Ever Virgin

[Josiah]

Nothing documenting that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.... not even an ATTEMPT to document that (I'm not sure truth matters - at all - in the RC Denomination when it comes to Mary).

You seem to be confusing that if one respects a wife - ergo it is good to make as public as possible every detail of her supremely private, extremely personal, most intimate details of her marital bed.... yet, I suspect, if I shouted about your mother's (or sister's or wife's) most intimate details of marital intimacy, you'd be furious and condemn me for being incredibly RUDE, incredibly disrespectful. Hum. Yes, I think RESPECTING her is very, very biblical. It's one reason why I think she should not be singularly exempted from the issue of truth concerning her, singularly exempted from the prohibition from gossip.

Still waiting for the documentation that Mary - at the moment of her death (0r undeath depending on what Catholic teacher you are docilicly submitting to) she was a virgin - as a matter of highest certainty and greatest importance possible. Or does truth just not matter in the singular case of Mary? Does respect just not matter in the singular case of Mary?



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Martin Luther, no friend of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of God refused to do what some today so glibly and easily do on this matter. He wrote:

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

​

John Calvin - also no friend of the holy catholic church - wrote:

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)​

And Ulrich Zwingli - a most staunch enemy of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church - wrote:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)​

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]



Luther (indeed, virtually all the Lutheran Chruch Fathers) personally embraced this pov. Luther himself largely abandoned Mariology later in life, but early on he did express support for this pov. HOWEVER, it was NEVER embraced as doctrine - much less dogma, much less de fide dogma. It was what at times in Protestantism is called "pious opinion" - a PERMITTED but not REQUIRED opinion. In Lutheranism, "pious opinion" is a view that is NEITHER supported nor rejected in Scripture but has ancient, wide-spread support (in other words, has "Tradition" but not Scripture in support). NEVER has Lutheranism declared this tidbit about Mary to be DOCTRINE or DOGMA or DE FIDE DOGMA; in fact, it's never even been official teaching in Lutheranism.


It is revealing to see you entirely, completely evade and avoid the issue of whether this tidbit of normally very, very, very private, personal marriage bed information is true..... And to see to what enormous, incredible lengths you go to to evade and avoid the entire issue of this juicy detail's STATUS in your singular, individual denomination - de fide dogma, a matter of highest importance, certainty and necessity possible. In apologetics and debate, a point must be defended TO THE LEVEL CLAIMED but. friend, it is both stunning and revealing to see how craftfully you dodge that entirely, completely. Actually, you are not defending Catholicism at all.... and not addressing the issue at all - just endlessly parroting over and over and over and over the OPINION - without any substantiation of its truthfulness, without any interest in truthfulness, and without anything whatsoever as to why this matter of the supremely private, personal marital intimacies of this couple is a point of highest importance possible, greatest certainly possible, greatest necessity possible.



Now, back to the issue of whether this speculation is TRUE..... and the defense of it as a matter of highest importance possible, greatest certainty possible, highest necessity possible. Not just endlessly parroting the pov (as if all speculations become de fide Dogma if it is repeated X number of times). Enough of the diversions, evasions, dodges...... submit the substantiation of TRUTH to the level claimed.... that at the microsecond of Mary's death (or undeath, depending on what Catholic teacher you are mindlessly, docilicly submitting to as unto God) that she was a virgin..... as a matter of highest importance, certainty and necessity possible. Not "but those saying this say this".... not "but those who say it's true claim it's true"..... but substantiation that it is TRUE - to the highest level possible of importance, certainty and necessity. Unless truth is irrelevant in the RC Denomination when it comes to Mary.... gossip is permissible in the single case of Mary.... in which case, state such is the case.



See posts 130, 132, 154, 157, 164, 166, 206. All you've persistently evaded.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Blessed Mary is ever virgin. Why complain about it if you believe it?

 

[psalms 91]

One, I dont believe it, two, it is sheer speculation and probably not true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One, I dont believe it, two, it is sheer speculation and probably not true.

That is a loss for you. I do believe and it is a wonder and a source of great comfort for the faithful.

 

[Josiah]

Blessed Mary is ever virgin. Why complain about it if you believe it?

I understand your rubric: if someone types a claim X number of times on the internet - it becomes de fide dogma, exempt from truthfulness or morality. I just wonder if YOU will apply that to others, I suspect you won't.

But again, we see the dodge, the evasion, the indication that in Catholicism, truth is just irrelevant (at least when it comes to Mary), gossip is permitted (at least when it comes to Mary).... and you have NOTHING to indicate this is true, much less a matter of highest importance, certainty and necessity; and while you'd consider it supremely RUDE for us to talk about how often your mother had/has sex (or your wife or sister) - RUDE - you defend the RC Denomination talking about the one it calls its Mother.

 

[psalms 91]

The miraculous birth is comfort for me and an assurance, anything beyond that is not a comfort, why should I care if she didnt consumate her marriage to Joeseph and went against what God said should be with married couples

 

[Josiah]

The miraculous birth is comfort for me and an assurance, anything beyond that is not a comfort, why should I care if she didnt consumate her marriage to Joeseph and went against what God said should be with married couples

I agree with you, Bill. It is TRULY mysterious to me why the RC Denomination is SO obsessed with this issue, SO fascinated in this - how often this couple had or didn't have sex. Why a matter of highest importance possible, greatest necessity possible, de fide dogma! They go on and on and on and on and on about this matter that is normally a supremely private, personal matter that they themselves insist is RUDE to even discuss. I've wasted too much time TRYING to figure out why the obession, why the enormous interest in the sex life of this couple - all to no avail.

And as I've learned at other websites, NO OTHER ISSUE in the RCC causes Catholics to come unglued, to become uber-sensitive, to entirely abandon all thoughts of truth, than this one. I DON'T KNOW WHY. Is it that the RCC just abandons truth in the singular case of Mary? Is that RESPECTFUL? Or is it that it entirely abandons its normally strong prohibition from gossip in the sole, individual case of Mary? Is that RESPECTFUL? Some claim this is a fruit of some pagan-like goddess worship - but my own experience strongly suggests that's not true.... Some claim this is simply the application of some Roman/Greek religious throughts about virginity, a pagan imputation - and that might be the case but I don't see evidence of that. The belief exists in the Orthodox Church but the obsession, the enormous fascination, the uber-sensitivity, the entire abandonment of the issue of truth is missing there (it's not de fide dogma there, either) but why the difference when both accept the same Council where the TITLE (but not doctrine) is used? I don't know, haven't been able to figure that out. IMO, no dogma of the RCC is weirder..... perhaps not so much the dogma itself as the obsession, the fascination, the uber-emotionalism the RCC has about THIS. Odd. Very odd.


But we see how Catholics so craftfully, so passionately avoid, evade, dodge ANY substantiation for it..... avoid any discussion of it...... shout how importance respect is for Mary while posting things that seem ENORMOUSLY disrespectful and what they themselves insists is rude. Maybe truth IS irrelevant in the case of Mary alone.... maybe respect IS irrelevant in the single case of Mary.... maybe gossip IS permitted in the single case of Mary.... But all that aside, the RCC claims this is a matter of highest certainty possible - LETS SEE THE PROOF! It claims this is a matter of highest importance possible - LET'S SEE THE PROOF! If no substantiation is needed for statements of facts of the highest level possible, then will Catholics afford that to Mormons? To Muslims? Even to Baptists? Will they say to you Bill that you are right if you post something X number of times and exempt yourself from truth? We both know the answer to that.....



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The obsession appears to be yours.

 

[visionary]

The manifestation because of this obsession will be the tool in the devil's hand to deceive many.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Blessed Mary is ever virgin. It is simple to grasp but wonderful to behold.

 

[psalms 91]

Prove it, otherwise it is speculation and I believe along with many others on here to be untruth and as Visionary said a tool to be used to decieve many by satan

 

[MoreCoffee]

The proof is in the Tradition handed down from the apostles what other proof can there be?

 

[psalms 91]

scripture and it isnt there and if fact leans towards the other way. Tradition was addressed by Christ to the religious leaders of the day and what He thought of it

 

[Josiah]

The proof is in the Tradition handed down from the apostles what other proof can there be?

.

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]


You have STUBBORNLY and persistently refused to say what "tradition" you are talking about. You claimed the Bible states Mary was a perpetual virgin - but you had to abandon that claim when you yourself proved your claim to be wrong. You claimed that some unnamed Apostle taught this - but you had to abandon that claim when you yourself proved your claim to be wrong. So now it's some unnamed "tradition" but you refuse to say WHICH tradition (we wonder why!).


The Tradition of Mary (the only one who would know this normally supremely private, person detail of marital intimacy and the only one who could give permission to make it public)? Nope, because you have NOTHING from Mary about this. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. What you have is SILENCE - the oldest, original, respectful tradition.


The Tradition of the 12-14 Apostles - most of whom likely at least theoretically could have been told this by Mary (although WHY is a huge mystery)? Nope, because as you yourself proved, we have NOTHING from ANY Apostle that makes this remarkable statement. What you have is SILENCE - the oldest, original, respectful tradition.


The Tradition of Scripture - what the Holy Spirit chose to reveal and respectfully not reveal - in the pages of His Holy Scripture to us? Nope, because as you yourself proved, we have NOTHING from the pages of God's Scriptures to us that makes this claim. What you have is SILENCE - the oldest, original, respectful tradition.


The Tradition of anything (heretic, pagan or otherwise) who lived when they at least theoretically could have overheard Mary stating this, anyone who lived when she did? Nope, because as you yourself proved, we have NOTHING form ANYONE who lived when Mary did. What you have is SILENCE - the oldest, original, respectful Tradition.


The tradition of those who lived MUCH too late to know this private tidbid of bedroom information, who never said it was true or gave ANYTHING to indicates it was true, some of whom speculated she DID have sex, some speculating she did NOT have sex, none indicating their speculation was true, none indicating they had permission to publicly shout this, none saying why this matters, none saying it was a matter of highest importance and necessity possible? Perhaps, you seem able to quote such remarkable, irrelevant and perhaps disrespectful matter of private marital intimacy from CENTURIES afterwards; you chose to quote those who speculate she did not have sex and not those who speculate she did, but yup - CENTURIES later new TraditionS developed - replacing the much older, respectful, Marian, Biblical, Apostolic Tradition of SILENCE, NONE ever shown to be true (no one seemed to CARE if these new various Traditions were true - after all, it's MARY they were speculating about and truth didn't seem to matter when it came to Mary; nor respect).


Clearly, you reject the oldest Tradition..... the Marian, Apostolic, Biblical, First Century Tradition.... respectful SILENCE. And you offer NOTHING - nothing whatsoever, nothing at all - to indicate why you reject this Tradition, why you replace this Tradition, why you speculate about Mary's supremely private, personal matter of marital intimacies (the same privacy YOU insist on for yourself and your mother, wife).... and you seem to indicate that truth in this matter just doesn't matter..... respect in this matter is just irrelevant..... after all, it's Mary we're talking about - not someone important, someone any should care about. Remarkable. Curious. Odd. Strange. Puzzling. Shocking.




- Josiah




PS. My thanks to CH.... the only website known to me that permits me to state what I have regarding this matter the RC Denomination declared is a matter of HIGHEST certainty, importance and necessity possible but offers NOTHING AT ALL to indicate it's true and to indicate how and when it got permission from Mary to shout about this, why all must reject the original Marian, Apostolic, Biblical Tradition of respectful silence.





.

 

[George]

scripture and it isnt there and if fact leans towards the other way. Tradition was addressed by Christ to the religious leaders of the day and what He thought of it

What did he think of it?

 

[psalms 91]

Not a lot, He came against it

 

[George]

Not a lot, He came against it

Can you provide the Scripture? Not trying to challenge you, but it helps to supplement the discussion.

 

[George]

The manifestation because of this obsession will be the tool in the devil's hand to deceive many.

While I can respect you disagreeing with this view, I don't think that's really needed.