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.
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.
Again, the substantiation is provided in tradition.
Thats the part you leave out of your argument by redefining paradosis as rumor (I am beginning to think that word substitution is part of the praxis of Sola Scriptura)
You replace paradosis with "rumor that many believe is true" and and voila you lose most of the New Testament, but get to "prove" that the RCs are spreading rumors ? Nice trade-off !
See ? ...If it's sin toward the person to repeat unsubstantiated information to them, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about all of the NT being valid - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the early centuries 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.
That's exactly what you haven't provided, Historical or even Traditional "facts" supporting PV. Only historical & Traditional facts supporting belief in the rumor of PV.I am not sure what you refer to here? What is pathetic? Your being cornered I am afraid.. At least I can support my dogma with historical facts that date back to the 1st and 2nd century texts....while you deny to even discuss it...
That's exactly what you haven't provided, Historical or even Traditional "facts" supporting PV. Only historical & Traditional facts supporting belief in the rumor of PV.
3. "Rumor" is to spread a popularly held but unsubstantiated report or story.
.
I don't know what pradosis is, but I bet I could,
Show who first handed whom any facts that Mary was PV.
Thekla said:How fruitful can a conversation be with someone who introduces and dismisses standards at will ?
... like I said, all we're getting after over 160 pages of posts is a refusal to discuss the topic. Evasions, diversions....The topic is, in reality, your world view (one standard for you, another standard for those you disagree with).
Horsedroppings. This is one of the silliest arguments out there.I concur and thats the benefit of the Protestant mind and praxis. In essence, everyman is his own self-styled pope. No accountability to any type of authority except themselves when and where and how it suits.
BD
Horsedroppings. This is one of the silliest arguments out there.
"oh, you're your own pope." news for you. You had to decide what authority you would accept, who you would believe, what praxis you would implement, JUST LIKE US.
just because you decided to lay down your right to think for yourself, don't expect the rest of us to. YOU choose every bit as much as us. You just chose not to choose any more.
more of the same. You're shovelling out the stall or something?The only meaningful answer here is that I do not consider myself to be the authority on anything. The only thing I lay down is my will for Gods will. It seems submission is a dirty dirty word for some.
The ebb and flow or the cognitive dissonance for the Protestant way is madness, I think.
Good Luck...be at peace
BD
more of the same. You're shovelling out the stall or something?
We Protestants do not consider ourselves the authority over ourselves either.
Christ is the authority.
we even have leaders.
we just don't treat them like demi-gods.
We submit.. To the authority of scripture..The only meaningful answer here is that I do not consider myself to be the authority on anything. The only thing I lay down is my will for Gods will. It seems submission is a dirty dirty word for some.
The ebb and flow or the cognitive dissonance for the Protestant way is madness, I think.
Good Luck...be at peace
BD
right. Drop in, call Protestantism Madness... and then run away.Thank you...Good luck
BD
then kindly explain why Mary would be defiled if she had sex with her husband.CJ, you asked me a question a few days ago. I don't remember which thread it was in, and don't want to dig through all the posts to find it.
Anyways, NO the EOC does not view marital relations in a negative light, and we do NOT think that such relations cause the woman (or man) to be unholy. Proof of this is by looking at the many, many recognized Saints that were married and had children. My own namesake (St Photini) is one such Saint. She was the Samaritan woman that met Christ at the well. Then there's Sts Joachim and Anna, and St John the Forerunner's parents, and another example is St Maura and her husband St Timothy who were martyred in AD 286.
then kindly explain why Mary would be defiled if she had sex with her husband.
since of course, she gets called stainless, undefiled... all that jazz.
seems to be a double standard.
From an Orthodox POV, it is unthinkable that she would still be left wanting and to then give up her body to worldly purposes and pleasures.
Josiah said:
These are the two issues I've raised:
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 question (although it seems, none do).
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 OPPOSITE 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)?
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.
Again, the substantiation is provided in tradition.
Some questions:
1. Do Orthodox Christians agree with many Catholics that the loving, mutual, marital sharing of intimacies defiles the wife and makes her sinful and impure?
2. What is it about the Sacrament of Marriage that Orthodox feels best excludes this loving mutual sharing of self?
3. The Scriptures state that Jesus came into the world and "dwelt" in it. Like the chalace example you gave, Jesus was in the world. Thus, do Orthodox dogmatically conclude that therefore all those in the world should be perpetual virgins?
4. Is it the view of the Orthodox Church that the loving, marital sharing of intimacies with one's spouse is but "worldly purposes and pleasures?" IF so, what's defiling or impure about such for the wife? Does the Orthodox Church encourage spouses to be perpetual virgins so as to not stoop to sinful "purposes and pleasures?" Is the loving mutual sharing of such intimacies okay and doesn't defile the wife if no child could result and it hurts?
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
.
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?