I wouldn't get stuck on the historical factuality (or not) of the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God (even its place within the literary schemes of the Synoptics, et al.) -- I would, as you yourself seem to intuit, focus on the theological element. "Facts" in such a removed sense (and such a removed sense is the normative sense of "fact") are not necessary to our salvation -- our salvation does not accrue to us extrinsically or by our affirming extrinsic state-of-affairs as being factual. The Mother of God is a type for all Christians, and for the destiny of the creation; of course that doesn't mean she's a literary fiction, but neither does it mean that the significance of the teachings about her have their weight in a list of propositions assented to. I would say -- and some would take me to task for this -- that one might deny the perpetual virginity factually and yet remain closer to the Mystery of her Virginity and Childbearing than many who affirm it as fact but do not enter the mystery. I would say something similar about the "fact" of the divinity of the Logos-made-flesh among some seeming atheists who would deny the Lord's divinity as fact. Of course, these things are not necessarily opposed, and being in the Church puts one in a much better spot than outside, caveats bracketed. And no: I do not at all read the Genesis account as a historical account, and none of the Fathers I have read whom I can think of (Augustine, Maximus, John of Damascus) are entirely comfortable with the literal sense, even when they affirm it. They immediately move into other senses of reading.

Joe, Glad you like my neologism. Unfortunately it has a bit of a nasty edge, but then most polemics do. Syphax, I make no claim to telepathy and/or clairvoyance. ;-) Given the way you've phrased the question, I'll need to undo some of my criticism in the answer: Will _ought_to_be_ subject to the intellect, rather than "the flesh" (in the Pauline sense). It can be passive to many captors, but only when it is passive to the Good can these many passive movements -- the passions -- be integrated. Oddly, there is an element of struggle here -- the will can never struggle for the Good unless the intellect can sense the Good, to some degree. There is struggle involved to the degree that the intellect is unclear about the Good, or the will untrained to the Good (or habituated to lesser goods that have, inordinately, previously shined more brightly because of a dulled, or previously duller, intellect). I know of no such list of core doctrines, though the Church certainly has a doctrinal tradition. There _are_ things that one must _deny_, as a kind of boundary condition (Docetism, Monothelitism, Eunomianism, Iconoclasm, etc.). There have been lists drawn up as part of many confessions, but none of them are binding in the sense you ask about. Even at the most conservative parishes, agreement clusters around ascetical and liturgical practice, and the outline of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Chalcedonian formula. (I personally instinctively assimilate all language about "He shall come again in glory" to "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come", and that's never been an obstacle. I'm also hostile to Creationism, and that's not really been a problem, either -- even if it ruffles the feathers of some in some quarters.) I would even hazard to say that these, in turn, articulate the mystery of the encounter with Christ.

Yes. The Church is not _merely_ a worldly institution, but she _is_ a worldly institution: when men fall in love with her worldly elements, however, she becomes an idol unto her children (or would-be children). Power corrupts: but the kind of power the Church is supposed to offer is the Power of the Cross, it is Life in death. Such a power is incorruptible. The Will to Power is not merely corruptible, but essentially corrupt.

Well said, Syphax.

We are caged by the very thing that enslaves us, but we allow it in -- it co-opts our sense of taste, our appetite -- it is without (the object) just as it is within (the appetite). We are enclosed in the very interior thing that pollutes us. Most remedies only shift the appetites around before they resurface -- they increase ("thicken") and tear the remaining unity apart.

I'm not sure how to reply to that -- I sort of consider this just an outlet that I try to keep interesting for my friends who read it, and useful for myself. Thank you? Thank you!

That's funny you'd get that impression -- it's about addictive behaviors, not about autofellatio. :-D

I am -- and thank you!

No: my comments should not be taken to indicate an accusation about the motives of those who wear crosses. I wear a cross -- under my shirt. On one hand, my comments might be read as an indication as the range of possible motives and interpretations within the horizon of modernity -- we can only all think things _as-worldly_. In that case, it's a cultural problem. It's not about the cross-wearer or us as observers as about how things are able to be taken. When I write "worldly" I do not mean what the biblical writers mean. On the other hand, the meaning of "worldliness", though different from the biblical sense, is continuous, and my comments might be read as revealing something about what is meant by the phrase "worldly." Think St. Augustine and the Two Cities, or St. Ps. Dionysius and being vs. beyond being -- what is beyond being is beyond sense, beyond thought, etc. In the end, perhaps this is all also about the difficulties that we moderns have with sacraments and sacramentals -- the sign of the cross, icons, vestments, holy water and holy bread, the chrism, the Eucharist.