Supposedly, Jesus and all 13-14 Apostles taught that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever and yet:
They didn't have to wrestle the issue of circumcision until it came up how many years after the resurrection? The Holy Trinity wasn't, in statements of language, laid out as we have them today until heretics rose up and attempted to severe communion, that is, to divide Christ, until when?
1. The first mention of it is in the 4th century.
1st Century. St. Justin Martyr. You have to charge that he innovated it or dismiss and minimize his interpretation which dismisses then all those who came after and affirmed it.
You can't say it's not important if it's true. People do this all the time it seems. They say, hm, how little do I have to do to get to heaven?
Oh, well, the thief got to paradise and there's no record of baptism therefore baptism isn't necessary. Oh, well, the laying on of hands isn't important because everyone does it different and I'm sure they aren't going to go to hell because of that. Oh, communion isn't important because I can get to heaven without it (so they presuppose). Oh, well, I don't have to go to Church in order to be saved because I am my own Church. On and on and on...
Dogmatics isn't a utilitarian device used to smote folks but instead a safety rail that lets us know we are out of our jurisdiction and are in contradiction to the revelation of God.
There are dogmatics on baptism, the Eucharist, sacraments as countless as they are... People think dogma is a dirty word these days but that's because there is no dogma in many expressions of the faith other than don't you dare say that you "know" or say that it "matters" outside of yourself and so long as you let me in the front door even though I am in sharp contrast to who you say God is because that would be mean or unkind.
It's hate for the Truth wearing a mask of kindness and humility.
That sort of pluralistic standard just isn't found in the Holy Scriptures.
2. It was debated, with no consensus or generally agreement.
It was debated primarily by groups that weren't Christians and if you are studious you can look at the individuals who rose up from within the Church to argue against her Ever-Virginity.
When you say, "no consensus" you are using a very wide stroke. The secular historians do this when they want to paint the Church as being divided in early Christianity by trying show groups that aren't even Christian as Christians or pointing to individuals who crawl out the woodwork.
You can't lump all these groups together to create a narrative and have it be true.
Start with the fellow St. Jerome refutes if you want to see what kind of person these advocates against her Ever-Virginity were like...
Research each individual that stood up against her Ever-Virginity and notice they are usually using it to issue forth other ideas lumped in together.
Look at which groups those individuals belonged to and what their agenda was. Then come back and tell me that there was no "consensus" among "Christians".
If you can call these groups Christian when most of them deny basic tenants that even Protestants believe in (somewhat regularly) then in your view, I guess you would believe yourself to be right on this issue.
How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?
If the Christological interpretation of the book of Ezekial the prophet is sound then it is in communion with God and since whatever is not in communion with God is a threat to our communion then it is of highest importance, relevance and can, with all certainty, be called harmful to ones soul if rejected.
The interpretation of course is based on the revelation of God otherwise it would be rejected and rightly so. So in regards to the certainty of "Truth" it is sound for it through Christ (Truth!) as our lens, that we declare such interpretations as being true.
The "interpretation" is textually baseless.
I guess your "base" is not based on the same "base" that those who came before you (St. Justin Martyr and St. Jerome) and stood upon so firmly "based" their interpretation on.
More than this it appears that insofar as this topic goes you appear to agree less with Luther and appeal more to those who would disagree with him. Can you, as a Lutheran, be sure that you are even standing on the same "base" as Luther?
Since no one has shown anything either way...
Since it seems entirely moot to anything either way...
Since I don't want to commit the sin of gossip....
BUT, truth matters to me. And I will CONTINUE to vest considerable effort in this (and other topics) in HOPES that it can be resolved. I'm not anything if not persistent, lol.
Sometimes we can be as persistent as the mule and yet unlike the mule, we ultimately wind up only kicking our self. As Christ said to St. Paul, "it hurts to kick against the pricks".
Because at the end of the day, they very well might be right.
... which seems like a good reason NOT to declare it dogma. Such requires that then some brothers and sisters are made heretics (even dispatched to the afterlife smelling like smoke) for disagreeing.
You are responsible for what you know. Your whole argument of "not knowing" falls apart because in reality what you are saying is that because you don't know then it's impossible for others to know. Your position of reversing dogmatics isn't based on truth but on your own limitations. You admit you don't know but then you go one further by insisting that neither does anyone else.
The problem here is that if it's true then it's not there to harm you but instead to help you be conformed to the image of the Son. By declaring it dogmatic it is there as a safety rail to show you that you are leaving the reservation and are entering unknown and dangerous territory. Just because you can't see the safety rail, doesn't mean it's not there.
... which probably suggests that pure acts of faith be given some respect. Even if they are say Mormons. Their support for their unique views are, not infrequently, considerably more sound than what has been presented here, but again - it IS believed and it IS possible (as ALL things not known to be contrary to Truth are). My policy has been to respect such acts of faith in one to the same degree as they do to others (including me, my LDS friends, my Calvinist friends, etc.). Seems reasonble, I'm sure you agree.
We respect the person but don't embrace that which is counter to communion with God. You can go to plenty of churches where every wind of doctrine is welcome but there is no scriptural grounds for such a practice.
... and of course, at the end of the day they may very well be wrong. IF we enter heaven and see Our Blessed Lady weeping in Her Son's arms because of what's being said about Her, some MIGHT have to say: "I didn't care if it was true, I just joined in." And yes, some might find her being praised for her "shut gate" and MIGHT have to say, "I didn't know if it was true."
The problem is that it's not about her sexuality but is bound up in the Holiness of the incarnation of Our Lord and like the Cherubim, a good steward is often faced with having to stand guard and draw the sword of Truth. If someone says, let them in that we might embrace both positions even though they are contradictory positions, then that one is not for us but instead only seeks to let the wolves in the front door by appealing to false charity and so up go the safety rails.
Well, I'm 22, single and a virgin. I sense where you are going, but I'm just not SURE that sexual virginity means we are in greater communion with our Creator. I DO believe that we are to keep the Ten Commandments, including vis-a-vis Our Lady. Maybe ESPECIALLY vis-a-vis Our Lady.
I think that you don't realize that this "Virginity" is not merely about sex but points to a greater Truth about partaking in the divine nature. A uniting between the Creator and His creation. It's not merely about the virtue of virginity in and of itself as a means within it's own end.
It's a Christological position, not a biological one.
And if flies in the face of dualism which is why most Gnostics were totally convinced Mary had other children. Otherwise creation might could be, well, "good".
Glory to Jesus Christ