Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Good_Fella]

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary simply isn’t found in the earliest history of the church. This is fact, not conjecture.

That’s right…Paul said “stick with what I have taught you”.

Not at all. I simply prefer a reading that doesn’t make wild conjecture about what Mary might have done, when the text makes no such indication of it.

Right – there is no revelation which cannot be publicly interpreted. In other words, no revelation can have meaning for one believer, and different meaning for another. There is no relative truth.

I haven’t paid any attention to your latter posts because it’s useless. You tend to provide faulty analogies that draw awkward conclusions, create faulty generalizations concerning people’s intentions, and fail to see that language must be put into context with what people mean they are saying. Again, if I tell you that I leave for Rome next Monday, I am using the simple present tense to signify that I intend to go to Rome in the immediate future. I expect to be understood as meaning that I intend to go to Rome next Monday. Whether I do eventually leave for Rome next Monday depends on the circumstances. It’s possible that my flight will be cancelled, but that’s irrelevant to what I mean to tell you at the present moment: I will leave for Rome next Monday. The simple present tense can have a conditional future reference. If a fortune-teller tells me that I am going to die of lung cancer at some future point in my life, and I ask “How shall this be, because I don’t smoke?” I expect to be understood that I have never smoked all my life, and I don’t intend to smoke in the future. So I may add by asking “Will I die of lung cancer because of the air pollution or because of second-hand smoke?” My intention of not smoking in the future can be expressed “I am not going to smoke in the future, so how can I possibly die of lung cancer?” “Am I going to start smoking after all?” Mary finds herself in a similar situation. The angel Gabriel tells her that she is going to conceive a child. She is confused by the message because she is a virgin and intends to remain a virgin. So she asks a similar question: “How shall this be, seeing I don’t know a man?” She has no intention of having sexual relations with her husband, so she asks "By what manner will I conceive a child? Am I going to have sexual relations with my husband? This would be a strange question to ask if she had had the intention of having future relations with her husband. And if she were concerned with the time she would conceive the child in her marriage, then she would have asked “When shall this be?” without having to add “since I know not a man”. Mary expected a Messiah of paternal lineage as did all the Jews according to their Tradition, so obviously she was worried about having to forfeit her vow of virginity. She was not inquiring about the nature of an unexpected miraculous birth. She must have wondered how God could so easily dismiss her vow in like manner of Judith. Luke 1:34 clearly reveals that Mary was Ever-Virgin and, as I have shown, we can infer that she had made a prior vow of chastity. PC, your faulty reasoning has resulted from two errors on your part: First, you erroneously assumed that Mary expected a Messiah of maternal lineage. Second, you isolated the clause “seeing I know not a man” which must be regarded in connection with the other part of the sentence “How shall this be?” By connecting the two clauses we understand what Luke means by the declaration “I know not a man”. The present tense verb must be understood as signifying a permanent condition, not an instance of time. For some reason you fail to see or refuse to see the true meaning of Luke 1:34. That is why I consider it useless to debate with you any further. Besides, the debate is over, for you are wrong, and the Catholic Church is right. So farewell!

Not everything Paul taught is found in his epistles. He never wrote about the Virgin Birth, but he and the churches he addressed surely believed in this miraculous event by way of Sacred Tradition with attention drawn to the Scriptures of his time: the Old Testament of the Jewish Septuagint. None of the four gospels were being used at the time he wrote his epistles, not even Luke and Mark, which were written shortly before A.D. 70. And its unlikely everything was definitively revealed to Paul.

I agree that divine revelation cannot truly have one meaning for one particular group or person and a different meaning for another. But sadly this is the state of affairs we find in Protestantism.

Several Church Fathers taught Mary was Ever-Virgin by the time Scripture was made canon in the fourth century. It wasn’t until the 19th century with the emergence of the splintered American Fundamentalists that this doctrine was unauthoritatively rejected.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mickey]

How could Mary be the “ark” of a covenant that did not yet exist?

Because she carried the Savior, Jesus Christ, the one who would establish the New Covenant. It really is common sense. I wonder why you cannot see this?

Could this be the reason no “New Covenant” writer ever referred to Mary by such a title?

Perhaps because it was so obvious. The Bible is not a learning manual. Everything was not written down. That is why the lack of Sacred Tradition is so detrimental to the reformer’s understanding.

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

And there is much more for you to reflect on, apophasis. Archbishop Joseph Raya (of blessed memory) puts it beautifully:

By divine command, Noah built an ark in which he and his whole family escaped safe and sound from the common shipwreck of the whole world (Gen 6:9ff). Through Mary’s bearing the Son of God, the whole world was saved. The Ark of Noah is consequently a type of Mary. The ladder Jacob saw in a dream reaching from earth to heaven, and uniting heaven and earth is a befitting symbol of Mary, the real “Ladder” that made heaven descend to earth and earth ascend to heaven (Gen28:12). She is also called the “Burning Bush” which Moses saw on Mount Sinai. The presence of God was like a flaming fire burning on all sides around the dry bush without consuming it (Ex 3:2). It rather grew green green and blossomed beautifully. So was Mary all filled with the fire of divinity, yet not consumed by it.
…Mary is also like the “Fleece” of Gideon that was soaked with morning dew on all sides while around it the land was parched dry; then the fleece remained untouched by dew though the earth around was soaked (Judges 6:36-40). Mary is also the “Garden” enclosed on all sides, which could not be violated or corrupted by any deceitful plots (Cant 4:12).

 

[Mickey]

I’ve been watching from the sidelines, and this struck me as being out of touch with reality.

Careful with your insults.

So stating it doesn’t seem to help the conversation.

It is a simple truth–with Scriptural support and reaffirmed through Sacred Tradition. You cannot see it. That saddens me.

This makes my mind spin.

A bit of focus will help you.

Do you really believe that saying “this is how it is, whether you agree or not” actually helps the conversation in any way?

Yes. It is a beautiful teaching that has been with us 2000 years. Many reformers do not see it–however, most of the original reformers understood these truths. Again, I’m not here to convince you of anything.

Moreover, stating that something is “simple truth” without logical and reasonable support that doesn’t get knocked down by a simple logical test is useless.

Are you familiar with the Apostle St Thomas?

So, either your statements were useless, or you’re claiming that your beliefs (whether they be in the Virginity of Mary, the infallibility of the RCC, or whatever else you may choose to believe) are not subject to any possibility of error.

I cannot help it if these simple truths (supported by Scripture and Tradition) make you uneasy. Besides, I am not Roman Catholic.

This is one of the finest examples of rhetoric – words which seem to have profound meaning and effect, but in reality, have no substance and are thus meaningless.

No substance or meaning to **you. **But these simple and beautiful truths are supported by Scripture and Tradition. It is sad that you have become so disturbed, but perhaps one day you will understand.

 

[Mickey]

If you wish to separate the RCC from Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and all the others it has split with over the centuries, you must provide grounds on which you do this.

Instead of your constant ad hominem attacks on the Roman Catholic Church, let us look at the original topic for the moment. We do not need your opinion of history, heresies and schisms. Most here are aware of the unfortunate results of division.

Let’s look at Mary’s perpetual Virginity. Before the great schism, the Church was one. She taught that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Today, Catholic and Orthodox alike continue to understand this simple truth. As a matter of fact, so did Luther and Calvin.

So let us summarize. Catholic, Orthodox, and early reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

That is why you are whining about poor rhetoric and circular argumentation–because there is not much support for your novel theories.

 

[Good_Fella]

And yet NONE of the above actually quote an Apostle. Hence, we must conclude ALL of the aforementioned to be the personal beliefs of those men, only.

But was “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) to be based on the personal beliefs of those men? Are we instructed to “contend earnestly” for the personal beliefs of mere men?

The Church Fathers are saints and apostles of Christ who were illuminated and guided by the Holy Spirit. St. Irenaeus was a disciple of St.Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who was a disciple of St.John the Evangelist. So much truth was passed on and developed by way of Sacred Tradition. Not everything the Apostles of the NT taught was committed to writing. You should know that by now. The Gospel of Mark fails to mention the Virgin Birth, as do the epistles of Paul, ie. Not anyone wrote everything down. And some of what they wrote was less explicit. The implications of these texts would eventually blossom.

Alexander of Alexandria alludes to the Gospel of Luke1:43: “And how does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Athanasius alludes to Luke 1:34: “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?”

Origen alludes to Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you.”

Epiphanius alludes to Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”

Irenaeus alludes to Luke 1:38: Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your
word.”

Hyppolytus alludes to Luke 1:31: “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.”

Ephraem alludes to John 2:3: When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

Gregory of Nazianzus alludes to Revelation 12:1: A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

But you beloved, remember the words spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, for they told you, “In the last time there will be scoffers who will live according to their desires. These are the ones who cause divisions; they live on the natural plane devoid of the Spirit.” {Jude 17-18} On the contrary, the Church Fathers have contended for the faith derived from the Apostolic preaching to be kept by the Church for 2000 years {Cf. Jude 3}. But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit. {Jude 20}

“Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. Be diligent in these matters, be absorbed in them, so that your progress may be evident to everyone. Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.”
{1Timothy 4:14-16}

“Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also will be consecrated in truth.”
{John 17:17-18}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[PC_Master]

I would reply further, but GoodFella has chosen not to answer the points I’ve made (perhaps showing the untenability of his position in light of the points I raised – I guess we’ll never really know since he won’t respond). Further, most of the rest of the posts are simply coming down to this…

The church says it, so I believe it. That there are no writings about it in the early history of the church just means that everyone unanimously accepted it without argument.

I just wish you guys would have said so from the start, instead of claiming proof from scripture and early church history. You have faith in the church, and as much as I disagree with that, I can accept it and move on.

Still, if anyone wishes to provide actual proofs from early church history that aren’t based on rhetoric and lack of evidence, I’m open to it.

Also, if anyone wishes to further discuss what difference it actually makes whether Mary remained a virgin or not, I’d really love to discuss that further. That seems more beneficial to my faith anyway. If it makes no difference to my faith whether Mary was a virgin after Jesus’ birth or not, then determining the truth of the matter is of far less importance.

Oh, and I’d still really like any details one might be willing to provide on Jewish traditions regarding vows of celibacy. I still can’t find anything, either among priests (who took vows, but not vows of celibacy) or elsewhere. All I can find is stuff from paganism (Vestal Virgins of Rome, others).

 

[justasking4]

I would reply further, but GoodFella has chosen not to answer the points I’ve made (perhaps showing the untenability of his position in light of the points I raised – I guess we’ll never really know since he won’t respond). Further, most of the rest of the posts are simply coming down to this…

The church says it, so I believe it. That there are no writings about it in the early history of the church just means that everyone unanimously accepted it without argument.

I just wish you guys would have said so from the start, instead of claiming proof from scripture and early church history. You have faith in the church, and as much as I disagree with that, I can accept it and move on.

Still, if anyone wishes to provide actual proofs from early church history that aren’t based on rhetoric and lack of evidence, I’m open to it.

Also, if anyone wishes to further discuss what difference it actually makes whether Mary remained a virgin or not, I’d really love to discuss that further. That seems more beneficial to my faith anyway. If it makes no difference to my faith whether Mary was a virgin after Jesus’ birth or not, then determining the truth of the matter is of far less importance.

Oh, and I’d still really like any details one might be willing to provide on Jewish traditions regarding vows of celibacy. I still can’t find anything, either among priests (who took vows, but not vows of celibacy) or elsewhere. All I can find is stuff from paganism (Vestal Virgins of Rome, others).

You make some excellent points. I have tried repeatedly to get into the details about the support for many catholic doctrines and evenually from many it gets to the mocking stage real quick.

 

[YADA]

Oh, and I’d still really like any details one might be willing to provide on Jewish traditions regarding vows of celibacy. I still can’t find anything, either among priests (who took vows, but not vows of celibacy) or elsewhere. All I can find is stuff from paganism (Vestal Virgins of Rome, others).

Well I gave you a source book for the Compete Translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls in English by Geza Vermes…Or
you might open and read Lawrence Boadt: Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction and this one Reading the New Testament by Pheme Perkins and Judaism: Practice and BElief 63 BCE- 66 CE by Sanders…Also previosly mentioned was Civilizing Sex: the Role of Chastity and the Common Good by Patrick Riley

you could spend some time reading them…

I am sorry that these are not online “searchable” sources…to cut and paste quotes here for you…[if you would actually read them with an unbiased mind…]

I fear that you will just come back to some other argument that relies upon your discounting any other interpretation than your own…after all you dismiss the reformers “they are not infallable”] as if your interpretations were…

If I have time I may crack some of these book open this weekend [excpet for Riley’s which I lent to a friend]…but it is a huge task and of course the dead sea scrolls are fragments, like the extant writings of the ECF and therefore not complete With only fragments it is impossible to say with certainty what these writings covered in totality adn what subjects have been lost through the ravages of time…

That is one of the issues with your arbitary 4th century…we do not have all of the writings…only fragments of some…it is hard to argue from the silence what the church believed and / disbelieved…we do have the tradition and beleifs that held trough the centuries until the post reformation era of the Enlightenment…that Mary was Ever Virgin, the Trinity is One God - Three Persons, and Jesus has Two Natures, Mary is the Ark, Mary is the Mother of God…you accept some and dismiss others…

Of the writings we have, it is a fact that some beliefs [doctrines, dogmas, and traditions] were never even written about before a controvery arose. When a belief was challenged and only then, did they find a need to “Pin Down” what was the actual tenet, belief, dogma, doctrine, discipline …This is evidenced in the writings we have and the heresies that were confronted by the Church…

 

[YADA]

And for a third century source was the prayer to the Blessed Virgn by St. Methodius[d. approx 311 AD] covered in the many posts…it should be evidence of the beliefs from that century:

God paid such honor to the Ark, which was the image and type of your sanctity, that no one but the priests could approach it or open or enter to behold it. The veil seperated it off, keeping the vestibule as that of a queen. Then what sort of veneration must we, who are the least of creatires, owe to you who are indeed a queen - to you, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver - to you, the heaven that contains Him Whom non can contain?

from Oration Converning Simeon and Anna

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re assuming it has to be completely defined within these sources, with no additions from elsewhere. Why is a gradual development and alteration of theology so unimaginable to you?

I have no problem with development. However, I also believe that Jesus promised to protect the Church from error through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (promised to the Church and not to individual believers). Therefore, I do not think the Church is capable of teaching error. This is the definition of infallibility.

At some point, whether it was with the formal establishment of Roman Catholicism, or whether it was at the Great Schism, or whether it was at the reformation – at some point, heresy came along. Heresy is never invented out of nowhere…at least not well-believed heresy.

Heresies do come along. The 16th century Deformation proves this. However, heresy is not formally taught by the Catholic Church since the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Bride of Christ.

Well, I’d reckon the number to be more like as many as ten, but regardless of this, let’s consider for a moment what your position may be on this. How many generations does it take for heresy to creep into the church?

If you said, for instance, 20 generations, then it’s reasonable to assume that after only 10 generations, you could see a difference halfway between the beginning and the 20th generation. After 5 generations, you’ll still be one-quarter of the way there.

On the other hand, perhaps you assert that over 3 generations there can be no error, and that Irenaeus of Lyons held the infallible truth because it was passed completely (without error or omission) to him by Polycarp, who received it (again, without error or omission) from the apostle John. In such a case, if complete and inerrant transmission from one generation is not only possible, but required because of Apostolic Succession and the sacrament of ordination, you’ve created a case by which no validly ordained priest or bishop could ever be called heretical.

Individually, you are correct. Corporately, no. The bishops of the Church in communion with the Pope cannot teach error.

The idea of scripture being the sole rule of faith indeed is heresy, and yet, there are instances of it appearing throughout history, even in the early fathers.

Interesting. If the Bible is not the sole rule of faith, what other rules or components of the one rule do you accept?

 

[Randy_Carson]

On what – unanimity of the early fathers? Persons being rejected as fathers for not agreeing with church doctrine? What?

I believe our context is concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. Could you please provide some quotes from the Fathers who denied this and struggled against this heresy?

The issue really rests on two things which I am unable to provide quotes for…

1. We lack an exact specification of how we determine who the early fathers are, and how we validate those qualifications as being correct and of God. You should provide this, as you probably have more knowledge in this area than I do. To me, it seems to be a pick-and-choose session of whomever agreed with church leadership.

I have already provided criteria for determining who the ECF’s are when I cited Mike Aquilina’s book.

1. We lack any claim of a specific issue where the early fathers were unanimous, either in confirming a belief, or in rejecting one. At the very least, if such is to be found, it’s regarding issues that are not contested between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In other words, if unanimous consent of the fathers is the test of what the church believed, then most things, including the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, fail the test.

First, unanimous does not mean what you apparently think it means. I could explain that if necessary. Second, I presume that you will be providing quotes from Fathers stating specifically that Mary had other children besides Jesus and that she was not a virgin all of her life?

All of these points need further elaboration for me to understand them properly, but in regards to them, the following come to mind…

a. Orthodox doctrine – What is that supposed to mean?
b. Holiness of life – Of the writer, or the follower of the teaching? What makes me more holy by believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity than by not believing it?
c. Church approval – What’s the measuring rod you use to determine if something was approved by the church at any given point in history?
d. Antiquity – The older, the better? Thus, a position taught in the 18th century is invalid if it was not taught in the 15th century? Doesn’t it stand to reason that something taught in the fourth century is invalid if it was not taught in the first century then?

It is you who have introduced the concept of “invalidity” as you must to preserve your position. Instead, I believe that antiquity means that the Fathers of the Church are ancient - there is no attempt to determine relative merit. Augustine came after Irenaeus and may have been more theologically advanced than Irenaeus simply because time had allowed men to think things through more fully. However, Ireneaus is valuable precisely because his views give us insight into the teaching of the early Church - no matter how “primitive” or “undeveloped” its theology may have been.

I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote. To clarify, what I mean is that the doctrines that Roman Catholics hold which Protestants disagree with are not found in the early fathers much at all, and certainly not with unanimity. I was speaking of doctrines Roman Catholics hold, not of ones that Protestants hold, though I admit there’s not unanimous consent for any of those either (this isn’t a problem, for unanimous consent of the fathers is not a criterion for Protestantism).

Well, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism surely are among others.

The tired claim that all of Christianity was following Arianism doesn’t seem to mesh with fact, but perhaps you could show me some historical details (no citing NewAdvent or other similarly-biased sites, please) that support your claim?

Why does this bother you? Is there some reason why you prefer to believe that a majority of the Bishops of the Church were NOT Arian at one point? I don’t see where you have a dog in that fight…

And you believe this was not a literary device? Do you honestly believe that every person in Israel turned their back on God except for one? If you really wish to defend this precarious position, I’d really like to know which prophet this was, and when this all happened.

Elijah. 1 Kings 18:22.

I never said that he was the only one in all of Israel; I think I said that he was the lone prophet at that time. At least, I think that’s what I said.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No – my approach requires that the heresy crept in so slowly over time that the majority did not recognize it as heresy and thus accepted it. Voices are raised against many things, but it is often only the prominent issues that are written on – why write about something the majority knows and will tell to their fellow believers who question it?

It does not matter what the majority think. If something is wrong, God could use a single voice to defeat it. Somehow, Athanasius comes to mind again.

Oh, and let’s also consider that Christianity as it existed in Rome once it was legalized, shortly after consisted of a great many worshipers who were previously pagan, who now had no choice but to be “Christians” due to the law. None of them would have balked at all at seeing a semi-deified woman, for this is a regular undertone in various pagan religions.

No choice?

I’m not sure you really understand the Edict of Milan:

In 313 Constantine I and Licinius announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. However, it neither made paganism illegal nor made Christianity the state religion; these were later actions of the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_and_Christianity

Christianity was legalized; it was not made mandatory. So, your argument holds no water.

You’re assuming that “church” refers solely to the Roman Catholic Church, a position which leads you into circular logic, for one of your supposed proofs that the RCC is the true church is that the gates of hell haven’t prevailed against it.

This is incorrect. I do not argue that proof. The proofs for the Catholic Church are made upon other grounds. In turn, the argument that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church are based upon the promise of Christ.

Either the church has not fallen into error, and this proves it’s the true church, or you have another proof that it’s the true church, and thus can know it’s not in error. You can’t have it both ways, and yet both claims are repeatedly thrown around in here mindlessly.

I have not made this argument nor will I for it is a flawed argument as you say. The logic for believing that the Catholic Church is all that she claims to be are much stronger than this.

Okay, references are provided that speak of vows made to God. You agree with me that these scriptures don’t actually mention celibacy at all. But the entire point of presenting them was to provide scriptural basis for a vow of celibacy in Jewish culture.

No. I only provide them as a reference and support for the idea that people did make VERY serious vows before God. Perpetual Virginity is one example of a serious, lifelong commitment that someone COULD make. I’m sure that there were many others. The point is Jewish religious culture included the idea that people could make vows to God that were to be taken very seriously - so seriously that God Himself provided in the law for their administration. Mary, of course, would have been familiar with this. Not that this proves anything on her part, mind you. But it does illustrate that such a vow of virginity was not out of the realm of possibility. This is not the whole structure; it’s just a single brick.

What’s your point here?

The point is that just because our understanding of some theological truth developed over time, it does not mean that anything developing after the earliest period of time is invalid or untrue.

You find fault with Marian doctrines because the Apostles did not preach them. Why? Something can be true even if the Apostles never said a word about it. No Apostle listed the books of the New Testament…why do you accept the canon as it now stands?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

It certainly doesn’t teach that. That doesn’t make the doctrine false, necessarily.

No, it makes it self-refuting. If the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, then the Bible itself should say that. Otherwise, you as a believer must accept the Bible …AND… something outside the Bible; namely, the idea that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer.

What does make it false is that Jesus himself said that he would send the holy spirit to lead us (each of us, as best I can understand the Greek) into all righteousness. If it’s all in scripture, there is no need for the holy spirit.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would “remind you of all I have said to you.” Gee, did you hear Him in the original? Were you on the hillside when He spoke? No. The Spirit can’t remind you personally of anything…you He must teach fresh. The promise of the Spirit leading into all truth was NOT spoken on a hillside before a crowd but to twelve (eleven) men in a closed room. These men formed the proto-Magisterium of the Church. The Church is led into all truth. This is the genesis of infallibility.

Well, since tradition clearly affirms that this has been the belief of the church throughout it’s entire history, surely you should have no problem finding this apparently key teaching in written form some time before the fourth century. Even that standard is being a bit lax, really, but let’s start with that.Again, since there are doctrines that I believe even you would accept that are not found in writings that early, I think the criteria is being unevenly applied.

Do you think there is anything in Tradition (ie, outside the Scriptures) that you as a non-Catholic accept as binding upon all believers?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m well aware of this, but an event within the past six months would be considered recent, in my opinion, and it is that recency that I was referring to.

Ooookay.

Elizabeth had found out that she was going to have a child (from her husband, who no doubt told her in some form, though he couldn’t speak), and it happened shortly thereafter. Mary learned of this news no earlier than six months previous to the annunciation by Gabriel.

Sorry. Mary learned of Elizabeth’s pregnancy from the angel.

Now, here she is, being told the same thing – you’re going to have a child. Her marriage with Joseph is at least three months off (she stayed with Elizabeth for three months, which it’s doubtful she would have done if the wedding was to happen in that time), and yet the angel is telling her she’s going to have a child. How can this be? She’s not married yet! (Adding “yet” to the passage is no more leading than the attempts by GoodFella to imply perpetual virginity from a present-tense statement.)

The three months are irrelevant. Was she going to have the child during that three month period? No. Was she going to conceive during that time? Absolutely. She conceived the moment she said, “Be it done to me according to your will.”

However, there is nothing in the angel’s words to suggest any immediacy. Abram and Sarai were promised a son but it took a long time for Isaac to be born. So long, in fact, that Abram took matters into his own hands with Hagar and Ishmael was born.

Mary’s “How will this be” does not suggest that she is curious as to how she could possibly conceive within the next 24 hours or so since her wedding night was several months off. The angel’s words do not suggest that conception is immanent.

She wanted to know how she would EVER conceive since she was a VIRGIN!

The question indicates a state of permanence and not a temporary state of virginity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nice rhetoric. How about some proof that the early church actually believed this? You say it did, I say it didn’t. Since it’s kind of hard to affirm a negative, I’ll ask you to provide some proof of your position. What can you offer to demonstrate that the perpetual virginity of Mary was believed from the beginning of the church?

I disagree. Christendom has long held that Mary remained a virgin all of her life. Relatively recently, some have begun to question the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Since this novel position goes against the grain of what has long been held by Christians of many different denominations, I would ask those who support this change to prove it to those of us who adhere to the ancient view.

You’re using rhetoric to evoke the idea in the reader that only total unity can represent Christ’s true church. And here’s the flaw in that – the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have a history of being totally united. It’s had some of the largest schisms in the history of Christianity. Schisms are not a sign of unity in Roman Catholicism any more than they are in Protestantism.

Actually, there are those who are in communion with the Pope - and there’s everyone else.

Schism occurs when folks separate themselves from the Pope. The Catholic Church continues on one way or another.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why must we go through this again? What term would you prefer I use, besides “just Catholic” to describe the church which is headquartered in Vatican City? I can’t simply rely on terms like Orthodox, Apostolic, Catholic, Holy, or One, because those terms are all used by several other major denominations, and to call the Roman Catholic Church just “Catholic” would be to imply that I believe that it is indeed the universal church, a belief I do not hold.

So, it is your discomfort that makes it impossible for you to call the Catholic Church by its proper name…the name that it has been known by since the second century if not earlier.

Does this mean that I should not acknowledge that my parents belong to the Presbyterian Church just because I don’t think there are any real presbyters in it?

Or should I refuse to admit that my sister is a member of the Baptist Church just because they refuse to baptize infants and deny that baptism regenerates the soul and thereby demonstrate that there is not very much that is "baptist’ about them?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh, and I’d still really like any details one might be willing to provide on Jewish traditions regarding vows of celibacy. I still can’t find anything, either among priests (who took vows, but not vows of celibacy) or elsewhere. All I can find is stuff from paganism (Vestal Virgins of Rome, others).

I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for but here goes…

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

Still, if anyone wishes to provide actual proofs from early church history that aren’t based on rhetoric and lack of evidence, I’m open to it.

Great. Glad to hear you’re open. Here are a few quotes from the second, third and fourth centuries. Okay, I snuck in one from the early fifth century, too.

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (*Protoevangelium of James *4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the *Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (*Commentary on Matthew *2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (*Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (*Discourses Against the Arians *2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (*The Man Well-Anchored *120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (*The Trinity *3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (*Letters *63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (*Letter to Bishop Anysius *[A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (*Holy Virginity *4:4 [A.D. 401]).

 

[Good_Fella]

Mary and Joseph brought to their espousals not only their vows of virginity but also two hearts with greater torrents of love than had ever before coursed through human breasts. No husband and wife ever loved one another so much as Joseph and Mary. Their marriage was not like that of others, because the right to the body was surrendered; in normal marriages, unity in the flesh is the symbol of its consummation, and the ecstasy that accompanies a consummation is only a foretaste of the joy that comes to the soul when it attains union with God through grace…But in the case of Mary and Joseph, there was no need of the symbol of the unity of the flesh, since they already possessed the Divinity. Why pursue the shadow when they had the substance? Mary and Joseph needed no consummation in the flesh, for, in the beautiful language of Pope Leo Xlll: “The consummation of their love was in Jesus.” Why bother with the flickering candles of the flesh, when the Light of the world is their love?..When He is the sweet voluptuousness of hearts, there is not even a thought of the flesh. As husband and wife standing over the cradle of their newborn life forget, for the moment, the need of one another, so Mary and Joseph, in their possession of God in their family, hardly knew that they had bodies. Love usually makes husband and wife one; in the case of Mary and Joseph, it was not their combined loves but Jesus who made them one. No deeper love ever beat under the roof of the world since the beginning, nor will it ever beat, even unto the end. They did not go to God through love of one another; rather, because they went first to God, they had a deep and pure love for one another. To those who ridicule such holiness, Chesterton wrote:

That Christ from this creative purity
Came forth your sterile appetites to scorn.
Lo! in her house Life without Lust was born
So in your house Lust without Life shall die.

From ‘The World’s First Love’ by Fulton J Sheen

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella