Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Good_Fella]

It saddens me that you cast such a large blanket over me. Go back and read some of the posts I’ve made re: Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, the original topic of this thread (Esp Ezekiel 44:2 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=190271), and I think you’ll find that what you assume about me, is not necessarily true.

My friend, this is semantics. There is *no *difference between telling Mary, “John will look after you”, and telling John, “Look after Mary”, save sentence construction.

Literary device. When I speak with my (biological) mother, she never calls my father Jon. She always refers to him as “your father”.

Me: Where’s dad?

Mom: Your father went to the store.

not

Mom: Jon went to the store.

One more point: You left out the last sentence of John 19:27.
After Jesus says "“Behold, your mother!”, John could have ended it there without further comment, and it would have been pretty clear to all what the outcome was. But he didn’t. He added

I can draw two conclusions from that. One is that Mary and John were all quite clear on the wishes expressed from the cross, and two: if there were further meaning behind the words, something important enough as Mary becoming mother of us all, John had ample reason and motivation to interject it here.

Where do you get the impression that I’ve cast a large blanket over you? I am referring to Protestants in general and not singling you out.

The passage doesn’t read “Mary, John will look after you” and “John, please look after my mother”. You are putting your own words into Jesus’ speech. The generic use of “son” “mother” and “woman” (Eve-New Eve) indicates the formation of a new relationship. Coupling verses 26 and 27 shows that we have a relationship, not merely custody. Indeed, if it were merely a matter of custody, then we would have only one verse: “John, please look after my mother for me after I’m gone.” Or it could be followed by “Woman, don’t worry. I’ve just asked John to look after you.” (an inverted address to the two) I’m curious, when Jesus said “It is finished” did he mean “Satan’s reign on earth is over” and “the power of sin and death has been destroyed”? Or did Jesus merely mean “My life is over. I’m going to die”?

The Catholic Church has regarded Mary the Mother of the Church since earliest times. What modern day Protestants may think is of no importance. We must adhere to the faith of our Church Fathers.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Calvinator]

The Catholic Church has regarded Mary the Mother of the Church since earliest times.

Do you happen to know the earliest reference for anyone in the early church sharing your belief that Mary is the Mother of the church?

 

[Mommyof02green]

Do you happen to know the earliest reference for anyone in the early church sharing your belief that Mary is the Mother of the church?

See this post.

 

[Calvinator]

See this post.

Thanks.

Do you know if this particular belief was wide spread or was it rather isolated until later in church history?

 

[Good_Fella]

It’s just what it says, it’s a permeating effect. The introduction of what we might think is a “benign” error can have great effects as it spreads over time. That’s quite a bizarre interpretation, GF. Is it the official interpretation of the magesterium or are you giving us your own “private interpretation” of Scripture?

This passage can be interpreted so that it applies to events in Church history beyond the immediate time of Paul’s ministry. It certainly doesn’t apply to apostolic Sacred Tradition. Elsewhere Paul exhorts us to hold fast to this tradition. As I showed above, in Ignatius’ Epistle to John, the Church was already aware during Mary’s lifetime that she was Ever-Virgin. So I doubt Paul included Mary’s perpetual virginity on his list of false teachings. At the time, this virtue of Mary was common knowledge, not merely a belief based on teachings.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Thanks.

Do you know if this particular belief was wide spread or was it rather isolated until later in church history?

A fresco in the catacombs of St. Agnes indicates that the Church had invoked Mary as Mother of the Church by the second century, around the time of Origen. See my reply above in this thread. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mommyof02green]

Thanks.

Do you know if this particular belief was wide spread or was it rather isolated until later in church history?

At this point what I posted earlier is all I got.

At this time I can’t find more ECF that agree with Origen. And I can’t find any that disagree with him either.

So it leaves the questions:
Did no one refute Origen because no one disagreed with him? And seeing no one disagreed with him is that why there isn’t more ECF writing on the subject?

Of course those are my assumptions at this point because I can’t find more info then that at this time. I’m still looking!

 

[guanophore]

That’s not what you said:It’s one thing to count her “blessed” because she was chosen to bear the Messiah (the context in which she is counted as “blessed”). But quite another to “bless the name of Mary.” Scripture gives no such instruction. But instead:

​

I think this is just another case of “both/and” instead of “either/or”. Persons in receipt of the Apostolic Faith understand that no one is blessed apart from God, from whom all blessings flow. When a woman cried out to Jesus:

“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” Luke 11:27-28

This was the first generation to call her blessed. And Jesus responds, even MORE blessed are the obedient. Mary is blessed by the gift of carrying the Son of God, but she is even MORE blessed because she was obedient to His will, and His Word.

Luke 1:48-49
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.

Ps 72:19 “And blessed be His glorious name forever; and may the whole earth be filled with His glory. Amen, and Amen.”

Ps 96:2 “Sing to the LORD, bless His name; proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.”

Ps 103:1 “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and all that is within me, {bless} His holy name.”

Ps 113:2 “Blessed be the name of the LORD from this time forth and forever.”

Others sharing in the Blessing of God in no way takes away from the Glorious Name of God. In fact, He is glorified in all those who, like Mary, call upon His Holy Name. All who belong to the Lamb have their names written in heaven, and by that their names are blessed:

“…rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20

" …they shall bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. 27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life." Rev 21:26-22:1

The faithful bring into heaven the glory and honor of the nations. They are in heaven because they are clean, and full of truth, since nothing unclean or false can enter Heaven. Person’s such as have names that are blessed by God, who has written their names in the book of life.

I don’t see where God elevated her. I do see down through the centuries where men have elevated her, but not God.I didn’t say she was. God forbid!

God will raise up all who trust in him, and this is not forbidden by God. What is forbidden is to think that we have anything to do with that. It is by His grace that humans are elevated. Mary knew that she was a poor Jewish girl. By His choice of her, he exalted her, who was of low degree. She was hungry for her Saviour, and He filled her with good things. She spoke these prophetic words to Elizabeth, to whom they also apply, the mother of John. Will you not accept the testimony from her own mouth?

Luke 1:52-53
52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.

Did you not understand what I meant by men assigning to her "*name*" status within the faith?Counting her blessed (Lk. 1:48) is one thing, but proclaiming that men, everywhere, are to "bless the *name* of Mary" is quite another thing altogether. The connotation is vastly different.Nothing wrong in counting her blessed.  To "*bless the name of Mary*," however, indeed is an idolatrous act.

I do understand you, and I can see your point. For those of the Apostolic faiths, we understand that there is a qualitative difference between the two. We also do not separate Mary, as a recipient of God’s grace, from Him from whom the grace flows. She is just a reflection of His glory, and He has ordained that she participate in the ministry of the Name that is above all Names.​

 

[guanophore]

Was Solomon told by Nathan the prophet to set up a throne for his mother?

He knew better. He did not have to wait for divine revelation. This was the custom:

19 So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. 1 Kings 2:19

IOW, was he divinely instructed to elevate his mother to that position? Or did he do it on his own volition?

It is interesting to note that Nathan did not rebuke him for venerating his mother. Also, since when does there need to be a separation between one’s volition, and cooperating with divine instruction?

Was king David, before him, instructed by God to elevate his mother to a position of “queen mother?”

If there was something wrong with this custom, would not the prophets and holy men spoken against it, like they did everything else? It is clear from scripture that the Queen Mother was removed from her status only because of sinful behavior.

When Gabriel visited Mary and he told her that the Child she would bear would sit on the throne of His father David (Lk. 1:32), was she told at that time that she too would sit on her own throne at His right hand?

I suspect that Mary did not comprehend, at the time, what all this meant. As a faithful Jew, she would have been well acquainted with the role of the Queen Mother in Jewish History and Tradition. However, I am sure it was all overwhelming for her. Scripture tells us that she received the prophesies, and “pondered them in her heart”. Perhaps they became more clear over time, as they did with the Church. Perhaps they did not become clear until she passed over, and saw clearly as she was also seen.

So the real question is, was the position of "*queen mother*" (Bathsheba's or Mary's) created by God or men?  An act of God or of man?  I don't think the answer is, "*I dunno*."

In Israel, the mother of the King was the Queen Mother. I don’t doubt that this was a long standing human tradition. We see the position of royalty of the Mother of the King:

11 And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done. 12 He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13 He also **removed Ma’acah his mother from being queen mother **because she had an abominable image made for Ashe’rah; and Asa cut down her image and burned it at the brook Kidron. 1 Kings 15:11-14

2 Kings 10:13
3 Jehu met the kinsmen of Ahazi’ah king of Judah, and he said, “Who are you?” And they answered, "We are the kinsmen of Ahazi’ah, and we came down to visit the royal princes and the sons of the queen mother."
Jer 13:18

18 Say to the king and the queen mother:
“Take a lowly seat,
for your beautiful crown
has come down from your head.”

How can a queen be removed from a high status she does not have? How can someone removed from a high seat, to a lowly seat if she wasnt’ sitting “high” in the first place?

Jer 29:2
This was after King Jeconi’ah, and the queen mother, the eunuchs, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen, and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem.

In each of these passages we see that the queen mother is accorded special status in Israel. Not by virtue of her own, and clearly, in some cases, not by virtue of her own behavior,but by her relationship with the King.

 

[Good_Fella]

At this point what I posted earlier is all I got.

At this time I can’t find more ECF that agree with Origen. And I can’t find any that disagree with him either.

So it leaves the questions:
Did no one refute Origen because no one disagreed with him? And seeing no one disagreed with him is that why there isn’t more ECF writing on the subject?

Of course those are my assumptions at this point because I can’t find more info then that at this time. I’m still looking!

All we have are fragments from early time. The Roman authorities destroyed most of the early Church literature during the great persecutions. I’ll do some digging and see what I can find.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[YADA]

I am always surpirsed at those who would take the “it only means John was given the care of Mary and nothing more” stance…

Scriptures and specifically the New Testament is specific that all that was said and did was not written down “because the world could not contain it”…

That what was written down had meaning and was written was meant to pass on the basics of the Christian faith…

Then we have the last words of Christ, spoken from the cross at the point of death, words that came at the greatest price…as in during crucifiction, the ability to breath is only accomplished by great effort, lifting oneself up [painfully] in order to expand the lungs enough to inflate, forming the thoughts while in ecruciating pain and expressing those thoughts through vocilization…

And we get “Oh, by the way - John, take my mother into your home and take vare of her and Mom, treat John like a son to you”

Nothing more nothing less…Mary and her motherhood do not represent anything like the church…

Mary is not a figure representing anything [especially because Jesus actually hated her afterall He said “unless you hate your mother and father”…for that poster - yes you know who you are!]

John represents himself and only himself at this point…No he cannot represent all of the faithful who love Christ and are loved by Christ…he is just the new caretaker for Mary, nothing else…

We all buy that … right?..the last few words of Christ …from the cross…at great cost…and it means nothing for the greater Christian community…not then…not now…recorded in Scripture [what - by accident?] for no purpose…or purhaps by the devil to cause division?..

personally, I believe that every word spoken by Jesus from the cross is relevant and important then and for us today…Mary represents the birth of the Church, she is the mother of the Church just as she is the mother of Jesus [God]. Mary was there at the birth of the church at Pentacost and shared in the pains of that birth at Calvary. “Amd a sword shall peirce your heart, too” as Simeon said…

John represents all of us who love and are beloved by Jesus, he represents the faithful followers of Christ, His brothers an sisters, the believers that comprise the church…

Take the minimalsit view of scripture if you want…I’ll take the biblical and historical view…

I cannot believe that the passage was recorded and means nothing…

 

[apophasis]

It is hard to prove a negative by silence…Did God command or inspire this?

You don’t build doctrine on silence.

We do not know that God did not command this or that God did not inspired the decision…all you can say is that it was not recorded in scripture as being “commanded” or “inspired”

The Christian faith is based on divine revelation, not human “inspiration.” To the contrary, we do know that God did not command it. In the Law there is divine instruction for Israel’s kings, but a “queen” is never mentioned. And we see by the text that it was Solomon himself who elevated his mother to that position. He was given no divine instruction from either prophet or priest. Hence, the elevation of a “queen” in the kingdom was man-made from the very beginning. It began with Solomon, not David.

 

[guanophore]

You don’t build doctrine on silence.The Christian faith is based on divine revelation, not human “inspiration.” To the contrary, we do know that God did not command it. In the Law there is divine instruction for Israel’s kings, but a “queen” is never mentioned. And we see by the text that it was Solomon himself who elevated his mother to that position. He was given no divine instruction from either prophet or priest. Hence, the elevation of a “queen” in the kingdom was man-made from the very beginning. It began with Solomon, not David.

Actually the role of queen mother predated Solomon for quite some time. However, you did not answer my question? Why didn’t Nathan rebuke Solomon for his actions?

Why were the other ‘queen mothers’ I cited removed from their status for sinning?

 

[apophasis]

So you basically say that Gal 5:9 is a warning against False Doctrine. Am I wrong?

It’s a warning (principle) against introducing false or foreign doctrines into the faith by men. In the Galatian church it was the introduction of Law obedience as a prerequisite for salvation.

To you a False Doctrine would be things like Mary’s Perpetual Virginity!

ALL the Marian doctrines that, corporately, set Mary up in a juxtaposition with Christ is a perfect example of leaven being introduced into the faith by men. It began first with men claiming her perpetual virginity, then her immaculate conception, then her perpetual sinlessness, then her bodily assumption into heaven, coronation as queen of heaven and presently functioning there as intercessor and advocate for the saints. All paralleling Christ.

And not one stitch of evidence to prove any of it.

You see how leaven works? What began as a Christ centered faith ended up as a Mother/Child religion. The introduction of “leaven” changes everything.

 

[apophasis]

Actually the role of queen mother predated Solomon for quite some time.

Why do you make this statement and not provide the evidence? To predate it would mean that David (even Saul) was the first to elevate his mother to that position.

However, you did not answer my question? Why didn’t Nathan rebuke Solomon for his actions?

I can’t answer for Nathan, G. Nor can I answer the question as to why Solomon wasn’t rebuked for setting up “high places” of worship for his multiple foreign wives. Or even for the fact that he even had multiple wives (700) and concubines (300), a definite prohibition for the king according to the Law.

Are we to then assume because Solomon set up high places for his foreign wives in his kingdom that there will be unbelievers in heaven and God will tolerate the worship of other gods?

Why were the other ‘queen mothers’ I cited removed from their status for sinning?

What’s the point of your question?

 

[guanophore]

It’s a warning (principle) against introducing false or foreign doctrines into the faith by men. In the Galatian church it was the introduction of Law obedience as a prerequisite for salvation.ALL the Marian doctrines that, corporately, set Mary up in a juxtaposition with Christ is a perfect example of leaven being introduced into the faith by men. It began first with men claiming her perpetual virginity, then her immaculate conception, then her perpetual sinlessness, then her bodily assumption into heaven, coronation as queen of heaven and presently functioning there as intercessor and advocate for the saints. All paralleling Christ.

And not one stitch of evidence to prove any of it.

You see how leaven works? What began as a Christ centered faith ended up as a Mother/Child religion. The introduction of “leaven” changes everything.

You have used this phrase several times, and I don’t understand it. What do you mean by “mother/child” religion?

Jesus grew up! He is no longer a “child”. It was not a “child” that died on the cross, but a man…the Son of Man.

 

[guanophore]

Why do you make this statement and not provide the evidence? To predate it would mean that David (even Saul) was the first to elevate his mother to that position.I can’t answer for Nathan, G. Nor can I answer the question as to why Solomon wasn’t rebuked for setting up “high places” of worship for his multiple foreign wives. Or even for the fact that he even had multiple wives (700) and concubines (300), a definite prohibition for the king according to the Law.

Point taken. I mean to say that the custom of Kingship and the role of the Queen mother was not limited to the Hebrew Culture. It may be something that the Hebrews brought with them from Egypt, a much more ancient culture that practiced this and was observed by the Hebrews.

Even the Pharoah’s sister was permitted to keep the child of slaves…such indulgence for the royal family!

Are we to then assume because Solomon set up high places for his foreign wives in his kingdom that there will be unbelievers in heaven and God will tolerate the worship of other gods?What’s the point of your question?

No, my point is that those women in the role of Queen Mother who sinned similarly against God were removed from their status. My point is that there was a “status” for the Queen Mother that was recognized as part of the Kingly dynasty of Israel.

 

[Good_Fella]

It’s a warning (principle) against introducing false or foreign doctrines into the faith by men. In the Galatian church it was the introduction of Law obedience as a prerequisite for salvation.ALL the Marian doctrines that, corporately, set Mary up in a juxtaposition with Christ is a perfect example of leaven being introduced into the faith by men. It began first with men claiming her perpetual virginity, then her immaculate conception, then her perpetual sinlessness, then her bodily assumption into heaven, coronation as queen of heaven and presently functioning there as intercessor and advocate for the saints. All paralleling Christ.

The founding Church Fathers who succeeded the Apostles by “the laying on of hands” were guided by the Holy Spirit in their unified teachings about Mary. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John when he first became a Christian, knew Mary and corresponded with her by letter. In his Epistle to St.John he acknowledges Mary’s perpetual virginity and speaks of her as full of grace and exceptional purity. It’s disgusting how Protestants, notably post-Enlightenment Fundamentalists with no apostolic link or teaching authority, presume to strip Mary of the graces and privileges God bestowed on her. If you have a problem with Mary, then take it up with God and stop rationalizing.

"From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for THE MIGHTY ONE HAS DONE GREAT THINGS FOR ME
and holy is his name. {Luke 1:48-49}

Those great things (plural) Mary mentions by the stroke of Luke’s infallible pen would include her Perpetual Virginity, Divine Motherhood, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Coronation. God is the one who exalted her above all other human creatures. The Church has acknowledged our Lord’s partiality shown to his Mother.

Meanwhile, The Church fails to see how these privileges deify Mary. Such a charge is an example of blind Protestant rationalizations. It’s the tendency to rationalize with no apostolic authority and divine mandate that has divided Protestantism with a plethora of false teachings.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

Point taken. I mean to say that the custom of Kingship and the role of the Queen mother was not limited to the Hebrew Culture. It may be something that the Hebrews brought with them from Egypt, a much more ancient culture that practiced this and was observed by the Hebrews.

You might want to go back and read the O.T. account for yourself, G., say, starting with 1st Samuel. There you’ll see that the nation of Israel was to be a Theocracy, not a monarchy. God was to be their king (see 1 Sam. 8:7). It was the people themselves who insisted on having a king over them, that they might be like the Gentile nations (8:19-20). God granted their request but the king over them was still to be under God’s authority. He did not make the rules for the nation but was to carry out faithfully God’s desire for His nation.

Nowhere in the historical accounts does God instruct either Saul, David or Solomon to elevate their mother to “queen” position. Solomon was the first and he did it according to his own volition. And if I recall correctly, there was no such position in the Northern kingdom after the split. The position of “queen mother” was not ever divinely appointed but man-made from its inception in Israel.

We see the lack of divine appointment with Mary’s so-called “heavenly queenship” as well. There is no divine revelation of it. There’s no such divine appointment. None whatsoever. It is asserted by men only.

No, my point is that those women in the role of Queen Mother who sinned similarly against God were removed from their status. My point is that there was a “status” for the Queen Mother that was recognized as part of the Kingly dynasty of Israel.

The fact that God recognized it in judgment doesn’t legitimize it as a divinely appointed position.

 

[apophasis]

"From now on all generations will call me blessed, for THE MIGHTY ONE HAS DONE GREAT THINGS FOR ME and holy is his name. {Luke 1:48-49}

Those great things (plural) Mary mentions by the stroke of Luke’s infallible pen would include her Perpetual Virginity, Divine Motherhood, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Coronation. God is the one who exalted her above all other human creatures. The Church has acknowledged our Lord’s partiality shown to his Mother.

And yet the church can provide no proof of God Himself exalting her as you describe, or “our Lord’s partiality” shown to her in ways asserted only by men.