Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Tradition is the substantiative for the teaching.

No. Tradition is the teaching.


Now, perhaps you'd like to address the two issues I've raised. Or maybe you don't.


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 issue 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.






.

 

[Thekla]

No. Tradition is the teaching.

No, tradition substantiates the teaching, which is part of tradition. Just as, at the Ecumenical Council which dealt with Arianism, the scriptures (which were accepted by tradition) were used by both sides to support their position. Arius, however, had an interpretation of the scriptures which was in conflict with, not shown to be consistent with tradition.

 

[lionroar0]

No, tradition substantiates the teaching, which is part of tradition. Just as, at the Ecumenical Council which dealt with Arianism, the scriptures (which were accepted by tradition) were used by both sides to support their position. Arius, however, had an interpretation of the scriptures which was in conflict with, not shown to be consistent with tradition.

In RCC lingo.

All teachings, Doctrines and Dogma's flow from Apostolic Tradition.



Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, tradition substantiates the teaching

Okay. So, there's a story spread and believed by millions that the Earth is being visited by aliens from outer space (doing alien abductions, etc.). In the view of the RCC, the story IS the substantiation for the story? Is that the epistemological rubric you are defending as the appropriate substantiation for the highest level of certainty and importance? The story IS the substantiation for the self-same story? Earlier, I stated I'd accept any substantiation that the RCC itself accepted as valid when others use it. If there was a story being spread and believed that the Pope is actually a woman, I have a strong hunch that the RCC would NOT regard that as substantiation for the story being true - and thus regard it as DOGMA of the highest importance and certainty that all the world must know and to deny such is to be a heretic and his salvation is in question. And I remind you, the Catholic Catechism does NOT say that it's okay to spread a story or report if the story or report affirms the self same story or report NOR does it say it's okay if "tradition" says it's correct. It makes ONE ISSUE the critical factor: IT MUST BE SUBSTANTIATED. Otherwise, it's a SIN (and thus, IMHO, NOT loving) to spread the story. IMHO, you are evading the very point the Catholic Church itself (NOT ME!) stresses: the necessity of substantiation.



I think you are evading the other issue I raised, as well (which is certainly your right). EVEN IF the story is dogmatically substantiated via a means the RCC regrads as valid when others use it (and we have over 160 pages of posts revealing it is not), this issue remains. Here it is again:

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)?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

Some comments....


1. Ecclesology has nothing to do with how often a loving couple shares marital intimacies. There's no indication that Mary or Joseph were officially registered in a congregation officially belonging to the RCC or even that the RCC dogmatically taught that couples are not permitted to lovingly share marital intimacies from 5 BC until Her death (or undeath) or even that the RCC existed at all. Ecclesiology has nothing to do with Mary's sex life.

And that was not the point, ok.


2. Of the 30,000 denominations that the RCC insist exists, nearly all of them (including the RCC) officially and current agree with itself in all matters that itself regards as appropriate for itself to agree with itself about, but it doesn't agree with the other 29,999 nor do any of the other 29.999 agree with it. There's nothing whatsoever unique or special or unusual about the Catholic Denonomination in this regard. It enjoys a unity of ONE - itself. Why this quality it shares with every denomination on the planet makes the Catholic Church infallible/unaccountable or correct or whatever is a point no one understands.


3. Self appointing self as the sole authority is simply self evading all accountability - nothing more.


4. Catholics are now "free" to leave Always have been and join another church, too. I did. Almost half the Confirmed members of my Lutheran congregation were once active members of the Catholic Church. 30,000,000 Americans are former Catholics. The Church will not persue them and kill them; in fact the Catholic Church seems very respectful of those who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to leave that denomination. My Catholic teachers said NOTHING negative upon my departure but each, in their own way, blessed me and wished me all God's grace. I disagree with you that only Protestants are free to leave or "church shop."


I realize you are Orthodox and not Catholic, but since I was Catholic and not Orthodox, I write from that perspective.


What...who says??



Now back to the issue of why it is distinctively LOVING toward a couple to insist that all dogmatically know how often that couple had/has sex (or not) and to deny such is to be a heretic, and whether the dogmatic spreading of this detail from their sex life needs to be substantiated before spread to all the world's 6.5 billion people, including children....





.

As usual you miss the point and then jump back into your own world and constant mantra.

Have you nothing new to add, its the same over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And for what its worth, protestants are leaving their churches for Catholicism and Orthodoxy in massive numbers...and so what does that prove, nothing.



BD

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And for what its worth, protestants are leaving their churches for Catholicism and Orthodoxy in massive numbers...and so what does that prove, nothing.

I agree. All the boastful self claims for self exclusively as we see in the RCC proves nothing (except maybe one's ego). Such has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether self is correct, only that self regards as of highest importance that self not be considered accountable or correctable but whatever self says is accepted "with docility."

Yes, we know that there are 30,000,000 former Catholics in the USA alone - people raised Catholic but no longer are. Half of the Confirmed members in my Lutheran congregation are among them. But I agree with you, it signifies nothing except my earlier point that Catholics "church shop" as readily as those in any other denomination.



Now, how does any of that dogmatically substantiate that Mary Had No Sex EVER? And why is this particular aspect of her surpremely private marital intimacy a matter of highest importance for all 6.5 billion people (including children) to know and if they deny it they are heretics and their salvation in question?






.

 

[Thekla]

Okay. So, there's a story spread and believed by millions that the Earth is being visited by aliens from outer space (doing alien abductions, etc.). In the view of the RCC, the story IS the substantiation for the story? Is that the epistemological rubric you are defending as the appropriate substantiation for the highest level of certainty and importance?

1. This is the rubric you use for substantiating the NT. It seems that inconsistent that you would decry the use of your own 'rubric' in others. Further, your criticism relies on the redefinition of terms within the sources you cite (the Catechism) to suit a weak analysis, as your analysis relies on a. changing the definitions of the terminology to create a synonym where there is none, b. a failure to look beyond a few paragraphs in order to understand it within the broader context. The "hole" you claim to have found is one of your own devising.

2. You have used the term "epistimology" before, and as before - in order that we may actually communicate - which school of epistimology do you mean ?

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

I agree. All the boastful self claims for self exclusively as we see in the RCC proves nothing (except maybe one's ego). Such has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether self is correct, only that self regards as of highest importance that self not be considered accountable or correctable but whatever self says is accepted "with docility."

Yes, we know that there are 30,000,000 former Catholics in the USA alone - people raised Catholic but no longer are. Half of the Confirmed members in my Lutheran congregation are among them. But I agree with you, it signifies nothing except my earlier point that Catholics "church shop" as readily as those in any other denomination.



Now, how does any of that dogmatically substantiate that Mary Had No Sex EVER? And why is this particular aspect of her surpremely private marital intimacy a matter of highest importance for all 6.5 billion people (including children) to know and if they deny it they are heretics and their salvation in question?


.

You brought it up. Its like a broken record...


substantiation no sex ever highest importance substantiation no sex ever highest importance substantiation no sex ever highest importance substantiation no sex ever highest importance substantiation no sex ever highest importance substantiation no sex ever highest importance



Deny them salvation...you think you know the Catholic Church, you constantly prove that you dont.



sheeesh

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

The Church will not persue them and kill them

"pursue them and kill them" what in the hell is this? I mean what kind of comment and insinuation can this be and what kind of world are you imagining?

Stop bashing the Catholics please



BD

 

[MamaZ]

I understand and respect your POV. With 1800 + years of nearly unanimous agreement (a few dissenters), I believe it was Gods will that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin. His ways are not our ways. He writes the laws, He can and has made exceptions.



pax

But we see His ways in the scriptures.. God does not contradict Himself.. He is faithful to what He has written. This is why we are told to prove all things..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You brought it up.

No, the CC and EO brought it up.
The EO calls it doctrine.
The CC insists it's dogma.

I have no position on how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born.


I didn't create this thread about whether spreading these things is "LOVING" or not. Our respected Catholic friend WarriorAngel did.




.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

But we see His ways in the scriptures.. God does not contradict Himself.. He is faithful to what He has written. This is why we are told to prove all things..

and the Scriptures do not say that the Blessed Mother had other children




peace

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

No, the CC and EO brought it up.
The EO calls it doctrine.
The CC insists it's dogma.

I have no position on how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born.


I didn't create this thread about whether spreading these things is "LOVING" or not. Our respected Catholic friend WarriorAngel did.


.

oh well. What a shame




BD

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

and the Scriptures do not say that the Blessed Mother had other children

There is no dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" Never has been. Anywhere.
There is no dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" Never has been. Anywhere.
There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibls." Never has been. Anywhere.
The dogma of one denomination and doctrine in two is that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's not about children or siblings, it's exclusively and solely about sex. Of one person: Mary.
Let's say on topic.




.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

There is no dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Kids" Never has been. Anywhere.
There is no dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" Never has been. Anywhere.
There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibls." Never has been. Anywhere.
The dogma of one denomination and doctrine in two is that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's not about children or siblings, it's exclusively and solely about sex. Of one person: Mary.
Let's say on topic.




.

Nope you missed the point again...its about perpetual virginity


If the Blessed Mother had other children...well guess what?????


1+1= (shall we do this the Catholic unsubstantiated way) 2




BD

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Nope you missed the point again...its about perpetual virginity

Perhaps you missed that "perpetual" = forever, always.
Perhaps you missed that "virgin" = one who has never had sexual intercourse.

The dogma is entirely about sex.

If the Blessed Mother had other children...well guess what?????

Yes, some will point out the stated sisters of Jesus and the 4 named brothers of Jesus - and argue that THEREFORE Mary could not have been a virgin. It's a powerful agrument but not conclusive. However, no Catholic or Orthodox can (or does) make the opposite point that because Mary had no other children THEREFORE it is a dogmatic FACT that she was a perpetual virgin - that would be totally absurd and no thinking Catholic or Orthodox ever "goes there" (he'd be quickly laughed away). But, my friend, you are trying to change the issue of the dogma. The dogma has nothing to do with sibs, it has to do with one and only one issue: sex. And that of one and only one person: Mary. Yes, an IMPLICATION of the dogma would be that THEREFORE she had no children other than Jesus but you are confusing a reasonable IMPLICATION of the Dogma with the Dogma itself. We both know that.



.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

Perhaps you missed that "perpetual" = forever, always.
Perhaps you missed that "virgin" = one who has never had sexual intercourse.

The dogma is entirely about sex.





Yes, some will point out the stated sisters of Jesus and the 4 named brothers of Jesus - and argue that THEREFORE Mary could not have been a virgin. It's a powerful agrument but not conclusive. However, no Catholic or Orthodox can (or does) make the opposite point that because Mary had no other children THEREFORE it is a dogmatic FACT that she was a perpetual virgin - that would be totally absurd and no thinking Catholic or Orthodox ever "goes there" (he'd be quickly laughed away). But, my friend, you are trying to change the issue of the dogma. The dogma has nothing to do with sibs, it has to do with one and only one issue: sex. And that of one and only one person: Mary. Yes, an IMPLICATION of the dogma would be that THEREFORE she had no children other than Jesus but you are confusing a reasonable IMPLICATION of the Dogma with the Dogma itself. We both know that.



.

still 1+1=2

Josiah, its about love and holiness and the will of God in that His ways are not our ways. Heart body and soul. Serving and submitting to God has many forms. Lets not forget that virginity was important enough for Christ to base a parable around it.



BD

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah, its about love

So, what is distinctively LOVING about sharing, as dogma, how often a loving married couple shared intimacies (or not)? IF it IS distinctively LOVING, how often do you and your spouse share such intimacies? If it's distinctively LOVING to share this information as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thus in question, surely you want all the world's 6.5 billion people to know this fact from your marriage.

And/or are you suggesting that there is something distinctively, fundamentally UNLOVING about this act of marital sharing? If so, what?

and holiness

So, it is your dogmatic position that the loving, mutual, intimate sharing of self in marriage makes the wife unholy? Is this the official EO position regarding the Sacrament of Marriage?

and the will of God

Where does God state that His will is that all wives be perpetual virgins?





.

 

[Thekla]

Perhaps you missed that "perpetual" = forever, always.
Perhaps you missed that "virgin" = one who has never had sexual intercourse.

The dogma is entirely about sex.

So when God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute, its "all about sex" ?

 

[Photini]

*Photini unsubscribes

This thread is going nowhere. I tried, CJ, to explain the Orthodox POV to you, and show that it is not a base and perverted obssession with someone's sex life. Rather that her holy life of virginity is exemplary for how we are supposed to live our life spiritually. If you cannot, or refuse to understand why we believe the way we do, then there is not much more to be said.