Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is NOT "pious opinion" in the Catholic Church. It's dogma. In the EO, is it only a matter of individual, personal pious opinion and spirituality but the EO itself has no official stand on it?



2. Let's say there's a rumor that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have a child together. The ones speading the rumor say its true but I know of no substantiation for it. It may be MY own personal "pious opinion" that it's true. Would you say that it is appropriate and distinctively LOVING (the issue of this thread) for me to spread this story to all of the world's 6.5 billion people? Should I be questioned, even faulted, for doing so? After all, it's my personal pious opinion that the rumor is true.



3. Let's say you are the mother of a 13 year old daughter. She is a good and Christian girl, with highest values, and a virgin. A rumor begins at school that she and this certain 16 year old boy are having sex. Those spreading the rumor all say it's true. Would you counsel your daughter that these people are being surpremely loving toward her (the issue of this thread) because they are spreading a story which they think is true? How would you counsel those girls spreading this story? If you could sit them down, what would you say to those spreading this all over about your daughter?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

But you stated that in your Church either view may be held as a "pious opinion" -- which means some percentage of people who you discuss are holding a view that you decry here as "rumor" and "sin" and "hurtful". So why do you call it "ok" to hold a pious opinion on the matter ?

Moot since it's not a personal pious opinion in your denomination, it's DOGMA.

So essentially you hold that as long as the sin remains in the heart, is kept "secret", its not a sin. Sounds like "the Smiths lookin' good to the Joneses" to me.

The Catholic Catechism specifically states that it is a SIN to spread a rumor. A rumor is a popularly held but unsubstantiated story.

You base your dogma on a text - the bulk of which you can't even substantiate as authentic using your own standards.

The EO accepts the Authority of God's Scriptures. I'm using an authority outside of myself and which is embraced by all Christians, including you.




You didn't address these two points:


2. Let's say there's a rumor that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have a child together. The ones speading the rumor say its true but I know of no substantiation for it. It may be MY own personal "pious opinion" that it's true. Would you say that it is appropriate and distinctively LOVING (the issue of this thread) for me to spread this story to all of the world's 6.5 billion people? Should I be questioned, even faulted, for doing so? After all, it's my personal pious opinion that the rumor is true.



3. Let's say you are the mother of a 13 year old daughter. She is a good and Christian girl, with highest values, and a virgin. A rumor begins at school that she and this certain 16 year old boy are having sex. Those spreading the rumor all say it's true. Would you counsel your daughter that these people are being surpremely loving toward her (the issue of this thread) because they are spreading a story which they think is true? How would you counsel those girls spreading this story? If you could sit them down, what would you say to those spreading this all over about your daughter?






.

 

[Thekla]

you know those kids games, called connect the dots?

It's a rather simple game. you put your pencil one 1, then go to 2, then 3... if you follow the numbers, a picture is revealed.

I beg to differ. It's a huge cover your eyes and pretend if you cannot see that they are married given what is found in scripture. You take a minor technicallity of language, and base a "they were never married" argument to satisfy the perpetual virginity neccessity of your beliefs. It stretches credibility really thin.


horsefeathers. all of this is based on certain assumptions. For instance, we assume that water is wet. We assume that fish swim. etc... etc... I similarly assume that when you have a man betrothed to a woman, who is told by an angel not to fear taking him for his woman, and evidence that he did, and people assuming at the time that they were man and wife.... well then, I can safely "assume" that they were married.

Critical thought, and connecting the dots leads to reading the scripture without a "my church already believes this, how do I make it fit?" mindset.

I'm ennumerating for reference again

1. yup, I know that game -- and still play it, too. We have six children, so you could say I've been playing it for about 44 years, give or take. (I'm 47)

2. nope - I'm saying based on what is in the text, both of our beliefs on the matter are derived from our respective traditions, or from an assumption.

3. connecting the dots can provide both results, as here the dots are not accompanied by numbers, but words whos definitions do not precisely point to either conclusion.

4. (at least) some of the translators of the NT into English have certainly done that in these verses. Perhaps its easier than footnoting to the correct definition, or for some other reason.

 

[Thekla]

Moot since it's not a personal pious opinion in your denomination, it's DOGMA.

moot because you've dogmatically pronounced the point moot !



The Catholic Catechism specifically states that it is a SIN to spread a rumor. A rumor is a popularly held but unsubstantiated story.

1. I'M NOT RC !!!
What does your Church say about rumors, and the state of the heart ? The latter is in the Bible




The EO accepts the Authority of God's Scriptures. I'm using an authority outside of myself and which is embraced by all Christians, including you.




You didn't address these two points:




The EO accepts the scriptures (and this teaching) based on Tradition. What do you accept the scriptures on ? Its certainly NOT (for the bulk of the NT) based on evidence. So what is your standard ?



2. Let's say there's a rumor that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have a child together. The ones speading the rumor say its true but I know of no substantiation for it. It may be MY own personal "pious opinion" that it's true. Would you say that it is appropriate and distinctively LOVING (the issue of this thread) for me to spread this story to all of the world's 6.5 billion people? Should I be questioned, even faulted, for doing so? After all, it's my personal pious opinion that the rumor is true.



You've already been spreading the rumor that the NT is authentic. Anything else is just a consistency in "rumoring" on your part

3. Let's say you are the mother of a 13 year old daughter. She is a good and Christian girl, with highest values, and a virgin. A rumor begins at school that she and this certain 16 year old boy are having sex. Those spreading the rumor all say it's true. Would you counsel your daughter that these people are being surpremely loving toward her (the issue of this thread) because they are spreading a story which they think is true? How would you counsel those girls spreading this story? If you could sit them down, what would you say to those spreading this all over about your daughter?

But you haven't answered my questions LoL

 

[Rick Otto]

You've already been spreading the rumor that the NT is authentic. Anything else is just a consistency in "rumoring" on your part

Not at all. That consensus was reached by examining referencable facts. Just give us a factual reference of the same consensual integrity. Nothing double about that standard. We accept the Virgin Birth dogma because its facts are referenced. We don't believe the PV belief because it has no factual reference. It only has reference to its belief, not its facts.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

4. (at least) some of the translators of the NT into English have certainly done that in these verses. Perhaps its easier than footnoting to the correct definition, or for some other reason.

Greetings Thekla! You should see my translation of Revelation from the 3 main greek texts. I had to use so many brackets, it would take me years to footnote all the variances
I put up chapt 1 over here awhile back but will probably refine it.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7167075&page=3
Revelation Chapter 1 Verses

 

[Thekla]

Not at all. That consensus was reached by examining referencable facts. Just give us a factual reference of the same consensual integrity. Nothing double about that standard. We accept the Virgin Birth dogma because its facts are referenced. We don't believe the PV belief because it has no factual reference. It only has reference to its belief, not its facts.

Hi, Rick -

You accept the Virgin Birth because its in a book you can't even authenticate. You ask for proof based on your standards, yet you can't authenticate the majority of the NT based on the same standards. That's a double standard.

 

[Rick Otto]

The standard is reference of fact. Not objectivity of the source.
There is no standard being imposed for acceptableness of the reference source, so your complaint is ungrounded. We don't ask for authenticated references, we ask for any references (of the facts of her PV). So wether or not the source is authentic is completely beside the point. No double standard. The only standard imposed was that the same standard as is used for RC dogma be imposed.
Authenticating the canon of scripture is larger project than identifying what is in scripture. Yet we will accept statements of PV fact from extra-biblical sources.

I don't believe there are any, and I wonder why this rumor became RC dogma.

 

[Thekla]

The standard is reference of fact. Not objectivity of the source.
There is no standard being imposed for acceptableness of the reference source, so your complaint is ungrounded. We don't ask for authenticated references, we ask for any references (of the facts of her PV). So wether or not the source is authentic is completely beside the point. No double standard. The only standard imposed was that the same standard as is used for RC dogma be imposed.
Authenticating the canon of scripture is larger project than identifying what is in scripture. Yet we will accept statements of PV fact from extra-biblical sources.

I don't believe there are any, and I wonder why this rumor became RC dogma.

I've explained the difference (EO) between kerygma and dogma. You're applying a standard and definition a of dogma alien to EO. So, I'm asking you to apply your standard to yourself.

Absence of winess (if I understand your standard applied here) = absence of fact/authenticity. Apply your standard to the NT, and see how many NT passages remain (based on mention, not authenticated, just mention alone).

 

[Philothei]

acceptableness.... is that a Rick Otto terminology....LOL...

Authenticating the canon of scripture is larger project than identifying what is in scripture. Yet we will accept statements of PV fact from extra-biblical sources.

Since it is a larger project that would mean ...what? That we accept it because we are lazy....LOL.... and we accept it on rumor ONLY....

 

[Rick Otto]

Not requiring a witness.
Just a reference to a fact.

This isn't about establishing what is scripture.
The reference we want doesn't even have to come from scripture.
We just want a mention of it. Not a mention of belief in it, a mention of IT.
There ain't any.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Philothei; acceptableness.... is that a Rick Otto terminology....LOL...

Sorry, I don't get the humor. Are you thinking "acceptableness" isn't a word?
acceptableness

One entry found. Main Entry: ac·cept·able Function: adjective
1: capable or worthy of being accepted <no compromise would be acceptable>2 a: welcome , pleasing <compliments are always acceptable> b: barely satisfactory or adequate <performances varied from excellent to acceptable>
— ac·cept·abil·i·ty noun
— ac·cept·able·ness noun
— ac·cept·ably adverb

Since it is a larger project that would mean ...what? That we accept it because we are lazy....LOL.... and we accept it on rumor ONLY....

It means that an entire body of work is being defined wherein authenticity is established on a larger scale embracing broader issues than this single issue that isn't directly referenced anywhere in that body of work.

 

[Thekla]

Not requiring a witness.
Just a reference to a fact.

This isn't about establishing what is scripture.
The reference we want doesn't even have to come from scripture.
We just want a mention of it. Not a mention of belief in it, a mention of IT.
There ain't any.

I know its not about whats in scripture; but shouldn't scripture require even a higher standard of authenticity - so in your case, just ANY reference for each or any of the NT passages.

After all, the process of accepting the canon of the NT was populated by this "rumor mill". Athansios, whose list of NT books is now canon, refered to Mary as "ever-virgin".

 

[Philothei]

why you are asking while if we present it to you...you will reject it... Like we said before it is in the Liturgy of St. James dated in the 60 AD.... We have copies not the original text and scholars do trace it to the first century.....

Furthrrmore show the the whole document of the original text of the Bible that existed at the time it was written ....because we all use a copy of the original one....

 

[lionroar0]

The standard is reference of fact. Not objectivity of the source.
There is no standard being imposed for acceptableness of the reference source, so your complaint is ungrounded. We don't ask for authenticated references, we ask for any references (of the facts of her PV). So wether or not the source is authentic is completely beside the point. No double standard. The only standard imposed was that the same standard as is used for RC dogma be imposed.
Authenticating the canon of scripture is larger project than identifying what is in scripture. Yet we will accept statements of PV fact from extra-biblical sources.

I don't believe there are any, and I wonder why this rumor became RC dogma.

Reference of fact has been given by both CC and EOC members. They just have not been accepted as such.

A reference of fact assumes that the fact is true. If a fact is not assumed as true, then it is rejected. (this just hit me a bit ago.)

Not sure if it applies to everyone involved on the debate but authentication of references have been asked of us.

I belive it was Thekla who said it. If it was explicitly mentioned in the Bible then there would be no need to make it Dogma. As a dogma is a definition of a belief(sp?)

It is a "dogma" that all Apostolic Churches hold to.

At this point I should mention that there is a different understanding of Dogma between the CC and the EOC.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

other than the husband and kids, of course. (I know, we can argue whether or not the evidence is valid, or if the evidence points to the same conculsion, but it IS evidence.)

Evidence is "evidecence" with in a certian context.

I suppose if you have to twist it to fit what's already accepted, sure.

Historically it's the other way around.

not from my point of view.

Now we are geting somewhere. A pov requires a reference point.

backed it up by saying "we beleive it, here are some others that believed it, so therefore it must be true."

That's Christianity in a nutshell. We have Jesus who said stuff to people. They learned it and said it to others and they said it was true. Some of this stuff that was said(which they said was true) was written down and then passed on as true.

best source to use, don't you think?

Which people say it is true.

100%? no. But I believe that if you are objective with the evidence, it wouldn't be "say, Mary was ever virgin!" that you'd come up with. I know your paradigm tells you that she was, so therefore there must be another explanaiton for the evidence, I.E. cousins, or halfsiblings, or whatever. But it certainly isn't the most straightforward application of the evidence at hand.

Beliving is not being objective. It means holding to things taught and biases. Which everyone does. Including myself.

I also think you've forgotten the ultimate point here... if you cannot decree one way or the other based on the evidence... it's foolish and dangerous to formulate must believe Dogma about it.

feel free to disregard, per usual.

Based on biblical evidence. Wich is not conclusive. But We don't say that All Truth is in Scripture either.

If it was then there would be no need for dogmas and counsils(sp?) as it would be explicitly laid out in Scripture.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

why you are asking while if we present it to you...you will reject it...

According to the Catholic CAtechism, to spread a unsubstantiated story is to SIN (and thus be UNLOVING toward the subject of the story). I know the story is believed to be true, but the definition of a rumor is not a story that is believed to be true but a story that is unsubstantiated.

You need substantiation of a level required of DOGMA - a matter of highest certainty and importance. And you need substantiation of a nature that your denomination accepts as valid from others (because if your denomination regards it as invalid if we use it, why would we regard it as valid if you use it?).

We MIGHT reject any substantiation or apologetic which your denomination regards as invalid or insufficient, following its lead.

But it IS the issue. Because, again, to spread a story that is NOT substantiated according to the Catholic Catechism is to SIN against them, and the point of this thread is this: Is it LOVING? I think we agree that if one is sinning against someone they are not distinctively LOVING them.

Like we said before it is in the Liturgy of St. James dated in the 60 AD.... We have copies not the original text and scholars do trace it to the first century.....

Most scholars don't.


From wikapedia:

Its date of composition is still disputed with some authorities proposing an early date, perhaps ca. AD 60, while most authorities propose a fourth century date, being this anaphora a developed from an ancient Egyptian form of the Basilean anaphoric family united with the anaphora described in The Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem[1].


The earliest manuscript is the ninth-century codex, Vaticanus graecus 2282, which had been in liturgical use at Damascus, in the diocese of Antioch.


The only critical edition is the one published by Dom B.-Charles Mercier in the Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 26 (1950).

.

 

[Thekla]

So why do you accept and reference a text supported as authentic largely by rumor ?

 

[MamaZ]

How can it be proven to be true?

 

[MamaZ]

Just because man say this is what so and so said does not make it true.. So I ask again where Does God say this?

 

[lionroar0]

Just because man say this is what so and so said does not make it true.. So I ask again where Does God say this?

Jesus said and did many things recorded in Scripture. How can they be proven true?
Peace