From: MX%"kdavid@airmail.net" 4-APR-1996 Subj: Re: Vow of chastity KD1> Have you read the part of scripture that says that Mary was full KD1> of Grace??? St. Paul says that Christ was also full of Grace! FN1> Actually, Luke 1:28 says "Khaire, kekharitomene!" [Rejoice, FN1> favoured one!] It is often translated by Catholics as "full FN1> of grace", but this rendering at least reflects denominational FN1> leanings. That is, it isn't a correct translation. But there is a FN1> greater disaster looming ahead: in John 1:14 the Scripture uses FN1> a different phrase from this for Jesus being full of grace and FN1> truth [pleres kharitos kai aletheias]. Be careful with your FN1> translations. KD1> Why do you think the Virgin Mother of God asked, "And how shall KD1> this be?" The reason is because she was not yet known and she had KD1> taken a vow of chastity. She wished to know how she was to keep KD1> this vow, and still give birth and yet not even knowing a man. FN1> Of course, if she had really taken a vow of chastity then the FN1> infant Jesus would have been the living proof that she didn't FN1> keep this alleged vow. Be careful, the Hebrew priests who were FN1> in charge of all vows - see the Law and Eccl 5:4-6: FN1> "When you make a vow to God, don't delay in fulfilling it. FN1> "He has no pleasure in fools; fulfil your vow. It is better not FN1> "to vow than to make a vow and not fulfil it. Do not let your FN1> "mouth lead you into sin. And do not protest to the [temple] FN1> "messenger, "My vow was a mistake." Why should God be angry at FN1> "what you say and destroy the work of your hands? - KD2> I think here you have made many many assumptions, and do not KD2> realize the power of God. FN1> so these priests haven't read the Gospel. The very first thing FN1> they would have asked when Jesus was brought to the temple to be FN1> circumcised: "Woman, is this baby yours?! Don't you fear the Lord FN1> at all?" -- and they at least would have excommunicated her and FN1> her husband. Furthermore, the official excommunication of the FN1> pharisees would have been so powerful that Jesus would have been FN1> mocked all his life: "This is an infamous bastard who was born out FN1> of the defilement of a virginal vow, so why should we listen to him?" FN1> But this wasn't what happened. Therefore it's the most natural thing FN1> to say that your vow hypothesis is utterly contrary to biblical facts. KD2> Well we shall disagree here. Do you honestly think that KD2> men's power is more powerful than God? FN2> No. I just said that God didn't expose Mary to the life-long mockeries FN2> that would have befallen her in case your vow hypothesis stands. FN2> Let me bring to your memory what happened to Martin Luther (an ex-monk) FN2> when he married Cathy Bora (an ex-nun). Even those pamphleteers who FN2> sort of kept silent till then suddenly burst out calling him devil FN2> and accused him with foaming mouth for the breach of vow. KD3> Luther chose to break his vows, I am sure you can find many KD3> many supposed Catholics who did many many bad things, you KD3> can also find many pagans who did, many jews and on and on.... KD3> Truth is above this kind of rhetoric. FN3> I don't see your point. I said that Mary would have had to suffer FN3> the same mockeries as Luther actually had to. But the Bible FN3> doesn't report about any mockery. If there had been a vow then FN3> even Joseph's husbandship wouldn't have been enough to defend her. KD2> Again, limiting God..... FN2> Provided God really did plan the perpetual virginity of Mary. FN2> But it's just an assumption and goes contrary to the Bible. FN2> So it's you who limits God when you assert that He goes FN2> contrary to His own Word. KD3> God is not a respecter of persons, hence I suspect your reasoning KD3> here is merely human in nature and not Godly, FN3> Prove your assertion. Suspicions aren't enough. FN2> If these noble gentlemen were right in condemning him for a vow FN2> which he had taken in the state of ignorance then obviously the FN2> Pharisees would have been striving justly to separate her from FN2> her husband who, in their mind, placed his rights above the FN2> purity of his virgin wife and consummated the marriage. FN2> (An aside note: I realize that my application of the terms FN2> "separate", "purity" and "consummate" is anachronistic. They FN2> reflect the manicheistic approach of the Middle Ages towards FN2> marriage. But I do it in answer to your proposition according FN2> to which Mary took a vow of chastity for marriage - it is FN2> even more ridiculous than mine because such vow would have FN2> been irrealistic even in the Middle Ages.) FN2> An actual vow would have provided an excellent opportunity for FN2> Christ's enemies to question His credibility. And your hypothesis FN2> about the vow renders God responsible for this tricky situation. KD3> Christ's enemies did more than that, they killed Him. FN3> By the will of God, thus fulfilling the mission. But the situation FN3> which is a direct consequence of your ridiculous vow hypothesis FN3> (Mary being stoned for committing adultery, with Jesus Christ FN3> in her womb, imagine that!) cannot be called the fulfilment FN3> of the mission. KD3> God tricks no one, but He is Just, what you fail to recognize KD3> is that God is not limited by your in the box scenario. FN3> The box is the Word of God which directly refutes the possibility FN3> of the virgin vow. You go off the tangent. I proved that Mary FN3> had to face mockeries in case of a vow of chastity. I proved FN3> that the Bible completely excludes such mockeries. Thus I proved FN3> that there was no vow of chastity. You are astounded by this simple FN3> logic and can't say anything but insist on this "limiting God" FN3> speech. But you don't have in mind God, rather your assumptions. FN3> The Bible limits your assumptions which you boldly try to ascribe FN3> to God. It's high time you realized that your point is defeated. FN2> So while you assert that it was a great deed of God to have preserved FN2> Mary from the stain of human intercourse, you actually make God the FN2> final cause of an awkward situation into which He placed Mary without FN2> her knowing of it, thus risking the whole mission of His own Son. KD3> She could have refuted many things that were and have been said about KD3> Her,but she does as she should and follows the example of Her Son who KD3> remained silent, for in God's goodness and all powerfulness she was KD3> allowed many sorrows, sharing in Christ's sufferings. FN3> Just as other Christians. But there is the record of Christians FN3> suffering in the Word of God. Yet Mary (of whom I proved that she FN3> would have been the key target of unjust charges in case of a vow) FN3> isn't mentioned in the Word of God as having charged unjustly. FN3> Thus your hymn about Mary's sorrows which befell her due to FN3> charges proved flawed. KD2> You limit God in your human way of thought and you lack Trust it appears. FN2> No. I just say that God was careful enough not to expose the mother of FN2> His Son to malicious charges which she wouldn't have been able to refute. FN2> And I just make remarks on some consequences which might have slipped FN2> your mind. So what you do is not trust (because it would be based FN2> on God's promise) but an extreme act of audacity (because you invent FN2> something which is not verifiable and leave it to God to resolve the FN2> emerging problems). KD2> Do you honestly believe Mary actually cared what the pharisees thought? FN2> Yes. She and her husband weren't so important personalities that they FN2> could have neglected the Law of Moses. And the Pharisees were the ones FN2> who had the keys then, sitting in Moses' seat. Although they committed FN2> several abuses, this fact didn't authorize anyone to disobey the <> FN2> Jesus said "Do whatever they command but don't act according to their FN2> deeds". KD3> Again, human logic...read the story of the man born blind, KD3> he was thrown out, did God neglect or reject him....no not at all. FN3> Read it you, too. Was Mary actually thrown out? KD2> Her care was do the will of God, that is all. FN2> The will of God included obedience to the Law. Faithfulness to a vow FN2> is obedience to the Law. Breach of vow is a disobedience to God's FN2> commands in the Old Testament. Had the pharisees punished Mary FN2> for breach of vow (believing that the child was Joseph's or another FN2> male's offspring), they could have been dissuaded from this only FN2> with NT quotations; which they obviously wouldn't have accepted FN2> as authoritative. And this unsoluble dilemma is solved at once FN2> if you drop your ridiculous vow hypothesis. KD3> So you claim here to know the exact will of God for the Mother...hmm.... KD3> I will pray for you on this one...you have gravely misspoken here. FN3> In your fallible opinion. By the way, the Word of God pretty well FN3> reveals the will of God, doesn't it? KD2> Mary was not affected by the birth of Her child, she was KD2> still a Virgin even afterwards..... FN2> False. She had intercourse with her husband as a normal wife. FN2> The brothers of Jesus are sufficient to prove it. FN2> They were transformed only by Origen into cousins. Formerly FN2> Tertullian could proclaim the biblical truth about them FN2> being literal brothers of the Lord. KD3> I would not pay attention to Tertullian, he was an extremist KD3> and fell away from the Church, there were many things he could KD3> and would not believe and eventually he fell away, never to return. FN3> Likewise reject Jerome who maintained until his death that the FN3> so-called deutero-canonical books are not inspired and called them FN3> "apocrypha" and "fables". Reject Athanasius who omitted these books FN3> from the list of canonical ones in one of his letters. FN3> Reject Catholic theologians of the past who stated the opposite FN3> of Mary's immaculate conception. (Origen, Chrysostomos, Cyrill FN3> of Alexandria, Basileos, Thomas Aquinas, pope Leo the Great) FN3> Your favourite Eusebius was semi-Arian; reject him, too. FN3> Also: FN3> Paul calls the Eucharist "bread" and "cup" after the "consecration" FN3> (contrary to Catholicism which insists that it is no longer FN3> bread and wine). FN3> Paul states that those demanding restrainment from certain foods FN3> harm the liberty of the Christian (contrary to the compulsory FN3> Friday fasting in the Roman Catholic Church). FN3> Paul says that the true apostles are known by longsuffering and FN3> great wonders (contrary to the Catholic concept which links FN3> it with certain rituals). FN3> Paul maintains that one is the Mediator between men and God FN3> (contrary to the doctrine that Mary is Mediatrix). FN3> Paul warns the Colossians that venerating the angels would FN3> be forfeiting one's reward (contrary to Catholicism FN3> which approves of this custom). FN3> Paul preaches to the Athenians that God mustn't be likened to FN3> silver and gold and the work of men's hands (contrary to FN3> the Catholic tendency to portray God in statues). FN3> Reject him quickly! KD2> if you wish a scriptural quote I play to the same thing KD2> as I always have....which scripture or canon is true and why??? FN2> If you are interested, I can send you the decree of the Ist FN2> Vatican Council again which states that the basis of the FN2> Scripture's authority isn't the decision of the Church FN2> (which you probably have in mind here) but the authorship FN2> of God. (Once in the early stage of our True Church discussion FN2> I had to point out to your error concerning this, because you FN2> maintained: "The problem with protesters is that they think FN2> the bible gives the church its authority, but it's false, the FN2> church gives the bible its authority.") KD3> Here you have not really understood my question above. FN3> Re-word it. FN2> I wouldn't really consider it a fair game to go into a debate with FN2> you concerning canon because I happen to already have refuted your FN2> allegations on this topic. Some of them were clearly heretical FN2> even according to Roman Catholic standards. FN2> Do you remember the following lines? FN2> You: In the early days of christianity, many letters of FN2> St. Clement and St. Ignatius and many others were FN2> considered canonical, FN2> FN2> Me: Oh, were they? I don't believe it. Does Muratorian Fragment FN2> or Athanasius list them as canonical? And the famous council FN2> of Carthago? Or Florence? I can see that they were frequently FN2> quoted, but it doesn't mean they are inspired. FN2> FN2> You: and only until 1546 did we eliminate some of these books. FN2> FN2> Me: Why? If they are canonical, inspired, part of Scripture, FN2> then it was a blasphemous decision. FN2> FN2> You: These books are actually still considered such, FN2> FN2> Me: Contrary to the everlasting decree of the Holy Council of Trent? FN2> FN2> You: but for reasons of clarity and reasonableness, FN2> FN2> Me: It was all the same blasphemous, for whatever reason. FN2> FN2> You: they have been removed from the printed versions of the FN2> Catholic bible recently. FN2> FN2> Me: Thus misleading millions of ignorant Catholics who are FN2> deprived of your excellent argument based on this letter, FN2> so they remain limited in their understanding why it is FN2> the True Church. You should as well attack your FN2> own denomination for leaving its members vulnerable. KD3> I remember all these lines, but you have taken them out of context. FN3> This is your favourite argument but it's of no real value. I really FN3> refuted your heretical claims and you even didn't answer my refutations. KD3> The canon as one would describe it from the council of Trent doesn't KD3> contain what the early Church Father considered to be canon.... FN3> So, what happened to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers? FN3> Did they contradict the official Catholic doctrine of Trent? KD3> again you seem to lack real knowledge here on what they accepted KD3> and did not. FN3> They "accepted" Greek mythology too, if citing means accepting. KD3> But I will let you have this argument because it is KD3> really meaningless about canons since non of them will you KD3> completely understand, believing them to be interpretable by KD3> anyone privately. FN3> Don't you (or the respected Fathers) interpret your tradition FN3> "privately?" Offer me a refutation of my "private" interpretation. FN2> Protoevangelium Jacobi, which has the words you quote, saying FN2> "Mary was not affected by the birth of Her child, FN2> "she was still a Virgin even afterwards..... FN2> never belonged to any list of canon. So you yourself FN2> have to establish the canonicity of a never-canonical book. FN2> Which scripture has this book and why? KD3> Again, playing things out of context, I never said KD3> that this particular verse was in scripture. FN3> For your information, the formula "the virgin conceived, FN3> the virgin gave birth, and she remained virgin forever" FN3> is taken from the Protoevangelium. And it was accepted FN3> by several major Fathers. So (in your reasoning which goes FN3> like "frequently cited, therefore canonical") the Proto- FN3> evangelium is canonical. KD3> Many many mystics and saints have recorded visitations KD3> from the Mother about this issue and many others, FN3> These were false revelations. Christ warned against FN3> false prophets, just as John against lying spirits. KD3> you would do well to read the saints. FN3> Testing the spirits is crucial for orthodoxy, don't you think so?