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.
The only fruit that Mary's womb produced was Christ's humanity. His divinity wasn't her doing at all.
Now if Mary had other children after Jesus then, these brothers and sisters of Christ would share in His humanity. This why the PV or Ev of Mary is important.
Josiah said:
No.YOU are the one insisting that Mary had no sex ever.
Actually, this is a position you takeJosiah said:I have only one position: Mary gave birth to Jesus and was a virgin at the time. Thus, I have two doctrines about Her: She is the mother of God and was a virgin at His birth.
.
In using the epistemological praxis of Sola Scriptura, you have limited God and the things of God to the length and breadth of the human mind. Paul warned about this sort of secularization, the philosophy of men. It cramps the heart and mind, disallowing God His rightful "throne".
Mary is not a type of Christ. She is a mother.As an example, you seek to understand Mary as "any mother", and become deeply offended that she does not fit the mold of your mother. You seek to understand her role in the Incarnation through your own conception and birth, forgetting that you are not the model for Christ. The forcefulness and repetitive nature of your posts on these matters betray, at least in their written tone, a sense of offense that Christ is the center through which to evaluate the things of God, not yourself. This is the result of anthropocentric "theology".
Again, you've evaded the entire topic....This teaching was known among the family of Church, and was shared with family. It was not kerygma. It was not until challenges arose from the crucible of secularization that it was discussed more openly. Supremely private ? Yes, the family is the realm of the private. But the Incarnation, and our redemption are intensely "public". Christ came for all. For those that will have Him, these are family. Would you be embarrased to bear Christ ? Would anything that came from Christ, from association with Him, be hurtful ? Only to the secular, only in humanism.Josiah said:But this thread is about what is distinctively LOVING about Her to spread around the world. Well, the RCC says as Dogma and the EO does as doctrine that it is distincively LOVING to insist that she had no sex ever.
Thus, I"ve asked 3 questions: Why THIS specific, singular, particular issue? How do you KNOW this is true (the RCC specifically states in its official Catechism that it is a SIN to spread a story or report about a person unless it is SUBSTANTIATED and if a SIN, that's hardly being loving - thus t he RCC insists the issue is not popularity or reasonableness or whatever, t he sole issue is if it is substantiated)? And finally, were is the permission from Mary to share this supremely private, intensively intimate, potentially embarrassing and hurtful and painful tidbit about her sex life with t he world's 6.5 billion people (including kids)?
.
Josiah said:
Now, to the immediate subject. You seem to be trying to show that because Jesus was born of a woman, THEREFORE it is dogmatically substantiated that Mary MUST be a perpetual virgin. I think this is entirely baseless, and you've offered NOTHING to support your point - only flaming me because I don't just accept it as dogmatic substantiation. Look, Paul said that Jesus was born of a woman (NOT perpetual virgin). So was I. So were you. How does that dogmatically substantiate that our mothers are perpetual virgins? You won't answer the question because, IMHO, it's OBVIOUS your apologetic here is entirely baseless and moot.
.
This "philosophy" you appeal to, this epistemological ground you walk on, lacks the center for which all mankind was intended. Christ. Christ is not known through "epistemological praxis".
Mormons have faith. I trust you respect and honor that as much as you want all to respect and honor yours. And that you'd never seek substantiation for thier teachings since what is needed is faith - not epistemology.What is needed is not the epistomology of the last few centuries. What is needed is pistis.
Josiah said:
Okay... How does that dogmatically substantiate that Mary was a perpetual virgin? Or my mother because I was born of a woman?
Here it is again. You use an apologetic and then refuse to support it as at all valid.There it is again -- appeal to "intellectual uncovering of knowledge"Josiah said:
I don't recall stating that - perhaps you can point to where ..Yes. My position is twofold: That Mary is the Mother of God and that she was a virgin at the birth of Our Lord. You stated that you have pointed out all the rebuttles to my position "many times" but when I asked you where - well, there have been many examples of ignored questions.
You consider nothing that does not conform to your image: here again is the anthropocentrism.Let me ask again, where has been the strong rebukes of my Marian position?
Except Tradition, which you redefine as synonymous with rumor. This is your epistemological praxis of "intellectual uncovering".I never limited this discussion to the praxis of Sola Scriptura, as you well know. I stated I'd accept ANY authority or Rule or praxis that the RCC itself accepts from others.
I think it likely that Mormons believe the accounts about Joseph Smith are true, nor have I said otherwise. Nor are they a concern to me, as I am not Mormon. But these are anthropocentric, humanist as well. They are about Joseph Smith as central, and evealuate the things of God in comparison to him. They are not Christocentric, and repeat heresies earlier rebuked by Tradition. I reject Mormon dogma because of this.What I have rejected is that a story is dogma if the ones telling the story believe it's true. You reject this, too, since you don't believe all the Mormon stories about Joseph Smith are dogma, fully substantiated, the highest level of importance and certainty - in fact, unlike my position vis-a-vis the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, you don't even regard such as possible but I suspect you regard it as false (something I've NEVER said about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary).
Although you have repeatedly refused to give examples, I suspect the validity of the NT text is to some extent "dogmatic". And your relativism is derived from "Josiah's understanding". You accept that the NT is valid absent any process of authentication and evaluation. You reject Joseph Smith because he is not of your denomination of evaluated fact. I reject Joseph Smith because his teaching is not Christocentric, and not Christological. As you also do not place Christ at the center, this is strongly relativistic, as Christ is the only true center of all things, and all was made for Him and through Him.You seem to strongly embrace relativism and have a very, very strong ecclesio-centric theology: If my denomination says it, it's DOGMA and therein terminates all need for evaluation, examination, or anything else. You reject this when others do as you do but defend it when you do it.
Could you cite where I say this ?Mary is not a type of Christ. She is a mother.Your dogmatic statement again; to reject an apologetic requires understanding. You do not respond to what I post, you only repeat your own position. This is evidence of the self-centerdness of your evaluation; it is measured against your own "dogmatic position" of intellectual, not Christological, evaluation.You keep making apologetical positions that are baseless and moot, and often not even true. When I ask about such, you ignore it.Yet you respond to each point made as "moot" or (to summarize) "not according to me", as in - not like my birth, not like my denomination, not like my interpretation.No, my theology is Christocentric, but it is not self-centered, it is not based on a denomination's insistance for self exclusively and infallibly: "When I speak, I'm right - that's it, that's all." I'm read the Catholic Catechism # 87 and the explanations thereof. I know your denomination-centered "theology."
The epistemological praxis of "intellectual uncovering" again. Not Christocentric.Some here have done an excellent "job" of relating Marian spirituality and some of the implications taken from these dogmas. Thank you very much, that IS helpful. But none of that is what we've been discussing. The dogma here is not any of the things you've discussed, the issue is this: Mary Had No Sex EVER. THAT is the issue. I can read. I've read the title of the dogma. I've read the Catechism on this - many, many times. I've read Catholic theology books on this. I've read official Catholic websites on this, and I KNOW (hey, we all do) that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is this: Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Of course you can only see it through self - this is what I have been saying. That which humanism and secularism find "embarassing" is Christ and anything from Him and asociated with Him. Yet I do not think Mary is ashamed of her Son and our God, nor any 'reality' that arises from 'association' with Him. Remember, the cross was "scandalous".And THAT is what I've been TRYING to discuss for 180+ pages - all withing the context of whether the dogmatic proclaimation of how often a couple has sex is "distinctively LOVING" toward them (the point of this thread). Again, thanks for your helpful insigts into Marian spirituality - and if I find a thread about that, I hope you post those insights, many Protestants would be blessed and helped by that. But this website is about whether it is DISTINCITIVELY LOVING to spread as dogma that must be believed and if it is denied, that person is a heretic and their salvation is in question just how often Mary had sex.
I do not accept the Mormon position, nor yours, because they are anthropocentric.Yes, of course, you may unquestionably accept such because your denomination says you must and I will honor that in you to the exact same degree as you honor the same from a Mormon, etc. But that's not the dogma or the issue of this thread.
No, Christians are family by adoption through Christ in the Holy Spirit. I point out the difference between dogma and kerygma, and you still confuse the two.Again, you've evaded the entire topic....You have conveniently missed mentioning earlier mentions, and again fail to distinguish between kerygma, dogma, and elevate written historical evidence to a "throne". This is your humanistic intellectual praxis again.Yes, we all know that all those spreading the story/report regard it as true. Maybe the EO believes that it something is regarded as true by those teaching it, THEREBY it MUST be dogmatically correct (I've asked this question of you a few times, but...) but I've never denied that a LOT of people from the 5th century on accept this as true. Yup, that's history. That's not the issue of this thread. Nor do I suspect you believe that if something is regarded as true by those who are teaching it that it MUST THEREBY be dogma, so your argument seems rejected by you and thus I find no reason for me to accept an apologetic you reject.
Again, your evaluation is not Christocentric. There is no room in your "theology" of humanism for the glory of the scandal of the cross. To understand this, one must sacrifice the anthropocentric.Again, as you seen to ignore, I've already stated - a few times - that I know it's an old teaching and was officially embraced in the late 8th Century. And if the topic here was about the age of this viewpoint, all that would be relevant. But the issue here is this: Is it distinctively LOVING toward a couple to dogmatically proclaim a belief that a married couple has had no sex. If I believed that you and your spouse had sex 2 times per week on average and always on the kitchen table, it IS my sincere belief (although I have nothing to substantiate it), would it be distinctively LOVING for me to spread that to all the people of the world (including kids) as a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty that all must know and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thereby in question?
I don't follow what you are saying here ... perhaps you would explain.What I have largely gathered from your posts is that the dogma is ignored. I know it's not dogma in the EO as it is in the CC, but I find this amazing. Some other things have been subsituted in the place of what is now ignored, so that Mary's virginity (if mentioned at all) is at most a ramification of what is now the substituted new doctrine. It CANNOT be denied (one would thereby be a heretic), it's just ignored. The entire dogma that Mary Had No Sex EVER seems entirely moot to those that claim to profess it - but the substitutions in its place are now embraced. I have little "problem" with those substitutions , I just note the obvious - they aren't the dogma.
I am not evading, but pointing out that your "theology" is distorted because Christ is not at the center.Again, you seem to be evading the dogma, my point and my question.
No, this is more like your anthropocentric style: you accept the NT is true because someone "says so", not because you can find evidence to support its authenticity.And yes, I do not accept your denomination-centred epistemology of "If my denomination says it's true, it is - end of all discussion, no accountability applies." You don't accept this rubric so I don't know why you expect others to do so.
If it was Christocentric, you would not use your own birth, the habits of just any or the average married couple as your measure. To measure the things of God against "averages" and "normal human behavior" is anthropocentric.Yes, my theology is Christocentric, but it's not denomination-centered. I reject your rubric that if a teacher insists that self is correct therefore self must be, closed topic.
I do not have a problem with their "faith", but with the lack of Christ as the center from which all understanding arises. This is my "problem" with yours as well. I do not challenge your right to be anthropocentric, I merely do not agree nor assent to it.Mormons have faith. I trust you respect and honor that as much as you want all to respect and honor yours. And that you'd never seek substantiation for thier teachings since what is needed is faith - not epistemology.
Your measure of validity is what you can "conceive of about God and things of God in reference to self". This is intellectualizing God, and may result in a "god" that is smaller than oneself.Here it is again. You use an apologetic and then refuse to support it as at all valid.
Greetings! I believe the early Christians were a little busy fleeing from the "dragon" to worry about whether mary was a perpetual virgin or not.No.
IF that was the concern and issue, there MIGHT have evolved some view, teaching, doctrine or dogma of Jesus Had No Siblings. But such a doctrine has never existed in any denomination. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is about sex, not sibs.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah.
Thelka,
There's nothing "Christocentric" about the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER.
It's about Mary - not Christ.
Nor is it about the Greek Orthodox Church or any siblings of Jesus or holy things.
It's about sex.
On the part of one PERSON - Mary.
I know this. You know this.
You stated that what matters is faith, not any evaluation of whether a dogma is correct or not. And yet you then rebuke your own point (we've had a few examples of that).
.
You consider nothing that does not conform to your image: here again is the anthropocentrism.
Except Tradition, which you redefine as synonymous with rumor.
I think it likely that Mormons believe the accounts about Joseph Smith are true, nor have I said otherwise.
They are about Joseph Smith. They are not Christocentric. I reject Mormon dogma because of this.
Has no one read this?
Joh 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Thus I may conclude that you imagine I am "lying"
Actually, I'm hoping we can talk about this dogma. It's that Mary never had intercourse.We are left with only talking about you. Not Christ.
The Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER is entirely about the sex life of a PERSON. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it anthropocentric. You keep trying to defeat your own apologetics.
There is no "human person" without God, there is no creation without Christ. You see the "dogma" in that light, as "about the sex life of a person" because you evaluate anthropocentrically with yourself and your opinion as the measure of all things. The skopos of Mary should be understood in the light of Christ, not Josiah. You mistake secular anthropology for Christological anthropology. This is the "theological distortion of humanistic theology" I have been referring to.
No. Not once.
But repeatedly. You reject tradition, call it unsubstantiated stories, when referring to the teaching of the ever-virginity. You accept tradition as dogmatic per the NT as evidenced by your acceptance of the NT absent historical verification.
Except when it refers to the New Testament.What I reject is that a view is infallible DOGMA of the highest certainty and importance if the one teaching it thinks it's true.
Again, I've asked several times if this IS the rubric of the EO but you've never answered that; what I know is that it is NOT the view of the RCC. In fact, the Catholic Catechism states that it is a SIN (and thus, IMHO, not loving) to spread a story about someone UNLESS IT IS SUBSTANTIATED. Substantiation is the issue, not if all those spreading the story think it's true or have faith in it; not if it's about Christ (and thus Christocentric) or about some other person. The issue is this: Is it substantiated as true. Again, I confess I don't know the EO position, maybe Orthodox believe that if a story is told, it is thereby dogma of the highest importance and greatest certainty that all must know and to deny such is to be a heretic and thereby salvation is in question. Maybe the EO is of that position, I don't know, but the CC is not.
You have assigned that understanding to the RCC, but have failed to regard the specific in the light of the whole; even your evaluation of the RCC is most narrowly anthropocentric, with you as the measure not their own belief. And not Christ.
So, contrary to what you posted, faith is NOT the issue since their faith is just as strong, just as sincere, just as real as yours.
So, contrary to your whole argument, epistemology IS important. A statement IS accountable and SHOULD be substantiated. Funny how you take it upon yourself to toss out Mormon faith as invalid and yet are screaming that the CC and EO have no need to substantiate whether Mary did or did not have sex. Interesting. You seem to contradict your whole apologetic.
No, what is primary and central is faith in the God-man Jesus Christ. Not faith in just anything. Not faith in an anthropocentric view; this is my disagreement with the Mormons and with you. Neither exhibit Christocentrism.
The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of MARY is about Mary.
It is NOT about Christ.
So, using your rubric here, you've given us only one choice.
But lest people do it, I'd invite them to examine your apologetic and position.
This is exactly your anthropocentric theology showing again. You do not place Christ, but yourself as the light through which to evaluate at the center of your evaluation. As if to say "it can only be understood as CaliforniaJosiah can understand it, and it can have no other meaning except his understanding of it". This is why your responses are endlessly repetative, ie non-responsive.
Yes, flesh does not enliven itself
But I do wonder, per your citation, why you would insist that it was essential that after bearing the God-man Christ, and constantly living in His presence, Mary would be occupied with matters of the flesh in marriage ?
You keep reversing the doctrines....
Of the 30,000 denominations Catholics insist exist,
29,998 have NO dogma, doctrine or even official viewpoint on how often Mary had sex (if at all) after Jesus was born.
But one has dogma about it (she had sex not once)
One has doctrine about it (also that she never did).
Please recall who has the dogma and doctrine and who does not.
And please recall the subject: Sexual intercourse and Mary.
.
It's about sex.
When the heretics and simple blasphemers refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the "brothers and sisters of Jesus," they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:
a) In the Gospels there are named four "brothers" (James, Joses, Simon and Jude), and there are also mentioned the "sisters" of Jesus—no fewer than three, as is evident in the words: and His sisters, are they not ALL with us? (Matt. 13:56).
On the other hand, b) in the account of the journey to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy Jesus, where there is mention of the "kinsfolk and acquaintances" (Luke 2:44) in the midst of whom they were seeking Jesus, and where it is likewise mentioned that Mary and Joseph every year journeyed from faraway Galilee to Jerusalem, no reason is given to think that there were present other younger children with Mary: it was thus that the first twelve years of the Lord's earthly life proceeded.
c) When, about twenty years after the above-mentioned journey, Mary stood at the cross of the Lord, she was alone, and she was entrusted by her Divine Son to His disciple John; and from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (John 19:27). Evidently, as the ancient Christians also understood it, the Evangelists speak either of "half' brothers and sisters or of cousins.
As Bishop Kallistos has written: "Certain doctrines, never formally defined, are yet held by the Church with an unmistakable inner conviction, an unruffled unanimity, which is just as binding as an explicit formulation. 'Some things we have from written teaching,' said St. Basil, 'others we have received from the Apostolic Tradition handed down to us in a mystery; and both these things have the same force for piety.' [On the Holy Spirit, xvii, 66] This inner Tradition 'handed down to us in a mystery' is preserved above all in the Church's worship. Lex orandi lex credendi: our faith is expressed in our prayer. Orthodoxy has made few explicit definitions about the Eucharist and the other Sacraments, about the next world, the Mother of God, the saints, and the faithful departed: our belief on these points is contained mainly in the prayers and hymns used at services." (The Orthodox Church, [Penguin Books, 1993] pp. 204-5).
But the word "until" does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word "until" and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God's righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (ICor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, "On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.") The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
It seems you are doing everything you think you possibly can to not discuss the dogma before us.You see the "dogma" in that light, as "about the sex life of a person" because you evaluate anthropocentrically with yourself and your opinion as the measure of all things.Josiah said:The Dogma of Mary Had No Sex EVER is entirely about the sex life of a PERSON. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it anthropocentric.
You keep trying to defeat your own apologetics.
Josiah said:
Again, I've asked several times if this IS the rubric of the EO but you've never answered that; what I know is that it is NOT the view of the RCC. In fact, the Catholic Catechism states that it is a SIN (and thus, IMHO, not loving) to spread a story about someone UNLESS IT IS SUBSTANTIATED. Substantiation is the issue, not if all those spreading the story think it's true or have faith in it; not if it's about Christ (and thus Christocentric) or about some other person. The issue is this: Is it substantiated as true. Again, I confess I don't know the EO position, maybe Orthodox believe that if a story is told, it is thereby dogma of the highest importance and greatest certainty that all must know and to deny such is to be a heretic and thereby salvation is in question. Maybe the EO is of that position, I don't know, but the CC is not.
Great. The Mormon faith that CHRIST founded the LDS is one you regard as accountable and you appoint yourself to arbitrate the matter and you dismiss it because it's not about Christ. Then (without even taking a breath), you state that the Catholic and Orthodox faith that MARY never had sexual intercourse is not accountable and MUST be dogmatically correct because it's about Christ. Odd. Very odd.Josiah said:
So, contrary to what you posted, faith is NOT the issue since their faith is just as strong, just as sincere, just as real as yours.
So, contrary to your whole argument, epistemology IS important. A statement IS accountable and SHOULD be substantiated. Funny how you take it upon yourself to toss out Mormon faith as invalid and yet are screaming that the CC and EO have no need to substantiate whether Mary did or did not have sex. Interesting. You seem to contradict your whole apologetic.
No, what is primary and central is faith in the God-man Jesus Christ. Not faith in just anything.
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?