Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if you were silent.... you would not have been saying we are spreading rumours you are contradicting youself in your own post....

A rumor is a popularly held story or report which is not substantiated. It IS, by definition, a rumor until it is substantiated. I understand and fully appreciate that those spreading a story as true regard it as substantiated even if they themselves have never seen or even inquired about such, AND I have specifically and often stated that I do NOT regard THIS story to be false or heretical or wrong. I have asked for the substantiation but didn't get anything. That the ones spread it (the RCC and EO) say it's true seems to be the "substantiation" although it was noted this is not ever regarded as "substantiation" except the RCC insists it is so if the RCC says it is, and the EO insists it is if the EO says it is. I have noted that the "substantiation" appears to not be to the level of dogma that the RCC requires of others and of the nature that the RCC and EO accept as valid from others, but again, I have NOT said such is wrong. Or that the story/report is wrong. Are all rumors false? Of course not. But they remain rumors until they are substantiataed to the appropriate level and manner - AT LEAST to such level and such manner accepted by the one spreading it.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla; He redefined tradition as rumor.

This is an attempt to globalize a single issue.

The NT is validated on tradition, Rick.

Wgether it is or not is beside the point.

Have you checked out how much of the NT would need to be "tossed aside" if we apply yours and his standard of verifications.

I've considered it.

You'd be left with a thin selection of passages, not epistles and books.
That redefinition was a failed sleight of hand.

Not realy. Most of the NT presents or references facts. No reference or presentation of PV as a fact is contained therein.

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.

Slandering Christ is better accomplished by promoting rumors of His divine qualities to His mother.

 

[Thekla]

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

You don't demand verification of the NT because you can't provide it.In short, you embrace a double standard.

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

you are skipping the point.

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.

Josiah's certainly is -- thats why he supports Celsus.
Your ground is based on tradition, not actual verification; replace Mary had a little lamb with Luke wrote a book.

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

thats not the way things work in the EO

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.

And the NT was part of that process -- this doesn't elevate the Church. Its just historical fact.


I'm sure you believe that.

The teaching itself is in part a degredation of Christ.

fine. then you'll need to show how, without resorting to misrepresentation.

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

fine with me. Mary is though, it a very real physical and spiritual way. Now that the subject is broached, do you stand "kinda with Celsus and kinda with the RC" or do you get off the fence and say I don't believe it. And if you don't believe it, thats fine, too.

I believe organized religion is guilty of making it so.

yeah, I know you don't like organized religion. Don't let it color your heart though.

I wish that were true.

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

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

I agree - one must strive for the "right balance".

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

its not sophisticated terminology; its what we use. I don't know an English equivalent, so I'm left with that term. If you know of a term, let me know

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The detractors of Christ attacked His mother repeatedly over the centuries

Quote me where I attack Our Lady.
Oh, maybe the "attack" is when I have OFTEN posted that I love, adore, revere, hold in highest esteem and in a sense worship Our Lady, that I love Her far more than I love my own earthly mother. Yeah, that must be it. I'm attacking Her.

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.

So, your position now is that some in the First Century were "attacking" Mary by saying that she had had sexual intercourse at least once, and the Church - knowing such to not be true, made this doctrine. Okay, then I have some questions:

1. Please reference those false teachers, I'd like to see the quotes and the dates to within the First Century, where they "attack" Mary for having had sex once or more.

2. How did "the Church" know this to be false? Can you quote whatever it used in the First Century to reveal that it dogmatically knew that Mary had sex exactly zero times during her life?

3. Give to me the quotes from the First Century where the Church officially states that it is doctrine (or dogma) that Mary never had sex ever.


Thanks.

To take no position is to allow a wrong teaching to fester and grow, to tacitly support it.

Again, quote for me those in the First Century that were insisting that Mary did have sex and why that was an attack and heresy.

Then please tell me why Mary having had sex once would be a dangerous, heretical view that would undermine and destroy Christianity.

Then show me where any Denomination in the First Century declared that Mary MUST be viewed as a perpetual virgin.

Thanks.

Then I'd like to get back to the issues of this thread.

you've chosen to attack the teaching

Let's see.... I've said I do not regard it as wrong or unbiblical or impossible or heretical. Yup, that must be the ATTACK of which you speak.

Freind, the ATTACKING is entirely from the other direction.
I never said you were wrong, you're going on and on about how I'm wrong.
You keep rebuking yourself.





.

 

[Thekla]

This is an attempt to globalize a single issue.

yup - he defined rumor to include tradition, so now everything accepted by tradition needs historical verification to remove it from the realm of rumor. That includes the NT.

Not realy. Most of the NT presents or references facts. No reference or presentation of PV as a fact is contained therein.

now that the NT falls under Josiah's definition of 'rumored to be true', go ahead and prove the NT contains facts using extant historical sources.

Slandering Christ is better accomplished by promoting rumors of His divine qualities to His mother.

We don't ascribe "divinity" to Mary. Its "theosis". Its more properly "divinized by the energia (not essence) of God by participation. Its available to all who follow Christ. We witness the "theosis" of the apostles, too. Like I said before, we "honor the method" by which God willed to act for our salvation. Theosis means Christ-like. You know, image and likeness.

 

[narnia59]

I think the position defies its holders own terms.

No, it defies your terms. Josiah (and now you apparently) have decided that anything that is not explicitly stated in the NT is rumor. Then you say the Catholics contradict themselves because the catechism speaks against spreading rumors, and since a specific doctrine is not found in the NT, it meets the definition of a rumor. Never mind that you are applying your definition of what makes a teaching rumor, not the Catholic one. How can we be contradicting ourselves, if it's your definition that's being applied? The cathechism contradicts your definition of rumor, not itself.

 

[narnia59]

[/color]

A rumor is a popularly held story or report which is not substantiated. It IS, by definition, a rumor until it is substantiated.

And it is only a rumor by your standard of substantiation, not ours. Please explain how we can contradict ourselves by being compared to your standard.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

Please tell me, EXACTLY, where my position on Mary is "ATTACKING" Her. I love, revere, adore, hold in esteem and in a certain sense worship Her. I love her far more than my own earthly mother. I regard her as the Mother of God and a virgin at our Lord's birth. Now, please show me how that is "ATTACKING" Her.

IF having no position on how often she had sex is "attacking" Her, then Christ attacked Her, too since you pointed out that He is silent on the issue.

It not about sex

After 200 pages of posts, we STILL seem to find the Catholics and Orthodox wavering constantly on whether "perpetual" means always, forever, constantly and whether "virgin" means not having had sexual intercourse. We've been all over this. I think, eventually, somewhere in this thread, all have admitted that this dogma/doctrine is that Mary is a PERPETUAL VIRGIN and, yes, we know what "perpetual" means and we know what "virgin" means. We ALL do. Why all the evasion? Why are you so uncomfortable with the teaching? It's YOUR teaching. YOU are the ones stressing it, insisting on it, telling everyone.

This society is not much one for reverence or respect.

So, you DO regard it as supreme reverence and respect, and distinctively loving (the point of this thread) that all the world and all it's generations knows - to the highest degree of importance - how often you have sex?

As I stated a few times, I was more than willing to chuck this whole thing up to a huge conflict in values. Maybe Catholics and Orthodox think it IS supeme reverence and respect and distinctively loving to tell the whole world how often everyone has sex. But, I gotta say, nothing in these 200 + pages has confirmed that. In fact, I've kinda of gathered the opposite.

But yes, whether THIS topic is DISTINCITVELY LOVING to demand that all the world know THIS thing, how often Mary has had sex if at all, and a matter of supeme reverence and respect toward her. That is the issue of this thread and the issue I've been TRYING to discuss for 200 + pages.



.

 

[Philothei]

A rumor is a popularly held story or report which is not substantiated. It IS, by definition, a rumor until it is substantiated.

Then all dogmata are rumors even the predetination by your definition ... You are not telling us your standards of substantiation though so what you say is null.

I understand and fully appreciate that those spreading a story as true regard it as substantiated even if they themselves have never seen or even inquired about such, AND I have specifically and often stated that I do NOT regard THIS story to be false or heretical or wrong. I have asked for the substantiation but didn't get anything.

Why would you want substantiation if you do not regard it false, heretical or wrong? So that you can say again that it is a harmful rumor that the RCC has? Base on what? on YOU and your standards...

That the ones spread it (the RCC and EO) say it's true seems to be the "substantiation" although it was noted this is not ever regarded as "substantiation" except the RCC insists it is so if the RCC says it is, and the EO insists it is if the EO says it is. I have noted that the "substantiation" appears to not be to the level of dogma that the RCC requires of others and of the nature that the RCC and EO accept as valid from others, but again, I have NOT said such is wrong. Or that the story/report is wrong. Are all rumors false? Of course not. But they remain rumors until they are substantiataed to the appropriate level and manner - AT LEAST to such level and such manner accepted by the one spreading it.

[/quote]

No all rumors are not false as all dogmas are not true ....like predestination.. but we do not go around telling calvinists that they give false"hope" or to make people believe they are predestined to hell.... and that is one paradigm that deals direclty with salvation...
Dogma is superseeds time and space as it is an eternal truth... it does not fall under any humanistic idea of scrutiny or evidence.. According to your logic then God is eternal if not proven a rumor???

There are no "appropriate levels and manners" when it comes to God's revealed truth... If you believe that about God then you have a long way to go...

Good go ahead accuse us that we spreading the rumor that God exists too.....lol....

 

[narnia59]

thats not the way things work in the EO

Apparently you missed the memo that the Josiah gets to define the way things work and the standard and apply it to everyone else, and then judge whether or not they are contradicting themselves or not.

 

[Thekla]

Quote me where I attack Our Lady.
Oh, maybe the "attack" is when I have OFTEN posted that I love, adore, revere, hold in highest esteem and in a sense worship Our Lady, that I love Her far more than I love my own earthly mother. Yeah, that must be it. I'm attacking Her.

And you support those who slandered her by taking no position, meaning either position might be true. I've shown this before. You're certainly bright enough to "get" it. You're being evasive.

So, your position now is that some in the First Century were "attacking" Mary by saying that she had had sexual intercourse at least once, and the Church - knowing such to not be true, made this doctrine. Okay, then I have some questions:

yeah, right. You might bother to read the posts.

1. Please reference those false teachers, I'd like to see the quotes and the dates to within the First Century, where they "attack" Mary for having had sex once or more.

I didn't name a specific era. The belief derives from teaching within the Church; the public declaration (doctrine) is in response to attacks.

2. How did "the Church" know this to be false? Can you quote whatever it used in the First Century to reveal that it dogmatically knew that Mary had sex exactly zero times during her life?

Its in the same sheaf with the stuff you use to validate the "rumored to be true" NT.

3. Give to me the quotes from the First Century where the Church officially states that it is doctrine (or dogma) that Mary never had sex ever.

I've explained numerous times the definition of dogma and kerygma in the EO.

Can you do the same for the NT writings ? Get at it. You're the one that establishe the validity of the NT as "rumor". If you disagree with this, then provide the evidence that the basis you use for questioning the PV (absence in the NT) is based on a text that isn't spurious.

Again, quote for me those in the First Century that were insisting that Mary did have sex and why that was an attack and heresy.

Then please tell me why Mary having had sex once would be a dangerous, heretical view that would undermine and destroy Christianity.

Then show me where any Denomination in the First Century declared that Mary MUST be viewed as a perpetual virgin.

Do you want me to repeat what I've stated many times ?

Let's see.... I've said I do not regard it as wrong or unbiblical or impossible or heretical. Yup, that must be the ATTACK of which you speak.

And, therefore you have no position = either chastity or sexually active could be true. You have no evidence that she was married. Ergo, she may have or may have not engaged in illicit sex. Nice.

Freind, the ATTACKING is entirely from the other direction.
I never said you were wrong, you're going on and on about how I'm wrong.
You keep rebuking yourself.

I said:
1. you appeal to double standards
2. you redefine terms at will
3. you fail to take a stand on the issue you raise, thereby showing implicit support for those who slander Christ.

 

[Thekla]

Apparently you missed the memo that the Josiah gets to define the way things work and the standard and apply it to everyone else, and then judge whether or not they are contradicting themselves or not.

Hmmm ... thats quite a position (pun intended)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

yup - he defined rumor to include tradition, so now everything accepted by tradition needs historical verification to remove it from the realm of rumor. That includes the NT.

You know this to be false. We went all over this, at length. I STRESSED that I will accept ANY substantiation that the RCC (and I guess I'd do the same for the EO) regards as Authoritative from others. I'm bending over backwards here to make it as easy as I can for you, and I'm allowing YOU to state what is and is not substantiation to the level of dogma and what is and is not suffient for a report to not be rumor but rather dogma. I've given up any voice whatsoever in this regard. WHATEVER you will accept from other Christians, I'll accept from you (if you regard it as invalid, I must too). So, if you regard Scripture as authoritative - I will too. Quote the verses. If you regard YOUR and YOUR Denomination's interpretation of a text as Authoritiative, then MY and MY Denomination's interpretation of a text is equally Authoritative. If YOUR Denomination's Tradition is Authoritative, then MY Denomination's Tradition is Authoritative. YOU establish what you regard as Authoritative and I'll accept that "bar." I've said this repeatedly, I don't know how I can possibly be more generous and helpful that to give you complete and sole determination of this. I'll say it again: State whatever Authority you accept from me and other Christians, and I'll accept the same from you - or vise versa even.


The issue of "rumor" is NOT MINE. IT COMES FROM THE RCC. It is the position of the RCC (not necessarily mine) that a story or report ABOUT A PERSON is a rumor and sin (IT'S WORD, NOT MINE) to spread it unless it is substantiated. The issue is singular according to the RCC: substantiation. If you disagree with the RCC, take that up with the RCC. I've told you over and over that it is the RCC's position, NOT NECESSARILY MINE. And I've told you over and over that the issue is about reports regarding A PERSON (such as Mary). I know how someone can "miss" something, but when I post things over and over and over and over - even when you quote it, well, it's hard for me how you can think I'm saying something entirely unrelated or even contradictory to what I'm saying.



.

 

[Thekla]

You know this to be false. We went all over this, at length. I STRESSED that I will accept ANY substantiation that the RCC (and I guess I'd do the same for the EO) regards as Authoritative from others. I'm bending over backwards here to make it as easy as I can for you, and I'm allowing YOU to state what is and is not substantiation to the level of dogma and what is and is not suffient for a report to not be rumor but rather dogma. I've given up any voice whatsoever in this regard. WHATEVER you will accept from other Christians, I'll accept from you (if you regard it as invalid, I must too). So, if you regard Scripture as authoritative - I will too. Quote the verses. If you regard YOUR and YOUR Denomination's interpretation of a text as Authoritiative, then MY and MY Denomination's interpretation of a text is equally Authoritative. If YOUR Denomination's Tradition is Authoritative, then MY Denomination's Tradition is Authoritative. YOU establish what you regard as Authoritative and I'll accept that "bar." I've said this repeatedly, I don't know how I can possibly be more generous and helpful that to give you complete and sole determination of this. I'll say it again: State whatever Authority you accept from me and other Christians, and I'll accept the same from you - or vise versa even.

They accept tradition. So does the EO. There's your "any verification".


You seem to have a swath of your posts that you copy as responses. Maybe I should do that with mine - sure would be less time consuming

 

[Philothei]

You are not wrong because you have no position... IMO it is the attacking you do on those who do... and as far as I am conserned attacking a dogma as a rumor is a straw man... as even if we give you the evidence you will still go on doubting it... Thus your issue is not to be convienced or to "examine" the issue rather to declare that those who have a position on the issue are at "fault" .... Lucky you the same can apply to any dogma though even for God ....since there is no evidence He exists either thus the "method" of scrutinizing that dogma can be applied for your premise too.... Thus you by sitting on the fence... you have to sit there for all dogmas that have to do with faith... even God...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Quote me where I attack Our Lady.

Oh, maybe the "attack" is when I have OFTEN posted that I love, adore, revere, hold in highest esteem and in a sense worship Our Lady, that I love Her far more than I love my own earthly mother. Yeah, that must be it. I'm attacking Her.

.

And you support those who slandered her by taking no position, meaning either position might be true. I've shown this before. You're certainly bright enough to "get" it. You're being evasive.

You didn't quote me where I attacked Our Lady.

Let me try again: Here's what I've said, please take each thing and reveal how it is an attack on Mary. I love, adore, revere, hold in highest esteem. I love Her far more than I love my own earthly mother.




.

 

[Thekla]

I have an idea:

California can select a post, and each of us will as well, and then we can just repeatedly re-post our posts in response to each other:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0UPknOQegg&feature=related

 

[Thekla]

You didn't quote me where I attacked Our Lady.

Let me try again: Here's what I've said, please take each thing and reveal how it is an attack on Mary. I love, adore, revere, hold in highest esteem. I love Her far more than I love my own earthly mother.

.

Rather than respond with quoting my own posts, you can read my previous posts this time. In fact, why don't you quote my post and give the post #

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are not wrong because you have no position...

Absurd. Do you have a doctrinal position for the preexisted material before the Big Bang? If you don't, by your rubric, you are WRONG. Silly. And you know it.

attacking a dogma as a rumor

ALL the attacking is from your end.

I thought you insisted that it was doctrine, not dogma?

I NEVER said that it is a rumor. Over and over I've made that clear. Nor have I said that it's wrong or unbiblical or unreasonable or impossible or heretical. I've noted WHAT THE CATHOLIC CATHECHISM (NOT ME!!!!!! READ IT THIS TIME, NOT ME!!!!!!) says that if a report ABOUT A PERSON (read those words this time, "ABOUT A PERSON) is not substantiated, then it is a rumor and it is a SIN (as I've noted, that's the RCC's term, NOT MINE) to spread it. Substantiation is the point for the RCC. I have written several times, that I don't know what the EO's stand on that is, I've asked a few times but it was always ignored, I don't know if the EO believes that if the ones spreading a story say it's true therefore it's fully substantiated to the level of doctrine or dogma and thus isn't a rumor, I don't know, you've never answered by questiona bout that. What I've said is that IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, according to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, when speaking of a PERSON (such as Mary), it is a SIN (their word, not mine) to spread a report about them unless it is substantiated.


YOU are the one doctrinally insisting that Mary had no sex EVER.
YOU are the one telling everyone. THIS is SO important!!!!!!
YOU are the one judging others (including me).
YOU are the one who is responsible before God at the Judgment for the truthfulness of this obsessive insistence of yours about Our Lady's sexual practices or not, and for any hurt, pain, embarrassment or offense such MIGHT cause to Her and Her Son.

You noted that Christ is silent on this point.
So am I.
So are the 29.998 denominations that are in the same "camp" with Jesus on this.





.

 

[Thekla]

Here, Josiah:

You impugn Mary by the implicit statement of your "no position" meaning she may have had sex -- by trying to "play it safe", you agree with both the RC and the detractors of Christ and His mother. You sit on the fence, with your feet planted firmly on the ground on either side of the fence.

Which = maybe never, maybe any number of times.

Which means that one can -BASED ON YOUR "NO POSITION" conclude that Celsus might be right.

NO POSITION = MAYBE YES/MAYBE NO

You have also stated that you have "no position" on her ever-virginity.

NO POSITION = YES AND NO ARE BOTH POTENTIALLY VALID.
you are again in part aligned with Celsus

There. Would you like more ?