Speak lovingly of Mary

[narnia59]

I have no position on how often Mary had sex.
I have no dogma.
I have no doctrine.
I have no official teaching.
NO Protestant denomination known to me does.



.

What does it mean therefore that many if not most Protestants hold fast to a doctrine that is not defined by their denomination?

It would seem that while it may not be denominational doctrine, it is quite often individual doctrine. So while it may not be your individual doctrine, hiding under the cover of 'no denomination says this is doctrine' does not accurately reflect the overall Protestant view either.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't think there is an intent to present or defend an "overall Protestant view" even if one exists. I think the intent is to show that the PV belief is based on rumor alone no matter who believes it.

 

[Rick Otto]

You imply that she may have been a woman of loose morals.

Even if he unintentionaly implied that is a possibility, it doesn't amount to a statement of rumor as fact.

 

[Thekla]

CaliforniaJosiah,

If you've been in GT, you might have seen the thread on the Church of Laedocia - neither hot nor cold.

The fact of the matter is, on the subject of the "things of God", Christians MUST take a position, we cannot remain neutral. We cannot say, if we love Christ, that maybe the "christ of Arius, or the christ of the gnostics, et al" are true; we must witness firmly that there is only one true position on the matter.

The detractors of Christ attacked His mother repeatedly over the centuries; earlier in this forum I posted links to some of those extant attacks. The Church knew the attacks were false teachings, the Church - as with the 1st century writings - knew some were patently false (gnostic writings et al) and when the falsehoods became threatening to the Church, to the "things of God", the Church took a stand. The Church did not sit on the fence, but proclaimed dogma (within Church teachings) as doctrine.

I've shown why your position of "no position" is dangerous. Why do you think the Church finally spoke up ? The Church had to take a stand on the "things of God". We are all called to do so. To take no position is to allow a wrong teaching to fester and grow, to tacitly support it. This is what your "no position" does; it tacitly supports the slander and falsehood of Celsus and others.

It seems quite clear, as I said before, that your beef is with the RC, not with the teaching. But now that you've chosen to attack the teaching, you have tacitly supported slanderous false teachings and those who seek to slander Christ. I don't think this was your intention, but this is certainly the result.

This is why it is dangerous to attack a Church; and if you insist on attacking, choose carefully what you choose to attack with !

Here's one, CaliforniaJosiah; I'll find more for you

 

[Philothei]

I think the intent is to show that the PV belief is based on rumor alone no matter who believes it.

That was not the case at all since CJ was pointing it to the RCC the whole time... His posts prove it.. He was refering to it as "dogma" rather than belief... It was dierected completely to the RCC no doubtr about it RO....
There are too many posts to even one go over and edit... at this point. And still "rumor" can be anytrhing we beleive from a large spectrum of RC OO EO and all Protestant denominations... They all hold some "special" beleifs that the others do not i.e. calviism... shall we call it a rumor agaisnt God's instention and plan on human salvation? Predestination to me is a bad "rumor" about salvation...I do not though point the finger and say.....you Calvinist are circulating it and you will be called sinners and you spread lies about Christ's salvation and so forth... Rather one can debate the predestination without accusing the ones who believe it a "rumor" .... How is it fair to call EV a rumor then? it is no different like any other dogma in any other church. At best it is a big big straw man... and nothing else...

 

[Rick Otto]

choose carefully what you choose to attack with

He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.

 

[Rick Otto]

.

 

[Rick Otto]

.

 

[Rick Otto]

sorry 'bout the gliches.

 

[Thekla]

Even if he unintentionaly implied that is a possibility, it doesn't amount to a statement of rumor as fact.

Rick,

you have failed to apply your standard of rumor to the New Testament; inconsistency is inconsistency. If you demand verification, you should also apply to yourself.

Josiah has tacitly supported many who over the centuries have repeatedly attacked Christ by attacking His mother. Are you guys really so enamored of your position that you want to join up with this ilk ? I don't think you are, but now that the subject is broached, you have to take a position or tacitly support the detractors. Why do you think the Church took a stand ? Why do you think the Church finally 'publicaly stated' what had been taught ? This, in part, is why the teaching on Mary is about Christ.

The adversary tries to erode the borders -- the ever-virginity is "avaton" - don't step there. Because to step there breaks one more barrier to degraded teachings on Christ. This is the idea of "set apart", this is in part the reason for reverence for the "things of God". We have a responsibility to set aside, keep, hold, protect "the oracles" as Paul says.

The tenor of Josiah's posts kept pushing us to abrogate "avaton", and it was hard to respond without the diminishing language that indicates degradation. It not about sex, DUH. I have six kids. Its about abaton.
Sex is not dirty or degraded - though like anything, some make it so.

Its about avaton -- Mary's value is not about anything other than Christ. If we're constantly talking about sex, or toyotas, or anything else, we're diluting the value to us of what we're actually talking about.

This society is not much one for reverence or respect. Or gentleness. Maybe avaton looks silly to those in the USA. But that doesn't mean it needs to be attacked. Doesn't mean it has no value. And in this case, in this thread, it is abundantly clear that the ignorance of avaton has grave consequences -- tacit alignment with those who slander Christ.

 

[Thekla]

He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.

He redefined tradition as rumor.
The NT is validated on tradition, Rick. Have you checked out how much of the NT would need to be "tossed aside" if we apply yours and his standard of verifications. You'd be left with a thin selection of passages, not epistles and books.
That redefinition was a failed sleight of hand.
And with this tactical sleight, he ended up tacitly supporting those who slander Christ, as well as undermining the validity of most of the NT.

 

[Philothei]

He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.

He did not do that... he did more.. but are you his lawyer or something?lol.... I think he can defend himself allright... that is totally off topic

 

[Thekla]

He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.

Nope, he impaled all of Christendom that accepts the NT.
And he validated the position of those who slander Christ.

 

[narnia59]

He confronted PV believers with the RC definition & catechism teaching on "rumor".
He simply observed how they impale themselves.

No, he has set up a false dichotomy.

He defines the doctrine as rumor because is it not explicitly defined in the Bible.

However, Catholics (and Orthodox) accept the whole of Sacred Tradition in forming doctrine, not just Scripture. The belief that all doctrine in order to be correct must be explicitly stated in the Bible is the only real rumor running amok in this thread.

It's quite easy to argue a point when you get to define the position of the other person based upon your terms and not theirs. That is what Josiah has done, which would only impress others who tend to do the same thing.

 

[Philothei]

I can do the same using the same methodology but... it would be a straw man just the same... Catechesis or not still it is a poor example of equating a dogma to "rumor" and it does not compaire.... Shall we apply that the the Virginity and we have the Bible "circulating" a rumor about Mary been Virgin... or the HOLy Trinity being a "rumor" the fact that it says about Mary's private life matters not... Theologically any dogma can be a rumor... just the same... not only when it has to do with someone's sexuality....Adam and EVE were "rumored" about their procreation??? See how silly this can get?

 

[Philothei]

That is what Josiah has done, which would only impress others who tend to do the same thing.

Setting lines in the sand hardly impress anyone and the guideposts have been moved by him many many times...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What does it mean therefore that many if not most Protestants hold fast to a doctrine that is not defined by their denomination?

It means some (unlike me) have a pious personal opinion.
You'll find that some Catholics have a pious personal opinion about the authenticity of the Should of Turin, for example. But that doesn't mean there is a DOGMA in the Catholic Church that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial shroud of Jesus and this must be proclaimed to all 6.5 billion people and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thereby in question.






.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; Rick,

you have failed to apply your standard of rumor to the New Testament; inconsistency is inconsistency. If you demand verification, you should also apply to yourself.

I don't demand verification that the NT isn't rumor.
The NT doesn't contain any statements of fact regarding Mary's PV.

Josiah has tacitly supported many who over the centuries have repeatedly attacked Christ by attacking His mother.

I don't equate a criticism of a rumor about someone as a criticism of that person.

Are you guys really so enamored of your position that you want to join up with this ilk ?

We get lumped in with all kinds of ilk.
We are not on the fence about PV. Our position is that the fence is imaginary to begin with. What is legitimate is a fence that divides rumor from fact whether or not the ground the fence is on (NT) is legitimate or not. If we accept the "Mary Had A Little Lamb" poem as legitimate, any statement on the number of legs the lamb had is rumor simply because no statement about the number of legs the lamb had is in the poem.

I don't think you are, but now that the subject is broached, you have to take a position or tacitly support the detractors. Why do you think the Church took a stand ?

"The Church" didn't take a stand. The Church officials took a stand.

Why do you think the Church finally 'publicaly stated' what had been taught ?

Many motivations were present, not all honorable.
A lot of the early defining of what "the church" is was for containing sectarian strife that threatened civil security. Some of it was simply to help establish authority that wasn't legitimate.

This, in part, is why the teaching on Mary is about Christ.

I'm sure you believe that.

The adversary tries to erode the borders -- the ever-virginity is "avaton" - don't step there. Because to step there breaks one more barrier to degraded teachings on Christ.

The teaching itself is in part a degredation of Christ.

This is the idea of "set apart", this is in part the reason for reverence for the "things of God". We have a responsibility to set aside, keep, hold, protect "the oracles" as Paul says.

I don't consider the PV teaching a thing of God.

The tenor of Josiah's posts kept pushing us to abrogate "avaton", and it was hard to respond without the diminishing language that indicates degradation. It not about sex, DUH. I have six kids. Its about abaton.
Sex is not dirty or degraded - though like anything, some make it so.

I believe organized religion is guilty of making it so.

Its about avaton -- Mary's value is not about anything other than Christ.

I wish that were true.

If we're constantly talking about sex, or toyotas, or anything else, we're diluting the value to us of what we're actually talking about.

Perhaps then Mariology is just such a dilution of actualy talking about Christ.

This society is not much one for reverence or respect.

We agree. Over-reverence & undue respect are also problems.

Or gentleness. Maybe avaton looks silly to those in the USA. But that doesn't mean it needs to be attacked. Doesn't mean it has no value. And in this case, in this thread, it is abundantly clear that the ignorance of avaton has grave consequences -- tacit alignment with those who slander Christ.

Introducing a multitude of new & sophisticated terminology doesn't change the basic fact that there are no facts, only beliefs re: PV. regardeless of the legitimacy of the source material (NT).

 

[Rick Otto]

No, he has set up a false dichotomy.

He defines the doctrine as rumor because is it not explicitly defined in the Bible.

However, Catholics (and Orthodox) accept the whole of Sacred Tradition in forming doctrine, not just Scripture. The belief that all doctrine in order to be correct must be explicitly stated in the Bible is the only real rumor running amok in this thread.

It's quite easy to argue a point when you get to define the position of the other person based upon your terms and not theirs. That is what Josiah has done, which would only impress others who tend to do the same thing.

I think the position defies its holders own terms.

 

[Rick Otto]

Nope, he impaled all of Christendom that accepts the NT.
And he validated the position of those who slander Christ.

I disagree.