Mother mary's perpetual virginity

[Trebor135]

Cat Herder–I did not mean to imply that the Christians considered themselves obliged to keep the Sabbath before 70 AD. Early followers of Jesus nonetheless had some involvement with the Temple and other synagogues:

From Acts chapter 2:

[46] And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,
[47] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

From Acts chapter 3:

[1] Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

From Acts chapter 13:

[14] but they passed on from Perga and came to Antioch of Pisid’ia. And on the sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.
[15] After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.”
[16a] So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said:

To bring this discussion back on topic: the point I am seeking to make is that the use of “for ever” in Ezekiel 43:4-7 does not by absolute necessity refer to the perpetually-existent Church of the Second Covenant. After all, despite the use of the word “for ever” in Exodus 31:13-17, the apostles and elders saw no problem setting aside the Sabbath as necessary for Gentile converts.

 

[hawkeye125646]

Intriguing exegesis. A few questions:

1. Ezekiel 43:4-7 (RSV)

[4] As the glory of the LORD entered the temple by the gate facing east,
[5] the Spirit lifted me up, and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the temple.
[6] While the man was standing beside me, I heard one speaking to me out of the temple;
[7] and he said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel for ever. And the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they, nor their kings, by their harlotry, and by the dead bodies of their kings,

The use of the term “for ever” in the Old Testament does not necessarily imply “from now until the end of time”, but in some cases “for a very long period”.

a) From Genesis chapter 13:

[14] The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
[15] for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.”

The Israelites have not dwelt in and maintained control over the Promised Land for all of the past three to four thousand years. Christians, apart from the John Hagee types, do not consider to be an article of faith the notion that the modern state of Israel constitutes a successor to the kingdom of David enjoying the full and unwavering support of God and therefore demanding ours.

b) From Exodus chapter 31:

[13] “Say to the people of Israel, `You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.
[14] You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
[15] Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.
[16] Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant.
[17] It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’”

God’s New Covenant people, the successor to the Israelite nation, have not kept the Sabbath since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It was the Seventh-Day Adventists, an American sect, who revived the practice in the nineteenth century.

Can we be sure that “for ever” meant “from now until the end of time” rather than “for a very long period”?

1. Ezekiel 44:1-3 (RSV)

[1] Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut.
[2] And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.
[3] Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.”

Can we be certain that “the LORD, the God of Israel,” in v. 2 is the same as “the prince” in v. 3?

1. Did the Early Church Fathers point to the texts you cite in support of St. Mary’s perpetual virginity? Did these esteemed men interpret the passages in the same fashion?

Here are some for your reading… May God bless you!

Origen The Book [the Protoevangelium] (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
Jerome (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
Didymus the Blind " (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])
Pope Siricius I (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
Leporius (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria [A.D. 430]).

In these excerpts they tell that Mary was ever Virgin…Would you like other questions, in regards to our beloved mother Mary? Here’s is another way you can look at our honouring of Mary… Jesus was the perfect Jew… He followed ALL THE LAWS… One such law was to honour thy Mother and Father… Our job, as members of the New and everlasting covenant is to imitate the way of Jesus, so, we too have to honour our blessed lady Mary!

 

[hawkeye125646]

Its sad that some even given all the Scriptural truth deny the fact. Like Della said it’s as if people want to fit God in their own little box. The proof is there, Mary is ever Virgin!

Well. As members of the Church militant, we can provide the truth, then pray, so that the Church Victorious, will bring forth the fruits of our labours… Sooner or later, all christians will come home to the one true, Holy, Catholic, Apolostolic faith as Jesus commanded. Have patience and know that they will, sooner or later, be apart of the Wedding Banquet Feast!

 

[Trebor135]

Here are some for your reading… May God bless you!

Origen The Book [the Protoevangelium] (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
Jerome (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
Didymus the Blind " (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])
Pope Siricius I (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
Leporius (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria [A.D. 430]).

In these excerpts they tell that Mary was ever Virgin…

Thanks for that handy list.

I know that St. Mary’s perpetual virginity was a common belief of the early church. My question specifically pertained to whether those saints, martyrs, confessors, and doctors referred to the same texts as Cat Herder/took similar interpretations from them in support of the doctrine.

Would you like other questions, in regards to our beloved mother Mary?

When can I meet her? Maybe she can offer this youth some ideas on what vocation and career to pursue…

Here’s is another way you can look at our honouring of Mary… Jesus was the perfect Jew… He followed ALL THE LAWS… One such law was to honour thy Mother and Father… Our job, as members of the New and everlasting covenant is to imitate the way of Jesus, so, we too have to honour our blessed lady Mary!

Amen. I have a great love for St. Mary and ask for her intercession frequently. The questions posed to Cat Herder were intended to help with refining his/her argumentation vis-à-vis a much-contested doctrine regarding our spiritual mother.

St. Mary, pray for us!

 

[stewstew03]

…The questions posed to Cat Herder were intended to help with refining his/her argumentation vis-à-vis a much-contested doctrine regarding our spiritual mother.

Note: CatHerder = male

 

[Della]

Even some Catholic translations have “favored one” or “highly favored one.” It’s a distinction without a difference.

I would point out that this translation appearing in some Catholic versions does not mean it is a good translation. It only means it is not contrary to the revelation of Christ given to his Church. So, it’s not an endorsement, but rather simply what it is–a weak translation–one, as I fully believe, was not only not necessary when the stronger, better speaks more fully to the reality, but also because it has been used to weaken the faith of believers.

 

[Trebor135]

Note: CatHerder = male

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[stewstew03]

I would point out that this translation appearing in some Catholic versions does not mean it is a good translation. It only means it is not contrary to the revelation of Christ given to his Church. So, it’s not an endorsement, but rather simply what it is–a weak translation–one, as I fully believe, was not only not necessary when the stronger, better speaks more fully to the reality, but also because it has been used to weaken the faith of believers.

You might want to alert the Vatican, then. The translation on their website has the following translation:

And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

I don’t concede your point that the Vatican’s translation (or the USCCB’s) weakens the faith of believers. I understand you prefer “full of grace” (as do others on CAF) but I have no problem with highly favored - and apparently I’m in good company…

Tell me, Della - if an angel appeared to you and greeted you as being highly favored among believers, would you be disappointed because the angel did not greet you as being “full of grace?” Would you feel like you had received some sort of consolation prize? Is the state of being “highly favored by God” somehow inferior to being “full of God’s grace?” How much grace has God bestowed on Mary if she is only highly favored? Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Mary is only highly favored, do you take that to mean that God is stingy with His grace?

 

[Della]

You might want to alert the Vatican, then. The translation on their website has the following translation:

I don’t concede your point that the Vatican’s translation (or the USCCB’s) weakens the faith of believers. I understand you prefer “full of grace” (as do others on CAF) but I have no problem with highly favored - and apparently I’m in good company…

Tell me, Della - if an angel appeared to you and greeted you as being highly favored among believers, would you be disappointed because the angel did not greet you as being “full of grace?” Would you feel like you had received some sort of consolation prize? Is the state of being “highly favored by God” somehow inferior to being “full of God’s grace?” How much grace has God bestowed on Mary if she is only highly favored? Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Mary is only highly favored, do you take that to mean that God is stingy with His grace?

Again, it doesn’t matter if it’s approved or whose website it’s on. The Church does not give is approbation to translations, it only deems them contrary or not contrary to revealed truth. Period, nothing more.

And this isn’t about me, it’s about proper teaching regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. The words “full of grace” support this better than “highly favored one”. This a simple fact that I will not argue, nor do I answer sophistries meant to cloud the issue.

 

[stewstew03]

Again, it doesn’t matter if it’s approved or whose website it’s on. The Church does not give is approbation to translations, it only deems them contrary or not contrary to revealed truth. Period, nothing more.

And this isn’t about me, it’s about proper teaching regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. The words “full of grace” support this better than “highly favored one”. This a simple fact that I will not argue, nor do I answer sophistries meant to cloud the issue.

But apparently you have no problem insulting someone without actually refuting his argument.

If “highly favored” is not contrary to revealed truth, then it is not contrary to “full of grace,” and therefore does not weaken the faith of believers, which was my point all along.

 

[Della]

But apparently you have no problem insulting someone without actually refuting his argument.

I meant no insult, but I do not answer emotionally loaded hypothethical questions. I assume you didn’t realize you’d asked such a question.

If “highly favored” is not contrary to revealed truth, then it is not contrary to “full of grace,” and therefore does not weaken the faith of believers, which was my point all along.

This is not logical. Besides, I never claimed “highly favored” is contrary to anything, so again, you’re arguing using a sophistry. Something can be acceptable but it may not be the best. And many a believer has had his faith weakened by poor translations. Newer translations are returning to “full of grace” because of the misunderstanding “highly favored” engendered.

 

[stewstew03]

I meant no insult, but I do not answer emotionally loaded hypothethical questions. I assume you didn’t realize you’d asked such a question.

Do you understand that “sophistry” is a pejorative term…?
Besides, I was not trying to deceive you or distract you in any way - I was being rhetorical.

This is not logical. Besides, I never claimed “highly favored” is contrary to anything, so again, you’re arguing using a sophistry. Something can be acceptable but it may not be the best. And many a believer has had his faith weakened by poor translations. Newer translations are returning to “full of grace” because of the misunderstanding “highly favored” engendered.

It’s perfectly logical.

You said (paraphrasing):

1. The use of “highly favored” diminishes Mary’s standing;
2. The use of “highly favored” is an attempt to cast doubt on the immaculate conception;
3. The use of “highly favored” weakens the faith of believers.

I disagree with each of these points you make. Here is the logic:

Being “highly favored” by God does not place someone in an inferior position to someone who is “full” of God’s grace; therefore, calling Mary “highly favored” does not diminish her standing. You have not refuted this point, except to say that you disagree, so it appears we’re not advancing the ball toward either goalpost.

The Vatican communicates truth to believers and aims to strengthen the faith of believers. One medium the Vatican uses to communicate truth and strengthen the faith of believers is their website. The Vatican website uses the translation “highly favored.” Therefore, I see no reason to believe that use of the term “highly favored” is an attempt to cast doubt on the truth about Mary or weaken the faith of believers.

We both believe the Immaculate Conception is revealed truth. Some Catholic translations (including those found on the Vatican and USCCB sites) use “highly favored” rather than “full of grace.” As you later acknowledged, use of this phrase is not contrary to the revelation of Christ given to His Church. Truth is absolute, not relative. If “highly favored” is not contrary to revealed truth, then it is akin to revealed truth. If it is akin to revealed truth, then it is not contrary to “full of grace.” If it is not contrary to “full of grace” then it does not weaken the faith of believers.

Given that I took more time than I wanted to explain my logic to you, and all I have received in return is the charge that my argument is “deceptive” and “specious,” perhaps you can take some time to explain how my argument is illogical, deceptive, and specious…?

POSTSCRIPT
Have you considered that those who want to argue “highly favored” is substantively different than “full of grace” are employing sophistry? It seems that would be the appropriate response to someone like Matt Slick, for example, who tries to split hairs on the translation of “kexaritomena” in a desperate attempt to diminish Mary’s standing.

 

[hawkeye125646]

Thanks for that handy list.

I know that St. Mary’s perpetual virginity was a common belief of the early church. My question specifically pertained to whether those saints, martyrs, confessors, and doctors referred to the same texts as Cat Herder/took similar interpretations from them in support of the doctrine.

When can I meet her? Maybe she can offer this youth some ideas on what vocation and career to pursue…

Amen. I have a great love for St. Mary and ask for her intercession frequently. The questions posed to Cat Herder were intended to help with refining his/her argumentation vis-à-vis a much-contested doctrine regarding our spiritual mother.

St. Mary, pray for us!

Thank you for the clarification…To be honest, what I always like to do, when debating with Protestants is to have 3 or 4 of them, from different denominations, who would show that they all have different beliefs Sometimes, they will see that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical…We NEED to have 1 authority, to bind and loose all decisions for the universal church, established by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! May God bless you!

 

[Rocinran]

I don’t know why all this is important to our lives as Christians. Mary was our Lords mother and was blessed to have such an honor and I mean no disrespect to her, but, she gets to Heaven the same way we do. By the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I always thought that Jesus had half brothers in the flesh… one being James. I believe there were others. But, this conversation reminds me of the question “How many Angels can you put on a pin head?”
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
John 3: 16 says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes (trust in and relies on) in Him shall not perish but have Everlasting Life.
I am happy and full of joy that I am saved by His wonderful Grace and even though I can never live up to His standard. “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God!”
All I can do is trust and obey. God is Spirit and those that are led by the Spirit are the Children of God.
So, that being said…I suppose Mary is one of God’s Children.
Remember that it was Jesus that gave His life for us…Not Mary.

 

[Trebor135]

I don’t know why all this is important to our lives as Christians. Mary was our Lords mother and was blessed to have such an honor and I mean no disrespect to her, but, she gets to Heaven the same way we do. By the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Have you understood someone in this thread to have stated or implied that St. Mary could or did save herself?

I always thought that Jesus had half brothers in the flesh… one being James. I believe there were others. But, this conversation reminds me of the question “How many Angels can you put on a pin head?”

Well, the doctrine has a basis in Judaism, so the Israelite people into which Jesus was born would have seen the issue as having some weight.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
John 3: 16 says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes (trust in and relies on) in Him shall not perish but have Everlasting Life.

How do these passages undermine the doctrine of St. Mary’s perpetual virginity?

I am happy and full of joy that I am saved by His wonderful Grace and even though I can never live up to His standard. “For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God!”
All I can do is trust and obey. God is Spirit and those that are led by the Spirit are the Children of God.
So, that being said…I suppose Mary is one of God’s Children.
Remember that it was Jesus that gave His life for us…Not Mary.

Have you understood someone in this discussion to have stated or implied that (1) “[we are not] saved by His wonderful grace”, (2) “those that are led by the Spirit are [not] the Children of God”, or (3) “it was [not] Jesus that gave His life for us…[But] Mary”?

The founders of Protestantism accepted St. Mary’s perpetual virginity, and did not consider the doctrine to be in conflict with sola Dio gloria. Luther and Calvin (and Zwingli?) were definitely right in this area.

 

[kirkdickinson]

Ezek. 44:1 . Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

You are taking this verse out of context.

1Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

Verse 3 says he shall sit in it and eat bread before the Lord, he shall enter and exit by the same gate.

This Cannot be Mary’s womb.

 

[wes144]

It is absolutely true and certain that Mary was favored above all women by conceiving, caring, bearing, loving and training her Son, the Son of God.

There is no Scripture or reason that I see that would make her any less holy by having other children through Joseph. Sex is not sinful. It is ordained of God.

Mary is NOT the Mother of God! She is the mother of Jesus’ human body. If Mary truly was the Mother of God- she would be the Source and Creator of God! She is NOT!

She is a daughter of God, that was also godly, but not sinless! In two passages Jesus, while respecting His mother, put her and his siblings on the same plane as anyone that obeys the Word of God. Matthew 12:46 ¶ While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Matthew 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

Mary said herself, “God, my Savior”. If she didn’t need a Savior, she would not have said that. “All have sinned {including Mary} and come short of the Glory of God.” Romans 3:23

It was not necessary that Mary be sinless to bear the Son of God. She was consecrated and blessed. Mary is NOT to be worshiped! Jesus told the devil, "Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

There are several great reasons for Jesus to give the care of His mother to John the Apostle rather than the other boys in her family, whether step or blood brothers of Jesus.
Jesus saw that John was the most loving disciple and one that would take care of Mary as if she were his own mother. John was the only one of Jesus’ brothers that was at the crucifixion. John was the only one of the boys to that point that had been a part of His ministry. John would outlive the brothers of Jesus and Mary.

 

[stewstew03]

You are taking this verse out of context.

1Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

Verse 3 says he shall sit in it and eat bread before the Lord, he shall enter and exit by the same gate.

This Cannot be Mary’s womb.

Only if you take verse 3 to literally mean a Prince is eating some bread before the God of Israel…

I mean, seriously kirk, why not just say - “wait, it can’t be Mary’s womb because it talks about a gate on the front porch of some sanctuary!!”

 

[Cat_Herder]

You are taking this verse out of context.

1Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

Verse 3 says he shall sit in it and eat bread before the Lord, he shall enter and exit by the same gate.

This Cannot be Mary’s womb.

Then what the heck is it? The Temple in question is one that will stand forever. (Ez. 37:28). That rules out both Herod’s temple and any future earthly temple. The temple must be one that is made of living stones, i.e. people. Among all people, only Mary fits the prophecy.This is all thoroughly biblical.

 

[stewstew03]

It is absolutely true and certain that Mary was favored above all women by conceiving, caring, bearing, loving and training her Son, the Son of God.

There is no Scripture or reason that I see that would make her any less holy by having other children through Joseph. Sex is not sinful. It is ordained of God.

Mary is NOT the Mother of God! She is the mother of Jesus’ human body. If Mary truly was the Mother of God- she would be the Source and Creator of God! She is NOT!

There were lots of issues with your post, but I’ll just pick this one… when we (Catholics) proclaim Mary as the Mother of God we mean that she carried her divine Son in her womb (thus, she’s the Mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - who is a member of the Holy Trinity).

The Church doesn’t teach that Mary is some sort of goddess.