Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[Radical]

I just read Against Helvedius. While Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Iraneaeus are mentioned as supporting the claim of perpetual virginity, there is no actual quote from them in support of it. Do you know if there are any original quotes?

In On Illustrious Men (chapters 16 and 17) Jerome lists of works by Ignatius and Polycarp. He lists the very same letters that we have today. IIRC Lightfoot notes that Jerome quotes Eusebius quoting Ignatius (and not Ignatius’s letters directly) and therefore concludes that it is likely that Jerome never even saw the epistles of Ignatius. The best I can come up with (to explain Jerome’s claim) is that he assumes that if someone referrred to Mary as “the Virgin”, then they meant ever-virgin.

The earliest I’ve ever seen is the Protoevangelium of James which was written around 150 A.D.

or 170…I think one should also note that the Protoevangelium is a spurious and fanciful tale that was rejected by Aquinas, Jerome, popes Damasus, Innocent I and Gelasius (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3 and Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals p 128) Both Jerome and Aquinas viewed the Proevangelium as being in conflict with scripture.

I can accept the perpetual virginity of Mary on faith, but I have a hard time believing that people who trust in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus for their salvation will have to also claim they believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary for their salvation.

Thanks.

 

[wanner47]

I don’t really believe that Mary would have been less the “New Eve” or the “Ark of the New Covenant” if she had had a normal sexual life within marriage with Joseph. She may have been a perpetual virgin, but there is no necessity that she be one for us to be saved through Jesus’ atonement and resurrection.

Try reading the links I provided, and then you would understand how Mary’s perpetual virginity matters very much to both her status as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Believing that dogma does tie into our salvation, because if we disbelieve it then we are also rejecting the Church’s teaching authority – and Jesus says of the Church’s teachers, “He who rejects you rejects me also.”

 

[Auburn88]

That is true of any Christian belief about all other Christian beliefs. If it were not, there wouldn’t BE so many different Christian beliefs.

No, actually, that isn’t true. We don’t believe that other denominations are apostates. To the contrary, we recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[dianaiad]

No, actually, that isn’t true. We don’t believe that other denominations are apostates. To the contrary, we recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

If you do not accept them as CATHOLIC, then they are apostate. “Apostate,” to a greater or lesser degree means falling away from the truth…and if, as you claim, Catholicism is Truth, then anything that is not Catholicism MUST BE, to some extent, apostate.

Whether it is apostate enough to throw completely under the bus the way you guys did us is irrelevant…if they do not, say, believe in transubstantiation or other specific dogma, then they are apostate, by definition.

 

[adrift]

Same Greek word:

Matthew 2:
13 ¶ Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt,
15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

Can you infer anything from these uses of ‘until’?

I can give you several more examples in the NT if you’d like.

We have covered this before. Unitl ONLY refers to a period of time.
Stay home until I call does not mean that you leave after I call.
The only thing that can be inferred is the period of time before something happens. The Holy Family was to stay in Egypt awaiting word from the angel of the word. It implies nothing else. It doesn’t say what they are to do after they recieve word.
It says where they were before the death of Herod. It does not imply nor indicate what they should do after. You have to learn that from the following verses.
You knowing from hindsite understand what happens latter.
If however you only had the sentence and was there until the death of Herod… you would not be able to say what happened. It is only because you have more scripture that you know what happened.
Bring on all your examples they each will be treated in the same way. They only refer to a paticular time without indicating what happens after that period of time. That is why you run into a ridiculous explanation of those untils that obviously do not follow your reasoning.
She had no children until her death. Only refers to the time before the event of her death. Follow the definition and you have no problem. Invent your own invention and your off in never never land

 

[david_ruiz]

Thanks Barb. These are my reasons for believing too.
It makes zero sense that all these “other children” would not be there at the cross or tomb. with her. Even more, why would Jesus give His own mother to John the apostle and not to her own children? She was a holy woman - remember that she raised the Son of God who was sinless. Her “own children” would “do the right thing”, even if they themselves did not believe in Jesus. She would have gone to live with them, not with John. These reasons alone (and taken solely from scripture for the protestants ) are the reasons I do not believe there were any children of Mary other than Jesus. No further children allows for her perpetual virginity. And unlike our MTV culture, virginity was prized by all, and thankfully still is by some, especially God. :bible1:

Boy ,you do not know the bible .The bible is full of kids being raised in same parenthood and they come out different (cain and abel).God was perfect with the first Eve ,and she still strayed .So , if Mary were perfect ,it does not guarantee her children’s outcome. .Again ,Jesus Himself says spirit is thicker than blood. That is being spiritually bonded is deeper than blood or family bonded. “Anyone who does the will of my Father is my mother or brother etc.” After such an emotional ,spiritual trauma /event ,that only John and Mary experienced , right there at the foot of the cross ,and you expect Mary to go back to a spiritually cold house of a son ,who not only did not believe , but did not do the right thing either, and turned his back on his mother’s "trauma and pain’ .You expect Jesus to say, “Go back” .It is only natural , for the young John and Mary to be bonded forever , to care for one another , AS JESUS WOULD HAVE. Could a disbelieving brother care better , with understanding ? Jesus obeyed the spirit of the law , in settling care for His mother , though it was not from within His worldly family , but within the family of God. To me it is a beautiful ,real story ,closer to what we experience with our families, full of the good, bad and ugly .It is a more poignant story to give them to each other , when there were other options , but this was best and perfect , as God so often weaves His quilt (working all things together for good) . And if you have time , the story even gets better , for those unbelieving brethren , get gloriously saved later on , and fully understand why Mary went with John, and are grateful to join the real “family”.

 

[Catholic20064]

Were there some warped views on marriage and sex and virginity, that the latter was “spiritual” "? Indeed did not Paul warn against putting away spouses to be more “spiritual” (Corin.) A type of works , like look what I can do for God . Did St. Ambrose say marriage was a crime against God ? Tertullian , that marriage was an obscene , moral crime,and Augustine also had some of these tendencies (did the three become celibate ),that it was superior ,to marriage ?? Some of this could be the seedbed for the need to make Mary an ever -virgin .

When did Ambrose, Tertullian and Augustine ever say that marriage was a crime against God?

 

[Auburn88]

If you do not accept them as CATHOLIC, then they are apostate.

Nope. We don’t consider them apostate just because they’re not Catholic. That’s a Catholic and Mormon thing to call anybody who disagrees with you "apostate.

If we considered them apostate, then we wouldn’t ask them to come preach and teach in our churches. We wouldn’t accept invitations to go and preach and teach in their churches. We wouldn’t affirm the same creeds, confessions, and catechisms, etc.

“Apostate,” to a greater or lesser degree means falling away from the truth…and if, as you claim, Catholicism is Truth, then anything that is not Catholicism MUST BE, to some extent, apostate.

Obviously, you have me confused with somebody else. I’ve never said, nor would I say, that Catholicism is true.

Whether it is apostate enough to throw completely under the bus the way you guys did us is irrelevant…if they do not, say, believe in transubstantiation or other specific dogma, then they are apostate, by definition.

…according to you.

 

[MagsM]

Boy ,you do not know the bible .

I assure you that I am quite familiar with it.

The bible is full of kids being raised in same parenthood and they come out different (cain and abel).God was perfect with the first Eve ,and she still strayed .So , if Mary were perfect ,it does not guarantee her children’s outcome.

true enough, the bible is full of evil and disobedient people, but I think we can agree that the situation and outcome was quite different with Mary.

Again ,Jesus Himself says spirit is thicker than blood. That is being spiritually bonded is deeper than blood or family bonded. “Anyone who does the will of my Father is my mother or brother etc.” After such an emotional ,spiritual trauma /event ,that only John and Mary experienced , right there at the foot of the cross ,and you expect Mary to go back to a spiritually cold house of a son ,who not only did not believe , but did not do the right thing either, and turned his back on his mother’s "trauma and pain’ .You expect Jesus to say, “Go back” .It is only natural , for the young John and Mary to be bonded forever , to care for one another , AS JESUS WOULD HAVE. Could a disbelieving brother care better , with understanding ? Jesus obeyed the spirit of the law , in settling care for His mother , though it was not from within His worldly family , but within the family of God. To me it is a beautiful ,real story ,closer to what we experience with our families, full of the good, bad and ugly .It is a more poignant story to give them to each other , when there were other options , but this was best and perfect , as God so often weaves His quilt (working all things together for good) . And if you have time , the story even gets better , for those unbelieving brethren , get gloriously saved later on , and fully understand why Mary went with John, and are grateful to join the real “family”.

Oh dear, I suppose one can interpret things this way or the other - I agree with the points you’ve made about blood being less important than spirit, etc. But I don’t think that His saying ‘those who do the will of God’,etc was a spiritual slap against His Mother, although it could be taken as such in reference to those that Mary led to where Jesus was. However, scripture can always be wrestled to fit any scenario one would want it to. That being the case, my wrestling with it has led me to believe in her purity and goodness, and God’s holding her close to His heart while she raised and cared for Jesus. I cannot imagine Mary raising cold, disobedient or disbelieving children while in her continual anointed presence and care. Additionally, there were no other ‘children of Mary’ present at the wedding of Cana. Sorry friend. Peace to you in your search for the truth. :heaven:

 

[onenow1]

Exactly Kim ! God, chose Mary from everlasting to everlasting, this is really that simple.

Genesis 3:15,I will puit enmity{HATRED}between you {SATAN.}and the woman and between her seed, {JESUS.} and your seed, { SIN }.or { SATAN}.He[JESUS} shall bruise your head and you{SATAN} shall bruise His heal.

God in the beginning, knew all, prophsied in scripture to all, the roll Mary would have in salvation history. No sin in Mary God in the above verse, declares it so .

God Bless
and good morning

Gal. 4: 4, But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

[/quote]

 

[dianaiad]

We have covered this before. Unitl ONLY refers to a period of time.
Stay home until I call does not mean that you leave after I call.
The only thing that can be inferred is the period of time before something happens. The Holy Family was to stay in Egypt awaiting word from the angel of the word. It implies nothing else. It doesn’t say what they are to do after they recieve word.
It says where they were before the death of Herod. It does not imply nor indicate what they should do after. You have to learn that from the following verses.
You knowing from hindsite understand what happens latter.
If however you only had the sentence and was there until the death of Herod… you would not be able to say what happened. It is only because you have more scripture that you know what happened.
Bring on all your examples they each will be treated in the same way. They only refer to a paticular time without indicating what happens after that period of time. That is why you run into a ridiculous explanation of those untils that obviously do not follow your reasoning.
She had no children until her death. Only refers to the time before the event of her death. Follow the definition and you have no problem. Invent your own invention and your off in never never land

All your example does here is support a point I don’t think you want to make; that is, those “untils” imply a change in whatever action is being described. With Jesus’ family in Egypt, the implication is that they were to stay in Egypt until they received word…without a mention of what would happen after that. You are quite right. However, it doesn’t matter where they went after that, the action being limited isn’t so much the place–but the wait. Obviously they did receive word, and they did something about it then.

“Until” implies a change. Often that change is death, which changes pretty much everything. So does a change in the observer: For instance: “She was a redhead until she moved away” doesn’t imply that she was no longer a redhead after the move, so much as it says that the neighbors don’t know if she changed hair color after that; the move ended their survielance abilities. “She (insert anything at all) until she died” …well. death is quite a change. You can’t ‘remain’ anything after that. You’re dead. Both things are actually changes in the observer; both are ‘moves…’ we don’t really know what the dead person will or will not continue to do, after all.

However, when you put boundaries around a specific action without blocking our view of, or killing off, the actor, it is implied that something about that action, specifically, is going to change. It is, it seems to me, a very strange thing to limit a specific action to a period of time (until…) if there was to be no change in that action after that period of time. People, in general, don’t do that. If nothing changes about the action or the observer, then it makes no sense to do so.

There is absolutely no reason to say that Joseph didn’t ‘know’ Mary *until *Jesus’ birth, if some change regarding THAT specific thing were not to happen. Since neither Mary nor Joseph died at that point, and nothing about Jesus’ birth had anything at all to do with Joseph, why write that? What changed?

If that relationship between Joseph and Mary did not change, why put an ‘until’ in there? Why mention it at all? What was the purpose?

 

[dianaiad]

Nope. We don’t consider them apostate just because they’re not Catholic. That’s a Catholic and Mormon thing to call anybody who disagrees with you "apostate.

If we considered them apostate, then we wouldn’t ask them to come preach and teach in our churches. We wouldn’t accept invitations to go and preach and teach in their churches. We wouldn’t affirm the same creeds, confessions, and catechisms, etc.

Obviously, you have me confused with somebody else. I’ve never said, nor would I say, that Catholicism is true.

…according to you.

Auburn, you have a trial membership in CAF. You did not identify your religious affiliation. However, SINCE you are on CAF, I figured that assuming that you were (as the majority of posters on this forum in general are) Catholic, was safest. I was wrong and should not have assumed that. However, since you did not indicate your religious affiliation, it is equally wrong of you to criticise me for not identifying you as non-Catholic from the one post that I answered.

In fact, ‘apostasy,’ according to the dictionary, means “renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, one’s former religion” and “falling away” from one’s former faith…a rejection of former religious beliefs.

All Protestants who abandoned Catholic ideas/doctrine and turned to a different belief/doctrine were apostates (those who actually did that rejection, anyway). Those who grew up in those Protestant religions are not apostates themselves, of course, but the beliefs continue to be (in terms of the Catholicism from which they derived) apostate. Apostasy doesn’t necessarily mean that you turn away from everything. Tiny changes are ‘apostasy,’ too.

 

[Auburn88]

dianaiad:

All Protestants who abandoned Catholic ideas/doctrine and turned to a different belief/doctrine were apostates (those who actually did that rejection, anyway). Those who grew up in those Protestant religions are not apostates themselves, of course, but the beliefs continue to be (in terms of the Catholicism from which they derived) apostate. Apostasy doesn’t necessarily mean that you turn away from everything. Tiny changes are ‘apostasy,’ too.

Except that that isn’t what your religion means when it calls us apostates, nor is it what Catholicism means when it calls us apostates.

As with many other words, there is the dictionary definition and then there is the way the word is commonly used.

Both you and Catholics accuse us of being apostates in the same sense that the Bible uses the word, which is to mean one who has abandoned Christianity and preaches a false gospel.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic please

 

[lax16]

Please note that I said misperception. In other words what non-Catholics believe about the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding sex in marriage is incorrect as you noted with your quotes above. The teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity makes non-Catholics believe incorrectly that Catholics believe sex within marriage is somehow less than honorable. They are wrong in what they think of course.

Catholic20064 - My apologies if I misunderstood your post.

Catholics have long been known for their large families (I have friends with 6,9,13 kids) and I don’t know who would ever accuse the Catholic Church of not valuing marriage and children??!! We are to be open to life and welcome children - and we all know how they get here!

From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

The openness to fertility

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

However, celibacy is highly regarded as well:

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119

The Catholic Church has a long history of promoting marriage and family and celibacy in order to live out God’s plan.
It is interesting to note that the Blessed Mother was able to live out God’s will as a wife, mother and a virgin. That sets her apart from all other women!

 

[lax16]

If you do not accept them as CATHOLIC, then they are apostate. “Apostate,” to a greater or lesser degree means falling away from the truth…and if, as you claim, Catholicism is Truth, then anything that is not Catholicism MUST BE, to some extent, apostate.

Whether it is apostate enough to throw completely under the bus the way you guys did us is irrelevant…if they do not, say, believe in transubstantiation or other specific dogma, then they are apostate, by definition.

a·pos·tate (-pstt, -tt)
n.
One who has abandoned one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.

I agree that someone who is a Catholic then rejects the teachings of the Church can be referred to as “apostate” however, we don’t use the term. We say “fallen away” etc. They mean the same, I agree, but we don’t call one another apostates.
I have heard from former Mormons that they are called apostate by family/friends if they choose to leave the LDS church.

However, those who have never been Catholic, don’t like Catholics, etc. are not called apostates. They were never Catholic therefore they have not fallen away. It is not a term we use AT ALL. I have never heard a Catholic call anyone this. They usually refer to them as their new religion - they are Protestant, Mormon, etc. but not apostate.

 

[dianaiad]

a·pos·tate (-pstt, -tt)
n.
One who has abandoned one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.

I agree that someone who is a Catholic then rejects the teachings of the Church can be referred to as “apostate” however, we don’t use the term. We say “fallen away” etc. They mean the same, I agree, but we don’t call one another apostates.
I have heard from former Mormons that they are called apostate by family/friends if they choose to leave the LDS church.

However, those who have never been Catholic, don’t like Catholics, etc. are not called apostates. They were never Catholic therefore they have not fallen away. It is not a term we use AT ALL. I have never heard a Catholic call anyone this. They usually refer to them as their new religion - they are Protestant, Mormon, etc. but not apostate.

I did differentiate between the two concepts in another post, lax…that is, between people who personally become apostate, and those who simply believe in an ‘apostate’ belief system.

We also differentiate between those who simply 'fall away" (we call them ‘inactive,’ or ‘less active’) and those who are apostate. So, we don’t mince words. “Apostate” is a word that can be used only by the original belief system; certainly the apostate himself seldom thinks of himself as ‘apostate…’ after all, the word itself carries with it a connotation of 'oops, that’s wrong."

The strict definition, however, does not. After all, someone who leaves the Catholic church and joins the CoJCoLDS is apostate to Catholicism. I personally don’t think it would be an erronious decision, though.

 

[adrift]

All your example does here is support a point I don’t think you want to make; that is, those “untils” imply a change in whatever action is being described.“until” implies a change.

There is absolutely no reason to say that Joseph didn’t ‘know’ Mary *until *Jesus’ birth, if some change regarding THAT specific thing were not to happen. Since neither Mary nor Joseph died at that point, and nothing about Jesus’ birth had anything at all to do with Joseph, why write that? What changed?

If that relationship between Joseph and Mary did not change, why put an ‘until’ in there? Why mention it at all? What was the purpose?

Until does NOT imply a change. Until only describes a certain period of time. Instead of using examples find the dictionary definition. The definition has no implication or statement that there is a change. The reason for the until is to indicate a period of a specific time. It doesn’t intend to say what happened after that period of time. Matthew was indicating a condition before Jesus’ birth not after. To indicate that until means a change is misusing the word.

In the Greek it is
2193 heos {heh’-oce} of uncertain affinity;; conj 1) till, until

2untilconjunction
Definition of UNTIL
: up to the time that : up to such time as

 

[Nicea325]

No, actually, that isn’t true. We don’t believe that other denominations are apostates. To the contrary, we recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yes brothers and sisters yet still divided on many issues and growing daily.

 

[Nicea325]

Now I actually read an interesting explanation to this from a book about the rosary. The author points out that whether or not Jesus had ‘brothers’ or ‘cousins’ can be left up to speculation because we may never truly know the answer to that, but one thing is for certain. Jesus gave his Mother to his disciple; or, to put it another way- a believer. Jesus declares that his true, Mothers, sisters and brothers are those who do the will of His Father in heaven. If he had ‘natural’ brothers, he still couldn’t leave his Mother to them, because they weren’t really a part of his family.

This makes more sense than the argument that he didn’t have any brothers and that’s why he didn’t give his Mother to one of them. This is also consistent with the scriptures.

So in other words,Jesus was not really an orthodox Jew who would have left the care of his mother to a blood brother,but chose a non-relative based merely on belief? Sounds more like a commentary and conjecture more than empricial evidence.