Ever Virgin

[Josiah]

[MENTION=142]Pedrito[/MENTION], by the time the letters and books you've quoted from were written Blessed Mary would be in her older years or departed this world and by the time those books were listed as part of the canonical holy scriptures Blessed Mary had long since departed this world. The question you ask And does any of the above indicate in any way that Mary would be, or that she became, a perpetual virgin? was answered before the canonical scriptures were listed by the church with the words "Blessed Mary is ever virgin" and the church bases these words on the teaching of the apostles handed down in apostolic traditions within the church.

Correct. ALL the Scriptures affirm the earliest Tradition regarding this matter: Respectful SILENCE. The identical view of all but 1 or 2 denominations today. SILENCE. Just as it seems we have from Mary..... Silence. Just as it seems we have from Joseph.... Silence. Just as it seems we have from Jesus.... Silence. Just as it seems we have from all the Apostles .... silence. The original Tradition of Silence. The Biblical Tradition of Silence. The Marian Tradition of Silence. The Apostolic Tradition of Silence. Nothing.... nothing.... nothing at all to affirm the speculation of a FEW men who lived much, much, much too late to know this normally very private, personal bedroom tidbit of marital intiacies among two loving spouses was true - much less a matter of highest importance possible, greatest necessity possible, most certainty possible. Nothing. Nothing at all.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Correct. ALL the Scriptures affirm the earliest Tradition regarding this matter: Respectful SILENCE. The identical view of all but 1 or 2 denominations today. SILENCE. Just as it seems we have from Mary..... Silence. Just as it seems we have from Joseph.... Silence. Just as it seems we have from Jesus.... Silence. Just as it seems we have from all the Apostles .... silence. The original Tradition of Silence. The Biblical Tradition of Silence. The Marian Tradition of Silence. The Apostolic Tradition of Silence. Nothing.... nothing.... nothing at all to affirm the speculation of a FEW men who lived much, much, much too late to know this normally very private, personal bedroom tidbit of marital intiacies among two loving spouses was true - much less a matter of highest importance possible, greatest necessity possible, most certainty possible. Nothing. Nothing at all.

The canonical new testament scriptures have each its own purpose. The four canonical gospels are about Jesus' birth, ministry, death, and resurrection but not the extended life times of the apostles or Blessed Mary. The letters are about specific situations and deal with those situations. The Acts of the apostles takes the reader through the early years of the church (body of Christ) and saint Paul's missions. The Apocalypse is apocalyptic. None of these canonical scriptures are biographies of the lives of Jesus, the apostles, Blessed Mary, saint Joseph or anybody else. But apostolic traditions contain more biographical information and the church (body of Christ) preserved it.

 

[Josiah]

The canonical new testament scriptures have each its own purpose. The four canonical gospels are about Jesus' birth, ministry, death, and resurrection but not the extended life times of the apostles or Blessed Mary.

That's right.


The "Tradition" of God in His Holy Scriptures to us is silence on this matter.

It's also the "Tradition" of Mary (the only one who would know this juicy tidbit of supremely private, personal, intimate marital detail and the only one able to give permission to spread it around): Silence

It's also the "Tradition" of Joseph: Silence.

It's also the "Tradition" of Jesus: Silence

It's also the "Tradition" of every one of the Apostles (Apostolic Tradition): Silence.

It's also the "Tradition" of everyone who lived in the First Century and even theoretically could have been told this supremely private, personal tidbit: Silence.


True.... MUCH later..... LONG after any of them could have learned this..... a FEW men began to speculate about Mary's sexual experiences after Jesus was born (WHY we'll never know), a few speculating this, a few speculating that. NONE of them ever revealing that such speculation was true, none of them revealing any interest in whether it was true, none of them declaring such to be dogma but (as men are apt to do at times), speculating about such nonetheless. Centuries of this eventually lead to one of the speculations of these men coming to be widely accepted- although again, never with ANYTHING to show it's true and with NOTHING to show they even cared if it was true and with NOTHING to indicate why it mattered or why it is anyone's business. And yes, six CENTURIES later, the TITLE "ever virgin" was used at an Ecumenical Council - not the teaching, just the title - with no indication whatsoever that such was true, no indication that they cared if it was true, no indication of the status of this (pious opinion? teaching? official teaching? doctrine? dogma? de fide dogma?). But the issue before us is NOT if some men eventually started to speculate about this..... or if gossip happens... it's whether this speculation is TRUE to the LEVEL CLAIMED, the documentation to reject the original, biblical, Marian, Apostolic Tradition of SILENCE and replace it with this particular remarkable speculation of a very few men MUCH too late to have actually learned it. Documenting it as TRUE to the LEVEL CLAIMED. Unless truth is irrelevant in the case of Mary (she being too lowly for it to matter), unless gossip is forbidden except in the singular, unique case of Mary (and then, just her sex life).


The reality that in all the many pages of this thread, in reality, in the 35 PAGES of posts in this thread, [MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] has given NOTHING, NOTHING at all, NOTHING whatsoever to show this speculation of some men is TRUE (or even if he cares if it's true)..... the reality that in all the many, many pages of this thread none have offered anything whatsoever to show it true to the level claimed (de fide dogma - a matter of highest importance possible, greatest certainty possible, most necessary to embrace)... that says much, admits much.




- Josiah





.

 

[Josiah]

That's right. NOTHING in Scripture to document your insistence about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born. Correct, nothing.



The "Tradition" of God in His Holy Scriptures to us is silence on this matter.

It's also the "Tradition" of Mary (the only one who would know this juicy tidbit of supremely private, personal, intimate marital detail and the only one able to give permission to spread it around): Silence

It's also the "Tradition" of Joseph: Silence.

It's also the "Tradition" of Jesus: Silence

It's also the "Tradition" of every one of the Apostles (Apostolic Tradition): Silence.

It's also the "Tradition" of everyone who lived in the First Century and even theoretically could have been told this supremely private, personal tidbit: Silence.


True.... MUCH later..... LONG after any of them could have learned this..... a FEW men began to speculate about Mary's sexual experiences after Jesus was born (WHY we'll never know), a few speculating this, a few speculating that. NONE of them ever revealing that such speculation was true, none of them revealing any interest in whether it was true, none of them declaring such to be dogma but (as men are apt to do at times), speculating about such nonetheless. Centuries of this eventually lead to one of the speculations of these men coming to be widely accepted- although again, never with ANYTHING to show it's true and with NOTHING to show they even cared if it was true and with NOTHING to indicate why it mattered or why it is anyone's business. And yes, six CENTURIES later, the TITLE "ever virgin" was used at an Ecumenical Council - not the teaching, just the title - with no indication whatsoever that such was true, no indication that they cared if it was true, no indication of the status of this (pious opinion? teaching? official teaching? doctrine? dogma? de fide dogma?). But the issue before us is NOT if some men eventually started to speculate about this..... or if gossip happens... it's whether this speculation is TRUE to the LEVEL CLAIMED, the documentation to reject the original, biblical, Marian, Apostolic Tradition of SILENCE and replace it with this particular remarkable speculation of a very few men MUCH too late to have actually learned it. Documenting it as TRUE to the LEVEL CLAIMED. Unless truth is irrelevant in the case of Mary (she being too lowly for it to matter), unless gossip is forbidden except in the singular, unique case of Mary (and then, just her sex life).


The reality that in all the many pages of this thread, in reality, in the 35 PAGES of posts in this thread, [MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] has given NOTHING, NOTHING at all, NOTHING whatsoever to show this speculation of some men is TRUE (or even if he cares if it's true)..... the reality that in all the many, many pages of this thread none have offered anything whatsoever to show it true to the level claimed (de fide dogma - a matter of highest importance possible, greatest certainty possible, most necessary to embrace)... that says much, admits much.




- Josiah





.

Bump for [MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] or any Catholic....



.

 

[Rens]

This is the answer

We could have just stopped at page 1.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We could have just stopped at page 1.

We probably ought to stop now since we missed the opportunity to stop at page 1

 

[Josiah]

If you have nothing, then you have nothing to post. But that you have nothing.... is significant. See post 343.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Critiques offered by the singular isolated individuals based on alleged unrepeatable unverifiable claimed experience do not amount to much.

 

[Josiah]

Agreed. Thus, there's nothing to support the RCC's debunking of the earlier, biblical, Marian, Apostolic Tradition of SILENCE in this matter...... nothing to support the RCC's position as true..... nothing to support it as a matter of highest importance, necessity and certainty possible. Friend, if you had anything, you would have produced it in the 348 posts of this thread. But yes, new traditions by the singular isolated RC Denomination based on .... well, nothing at all.... with nothing verifiable.... it doesn't amount to much.

 

[MoreCoffee]

1.3 billion people is not an individual.

 

[Josiah]

1.3 billion people is not an individual.

The RC Denomination is one, singular, individual denomination..... Now, if you want to insist there is no ONE Catholic Church but just 1.3 billion disagreeing individuals - okay, but I doubt you want to insist on that.


Sure, many many centuries after Mary died (or didn't - the RCC and EOC disagree on that), your singular, individual denomination declared that Mary had no sex EVER - as a matter of the highest importance possible, greatest certainty possible, highest necessity of believing possible. It's just as you have so very well documented in some 35 pages of posts, it has nothing at all to show this is true, and it has no concern or interest in whether it is true (heck, it's just MARY they're obsessing over), and nothing to show why this issue of how often couples have sex (or not) is a matter of greatest interest, importance, necessity of knowing possible (well, at least one married couple).... Nothing. Nothing to show it's true .... nothing to show why it's a matter of greatest importance and necessity of knowing possible. Truth doesn't seem to matter (at least in the singular case of Mary)..... gossip seems permitted (at least in the singular case of Mary).

In debate, a stance must be shown to be TRUE to the level CLAIMED - just as you do when we're discussing Protestant or JW views. But you document - the RCC has nothing. Just the individual opinion of it itself, declared to be "true" just because it itself alone insists that it itself can't be wrong so it itself individually can't be wrong when it itself claims that for it itself. Displacing and rejecting the earlier, Apostolic, Marian, Biblical Tradition of respectful silence. With nothing to support doing that .


We all know.... if you had ANYTHING to show this remarkable speculation of a few men FAR too late to actually know it or have permission to obsess over it, anything to support it as true to the level claimed, anything to support rejecting the earlier Apostolic/Biblical/Marian Tradition of silence, you would have offered it. At least in 35 pages of posts. Your dodging, evading, etc. only documents that. Perhaps truth just doesn't matter in the RCC when it comes to Mary (heck, it's just Mary) and sex (Heck, it's just Mary) or Dogma (Heck, it's just Mary). I think you made the point FOR these Protestants who doubt this speculation, I think you undermined the individual RC Denomination's insistence on this matter.


- Josiah




.

 

[Rens]

Well I still don't know if she is ever virgin, but I do know this is a ever virgin thread. The ever ongoing virgin thread LOL.

 

[Josiah]

Well I still don't know if she is ever virgin, but I do know this is a ever virgin thread. The ever ongoing virgin thread LOL.

I didn't start it, but you're right - it always ends with the bold, strong, shocking documentation that the RC Denomination has nothing to show this speculation of some men is TRUE - to the level claimed or at all...... and usually also documents that the RC Denomination and its members don't even seem to care if it's true. It's a very odd De Fide Dogma - especially for a denomination that CLAIMS to respect Mary. Amazing. Sad. Disturbing.

What Catholics always document is that the RCC eventually rejected, displaced, replaced the earliest, Biblical, Marian, Apostolic Tradition of silence - the stance of most Protestants. It's just they have nothing to support this rejection, nothing to show the replacement is true or why it matters SO very very very much. Threads on this reveal this amazing reality very well. But they can't seem to leave it alone (unlike the De Fide Dogma of the Assumption of Mary - equally dogma but one they realize is entirely baseless and so hide from).


Yup. MoreCoffee proved the point. Over and over and over.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The RC Denomination is one, singular, individual denomination.....

The Catholic Church is truly one - as the creed says one holy catholic and apostolic. Division into multiple tiny denominations is no virtue. Lutheranism is split into multiple denominations with a total membership of less that one sixteenth that of the Catholic Church. Hardly a ringing endorsement on their divided state.

 

[psalms 91]

The Catholic Church is truly one - as the creed says one holy catholic and apostolic. Division into multiple tiny denominations is no virtue. Lutheranism is split into multiple denominations with a total membership of less that one sixteenth that of the Catholic Church. Hardly a ringing endorsement on their divided state.

Numbers mean nothing in terms of truth and that is what this thread comes down to, truth. And it seems to me that nothing has been offered to prove the assertation, am waiting to see it in print rather than just saying it, backed up by something other than chruch dogma

 

[MoreCoffee]

Numbers mean nothing in terms of truth and that is what this thread comes down to, truth. And it seems to me that nothing has been offered to prove the assertation, am waiting to see it in print rather than just saying it, backed up by something other than chruch dogma

I agree that numbers mean very little but [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]'s posts suggest otherwise. They constantly mention "singular" and other adjectives meaning "one" so I thought some facts about the nature of one and the Catholic Church would be interesting.

 

[Josiah]

I agree that numbers mean very little but [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]'s posts suggest otherwise. They constantly mention "singular" and other adjectives meaning "one" so I thought some facts about the nature of one and the Catholic Church would be interesting.

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] Your indecision as to whether the RC Denomination is one or 1.3 billion different ones is irrelevant. You are simply proving my point again: you simply EVADE, DODGE the issue before us because as we all have had documented by you, you and your denomination (whether one or 1.3 billion) has NOTHING to show this remarkable speculation of a few men is TRUE. In fact, you've well documented that the RCC doesn't seem to care if it's true (it's only Mary it's obsessing about), nothing to show the status of it it itself insists upon - that Mary never had sex is a matter of highest importance and necessity POSSIBLE. Nothing to show why it had to reject and replace the older, original, Apostolic, Marian, biblical Tradition of respectful silence. In 35 pages, you've not had a thing to present to document this speculation of your denomination(s) is true - to the level claimed or at all. I think you have proved a common Protestant view of the RCC and it's speculation of this. Sad. Amazing Remarkable. Especially for a denomination(s) that CLAIMS to hold Mary in esteem.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] Your indecision as to whether the RC Denomination is one or 1.3 billion different ones is irrelevant. ...

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], irrelevant to your theology yes. Except when your posts try to make a virtue out of divisions - when that happens your posts claim that one Church is bad and many denominations is good. The argument in your posts is absurd.

 

[PezGirl73]

The Catholic Church is truly one - as the creed says one holy catholic and apostolic. Division into multiple tiny denominations is no virtue. Lutheranism is split into multiple denominations with a total membership of less that one sixteenth that of the Catholic Church. Hardly a ringing endorsement on their divided state.

catholic in the creed means universal, not Catholic.

Your members are as divided as ours. I know of many Catholics who don't believe that birth control is a sin. I know that many Catholics don't believe divorce is a problem. I know many Catholics who don't go to mass every time it's offered.

Just because the pope won't acknowledge that there's factions within his church doesn't mean they don't exist.

I say at least us Lutherans acknowledge them and do something about them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

catholic in the creed means universal, not Catholic.

If that play with words - specifically that catholic in the Creed means universal but does not refer to a specific Church in this world - pleases you then by all means keep using it together with the fantasy that lies behind it. It is, of course, not true to make the distinction that your post labours to make. The simple truth is that there is and was and always will be one holy catholic and apostolic church and many schisms and some heresies and various groups all laying claim to be what they cannot be.

Your members are as divided as ours.

Yet your fellow Lutheran, Josiah, repeatedly calls the Catholic Church singular, individual, and so forth. Would that the story could be agreed between those wearing the

badge but it can no more be agreed than can the many denominations bearing the name Lutheran become one.

I know of many Catholics who don't believe that birth control is a sin.

I too know many who say one thing, believe another, and practise a third. Do you believe artificial birth control is lawful, just and good?

I know that many Catholics don't believe divorce is a problem.

I too know many who say one thing, believe another, and practise a third. Do you believe divorce followed by another marriage is lawful, just and good?

I know many Catholics who don't go to mass every time it's offered.

I too know many who say one thing, believe another, and practise a third. Do you believe that it is lawful, just, and good to absent one's self from the assembly of the faithful for no good reason?

Just because the pope won't acknowledge that there's factions within his church doesn't mean they don't exist.

Within the Catholic Church there are orders, fraternities, sororities, and many voluntary societies all which are acknowledged both to exist and to have just cause to exist provided that they are lawfully and justly called into existence and practise what is just, right, and good. Do you believe that the divisions between the denominations of Lutheranism exist because their existence is just, right, and good?

I say at least us Lutherans acknowledge them and do something about them.

You say at least us Lutherans acknowledge them and do something about them when writing of the divisions between the denominations of Lutheranism, what precisely do you and they do about them?