." It doesn't substantiate a thing and reveals a pretty sexist, unbiblical view of women, marital intimacies and the Sacrament of Marriage. Occasionally one offers some Scriptures, but OBVIOUSLY they don't teach that Mary always remained a virgin, as all immediately notice. The view is simply IMPUTED into the texts - it is the INTERPETATION of the texts that "supports" the view, not the texts. All this is very obvious. Read on...

Now, we are speaking of faith here, not mathematics, so of course I don't expect a "bar" of proof. ALL I've asked for, ALL ANY PROTESTANT HERE HAS ASKED FOR, is "substantiation" of a nature and level that you'd accept from others. If I said, "It is dogma that Philothei has sex 2.6 times per week, on average" - what substantiation for that would YOU regard as sufficient to verify that statement to the level of dogma? Or if a Mormon says, "it is dogma that God has a Grandma" (It's not, although many Mormons do believe that - it probably does qualify as a Mormon rumor, just not dogma), what substantiation form that Mormon would you accept? Read on...

OF COURSE, you can (just like the Mormon) insist, "It's true because the one spreading the rumor says it is." And if you accept that from the Mormon, I'll accept it from you. But what you need to acknowledge is that this isn't substantiation at all, of any nature or level, it's just looking in the mirror. AGAIN, if we weren't talking about someone I so very much LOVE and RESPECT (the issues of this thread!), if this were about Bigfoot or whatever, I probably wouldn't care. But this is entirely about the surpremely private sex life of my Mother. The potential here for hurt, pain, anger, offense to Her and thus to Her Son is ENORMOUS! BECAUSE I love Our Blessed Lady, I think we need more than, "the one who is spreading the rumor about her says it's true." And it seems obvious, that's all those spreading this amazing story have. Read on....

I don't know how often my parents have sex. Or what positions they use or frankly anything about it. I'm pretty sure they are not perpetual virgins (because I'm pretty sure I am one of their children) but I know nothing about their frequency or anything else. Don't think me a prude for this, but I honestly don't regard it as my business - this is an issue between the two of them, and from all I could tell from my years at home, I gathered they had a blessed sharing in that regard. I suppose, MANY years after their deaths, sometime might come along and say they had sex in a certain position and 2.5 times per week on average. If I was still alive, I've been raising the same issues I am here in this thread because our Catholic friend who started this thread hit the nail on the head - this all has to do with love and respect for Our Mother (and I might have added, why is this a matter of highest importance for all to know and accept?). Frankly, I know less about Mary in this regard and I love Her even more. Seems to ME my love and respect for her and her marriage suggest much the same as it does for my earthly mother and her marriage.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Rick Otto]

I've ONLY asked for substantiation of a level required of a dogma

Refresh me on what that is, Jo.

 

[MamaZ]

Thing being is that the scriptures which are Gods word.. Scripture tells us this say nothing to the fact of anything about Mary that Men have said.. This is just testimony of men which cannot be proven through the truth of scripture..

 

[MamaZ]

Teaching the Precepts of man and not of God..To which I do not and I as a Christain am not required to believe as some are told they must.. Another precept of man by the way..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings. My motto is and always will be, do not go pass what is written. If it isn't written in the Bible, then as far as I myself am concerned, it is rumour and conjecture.

That is why I am and will always remain SOLO SCRIPTURA. Thoughts? [yes I know that is anathema to the RCs and Orthodox]

1 Corinthians 4:6 These things yet brothers! I transfer into myself and Apollos because of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above which-things has been written, to think the no one over the one ye may be being puffed up against the different-one/other.

Did anyone respond to the verse I put up above in an earlier post?

 

[Philothei]

2. There is only one dogma from 2 or 3 denominations on this issue, and the "burden of proof" - the necessity of substantiate - is entirely theirs. All their attempts to evade this substantiation that the RCC insists must exist and to "turn the tables" on others just makes it obvious their "hand" is empty.

yeah and that is exactly what your posts here do.... no substantiation either for all that was brought forth... either the trinity or Christ's celibacy... none of them found in the bible yet you still believe them...

Never mind dogma or not ... do you believe them or not... dogma is belief first thus... we do have dogma for both trinity and Christ's celibacy... you do not have proof of what you believe though.

 

[Philothei]

STill no word such as Trinity in the bible and you cannot prove that there is... so lots of talk no substantiation either.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Baloney, Philo.

that has been explained to you in this thread a number of times, as well as in other threads.

bringing it up just makes you look like you're ignoring other people.

oh wait... you are.

 

[Thekla]

Hi, Uphill -

the point has been made, though, that the celibacy of Christ cannot be substantiated using the Bible. I honestly don't know, but this would suggest this teaching is not considered dogma in CJ's Church. It would then be (per CJs descriptions) considered a "pious opinion", as would the opposite opinion (which also cannot be substantiated using the Bible).