Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Randy_Carson]

Did anyone in the first 7 centuries see this same kind of thing as you do and others?

Let’s assume for the moment that your reasoning is correct and that no one ever thought that Mary was any great shakes for the first few centuries.

The Immaculate Conception was unknown to the Fathers.
Perpetual Virginity isn’t normal or healthy.
The Assumption had never been taught by the Apostles.
Mary’s role as mediatrix or as Queen of Heaven isn’t biblical.

That’s your position, correct?

I’m just curious…when each of these ideas was invented out of the blue - just made up from scratch - hundreds and hundreds of years after the events of the Gospels and the Book of Acts unfolded, what was the response of faithful believers to these new ideas?

Can you point to any writings by any of the Early Church Fathers in which they argued against these Marian heresies as vehemently as they did so many others that threatened to corrupt the faith?

Who is your champion? Irenaeus? Athanasius? Augustine?

Can you provide us with a few quotes from the writings of these or any other ECF’s to illustrate their Unanimous Consent against even one of these latter day Traditions which the Roman Catholic Church added to the pure gospel of Jesus Christ?

After all, just as those heretics whose Christological errors threatened the true orthodox faith needed to be refuted by men of clear vision, unwavering devotion and towering intellect, surely those who proposed such outlandish and dangerous ideas about Mary needed to be silenced as well.

So far, I haven’t seen any of the ECF’s quoted in any of the posts by you or Apophasis, but surely this is simply an oversight on your part. Or perhaps you’re “saving the best wine until last”?

Were these Marian ideas first invented after the era of the ECF’s? Oh, well, in that case, surely there is even more documentation of the public outcry against them available for you to reference. After all, we shouldn’t have to rely on a scrap of parchment or a fragment of a letter from the second century if the innovations didn’t occur until well into the Middle Ages, should we? Tell you what, if Thomas Aquinas or any of the doctors of the Church or a some later pope spoke out against these radical novelties, then I think it is time to for you to fire your big guns. Surely someone prior to the Reformation must have sounded an alarm.

So, please…let us see what the great saints of the past have had to say against Mary, the Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity, her assumption into heaven or her coronation as Queen of Heaven.

We’re all ears. Show us what you’ve got.

 

[Good_Fella]

Let’s assume for the moment that your reasoning is correct and that no one ever thought that Mary was any great shakes for the first few centuries,Justasking4.

So, please…let us see what the great saints of the past have had to say against Mary, the Immaculate Conception, her perpetual virginity, her assumption into heaven or her coronation as Queen of Heaven.

We’re all ears. Show us what you’ve got.

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first fruits; who bore a body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the MOTHER OF GOD in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of his Godhead.”
Alexander of Alexandria, ‘Epistle to Alexander, 12’ (A.D. 324)

“Therefore, let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his Essence, deny also that he took flesh of Mary EVER-VIRGIN.”
Athanasius, ‘Orations Against the Arians, ll:70’ (A.D. 362)

“The Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten God, is called Mary, worthy of God, IMMACULATE OF THE IMMACULATE, one of the one.”
Origen, ‘Homily 1’ (A.D. 244)

“IF THE HOLY VIRGIN HAD DIED AND WAS BURIED, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…”
Epiphanius, ‘Panarion, 78:23’ (A.D. 377)

“And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary (the NEW EVE). For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin* Mary set free through faith.”
Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies, 3:22’ (A.D. 180)

“He was the Ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that his tabernacle (ARK) was exempt from putridity and corruption (Immaculate Conception-Assumption).”
Hyppolytus, ‘Orations Inillud’ (A.D. 235)

“With the Mediator you are the MEDIATRIX of the world.”
Ephraem (A.D. 373)

Gregory Nazianzen (c.A.D.382) calls Mary “the (Queen) Mother of the King of the universe” and the " Virgin Mother who brought forth the King of the whole world."

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first fruits; who bore a body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the MOTHER OF GOD in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of his Godhead.”
Alexander of Alexandria, ‘Epistle to Alexander, 12’ (A.D. 324)

“Therefore, let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his Essence, deny also that he took flesh of Mary EVER-VIRGIN.”
Athanasius, ‘Orations Against the Arians, ll:70’ (A.D. 362)

“The Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten God, is called Mary, worthy of God, IMMACULATE OF THE IMMACULATE, one of the one.”
Origen, ‘Homily 1’ (A.D. 244)

“IF THE HOLY VIRGIN HAD DIED AND WAS BURIED, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…”
Epiphanius, ‘Panarion, 78:23’ (A.D. 377)

“And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary (the NEW EVE). For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin* Mary set free through faith.”
Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies, 3:22’ (A.D. 180)

“He was the Ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that his tabernacle (ARK) was exempt from putridity and corruption (Immaculate Conception-Assumption).”
Hyppolytus, ‘Orations Inillud’ (A.D. 235)

“With the Mediator you are the MEDIATRIX of the world.”
Ephraem (A.D. 373)

Gregory Nazianzen (c.A.D.382) calls Mary “the (Queen) Mother of the King of the universe” and the " Virgin Mother who brought forth the King of the whole world."

Pax vobiscum
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?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

Oh,** I** see. Only what is quoted by an ‘apostle’ can be ‘truth.’

Show me the scripture from that apostle who taught the coequality of Father, Son and Spirit as Three Divine Persons in One God, please.

Because if it ‘isn’t actually quoted by an apostle’ it must be the personal beliefs of ‘only those men.’

 

[YADA]

The passage below is from Numbers Ch 30. It describes the Jewish tradition of a woman’s self consecration to the Lord either before marraige [Father’s home] or after marriage [Husband’s home] Note this explicitely means a woman could remain celebate wither before or after her marriage. I have bolded some pertinate passages:

3 When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, **then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. **5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.
9 “Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.
10 "If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 **If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt.” **16 These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.

Mary could very well been consecrated to the Lord and both her parents and Joseph confiming her vows…

Now is there a passage in scripture that says explicitely this occurred. No, however, that is the belief of the Chruch from the time of the apostles and even the Reformers [Calvin, Luther, etc]

This does illustrate that there was the tradition and that the RULES for a consecrated life existed…

We need to be reminded at times, that not every society lived the sexual promiscuity that shapes our world today…

Implicit in the scriptures this can be found as many have already noted: Mary’s response to the Annunciation

“Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” …

Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; … and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” /QUOTE]

“Will conceive” is future tense…NORMALLY, a woman engaged to be married would assume that she would concieve a child [being Pre-Birth Control Pill and all]

UNLESS there was a reason that [even though betrothed to marry Joseph] they would not concieve and have children…or Mary was just not paying attention in Sex Ed class…
And as others have pointed out as well, the word UNTIL even today is trully on prohibative in the past events not the future…As in I will not buy a house until I have saved a 20% down payment…does not make certain [or compel me to] purchase a house after I have saved a down payment equal to 20%. And even though scripture states that “No one knows where Moses is buried even until this day”; does not mean that from the day of that writer’s passage the world knows where Moses was buried. Because eveun until this day no one knows where he is buried…

 

[PC_Master]

I must say, the rhetoric, circular reasoning, and general lunacy being displayed by the Roman Catholics here is quite dizzying.

Do you have a problem with Mickey or with the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Actually, my post was addressed in general to a lack of respect for even the simplest logic, something which was demonstrated vividly by Mickey’s post.

You cannot merely assert something. You must support it with logic and reason, and those things must stand up to tests, lest your claim be invalid. Alternatively, you can simply say “I have faith in this even though it cannot be logically proven”, but such faith is useless in a discussion designed to rationally or logically defend or attack a given position. Faith without logical support and proof is blind, and blind faith will not persuade anyone, whether the faith be for, or against, a certain belief.

Regardless of the path you choose, if you don’t have “proof” of some sort for your claims, they’re useless in a debate. That’s not to say that faith is in conflict with fact and proof, but rather that the two are not required to be mutually inclusive of one another.

Most Protestants do have a problem with the Church’s Marian doctrines, although they don’t have a leg to stand on in their rebuttals.

This is the beginning of more rhetoric.

Both Scripture and history attest to that fact.

Again, this is the very point that is argued by Protestants, so saying it serves no purpose other than as rhetoric, which will only convince those who already believe it.

They reject every Catholic doctrine which is not explicitly revealed in Scripture.

Generally speaking, yes. I believe that the apostles recorded teaching would not have omitted anything vital to the faith. They wouldn’t be that blind. Thus, it makes anything outside of that a triviality, except as confirmed otherwise by the holy spirit, which guides each of us into the fullness of truth over time, as we’re actually willing to listen to that truth.

And they reject the Apostolic teaching authority of the Church Fathers and the Popes and Bishops of the Magisterium.

That’s right, because it isn’t Apostolic. You’re standing on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, when there is no early text proving any sort of supernatural succession of officers within Christianity. Had the Apostles themselves all received the fullness of truth directly from the Holy Spirit, and had Apostolic Succession taken place which would result in that fullness of truth being given to the successors, we’d have no indications of any teaching by anyone who was a valid successor of an Apostle that would be considered heretical. And yet, at the least, you’d conclude that many priests and bishops who became Lutheran or Anglican were indeed teaching heresy, despite this supernatural protection of God’s true church.

If you accept that man can err in things you believe are wrong, you must also accept that man can err in the things you believe are right.

Protestants will keep telling us: “If it isn’t in the Bible, I won’t believe it”.

And Roman Catholics say “if our current church doesn’t teach it, we won’t believe it, no matter who said it”.

Let’s not forget that many Protestants actually do believe in the working of the holy spirit, revealing the truth to individual believers.

Yet Catholic doctrines do find scriptural support, even if it is only implicit.

Roman Catholic doctrines find scriptures that can be made to where they seemingly agree with the church, not actual scriptural support. Many implications can be found based on scripture, but implications require outside knowledge, and thus have a source outside of scripture which must be believed before scripture can be seen to agree.

No teaching of the Catholic Church is irreconciled with the Scriptures.

You actually should state it more correctly – Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture is such that no doctrine or dogma of the Roman Catholic Church is in conflict with it.

However, there are two flaws. First, that the RCC is the measuring rod of scripture, and at the same time, uses scripture to support its dogmas. It’s circular logic.

Second, lack of direct conflicting passages does not make for actual support of a belief. Lack of information cannot be assumed to have a certain meaning.

But they fail to notice that verse 16 says “all” Scripture, not “only” Scripture. Now what does Paul mean by “all” Scripture?..During the first century the Scriptures used by the early Christians was the Old Testament: the Jewish Septuagint.

Correct, and any well-studied Protestant will tell you as much. Some see the passage to indicate a partial list of qualifications for what can be considered scripture.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

There was no New Testament for centuries until the Council of Carthage gathered the 27 Books which comprised the original Holy Bible in A.D. 397.

The gospels and the letters of Paul were all widely circulated in churches before the end of the second century (with Paul’s writings probably being closer to the end of the first century), and if historical record is to be believed, were frequently read from as scriptural. Admittedly there was dispute over 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation for centuries afterward, but these are only a small portion of the New Testament. The New Testament did not appear out of thin air in 397, but developed over time.

What Paul and the other apostles taught at the time of their letters and gospels about Jesus was primarily done orally and according to Sacred Tradition, not the New Testament.

Agreed – most teaching in the beginnings of the church was verbal. But the original teachers of the church indeed wrote down many things of importance within their lifetimes.

Moreover, their teaching wasn’t actually according to “Sacred Tradition”, but according to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and according to the very teachings of Christ (which we have largely recorded in the gospels). They didn’t simply fall back on “this is how we’ve always done it” – instead they said “we believe God wants us to do this”.

On the contrary, Paul tells Timothy in verse 14 of all places: “But do you continue in the things you have learned and that have been entrusted to you.” He is telling the Bishop to hold on to Tradition, that which has been taught apart from the NT texts which were not yet completed.

And yet, Paul specifically indicates in many places that he’s instructing them to keep to the truth that Paul has taught them, and not simply to accept something else as truth, simply because someone else claims it to be true. In fact, we are to study to show ourselves approved.

Luther, a defrocked Catholic priest

Mmhmm – apparently the supernatural protections of Apostolic Succession and the Sacrament of Holy Orders didn’t work on him. He fell into heresy despite these sacraments.

Each individual could now claim “The Holy Spirit told me.”

Wasn’t that the claim at the Council of Jerusalem? “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”.

But the Bible explicitly tells us that such private interpretation cannot realistically be done: Acts 8:27-39; 2Pet 1:20; 3:16-18.

Condemnation of private interpretation as found in scripture is not the same as condemnation of revelation to the individual believer. You’re confusing the two – rather sloppily, I might add.

Which of these groups can honestly know that they have the true faith, unless each one has a different Holy Spirit or the Paraclete is revealing numerous truths at odds with each other?

You really should include the Roman Catholic Church in that, since it’s only the Roman Catholic Church itself which holds that it is the original church. No other denomination agrees with that, even in secular history. If splintering and lack of agreement is a sign of fault for any church which does it, then the Roman Catholic Church is guilty as well, for it schism’d with several groups throughout its history.

On the other hand, if the schismatics are simply condemned as heretics, and this was God’s way of removing the heretics from the midst of his true church, then what’s to say that it wasn’t the Orthodox who were right, with Rome being removed as a heretic. All you have is your interpretation of scripture and your faith in the RCC, neither of which anyone that you’ll debate with will hold as rules of faith.

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.

The doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ is evidently a false doctrine of men.

Agreed. The doctrine of “Sacred Tradition” as held by the Roman Catholic Church is also a false doctrine of men.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”

St. Athanasius,’ Letter to Serapion of Thmuis’ (A.D. 359)

I agree with this! So, we have a couple of qualifications here…

(Of note, one of the qualifications is not that the church be named Catholic, for as I’ve mentioned, there are half a dozen major denominations who use the term.)

1. The faith comes from the beginning.
2. The faith was delivered by Jesus.
3. The faith was preached by the apostles.
4. The faith was preserved (as in, reinforced, not as in taught, for new things can be added as teaching, which are then heretical) by the fathers.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary…

1. Has no direct proof that it actually happened to begin with.
2. Was not delivered by Jesus.
3. Was not preached by the apostles.
4. Was not preserved by the fathers, because none of them make the claim for centuries after Christ that the apostles believed it.

That’s failure on 3 counts, or even 4 depending on where you draw the line for the fathers.

Thank you for providing an excellent set of criteria.

Let’s assume for the moment that your reasoning is correct and that no one ever thought that Mary was any great shakes for the first few centuries.

Okay.

I’m just curious…when each of these ideas was invented out of the blue - just made up from scratch - hundreds and hundreds of years after the events of the Gospels and the Book of Acts unfolded, what was the response of faithful believers to these new ideas?

No heresy that is to be believed comes up overnight. In fact, there are references to at least one church father (I forget who), who didn’t want to address a certain heresy precisely for the reason that it was so ridiculous it didn’t really deserve an answer.

Heresy that comes up overnight is short-lived and dies quickly, being believed by only a few. Just as some of the Sanhedrin finally understood with followers of Jesus – if the teaching wasn’t valid, they didn’t need to do anything, for they had experienced many heretics who appeared almost overnight (Antiquities of the Jews, other works), and disappeared almost as quickly.

For heresy to be believed, it must happen slowly. In most cases, it’s so slow that it happens over many generations, with each generation only recognizing a slight change in their lifetime, and therefore, not recognizing the heresy. Sudden change would be recognized, be it truth or heresy.

Can you point to any writings by any of the Early Church Fathers in which they argued against these Marian heresies as vehemently as they did so many others that threatened to corrupt the faith?

Nope, but in their time, we didn’t have millions of Roman Catholics praying to Mary (or however you’d like to term it), saying the Rosary every day, etc. I do not doubt that if these things had appeared in the early church, before Rome had garnered such a controlling influence over the church, they would have recognized the heresy, and would have spoken out against it. That’s exactly my point – heretical changes must happen slowly.

Can you provide us with a few quotes from the writings of these or any other ECF’s to illustrate their Unanimous Consent against even one of these latter day Traditions which the Roman Catholic Church added to the pure gospel of Jesus Christ?

Unanimity is not present in the early fathers on anything outside the very basics of Christianity. In fact, there are writers who disagreed with those positions – modern Roman Catholicism simply says “well, they weren’t fathers, so they don’t count”.

So, instead, would you explain to me…

1. How do we classify who is an early father, and who is not? On what grounds do we validate them – what’s the standard?
2. What issue of debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics is unanimously affirmed by every early father? I can think of none.

Thus, unanimous consent…or unanimous rejection, is useless in determining many of these issues.

After all, just as those heretics whose Christological errors threatened the true orthodox faith needed to be refuted by men of clear vision, unwavering devotion and towering intellect, surely those who proposed such outlandish and dangerous ideas about Mary needed to be silenced as well.

Can you show me a single well-refuted heresy that occurred during the time of the early fathers that didn’t appear in the space of one lifetime?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Were these Marian ideas first invented after the era of the ECF’s? Oh, well, in that case, surely there is even more documentation of the public outcry against them available for you to reference.

Why would a gradually evolved heresy have such writings, especially so long ago?

The passage below is from Numbers Ch 30. It describes the Jewish tradition of a woman’s self consecration to the Lord either before marraige [Father’s home] or after marriage [Husband’s home] Note this explicitely means a woman could remain celebate wither before or after her marriage. I have bolded some pertinate passages:

Did you notice how the passages you quoted don’t actually mention a vow of celibacy?

Now is there a passage in scripture that says explicitely this occurred. No, however, that is the belief of the Chruch from the time of the apostles and even the Reformers [Calvin, Luther, etc]

Oh, so we have some written evidence within the first few centuries AD to that effect? Like, say, before the fourth century? I would expect to see such if we know for certain that the apostles believed this. Or do you hold it was all simply verbal teaching for that entire period, with it never being written down to counter a heretic who disputed it?

If it wasn’t written against, then there were either no heretics who argued the point (unlikely), or there was simply no one who actually believed it (and also no heretics who had invented it yet – reasonable this seems), or it was simply an issue that was more trivial than important. Either way, you have no proof.

This does illustrate that there was the tradition and that the RULES for a consecrated life existed…

What, aside from the pagan Vestal Virgins of Rome gives you the idea that a life of consecration equated (in that era) to a life of celibacy. Were the priests not consecrated? They were married (and had children).

Oh, and of course, we should consider that Joseph could have easily released Mary from her vow prior to being married to her – we simply don’t have proof that he didn’t, or even that such Old Testament customs, if the mean what you say, were at all observed in Mary’s day. Remember, this was as much as a thousand years later, and customs had changed in many areas in that time.

We need to be reminded at times, that not every society lived the sexual promiscuity that shapes our world today…

Agreed, but sex between a married couple isn’t promiscuous at all. It’s design.

“Will conceive” is future tense…NORMALLY, a woman engaged to be married would assume that she would concieve a child [being Pre-Birth Control Pill and all]

And I suppose you know that Mary was to be married to Joseph very shortly after the angel’s visit?

Mary had recently heard that an angel announced that her cousin would conceive, and it happened (quite possibly in very short order). Perhaps Mary simply wasn’t supposed to be married to Joseph any time soon? After all, she went up to visit Elizabeth for at least 3 months, so wedding probably wasn’t supposed to occur until after that. Why would the angel tell her something if it wasn’t going to happen almost immediately? And we accept as fact that it did happen almost immediately. So, Mary stating that she was a virgin could easily refer to her virginal status at the time.

And as others have pointed out as well, the word UNTIL even today is trully on prohibative in the past events not the future…As in I will not buy a house until I have saved a 20% down payment…does not make certain [or compel me to] purchase a house after I have saved a down payment equal to 20%.

True, but it does imply (because of the use of “will” as opposed to “would”) that future action is intended. If you never intend to buy a house, why would you even speak of a down-payment?

All scripture actually says is that Mary was a virgin at the time of the annunciation by the angel. We know that she soon thereafter conceived, went to visit Elizabeth, stayed for at least three months, and then returned. We know Joseph married her, and didn’t have sex with her until she had given birth to Jesus. What we don’t know is whether she actually had taken a vow of celibacy (and in fact there’s nothing to indicate she did, nor any cultural reference to such a practice in that era of non-pagan origin). We don’t know that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Fortunately, it’s only a minor issue, which wouldn’t change my faith even if it were true.

 

[YADA]

Why would a gradually evolved heresy have such writings, especially so long ago?

Did you notice how the passages you quoted don’t actually mention a vow of celibacy?

Oh, so we have some written evidence within the first few centuries AD to that effect? Like, say, before the fourth century? I would expect to see such if we know for certain that the apostles believed this. Or do you hold it was all simply verbal teaching for that entire period, with it never being written down to counter a heretic who disputed it?

If it wasn’t written against, then there were either no heretics who argued the point (unlikely), or there was simply no one who actually believed it (and also no heretics who had invented it yet – reasonable this seems), or it was simply an issue that was more trivial than important. Either way, you have no proof.

What, aside from the pagan Vestal Virgins of Rome gives you the idea that a life of consecration equated (in that era) to a life of celibacy. Were the priests not consecrated? They were married (and had children).

Oh, and of course, we should consider that Joseph could have easily released Mary from her vow prior to being married to her – we simply don’t have proof that he didn’t, or even that such Old Testament customs, if the mean what you say, were at all observed in Mary’s day. Remember, this was as much as a thousand years later, and customs had changed in many areas in that time.

Agreed, but sex between a married couple isn’t promiscuous at all. It’s design.

And I suppose you know that Mary was to be married to Joseph very shortly after the angel’s visit?

Mary had recently heard that an angel announced that her cousin would conceive, and it happened (quite possibly in very short order). Perhaps Mary simply wasn’t supposed to be married to Joseph any time soon? After all, she went up to visit Elizabeth for at least 3 months, so wedding probably wasn’t supposed to occur until after that. Why would the angel tell her something if it wasn’t going to happen almost immediately? And we accept as fact that it did happen almost immediately. So, Mary stating that she was a virgin could easily refer to her virginal status at the time.

True, but it does imply (because of the use of “will” as opposed to “would”) that future action is intended. If you never intend to buy a house, why would you even speak of a down-payment?

All scripture actually says is that Mary was a virgin at the time of the annunciation by the angel. We know that she soon thereafter conceived, went to visit Elizabeth, stayed for at least three months, and then returned. We know Joseph married her, and didn’t have sex with her until she had given birth to Jesus. What we don’t know is whether she actually had taken a vow of celibacy (and in fact there’s nothing to indicate she did, nor any cultural reference to such a practice in that era of non-pagan origin). We don’t know that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Fortunately, it’s only a minor issue, which wouldn’t change my faith even if it were true.

Actually, we do the Essenes practiced celebacy and many scholars think it was the Essenes [or some similar sect] to which John the Baptist belonged, as Mary was a Kinswomen to Elizabeth and John, that is not such a stretch…

And 'vows made to the Lord" are commonly accepted as being chaste…

Civilizing Sex was the defining action of the Jewish people…you should attempt to get the book by the same name: Civilizing Sex, the Role of Chastity in the Common Good…it is out of print currently and is a socialogy book written by a socialogist…but it analyzes the cultures of the area from which the hebrew tribes seperated themselves…

 

[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?

“According to the grace of God which has been given to me, as a wise builder, I laid the foundation, and another builds thereon.”
[1Cor 3:10]

“The true gnosis is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the world, and the manifestation of the Body of Christ according to the successions of Bishops, by which successions the Bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere.”
St. Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies’ (A.D. 180)

“When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come.” [John 16:13]

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St.Athanasius, ‘Letter to Serapion of Thmuis’ (A.D.359)

Protestant critics maintain that Apostolic Succession does not really exist and that it is unbiblical and unnecessary. But if that is true, then we did not need Jesus Christ to come and redeem us, for according to these critics, our Lord’s Church ceased to exist with the death of the last NT apostle. Before the apostles passed on, they began a practice, commanded by Jesus himself, to relay their teaching authority to successors. This was to insure the perpetual existence of the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ until He returns in glory. Every Catholic Bishop, including those who were Church Fathers, can show his line of spiritual descent, that is who consecrated him, who consecrated his consecrator, and so on, all the way back to the Apostles. Our Lord vested in the Apostles a divine authority to preach. And this special authority has been passed down in unbroken succession through the Bishops of the Catholic Church for 2000 years, so that the present Pope and Bishops of the Church truly teach with the voice of Jesus Christ through his Apostles.

“As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” [John 20:21]

“Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood.” [Acts 20:28]

“And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, who is able to build up and to give the inheritance among all the sanctified.” [Acts 20:32] Pass on the authority to your heirs.

The Catholic Church has the Magisterium to inflallibly interpret, protect, and preserve the Deposit of Faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which include the unified teachings (not individual opinions) of the Church Fathers. The Magisterium consists of the Pope and the Cardinals and Bishops acting in unity with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They meet in Councils, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, make decisions on important matters regarding faith and morals.

“He who hears you, hears Me; and he who rejects you, rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”
[Luke 10:16]

“Where there is no governor, the people shall fall, but there is safety where there is much counsel.” [Proverbs 11:14, 24:6]

“I went up in consequence of a revelation, and I conferred with them on the Gospel I preach among the Gentiles.” [Gal 2:2]

The implications of a revelation (Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) in Scripture develops over time through the discernment of the Apostolic Church.

“You must understand first of all that no prophecy in Scripture is made by private interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:20]

“Every house divided against itself cannot stand.” [Matthew 12:25]

Protestantism is divided because it has been formed by the differing fallible opinions of men and is not guided by the Holy Spirit. It is severed from the historic Christian faith and Apostolic Tradition. No teaching authority rests here.

“Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain who build it.”
[Psalms 127:1]

“You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and have appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” [John 15:16]

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Blinky]

Regardless of the path you choose, if you don’t have “proof” of some sort for your claims, they’re useless in a debate. That’s not to say that faith is in conflict with fact and proof, but rather that the two are not required to be mutually inclusive of one another.

What kind of “proof” will satisfy you regarding the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

 

[Good_Fella]

Actually, we do the Essenes practiced celebacy and many scholars think it was the Essenes [or some similar sect] to which John the Baptist belonged, as Mary was a Kinswomen to Elizabeth and John, that is not such a stretch…

And 'vows made to the Lord" are commonly accepted as being chaste…

Civilizing Sex was the defining action of the Jewish people…you should attempt to get the book by the same name: Civilizing Sex, the Role of Chastity in the Common Good…it is out of print currently and is a socialogy book written by a socialogist…but it analyzes the cultures of the area from which the hebrew tribes seperated themselves…

PC Master and Apo are offsprings of the 18th century enlightenment. In vain do they try to refute the historic Christian faith of 2000 years by proof-reading the texts. :yup:

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
2 Timothy 2:15]

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

What kind of “proof” will satisfy you regarding the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

The proof PC desires is the reading of the text according to his own fallible interpretation. But Peter in his letter warns us that Scripture is not for private interpretation, which lies with the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Pax vobsiscum
Good Fella

 

[PC_Master]

Well, this is interesting. I’d point out to GoodFella at this point that he has entirely ignored my multi-page post which makes many strong points. I can only assume that he either feels these points are totally useless and yet will not tell me such, or simply cannot answer the points made. I kindly request that he go back and address all of the points I made.

I do generally do my best to address the points made by everyone else. I only expect the same courtesy.

Actually, we do the Essenes practiced celebacy and many scholars think it was the Essenes [or some similar sect] to which John the Baptist belonged, as Mary was a Kinswomen to Elizabeth and John, that is not such a stretch…

Here’s a quote from a pro-Essene site which seems to mesh well with what I’ve been reading of Essenes elsewhere…

They accorded great importance to the teachings of the ancient Chaldeans, of Zoroaster, of Hermes Trismegiste, to the secret instructions of Moses and of one of the founding Masters of their order who had transmitted techniques similar to those of Buddhism, as well as to the revelation of Enoch.

I’ve also been reading that the Essenes actually rejected much of Jewish scripture and in fact banned sacrifice, contrary to Mosaic law. The stuff I’ve been able to uncover about the Essenes strikes me as being very much like the Gnostics. Very un-Christian actually.

Regardless, let’s consider for a moment that Mary and Joseph were Essenes. Let’s even consider that Mary took a vow of celibacy, a vow which the community in which she lived would have well known about. Joseph, a devoutly religious man, married her after her conception, likely with the community knowing of his supposed role as protector. Now, imagine what would happen if a vowedly celibate woman became pregnant!

And 'vows made to the Lord" are commonly accepted as being chaste…

Priests surely made vows to the Lord, but we know they didn’t remain celibate.

What kind of “proof” will satisfy you regarding the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

How about something that doesn’t require wild conjecture that goes way outside social norms? Acceptable forms of this could be…

1. A scriptural passage stating Mary took a vow of celibacy, or otherwise remained celibate throughout her life.
2. A passage from an early church writer around or before the fourth century which states such.

I suppose there’s other proofs that might be valid, but I haven’t thought of what they might be.

PC Master and Apo are offsprings of the 18th century enlightenment.

I’ll kindly ask that you stop the slander. Thanks.

In vain do they try to refute the historic Christian faith of 2000 years by proof-reading the texts. :yup:

No proof-reading is required, nor is any deep logic required to understand that scripture doesn’t tell us Mary remained a virgin. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary simply isn’t found in the earliest history of the church. This is fact, not conjecture, and not rhetoric.

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
2 Timothy 2:15]

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

The proof PC desires is the reading of the text according to his own fallible interpretation.

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. I’ve already debunked your poor English skills, and provided the best explanation of Greek that I can offer (which stands until someone with greater Greek knowledge does us the favor of more accurately explaining).

But Peter in his letter warns us that Scripture is not for private interpretation,…

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.

…which lies with the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Blind assertion. And you haven’t yet countered my discussion of Apostolic Succession.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Where did they get these “personal beliefs”?

From prayer, scripture study, and learning the teachings of those men who were in the faith before them?

And where did those men get their personal beliefs? From prayer, scripture study, and learning the teachings of the men who were in the faith before them?

How many generations back before you get to the Apostles?

Five or six at most depending on which of the Fathers we’re considering.

Let’s consider one such chain of succession:

Apostle John > Polycarp > Irenaeus of Lyons

The lifetimes of these three men span more than two hundred years, and Irenaeus died around the beginning of the third century.

Add two more generations, and we’re into the fourth century. So, while the quotes provided are not from the Apostles themselves, there is no reason to believe that what those authors wrote was not handed on from the Apostles.

BTW, scripture itself demonstrates this succession of Apostolic teaching:

2 Timothy 2:2
2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations contained in this passage:

1. Paul
2. Timothy
3. The men Timothy would select
4. Those that Timothy’s men would teach

So it goes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For heresy to be believed, it must happen slowly. In most cases, it’s so slow that it happens over many generations, with each generation only recognizing a slight change in their lifetime, and therefore, not recognizing the heresy. Sudden change would be recognized, be it truth or heresy.

You mean like sola scriptura and sola fide? No one ever heard of these absurdities prior to Martin Luther, yet they caught on pretty quickly, didn’t they?

Unanimity is not present in the early fathers on anything outside the very basics of Christianity. In fact, there are writers who disagreed with those positions – modern Roman Catholicism simply says “well, they weren’t fathers, so they don’t count”.

Okay. Could you provide a few quotes?

So, instead, would you explain to me…

1. How do we classify who is an early father, and who is not? On what grounds do we validate them – what’s the standard?

In his book, The Fathers of the Church, Mike Aquilina lists four criteria which were established by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century:

a. Orthodox doctrine
b. Holiness of life
c. Church approval
d. Antiquity

1. What issue of debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics is unanimously affirmed by every early father? I can think of none.

Well, duh…since none of them were “Protestant” in their understanding, why would you expect any of them to affirm your doctrines?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why would a gradually evolved heresy have such writings, especially so long ago?

For the same reason that Athanasius disagreed with Arianism despite the fact that virtually all of Christendom embraced it at one point. Because it is wrong!

Even one of the Old Testament prophets bemoaned the fact that he was the only one who remained faithful to God while the rest of Israel was serving false gods. Yet, God was faithful to Israel and sent this lone voice to continue preaching the truth.

Your approach requires that a heresy crept in so slowly over time that eventually EVERYONE accepted it and no voice was raised against it.

Thus, you declared Jesus Christ to be a liar for He said that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against the Church that He promised to build. If the Church embraced a heresy - a lie from the pit of Hell - then Hell has been victorious over the Church and over Jesus.

Did you notice how the passages you quoted don’t actually mention a vow of celibacy?

Yes. So?

Oh, so we have some written evidence within the first few centuries AD to that effect? Like, say, before the fourth century? I would expect to see such if we know for certain that the apostles believed this. Or do you hold it was all simply verbal teaching for that entire period, with it never being written down to counter a heretic who disputed it?

Pretty much. But this is not unusual.

When was the doctrine of the Trinity formalized? The hypostatic union? The filoque? When was the canon of scripture finally nailed down?

Where does the Bible teach that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer? (it doesn’t)

Where does the Bible teach the canon of scripture itself? (it doesn’t)

Where does the Bible teach that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? (it doesn’t)

Where does the Bible teach that there are to be no more Apostles? (it doesn’t)

If it wasn’t written against, then there were either no heretics who argued the point (unlikely), or there was simply no one who actually believed it (and also no heretics who had invented it yet – reasonable this seems), or it was simply an issue that was more trivial than important. Either way, you have no proof.

I have no proof? Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant traditions all hold to this ancient belief, and you come along 2,000 years later and say, “The Bible doesn’t say anything about this, so I refuse to believe it.” Okay. That’s solo scriptura (not even sola scriptura).

Mary had recently heard that an angel announced that her cousin would conceive, and it happened (quite possibly in very short order).

Wrong. Elizabeth was already in her sixth month at the time that the angel spoke with Mary.

Luke 1:36-37
36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll kindly ask that you stop the slander. Thanks.

Are you implying here that 18th Century Enlightment is a bad thing you want no part of?

No proof-reading is required, nor is any deep logic required to understand that scripture doesn’t tell us Mary remained a virgin.

You mean other than, “How will this be since I am a virgin.”?

Your presupposition is that being a virgin was only temporary. Mine is that it was perpetual. I have the Tradition of an infallible Church and the witness of nearly 2,000 years of Catholic and non-Catholic believers to support me. You have…nothing but your own fallible personal interpretation of the Bible and your Protestant bias that the Catholic Church must be wrong.

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

Not in the written record to be sure. Yet, you cannot point to any document which contains the inaugural promulgation of this new heresy nor can you provide any evidence that anyone ever objected to the teaching once it was invented.

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

Spoken like a true Paulist Protestant.

What Paul actually said was, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it” (2 Timothy 3:14)

“Those”? Gee, that sounds like more than one person to me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

No question.

So, is baptism of infants proper or not? Is baptism regenerative or not?

Protestants seem to disagree with one another about these things. There cannot be one meaning of scripture for the Methodist and another contradictory meaning for the Baptist. Clearly, one of these groups is interpreting scripture incorrectly yet most Protestants would claim that they are both members of the “invisible” church. Is contradictory doctrine acceptable in the church as you define it?

And you haven’t yet countered my discussion of Apostolic Succession.

If you will kindly point me to the post where this is discussed, I will be happy to engage you there.