homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: All Things Mary (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: All Things Mary
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various areas of controversy and disagreement related to Marian theology, such as:
-too much honor vs not enough honor
-why venerate the Virgin
-her role in salvation
-the difference between venerating and worshipping her
-The Immacualte Conception, the Assumption, The Vigin Birth, Ever-Virginity

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I'm struggling to incorporate her into my spirituality (struggling may be too strong a word; it would be more of a struggle to go back to ignoring her at this point). Every thread that mentions her seems to develop interesting tangents around one of the above, so I thought I'd start one specifically for them all. All Marian tangents welcome! So, discuss your take on the Theotokos. What do you believe and why? Do you even care? What do you object to about other people's positions?

[Thread title edited for Limbo.]

[ 08. February 2006, 19:21: Message edited by: RuthW ]

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various areas of controversy and disagreement related to Marian theology, such as:
-too much honor vs not enough honor
-why venerate the Virgin
-her role in salvation
-the difference between venerating and worshipping her
-The Immacualte Conception, the Assumption, The Vigin Birth, Ever-Virginity

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I'm struggling to incorporate her into my spirituality (struggling may be too strong a word; it would be more of a struggle to go back to ignoring her at this point). Every thread that mentions her seems to develop interesting tangents around one of the above, so I thought I'd start one specifically for them all. All Marian tangents welcome! So, discuss your take on the Theotokos. What do you believe and why? Do you even care? What do you object to about other people's positions?

OK too many strings to pull in this ball of wool.

I would like to know why anyone believes in the everlasting virginity of Mary as it sounds like complete nonsense to me.

The only positive thing about it is that it gets out of Joseph having sexual relations with a 12 year old.

C

[ 05. December 2005, 16:48: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll give you this Cheesy ... you're irrepressible! [Smile]

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cheesy, I'm guessing "Tradition" isn't going to cut it with you?

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura

Wise Drunkard
# 1066

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura   Email Bonaventura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:


I would like to know why anyone believes in the everlasting virginity of Mary as it sounds like complete nonsense to me.

and that belief does not require faith in a miracle of any kind...

Best,

--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco

Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With you, Ruth, although I'v belabored it before. Anyone want to have a go at it again?

Blessings,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401

 - Posted      Profile for quantpole   Email quantpole   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If it's a (relatively) short answer I'd be interested Tom.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

We don't drink lemonade out of the chalice, not because there's anything wrong with lemonade, but because the chalice contained the Body and Blood of our Lord. Likewise, Mary's womb contained the Body and Blood of our Lord, and therefore it wasn't fitting that it should ever be used to hold any other child.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:


I would like to know why anyone believes in the everlasting virginity of Mary as it sounds like complete nonsense to me.

and that belief does not require faith in a miracle of any kind...

Best,

Eh?

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
taking a quick stab at a point (if not THE point) (because lunch hour is over and I should do what they pay me for)I would say it has at least a little to do with her having been set apart to bear the Son of God and, with most things set apart for God's service, we try to keep them set apart, not alternate between secular and consecrated roles (not a hard and fast rule, I'm sure).

However, I'm not even sure there has to be a point, per se. Couldn't it just be simple fact? Tradition holds that Joseph was significantly older than Mary, with grown children of his own, so presumably not interested in begetting more kids (according to one strand of Tradition I've read, that's why he was selected as her husband by the Temple priests). Also, given what he seems to have known about the paternity of Jesus, I think a good case could be made that he wouldn't be inclined to assert marital rights on someone God had chosen to bear the Messiah (or Whoever Joseph understood the Child to be). That part seems simple logic to me, and easy to relate to.

Does there have to be a theological reason (though I know there are)? Maybe it just worked out that way? I'm interested in why "moderns" choose to reject the doctrine that was accepted as far back as we can tell.

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ooops, crossed with Josephine who, as always, said it more concisely and eloquently than I ever could!

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401

 - Posted      Profile for quantpole   Email quantpole   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

We don't drink lemonade out of the chalice, not because there's anything wrong with lemonade, but because the chalice contained the Body and Blood of our Lord. Likewise, Mary's womb contained the Body and Blood of our Lord, and therefore it wasn't fitting that it should ever be used to hold any other child.
Thing is, where does this sort of belief stop? For example: did the disciples ever wash each other's feet after Jesus had washed their's? It's not necessary to insist that they did, but seems a bit strange to insist that they didn't.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quantpole:

I don't know if I can ever make anything short, but

(1) I'm of that bent that says tradition has to square with Scripture.
(2) Scripture seems to clearly indicate that Mary and Joseph came together and had other children (yes I'm aware of the alternate Greek translation for the siblings terms)
(3) There is nothing morally wrong with Mary & Joseph having sex, and indeed everything right and blessed. (and she was probably older than 12 when she had Jesus - puberty came later back then)
(4) It seems odd that the prototypical family (or the Holy Family) would exist in such an unnatural state, a state that the apostle Paul says a married couple should not live in.
(5) It adds to that whole "sex is something only the less holy do" mentality that again is nowhere to be found in Scripture
(6) The apocryphal stuff - at least that I've read - that supposedly supports her perpetual virginity - is silly in the extreme.

That's as quick as I can make it. I'm at work with a pretty full afternoon ahead of me, but I'll try to check back.

BTW that doesn't mean that I don't greatly respect her or consider her a hero of the faith. Just not a pepetual virgin.

Blessings,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura

Wise Drunkard
# 1066

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura   Email Bonaventura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:


Eh?

C

Is it not possible to not have sex?

B

[ 05. December 2005, 17:14: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]

--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco

Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

We don't drink lemonade out of the chalice, not because there's anything wrong with lemonade, but because the chalice contained the Body and Blood of our Lord. Likewise, Mary's womb contained the Body and Blood of our Lord, and therefore it wasn't fitting that it should ever be used to hold any other child.
This is a horrible analogy. She wasn't an inanimate object. She was a human being. The word "fitting" makes this out to be a point of decorum, which seems ridiculous. Jesus went all sorts of places in his life, and none of them became places no one else should go because he was had been there. By this argument, comparing Mary's womb to an inanimate object, every chair Jesus sat in should never have been sat in by another person afterward.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
PerkyEars

slightly distracted
# 9577

 - Posted      Profile for PerkyEars   Email PerkyEars   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm trying hard to get over my protestant Maryphobia, however - I came across a prayer the other day (I can't find it again now [Frown] ) - which really made me wince. The gist of it was "Dear Mary, please pray for me - I'm asking you since Jesus is much more able to hear you than me".

Is this:
a) total nonsense
b) borderline nonsense from an overexcitable Mariolatrous catholic
c) an infelicitous expression of theology which might sound quite reasonable explained by a sensible catholic
d) true

What do you think? [Big Grin]

Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401

 - Posted      Profile for quantpole   Email quantpole   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
St. Seb: I'm fine with Mary and Joseph not having sex, really I am, but to set it as doctrine and then to build so much around this doctrine just seems, well, odd I guess.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry if this turns out o be a double post, but just saw josephine's, which is the only reasonable argument I find for the whole concept. But I still say, why not? Aside from the whole Real Presence issue, I don't think the Lord would inspire the Scriptures, give us a model for marriage and the family, and then have his own earthly family act in a manner very alien to that model.

Blessings,

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053

 - Posted      Profile for TomOfTarsus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ruth:

[Overused]

Said so much better than I.

Blessings again, (see, I CAN type something else!)

Tom

--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.

Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess as your normal compromised LibCath heretic I'll make everybody unhappy ... the virginity of Mary always seemed to me to be a symbolic narrative - and a late one - that had tragically confused virginity and purity. I don't think it was about what she did with her pudenda any more than [groan [Disappointed] : heretical libCath tangent follows:] the Miracle of the Feeding of Lotsa Hungry Bellies was about hungry bellies. [phew: heretical libCath tangent ends [Paranoid] ]

I greatly admire, even venerate Mary. She is, at least in the Lukan narrative, a model of feisty obedience. We need her feist. I've never needed her virginity. After or before the encounter with Big Dove.

I say that as my perspective, not as an intended criticism of the perspectives of others.

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
I'm trying hard to get over my protestant Maryphobia, however - I came across a prayer the other day (I can't find it again now [Frown] ) - which really made me wince. The gist of it was "Dear Mary, please pray for me - I'm asking you since Jesus is much more able to hear you than me".

Is this:
a) total nonsense
b) borderline nonsense from an overexcitable Mariolatrous catholic
c) an infelicitous expression of theology which might sound quite reasonable explained by a sensible catholic
d) true

What do you think? [Big Grin]

I imagine that this is between a and b, but despite what the theologians officially say, I have heard this point of view from folks who have gone through Catholic parochial school. And this is why a lot of Prots have trouble with the intercession of saints. The idea that saints have more "pull" with God than the rest of his children, that you wouldn't get as much of a hearing asking God yourself as getting a saint or the BVM to do it for you.

An egregious example: asking a saint to ask Mary to ask her Son... [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
By this argument, comparing Mary's womb to an inanimate object, every chair Jesus sat in should never have been sat in by another person afterward.

I was trying to give the short version. Here's a slightly longer version.

First, from the very earliest times, Christians called Mary not just the Virgin, but the Ever-Virgin. So before there was a theological reason, there was what I think the earliest Christians accepted as a simple fact. It's just the way it was.

And maybe it didn't need any theological reasons, but in the early Church, they tended to see everything in the OT as a type of Christ, as a foreshadowing of what was to come. So they began referring to Ezekiel 44:1-2 -- "Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the Lord said to me, 'This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.'"

The Fathers saw the physical Temple as a type of Mary, and thus saw this passage as a prophetic type. They understood the gate through which the Lord God of Israel entered to be Mary's womb. So, in accordance with this passage of Scripture, once Christ entered, the gate was shut, so no one else could enter by it. The fact that they knew about Mary and the OT Scriptures fit together. It made sense to them.

And IIRC it was accepted, not just in the very early Church, not just until the Great Schism, but all the way up through the Reformation. So why did Christians after the Reformation feel a need to dump this particular teaching?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the perpetual virginity doctrine.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I was trying to give the short version. Here's a slightly longer version.

The interpretation of Ezekiel is a completely different argument, actually. I can see why people would like the apparently neat lining up of OT passages with things they knew, or thought they knew, about Mary (or Jesus or the apostles). But this sort of analogical interpretation of the Bible does a lot of violence to the text of the Hebrew scriptures.

quote:
So why did Christians after the Reformation feel a need to dump this particular teaching?
I don't speak for all Christians after the Reformation, obviously, but as far as I can see it serves no theological purpose.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Expatriate Theolinguist
Shipmate
# 6064

 - Posted      Profile for The Expatriate Theolinguist   Email The Expatriate Theolinguist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
And IIRC it was accepted, not just in the very early Church, not just until the Great Schism, but all the way up through the Reformation. So why did Christians after the Reformation feel a need to dump this particular teaching?

The short answer is that the Reformers were firm believers in sola scriptura, so anything which you couldn't find in Scripture could not be considered as binding doctrine. I don't want to start a tangent about the validity of this doctrine (but maybe it's inevitable), but this is how Evangelical Protestants see it. If it ain't in Scripture, there's absolutely no obligation to believe it.
Posts: 731 | From: Upstate New York | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756

 - Posted      Profile for Nicodemia   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well fellow Shipmates, you seem to have hurtled yourselves straight into the discussion of <sigh> sex. Again.

Our St. Seb did actually ask questions other than just about Mary's virginity:-

quote:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various areas of controversy and disagreement related to Marian theology, such as:
-too much honor vs not enough honor
-why venerate the Virgin
-her role in salvation
-the difference between venerating and worshipping her
-The Immacualte Conception, the Assumption, The Vigin Birth, Ever-Virginity


On the honour side, I know some churches can scarcely mention her name without being accused of mariolotry, but I see no reason why she cannot be given special respect and love in exactly the same way as Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary. I'm sure all the other women mentioned, Susanna, Joanna, another Mary, etc. could be given respect as well.

As far as veneration and worship is concerned, is there any real difference? My very large Oxford Dictionary talks about 'revere' and 'adoration' for both veneration and worship.

[ 05. December 2005, 18:49: Message edited by: Nicodemia ]

Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies, that was my fault.

Regarding the other points:

I don't particularly venerate Mary, although maybe I ought to take more notice of her example than I do.

I would never pray to Mary and don't really understand why people feel the need to, given that we are all supposed to have God living inside us (so, one would think, you can hardly get any closer to God if you tried). Also I do not accept this idea that there are people in heaven watching and shouting us on. I think we will all arrive at the same time.

I don't think she had any role in salvation any more than my mother has a role in me passing exams. Clearly mothers influence who we are, but they have only partial responsibility for the people we turn out to be.

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception - Mary was as broken and sinful as the rest of us. I need no explanation for the absense of original sin in Christ as I do not believe in that theology.

So plainly, I am pretty much a common-or-garden Prot.

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, I was reading this thread and my brain did one of those random associations it's terribly famous for.

Is the BVM the original Mary Sue?

For those of you too lazy to click, a short definition:

quote:
Mary Sue is any original character who possesses unusual qualities, parentage, or appearance — particularly in, but not limited to, science fiction or fantasy, (whether original or fan fiction).
If she's not intentionally a Mary Sue in the Bible, I think I'll get little argument that she's definatley suffered some degree of Sueification.

quote:
"Sueification" is a name that has been applied to the transformation of a canon character to fit the writer's preferences. The character is likely to lose the traits the writer finds uninteresting or unappealing, and to gain characteristics which the writer likes but which the character had previously not possessed and which are radically out of character.


--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, being my usual eclectic self... [Biased]

I've never had a problem with the virgin birth--maybe because I was raised on it from a very young age. But I don't seen any reason for her to have abstained from sex for the rest of her life. That seems to say that sex is bad and/or women are bad. Neither is true.

Making Mary untouchable also makes her unreachable for many people, especially women, especially little girls looking for a Biblical role model.

I think that--ASIDE FROM WHOEVER MARY TRULY IS--that many people reach for her because they want the feminine aspect of God. I also think that some goddess attributes were layered onto Mary--the mother aspect of Diana (remember, it was the Council of Ephesus--"great is Diana of the Ephesians"--who declared Mary to be the Mother of God), and the Star of the Sea office (held by several goddesses), etc.

Again, I'M NOT SPEAKING THERE ABOUT WHO MARY ACTUALLY IS, BUT SOME OF THE WAYS PEOPLE VIEW HER.
[Angel]

It's no secret that I'm pulled towards the feminine aspect of God. I do also sometimes pray to Mary, often on a basis of "God, if this is ok with you...Mary, if you're the best of who people have thought you are, then you understand where I'm coming from". And saying the "Hail Mary" can be comforting, even if I question some of the theology.

Frankly, since childhood, I've been more comfortable with Mary Magdalene. The Bible stories allow her to be human, and we're told a bit more about her than about any other NT woman except Jesus' mom. (And no, there's nothing in the Bible that says Mary Magdalene was a prostitute--though many women getting out of that work have found her a helpful example.)

I say that if your heart pulls you towards Mary or a particular saint, follow it. Prayer can be comforting, and we certainly need more comfort in this world. If you're not pulled towards any of them, that's ok, too.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't particularly venerate Mary, although maybe I ought to take more notice of her example than I do.

I would never pray to Mary and don't really understand why people feel the need to, given that we are all supposed to have God living inside us (so, one would think, you can hardly get any closer to God if you tried). Also I do not accept this idea that there are people in heaven watching and shouting us on. I think we will all arrive at the same time.

I don't think she had any role in salvation any more than my mother has a role in me passing exams. Clearly mothers influence who we are, but they have only partial responsibility for the people we turn out to be.

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception - Mary was as broken and sinful as the rest of us. I need no explanation for the absense of original sin in Christ as I do not believe in that theology.

So plainly, I am pretty much a common-or-garden Prot.

C

Here here. But as to your first sentence, why? Why take any more notice of her than her place in the narrative gives her?

Yes, she obeyed God when he wanted her to do something, but so did lots of other people. Yes she had a kid because God said so. So did Abraham and Sarah. Yes, I know it could have cost her a lot, her being unmarried and pregnant, but doing what God wanted actually did cost other people things rather than just 'could have'.

I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
"Dear Mary, please pray for me - I'm asking you since Jesus is much more able to hear you than me".

Is this:
a) total nonsense
b) borderline nonsense from an overexcitable Mariolatrous catholic
c) an infelicitous expression of theology which might sound quite reasonable explained by a sensible catholic
d) true

It seems obviously true to me - provided 'hearing' prayers means more than just being aware of them. Obviously Jesus 'hears' all prayers (if Satan prayed, Jesus would know about it) but Jesus is better able to respond to prayer in a person obedient to him than one in rebellion. Mary is more obedient to God than I am. Jesus can respond to her prayers better than to mine, because she doesn't get in his way and I do.

The reason I don't pray to God through Mary is that I don't think Mary is more able to hear me that Jesus is. Everything in me that stops God doing his will in my life would still be there whether I pray to Mary or her Son.

I have no objection at all to other Christians who find that asking prayer of Mary helps them to be more open to God. It doesn't help me - it isn't my tradition and it would be a stumbling block for me rather than a help. I haven't, yet, felt any call to surmount that particular block, but far be it from me to place it in the path of others.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she had any role in salvation any more than my mother has a role in me passing exams. Clearly mothers influence who we are, but they have only partial responsibility for the people we turn out to be.

I can't agree that Mary had no role in salvation. If she had said no to the angel, and asked for a less hard and painful task (as she could have done), then Jesus would not have been born. Perhaps (we can plausibly believe, but cannot know) God would have found someone else, but even then, somebody had to make this act of extreme obedience, and to make themselves fit for it.

Do you feel you owe any gratitude to the person who first told you about Jesus and made him attractive to you? Maybe you could have learned the faith elsewhere, but the fact is, God reached you through one or more people who could have chosen to do otherwise. Your saving faith in Jesus was mediated through them. And it is just as true that your, and my, and every other Christian's faith has been brought to us through Mary.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fr Alex
Shipmate
# 10304

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Alex     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
whilst not wanting to be accused of talking sex agaian, it is all related. The tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity is very old - fir example, the three stars on icons of Our Lady represent her virginity pre;during;post birth. As for other children the reason against hold true ie step bos & sis or cousins etc. But also if there were brothers (and sisters ?) then why would Jesus give Our Lady into the care of S John rather than a sibling?
The other Marian dogmas all hang together. In order for Our Lord to be free of sin, the humanity side had to be free from original sin ie Immacualte Conception - you wouldn't make a cup of tea in a dirty cup (sin) or without rinsing out the dust from the 'clean' cup from the cupboard (original sin). The IC is, if you like, Our Lady being "baptised" at the moment of conception. Now given this, and her subsequent sinless life given, her unique status, she then rmained a vigin (not that sex within marriage is sinful - but there is the passing on of original sin) and given Joseph's age etc. Now at the end of her earthly days she was assumed into heaven, where all the sinless are - you can't have sin in heaven. And as she was sinless she had a bodily assumption like our sinless Lord had a bodily Resurrection and Ascenion. Now just in case this rocks the prot boat, please remember that at the end of time the sinless will be 'raptured' if you are really prot or at least there will be the bodily resurrection. Mary, has just been there before us (and remember there is no concept of time in heaven).

As for co-redemption, Mother Church hasn't said so, so the answer is still no - but Mary did say yes as all of heaven held their breath!

So yes I have a great love and devotion to Our Lady, for she is the perfect example of what a Christian ie a follower of Christ, should be - someone who does the will of God and nothing else , so no sin! And if we believe that Mary is one with God in Heaven by worshiping Mary (if you do) then you are in fact worshipping God - but for the record, I say I venerate (playing with words perhaps).

Above all, Our Lady shows that Grace is more original than sin, and that is Good News for us all!
Amen
Fr A

--------------------
If this sig appears below a post about a Dead Horse or about how mean the hosts and admins are, you may be looking at my final post.

Posts: 495 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a thread in Limbo dealing with the question of whether Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
iain67
Apprentice
# 1583

 - Posted      Profile for iain67   Email iain67   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Alex:
[QB]
In order for Our Lord to be free of sin, the humanity side had to be free from original sin ie Immacualte Conception - you wouldn't make a cup of tea in a dirty cup (sin) or without rinsing out the dust from the 'clean' cup from the cupboard (original sin). ...

I can't see any reason why this should be the case; if God can 'father' a child by the Spirit, we surely shouldn't expect the maternal side to be exactly the same as every other human birht. That last sentence is pretty stupid really - trying to confine God to the categories we easily understand never is a good idea!

And as far as resurrection and heaven goes, Revelation has God saying he is 'making all things new', not all new things - ie the fallible and sinful us are going to be renewed and transformed to become something pretty different- that even 'the kings of the earth' who warred against God will be made new and fit for heaven. I simply don't see that this has any implications for how Mary lived her life.


For me, Mary is not 'the perfect example of what a Christian ie a follower of Christ, should be - someone who does the will of God and nothing else ', but one example among many of people who were obedient to God; the fact that she was obedient once doesn't mean that she lived a life without sin

Posts: 13 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Janine

The Endless Simmer
# 3337

 - Posted      Profile for Janine   Email Janine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Assuming one even believes in "original sin" as it is taught, then there would have had to be a line behind Mary of sinless people all the way back to Creation.

If Jesus needed a "washed cup" to be born from, then she also needed a washed cup to be born from -- or rather a cup and a teapot. Who also needed previous china.

--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *

Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

I think that--ASIDE FROM WHOEVER MARY TRULY IS--that many people reach for her because they want the feminine aspect of God. I also think that some goddess attributes were layered onto Mary--the mother aspect of Diana (remember, it was the Council of Ephesus--"great is Diana of the Ephesians"--who declared Mary to be the Mother of God), and the Star of the Sea office (held by several goddesses), etc.


[Overused] to this, GK.

Theologically, I am about as common-or-garden-variety Prot as Cheesy is, and agree with most of what's in Cheesy's post. I am a bit fascinated with Mariolatry and Marian devotion, though, especially after reading Beverly Donofrio's Looking for Mary and Diane Schomperlein's Our Lady of the Lost and Found within the last year.

I think for me, really, there are two Marys. One is the Mary of the New Testament, a good and admirable woman, certainly feisty as mentioned above, and faithful though by no means perfect. I think every Christian, Catholic and Protestant, should admire and learn from her. She played a very special role in salvation history and she deserves to be honoured for it. FWIW, I think this Mary -- the "historical Mary" if you will -- is asleep in death, awaiting the resurrection as are all the righteous dead.

The other Mary is the Mary of church tradition, the Mary of Marian devotion, and I agree with Golden Key that this Mary is actually a representation of the feminine aspect of God. People venerate/worship/pray to Mary because they need a Mother God, and the Church has traditionally denied that God has feminine qualities but has provided this sort of side-channel for this much-needed worship. While I think some Christians are technically wrong to believe that a first-century Jewish woman is now a demi-goddess worthy of worship, I also believe that other Christians (my sort) are just as wrong to deny any outlet for our inborn need to turn to the loving arms of a heavenly Mother.

So, something to be learned on all sides there, and of course like everything else I believe, I take my belief in the Two Marys with a large grain of salt and a note that says, "I may be wrong about absolutely everything."

[ 06. December 2005, 00:28: Message edited by: TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) ]

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
"Dear Mary, please pray for me - I'm asking you since Jesus is much more able to hear you than me".

Is this:
a) total nonsense
b) borderline nonsense from an overexcitable Mariolatrous catholic
c) an infelicitous expression of theology which might sound quite reasonable explained by a sensible catholic
d) true

It seems obviously true to me - provided 'hearing' prayers means more than just being aware of them. Obviously Jesus 'hears' all prayers (if Satan prayed, Jesus would know about it) but Jesus is better able to respond to prayer in a person obedient to him than one in rebellion. Mary is more obedient to God than I am. Jesus can respond to her prayers better than to mine, because she doesn't get in his way and I do.

The reason I don't pray to God through Mary is that I don't think Mary is more able to hear me that Jesus is. Everything in me that stops God doing his will in my life would still be there whether I pray to Mary or her Son.

I have no objection at all to other Christians who find that asking prayer of Mary helps them to be more open to God. It doesn't help me - it isn't my tradition and it would be a stumbling block for me rather than a help. I haven't, yet, felt any call to surmount that particular block, but far be it from me to place it in the path of others.

Thankyou for this post, it has really helped me see the benefit of asking the Saints for prayers - I did before, but in the same way as one would ask a living person for their prayers.

It is not that Jesus 'hears them better' I think, but, united with God and his angels, Mary and the Saints know the perfect Truth (I think this is part of the Theosis thing). Thus, they know better what to pray for us. For example, if I ask a friend to pray for me, or I pray myself for situation X - it is clouded by my possibly wrongful desires and base motivations and the best I can say is 'Thy will be done' rather than ask for something specific. But for someone who knows the perfect truth about human nature, desires, what is good and evil and what is best for a person - they will know better and more specifically what to pray for.

Cool! (lights candle to Ss. Michael and Joseph, and the BVM of course)

[ 06. December 2005, 02:48: Message edited by: The Coot ]

Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also...

It's easy and common to forget that writers and thinkers of the first few centuries CE or AD were of a much different mindset and philosophy than we are today. To write down and record what happened was much more of an art form than a science, for the purpose of telling the whole story as the writer saw it. Extra details and embellished facts weren't "unethical journalism" but rather they got at the depth of the situation as it occurred on multiple levels.

So for first and second century Christians to pass on a tradition of Mary the Ever-Virgin would not necessitate that Mary literally stayed a virgin her whole life as a proveable fact. I doubt anyone at the time honestly cared about this fact, at least nowhere near as fervently as we now do! What they cared about was the message of the story--that Mary was to be honored for her role in the birth of Jesus Christ, and that it was not beneficial to them in any way to dwell upon the possible sexual acts of Mary after Jesus was born. Instead, they dwelled upon her purity, which was maintained throughout her life as she was made a perfect vessel for carrying the baby Lord.

That's a small piece of my take on the "Ever-Virgin" subject.

-Digory

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

We don't drink lemonade out of the chalice, not because there's anything wrong with lemonade, but because the chalice contained the Body and Blood of our Lord. Likewise, Mary's womb contained the Body and Blood of our Lord, and therefore it wasn't fitting that it should ever be used to hold any other child.
Why? The body and blood of Our Lord was human.
This smacks of docetism to me - that somehow the 'body' of Jesus was too holy, too 'other' to be associated with anything else it resembled.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she had any role in salvation any more than my mother has a role in me passing exams. Clearly mothers influence who we are, but they have only partial responsibility for the people we turn out to be.

I can't agree that Mary had no role in salvation. If she had said no to the angel, and asked for a less hard and painful task (as she could have done), then Jesus would not have been born. Perhaps (we can plausibly believe, but cannot know) God would have found someone else, but even then, somebody had to make this act of extreme obedience, and to make themselves fit for it.

Do you feel you owe any gratitude to the person who first told you about Jesus and made him attractive to you? Maybe you could have learned the faith elsewhere, but the fact is, God reached you through one or more people who could have chosen to do otherwise. Your saving faith in Jesus was mediated through them. And it is just as true that your, and my, and every other Christian's faith has been brought to us through Mary.

Mmmm.. I agree to an extent. I don't think she was really in a position to say no to the angel, but that is a side issue really.

She was the right person in the right place at the right time who did the right thing. And, whilst there is a lot to be said for that, I don't see that she should therefore receive more than an honourable mention.

Works of God are exactly that - works of God. Just because he choses to do certain things through certain people doesn't
necessarily make them special people.

Regarding the gratitude point, I feel some level of gratitude that there were people who took time with me and others who wrote things that meant something to me. But I don't hero-worship them - they are just broken, messed-up people like everyone else, touched by the grace of God.

I simply do not accept that they 'mediated' my saving faith in any way whatsoever and find that a very odd turn of phrase. Moreover, even if they did, I fail to see how Mary has anything to do with my faith journey. It is like saying that Lady Godiva affects the lives of the people of Coventry today. She does in a very vague historical and ceremonial way - but she doesn't in any way that could remotely be brought up in a court of law.

josephine said ages ago:

quote:
First, from the very earliest times, Christians called Mary not just the Virgin, but the Ever-Virgin.
Can you give me some sources josephine? I suspect the theology was dumped because it a) overemphasised the divine nature over the human (Jesus could hardly be described as being truely human if his birth was a divine miracle on both sides of his parentage) and b) it sounded like an old-wives tale with no biblical basis.

C

[ETA - ooek went a bit weird]

[ 06. December 2005, 07:33: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she was really in a position to say no to the angel, but that is a side issue really.

I'm surprised at this idea. Do you think Moses had any choice in leading the exodus? Did Peter have a choice about following Christ? Do we have a choice in turning to Christ?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she was really in a position to say no to the angel, but that is a side issue really.

I'm surprised at this idea. Do you think Moses had any choice in leading the exodus? Did Peter have a choice about following Christ? Do we have a choice in turning to Christ?
[Big Grin]

The impression given is that God choses the people he wants. The angel said 'you're going to have a baby...' rather than 'God says it'd be cool if you had a miraculous baby. What d'ya reakon?'

God says to Moses 'You will do x' and even when Moses objects he still has to do it.

However, as I am in no way a Calvinist, I'd suggest that there is a little more backstory involved. As God knows everyone intimately he is only going to call people to particular tasks who he knows are open and able to do the tasks.

I think salvation is a bit different because God says 'Oi you (plural) come to me' rather than 'Oi you (singular) come to me', although that doesn't explain why some individuals seem to get special treatment.

OK, I admit, my theology is duff.

C

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another prot coming right up:

I believe in the Virgin birth (and this is an article of faith for me)

I don't believe in perpetual virginity (but this is irrelevant to my faith and I don't mind if I'm wrong)

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception (and this is pretty close to an article of faith for me)

I don't believe in the Assumption (but not essential to my faith that it didn't happen)

I think that worshipping anything or anyone other than the Holy Trinity is idolatry, and that would include Mary. (Core belief)

I don't venerate Mary and the Saints in the Catholic sense.

I don't think Mary, the Saints, or priests are necessary to pray. Jesus said pray "Our Father" - you don't need an intermediary.

Essentially most Marian doctrine was developed after she died, not by the original apostles, not in the Bible. So you will never persuade most Protestants about it. In many cases it is not that they believe it is demonstrably false, but that they don't believe something should be taught as doctrine if it is not in the Bible.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems worth mentioning some of the NT apocrypha that has influenced church thinking on Mary over the centuries. Some of the (particularly medieval) exaggerations about Mary have their origins in some these books (Pseudo Matthew springs to mind here). The latter book, among others, was embraced by much of the church and seems to have influenced the ideas about Jesus not having siblings and Mary herself having been born of a virgin birth.

K.

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Jonathan the Free:
quote:
I don't think Mary, the Saints, or priests are necessary to pray. Jesus said pray "Our Father" - you don't need an intermediary.
That sounds like a very lonely faith. Tell me, would you say friends are "necessary" in order to have a full and happy life? And would you ever hesitate to ask your friends to pray for you?

Then why hesitate to ask your friends in the faith - the saints - to pray for you? It's not as if they can't, "For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249

 - Posted      Profile for Evo1   Email Evo1   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can I add here something I spotted at a bible study last week?

When the angel visits Mary and tells her she is going to give birth to the Messiah, she accepts the task: She says, let it be to me as you have said, or something like, in a kind of, "OK, someone has to do this dirty job and if you want me, I will do it".

Then, when she goes to see Elizabeth, and Elizabeth says to her, "Oh this is fantastic you are so blessed to be the mother of the saviour etc", then Mary becomes thankful.

I was thinking how I often don't think to thank God for the most wonderful of things until some time after, but I'm always quick to complain [Frown] .

This is just something that struck me at the time of reading, any thoughts?

[ 06. December 2005, 08:40: Message edited by: Evo1 ]

--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus

Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
The short answer is that the Reformers were firm believers in sola scriptura, so anything which you couldn't find in Scripture could not be considered as binding doctrine. I don't want to start a tangent about the validity of this doctrine (but maybe it's inevitable), but this is how Evangelical Protestants see it. If it ain't in Scripture, there's absolutely no obligation to believe it.

Making your answer slightly longer, I could mentioned that Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Anyone claiming to be a Calvinist today? [Biased]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there any theological need for the Immaculate Conception - or is it simply Tradition? If it's just so that Jesus would have no original sin, then I agree with Janine:

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If Jesus needed a "washed cup" to be born from, then she also needed a washed cup to be born from -- or rather a cup and a teapot. Who also needed previous china.

OTOH, I can also see an argument that it was necessary for Mary to be sinless so that her "Yes" would be a totally free decision, i.e. one not clouded by concupiscence. I'm trying to decide if this works or not.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools