Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

On several occasions you have asked for and been given an explanation for the teaching and its importance. You dismiss the explanation and refuse to discuss the matter any further. Why ?

Sorry if it seems so. Actually, I do understand that there is a spirituality connected to Mary and I certainly understand that there are implications attached to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (that marital sex defiles the wife being the one I've heard and read from Catholics most often). But I'm not talking about what IMPLICATIONS people may take FROM the Dogma. I'm talking about the dogma, and I DO wonder why you seem to be working so hard to not do that? I know you believe it true, which I respect, so I puzzles me why you don't want to talk about it?

Friend, IF this dogma was that Jesus Had No Sibs - that would be what the Catechism would say and I expect that would be reflected in the name of the dogma. IF this dogma was about everything associated with Jesus being pure and sinless then that would be the explaination and definition in the Catechism and the name of the dogma would likely reflect that. IF this dogma was about marital sex being dirty and defiling the wife then that is what the Catechism would say about this and that would be reflected in the title (thus, I don't give much credence to the most often made "explanation" for this). The name of the dogma is "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary." And the Catechism makes clear this is that Mary was a virgin perpetually. I'm puzzled why all the dancing? We all KNOW what the dogma is - I never thought that was even an issue of debate. We all know who Mary is. We all know what Perpetual means. We all know what a virgin is. I'm lost what you are trying to do here. The dogma is what it is - and we all know it. It's what it says. It is what the Catholic Catechism says. Why don't you want to discuss it?

Again , I KNOW (I honestly do!) that ANY teaching can and probably MOST teachings DO have implications. This one is likely no different. And I appreciated hearing some that you and others (mostly the Orthodox here) shared. Thank you! Wonderful and spiritual things!!!!! But these implications are not the dogma, and I have a couple of questions about the dogma. I've raised them repeatedly - one having to do with why it is so important - to the level of dogma - for all the world to know how often Mary had sex (if at all), the other dealing with the issue of substantiation that the RCC (NOT ME) raises. Friend, both of these are much more issues for Catholics since I understand this is not dogma in the EO (yet another thing the CC and EO do not have in common) and I don't know if the EO believes that rumors are correct and loving regardless of substantiation or not, I only know what the Catholic Catechism say, I don't know the EO position on the spreading of rumors.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[Qoheleth]

I would like to have a discussion but this seems impossible; you conveniently skirt the history of salvation in preference for a sloppy attack based on a paragraph in a catechism, some shallow finagling of terminology, and oodles of biased speculation.

On several occasions you have asked for and been given an explanation for the teaching and its importance. You dismiss the explanation and refuse to discuss the matter any further.

Why ?

Thekla, you have given all of us much context (language, culture, Scripture, tradition etc...) on this subject, all of which are real factors of evidence. I believe that you have done an excellent job in representing the Orthodox view. I do not mean to exclude others who have been patient and have offered context also.

Your posts have never been met head on. Too bad.

I think its time to take a break. Just my opinion and youre free to ignore it if you wish.


Be at peace, everyone



Q

 

[Photini]

Again , I KNOW (I honestly do!) that ANY teaching can and probably MOST teachings DO have implications. This one is likely no different. And I appreciated hearing some that you and others (mostly the Orthodox here) shared. Thank you! Wonderful and spiritual things!!!!!



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

CJ, it is good to know that something worthwhile did indeed come out of this thread.

As for it being dogma...I won't argue for it. The EO has two Marian dogmas...1. Virgin Birth and 2. Theotokos. I do not see how the PV of Mary has a direct and detrimental impact on someone's salvation. I do accept it as doctrine, because I see and have lived how it can greatly enrich one's spiritual life.

 

[narnia59]

But they do say Joseph took Mary as His wife and kept her a virgin until Christ was born...
They also show us Jesus had brothers and names them and says he had sisters..
Paul also shows us James was the Lords brother..

So now there are three different apostles named James, and two in Jerusalem?

 

[narnia59]

Sorry if it seems so. Actually, I do understand that there is a spirituality connected to Mary and I certainly understand that there are implications attached to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (that marital sex defiles the wife being the one I've heard and read from Catholics most often).

.

Do you have anything that makes the above more than a rumor?

Because I've never heard any Catholic say that, nor have I read it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As for it being dogma...I won't argue for it.

I hope Catholics will. Anyone who insists that it is dogmatically correct, an issue of highest importance and certainty, to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is questioned should argue for it. Maybe one of them will address the two issues I raised? Even after 160+ pages? Because our good and respected Catholic friend, WarriorAngel, got to the very heart of the issue in started this thread. It IS about LOVE and RESPECT.

The EO has two Marian dogmas...1. Virgin Birth and 2. Theotokos.

Lutherans affirm the same two. We don't DENY any of the Catholic Marian views (although most would shy away from the co-redemptrix and probably the Immaculate Conception - although my own Lutheran pastor affirms them both).

As I posted, my "issues" are really directed primarily to the RCC. Not only because it's the only denomination with a dogma on this, but also because it specifically defines the dogma only and clearly as Mary having no sex AND because it stresses that it is a sin to spread a report unless it is substantiated. I was active in the CC for some years, and studied constantly during that time (and since) so I have something of a handle on Catholicism, a bit anyway. My awareness of Orthodoxy is severly limited - mostly to what little I've read, some 10 years of conversations on the "net" and one very, very interesting personal conversation with a Greek Orthodox priest and his gracious wife. I've been VERY impressed by the spirituality, humility and "heart" of Orthodoxy which seem in very stark contrast to some of Catholicism. All off topic; pardon me.

I do not see how the PV of Mary has a direct and detrimental impact on someone's salvation.

Of course, it "troubles" me. For the same reason I would be "troubled" if a denomination declared it dogma how often my sister and her husband have sex (and I love my sister far less than I love Our Mother). I'd have the same two issues (just far less passionately): Why does THIS matter to you, even as dogma? How do you know this? I'd probably raise another issue, too. Do you have my sister and her husband's permission to spread THIS to the world's 6.5 billion people, including kids?

Maybe, after 175 pages, some Catholic will address this? Probably not.




.

 

[narnia59]

Thekla, you have given all of us much context (language, culture, Scripture, tradition etc...) on this subject, all of which are real factors of evidence. I believe that you have done an excellent job in representing the Orthodox view. I do not mean to exclude others who have been patient and have offered context also.

Your posts have never been met head on. Too bad.

I think its time to take a break. Just my opinion and youre free to ignore it if you wish.


Be at peace, everyone



Q

The red is the second biggest understatement of the thread in my view.

And I agree that Thekla has presented many exceptional thoughts exceptionally well.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I guess I'm being over-sensitive, but this sounds awfully condescending; following on the heels of the apparent accusation of idolatry (hyperdoulia of objects -- ie servants to objects), is this meant for a dialogue or a diatribe ?

A little from column a, a little from column b.

and no, I don't accuse of idolatry. But objects are "served" in that they are given some special place, revered as important, sacred.

me, I think when an object itself becomes as important as the meaning of it... it's become too important.

I'm sure you find it offensive though. I've pointed out the inconsistency of the position as described.... and it doesn't fit well with what you believe.

Yes, I know what "virgin" means; I have extra virgin olive oil sitting on my counter.

Great! then how is it that people can say that PV has nothing to do with sex?

Perhaps if you would be willing to put aside your pre-conceptions for a moment; as I replied to you last night, the point is about agia and (to add) also skopos/purpose. It is about the particular "purpose" of Mary, it is in reference for what is "set aside/agia" for God. Mary is not every other person; why does she (and her life) need to be formed in the image of ours ?

ok, lets expore this further.

so, she has a purpose. I never saw anyone deny that. Her purpose was to bear Christ. How that has anything to do with her sex life, or lack therof, after the virgin birth, is beyond me. Nobody said her life had to be formed in the image of others, either. It quite certainly was not. she Bore Jesus. I don't know anyone else who mothered God incarnate.

again, that speaks absolutely nothing to whether or not she had sex with her husband.

saying "oh, she was set aside" is really nothing more than an assumption on your part, that because God chose her for that purpose, that that also neccessarily includes a life of virginity. Nothing mentioned in the "job description" of that nature at all. Just "you will have a son, and you will Call him Jesus.

The red is the second biggest understatement of the thread in my view.

And I agree that Thekla has presented many exceptional thoughts exceptionally well.

no doubt. she agrees with you.

 

[Thekla]

Rather than respond individually (I'm tired, and will leave that for tomorrow perhaps)
I'll add this from another discussion:

Although this is "speculation" on my part, I do think about it

If Mary had a "normal" pregnancy, some of Christ's blood would have mixed with her blood *.

Had Mary had other children, they would potentially have received "something" of Christ through the pregnancy. Whether actual blood, or something that is beyond our understanding, the implications, whatever they might be, are - in fact - impossible. The Incarnation is a once in all eternity event. Its not even an is/is not possibility. Its an "is" event. And there can be no such thing as a "partial" Incarnation - no matter what minutia can be assigned to partial - through subsequent pregnancy. There can be no such thing as a "half sibling" or "10^-10000 sibling". There is Christ, incarnate, born of the Theotokos, and no other.

The same can be said for any intimate relationship.


* genetic material from the male fetus is sometimes found in a mother's thyroid tumor - even when the tumor developed some time after delivery, including years after, iirc.

 

[Uphill Battle]

that may just be the most ridiculous thing I've heard, sorry.

stick with the "they were brothers from a previous marriage" arguments. They at least don't sound... whacked.

 

[Thekla]

that may just be the most ridiculous thing I've heard, sorry.

stick with the "they were brothers from a previous marriage" arguments. They at least don't sound... whacked.

OK its "whacked", and its science, and its spiritual in nature, too.

Here's more of the ridiculous :

Christ is unique in all of eternity. The Incarnation is unique in all of eternity. The God-man, Jesus Christ is unique in all of eternity. Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father became flesh: as Little Lamb of Jesus points out, Gal 4:4, Paul says He was "made of a woman". Christ is not a creation, we all know that. But Paul makes it clear, His flesh is from the Theotokos. So the "reverse" of the above is also true: if Christ is truly unique, the Theotokos cannot share her flesh, cannot bear another child, without compromising in some fashion the absolute uniqueness of the God-man Jesus Christ. The Theotokos is not "just an incubator" -- she 'gave' her flesh to Him. Her flesh in some sense, through her voluntary assent, becomes His. Not anyone else's, but His.

Here's more to give you a groan
Does God share the Ark of the Covenant, His "place" in the Temple with any other ? Before you protest the use of OT typos, consider again the uniqueness and exclusivity that God asks of His people, and all associated with His relationship to them. This exclusivity, "jealousy" (in OT terminology), defines what becomes set-aside/agia. The emphasis here is again on uniqueness, as in the once in all eternity.

 

[Thekla]

ah, I see.

object worship. (or more directly, hyperdoulia of objects, but whatever.)

and no, I don't accuse of idolatry. But objects are "served" in that they are given some special place, revered as important, sacred.

okee dokee.

 

[MamaZ]

Paul does not hold your theory of Mary here.. Is he not speaking lovinly toward Mary to you?

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Now I notice here that Paul does not say born of the blessed virgin Mother. But born of a woman.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Rather than respond individually (I'm tired, and will leave that for tomorrow perhaps)
I'll add this from another discussion:

Although this is "speculation" on my part, I do think about it

If Mary had a "normal" pregnancy, some of Christ's blood would have mixed with her blood *.

Had Mary had other children, they would potentially have received "something" of Christ through the pregnancy. Whether actual blood, or something that is beyond our understanding, the implications, whatever they might be, are - in fact - impossible. The Incarnation is a once in all eternity event. Its not even an is/is not possibility. Its an "is" event. And there can be no such thing as a "partial" Incarnation - no matter what minutia can be assigned to partial - through subsequent pregnancy. There can be no such thing as a "half sibling" or "10^-10000 sibling". There is Christ, incarnate, born of the Theotokos, and no other.

The same can be said for any intimate relationship.


* genetic material from the male fetus is sometimes found in a mother's thyroid tumor - even when the tumor developed some time after delivery, including years after, iirc.

1. Personal theories are not dogmatic substantiation.

2. There is no dogma of Mary Was Pregnant Lotsa Times.




.

 

[narnia59]

Paul does not hold your theory of Mary here.. Is he not speaking lovinly toward Mary to you?

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Now I notice here that Paul does not say born of the blessed virgin Mother. But born of a woman.

Now your logic and personal interpretation of Scripture is taking you to a place where Mary was not even a virgin at the time of Christ's birth.

And just fyi, the Blessed Virgin Mother is a woman. Paul is not 'contradicting' anything here, but most likely is stressing Christ's humanity. He is not denying that He was born of virgin.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No one denies that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Christ, or that she was a, well, she. But none of this dogmatically substantiates that she never had sex - ever, not once. Nor why it is distinctively LOVING toward a wife to make dogma how often she has sex with her husband (if at all) - the issue of this thread.





.

 

[Qoheleth]

1. Personal theories are not dogmatic substantiation.

2. There is no dogma of Mary Was Pregnant Lotsa Times.




.

And this is exactly my point, again. Thekla's theory or speculation isnt even talked about, considered, given a counter-point or anything. Its simply dismissed without any neighborly discussion. Its very narrow and rude even arrogant to be so dismissive.

Something about a high horse


Anyone up for closing this thread?




Q

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And this is exactly my point, again. Thekla's theory or speculation isnt even talked about, considered, given a counter-point or anything.

For a sound reason: Personal theories are entirely unrelated to dogmatic substantiation.

I might have a personal theory that there is life in this solar system other than on Earth. Nice theory. Probably many agree with it. Such has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with substantiating that such is a dogmatic fact. You know that. Thekla knows that. MamaZ knows that. IMHO, it's just another diversion and evasion attempt.

Anyone up for closing this thread?

In spite of a Catholic starting this thread, I suspect most Catholics wish it would be closed. I wouldn't even be surprised if they are petitioning Staff to do so. But, IMHO, this question raised by our Catholic friend WarriorAngel gets to the very heart of the issue: Is it distinctively LOVING to spread - as dogma that MUST be believed by all and to deny is to be a heretic whose salvation is in question - how often a couple has sex or not? It does raise the issue of WHY THIS ISSUE and in light of the Catholic Catechism's insistence that to share a report that is not substantiated is a SIN and thus NOT loving, it raising the issue of whether the substantiation offered reaches the level of dogma and is of a nature that the RCC itself accepts from others. Our Catholic friend in this thread got right to the heart of the issue, and it's interesting that this makes some Catholics, well, uncomfortable.

BECAUSE I love Our Mother more than my own earthly mother, I will raise this point anywhere I can - even if this thread is forced by Catholics to close. Respect requires it, IMHO.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[MamaZ]

I have never denied that Mary was a virgin when she gave brith. For this is prophecy fulfilled. But knowing that Mary was a woman and a Jewish woman her marriage to Joseph was to be conducted the same as other jewish Marriages.. God would have blessed their marriage and also their family. For God blesses His people.. He does not withhold blessings of other children and a happy marriage from the People He has chosen..Throughout the OT we see the blessings upon Gods people..

 

[MamaZ]

why would it matter if Mary was pregnant many of times? It takes nothing away from Christ our redeemer.. Gods blessings flow to His People..