Speak lovingly of Mary

[Rick Otto]

Your prof, the big foot, etc....are not in any reseamblance have anything to do with the Theotokos... Your paradigms could be from the Bible... but what they have to do with Theotokos it beats me aswell all others here...

Speak for yourself, sister. The man is making perfect sense & you are being obstinately ignorant.
Ratifying a rumor doesn't make it any less a rumor.
His "paradagm" is that your PV dogma is a fantasy with nothing more than a rumor as its basis.
There is nothing complicated about that except it exposes a fundamental weakness in the ediface you believe to be "the one true church".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Philothei,

If you read it, was this "explanation" you specifically asked for helpful to you?



Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

IF you actually want to know, read all that follows. Otherwise, skip this post.




I love, adore, revere, and in a sense worship Our Blessed Lady, who is the Mother of God and chief among the saints. I love her more than my own mother.

BECAUSE of this, I respect her and believe that we must speak the truth about her. All generations are to call her blessed! The issue of this thread, created by our Catholic friend IS EXACTLY THE POINT HERE: Is it distinctively loving and respectful to spread stories about someone if it is not substantiated that such is true? However well intended. However popular the rumor.

I realize that those in 3 denominations believe it IS true, of course they do. In fact, they insist that it is true to the very highest level of certainty and importance. Okay. I accept that they BELIEVE it is, just as Mormons believe some things about Joseph Smith and millions believe in Bigfoot and alien abductions - I'm NOT at all, in any way or to any degree, questioning anyone's sincerity here. It is a nearly universal characteristic of rumors that they are popularly held to be true. We all know that. So, the issue is singular: Is it TRUE (not, do many believe it is)?

The Catholic Catechism (correctly, I believe) states that to spread a rumor (a popularly held, often believed but unsubstantiated story or report) is a sin. It specifically lists spreading rumors as an common violation of the command: "Bear no false witness." My accompany book to the Catechism explains that rumors are often popular, usually believed and may be spread innocently BUT (it stresses) it is a horrible sin for it bears false witness - and the one doing so is aware that they story carries with it no substantiation. The RCC calls spreading rumors to be a SIN. IMHO, sinning against someone is not loving them. Do you agree? Do you follow me?

Now, IF we were talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, or even whether it is DOGMA that Bigfoot exists, maybe the rumor would be fairly "harmless" (can sin be harmless?). But this obsession about Mary's supremely private, extremely intimate, altogether personal "relationships" with her husband hardly seems harmless. It seems enormous in its potential to offend, hurt, embarrass and even anger. AND I know all the Catholics and Orthodox agree with me on this. No Catholic or Orthodox married person is posting that it is a matter of supreme importance for all 6.5 billion people on the planet (kids included) to KNOW to the highest degree of certainty how often they have sex with their spouse (if at all). The very thought of such causes them to reply with offense and perhaps anger, and perhaps with a "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, BOZO!" And, I completely agree with them. I just wonder why they are SO sure, SO entirely certain - to the very highest level of certainty - that Mary has a 180 degree different feeling about this. And of course, they KNOW how often they have sex, they don't know how often Mary did, it's a rumor. Read the next paragraph.

When people ask, our of love and respect for Our Blessed Lady, how do you KNOW this to be true and what permission do you have to share this (VERY necessary questions), the odd thing is: no one replies. All we get is pages and pages of "The ones who believe it believe it!" Okay, that's typically how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving). Perhaps we get, "It's believed by lots of people!" Okay, that's typicially how it is with rumors (which the RCC condemns as sin and thus unloving) - and the same could be said of alien abductions or Bigfoot. Sometimes we get the "a wife sharing loving marital intimacies with her husband makes her defiled, sinful, horrible, dirty, impure - and Mary can't be those things." It doesn't substantiate a thing and reveals a pretty sexist, unbiblical view of women, marital intimacies and the Sacrament of Marriage. Occasionally one offers some Scriptures, but OBVIOUSLY they don't teach that Mary always remained a virgin, as all immediately notice. The view is simply IMPUTED into the texts - it is the INTERPETATION of the texts that "supports" the view, not the texts. All this is very obvious. Read on...

Now, we are speaking of faith here, not mathematics, so of course I don't expect a "bar" of proof. ALL I've asked for, ALL ANY PROTESTANT HERE HAS ASKED FOR, is "substantiation" of a nature and level that you'd accept from others. If I said, "It is dogma that Philothei has sex 2.6 times per week, on average" - what substantiation for that would YOU regard as sufficient to verify that statement to the level of dogma? Or if a Mormon says, "it is dogma that God has a Grandma" (It's not, although many Mormons do believe that - it probably does qualify as a Mormon rumor, just not dogma), what substantiation form that Mormon would you accept? Read on...

OF COURSE, you can (just like the Mormon) insist, "It's true because the one spreading the rumor says it is." And if you accept that from the Mormon, I'll accept it from you. But what you need to acknowledge is that this isn't substantiation at all, of any nature or level, it's just looking in the mirror. AGAIN, if we weren't talking about someone I so very much LOVE and RESPECT (the issues of this thread!), if this were about Bigfoot or whatever, I probably wouldn't care. But this is entirely about the surpremely private sex life of my Mother. The potential here for hurt, pain, anger, offense to Her and thus to Her Son is ENORMOUS!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE I love Our Blessed Lady, I think we need more than, "the one who is spreading the rumor about her says it's true." And it seems obvious, that's all you got.


IF you read this, I hope you better understand my perspective and "issue."



Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

Speak for yourself, sister. The man is making perfect sense & you are being obstinately ignorant.
Ratifying a rumor doesn't make it any less a rumor.
His "paradagm" is that your PV dogma is a fantasy with nothing more than a rumor as its basis.
There is nothing complicated about that except it exposes a fundamental weakness in the ediface you believe to be "the one true church".

hi, Rick --

I do mean my question honestly, though it really hasn't been addressed: we are persistently asked to provide explicit evidence from the Bible (which, as explained, is really a 'foreign standard' as applied here) as extant written evidence from the 1st and 2nd century is absent, yet there is no conclusive evidence that the NT is the "same" as whatever the 1st century (orig) texts were. Why this double standard ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

His "paradagm" is that your PV dogma is a fantasy with nothing more than a rumor as its basis.
There is nothing complicated about that except it exposes a fundamental weakness in the ediface you believe to be "the one true church".

I'm actually saying a lot more than that.
Because the point of this thread is: IS IT LOVING?
THAT is my primary concern.
According to the Catholic Catechism, is spreading a rumor about someone distinctively LOVING toward them?

Friend, this is not a pure academic issue like how many angels fit on the head of a pin or even if alchemy and Aristotle were dogmatically correct. This is a story and report about my Mother, an entirely and completely moot issue that frankly is none of our business, a matter that is intensively intimate, extremely private, profoundly personal, and potentially very hurtful, painful , embarrassing and offensive to Our Blessed Lady and therefore to Her Son, our Lord. Spread rumors about me, okay, do so about my mothers sex life and that's another issue. And YES, our Catholic friend WarriorAngel, framed this entire discussion around the question of: IS THIS LOVING? Our whole discussion here is about whether this dogmatic obsession over Mary's sex life is distinctively LOVING toward her. IF all our Catholic and Orthodox friends here were posting all the details of their personal sexuality and insisting that the most loving thing we could do for them is tell all 6.5 billion people (including kids) about this as a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty and to deny such is to be a heretic - their argument MIGHT have a tiny point, but the very thougt seems to offend them - and yet they are dogmatically CERTAIN that Mary has the exact opposite view (without a shred of anything from Mary to confirm that).

Now, even if it is entirely moot and God (in His love and respect) said nothing about this in His Holy Scriptures, none of our business, and Mary never authorized anything about this, I yield it's no a rumor IF it's substantiated in a manner the RCC itself acknowledges as valid from others and to the level necessary for the highest level of importance and certainty. But what is OBVIOUS from these 148 pages is that they not only don't have that, they don't have anything. Just "The one spreading this moot and remarkably private rumor says it's true THEREFORE it's dogma." So, if one spread a rumor that Senators Obama and Clinton have sex every night," that's a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that all must be told and believe (and if they don't, they are heretics and their salvation in question). Why? Because the one spreading the rumor says it's true. Interesting epistemology, huh? Makes Mormon apologetics look amazingly scholarly and convincing in comparison. AND AGAIN, we're not talking about some purely academic point, we're talking about a supremely private, personal, intimate aspect of the marital relationship of our Mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



:o:o:o:o





.

 

[MamaZ]

As Apostle Paul tell us we are to prove all things.. This dogma of Mary being a PV has not been proven by scripture which is what God has given us of His revelation and standard. So therefore if it cannot be proven by the scriptures then it would be rumor..

 

[Thekla]

So, based on the standards here iterated per teachings on the Virgin Mary in the non-EO/OO/RC, it is acceptable to hold as pious opinion the teachings from The DaVinci Code on Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

We are told by Apostle Paul to prove all things.. Not just accept things that are spoken to us..
This is the practice you find commended in the Bereans, in the Acts of the Apostles. They did not take the Apostle Paul's word for granted, when he came to preach to them. You are told, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so," and "therefore," it is said, "many of them believed."

 

[Thekla]

We are told by Apostle Paul to prove all things.. Not just accept things that are spoken to us..
This is the practice you find commended in the Bereans, in the Acts of the Apostles. They did not take the Apostle Paul's word for granted, when he came to preach to them. You are told, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so," and "therefore," it is said, "many of them believed."

So if you teach that Christ was unmarried or celibate, as there is no explicit teaching in the Bible on the matter, you are "spreading rumors" ?

 

[MamaZ]

There is nothing even spoken of Jesus being Married.. But with Mary there are things spoken of about Joseph keeping her a virgin until.. There are passages where we see men speaking of Jesus brothers and sisters.. This word game you play is only because you cannot prove through scripture that this PV is truth so the word game play comes out.. It could mean but it doesn't have to mean.. Ect ect.. Therefore since it was not ever mentioned that Christ had a wife..why would anyone even consider this to be true? That would be adding to the truth of Gods scripture..

 

[Rick Otto]

hi, Rick --

I do mean my question honestly, though it really hasn't been addressed: we are persistently asked to provide explicit evidence from the Bible (which, as explained, is really a 'foreign standard' as applied here) as extant written evidence from the 1st and 2nd century is absent, yet there is no conclusive evidence that the NT is the "same" as whatever the 1st century (orig) texts were. Why this double standard ?

It isn't realy a double standard, speaking for Josiah & myself because we are not requiring scriptural statements of the fact, we are looking for ANY statement of the fact that could be remotely considered plausible.

If I'm not mistaken, the best you've provided is antiquated statements of belief in the purported-as-dogma fact, but no statements of PV fact regardless of origin.
The betrothal, cousins, & OT prefigurement approaches are all arguable and don't speak directly to the issue like a statement of fact would.

 

[Thekla]

There is nothing even spoken of Jesus being Married.. But with Mary there are things spoken of about Joseph keeping her a virgin until.. There are passages where we see men speaking of Jesus brothers and sisters.. This word game you play is only because you cannot prove through scripture that this PV is truth so the word game play comes out.. It could mean but it doesn't have to mean.. Ect ect.. Therefore since it was not ever mentioned that Christ had a wife..why would anyone even consider this to be true? That would be adding to the truth of Gods scripture..

1. I may be missing one or some of the OT prophecies concerning Christ, but from what I know there is nothing that says the Messiah will remain unmarried.

2. Please stop with the accusations of "word games" ! I am NOT playing word games. I am explaining what the word means: it is perfectly clear that we "select from" those definitions based on our respective traditions.

3. The point stands: you cannot PROVE that the teaching in the DaVinci code is wrong based on Scripture.

 

[MamaZ]

Sure we can.. For nothing in scripture even suggests that Jesus was married.. Never mentions His wife.. We are to prove all things.. Not just believe all things.. With Mary it cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt that she remained a virgin. Not through scripture.. Jesus tells us that Gods word is truth.. So if someone comes and tells us things that cannot be proven with scripture how can it be truth? Can you or anyone else prove with scripture that Jesus was married?

 

[Thekla]

Sure we can.. For nothing in scripture even suggests that Jesus was married.. Never mentions His wife.. We are to prove all things.. Not just believe all things.. With Mary it cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt that she remained a virgin. Not through scripture.. Jesus tells us that Gods word is truth.. So if someone comes and tells us things that cannot be proven with scripture how can it be truth? Can you or anyone else prove with scripture that Jesus was married?

Neither can be proven or disproven, nor can celibacy for that matter.

Per the standards of some here, as dogma requires explicit statement from the scriptures, and no explicit statement is made in scripture, no dogma stating either position can be made and therefore anyone may hold either view as a pious opinion.

To wit: The DaVinci Code is just as likely right as wrong.

 

[Rick Otto]

Thekla, your example defeats your argument.
The marriage of Jesus would be too significant not to be mentioned.
His celebacy is a completely plausible inferance. It requires no OT pefigurement, it involves no argument over familial relationships or the exact translation of terms.
We could argue Jesus never had a bowel movement but would it be plausible?

 

[Thekla]

Thekla, your example defeats your argument.
The marriage of Jesus would be too significant not to be mentioned.
His celebacy is a completely plausible inferance. It requires no OT pefigurement, it involves no argument over familial relationships or the exact translation of terms.
We could argue Jesus never had a bowel movement but would it be plausible?

"Too significant not to be mentioned" assumes that everything significant is mentioned (per Christ) in the Bible. I am not aware of any passages that explicitly state that. Inference is not explicit; if dogma (as said here) requires explicit attestation, re: this matter there can be no dogmatic statement made on the matter.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"Too significant not to be mentioned" assumes that everything significant is mentioned (per Christ) in the Bible. I am not aware of any passages that explicitly state that. Inference is not explicit; if dogma (as said here) requires explicit attestation, re: this matter there can be no dogmatic statement made on the matter.

Greetings Thekla! How about giving some input on this Luke thread. This is one of the main Gospels concerning the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus. Pweeese

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7289245
The GT Commentary on Luke

 

[MamaZ]

It has been stated by some that Mary is a PV.. This is to be believed. In fact because of this statement many hold Mary to a position that cannot be proven by scripture.. Therefore if we are to prove all things and Apostle Paul tells us we are then I can honosty say this has not been proven.

 

[Thekla]

It has been stated by some that Mary is a PV.. This is to be believed. In fact because of this statement many hold Mary to a position that cannot be proven by scripture.. Therefore if we are to prove all things and Apostle Paul tells us we are then I can honosty say this has not been proven.

But we can honestly say that the teachings of The DaVinci Code cannot be disproven using the Bible, nor can we prove the authenticity of the NT.

 

[Philothei]

It has been stated by some that Mary is a PV.. This is to be believed. In fact because of this statement many hold Mary to a position that cannot be proven by scripture.. Therefore if we are to prove all things and Apostle Paul tells us we are then I can honosty say this has not been proven.

so according to you we believe ONLYwhat is in the bible....
Then Christ's celibacy (that is not declared in the bible) is questionable?
Also:
Show me where in the Bible it says that we are to believe ONLY what is in the Bible...


.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; "Too significant not to be mentioned" assumes that everything significant is mentioned (per Christ) in the Bible.

Agreed.

I am not aware of any passages that explicitly state that.

Is that what you realy mean, or do you mean that this passage is somehow unconvincing?:
2Tim3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.




Inference is not explicit; if dogma (as said here) requires explicit attestation, re: this matter there can be no dogmatic statement made on the matter.

Well, on top of that last passage, we have the Berean example:
Acts 17:10-15 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Do you need more?