Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

UB sorry for my reaction but I get pretty upset when some (not you) show such disrespect... I know what it means.. and even in Greek it is not a big deal Aeiparthenos is ever virgin....but still calling her that does not justify why we should... We have to keep the integrity of the Bible anyways that is why I do not get it!!! What is the big deal of showing respect?

The Myriam "concept" of ever virginity is not one that is based only on "pure speculation" rahter on tradition though...

I would understand the "immaculate conception" is an "add on" made dogma with RC though and I will not comment on that ....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

[quote=Philothei;48444991]It offends you as you show no respect....[/quote]


I'm not the one dogmatically insisting that Mary had no sex ever. That's YOUR position.

YOU are the one insisting that the issue of the frequency of sex among Mary and Joseph is an issue of greatest importance. That's NOT my position, it's yours. IF you think such is offensive, take it up with your denomination, it is the one insisting on it and teaching it as dogma. And IF you think this is offense, why do you think it's loving to insist on dogmatically teaching something that is offensive (the issue of this thread)?

I don't know what issues you have with sex (or the lack thereof) but whatever "issues" you have, I don't share them. There's NOTHING wrong with not having had sex ( applies to me) and there's NOTHING wrong with the loving, mutual sex among married persons. If you disagree and dogmatically insist that sex is wrong among married persons, then that's another issue for another day, thread and forum. And yes, I'll disagree with you. (Odd how this distain for marital sex - at least for the wife - always comes out in this discussion, IMHO it IS the reason for this dogma)





.

 

[Rick Otto]

virgin=hasn't had sex.
perpetual virgin = NEVER had sex.

With the surgical redefinition made possible by the sophistication of Latin, I was prepared to think "perpetual virginity" meant she kept her virginity in spite of sex.
Seriously.

 

[Philothei]

no. not the matter of showing respect. the matter of how it seems impossible in the minds of those who believe in the PV that someone could be set aside for a holy purpose... AND have sexual relations with their spouse. The priesthood of the EO and RC denote this. They are somehow more "holy" because they don't get to have sex. It's a rather foolish thought. Virginity does not immediately give holiness, nor does a sexually active person have less access to holiness.

Hey UB we have married priest and I am married to one....LOL I never considered that an married pirest cannot attain holiness or a married person the fact we have many married sainst in Orthodoxy witness to that.

Also Mary was not ONLY Virgin but also Holy. I agree be a virgin does not quarantee you any Holiness... But like I said before Mary's virginity is present in many writings, that stem from oral tradition. The reason the Church did not make it "dogma" right off is so that it did not want to 'encourage' the focus on Mary. People already knew that Theotokos was a "special" to God but not in terms of God "putting her aside" for that purpose. Rahter she, out of her own free will, decided to dedicate her life to God.

The way I see it is that she was young and Joseph was very old. She did not have any more children. She was an apostle (equal to the apostles) that right there would have made her and ever virgin...since she was doing missionary work. We know very well that some of the Apostles left their families also and evangelized... not all of them took their families with them. From what we know about Mary and the "life styles" of the first Christians many like Thekla too were living "virgin lives" or like Josaih likes to call it "no-sex lives" .... And later many went to become ascetics in the Dessert.

 

[Uphill Battle]

UB sorry for my reaction but I get pretty upset when some (not you) show such disrespect...

alrighty. No need to apologize. But I think there is a disconnect on what disrespect is or is not. It's not as if someone who uses the "no sex" term is accusing Mary of being a common slattern or some foolishness such as that. They merely used a modern coliquial term.

I know what it means.. and even in Greek it is not a big deal Aeiparthenos is ever virgin....but still calling her that does not justify why we should... We have to keep the integrity of the Bible anyways that is why I do not get it!!! What is the big deal of showing respect?

there is no big deal in showing respect. Again, it's a disconnect on what two people find respectful/disrespectful. I myself can't see the problem with the words "no sex." ah well.

The Myriam "concept" of ever virginity is not one that is based only on "pure speculation" rahter on tradition though...

yes, I know. Tradition... that seems to have a phantom beginning. some traditions would be far easier to accept... if they had any substatiation beyond "well, we've always believed this." When in reality, all that can be substatiated, is that it has been believed for a long time (something that even those who don't accept it do not deny) and no scriptural basis.

I would understand the "immaculate conception" is an "add on" made dogma with RC though and I will not comment on that ....

which is why I am closer to EO, than RC... if by only a hair.

 

[Philothei]

I'm not the one dogmatically insisting that Mary had no sex ever. That's YOUR position.

YOU are the one insisting that the issue of the frequency of sex among Mary and Joseph is an issue of greatest importance. That's NOT my position, it's yours. IF you think such is offensive, take it up with your denomination, it is the one insisting on it and teaching it as dogma. And IF you think this is offense, why do you think it's loving to insist on dogmatically teaching something that is offensive (the issue of this thread)?

I don't know what issues you have with sex (or the lack thereof) but whatever "issues" you have, I don't share them. There's NOTHING wrong with not having had sex ( applies to me) and there's NOTHING wrong with the loving, mutual sex among married persons. If you disagree and dogmatically insist that sex is wrong among married persons, then that's another issue for another day, thread and forum. And yes, I'll disagree with you. (Odd how this distain for marital sex - at least for the wife - always comes out in this discussion, IMHO it IS the reason for this dogma)

I just find the word sex not in the New Testament... Do you? I insist it is a matter of respect for any human being regardless... So if you keep using it ...go ahead It does not offend me ....

I have no intentions to tell you my private life and neither I am conserned about yours... You do not have to be so defensive... or you are having issues.......

I do not.

I do not wish to use it for we are talking about holy people. If you do not understand what it means to speak with respect.... not my problem either. If you are doing to flame though (which I suspect you do...) then you got my attention... bravo... you win

case closed mr. josiah.

 

[Philothei]

yes, I know. Tradition... that seems to have a phantom beginning. some traditions would be far easier to accept... if they had any substatiation beyond "well, we've always believed this." When in reality, all that can be substatiated, is that it has been believed for a long time (something that even those who don't accept it do not deny) and no scriptural basis.

But it was oral tradition that gave us the Bible though... think about it...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Hey UB we have married priest and I am married to one....LOL I never considered that an married pirest cannot attain holiness or a married person the fact we have many married sainst in Orthodoxy witness to that.

yeah. There is a certain level in the Orthodox church that you must be a celibate though, correct? it is bishop? Sometimes, regrettably, I blur the lines between RC and EO.

Also Mary was not ONLY Virgin but also Holy. I agree be a virgin does not quarantee you any Holiness... But like I said before Mary's virginity is present in many writings, that stem from oral tradition. The reason the Church did not make it "dogma" right off is so that it did not want to 'encourage' the focus on Mary. People already knew that Theotokos was a "special" to God but not in terms of God "putting her aside" for that purpose. Rahter she, out of her own free will, decided to dedicate her life to God.

and I'd mostly agree. I just don't see how her virginity (or lack therof) after the birth of Jesus, is of any note whatsoever.

The way I see it is that she was young and Joseph was very old.

debatable. Again, based soley on tradition.

She did not have any more children.

debatable. Again, based soley on traditon.

She was an apostle (equal to the apostles) that right there would have made her and ever virgin...since she was doing missionary work. We know very well that some of the Apostles left their families also and evangelized... not all of them took their families with them.

huh? that doesn't make sense. We know she was a virgin, because SOME of the Apostles left their families for missionary work? that makes no sense. even if they DID leave their families, that doesn't make them virgins! beyond which, they did not all do so, scripture states as much, when Paul asks if it isn't fair for the Apostles to bring their believing wife along... (paraphrased, of course.) that seems a logic leap.

From what we know about Mary and the "life styles" of the first Christians many like Thekla too were living "virgin lives" or like Josaih likes to call it "no-sex lives" .... And later many went to become ascetics in the Dessert.

the ascetics in the desert is another topic that we'd likely not see eye to eye on.

 

[Kristos]

Howdy folks!

I thought some of this was covered like 300 posts ago, but perhaps it needs repeating.

Mary's EV, is not dogma nor doctrine in the EOC. Why not? I suppose because it was never really challenged by a major heresy. Why not? I suppose because, although believed, it's not essential to our understanding of Christ/Incarnation/Salvation/etc.

Source? Holy Tradition has many components. 1) Scripture: As has been stated (and I'm sure you disagree) that the prophecy in Ezekiel is referring to Mary - that the gate would be shut. No smoking gun, I agree, but a piece of the puzzle. 2) Writings of the saints and ECFs: The Infancy Gospel of James (written in the early 2nd century - within a generation of the other Gospels) spells it all out very plainly. Many of the EOCs beliefs about Mary's life originate in this work. You might protest because this is not Scriptural - true, but we are not talking about dogma, so historical/apocryphal books are certainly allowed. 3) Liturgy. The EV of Mary is directly spoken in many of the EOC services dating back to 4th century 4) Art. I think posted it in this thread already, but icons of Mary have included 3 stars since at least the 5th century, symbolizing here virginity before, during and after the Incarnation.

So, this belief, based on Holy Tradition, has not just appeared out of thin air. Rather, it is present in every aspect of Tradition. It has been present since very close to the beginning (documented anyway) and so is assumed to be from the beginning as that believed by the apostles. For me, I may not understand it, I may not like it - but with the faith of a child I believe it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have no intentions to tell you my private life and neither I am conserned about yours...

Understood, and respected.
You'll notice, I didn't ask you how often you and your spouse have sex or anything else about the sexual aspects of your relationship with your husband. To be blunt, this is - at very least - respectful. And (to be frank), it's none of my business (or anyone else's) only you and your loving spouse.

Thus, my confusion about why it IS respectful to be so obsessed (to the level of dogma) over how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. If you have no intentions of telling us how often you and your husband have intercourse, and you have no intentions (or interest) in how often I have had intercourse (I'm VERY curious WHY you don't????), then why do you insist on dogmatically stating how often Mary did?




I love, adore, esteem, revere, adorate and in a certain sense worship Our Blessed Lady - the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven. She is chief among all the saints besides simply being the one our Lord so loves. IMHO (and you are required to disagree), this means we should respect her and her privacy. IMHO (and you are required to disagree), respect for a person includes respecting truth about them. The Catholic Catechism states that spreading rumors is a horrible violation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and it defines "rumor" as "a popularly held but unsubstanted report." Thus, by definition, the whole issue is the substantiation. And (please not), we aren't just addressing the issue of love and respect for the Mother of God but we are also addressing the potenial of sin.

The issue of the Perpetual (always) Virginty (no sex) of Mary is singular: Mary and Joseph never had intercourse after Jesus was born. THAT is the dogma. I realize it has all kinds of implications for Catholics (I assume the same for Orthodox), I've heard them all, but they are implications of the dogma. The dogma is simple and direct and ENTIRELY about how often this couple had sex (I realize the East has a tradition that they never married, in which case the entire dogma is moot and absolutely unnecessary).

I am uncomfortable with this obsession about this intimate, supremely private, very personal aspect of Our Lady's life and all the sermons, songs, school discussions, it's status as DOGMA, NOT because I don't love and respect Her but because I do. I don't regard as the highest level of importance and truth how often my sister and her spouse have sex (as if I knew) and I love and respect Our Lady more than I love my sister. If I found zillions of websites aboaut how often she has sex, I'd be less concerned than I am about the DOGMA about the frequency of sex by the Mother of God.

To ME, it's all about love and respect.
And that point in the Catholic Catechism about rumors, substantiation, and violating the Ten Commandments.

This thread is all about showing Her respect, and thus Her Son.









.

 

[Philothei]

How is it sinful and where in the Bible it says that we are not to call the Mother of Christ Virgin?

 

[katholikos]

...To ME, it's all about love and respect. And that point in the Catholic Catechism about rumors, substantiation, and violating the Ten Commandments....

I'm, not sure what the heck thats supposed to mean, but I sure wish you'd start a thread on whatever it is because I don't like it.

.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have no intentions to tell you my private life and neither I am conserned about yours...

Understood, and respected. You'll notice, I didn't ask you how often you and your spouse have sex or anything else about the sexual aspects of your relationship with your husband. To be blunt, this is - at very least - respectful. And (to be frank), it's none of my business (or anyone else's) only you and your loving spouse.


Thus, my confusion about why it IS respectful to be so obsessed (to the level of dogma) over how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born. If you have no intentions of telling us how often you and your husband have intercourse, and you have no intentions (or interest) in how often I have had intercourse (I'm VERY curious WHY you don't????), then why do you insist on dogmatically stating how often Mary did?




I love, adore, esteem, revere, adorate and in a certain sense worship Our Blessed Lady - the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven. She is chief among all the saints besides simply being the one our Lord so loves. IMHO (and you are required to disagree), this means we should respect her and her privacy. IMHO (and you are required to disagree), respect for a person includes respecting truth about them. The Catholic Catechism states that spreading rumors is a horrible violation of the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and it defines "rumor" as "a popularly held but unsubstanted report." Thus, by definition, the whole issue is the substantiation. And (please not), we aren't just addressing the issue of love and respect for the Mother of God but we are also addressing the potenial of sin.


The issue of the Perpetual (always) Virginty (no sex) of Mary is singular: Mary and Joseph never had intercourse after Jesus was born. THAT is the dogma. I realize it has all kinds of implications for Catholics (I assume the same for Orthodox), I've heard them all, but they are implications of the dogma. The dogma is simple and direct and ENTIRELY about how often this couple had sex (I realize the East has a tradition that they never married, in which case the entire dogma is moot and absolutely unnecessary).


I am uncomfortable with this obsession about this intimate, supremely private, very personal aspect of Our Lady's life and all the sermons, songs, school discussions, it's status as DOGMA, NOT because I don't love and respect Her but because I do. I don't regard as the highest level of importance and truth how often my sister and her spouse have sex (as if I knew) and I love and respect Our Lady more than I love my sister. If I found zillions of websites aboaut how often she has sex, I'd be less concerned than I am about the DOGMA about the frequency of sex by the Mother of God.


To ME, it's all about love and respect.
And that point in the Catholic Catechism about rumors, substantiation, and violating the Ten Commandments.

This thread is all about showing Her respect, and thus Her Son.

I'm, not sure what the heck thats supposed to mean, but I sure don't like it.

.

Okay.

I have no idea what questions you have but I already knew that you would not like what I posted.





.

 

[katholikos]

.

If you're going to quote me, don't edit my sentences!!! You said

And that point in the Catholic Catechism about rumors, substantiation, and violating the Ten Commandments.

And I said:

I'm not sure what the heck thats supposed to mean, but I sure wish you'd start a thread on whatever it is because I don't like it.

 

[Philothei]

Josaih you are either "interested" in suporting her virginity or not or you would not be posting....

So... you are as guilty for 'disrespecting' her as we are supporting the opposite... of what we believe. You are making a straw man out of your claim.

Secondly, you are saying she was Not a virgin. That needs to be proven as much as our position thus by denying it does not make you right as you have not proven so....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

you are saying she was Not a virgin. That needs to be proven as much as our position

You're not reading what is posted.....


No, the issue here is the DOGMA of the PERPETUAL (always) VIRGINITY (no sex) specifically of MARY. This is a dogma in the RCC and EO. No Protestant denomination has any dogma at all about how often she had sex (or not) after Jesus was born. This is the issue of TWO denominations (and both of them an issue of the highest certainty and importance). It's YOUR issue. It's YOUR obsession. It's YOURS to substantiate and defend.

I'm glad to agree that you DO need to "prove" your position. I'm eagerly awaiting that.




.

 

[Philothei]

You came to this thread to disprove that she is a 'perpetual virgin' and that is YOUR claim. We EO and RC believe and are very secure about our beliefs. Since you have th objection you can present your evidence. This thread is about her presence and her honor to her as a person, a saint and a Virgin that is one of her "names" of who she is as a saint. It was recorded in the Deurocannocial gospels and other writings that she was indeed so.... That is our evidence. I am looking forward to yours or then your presence here is to get this thread off topic.

 

[Philothei]

http://members.aol.com/linden59/bvm.html









Speak lovingly.

This is the OP God bless you all

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You came to this thread to disprove that she is a 'perpetual virgin' and that is YOUR claim.

You're not reading the posts here....

We EO and RC believe and are very secure about our beliefs.

Mormons are also sincere and secure in their beliefs.
Is your rubric that if one is secure, then one is dogmatically correct?

It was recorded in the Deurocannocial gospels and other writings that she was indeed so....

Nope.


Now, what did I post that you don't understand and "sure don't like?"






.

 

[Philothei]

You're not reading the posts here....

Nope I just did... You want to engage into conversation without any effort... not going to happen...

Mormons are also sincere and secure in their beliefs.
Is your rubric that if one is secure, then one is dogmatically correct?

That is a straw man I am talking about RC and EO not mormons... They do lack tradition.

Nope...

Any one can deny it .. .why so?

Now, what did I post that you don't understand and "sure don't like?"

You said nothing other than you disagree... I brought forth evidence...