M
MamaZ
Guest
and there are three that bare witness tee hee.. Speaking about the posts of Up by the way..
Upvote
0
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.
you know, it rarely comes up.
Be honest. You comment on whether or not Mary had sex, every time you call there the ever virgin. You are in effect, saying "Mary didn't ever have sex." every time you give her that title, every time you laud her, you're saying "Mary, who never had sex."
And thats where it ends. Short concise and thats it, nothing crass no further details needed.
it points out the dramatic inconsistancy. How is it that you get so upset about someone suggesting that Mary may ahve had sex, once, fifteen times, one thousand, whatever... but absolutely NO problem to declare, and proudly so, that she never did at all.
Im not upset. Do I sound upset?
Why the explicit mention of how often For the Blessed Mother or anyone for that matter or what position?? How is that useful at all.
She is ever virgin or she is not. Why the obsession with any details?
that's a HUGE double standard you've got going on there.
be honest, this is more about us who don't believe that Mary remained an ever virgin. Or, who don't care if she did or didn't. you're so aghast that someone would "besmirch" the honour of Mary by suggesting the mere possibility that Mary may have slept with her husband.
No Im really not. You doing ok there?
every time I see this complaint, It hilights the "sex is dirty dirty dirty" mindset of the apostolic churches. that someone could somehow be more holy by being a constant virgin, even while married.
Absolutely ridiculous. You really dont understand. But thats ok.
foolishness.
I agree
I know. You just dropped in to complain.
Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES
Josiah said:
You must not be reading what I post. I have NEVER REMOTELY EVEN SUGGESTED that the DOGMA in the RCC is wrong. And I certainly never attacked it.
If you do not find the RCC dogma (and the EO teaching) questionable, why do you refer to it as a "rumor" and conclude that its verbal repetition is a sin ?
Josiah said:
The two issues I've raised in two or three threads on this, but which are ignored, are as follows:
1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma?
WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my point.<b>
</b>I do not understand why you insist on owning terminology used to discuss this matter.
Josiah said:
2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true (millions who say that bigfoot exists believe that what they are saying is true). The isssue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.
.
Your refusal to engage in an actual dialogue is disapointing
Josiah said:
So far, what I've gotten is nothing in response to the first point, and a lot of "but those spreading it say it's true" for the second (such almost always being the case for those spreading rumors - rarely does one preface a rumor by saying: "What I'm about to say is false....")
.
Absent actual, requested, verification on your part
Josiah said:
What I've stressed - many times - is that I'll accept ANY authority that the RCC will also accept from others. But so far (for those that have read my posts on this), we've only been able to come up with two things that the RCC accepts as valid outside of itself: Scripture and history. And I've specifically stated I will accept substantiation from either or both of those. But nothing has been offered from Scripture (apart from nothing there specifically CONTRADICTS the teaching and/or that the RCC's INTERPRETATION of some verses supports the self-same's interpretation - but obviously the text says no such thing). From history, we have nothing. From the 5th century on, we clearly see that the story existed and that those who were spreading it thought it true - but of course, that's not substantiation. I suspect I could quote from thousands of people from 1950 on who believe that aliens from outer space are visiting our planet - but you'd agree that's not substantiation that they are.
Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).
.
I have read your posts
You said I stated the dogma is wrong and I've been attacking it. I said I have done neither. Interesting (and relevant) how you could not find a single post of mine where I called it wrong, declared it heresy or even questioned it. But, to be honest, I don't think you are reading my posts at all.
Excuse me, then. You have stated that it has not been "substantiated" with evidence. You have stated that, per the RCC, repeating something "unsubstantiated" is a rumor and therefore a sin. You have asked for substantiation to support this dogma. You have replaced your own criteria for "substantiation" with the one held by the RC (tradition).
You have then refused to apply your criteria for "substantiation" to the writings of the NT. By doing so, you have evidenced your reliance on tradition for the substantiation of your NT. Since you are not RC, I can only conclude that in your Church, repeating rumors (for ex., the NT is authentic) is not a sin, but encouraged.
How fruitful can a conversation be with someone who introduces and dismisses standards at will ?.... as I said, just page after page after page after page of evasion and diversion, never responding to what I'm posting.
The topic is, in reality, your world view (one standard for you, another standard for those you disagree with).... like I said, all we're getting after over 160 pages of posts is a refusal to discuss the topic. Evasions, diversions....
I didn't ask you to prove your position on the ever-virginity. I ask that you apply your standards to yourself as well.You keep forgetting: I don't have a position on how often Mary had sex (if at all) after Jesus was born. Your constant, "Well, PROVE your position!" is just more evasion and an attempt to "turn the tables" when you and I both know that it's the one holding the position that has the "burden of proof."You conveniently forget that in the RC, tradition is accepted as substantiation on this matter. You use the same standard to authenticate your NT.And you keep forgetting that it's the RCC that INSISTS that substantiation is needed OR IT'S A SIN to spread the story, and if one is sinning against someone it's hard for me to accept that therefore they are being distinctively LOVING toward them - the issue of this thread that our Catholic friend WarriorAngel created this thread to discuss.
Failure to substantiate the authenticity of the OT per your stated (but set aside on occasion for your convenience when it suits the purpose of your diatribe) standard requires that you ignore OT passages on similar mattersNow, I know you are not Catholic and so maybe you think that spreading rumors about someone regarding their sex practices with their spouse isn't sinful and is distinctively loving - regardless of substantiation (I TRIED for several posts to find out if this is your position or that of the EO but, well, as so often, you completely ignored my question). Thus, not knowing your position in that regard, I've continue to address the RCC position which is stated in the Catholic Catechism.
(ie conjugal relations).
It bolsters your pathetic "Sola Scriptura isn't in the bible" argument
The content of the tradition presented only substantiates that the rumor was believed. The reasons presented for believing it are vague & highly speculative as well as in part, contrary to scripture.
Josiah said:
You said I stated the dogma is wrong and I've been attacking it. I said I have done neither.
Interesting (and relevant) how you could not find a single post of mine where I called it wrong, declared it heresy or even questioned it. But, to be honest, I don't think you are reading my posts at all
Josiah said:
Excuse me, then. You have stated that it has not been "substantiated" with evidence. You have stated that, per the RCC, repeating something "unsubstantiated" is a rumor and therefore a sin. You have asked for substantiation to support this dogma.
As I've posted MANY times now, I will accept ANYTHING (please note this word) that the RCC itself accepts as valid when others use it. I don't know how to be more generous, fair and how to bend over more to make things easier for Catholics. IF this is dogma - a matter of highest certainty - it must be a matter of easiest substantiation, and since the RCC says it's a SIN (not loving - the issue of this thread) to spread something (not just a DOGMA!!!!!), then the RCC has established the issue (NOT ME) and that issue is singular: Is it substantiated? Again, I'll accept ANY substantiation that the RCC accepts as valid for a dogma when others use it. The RCC NEVER permits this from a Protestant but I'm "doing unto others as I'd like them to do for me" not as the RCC has done to us.How fruitful can a conversation be with someone who introduces and dismisses standards at will ?
Well, IMHO, the RCC does have two standards: one for itself (if I say it, it's true) and another for everyone else (if you say it, it's false unless you are quoting me). But that's not the issue of this thread, it's not my point, and it's not a permitted subject for this forum. I've never yet met a Catholic who stated, "OSAS is true if a Calvinist Denomination says it is." But rather than these constant diversions, do you desire to address the two issues I've raise - or not?The topic is, in reality, your world view (one standard for you, another standard for those you disagree with).
I have NOT stated that it's unsubstantied. I've not stated that it's heresy. I have NOT even stated that I think it's wrong. ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS WHAT I'VE STATED (please read it):
2. The Catholics here are playing loosely with a double standard. They are TRYING to argue that since the rumor is popular and the ones spreading it say it's true (without a shred of anything to support that), THEREFORE it needs no substantiation and we should (at least) tolerate it and accept it as "possible." I remind them that the RCC and EO do NOT regard the issue of whether Mary and Joseph EVER (even once) lovingly shared marital intimacies as a pious opinion or a possibility - it's DOGMA. They want all to ignore that. If you understand what is meant by Mary Had No Sex EVER and deny that it's dogma, you are a heretic and as my Catholic priest once stressed, "Heaven is not populated by heretics."
I have NEVER REMOTELY EVEN SUGGESTED that the DOGMA in the RCC is wrong. And I certainly never attacked it.
Therefore, we seem to have a amazingly moot DOGMA about an intensively private, extremely personal, very intimate and potentially offensive, hurtful, painful and embarrassing rumor with zero substantiation (only that the ones spreading it say its true). And the official position of the Catholic Church that spreading a rumor is a SIN against that person and therefore is UNLOVING toward them (the issue of this thread).
Bares repeating..The content of the tradition presented only substantiates that the rumor was believed. The reasons presented for believing it are vague & highly speculative as well as in part, contrary to scripture.
I'm wondering if you read what I post...
I have NOT stated that it's unsubstantied. I've not stated that it's heresy. I have NOT even stated that I think it's wrong. ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS WHAT I'VE STATED (please read it):
Then why ask for substantiation ?
1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma? WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my point.
As usual, you have skipped the explanations that have been given as inadequate (per a number of standards that are un-Biblical) in the interest of redefining the discussion per your own interest and purpose. In reading your posts, that is abundantly clear.
Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).
this is all about YOUR views
2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true (millions who say that bigfoot exists believe that what they are saying is true). The isssue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.
before responding, do YOU consider spreading rumors a sin ?
if you'll accept anything that the RCC accepts as valid, then the answer has been given : tradition
As I've posted MANY times now, I will accept ANYTHING (please note this word) that the RCC itself accepts as valid when others use it. I don't know how to be more generous, fair and how to bend over more to make things easier for Catholics. IF this is dogma - a matter of highest certainty - it must be a matter of easiest substantiation, and since the RCC says it's a SIN (not loving - the issue of this thread) to spread something (not just a DOGMA!!!!!), then the RCC has established the issue (NOT ME) and that issue is singular: Is it substantiated? Again, I'll accept ANY substantiation that the RCC accepts as valid for a dogma when others use it. The RCC NEVER permits this from a Protestant but I'm "doing unto others as I'd like them to do for me" not as the RCC has done to us.
Now, we all know that the RCC's position is that it's substantiated because the one spreading the report says it is - however, this is not something it accepts as valid. If I said the Pope is a woman, and I believe it is true (DOGMATICALLY) and that all the world's 6.5 billion MUST know this and if they deny it they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable, I have a hunch (that's all) that Catholics and the RCC will not accept that as substantiation for the story. Do you think I'm right about that? When the Mormon says that Joseph Smith found those plates and spread that (it's not dogma in the LDS, btw), does the RCC accept that as dogma because those spreading the report say it's true? Look, it's rare for someone to spread a story and preface it with, "What I'm about to say is false..." So, this "but those sharing this story since the 5th Century say it's true" is not a substantiation the RCC regards as valid, thus we must not either.
please provide PROOF that this was not taught before it was recorded
Josiah said:
I have NOT stated that it's unsubstantied. I've not stated that it's heresy. I have NOT even stated that I think it's wrong. ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS WHAT I'VE STATED (please read it):
Then why ask for substantiation ?
Josiah said:ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS WHAT I'VE STATED (please read it):
1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma? WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my point.
Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).
Let me TRY YET AGAIN to address it this way: I'm not married, but I have a hunch that many married couples regard what they do in bed to be private and a matter between the two of them. They do not regard such issues to be matters of public DOGMA - issues of highest importance for all the world's 6.5 billion people (including kids) to know and if they deny such they are heretics and their salvation is in question. Do you suspect I'm right about that? IN FACT (again, a hunch), I suspect that SOME (maybe not a large percentage) would even regard the mention of such (much less DOGMATIC INSISTENCE FOR ALL 6.5 BILLION PEOPLE) - even if true - to be none of our business and perhaps even offensive or embarrassing or painful. Do you think I might be right about that? IF SO, then why are the world's 1.0 billion Catholics CERTAIN TO THE LEVEL OF DOGMA that Mary has the exact OPPOSITION feeling about all this? Why they regard it as none of my business how often they have sex or when or how with their spouse, maybe even offended that I regard it as DOGMA, but they are certain to the very highest level possible that Mary is honored by it AND regards it as DISTINCTIVELY LOVING toward her (the issue of this thread)?
As usual, you have skipped the explanations
Josiah said:2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true. The isssue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.
before responding, do YOU consider spreading rumors a sin ?
Josiah said:Now, we all know that the RCC's position is that it's substantiated because the one spreading the report says it is - however, this is not something it accepts as valid. If I said the Pope is a woman, and I believe it is true (DOGMATICALLY) and that all the world's 6.5 billion MUST know this and if they deny it they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable, I have a hunch (that's all) that Catholics and the RCC will not accept that as substantiation for the story. Do you think I'm right about that? When the Mormon says that Joseph Smith found those plates and spread that (it's not dogma in the LDS, btw), does the RCC accept that as dogma because those spreading the report say it's true? Look, it's rare for someone to spread a story and preface it with, "What I'm about to say is false..." So, this "but those sharing this story since the 5th Century say it's true" is not a substantiation the RCC regards as valid, thus we must not either.
please provide PROOF that this was not taught before it was recorded
The RCC demands it - for without it, we have a SIN.
SINNING against the person.
I don't regard SINNING against a person distinctively LOVING them (the issue of this thread).
Tradition substantiates their dogma; their 'requirement' is fulfilled.
Therefore, per their standards it is not a rumor. Done.
Read the thread.None have been offered.
They have substantiated their dogma through tradition.The RCC does and it's their dogma.
I did read it. I wasn't impressed.Please read what I posted. You quoted it, now read it.
You redefined tradition as rumor, a twist of the magnitude of the NT translation you were using yesterday. Remember ? They translated paradosis as didaskalia. Is the intention to degrade paradosis, or to equate paradosis with rumor ?
I'm wondering if you read what I post...
I have NOT stated that it's unsubstantied. I've not stated that it's heresy. I have NOT even stated that I think it's wrong. ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS WHAT I'VE STATED (please read it):
But that's not substantiation for the late rumors about her - eventually made dogmas by the Catholic Denomination.
Thank you!
Pax
- Josiah
PS Good to be back chatting with you!
.
Greetings Thkla!! What do you make of the 5th Marian Dogma? Thanks.I have been reading:
in the cited post, you refer to RC dogma as " late rumors about her - eventually made dogma".
I have been reading:
in the cited post, you refer to RC dogma as " late rumors about her - eventually made dogma".
Did you read what you wrote in the post I quoted ?Too bad you are continuing to ignore the two points I keep raising...
We do do that on the GT board. .....Did you read what you wrote in the post I quoted ?
, if it is stated in 300 AD that Mary never had sexual intercourse, we'd have a report some 200 years after her death (at least).
One revealed the Liturgy of St. James but the date of that is HIGHLY disputed and MOST scholars date it centuries after the death of Mary, so that doesn't work. It is entirely unrelated to whether it is true, of course. And yes, the RCC did make it dogma. Evidently, the EO never has but it is regarded as doctrine there (so one EO has explained in one of the threads on this).
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?