Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I read the wikipedia article too but who reads his sermons or his theology? They just pick up on the poem. That's why he should have known better - all preachers should be careful about what might be quoted in or out of context.

Anyway, the popularity of that poem does show the vast acceptance of its harmful 'theology'.

As as far as Heaven is concerned, eternal life and being with Christ for eternity is not a 'hope so', it's a 'by grace guarantee' for those who have faith in Christ.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... @Enoch - yes, that's my understanding too, no table-knocking or anything. Hagiographies do have appearances by Saints or the Blessed Virgin and so on - but I'm not sure these are meant to be normative. ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I read the wikipedia article too but who reads his sermons or his theology? They just pick up on the poem. That's why he should have known better - all preachers should be careful about what might be quoted in or out of context.

Anyway, the popularity of that poem does show the vast acceptance of its harmful 'theology'.

As as far as Heaven is concerned, eternal life and being with Christ for eternity is not a 'hope so', it's a 'by grace guarantee' for those who have faith in Christ.

---

I'm afraid it's people who don't explore things that end up getting the wrong end of the stick. If you don't feel any curiosity to find out who wrote a poem, sermon, book and why, that's a problem.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I read the wikipedia article too but who reads his sermons or his theology? They just pick up on the poem. That's why he should have known better - all preachers should be careful about what might be quoted in or out of context.

Anyway, the popularity of that poem does show the vast acceptance of its harmful 'theology'.

As as far as Heaven is concerned, eternal life and being with Christ for eternity is not a 'hope so', it's a 'by grace guarantee' for those who have faith in Christ.

---

I'm afraid it's people who don't explore things that end up getting the wrong end of the stick. If you don't feel any curiosity to find out who wrote a poem, sermon, book and why, that's a problem.

---

Context.

This 'poem' is usually read to uninformed people at funerals by clergymen alongside scripture. What are they supposed to do do, critically analyse it?

Of course not, they take it at face value and accept it along with everything else they are told (if they want to, that is).

When my Stepfather died I heard my sister tell me that she felt him with her and that she was sure he was around watching over her.

Popular belief has reduced the departed into some kind of guardian 'pet' that we keep near at hand so we don't need to feel upset.

The idea that 'the saints' are with us, hanging on every word so they can go and whisper our latest prayer request into God's shell-like, is exactly the same thing - except we never knew them. How pretentious of us to think that St Fred who lived in Egypt in the fifth century would be bothered about the fact that I'd lost my watch in Twenty First Century Newcastle and would he help me to find it or go into the Big Room and ask God to give me a nudge in the right direction!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
'YOUR' bibles?

---

KJV, surely.



--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
I wonder. For those of you who don't acknowledge the perpetual virginity of Mary - what would in fact change your minds? If it were printed in black and white somewhere in your bibles? Is that pretty much the only criterion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
I wonder. For those of you who don't acknowledge the perpetual virginity of Mary - what would in fact change your minds? If it were printed in black and white somewhere in your bibles? Is that pretty much the only criterion.

---

No, there are plenty of truths not explicitly contained in the Bible. It's just that for this Shipmate at least, the arguments put forward on this thread are unconvincing. They also seem to be a rather laborious way of solving a 'problem' which doesn't exist.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Jade Constable: I would agree with this. Mary not remaining a virgin doesn't harm my salvation or that of others.

---

This would indeed be weird. Just imagine that the married couple Joseph and Mary are thinking about having sex. (I'm sorry, I can only describe this plastically.) He starts to insert his member, until he can feel her hymen. One millimeter more, and billions of souls will burn in Hell

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

This 'poem' is usually read to uninformed people at funerals by clergymen alongside scripture. What are they supposed to do do, critically analyse it?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
I wonder. For those of you who don't acknowledge the perpetual virginity of Mary - what would in fact change your minds? If it were printed in black and white somewhere in your bibles? Is that pretty much the only criterion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Jade Constable: I would agree with this. Mary not remaining a virgin doesn't harm my salvation or that of others.

---

This would indeed be weird. Just imagine that the married couple Joseph and Mary are thinking about having sex. (I'm sorry, I can only describe this plastically.) He starts to insert his member, until he can feel her hymen. One millimeter more, and billions of souls will burn in Hell

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Host Hat On

loggats

We've given some further consideration to your previous post and your reference to Rev 3:16 in connection with Gamaliel. Although thinly disguised as a comment on his posts, that reference has been judged by Hosts and Admin as a personal attack and was in violation of Commandment 3.

Watch your step.

Gamaliel

The provocation is recognised, and a Hell call in response would hardly have been surprising. But please leave the assessment of such posts to Hosts and Admin and, for the future, please avoid retaliation in Purgatory.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Flounce?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

loggats: I wonder. For those of you who don't acknowledge the perpetual virginity of Mary - what would in fact change your minds? If it were printed in black and white somewhere in your bibles? Is that pretty much the only criterion.

---

quote:

---

loggats: LeRoc, tell me again how a perfect God learns from His creatures?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Flounce?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Aquinas reject it? Where?

---

He did not reject it, and the Baltimore Catechism (while good for catechizing children and people new to the faith) is hardly definitive anyway.

"Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin."

---

Why did she need a Saviour then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Last time I looked, Mudfrog, the RCs weren't bypassing the Son and the Holy Spirit ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[Come to our services, and I can guarantee you we address more and longer prayers directly to God than does the Sally Army, even considered per unit time. The idea that we are afraid to pray directly to God is either contumely or pig-ignorance.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes. However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.
Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.
Helvidius appealed to the authority of Tertullian against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, to which Jerome (c.340-419) replied, of Tertullian, that he was "not a man of the church."
By the 4th century, the doctrine of perpetual virginity had been well attested. For example, references can be found in the 3rd century writings of Hippolytus of Rome, who called Mary "the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption," and the 4th century works of Athanasius, Epiphanius, Hilary, Didymus, Ambrose, Jerome, and Siricius continued the attestations to perpetual virginity – a trend that gathered pace in the next century.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude” (Gaudium et Spes 49 § 2). Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation (Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mudfrog

Here is a link to some parts of the Catechism

Note in particular this entry.

quote:

---

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude” (Gaudium et Spes 49 § 2). Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation (Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951).

---

There are various other portions of that section of the Catechism I do not agree with, but this one strikes me as pretty much "on the money".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mudfrog

Here is a link to some parts of the Catechism

Note in particular this entry.

quote:

---

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude” (Gaudium et Spes 49 § 2). Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation (Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951).

---

There are various other portions of that section of the Catechism I do not agree with, but this one strikes me as pretty much "on the money".

---

And that is exactly right and how it should be! I wish the church would tell the world that it likes sex though and that it's a good thing.

Too often the world believes the church hates sex and the dctrine of perpetual virginity is part of that 'we hate sex' message that is often heard.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
I (now a sort of wishy-washy Anglican) would prefer to see Mary as definitely a virgin when Jesus was miraculously conceived within her, yet one who gave birth completely normally, and why not, I've never thought otherwise or seen any church doctrine implying otherwise. But then as a fully married woman with Joseph.

---

quote:

---

... But anyway, perhaps more important than "relating" to her is that, in this view, the message is more balanced: marriage, if it is what you are called to, is just as holy as virginity.

---

quote:

---

BUT, as has been said (Laurelin? sorry, memory fails) there is sometimes a throwing of the baby out with the bathwater, and we sometimes forget the richness and importance of the pre-Reformation Christian heritage.

---

Yep, that was me. I am very glad to be an evangelical but I do sometimes wonder what my fellow evangelicals think the Holy Spirit was doing in the 1,500 years before the Reformation ...!

quote:

---

However, I think in our day we are seeing more and more appreciation of the good things in various strands of Christian tradition.

---

I think so too. Great post, Cara.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE] This 'poem' is usually read to uninformed people at funerals by clergymen alongside scripture. What are they supposed to do do, critically analyse it?

Of course not, they take it at face value and accept it along with everything else they are told (if they want to, that is).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
@ Mudfrog - whilst, like you, I do not believe that priests 'have' to be celibate, I would point out that it is not virginity per se that causes a celibate priest to become a child molestor. Married people can be sexually abusive towards children, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
I (now a sort of wishy-washy Anglican) would prefer to see Mary as definitely a virgin when Jesus was miraculously conceived within her, yet one who gave birth completely normally, and why not, I've never thought otherwise or seen any church doctrine implying otherwise. But then as a fully married woman with Joseph.

---

I accept that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus because it is revealed in Scripture and because the Church has believed and proclaiimed this for 2,000 years. I do not believe she necessarily remained a virgin after Jesus was born - neither do I see anything wishy-washy in that particular theological stance. Rather the reverse: I rejoice in the normal marriage, with normal sexual relations, that Mary and Joseph (no doubt) enjoyed.

quote:

---

... But anyway, perhaps more important than "relating" to her is that, in this view, the message is more balanced: marriage, if it is what you are called to, is just as holy as virginity.

---

Absolutely. One hundred percent.

quote:

---

BUT, as has been said (Laurelin? sorry, memory fails) there is sometimes a throwing of the baby out with the bathwater, and we sometimes forget the richness and importance of the pre-Reformation Christian heritage.

---

Yep, that was me. I am very glad to be an evangelical but I do sometimes wonder what my fellow evangelicals think the Holy Spirit was doing in the 1,500 years before the Reformation ...!

quote:

---

However, I think in our day we are seeing more and more appreciation of the good things in various strands of Christian tradition.

---

I think so too. Great post, Cara.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Anglican_Brat: Why is it out of the imagination that Mary, in light of her vocation, felt that the will of God required her to refrain from sexual activity?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, or else he's the patron saint of husbands whose wives say 'no' all the time.

---

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've read an account of the Salvation Army in Victorian times in which they committed one of the girls they were bringing up in an orphanage to a lunatic asylum because she'd been masturbating and teaching the other girls to do the same.

I daresay a similar reaction could well have occurred in an Anglican, Methodist or any other form of orphanage at that time.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

loggats: I wonder. For those of you who don't acknowledge the perpetual virginity of Mary - what would in fact change your minds? If it were printed in black and white somewhere in your bibles? Is that pretty much the only criterion.

---

I doubt that this would change much for me. I mostly try to read the Bible in the sense of: what can it tell me about how to live my life as a Christian today? The few sentences about Mary don't teach me a whole lot about sexuality. They do teach me about a simple girl who showed courage when she was presented with something great though.

quote:

---

loggats: LeRoc, tell me again how a perfect God learns from His creatures?

---

By becoming one of them.

---

Nice point! One might as well apply the question logically to 'why would a perfect God need to create anything beyond himself?' After all when something's perfect, you leave it alone right?

I'm another who doesn't find everything written in black and white in the Bible as necessary proof it should be believed literally. So even if a New Testament writer (or an OT prophet) had cobbled together something about the mother of God being perpetually virginal, it wouldn't necessarily follow it was actually true and/or relevant to anything. It would just be one more rather strange anomaly, subject to interpretation, criticism and theological exploitation. Along with the rest.

However, it would at least come within the remit of scriptural legitimacy with regard to the need to take it seriously as having some importance. Eg, as with the issue about the sinfulness or otherwise of the 'sodomites' condemned in the Bible, and the sinfulness or otherwise of loving, consentual modern-day same-sex relationships. Of course, its importance may be - as in the case of the example just given - to highlight the gaps of knowledge in the human condition, and the need to fill those gaps with prejudice, guesswork and primitive thinking.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!