Question for Protestants who deny Mary's Virginity

[Selene]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Is this the attitude of the Protestant Christian?  What more will God do for me?    

Protestants have given Catholics Scriptural reasons/verses why we believe Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus.  I have seen no Scriptural proof from Catholics that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.  

The reason I asked the question was not to be self righteous, but to explain that I've received/entered into God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus the Scriptural way as fully as I know how, and am walking in the works He has prepared for me that glorify His name.  

Is there more to learn and more glory I can give him?  You bet!  None of us are "filled with all the fulness of God" (Eph 3:19) yet.

Can we learn from Mary's example?  You bet!  But Protestants honestly do not understand how Mary's virginity after giving birth to Jesus is either Scriptural or adds to the salvation the Lord Jesus gives directly to His children.

The Catholics did give Scriptural reasons.  We said that Jesus gave John, His disciple to take care of His mother.  The fact that Jesus gave John His mother under His care showed that Jesus had no blood-related siblings.  It is the custom of the Jews for the oldest son to take care of their mother.  If the oldest son is not available to do that, the next oldest son has that duty.  

[John 10:10]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me Scripturally what more will God do for me that I don't already have now if I start believing in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Is this the attitude of the Protestant Christian?  What more will God do for me?    

Protestants have given Catholics Scriptural reasons/verses why we believe Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus.  I have seen no Scriptural proof from Catholics that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. 

The reason I asked the question was not to be self righteous, but to explain that I've received/entered into God's salvation that's in Christ Jesus the Scriptural way as fully as I know how, and am walking in the works He has prepared for me that glorify His name. 

Is there more to learn and more glory I can give him?  You bet!  None of us are "filled with all the fulness of God" (Eph 3:19) yet.

Can we learn from Mary's example?  You bet!  But Protestants honestly do not understand how Mary's virginity after giving birth to Jesus is either Scriptural or adds to the salvation the Lord Jesus gives directly to His children.

The Catholics did give Scriptural reasons.  We said that Jesus gave John, His disciple to take care of His mother.  The fact that Jesus gave John His mother under His care showed that Jesus had no blood-related siblings.  It is the custom of the Jews for the oldest son to take care of their mother.  If the oldest son is not available to do that, the next oldest son has that duty.  

There more Scriptural facts that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus than this incident at the cross where Jesus tells John, the disciple that Jesus loved (John 13:23, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20), the only disciple who came to the cross and would live the longest on earth, to care for his mother after the cross.

The greatest truth I receive from Mary's example were her words to Gabriel in Luke 1:38, "Be it unto me according to your word."

This is how our Lord gives and ministers His salvation to His children, and how we give Him glory by acting upon His Word.

Blessings

[Josiah]

The Catholics did give Scriptural reasons.  We said that Jesus gave John, His disciple to take care of His mother.  The fact that Jesus gave John His mother under His care showed that Jesus had no blood-related siblings.  It is the custom of the Jews for the oldest son to take care of their mother.  If the oldest son is not available to do that, the next oldest son has that duty.  

Okay.   I now have to add that apologetic for the Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever...
"It is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER because Jesus entrusted Mary to John." 

My response:  I see no connection whatsoever.  When a mother gives up a child to a couple in an open adoption, this is dogmatic proof that that mother will not ONCE ever have sex?  Do you have any substantiation  for that?



 



But I'll add it to the list.



.

[Josiah]

.




YOU are the one insisting that it's a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   It's YOUR position. And the issue is this: Is it true?





Let's review the discussion of this topic so far....


1.  "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be since I will forever more be a virgin until my death and/or undeath."   Wrong.  As has been shown, the verb is PRESENT tense, not future perfect.  Besides, such an interpretation (while grammatically IMPOSSIBLE) actually violates Catholic Tradition that you supposedly uphold.


2.   "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because every bishop - East and West - since 31 AD taught that Mary Had No Sex Ever."   Wrong.   NOT A SINGLE Bishop was (or can be) quoted teaching this - even a pure pious opinion - in the First Century.  Or even second.   It was not even declared a teaching until the 8th Century.


3.   "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because the rejected, false, book of the Protoevangelium of James (c. 200 AD) teaches it."   Wrong.   It never mentions it.   At all.   And it would be moot if it did, it's a false book rejected as teaching wrongly.


4.   "It's a dogmatic fact of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because it cannot be proven that Mary had any other children."  Moot.   Having no children does not mandate having no sex.   The dogma is NOT that Jesus had no sibs it's that Mary had no sex.


5.   "It's a dogmatic facty of greatest certainty, importance and relevance that Mary Had No Sex Ever because she was entrusted to the care of another."   BASELESS  Nothing was presented to document that when a person is entrusted to another, that means that person will never once have sex.   If a child is adopted, does that act mandate that ergo the child will die a virgin?  Are all adopted children perpetual virgins?


It's claimed that this DOGMA is true.  It needs to be verified to the level claimed:  as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  So far, nothing has been offered of any substantiation (I'm not counting all the personal attacks, flames, evasions, diversions, "you anti! accusations by persons who actually are anti whereas I'm not, etc. - only actual attempts to substantiate the dogma as true).


What's ya got to support this dogmatic insistence as true?  As so highly important?




Again, if you are going to spread this "story" about Our Blessed Lady as a matter of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth, we're back to what is your firm confirmation?   You are dividing Christianity over the issue of how often She had sex after Jesus was born, you are insisting on telling the world's 6.7 billion people this tidbit of info about Her marriage bed, so where's the substanatiation as to it's truth to the level claimed?   My Catholic teachers taught me that to spread something about someone that is not confirmed as true is called "gossip" and is a sin, ESPECIALLY if it is potentially harmful and embarrassing and of a personal nature.  So, lest we gossip and sin, lest we hurt and offend Our Lady (and thus Her Son), AND because you insist on telling the world world this normally private marital matter as DOGMA dividing Christiandom with it, where's the confirmation to the level claimed?  





.

[Ryan2010]

The problem here is the interpretation.

I respectfully disagree.

There is NO Scripture we are even discussing, much less differing on our hermeneutics of the words/grammar of that text.   This has nothing whatsoever to do with Scripture and thus with hermeneutics.   A person used the title of "ever virgin" in 362, THAT'S the issue:  is it thus TRUE to the level claimed?  And it is necessary as an unquestionable dividing point among Christians.

Few issues here.  

1. Interpretation

Interpretation is not limited to scripture alone.  The interpretive body and how it functions varies amongst the various traditions.  

There are verses in the bible that point to perpetual virginity as well as verses that point to Jesus being an only child (biologically).  

However, when a tradition interprets it usually has little to do with scripture.  For instance, the position that Jesus had siblings is an "extra-biblical" belief.  Nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus has brothers and sisters.  However, according to the tradition of protestantism they can not help but adhere to their tradition and so put things onto the text that are not there.   Where does this information come from then if not the bible?  The interpretive body.  

The interpretive body in Protestantism is not expressed as a "whole" in Protestantism.  Their is no authority in the interpretive body as a whole.   Protestants would say that the bible is the sole authority or rule etc. yet the problem here is that the bible isn't dispensing the interpretation, individuals are.  The authority doesn't rest ON the bible but in the individuals personal belief in what they solely believe the bible means to say.  

2. Necessary to the level claimed and unquestionable dividing point among Christians?

I would ask you how "what is necessary to be a Christian" is expressed in the protestant body as a whole.  This is where there is a huge difference between the more ancient faiths and the protestants.  

The protestants as a whole will say that there is very very little necessary.  You must say that "Jesus is Lord" according to the Protestant whole.  Beyond this, protestantism as a whole doesn't affirm or reject anything.  There doesn't have to be a Holy Trinity.  Who Jesus is can vary.   What Lordship means can vary.  What the meaning of "is" is, can vary.  The only thing that protestantism as a whole can fully unite themselves upon without division is that each individual has the right to declare and validate themselves as "Christian".  

In short, there is no dividing point in protestantism as a whole.  

Now on the personal or individual level there certainly is dividing points.  Because it's the individual who grants themselves the authority to be the interpretive body.  So for the self in protestantism, they come up with their own standard for confirming and rejecting.  

I'll expound upon this in my reply to your reply that follows.  

ME: In protestantism as a whole, the interpretive body is the reader as an individual.

YOU: I disagree; self appointing self as the sole infallible/unaccountable and authoritative interpreter is practiced only by the RCC and LDS to my knowledge.  I don't deny there are a tiny number of others who are so bold and egocentric and evasive, and I don't deny that in SOME way, at SOME level, this may be true in part for all.  But we are entirely sidetracked.  The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with hermeneutics since we're not discussing any verse.

Well, please allow me to disagree with your disagreement.  I hope that I can show you that the protestants do the same thing and that it is pretty much impossible to escape regardless of our omissions.  

But before I start, I do believe that you calling the RCC a cult to be either a gross overstep or at the least near sighted.  Allow me to hold a mirror up to the protestant ecclessiology and see if we can't find the same thing.  

1. Self appointing self

Who appointed Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, Farmer Ted, Pastor Anna-Bell, Benny Hinn, the Amish, the Puritans, the Baptist individual, the Pentecostal Individual as sole authoritative interpreters?  

Well, the answer is simple.  Luther appointed Luther.  Zwingli appointed Zwingli.  Calvin, Calvin.  

Luther didn't appoint Zwingli and neither did Zwingli appoint Benny Hinn.  

Where does the "sole" fit in?

Well, obviously the little cross-section of Protestantism that I've sampled from above are all individuals.  And each individual being Protestant is allowed to either affirm or reject what they believe to be true.  Now, none of the people above agree with one another.  That much is obvious.  But when they do agree notice who it is that decided whether or not they are right to agree.  It's not the bible.  They all differ on that.  The answer is, "the self" the "sole" individual.  

Luther granted himself sole authority to interpret.  Based on the bible?  No.  Based on Luther.  Sure sure, Luther believed what he believed because of what he personally thought the bible meant to say but at the end of the day, he listened not to the bible, but to himself.  

Benny Hinn is a good example because in Protestantism as a whole, you don't have to recognize any other authority than yourself.  You don't even have to do that!  If I'm a protestant I can waive that right and pledge blind allegiance to Benny Hinn's camp!  I can become a Hinnian! and yet remain in good standing as a Protestant.  

Does it matter that the above cross-section all disagrees with one another?   Nope.  That would be divisive.  Less important than who we say Jesus IS, is our want to protect the authority we give ourselves....

In the Protestant expression, the individual is the sole authoritative interpreter.  Some will say it is the Holy Spirit teaching them personally but anyone, a mere child, who sits between any two of these "spirit" lead groups/individuals will quickly realize that they disagree and therefore that either the Holy Spirit teaches two contradictory things about who He is (blasphemous) OR one or both of these self appointed individuals is wrong and misleading those that agree with them.  

Let's touch upon the Infallible/Unaccountable charge that you say is only peculiar to cults and then the RCC.

2. Infallible and Unaccountable

Protestantism as a whole doesn't have a Pope.  Each individual is their own Pope.  Each Pope agrees to allow the other to believe what they want but only so that they may do the same.  This is how they protect their authority.  Each individual is self-governing and can proclaim dogmas, right teaching etc. and also hurl anathemas, write creeds, etc. without hindrance.  

Now, as you know, there are special conditions that the RCC has when it comes to the Pope speaking infallibly.  The same as in Protestantism.  The only difference is that for Rome, they are in agreement as a whole and then also as individuals.  Ideally they all believe the same.  Nominalism discarded.  

What conditions must be in place for a protestant individual to speak infallibly?    Right interpretation of the bible.  Who are they accountable to?  The Pentecostals when they teach what they do about the laying on of hands...  who can hinder them?  Can the Lutherans call them up and tell them to "stop teaching false doctrine!"?

No.  

Can the Baptists call the Lutherans and tell them that they need to start eating cognitive recollection symbol wafers or else?

No.  

The Protestants have this system that ingeniously allows every individual to interpret with full authority and without hinder.  

Now they will all say that they are accountable to the scriptures but that's just not so.  There is nothing in Protestantism as a whole to safeguard that ideal.  In reality what the system provides the protestant individual with is the opportunity to let the scriptures be accountable to the individual.  

I'll say that again....

The Protestant system makes the scriptures accountable to the individual.  

Not the other way around.

Disagree?  

Baptist vs Pentecostal on laying on of hands.  Where is the accountability?  Are the scriptures holding them both accountable?  No.  Obviously not.  They are both in disagreement.  They are making the scriptures say what they think they say and holding the scriptures up to their interpretation.  

The protestant will say that what you need to do is approach the bible like this and like that or make sure you get the latest scholar's input on this and that and that you need to really read the so and so explanation or use a compass and a protractor and make sure this formula is employed when you get to such and such a verse and don't forget to use verse X as a base to make verse A read like so and don't forget......

It's the art of making the scriptures say what seems right to your own mind.  You gather yourself with a great many teachers and tickle each others ears.  

Come this way!  Go that way!  Follow the Word of God as I have proclaimed it!  I have spoken! It is so.  

You are trying to say that there are a few egocentrics who make such things dogmas but that's not the case.  If you add up all the dogmas and rules and regulations found in the body of Protestantism, you will find more than if you put all the ancient sects together.  

You can't be a Lutheran and believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol snack.  You can't be a Baptist and baptize a baby.  You can't be a United Methodist and not ordain women.  You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't can't can't.  

Yet.  You can can can because you can be a Protestant in good standing as long as you do it independently and affirm self as the sole authoritative expression and interpreter of self.  

That's why to even hint at a "One True Church" makes most Protestants squeal.  

Rob me of my authority?  They say, "I read the bible and the Holy Spirit tells me and gives me the discernment to speak the Word of God."  He told me this is the teaching of the laying on of hands.  He told me that THIS! is what communion is about.  He told me that!  You dare disagree and say that my authoritative interpretation is wrong and must cease to teach the Word of God?  Arrogance.  

Yet all those individuals contradict one another side by side in docility to the self for the sake, not of the scriptures, but of self for self alone.  

For a catholic (the more ancient faiths) we don't necessarily "base" our views ON scriptureor even ON Tradition but instead ON the Church who with the co-operation with the Holy Spirit gave us Scripture and Tradition.

Oh, I know this VERY, VERY well.   It's one of my most frequent posts.  It's RARE that any Catholic actually admits this (I'm typically flamed, labeled "Anti-Catholic," told I'm only spreading LIES and not infrequently reported to staff when I post that) but yes - that IS the RCC point.  I know it ALL TOO WELL.  

Well, catholics just admit it.  Some might not but it's true.  We should admit it.  The Church is not subject to the scriptures or tradition but products OF the Church.   Scripture and Tradition need to be in accordance but we must admit and submit the authority of the Church.  

Here's how I see that.   Self simply waves the issue of truth/correctness in the singular case of the teachings of self alone, changing the issue from truth to power, itself alone insisting that whatever itself alone teaches is to be embraced "with quiet docilic SUBMISSION" (of course, a power word).  

Well, choose wisely.  Be quietly submissive to the body of conflicting individuals and use the vacuum of private experience to interpret what the bible means to say and submit to that or to a body larger than yourself such as the Church under the Pope or the body according to the whole under Christ etc etc.  

I don't know.  There are a lot of different ecclessiologies (the belief as to what Church is).  

I think the Handbook of The Catholic Faith puts it very clearly:  "The Catholic is thus freed from the typical Protestant investigation of truth and instead rests in quiet submission to the Authority Christ established."   Ah, very clear.  Truth is not the issue (in the singular case of the RCC alone) but rather quiet, docilic submission to it itself alone.  This, you are correct - my question of "is it true?" is off their radar, so to speak, a question the RCC has declared moot and replaced with the issue of quiet, unquestioning, docilic SUBMISSION.  

It's the same in protestantism.  Example:

The Protestant is thus freed from the typical catholic (according to the whole) investigation of truth and instead rests in quiet submission to the Authority Christ established - ie. the authority of the individual as being the authoritative interpreter.  Ah, very clear.  Truth is not the issue but rather quiet, docilic submission to the self alone.  The question "is it true" is off the radar, so to speak, a question the Protestant declared moot and replaced with the issue of unquestioning docile Submission to the individual.

The most stunning and obvious common denominator is the declaration of each alone for each alone that each alone is God's appointed mouthpiece - and thus the issue of whether what is claimed (including that) and taught is exempt from the question of whether it is true ("freed from the typical Protestant investigation of truth") and the whole issue replaced with the insistence of self alone for self alone that all are to be quietly, docilicly SUBMISSIVE to self alone.   Truth is replaced with politics, power.

 

The same is true of Protestantism.  To reject the so called search for truth as a body of conflicting individuals is heresy in Protestantism.  It's listed in their anathemas.  Most of what the Protestant says goes without saying.  Like trying to convince a Protestant that they have tradition that they regard as Holy is very hard but it's true.  To deny the rapture for instance is considered to be a wrong interpretation in many circles of Protestantism and yet the rapture has a Tradition but since the Protestant insists that they are quietly divorced from Tradition, they don't admit that their ex-wife's name is John Nelson Darby and so insist he never existed but that the bible merely says what they believe it says, even if it's not true.  

[Ryan2010]

I think it's a dangerous rubric and it seems to be quite unrelated to truth.  In fact, as a group that works with the LDS kept saying, "The true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.  It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild self from accountability, change the topic from truth to power; it is the false teacher who must build tall walls around self of the claims of self for self."  I think there's probably some truth in that.   Same group:  "In the cults, we see people who have confused submission with assurance, docility with certainty."  I think so....

Choose wisely.  Don't know what else to say.  A false teacher will say that they have the right interpretation of scripture and so will say that to go against what they believe the bible means to say is to go against God's word and then will use all kinds of reasoning to appeal to that teaching.  They try to paint a picture of authority without doing it overtly most often. 

Oh, well, I believe in Christ and have the Holy Spirit in me and he told me that this means what I believe it means.  Oh, well, these things aren't important anyway and are just divisive to us Christians and you know what the bible says about divisive people.  Well, these aren't really necessary because I proclaim the the bible says that x,y,z are the necessities and my interpretation is right and so don't go against the Word of God of which I am a mouth-piece for. 

It's the same.  It just pretends not to be. 

Accept the body of conflicting individuals or cease to be a part of the body of conflicting individual.  Cult is often a cheap way of trying to say that no one religion is right or appealing to personal relationship over corporate adherence to Truth. 

2.  In the case of the RCC and LDS (but rarely with the cults), there is a STUNNING double standard.  The RCC practically invented the concept of holding teachers accountable.  It STRESSED doctrine and the need for such to be "correct" in a congnative sense.  LONG, LONG before Luther or Calvin was born, it was INSISTING - boldly, passionately - that all teachers of doctrine are fully and immediately accountabile for what is taught.  It never hesitated to question, to test/norm, to arbitrate - and if such was found to be wrong, to condemn, rebuke, excommunicate, defroke, and even occasionally dispatch the teacher to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.   WHY?  Because we MUST hold ALL teachers fully accountable for what is taught, investigating if such is CORRECT.   But then, when it comes to itself, it makes a STUNNING, absolute, total, complete, 180 degree reversal. 

Well, sure, if that's true then that's no good.  I mean, you have Pentecostals and Baptists teaching two contradictory things.  Protestants as a whole should hold each accountable and if they refuse to submit to the Truth then they ought to be defrocked. 

Will that happen any time soon?

If the rapture is a false teaching then Protestantism as a whole, if it is truly any kind of body, will spit that teaching out from within her.  However, she more often than not just absorbs ever wind of doctrine and expects everyone to submit to the pluralism of either personally accepting or rejecting in order to maintain the double standard. 

You can be a body of conflicting individuals on the inside but a body can't conflict with her outside of her and remain in good standing. 

It's the same....

Yes, I KNOW - I very, very much do - that the question I'm raising is not one Catholics are permitted to raise and for the conservative, "faithful" Catholic, is just "off the radar" and he/she can't even engage.   I tend to think they just stay out of these discussions (After all, whether it's TRUE is moot).  It's typically the Catholic apologetic who enters.  This one, however, is tough (although the Assumption is even tougher).  How do I know?  In my Catholics days, I was a Catholic apologists at interdenominational websites. 

Well, a protestant can question all she wants and authoritatively affirm what the Word of God says and means provided she doesn't claim to speak for all Protestants.  In other words, Protestants are not permitted to hold the body accountable for her actions as a whole but must in docility allow her to teach whatever peculiarity she absorbs. 

Mary in the Protestant expression is all kinds of contradictory ideas.  The body as a whole doesn't say anything uniformly and so she winds up with all sorts of contradictory roles.  She is what you want her to be or don't want her to be. 

I agree.   It's ONE of the reasons I'm not standing with most Protestants in rejecting this view. 

However, I'd also point out that many of these Marian DOGMAS are amazingly late and do NOT flow from major theological disputes (unlike most dogmas).   Even Catholics tend to have no clue WHY these dogmas even exist. 

Ask a rapture believer if they know who Darby is.  How late in the game are any number of Protestant teachings and personal dogmas? 

Open communion.  How late in the game is that penny?  It's still quite shiny. 

And I'd point out they are DOGMAS.  Including some the EO does not embrace.

Well, I'm not Roman Catholic.  I adhere to the EO tradition.  But despite the dogmas, we believe her to be Ever-Virgin and we believe that Jesus didn't have biological sibs.  We believe it to be a Christological position and if you disagree or aren't satisfied, you are free according to your tradition, to act as you want. 

It does, but as you just so keenly noted, that issue is moot for Catholicism.  It has been replaced by the insistence of the RCC aloen that all just be submissive to the RCC alone.

You can't be RCC and Protestant at the same time.  It's the same.  In protestantism you replace the Truth for the rights of the individual alone.  The (protestant) "church" is subject to the Individual. 

As I said, it seems to ME it SHOULD matter to the Catholic whether what he/she is insisting upon as a point of greatest importance, relevance and truth about Our Blessed Lady IS true or not.  It SHOULD matter, because we LOVE Her and SHOULD not want to hurt Her, and it SHOULD matter because to spread unconfirmed things about another person is regarded in Catholicism as gossip and condemned as a sin.   So YES, I agree with you - it SHOULD matter!   The reality that it doesn't is a result of the point you keenly noted.   

The Protestant expression according to the whole is that it doesn't matter to the body but only to the self and only if you want it to. 




No?

Luther accepted it in large part because of his deep Marian spirituality and because he placed a LOT of "credit" the true Ecumenical Councils which had a strong, ecumenical and historic consensus among Giod's people (whom he regarded as the church).    This is ALSO why I'm very open on this - not yet decided. 

I do hope you don't throw out the councils and at the same time hope you don't just pick and choose what within the councils you want to fashion in your own image. 

BUT, a point that MUST be kept clearly in mind when speaking of Luther on this:  It was not dogma for him or any of the Lutheran Church "fathers." 

Call no man father!

Dogma requires Scripture, and in Luther's teachings on this, he noted teh strong tradition and the lack of Scripture.

Consider this?

lack of scripture and strong tradition vs Christology

or

Loads of Scripture and Strong Tradition vs Christology


We can have loads of scripture to back up a false claim and any number of false traditions (Darby etc.) but what it boils down to is who we say God IS according to the revelation of God.  If your only base is scripture and tradition then it depends on the "body" in question.   The RCC body? The Protestant body?  etc...   

Imagine what a Protestant ecumenical council would look like.  They would hurl anathemas and yet wouldn't excommunicate.  Pretty soon nearly everyone would be just as much in the right as they are in the wrong and all would go home just as Protestant as when they arrived. 

There were (rare) LUtheran pastors who did NOT teach the PVM - they were disagreed with but not excommunicated or defrocked - thus illustrating that while the "pious opinion" was very strongly and nearly universally held among 16th Century Lutherans, it was not regarded as dogma.  Today, some Lutheran pastors embrace this view, some do not, the great majority (according to my pastor anyway) simply have no view. 

So admitting you don't know you admit that no one might know as far as you are concerned and when Rome says they know it's "gossip" and "slander" but when Lutheran pastors teach the same in all directions, it's, uh, ok because no one is defrocked? 

Not sure how a system of contradictory stances and ideas and admitted indifference is a comfort to a person who seeks Truth. 

In MY Lutheran congregation (where about half are former Catholics),  some hold to these Marian views quite passionately (especially Hispanics), many of us still bring Her up in discussions and refer to Her as "Our Lady" (or similar), and I noted (!!!!!) in the pastor's Sunday Bible Class a couple of years ago one person refer to Her as "the Ever Virgin" (sic) and, with my eyes wide and my ears open, I waited to see what the response would be.  There was NONE.

Try that language in an evangelical church and count the slack jaws vs the ones holding open bibles, hollering that Mary was just a vessel God used to bring them their ticket to heaven.

You're in communion with them, no?  Even if you aren't, you are, no?

PERHAPS.... but it includes that. 

I think you "get" my point, but curiously are evading it?

I'm not evading that Mary's chastity has sexual implications just as Our Lord's Virginity has implications.  But again I do ask you if the Lord's Virginity at all matters to you or to Protestantism as a whole? 

I've met plenty of Protestants that say that it doesn't because the only utilitarian value placed on our Lord by some "believers" is that he gets them to heaven and who cares if he was married or not.  After all, marriage isn't a sin and he can still be the sacrificial lamb for them.  Some might even ask, why divide Christianity on such a thing. 

 

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is simple, direct and sharply focused. 
1.  It's about Mary.
2.  It's about virginity (here meaning without sex)
3.  It's about perpetuality (forever).

It is that Mary had no sex ever.

It has one application (given in the Catechism itself):  Mary had no other children. 

I say that your characterization of them is  false here but I am not sure how the RCC views the application (if they even view it as an "application"). 

Forgive me if I won't take your word on what it is that the RCC believes to be the value in their teaching on Mary's Perpetual Virginity. 

.Uh, the RCC ALSO says that it is ALSO dogma (of equal footing) that Mary was Assumed into Heaven upon Her death (or undeath - the RCC is as yet withholding the situation there, yet to declare which).  It EQUALLY teaches the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Papacy, the Dogma of Purgatory, the Dogma of Original Sin, the Dogma of Transubstantiation (very specifically defined).  Are you saying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is confirmed as true because the RCC says it - and that's all the confirmation suggested?

I am saying that the RCC confirms it as true because the RCC confirms it as true.  Just as Protestantism confirms her truths as truth because they above scripture and tradition confirm it as true. 

No.  I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.[/b][/u][/color]

But you are absolutely correct.  I just do NOT have the guts to post it as directly as you did.  [/quote]

Uh, but the same is true of Protestantism.  I'm basically saying that we can't all be right if we all contradict one another.  I saw you posted this comment in another thread and don't really feel that was in good taste as it was used to make a point that I never tried to make.  But such is life.

I'll say it again but in a way that shouldn't be perceived as negative:

We are all true to our tradition and we all hope that our tradition is True. 

No.   My position is I don't know if it's true.

If you only knew that you didn't know then you would be open to the possibility that some one or some group might actually know and so wouldn't accuse them of gossip.  Because if they are right and then they are not gossips. 

Your position based on charging them as gossips and single handedly dividing Christianity suggests that because you don't know you don't think anyone else does either. 

Your position is that it doesn't matter. 

My position is that it certainly does matter.  I adhere to the Tradition of my Church.  She IS Ever-Virgin.  She IS Theotokos. 

What I AM saying is that here we have a Dogma created.   Permanently dividing Christians.

Where's the protestant dogma against Modalism?  There is none.  Sometimes you have to divide.  Sometimes you have to embrace.  Protestant seems only to embrace. 

So does the Infallible Roman Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary.  Catholics would reveal to you these are actually older tradition than the perpetual virginity of Mary.   Does saying, "well, it all boils down to tradition" mean to you that ERGO it's correct? 

No, but if you belong to a tradition that confirms and rejects Truth from lie in a certain way then that's what you're bound to do as an adherent to that tradition. 

There's no scientific way to discern which tradition is the Truth.  We are a people of faith. 


No more than an Orthodox saying that the Immaculate Conception (born free of ORIGINAL SIN) isn't necessary WRONG but it's not affirmed as CORRECT either. 

No, this is not "pluralism" it's humility.  "I don't KNOW" is not the same as "All views are correct."

So Protestants as a whole doesn't know what the elementary teaching on baptisms is?  This is humility?  It's not expressed this way in her ecclessiology.  According to the whole of Protestantism, they have no stance.  Right? They don't know.  But as individuals they express it as if they do. 

As a Lutheran I'm sure you can look across the street at your Protestant neighbor who refuses to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or look even further down the road and look on as they baptize someone in a giant bowl of jello and say, well, we just don't know according to the whole and so in our humility....

Please. 

No. 

3.  There is no doctrine on this point anywhere in Protestantism known to me

Are there ANY doctrines in Protestantism that bind all Protestants? 



Christ is risen.

[Josiah]

I think it's a dangerous rubric and it seems to be quite unrelated to truth.  In fact, as a group that works with the LDS kept saying, "The true teacher welcomes the light and comes into the light.  It is the false teacher who must hide in the dark, sheild self from accountability, change the topic from truth to power; it is the false teacher who must build tall walls around self of the claims of self for self."  I think there's probably some truth in that.   Same group:  "In the cults, we see people who have confused submission with assurance, docility with certainty."  I think so....

Choose wisely.  Don't know what else to say.  A false teacher will say that they have the right interpretation of scripture and so will say that to go against what they believe the bible means to say is to go against God's word and then will use all kinds of reasoning to appeal to that teaching.  They try to paint a picture of authority without doing it overtly most often.  

It's not choosing, it's norming.

My experience is that the false teacher generally tries to EVADE the issue of whether the teaching is correct, pointing instead to something about self alone that makes the issue moot.  "God speaks to ME - I speak for God."  "God is not accountable, I'm essentiall equal to God, so I'm not accountable."  "God promised ME _____________ thus take your question about whether what I'm saying is true and go because it's moot in the sole case of me, says I."  

Oh, well, I believe in Christ and have the Holy Spirit in me and he told me that this means what I believe it means.

Or, Jesus founded ME, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ME, the Holy Spirit inerrantly leads only ME, the only one that infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is ME.  The sole interpreter is ME, the sole arbiter is ME, the sole authority is ME, truth matters in all cases except for ME.    (Replace ME with any teacher - such as any denomination - and it's the same thing).  As I studied several American "Christian" cults, I found no common denominator among them more stunning and more foundational that that (just replace "ME" with the claims of each alone for each alone - always with the point that truth is moot in the sole case of self, replaced by the issue of power of ME).  


Now, how does that reality justify your point that it's moot whether it's true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

2.  In the case of the RCC and LDS (but rarely with the cults), there is a STUNNING double standard.  The RCC practically invented the concept of holding teachers accountable.  It STRESSED doctrine and the need for such to be "correct" in a congnative sense.  LONG, LONG before Luther or Calvin was born, it was INSISTING - boldly, passionately - that all teachers of doctrine are fully and immediately accountabile for what is taught.  It never hesitated to question, to test/norm, to arbitrate - and if such was found to be wrong, to condemn, rebuke, excommunicate, defroke, and even occasionally dispatch the teacher to the appointed afterlife a bit ahead of schedule smelling like smoke.   WHY?  Because we MUST hold ALL teachers fully accountable for what is taught, investigating if such is CORRECT.   But then, when it comes to itself, it makes a STUNNING, absolute, total, complete, 180 degree reversal

.  

If the rapture is a false teaching then Protestantism as a whole, if it is truly any kind of body, will spit that teaching out from within her.  However, she more often than not just absorbs ever wind of doctrine and expects everyone to submit to the pluralism of either personally accepting or rejecting in order to maintain the double standard.  

1.  I think you entirely missed my point.  Perhaps you would re-read what you quoted from me....


2.  I admit I'm largely ignorant of this concept.  I don't know if it's dogma anywhere or what it exactly proclaims.  But IF it is a doctrine, it is accountable.  That would suggest to ME vis-a-vis Scripture.  A hearty debate on that point would be good.


3.  I realize that the RCC is in full doctrinal agreement with one: itself.  It has a unity of self alone with self alone, a unity with exactly ONE: self.  It agrees only with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror.   ME.  SELF.  But that unity is FAR, FAR less than it seems.  It's PURELY official and formal and institutional and says NOTHING about any or all Christians and thus the church, and it ONLY applies to what the RCC alone CURRENTLY regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about.  Okay.  I realize that.  And I realize your point:  there are other denominations that are no better in this regard.  But I fail to see why that substantiates that if self alone agrees with self alone then the issue of whatever self alone says is exempt from the issue of whether it is correct?


Or are you TRYING to say taht since the RCC is as bad as some Protestant denominations in this regard, ergo those Protestant denominations are exempt from the issue of truth as well, and we all should embrace "the rapture" because self alone agress with self alone on it and it doesn't matter if it's true or not?

Yes, I KNOW - I very, very much do - that the question I'm raising is not one Catholics are permitted to raise and for the conservative, "faithful" Catholic, is just "off the radar" and he/she can't even engage.   I tend to think they just stay out of these discussions (After all, whether it's TRUE is moot).  It's typically the Catholic apologetic who enters.  This one, however, is tough (although the Assumption is even tougher).  How do I know?  In my Catholics days, I was a Catholic apologists at interdenominational websites.  

Mary in the Protestant expression is all kinds of contradictory ideas.  The body as a whole doesn't say anything uniformly and so she winds up with all sorts of contradictory roles.  She is what you want her to be or don't want her to be.  

Actually, I don't know of any Protestant denomination that has ANY doctrine of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex" or "Mary Had No Sex Ever."  

Yes, PROTESTANTS are permitted to have varient opinions about such because there is no dogma on the matter, but no Denomination is saying, "It's MOOT if She did or did not because whatever I myself alone says is exempt from that issue."  

See my above obvious point about how the RCC being as bad as any other denomination (and a lot worse than many) in the area of doctrinal unity is moot to self being exempt from the issue of self being correct.

As I said, it seems to ME it SHOULD matter to the Catholic whether what he/she is insisting upon as a point of greatest importance, relevance and truth about Our Blessed Lady IS true or not.  It SHOULD matter, because we LOVE Her and SHOULD not want to hurt Her, and it SHOULD matter because to spread unconfirmed things about another person is regarded in Catholicism as gossip and condemned as a sin.   So YES, I agree with you - it SHOULD matter!   The reality that it doesn't is a result of the point you keenly noted


.    

The Protestant expression according to the whole is that it doesn't matter to the body but only to the self and only if you want it to.   No?

.

No.

Luther accepted it in large part because of his deep Marian spirituality and because he placed a LOT of "credit" the true Ecumenical Councils which had a strong, ecumenical and historic consensus among Giod's people (whom he regarded as the church).    This is ALSO why I'm very open on this - not yet decided.

BUT, a point that MUST be kept clearly in mind when speaking of Luther on this:  It was not dogma for him or any of the Lutheran Church "fathers."  

Dogma requires Scripture, and in Luther's teachings on this, he noted teh strong tradition and the lack of Scripture

.

Call no man father!

?


I have no idea how that replies to what I posted.

There were (rare) LUtheran pastors who did NOT teach the PVM - they were disagreed with but not excommunicated or defrocked - thus illustrating that while the "pious opinion" was very strongly and nearly universally held among 16th Century Lutherans, it was not regarded as dogma.  Today, some Lutheran pastors embrace this view, some do not, the great majority (according to my pastor anyway) simply have no view

.  

So admitting you don't know you admit that no one might know

Obviously not.

It's not dogma.  Having no position is not the same as saying no position is possible.  I have no position on whether there is life (as we know it) on other planets.  I dont' say - one way or the other - as to whether such life exists or not.  I DO think there probably IS an answer to that question but it currently appears not to exist among us.   "I don't know" in no way means "it cannot be known."

IF the RCC has the substantiation, it should share it.  But as you've pointed out so very, very clearly - the RCC responds to the question by saying it doesn't MATTER if it's true.  As it keeps pointing out, in a diversity of ways, over and over, truth is to waved and in its place, the RCC alone insists that all just be in quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to itself alone.  Truth is replaced by submission, correct is replaced by power.  Self trumps truth.



 

No.  I'm merely saying that we are all true to our tradition regardless of whether or not our tradition is actually true.[/b][/u][/color]




Uh, but the same is true of Protestantism.  I'm basically saying that we can't all be right if we all contradict one another.  

It's not also true in all Protestant denominations.  And I fail to see how it would affirm such being the right rubric to use for the RCC if you rebuke a Protestant denomination for doing the same thing (which none, known to me, does).

You are simply accurately giving the RCC position.  Truth has been waved, the RCC's insistence that all just be in quiet submission to itself has been substituted.
 

No.   My position is I don't know if it's true

.

If you only knew that you didn't know then you would be open to the possibility that some one or some group might actually know

... and I am.  

But as you pointed out, the RCC position is that it doesn't matter if it's true.

So does the Infallible Roman Pope, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary.  Catholics would reveal to you these are actually older tradition than the perpetual virginity of Mary.   Does saying, "well, it all boils down to tradition" mean to you that ERGO it's correct?  

.

No

.

So, it's exempt from truth if it's tradition but it's not too?
Or is it just if SELF says it, then SELF is exempt?




Interesting discussing, and I'm still quite surprised at how boldly and accurately you state the RCC position (and sad to gather it's the EO's too), but I'm still a bit in the dark as to how abandoning the issue of whether this dogma is true or not has any relevance to whether it's true or not.  Or why it means the RCC can condemn ME for not teaching correctly (truth matters if I teach it) but no one can even ask a question of the RCC because truth does not matter there, says itself.

Christ is risen.

...  He is risen indeed.


- Josiah




.

[LightHammer]

You told us that already.
Now tell me why it sould matter to us that Mary reamined a virgin. How do you reconcile that with Paul's teaching that a husband and wife shouldn't withheld sex from each other.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

She remains faithful.

Does it matter that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding?  Probably not, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.


The Truth is available for you to accept or reject.

How do we discern the Truth?

1 John 4
 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

This is the reason why protestants have such a problem with Catholic dogma;

The Syrian queen Semiramis was the Father of Tammuz the son of Nimrod. Nimrod was the renowned hunter that became known as the sun god Baal after his death and Semiramis' mysterious pregnancy. It was Semiramis that convinced her followers that Nimrod was a god and that her pregnancy was at his divine hand through the rays of the sun. After the death of Tammuz, Semiramis convinced her followers that Tammuz had ascended to his father and that they existed as one thus formulating the Syrian Trinity with herself as Queen of heaven.

I love the faith and I understand that Satan is most dangerous because he knows the truth and can manipulate and distort it to befuddle the innocent. With that being said I know men and how easily men are corrupted especially when they are given an opportunity to seize power. We all know the political and religious war that was going in Rome when the Council of Nicaea officiated doctrine and Christianity finally became the official religion of the longest reigning empire to date. New religions often adopt the customs, traditions or even insignificant dogmas of the local natives to make conversions less stressful.

This is indisputable. The early church leaders did it with December 25th, they did it with the Sabbath, the did it with Easter. These religious holidays, that had their own specific and known dates, were declared to be celebrated on the dates of those pagan festivals in order to make Christianity more acceptable to the average pagan.

I'm not saying whether these decisions are right or wrong because God did not ordain me with the authority to make such calls but I will say that when your denomination of Christianity so closely rides the coat tails of faiths we know to be false it scares people. Especially when John prophesies about a great church made corrupt by riding the back of a great empire and compiling together pieces of false faiths to the truth.

The early church fathers, although they subscribed to Christianity, were only second of third generation descendants of faithful pagans. Those traditions and beliefs don't die out so easily and it is too easy for a Greek or Italian to refer back to bits and pieces of their historical knowledge of mythology when trying to define or understand the God of Abraham nearly from scratch.

[LightHammer]

So in a nutshell Chester's claim of Mary being the spouse of the Holy Spirit is completely false and baseless in scripture. The truth of God's perfect union with man is laid out in Revelation.

 6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

 7Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

 8And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

 9And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

The Church is Christ's Bride not Mary. Christ and the Holy Spirit are one in the same.

And again in Ephesians 5:25-27

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.

[Catholica]

Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.

All generations will call me "a blessed tool".     Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".

[LightHammer]

Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.

All generations will call me "a blessed tool".     Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".

Haha. I can't believe you said that.lol 

Well let me see...

Well first off Mary wasn't really made known about God's plan until after she was pregnant and then later she married Joseph and had intercourse with him.

A marriage under Jewish law is the same as Adam and Eve's union under God's hand. The man and woman become one. From the words of God Himself via divine inspiration one can not serve two masters or more accurately one can give himself completely to twice.
God united Mary to Joseph not Mary to Himself. That is fact not a corrutpion of scripture through blending local folklore.

I find it hard ridiculous that you guys even make such a claim. The Prince of Peace enters the world in full knowledge of His tasks but the Queen of Heaven has to be told by an angel how she got pregnant? Yea tell yourselves what you want but not even the disciples believed that.

The Immacualte Conception was a doctrine that came about later in Christianity's history just as did most of the exaggerations of Mary's discipleship.

[Catholica]

Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.

All generations will call me "a blessed tool".     Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".

Haha. I can't believe you said that.lol 

Well let me see...

Well first off Mary wasn't really made known about God's plan until after she was pregnant and then later she married Joseph and had intercourse with him.

A marriage under Jewish law is the same as Adam and Eve's union under God's hand. The man and woman become one. From the words of God Himself via divine inspiration one can not serve two masters or more accurately one can give himself completely to twice.
God united Mary to Joseph not Mary to Himself. That is fact not a corrutpion of scripture through blending local folklore.

I find it hard ridiculous that you guys even make such a claim. The Prince of Peace enters the world in full knowledge of His tasks but the Queen of Heaven has to be told by an angel how she got pregnant? Yea tell yourselves what you want but not even the disciples believed that.

The Immacualte Conception was a doctrine that came about later in Christianity's history just as did most of the exaggerations of Mary's discipleship.

I see.  So God committed adultery then, when he used the Blessed Mother as a tool to bring his son into the world, apparently without consenting her.   Is that pretty much what you are saying?

[LightHammer]

Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit. She was a blessed tool chosen to carry out the will of God and bear His seed. Don't jump the gun with such claims.

All generations will call me "a blessed tool".     Shame on you.

I suppose God implants his "seed" in a person he uses as a "tool".  There's a word for that where I come from, and that is "rape".

Haha. I can't believe you said that.lol 

Well let me see...

Well first off Mary wasn't really made known about God's plan until after she was pregnant and then later she married Joseph and had intercourse with him.

A marriage under Jewish law is the same as Adam and Eve's union under God's hand. The man and woman become one. From the words of God Himself via divine inspiration one can not serve two masters or more accurately one can give himself completely to twice.
God united Mary to Joseph not Mary to Himself. That is fact not a corrutpion of scripture through blending local folklore.

I find it hard ridiculous that you guys even make such a claim. The Prince of Peace enters the world in full knowledge of His tasks but the Queen of Heaven has to be told by an angel how she got pregnant? Yea tell yourselves what you want but not even the disciples believed that.

The Immacualte Conception was a doctrine that came about later in Christianity's history just as did most of the exaggerations of Mary's discipleship.

I see.  So God committed adultery then, when he used the Blessed Mother as a tool to bring his son into the world, apparently without consenting her.   Is that pretty much what you are saying?

Uhh no?

First off God can't sin. To imply that I'm saying God is adulterous is way out of context.

No God did not consent with Mary before He used as the Vessel. That does not make Him guilty of adultery.

Thats just stupid. Thats like saying God committed murder when He protect the Jews crossing the Red Sea by reigning fire onto their persuers. Thats just a really really far stretch and breech of my reasoning. And honestly its the weakest rebutle I've ever been put up against on this site.

God has one Bride and that is His Church. He has remained faithful to her sense her crissonning. Point blank end of discussion.

[Ryan2010]

It's not choosing, it's norming.

Ok, let's look at "norming" from the Protestant perspective:

Norm : A 'norm' is something by which other things are measured and judged. When the Bible is called the 'norm', it means that what we think, teach, and do must measure up to the standards of Scripture. A norm helps stop us from getting carried away with ourselves and our supposed wisdom. Many traditions speak of the 'norming norm' or 'norm within the norm' or 'material norm' : the Gospel message of God's forgiving love in Jesus Christ. This means that all the rest of the Bible is measured according to (or is 'normed' by) Christ and the Gospel message. The Bible is the 'norm' because of who stands behind it and whose story it tells. This puts the main focus where it belongs -- Christ, not Moses or David or Paul or John, or even the Bible.


Alright.  That doesn't sound so bad upon first glance. But here's a problem:


Hebrews 5 and 6

5

 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

6

 1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.


Ok.  This poses a big problem.  For starters, we have all these groups.  And each group is "norming" as you say and not "choosing".  Yet, each group norms and still comes up with contradictory teachings.  Look at the elementary teachings listed in Hebrews.  You can't get different groups WITHIN Protestantism to agree on those elementary teachings.  You just can't.  

There's a reality here, in Hebrews, that can't be fulfilled by protestants.  For one, the community that received this letter has in place the means to learn the elementary teachings ALL OVER AGAIN.  Even prior to the arrival of the epistle of Hebrews.  They knew about the "instruction about baptisms" because they were dunked either by the Apostles themselves OR those the Apostles dunked (baptized).  

This is what makes these teachings about Christ, "elementary".  You don't have to have a black-belt in scripture reading in order to know it.  It's authoritative because it is in continuity with the teaching of the Apostles.   This community that met the Apostles face to face and knew them personally as evidenced by the fact that the Apostles actually wrote a letter addressed to them.  How can you write someone you don't know?  You can't.  

So the community's experience with the Apostles helps to inform the text if a question about the text should ever arise.  This community doesn't gather the "instruction about baptisms" and the other elementary teachings of Christ based on scripture but on their experience with the Apostles.  They are being told in this very epistle to take advantage of what is ALREADY in place.  What is in place?  The deposit of the faith.  The teachings of the Apostles.  

So if two guys read the scriptures and they both come up with independent teachings as to what these elementary teachings are, this community doesn't go to the scriptures but instead refers to their experience with the Apostles.  

So let's call these two "hypothetical" guys, Johnny Baptist and Martha Pentecostal.  They both come to this "community" that the Apostle wrote the epistle of Hebrews to and after reading the bible and norming their hearts out, decide they know what these "elementary" teachings about Christ are.  

So they each take turns trying to convince others of their positions.  Johnny gets a few people to agree with him based on the way he presents and arranges and interprets scripture and Martha does her presentation and so the rest of the folks who just don't know wonder which two are right.  What to do?

Well, let's say that a five year old stands up and walks to the front where Johnny and Martha gave their presentation and stands right between these two really smart and charismatic presenters.  He then explains something that he has that Johnny and Martha do not.  

This little five year old was baptized by an Apostle.  

Now, whatever this little five year old said about how to baptize and what the Apostle told him it meant, it should, if you are honest with yourself, trump anything that Johnny or Martha said.  

That's the difference between the more ancient faiths on just the elementary teachings about Christ.  And notice that is says, "about Christ"...   "teachings" "about Christ".  

Instructions on baptisms and laying on of hands is a teaching about Christ?  

So what I say about baptism and the laying on of hands says something about WHO Christ is?

 

This is something that can not be reconciled in Protestantism as a whole.  Their experience is only as deep as their ability to interpret goes and they can pull out the hebrew lexicon and get a Masters degree in Koine Greek and ancient culture and use the latest historical constructions of early Christianity and apply really well developed Philosophical models to help create context and devote their entire life to studying the scriptures.  Whereas a mere child that had been baptized by an Apostle would easily trump them all simply because he has the experience.  

When I say "choose wisely" I am saying that you can choose to follow the way of Johnny and Martha and norm your hearts out OR go to those very "communities" who preserved what was given to them by the Apostles to preserve.  

My experience is that the false teacher generally tries to EVADE the issue of whether the teaching is correct, pointing instead to something about self alone that makes the issue moot.  "God speaks to ME - I speak for God."  "God is not accountable, I'm essentiall equal to God, so I'm not accountable."  "God promised ME _____________ thus take your question about whether what I'm saying is true and go because it's moot in the sole case of me, says I."  

Well sure.  That's no good.  

Or, Jesus founded ME, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ME, the Holy Spirit inerrantly leads only ME, the only one that infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is ME.  The sole interpreter is ME, the sole arbiter is ME, the sole authority is ME, truth matters in all cases except for ME.    (Replace ME with any teacher - such as any denomination - and it's the same thing).  As I studied several American "Christian" cults, I found no common denominator among them more stunning and more foundational that that (just replace "ME" with the claims of each alone for each alone - always with the point that truth is moot in the sole case of self, replaced by the issue of power of ME).  

Well, refer to the story of the five year old.  Is the five year old saying "I am right"?  No.  He is telling you what he was given to tell.  His experience.  Big difference.  

Now, Johnny and Martha, after slinging all the verses they had in their cache on the subject, might after they reach a standstill, resort to, "the Holy Spirit told me" or "I have been given the Holy Spirit and it leads me" etc. to try and make their attempt sound authoritative.  But the five year old in the end has something neither of two smarty pants has.  Experience.  

When the five year old reads or hears the epistle of Hebrews read he's going to have continuity.  He's going to be able to go back to the basics.  He's going to be able to discern where Johnny and Martha are wrong and where they are right and what they are missing.  Does he have the authority to challenge them?  Sure.  All he has to do is present to them his experience, the text and leave the ball in their court.  

Now in protestantism what would happen is Johnny would just start up his own Church and Martha.  

Now, how does that reality justify your point that it's moot whether it's true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever?

Hm. I'm not saying that whether it's true or not doesn't matter.  Using my example of the five year old, it doesn't matter if I fully understand it or not or if I have a different understanding of the Holy Scriptures because at the end of the day, that five year old kid knows.  For me, I'm not going to follow Martha or Johnny because I want to be in communion with the Apostles who are in communion with God.  

1.  I think you entirely missed my point.  Perhaps you would re-read what you quoted from me....


2.  I admit I'm largely ignorant of this concept.  I don't know if it's dogma anywhere or what it exactly proclaims.  But IF it is a doctrine, it is accountable.  That would suggest to ME vis-a-vis Scripture.  A hearty debate on that point would be good.

Well, that's the problem with the Protestant concept of "church".  You guys are all the church.  The whole body of conflicting individuals.  You all have the authority of the church insofar as you interpret the bible correctly and yet there is no accountability for false interpretation according to the whole.   How is it accountable to itself if the whole of protestantism embraces contradiction?  

You can pretend that your little cog or denomination of Protestantism is independent from other Protestant groups but whatever you decide for self can't be applied outside of self.  So even if two Lutherans say they aren't in communion, they still are as they both are part of the "whole" of protestantism.  Otherwise, their entire ecclesiology falls apart.   What they say Church is, ceases to be.  

3.  I realize that the RCC is in full doctrinal agreement with one: itself.  It has a unity of self alone with self alone, a unity with exactly ONE: self.  It agrees only with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror.   ME.  SELF.  

Pentecostals look like Pentecostals, Baptists like Baptists, non-denominations like non-denominations, individual as an individual.  Yet, according to the whole, you all say you are united because you believe that "Jesus" whoever he is, is guiding you to believe as you have come to believe.  

It's the same.  Same deal.  No difference other than it's hard to find a protestant that will admit it.  

But that unity is FAR, FAR less than it seems.  It's PURELY official and formal and institutional and says NOTHING about any or all Christians and thus the church, and it ONLY applies to what the RCC alone CURRENTLY regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about.  

Not true in Protestantism?  So when they strip the altar or change the wine to jello shots or reduce the Trinity to Modalism this isn't institution?  Who decides these things?  Who "institutes" the policy change?  

Is it any less official if your official statement is that you have no official statement?  Is it any less institutionalized if you institute that no one may institute anything?  

And in regards to saying "NOTHING about any or all Christians" when a certain protestant group decides to strip the altar do they do so in regard for other Christians or only in regard to self and what seems right to them(selves)?  

By what authority?  

Okay.  I realize that.  And I realize your point:  there are other denominations that are no better in this regard.  But I fail to see why that substantiates that if self alone agrees with self alone then the issue of whatever self alone says is exempt from the issue of whether it is correct?

Well, no.  Wait.  A "denomination" is not independent from the "whole" otherwise you destroy what you say "the Church" is - the body of individual and contradictory believers...  

So you can't say that there are "other" denominations that are no better when in reality, according to the Protestant ecclessiology, those "no-betters" ARE the Church just as much as you are.  Again, I'm saying that this is according to Protestant ecclessiology. You have to play by your own rules I think.  

Oh, it certainly is not exempt from being correct just because someone or even a group agrees with self.  I'm simply saying that you can't peg this on the RCC and fail to see it in Protestantism.  If you believe the RCC is a cult then you necessarily have to see Protestantism as a cult.  

Or are you TRYING to say taht since the RCC is as bad as some Protestant denominations in this regard, ergo those Protestant denominations are exempt from the issue of truth as well, and we all should embrace "the rapture" because self alone agress with self alone on it and it doesn't matter if it's true or not?

I'm not saying that the RCC is "bad".  I'm just saying that you can't avoid this whole "self" thing you keep talking about.  

And no.  Of course not.  I think you should not embrace false teachings such as the rapture etc.  

Actually, I don't know of any Protestant denomination that has ANY doctrine of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex" or "Mary Had No Sex Ever."  

I think you should take a sober look at Protestantism.  Can I be protestant and believe that babies should be baptized?  Yes.  Can I be protestant and believe that babies should not be baptized?  Yes.  

Is there any official protestant doctrine either for or against regarding the whole of Protestantism?  Nope.  Otherwise they would answer with one voice.  They still insist that they are united and in one accord.  How, I don't know but ok.  Doctrine and Dogma is EXPRESSED not according to the "whole" of Protestantism but according to the "individual".  

Again.  Doctrine and Dogma is expressed according to the individual in Protestantism.  So as many "doctrines" or "dogmas" that a protestant might believe as an individual, the doctrine/dogma IS a Protestant teaching.  

Read the replies on this thread.  One fellow says, "the word of God says that Jesus had brothers and sisters".  Now, does he speak for you?  Nope.  Does he speak for himself?  He will say no.  He is the mouthpiece for the "word of God".  

Easy as that.  You are in communion with him as you recognize him as "the Church".  But not in communion with the RCC otherwise you can't be Protestant.  

Yes, PROTESTANTS are permitted to have varient opinions about such because there is no dogma on the matter, but no Denomination is saying, "It's MOOT if She did or did not because whatever I myself alone says is exempt from that issue."  

What dogmas are there that the whole of Protestantism shares?  What doctrines?   Not the elementary teachings as listed in Hebrews.  So I can't imagine any doctrine or dogma would go beyond the elementary teachings.  So ask yourself what dogmas/doctrines do Protestants as a whole?

Call no man father!


?


I have no idea how that replies to what I posted.

Was a lame joke.  But just pointing at the fact that protestants have tradition.  If you recognize that Luther is indeed a "father" of Lutheranism and indeed a "father" of the Protestant "faith" as it is delivered, then some might be willing to accept that there's some "tradition" there.  

It's not dogma.  Having no position is not the same as saying no position is possible.  I have no position on whether there is life (as we know it) on other planets.  I dont' say - one way or the other - as to whether such life exists or not.  I DO think there probably IS an answer to that question but it currently appears not to exist among us.   "I don't know" in no way means "it cannot be known."

But when the RCC says that there's life on other planets (to use your example) you call them gossips and slanderers.  And if they are right?  Who slandered who?  

IF the RCC has the substantiation, it should share it.  But as you've pointed out so very, very clearly - the RCC responds to the question by saying it doesn't MATTER if it's true.  

I never said that.  And if I did I would retract such a statement.  They don't say it doesn't matter.  

As it keeps pointing out, in a diversity of ways, over and over, truth is to waved and in its place, the RCC alone insists that all just be in quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to itself alone.  Truth is replaced by submission, correct is replaced by power.  Self trumps truth.

It's kind of hard to wag a finger at Catholics.  Even if they are wrong, Protestants teach contradictory things within themselves and are divided against themselves and yet say they are united and then turn around and point outside of themselves and say, "false teachings! false teachings!".   You guys are riddled with them.  Only difference is that you overlook those committed under your own banner and then try to light a match to Rome's.  

When the Protestants all believe one thing then maybe there will be a bit more credibility there.  
 

You are simply accurately giving the RCC position.  Truth has been waved, the RCC's insistence that all just be in quiet submission to itself has been substituted.
 

Two contradictory teachings can't be right and yet you embrace it within Protestantism and Protest it outside of Protestantism in order to "be" Protestant.  

Doesn't make sense.

But as you pointed out, the RCC position is that it doesn't matter if it's true.

That is not the RCCs position.   For some reason you are trying to assume that this is the case.  It's not.  

I'm still a bit in the dark as to how abandoning the issue of whether this dogma is true or not has any relevance to whether it's true or not.  

You don't abandon the issue. But if you're protestant there's no resolution.  You adhere to your tradition.  You can only quietly submit to personal belief but in Protestantism it just gets boiled down to a novel opinion to either have or reject.  

Or why it means the RCC can condemn ME for not teaching correctly (truth matters if I teach it) but no one can even ask a question of the RCC because truth does not matter there, says itself.

You can ask them questions.  People do all the time.  

 

[Eagle]

Married sex is not a sin. Why is it importiant to RCC for her to have not had sex after the birth of Christ?

[Catholica]

I see.  So God committed adultery then, when he used the Blessed Mother as a tool to bring his son into the world, apparently without consenting her.   Is that pretty much what you are saying?

Uhh no?

First off God can't sin. To imply that I'm saying God is adulterous is way out of context.

How is this not sin?  Mary was "married", and according to you, not to God.  Apparently according to you, God was married, but not to Mary.  Yet God impregnated Mary.

Let's say that I took your wife-to-be and impregnated her without her consent.  Would that be a sin?  Yes or no?  YES!  So why does God go by a different standard?  What is a sin for a person to do is not a sin for God to do?

RATHER

Mary was a consecrated virgin.  Like nuns, she is in effect married to God, as she had consecrated herself to him.  Her betrothal to Joseph was one out of need for someone to take care of her.  Mary was very holy, and so was Joseph, and Mary knew that the baby that was to come was not going to be the result of sexual relations with Joseph, otherwise she wouldn't have asked "how could this be? for I have not had relations with a man?"  The Jews were not expecting God himself to become incarnate as the Messiah; any Jew was expecting a human person, like a prophet or a king, to be the Messiah.  So Mary, being an observant Jew, would have naturally assumed that the child would be the result of natural human relations with her husband.  The only way she would have reacted the way she did is IF she was never going to have relations with her husband because she had already been consecrated wholly to God.  A consecrated virgin.

So Mary had already espoused herself to God, in a way, and she became the spouse of the Holy Spirit in a profound way when she consented to carry the Son of God in her most sacred womb. 

No God did not consent with Mary before He used as the Vessel. That does not make Him guilty of adultery.

God does not use people, nor would he ever violate their bodies by forcing them to carry his child.  Mary was his spouse, and Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is God's spouse.  That is how this is not a sin, because Mary was consecrated to Him.

Thats just stupid. Thats like saying God committed murder when He protect the Jews crossing the Red Sea by reigning fire onto their persuers.

False.  In a just war, killing is not a sin; killing someone is not necessarily the same as murdering them.  The Egyptians were after the Jews, God's people, to murder them, and God defended them.  That's not murder.

Thats just a really really far stretch and breech of my reasoning. And honestly its the weakest rebutle I've ever been put up against on this site.

I find Protestant treatment of Mary as a "vessel" that was "used" revolting, irreverent, and blasphemous. 

[The Great Baptizmo]

Ryan and Josiah; one is Orthodox, the other is Protestant; one is knowledgable and respectful - the other is clueless and rude; one engages intellectualy and the other copies and pastes the same crap over and over again because he lacks the emotional and mental capacity to debate...

one gives the Orthodox a good name  - the other is an embarassment for Protestants


 

By making this personal against Josiah, you are showing that you are an embarrassment for Catholics. 

[Angelos]

Ryan and Josiah; one is Orthodox, the other is Protestant; one is knowledgable and respectful - the other is clueless and rude; one engages intellectualy and the other copies and pastes the same crap over and over again because he lacks the emotional and mental capacity to debate...

one gives the Orthodox a good name  - the other is an embarassment for Protestants


 

By making this personal against Josiah, you are showing that you are an embarrassment for Catholics.  

Josiah posts the exact same rant 5 times a day on the Catholic forum (he has posted close to 300 times on this forum over the last 50 days)...he's a troll. Trolls need to be exposed.

Here's my challenge to you. If you can find at least 5 (out of about 300) posts of Josiah where he uses scripture to support a point, I will apologize. If not, maybe you should accept that Josiah is, in fact, a troll

[Selene]

Ryan and Josiah; one is Orthodox, the other is Protestant; one is knowledgable and respectful - the other is clueless and rude; one engages intellectualy and the other copies and pastes the same crap over and over again because he lacks the emotional and mental capacity to debate...

one gives the Orthodox a good name  - the other is an embarassment for Protestants


 

I like Ryan's post.  It's long, but it's intellectual.  I must admit, I learned a lot from his post. 

[Angelos]

I was accused of unfairly attacking Josiah. This thread is a prime example of why I think he's a troll. He posted 28 times on this thread (more than anyone else) and he quoted scripture zero times.
When pushed he admited that "I never said if I think such is or is not the case, (that Mary was ever-Virgin)"

So the troll posts more than anyone else on this thread and he doesn't even have a view about the thread!!! Josiah kept posting 3-4 times a day just on this thread, without offering any scripture to support his trashing of the Catholic Church - just mostly copying and pasting his usual rants.

In contrast to Josiah, every other Protestant that posted on this thread (and no other Protestant posted more than 3-4 times vs. Josiah's 28) posted scripture to support a specific point of view.

So I think my critique is fair. Josiah is a troll who likes to trash the Catholic faith and never (or almost never) posts scripture; just repetitive rants calling the Catholic faith a "cult" (against forum rules)

[John 10:10]

Let's show one more time from Scripture the truth that Mary did not remain a virgin, but had normal sexual relations with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

Consider these verses from Matt 1,

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

These and other verses where the specific names of Jesus' four brother are listed (Matt 13:55) lead Protestants to rely on the authority of Scripture as the primary source of what we believe, not what early church fathers may or may not have taught.

[Angelos]

Let's show one more time from Scripture the truth that Mary did not remain a virgin, but had normal sexual relations with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

Consider these verses from Matt 1,

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

These and other verses where the specific names of Jesus' four brother are listed (Matt 13:55) lead Protestants to rely on the authority of Scripture as the primary source of what we believe, not what early church fathers may or may not have taught.

John I appreciate your quoting from scripture, but this scripture has been posted before on this thread by other Protestants and answered by Catholics and Orthodox...your interpretation happens to be wrong feel free to read the replies on this thread regarding the scripture you posted

[Selene]

Let's show one more time from Scripture the truth that Mary did not remain a virgin, but had normal sexual relations with Joseph after giving birth to Jesus.

Consider these verses from Matt 1,

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

These and other verses where the specific names of Jesus' four brother are listed (Matt 13:55) lead Protestants to rely on the authority of Scripture as the primary source of what we believe, not what early church fathers may or may not have taught.

John I appreciate your quoting from scripture, but this scripture has been posted before on this thread by other Protestants and answered by Catholics and Orthodox...your interpretation happens to be wrong feel free to read the replies on this thread regarding the scripture you posted

Yes, there's even a thread on Mary that explains it too. 

[John 10:10]

If I were to take someone as my wife who was pregnant with child, and God tells me this was His doing and to not put her away, then say that she remained a virgin until the child was born, the RCC may not know or accept what this means, but most married couples would!

[Josiah]

Josiah kept posting 3-4 times a day just on this thread, without offering any scripture to support his trashing of the Catholic Church - just mostly copying and pasting his usual rants.

1.  You seem to forget that the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex Ever is YOUR view, not mine.   It's not for me to prove as true, it's for you. 

2.  I've posted my position on Catholicism.  It's SIGNIFICANTLY more positive than your position on Lutheranism.  The "anti" among us is you.

3.  You post, over and over, in thread after thread, your hateful, PERSONAL, flaming attacks - without contributing anything to the discussion or providing ANYTHING to substantiate the dogma you insist is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  It's just a diversion ploy, an attempt to evade substantiating your position.   It's hateful, PERSONAL, constant ATTACKS. 

So I think my critique is fair. Josiah is a troll who likes to trash the Catholic faith and never (or almost never) posts scripture; just repetitive rants calling the Catholic faith a "cult"

As everyone knows, I have - repeatedly - stated that I do NOT regard the RCC as a cult.   Your LYING is constant, personal, flaming and evasive of the issue of this thread.   

I have given my position vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.   It is FAR, FAR more positive than your position on my denomination.  YOU are the anti, not me.  YOU are the one "trashing," not me.  YOU are the one evading substantiating your position that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  IF you had anything to support your dogma, I suspect you would have offered it.  Instead, we have this ploy of PERSONAL, flaming, attacking - over and over and over and over. 



Could we return to the topic we are to discuss?   (HINT:  My name is nowhere in the title or opening post).  You claim it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   Where is the substantiation for this to the level claimed?  Lying about me, attacking me, flaming posters, evading the topic does NOTHING to document this dogma you defend as true. 





.
.

[Josiah]

1.  You seem to forget that the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex Ever is YOUR view, not mine.   It's not for me to prove as true, it's for you.

2.  I've posted my position on Catholicism.  It's SIGNIFICANTLY more positive than your position on Lutheranism.  The "anti" among us is you.

3.  You post, over and over, in thread after thread, your hateful, PERSONAL, flaming attacks - without contributing anything to the discussion or providing ANYTHING to substantiate the dogma you insist is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth.  It's just a diversion ploy, an attempt to evade substantiating your position.   It's hateful, PERSONAL, constant ATTACKS.



As everyone knows, I have - repeatedly - stated that I do NOT regard the RCC as a cult.   Your LYING is constant, personal, flaming and evasive of the issue of this thread.  

I have given my position vis-a-vis the Catholic Church.   It is FAR, FAR more positive than your position on my denomination.  YOU are the anti, not me.  YOU are the one "trashing," not me.  YOU are the one evading substantiating your position that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  IF you had anything to support your dogma, I suspect you would have offered it.  Instead, we have this ploy of PERSONAL, flaming, attacking - over and over and over and over.



Could we return to the topic we are to discuss?   (HINT:  My name is nowhere in the title or opening post).  You claim it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.   Where is the substantiation for this to the level claimed?  Lying about me, attacking me, flaming posters, evading the topic does NOTHING to document this dogma you defend as true



.

  
Josiah,

All of the other Protestants on this thread posted Scripture to support their view. You're different.

So, does truth matter to you or not?   Does substantiation matter to you or not?   Does it matter what people shout as dogma about Mary?  


YOU are the one insisting that it is a dogmatic fact of greatest importance, relevance and certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.  
You seem to think that if you endlessly flame and attack other posters, this is somehow confirmation of YOUR position to the level claimed, friend, that's silly.  
You seem to think that I should prove your position for you, that it is MY responsibility to confirm YOUR position to the level claimed, friend, that's silly.


It's YOUR position.
YOU claim it's true.
IF truth about Mary matters to you, where's the confirmation of this to the level claimed?


"How come you're always picn' on pur lit'l me" is irrelevant (and wrong).
" You ANTI my denomination" is irrelevant (and wrong - actually, you are)
"You said the RCC is a cult" is irrelevant and a LIE (and you know it)
"You aren't proving MY position with Scripture" is absurd and a diversion attempt.
"You are 22 years old" is irrelevant and a diversion attempt.
"You post nearly as much as I do" is irrelevant and a diversion attempt.
"You're Protestant!" is irrelevant and a diversion attempt.






.

[LightHammer]

How is this not sin?  Mary was "married", and according to you, not to God.  Apparently according to you, God was married, but not to Mary.  Yet God impregnated Mary.

Let's say that I took your wife-to-be and impregnated her without her consent.  Would that be a sin?  Yes or no?  YES!  So why does God go by a different standard?  What is a sin for a person to do is not a sin for God to do?

First off listen to what you're saying. You are implying that God is bound by the Laws that He instituted for man. You are applying adjetives like "adulterous" or "sinful" to actions performed by the Almighty like its even possible for Him to commit acts of a sin. God is the greatest authority in the universe. He is not subject to the law because He is Master of the Law just as Christ said He was Master of the Sabbath so therefore He could not be incriminated for doing works on the day.

You really need to tread carefully.

Secondly the marriage in Revelations is not yet to come. Jesus, the Lord of the Harvest, has not gathered together the Church. It is still being prepared. The weddig feast has not happened yet.

RATHER

Mary was a consecrated virgin.  Like nuns, she is in effect married to God, as she had consecrated herself to him.  Her betrothal to Joseph was one out of need for someone to take care of her.  Mary was very holy, and so was Joseph, and Mary knew that the baby that was to come was not going to be the result of sexual relations with Joseph, otherwise she wouldn't have asked "how could this be? for I have not had relations with a man?"  The Jews were not expecting God himself to become incarnate as the Messiah; any Jew was expecting a human person, like a prophet or a king, to be the Messiah.  So Mary, being an observant Jew, would have naturally assumed that the child would be the result of natural human relations with her husband.  The only way she would have reacted the way she did is IF she was never going to have relations with her husband because she had already been consecrated wholly to God.  A consecrated virgin.

So Mary had already espoused herself to God, in a way, and she became the spouse of the Holy Spirit in a profound way when she consented to carry the Son of God in her most sacred womb. 

This is all baseless. Comepletely baseless. The disciples, meaning the original twelve, did not teach this nor is recorded in scripture. The Catholic Church has a long track record of blending Christian beliefs with pagan foklore. It is as simple as that. I'm sure you can quote sevral early church fathers who may hint or even clearly express the belief in this dogma but at the end of the day the non divinely inspired opinion of first second or third generation pagans doesn't hold water.

[Angelos]

at the end of the day the non divinely inspired opinion of first second or third generation pagans doesn't hold water.

Lighthammer,

ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, John Wesley, and Calvin all believed that Mary was ever-Virgin.

Was Luther a third generation pagan? Is you exegesis better than all of the leaders of the Reformation and all of the Orthodox and Catholic Bishops?

[LightHammer]

God does not use people, nor would he ever violate their bodies by forcing them to carry his child.  Mary was his spouse, and Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is God's spouse.  That is how this is not a sin, because Mary was consecrated to Him.

I agree that Mary is apart of the Church but she wasn't born as such. Sorry but the testimonies of a few Italians hundred years after God gives scripture that greatly contradicts what they testify to does not validate your "immaculate conception".

As for your other piece:

God didn't consult Job when He tested him by allowing Satan to curse him with disease death and pain.

God didn't consult Paul before He put the thorn is his side to humble him.

God didn't consult Ezekial before He gave him overwhelming visions of divine prominence.

No my firend I think you may be looking at this with bias instead of openness. God does not consult and get the permission of those He wishes to bestow upon the great commision. Faith is a option but for those who He wishes to change the world through He is not as gentle because He is calling them to a greater standard.

False.  In a just war, killing is not a sin; killing someone is not necessarily the same as murdering them.  The Egyptians were after the Jews, God's people, to murder them, and God defended them.  That's not murder.

I see your point. The Red Sea escape wasn't really that good of a reference but I'm a bit shocked that this whole thing isn't really obvious.

I find Protestant treatment of Mary as a "vessel" that was "used" revolting, irreverent, and blasphemous.

I apologize if my words seem of offensive. However you must understand that protestants like myself who aim to look at the Truth without bias are not as passionate as you over doctrine. We more than any understand how easily corruption influences all. I expect you to be somewhat hostile because you have been groomed in a demonination of the faith that is not only the oldest but the most proud. I have found that even if I am able to refute a position of catholcism with reason or scripture you guys tend to fall back curl up into a ball and ununciate the same sentence "Well my Church has endured for 2000 years so I can't be wrong."

Forgive me for sounding forward but Catholics seem to refuse to admit the flaws of catholicism but seem to be offended when protestants refuse to accept the flaws of protestantism. You are "revolted" that I won't expect a pagan/christian blend of a dogma attached to Mary even though it is obvious that all this is doing is creating a fourth Semiramis. You are disgusted that I won't honor Mary as the Queen of Heaven but no man has ever ascended to a level of godhood. Queen of Heaven really? God is a gender neutral power that has no beginning and no end and you want me to believe that He took Mary a human to be His everlasting cosmic bride? Yea thats a no go.

[LightHammer]

at the end of the day the non divinely inspired opinion of first second or third generation pagans doesn't hold water.

Lighthammer,

ALL the Bishops of the East and West for 1500 years and the most prominent leaders of the Reformation like, Luther, Zwingli, John Wesley, and Calvin all believed that Mary was ever-Virgin.

Was Luther a third generation pagan? Is you exegesis better than all of the leaders of the Reformation and all of the Orthodox and Catholic Bishops?

That is evident only because they were still brought up in that system of beliefs. Most reformers disputed the primacy of the pope other than that they lived happy catholic lives. Lutheranism is about as much catholic as a protestant can get. Calvin was a bit twisted and I don't know enough Zwingli or John Wesley to make a valid stance.

However these men were still groomed and TAUGHT to belief as you were by the preserved teachings of first second and third generation pagans. In my time on this site Catholics have quoted canonzied saints more than any piece of canonzied scripture point blank.

My exegesis is unbiased because I no longer bear any ulterior motives. Through my time with you all I have seen the beauty of the intellectual catholic church. In my time with Ryan, Macrina and Trifecta I have seen the same beauty in the EO ( although I think I agree more with EO when it comes to the papacy and a few other things). You guys have given me a reason to believe in the established Church so I no longer wish to see it rendered asunder, just perhaps maybe purged a bit.
Basically my ideals are not formulated with any other reason than to seek genuine truth. I am not taught by men like you or those before you so I have no foundation of doctrine laid that I feel I must measure up my ideals to beside the double edged sword of God's word.

[Ryan2010]

Lighthammer, I just would like to get this straight before replying to your post.  I know this thread is about Mary and I do hope to arrive on that direct topic but since there are all these forces at work making it difficult for everyone to understand where the other is coming from I think this is a key issue and I’d like to give it a go.  Feel free to correct me if what I think you are saying, isn’t what you are saying. 

You charge that the ancient Christians blended their old beliefs from various other religions with their new belief.  After posting a paragraph-long story about a Syrian queen, you believe that the reason Protestants have “such a problem

[Snargles]

I am catching up after being away for a few days. I see not much progress has been made. I said I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore since neither side is willing to budge but I have to make some points.

1. Josiah and Angelos should both be given time outs. Both say the same things over and over and are very uncharitable to each other. Josiah is against all things Catholic and Angelos' main argument is "its Catholic belief so it must be right."

2. It has been stated in this thread that Mary was the first Christian since she gave birth to Jesus. Giving birth to Jesus doesn't make her a Christian. She had doubts about Jesus as shown when she and Jesus' brothers and sisters tried to talk him into quietly going home with them. Later Mary believed but even the demons believe and tremble. For Mary to be a Christian she had to be baptized. Scripture says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes Mary. Assuming she lived until the establishment of the church on Pentecost, she had to be baptized by immersion, as do all who will be saved, to truly be a Christian.

3. The Bible was written by inspired men - God through the HS told them what to say (or served as a holy fact checker) and they wrote. What authority do Catholics ascribe to the church fathers? Do they think they were inspired? If so, when did the period of inspiration end, if ever? Are they authoritative because they lived at any early date and knew someone who knew someone who knew Jesus? What makes them more reliable than commentators writing now?

4. Angelos divides the world into Catholic and Protestant. I don't accept many protestants and would group them in with Catholics. Anglicans are Ango-Catholics. Lutherans are German-Catholics. Methodists are democratized Anglicans. Pentecostals are Methodists who hear voices. I split those who claim to be Christians into those who know the truth and those who think they know the truth and are in error. Those of us in the Church of Christ have been accused of believing that we are the only ones going to heaven. Most (but not all) of us don't think that way anymore and I wouldn't be surprised to see some Baptists and Anabaptists in heaven, but no Catholics, JW, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists nor any others who don't practice baptism of adult believers by immersion. Angelos: don't lump me in with all Protestants.

5. Several on the Catholic side have disputed our modern usage of some words. Do you feel that a person could not pick up a Bible and on his own determine what he had to do to be saved ("work out his salvation" in the words of scripture)? Would God allow translations that needed glosses by ancient writers.

6. I don't care what Luther, Hippolytus, Ireneus, Zwingli, Wesley, Thomas Aquinas or Peter Abelard said. They were just men, not inspired by God, and I have the same potential to understand scripture as they do (I say potential because I don't understand Greek and Hebrew but on the other hand I have access to better translations than they did).

7. I grew up being taught that the Catholic church apostatized at an early date and has spent close to 2000 years teaching error. After reading some of the discussion I am thinking that might be true.

8. Finally, look at the title of this thread. Protestants were invited to participate. I got involved because I thought a Catholic needed help understanding an opposing view. Instead of a sincere plea for help it was an ambush.


                                                                                           [that was 4 cents worth]

[LightHammer]

You are pretty much dead on. However I would like to make a few clarifications on my position.

You charge that the ancient Christians blended their old beliefs from various other religions with their new belief.  After posting a paragraph-long story about a Syrian queen, you believe that the reason Protestants have “such a problem

[Josiah]

.



Ryan, you raise some important issues here (in your typical very articulate fashion) and I would LOVE to discuss it in much greater detail.  But, I'm sensitive to not derailing this thread which the title and opening poster has stressed is about the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.   MY concern here is two-fold:  Is it true?  Is it necessary?  Thus, the proclaimation of such as TRUE and it's status among us as DOGMA.  

I have given my reasons why:  It's DIVISIVE (a WALL to unity) and it's potentially sinful gossip unless we can substantiate such as true and as dogma.

THAT said, I'll reply much too briefly to some things below, in hopes of returning to the issue...

It's not choosing, it's norming.

Ok, let's look at "norming" from the Protestant perspective:

Norm : A 'norm' is something by which other things are measured and judged. When the Bible is called the 'norm', it means that what we think, teach, and do must measure up to the standards of Scripture. A norm helps stop us from getting carried away with ourselves and our supposed wisdom. Many traditions speak of the 'norming norm' or 'norm within the norm' or 'material norm' : the Gospel message of God's forgiving love in Jesus Christ. This means that all the rest of the Bible is measured according to (or is 'normed' by) Christ and the Gospel message. The Bible is the 'norm' because of who stands behind it and whose story it tells. This puts the main focus where it belongs -- Christ, not Moses or David or Paul or John, or even the Bible.


Alright.  That doesn't sound so bad upon first glance.

.... IF one embraces that truth matters.  

We're having that discussion in another thread.   Yes, this IS a very fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.  It's not JUST how we arrive at it, it's not JUST a matter of hermeneutics or norming or arbitration.   It's more fundamental than that.  We're discussing this in at least two other threads here in this forum.

But here's a problem: Hebrews 5 and 6

 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

6

 1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.


Ok.  This poses a big problem.  For starters, we have all these groups.  And each group is "norming" as you say and not "choosing".  Yet, each group norms and still comes up with contradictory teachings.  Look at the elementary teachings listed in Hebrews.  You can't get different groups WITHIN Protestantism to agree on those elementary teachings.  You just can't.  

IMHO, you are confusing two very different things (and it's MOOT if truth doesn't matter, we if are only to accept the "tradition" we are taught by our thousands of denominations WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TRUE.

1.  You are confusing the norm with arbitrating.   Let's return to my Bob the Builder builds a wall for us illustration.   We commission Bob to build a wall 6 feet tall on our property line between our two homes.  Bob is finished.   Bob says the wall is 6 feet tall.   YES, I know, we can just mutually declare that it doesn't matter if the wall is 6 feet tall or 1 foot tall, but that's another issue.  Let's assume truth matters.  IF so, then the position under evaluation becomes Bob's statement that the wall is 6 feet tall.   That becomes the position of review, he is in an episteomological sense, a "defendant" for such.   Bob alone excusing Bob alone from consideration of whether Bob alone is correct is convenient for Bob but of course is MOOT to the issue of whether Bob's position is correct.  Now, embracing the evaluation ("norming") first of all requires some Standard, Rule ("straight edge"), Canon ("measuring stick") - WHAT we will use as the plumbline.  Now in epistmology, the most sound rule/canon (or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans) is the most objective, most knowable to all and alterable to none, most embraced as reliable by all parties.  Perhaps we choose a standard Sears Measuring Tape.  We all have one.  It's objective, knowable, unalterable, above and outside us all.  And we all consider it sufficiently reliable for this evaluation.   IN THAT CASE, it would be our norma normans, our "canon" (measuring stick).  

2.  Arbitration follows.   It cannot happen until an agreed upon canon is embraced.  HOW will it be determined if the said position (Bob:  The Wall is Six Feet Tall) measures up (arbitration) to the measuring stick (canon)?  THAT process is called arbitration.  

3.  What you MAY be getting at is that it seems for AT LEAST the past 1200 years, we've had no arbitration beyond the denominmational level.  That's when the last true Ecumenical Council unraveled.   Since there is no ecumenical arbitratration anymore (pretty much destroyed by egoism, individualism and institutionalism - which this new Lutheran largely blames on the RCC), we are left with just denomintional arbitration.   RCC, EO, LDS, LCMS, UPC-USA, UCC, Episcopal Church in the USA, etc., etc., etc., etc.)  Sad, but true.   There's another issue too:  Is such arbitration regarded as inerrant?   In CAtholicism, the question is moot because truth is moot.  I don't know about in Orthodoxy.  Protestants tend to look to the Ecumenical Councils as profoundly wise but not necessarily INERRANT.

I WISH that we ALL would embrace accountability, a common objective/knowable norm and a common arbitration that at least ends the debate even if not seen as inerrant.  IF such was EVER the case in Christianity, it has not been for many, many, many CENTURIES before Luther was born....  


ACCOUNTABILITY:   Protestants embrace.   The RCC, LDS and it seems EO do not (except for others, not for self)
COMMON NORM:   Most Protestants embrace Scripture.   It's moot for the RCC, LDS and it seems EO.
COMMON ARBITRATION:   Protestants have but only on a denominational level.   It's moot for the RCC, LDS and EO.  

So the community's experience with the Apostles helps to inform the text if a question about the text should ever arise

WAY too many assumptions and connecting of dots for me to follow your point here.....

And it seems pretty moot.  All the Apostles are dead.  Have been for over 1900 years.  

The teachings of the Apostles

The only teachings we know of them are recorded in 5 books:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.   They were often wrong since Jesus' ministry was often directed toward correcting them.

Paul and Peter wrote epistles (it's ALL we know from either) but of course, it's not their words but the Holy Spirit's words.
Tradition says that Matthew, John and maybe James were penmen too but we can't confirm that, and again what is in the books Tradition attributes to them is not their words but the Holy Spriit's words.

We know NOTHING from any of the other Apostles.  
We know NOTHING from ANY of them outside of 27 books.  All in the NT.  

Sure, the Mormons insist that Jesus said ALL KINDS of things, some of which the LDS claims are dogmas, but for some reason, God choose to keep those things out of His Holy Scriptures (they can answer that question, BTW).  But these secrets were somehow made known to the LDS (again, they have an aswer to that "somehow").   COULD this be the case?  Obviously yes, but there's only one that so claims (the LDS for the LDS), there's ZERO confirmation of ANY of these things in the First Century (and often in the second or third - and at times, for the next 17 centuries).  So, any "connection" to ANY Apostle (well, biblical ones) is historically baseless and is simply the claim of the LDS.  As a pure article of faith, it stands of course.   As more than that, it does not.   ANYONE can say, "Arius had some secret awareness of what Jesus taught but God choose not to tell us in His Scriptures."  But without any connecting of dots, all we have is a baseless claim of self for self.  

So if two guys read the scriptures and they both come up with independent teachings as to what these elementary teachings are, this community doesn't go to the scriptures but instead refers to their experience with the Apostles.  

And yet..... Jesus refers us to Scripture 50 times and NEVER to ANY Apostle....
In Acts 15, NO ONE so much as mentions ANY Apostle as such (or any Keys or any Infallibility) but uses Scripture as the norm.
In Acts, Peter preaches and never ONCE even MENTIONS that he is an Apostle but over and over and over uses Scripture normatively.

we wonder which two are right.  What to do?

.... regard that truth matters, thus your question is relevant (herein exits the RCC.....)
.... regard BOTH as accountable (the RCC has already left the room....)
.... hold up BOTH of their teachings to the light of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) - an objective, knowable/unalterable, reliable rule OUTSIDE and ABOVE them both.
What we CAN'T do is what the RCC and EO can't do either (even if they cared, and they don't) - have some outside arbitration above them both, that last happened over 1200 years ago.  But the RC and EO can't do that, either (even if either wanted to).   Thus, the "court" happens quite in public, often rather loudly and not always neat or pretty.   BAD ideas, we pray, are slowly relegated to the tiny fringes by the Holy Spirit.   Not so different than how the early church did it, huh?   How we came up with our 27 NT books - a long, messy, "grass-roots" embrace, eventually CONFIRMED by some nonbinding denominational meetings but the "work" was done by a messy consensus.  I wish it wasn't so messy, but hey - in this mileau of institutionalism that the RC (and probably EO) created, with all this egoism ("I can't be wrong cuz I say I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong!"), with all this evasion of the issue ("Just accept what I tell you - it's MOOT if it's true!), how can it not be messy?  We need to get  to those fundamental problems that pre-date Protestantism by CENTURIES, stuff that goes back to you and the EO.  We need to bring back accountability, humility, community.  Welcome to my world.....

Now, whatever this little five year old said about how to baptize and what the Apostle told him it meant, it should, if you are honest with yourself, trump anything that Johnny or Martha said.  

Interesting, although the last one baptized by any Apostle would have died over 1800 years ago.  And with the POSSIBLE exception of ONE (I know he was a disciple, but don't know if he was baptized by him), none of them wrote anything so we don't know what they believed.  And IMHO, five year old Tommy would be WRONG if he is not in line with what GOD said in His Scriptures (God trumps five-year-olds, even ones voiceless and dead for over 1800 years).  

My experience is that the false teacher generally tries to EVADE the issue of whether the teaching is correct, pointing instead to something about self alone that makes the issue moot.  "God speaks to ME - I speak for God."  "God is not accountable, I'm essentiall equal to God, so I'm not accountable."  "God promised ME _____________ thus take your question about whether what I'm saying is true and go because it's moot in the sole case of me, says I."  


.

Well sure.  That's no good.  

It's pretty much all there is among those who reject accountability (by ANY norm  by ANY process)....
"Just swallow WHATEVER I tell you - whether or not it's true - but I'm ME"

Or, Jesus founded ME, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to ME, the Holy Spirit inerrantly leads only ME, the only one that infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is ME.  The sole interpreter is ME, the sole arbiter is ME, the sole authority is ME, truth matters in all cases except for ME.    (Replace ME with any teacher - such as any denomination - and it's the same thing).  As I studied several American "Christian" cults, I found no common denominator among them more stunning and more foundational that that (just replace "ME" with the claims of each alone for each alone - always with the point that truth is moot in the sole case of self, replaced by the issue of power of ME)

.  

Well, refer to the story of the five year old.  Is the five year old saying "I am right"?  No.  He is telling you what he was given to tell.


.

 

So was Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Jim Jones.....   If the claim of self alone for self alone carries with it an exemption from whether that self is true in what he claims, then you seem to be defending a dangerous rubric.  

And with the POSSIBLE exception of ONE person, your illustration doesn't work.  Because at most - at most - we have some letters from ONE who was baptized by an Apostle.    It's moot otherwise.   And where do you see that being Baptized means being exempt from accountability?     

 

Continues in next post ......





.

[Josiah]

.



... continues from above....

Now, how does that reality justify your point that it's moot whether it's true or false that Mary Had No Sex Ever?


.

It doesn't matter if I fully understand it or not or if I have a different understanding of the Holy Scriptures because at the end of the day, that five year old kid knows.  

Quote for me anyone ever Baptized by an Apostle who said, "Mary Had No Sex Ever."  

... and hermeneutics is moot to this issue.   I think we've already established that there is no Scripture about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born for us to interpret.

 But IF it is a doctrine, it is accountable.  That would suggest to ME vis-a-vis Scripture.  A hearty debate on that point would be good.

Well, that's the problem with the Protestant concept of "church".  You guys are all the church.  The whole body of conflicting individuals.  

Yes, we have a corporate (body) view of the church, not an institution declaring self to be the church.  
Yes, not all 2.2 billion Christians totally agree on all matters.  I can't think of a time when all Christians did.  
But this does not mean that any one of them (or any one institutition) is exempt from the issue of Truth.


Again, what I SUSPECT you are decrying is NOT in any sense unique to Protestants.  It's that there is no final ARBITRATION among us today among the issues that divide us today.   That's not just true for all the Protestant denominations however, it's true for ALL denominations - which is why it's been IMPOSSIBLE to have an ecumenical council for over 1200 years.  Don't blame Luther for that, he wasn't even a wink in his dad's eye in the 8th Century!   How CAN there be any common arbitration today in this milaeu you guys created - all the egoism ("I'm essentially Jesus"  "I alone am INFALLIBLE"), all the institutionalism ("I was founded by Jesus so...............") and all the evasion of the very topic (Whether my teaching is true or not is MOOT because I'M ME!).   If you are decrying the egoism, institutionalism and evasion of truth that dragged the church into this position some 1200 + years ago, then you're preaching to the choir, my friend !!!!!!!

Whatever you decide for self can't be applied outside of self

The same is true for the EO and RC.    Even the two of you - with the SAME "Apostolic Tradition," the SAME "Apostolic Succession" can't do this even with each other!    Check a bit closer to home before you rebuke other denominations for not being able to arbitrate outside of itself, lol

3.  I realize that the RCC is in full doctrinal agreement with one: itself.  It has a unity of self alone with self alone, a unity with exactly ONE: self.  It agrees only with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror.   ME.  SELF


But even that unity is FAR, FAR less than it seems.  It's PURELY official and formal and institutional and says NOTHING about any or all Christians and thus the church, and it ONLY applies to what the RCC alone CURRENTLY regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about


.  

 Yet, according to the whole, you all say you are united because you believe that "Jesus" whoever he is, is guiding you to believe as you have come to believe.  

The United Pentecostal Church is EXACTLY the same as the RCC (and I suspect EO).   It is in unity with ONE: itself.   Same/same.

So you can't say that there are "other" denominations that are no better when in reality, according to the Protestant ecclessiology, those "no-betters" ARE the Church just as much as you are.

No,  from my perspective, my brother, you need to step outside that individualism and institutionalism.  The church is not ME, it's WE.  I'm not the church, Billy Graham is not the church.  There are not 2.2 billion churches or 300,000,000 ones.  The whole corpus of believers - living and sainted - are the church TOGETHER, inseparable, the "communion of saints" as the ancient Creed puts it.  There was/is/ever will be ONE church - holy and catholic - the communion of saints.  It ain't an it.   We don't believe Christians is an institutional, denominational IT.   I realize the word "church" is used variously - leading to understandable misunderstandings, but The Methodist Church is not the church in the sense we are talking about it, CHRISTIANS are the church.   St. Augustine, Luther, Billy Graham - all are members of His Body.  

If you believe the RCC is a cult then you necessarily have to see Protestantism as a cult.  

I don't see either as such.  

It's not dogma.  Having no position is not the same as saying no position is possible.  I have no position on whether there is life (as we know it) on other planets.  I dont' say - one way or the other - as to whether such life exists or not.  I DO think there probably IS an answer to that question but it currently appears not to exist among us.   "I don't know" in no way means "it cannot be known."

But when the RCC says that there's life on other planets (to use your example) you call them gossips and slanderers.  And if they are right?  Who slandered who?  

Read what I said.   It was my CATHOLIC TEACHERS who said that to spread something (especially potentially harmful, embarassing, etc.) about a person that we don't confirm as true is the definition of gossip, and it is a sin.  I raised this in the sense that it seems RELEVANT thus to ask if this thing said about Mary IS true.  I haven't said it isn't.  You've said it doesn't matter.  

As it keeps pointing out, in a diversity of ways, over and over, truth is to waved and in its place, the RCC alone insists that all just be in quiet, docilic SUBMISSION to itself alone.  Truth is replaced by submission, correct is replaced by power.  Self trumps truth.

It's kind of hard to wag a finger at Catholics.  

What is, is.   I gave the verbatim quotes.   You so boldly affirmed it.




 

You are simply accurately giving the RCC position.  Truth has been waved, the RCC's insistence that all just be in quiet submission to itself has been substituted.
 

Two contradictory teachings can't be right and yet you embrace it within Protestantism and Protest it outside of Protestantism in order to "be" Protestant.  

1.  I'm lost as to what that has to do with what I posted

2.  Friend, from my perspective, you are just using an altogether different paradigm.   We don't accept your institutional denomination model.   There is no such thing as The Protestant Denomination.  And it would not - IN ANY SENSE - be the church even if there was.   Yes,  WE ALL KNOW the RCC alone agrees with the RCC alone, ONE denomination agrees with ONE denomination - itself (but ONLY officially, formally, instituionally and ONLY in those matters where it and it itself alone CURRENTLY says it should agree with itself on).   Yes, I know.  AT LEAST as much can be said of The United Methodist Church USA or any Protestant denomination.  AT LEAST.  I know.  But I totally fail to understand how that relates to the issue of the RCC saying that its MOOT if what it teaches is true because it is the one saying it.   Lost me, brother.




I'm still a bit in the dark as to how abandoning the issue of whether this dogma is true or not has any relevance to whether it's true or not.  



 




Back to the issue of this thread.....




- Josiah



PS.  Even though we are OBVIOUSLY of fundamentally different perspectives (and thus struggling to "connect" in our conversations), you make me think.  You make my brain work.  THANK YOU.   I appreciate that.

.