perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Peter_J]

**Look, as much as I understand (maybe even accept) the “Protestants disagree, who’s right?” argument, **I do not appreciate your sarcastic tone. It may be entertaining to you and some people here, but it makes it much harder for potential converts like me to appreciate Catholic apologetics. Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

I can’t comment on most of this post, because I haven’t read the post to which you’re responding … but I’m glad of your understanding/acceptance of the “Protestants disagree, who’s right?” argument. After all, the same kind of argument is employed by protestants, e.g. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=846400

 

[Peter_J]

Indeed, but to be fair, some of his views I am happy that the majority of Lutherans reject. Dude was wrong about some things, there I said it. Do I need to turn in my L card?

Well obviously you do, if you’ve rejected the dogma of Martinal Infallibility.

 

[Irishgal49]

The trouble one runs into here, is that if Jesus had had biological siblings, there would have been no need for Him to give the care of Mary to the Apostle John. The next oldest brother would have taken on that role.

I think about that too. But I have heard that was a spiritual act more than a literal act. He as symbolically giving her to the Church as our mother.

When I was studying the genealogy of my family I was shocked to see how a family member would have 8 or more children and how only 1 or 2 might live to adulthood. Also in a time where there were no phones, public transportation, etc, his siblings could be living quite a distance away and were not there at the cross. So that is a good point but in an of itself doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

I do agree with a poster that the fact that James being the head of the Jerusalem Church does seem to add to the credibility that he may be Jesus half-brother. I guess I don’t see how her being intimate with her husband lessens her in the eyes of others. I think the idea of wanting to see her in a better light or that sex somehow lowers her purity is rather sad. It would never change her in my eyes.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I think about that too. But I have heard that was a spiritual act more than a literal act. He as symbolically giving her to the Church as our mother.

When I was studying the genealogy of my family I was shocked to see how a family member would have 8 or more children and how only 1 or 2 might live to adulthood. Also in a time where there were no phones, public transportation, etc, his siblings could be living quite a distance away and were not there at the cross. So that is a good point but in an of itself doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

I do agree with a poster that the fact that James being the head of the Jerusalem Church does seem to add to the credibility that he may be Jesus half-brother. I guess I don’t see how her being intimate with her husband lessens her in the eyes of others. I think the idea of wanting to see her in a better light or that sex somehow lowers her purity is rather sad. It would never change her in my eyes.

My father, a Southern Baptist, asked me once if the PV of Mary really influenced the path to salvation. I never really thought about it until he brought it up.

It doesn’t. The virgin birth of Christ surely does, but whether she was a forever virgin does not add to or subtract from our salvation in Christ.

We, non Catholics and Catholics, argue over the matter but it really has no weight on our salvation. That is why I am in the middle with it. I believe Mary to be the highest among the saints and the Mother of God. Whether she had children after Christ does not lower her value in the world.

:twocents:

 

[JonNC]

Of course you are allowed to believe that

• even promote it

In fact - that is exactly the fruit of Protestantism

You [or whomever your current pastor - spiritual Guru is] are your own Pope -

This makes you answerable only to you - and any like minded Christians in your community -

That is - until of course you disagree - then one of you can move along - finding other like minded Christians

or - finding none - start your own Church …

Because - Scripture - and my interpretation is all I need to know all the Truth necessary

Strawman, or a canard. take your pick.

For a Lutheran (no idea about protestants), the Perpetual Virginity is adiaphoron. In like manner a Catholic is free to believe that the Blessed Virgin was assumed either before she died, or after her death. Apparently, a Catholic is his or her own pope on the matter. Or, a Catholic can move on to an Old Catholic Church, or the PNCC, or even SSPX.

On matters of doctrine, however, Lutherans are held to the teachings of the Confessions.
Further, all our pastors are bound to the doctrine of the Confessions, as well. So, no Lutheran is “his or her own pope”, and our pastors are neither popes nor gurus.

Jon

 

[LivingWaters7]

As written in his book St. Mary in the Orthodox Concept, Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty clarifies that the virginity of the Theotokos is not a matter of her personal life, but rather in conformity with the prophetic sayings of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah and the portion of Ezekiel about the gate that the Lord entered that shall remain closed to all. This is the view of the Orthodox Church, and is reflected in our hymns and praises from all traditions since time immemorial. It was affirmed before even the councils, such as in the Creed of St. Hippolytus (c.215 AD), which made belief in the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Virgin Mary a required tenet of Christian belief with the question “Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary?” It is also attested to as the universal belief of the Orthodox Church in other early writings, such as those of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ephrem the Syrian, and St. Basil. Put simply, the belief that the Theotokos was not always virgin was not acceptable to the apostolic church, and continues to not be acceptable to the apostolic church, and will always be not acceptable to the apostolic church, regardless of which particular communion you think fits that description. That should tell you something, seeing how many other things Catholic, Orthodox, and traditionalist Protestants argue about regarding the history and belief of the Church.

Again, it is really missing much of the significance of St. Mary’s virginity to only look at things in light of the use of one word in an English translation of the New Testament, since (at least for Orthodox) it is really connected to so many of the prophetic settings and symbology found in the OT that speaks of the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. See, for instance, this Coptic hymn that makes clear the connection between the patriarch Moses and the Theotokos and the virginal birth of Jesus Christ: “The burning bush” (sung in English, with English subtitles for some reason)

Thanks, I appreciate this! The prophetic context seems to be lost by many that critique doctrines surrounding Mary’s life.

 

[Randy_Carson]

SUMMARY OF THE CATHOLIC ARGUMENT SO FAR

1. An authoritative, infallible Church teaches that Mary remained ever-virgin.
2. The scriptures provide no definitive evidence that Mary had other children; to the contrary, careful analysis of the authors’ choice of words and phrases - especially in their original languages - suggests that efforts were made to avoid giving the appearance that Mary had other children.
3. The scriptures provide no definitive condemnation of perpetual virginity nor a requirement for sexual union within marriage.
4. Jesus commends His mother to John from the cross rather than to his “brothers”.
5. The Early Church Fathers taught unanimously that Mary remained ever-virgin.
6. The earliest discussion of the subject suggests that the novelty was the idea that Mary had NOT remained a virgin - not the other way around. The novelty was swiftly condemned by one of the greatest saints of the time.
7. The earliest Protestant Reformers held that Mary remained perpetually virgin.
8. No credible evidence of the existence of these “brothers and sisters” or their progeny exists.

SUMMARY OF THE PROTESTANT ARGUMENT SO FAR

1. Protestant translations of the Bible say that Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters”.
2. I am not comfortable with or disagree with the Catholic position because this is not what I grew up with; therefore, I refuse to believe it.

If I have missed any important points for either side, please advise.

 

[aidanbradypop]

SUMMARY OF THE CATHOLIC ARGUMENT SO FAR

1. An authoritative, infallible Church teaches that Mary remained ever-virgin.

No problem with this.

1. The scriptures provide no definitive evidence that Mary had other children; to the contrary, careful analysis of the authors’ choice of words and phrases - especially in their original languages - suggests that efforts were made to avoid giving the appearance that Mary had other children.
2. The scriptures provide no definitive condemnation of perpetual virginity nor a requirement for sexual union within marriage.

Or these

1. The Early Church Fathers taught unanimously that Mary remained ever-virgin.

Not sure if ALL did but yet the majority from my studies.

1. The earliest discussion of the subject suggests that the novelty was the idea that Mary had NOT remained a virgin - not the other way around. The novelty was swiftly condemned by one of the greatest saints of the time.

No issue here.

1. The earliest Protestant Reformers held that Mary remained perpetually virgin.

This only holds water if they were infalliable

1. No credible evidence of the existence of these “brothers and sisters” or their progeny exists.

Debatable but I tend to agree more with you

SUMMARY OF THE PROTESTANT ARGUMENT SO FAR

Non Catholic would probably fit better here

1. The English translation of the Bible says that Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters”.

Debatable on both sides.

1. I am not comfortable with or disagree with the Catholic position because this is not what I grew up with; therefore, I refuse to believe it.

No different than how a cradle Catholic grew up believing in the PV.

 

[pocohombre]

We live in a jaded age.

All ages are "jaded’. I have heard all too often that we are sex driven today and hence just can’t imagine one choosing perpetual virginity. There is nothing new under the sun. All ages have the challenge of rightly dividing truth of virginity, marriage and sex and just what is “pure”. Would you rather have us believe sex is dirty, and marriage second class in the church, as some did/do?

So of course we would run this old rag through the ringer again, long after great minds have already discussed, researched, and dismissed it.

That it happens again and again, a challenge by theologians, tells me something also. Reminds me of of VHS format winning over Beta format in the 80’s , due to better marketing though an inferior product. Winning is relative, so far. "Winning" does not authenticate superior truth.

We are enlightened.
So of course we cannot see the beauty of Mary’s life, the amazing miracle of Christ’s birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Indeed one must be enlightened to see the truth in it all, whether she was perpetual virgin. The Lord must sift thru scripture and tradition for us to paint the proper picture.

We are logical and scientific.
So we spend our time “debunking myths” such as the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother and ignore other more recent lies that lead our minds away from God…

The Lord is logical and not contrary to his laws, and He convinces all aspects of our nature, including intellect, of the truth of the matter. And He does that for each generation, for He loves when we rely on Him to confirm to us what He has confirmed to those who gloriously went before us. He loves, even requires, authentication of all hand-me-downs.

What is the outcome in believing in the perpetual virginity of Our Lady? What are the fruits of these beliefs?

Well, it is the foundation for the divisive Immaculate Conception , not to mention the Assumption, co-redemptrix, Queen of heaven, the Rosary and an almost cult like following of her. That is her veneration and intercession is seen by many to be too much, unprecedented in old and new testament. Even Luther stated that Catholics prefer NOT to go to the Father or Jesus directly cause they were strict but Mary was easier to approach… All of this has the foundation of her perpetual virginity.

What is the outcome in believing she had other children,

Same outcome as believing David slayed Goliath or Moses parted the Red Sea, or Joseph rose from a dungeon to chief administrator of Egypt, etc., etc… Real people, doing amazing things thru God. Some one you can identify with because they had human frailties like ourselves and yet, and yet, were touched by God to do something totally marvelous in Him, if even in a smaller way for us. We are moved when God became like us (perfect but still flesh !) We are likewise moved when we, imperfect flesh, can do anything to please God thru faith.

Why is there such a need to question this longheld belief,

Again, He loves, even requires, authentication of all hand-me-downs.. Each generation must do so and we are not the first to question this.Perhaps you feel that since it won out whenever challenged (think Helvidius) thru the last two thousand years, even gained momentum, that it must be right.This is just another practice, doctrine that developed AND claims to be apostolic.Sorry, but others see apostolic evidence as 'flimsy", and might makes right ? It is also interesting that these Marion doctrines were solidified around the time infallibility was also dogmatized.

I can see the fruits of a society which questions the purity of The Holy Family, but does not question the purity of their own minds and their flimsy sources of “belief”.

This is what I mean. It’s the idea that Mary was pure by what she does or doesn’t do, in contrast to the purity she (we) had (have) thru faith Christ, apart from our own actions. The idea that one is more pure for not having children or more pure for not having relations with a husband is based on “flimsy” spirit and truth.

 

[JonNC]

Sure, he did. And, he’s allowed that. Just as I am allowed to believe Mary had other kids. Now,this is my personal view, as I am not an offical spokesman for the LCMS. But, I do believe it is a"Scripture says" issue, since the Bible is my final authority. Mary demonstrated that she was a Torah observant Jew, so, as such, she would have followed one of God’s earliest commands of “Be fruitful and multiply”.

You are indeed permitted, and I support your right, to believe that the Blessed Virgin had other children, but that is clearly not the majority view among the Reformers, either the first or second generation, nor of the great theologians of our communion, regardless of synod. In fact, to my knowledge, the position of the Reformers was unanimous.

Be it Luther, Chemnitz, Pelikan, Pieper or Walther, the overwhelming position of orthodox Lutheranism is that she was ever-virgin, and it is believed so from the position of scripture and tradition. In fact, Luther, and later Walther, both claim it to be beyond question!

From the Formula of Concord:

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

Chemnitz and his fellow Reformers were not casual about this in putting it in the confessions. They not only believed in her perpetual virginity, they assumed it such as to include it in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. It was not a trifle matter.
“Ever-Virgin” is also the wording in the Latin version of the Smalcald articles.

As for scripture’s support for or denial of Mary having other children, Luther responds:
“The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, ‘Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.’ Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too, it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew says, ‘She was found to be with child before they came together,’ it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him.”

As I said, I will defend a Lutheran’s right and privilege to believe that the Blessed Virgin had other children, but considering the history of the Church Catholic, including that of the Lutheran tradition within that Church Catholic, I frankly see no reason to hold such a position.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Well obviously you do, if you’ve rejected the dogma of Martinal Infallibility.

Luther was only infallible when he was sitting on his chair. Alas… we didn’t keep good notes on the position of his nether-regions when he spoke so we have much debate.

 

[David_Zampino]

You are indeed permitted, and I support your right, to believe that the Blessed Virgin had other children, but that is clearly not the majority view among the Reformers, either the first or second generation, nor of the great theologians of our communion, regardless of synod. In fact, to my knowledge, the position of the Reformers was unanimous.

As I said, I will defend a Lutheran’s right and privilege to believe that the Blessed Virgin had other children, but considering the history of the Church Catholic, including that of the Lutheran tradition within that Church Catholic, I frankly see no reason to hold such a position.

Jon

Jon,

I think that this is a position you would find among many Anglicans as well.

 

[benjohnson]

As a Lutheran, I trust that Mary was ever-virgin as a pious belief that in and of itself doesn’t effect salvation.

I would be concerned for my fellow Christians that the logic of their decision to not believe this may be leading to a darker path. especially if they are angry about it.

…

An aside:

Would it not be possible to have both - holy virginity and fruitful children?

My theory/argument would be that all things are possible in God - that to keep Mary a virgin despite giving birth is no more of a challenge than forgiving our own sin.

 

[pocohombre]

Indeed, but to be fair, some of his views I am happy that the majority of Lutherans reject. Dude was wrong about some things, there I said it. Do I need to turn in my L card?

Right, do we follow Christ or a Church ? Do we follow Christ that has a church or a church that has Christ ? Did Peter follow Christ because he was the Son of God primarily or because He was a good Jew, out of the tribe of Judah ? Did Peter go along with Jewish leaders to be truly Jewish ?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

As a Lutheran, I trust that Mary was ever-virgin as a pious belief that in and of itself doesn’t effect salvation.

I would be concerned for my fellow Christians that the logic of their decision to not believe this may be leading to a darker path. especially if they are angry about it.

…

An aside:

Would it not be possible to have both - holy virginity and fruitful children?

My theory/argument would be that all things are possible in God - that to keep Mary a virgin despite giving birth is no more of a challenge than forgiving our own sin.

Indeed. I accept the traditional Lutheran, and Christian understanding that Mary was PV. Personally though it doesn’t matter all that much to me either way.

I was having a lively debate with my pope (pastor) and he and I agreed to disagree.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I think that this is a position you would find among many Anglicans as well.

Probably so, at least historically. There is also the problem, for both Lutherans and Anglicans here in America, of the influence of protestants of the Reformed and later groupings. I suspect in Europe among Lutherans one would find a firmer tie to the Reformers in this regard, but perhaps others know better.

I meant to add this link in my previous post.

cyberbrethren.com/2010/09/25/why-did-martin-luther-c-f-w-walther-and-most-every-other-orthodox-lutheran-theologian-believe-the-blessed-virgin-mary-remained-always-a-virgin/

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Right, do we follow Christ or a Church ?

Neither. We are the Church that follows Christ.

Some of us more closely than others, of course, but that’s another matter.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

aidanbradypop

Thank you for presenting thoughtful questions/ opinions even when the backlash can be difficult.

I suspect theological studies have traced the evolution of the belief in Mary, ever Virgin or not. Maybe someone will research this topic more clearly. I am particularly interested in how Reformed Protestants and Methodists explain how their founding fathers supported the belief in perpetual virginity of Mary.

Lutherans and Anglicans have a long history of Marion devotion; one need only look inside our churches to see that the “holy and most blessed Virgin” [per Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue] is honored and revered. But like other mysteries Lutherans are unable to fully explain, the role of Mary. I’m sure that there are Lutheran clergy who may also doubt Mary’s perpetual virginity but our teachings refer to Our Lady as the foremost of all saints who worships Christ and prays for the Church.

 

[YADA]

Well said. This kind of thing from YADA, which others have done also, is so unattractive to me; not because it makes me defensive—it doesn’t—but because it makes me sit back and wonder where Christ is in all this…or if we’re just like any other group of squabbling people who might as well be arguing politics or sports teams.

Happy Near Year to all! Let’s grow up this year, eh?

Like people who come to a Catholic forum and tell Catholics that they are wrong in this belief - offer opinions and provably false history - ignore the post that prove their history is false or through some other idea/topic … then say - its not important to my - I just disagree …

Oh yes - they quote the scriptures and then tell us we don’t interpret it properly - because Catholics don;t read the scriptures but only listen to that fallible man the Pope or the fallible Magisterium … and if we would just read the scriptures and listen to their interpretation then we would get to know Jesus better …

and oh yes - as the OP who said when they started this thread - They have always had a problem with the perpetual virginity of Mary … but now - this many posts later - it just does not matter really - they can go either way - not a matter that impacts Salvation … and aren’t some of the Catholics ‘sarcastic and mean’ in their posts … where is Jesus in that …

So I ask you - you admit now - its your opinion that Jesus had siblings - that it does not matter to you … So - why come here and start the conversation stating how wrong for others to hold a different belief [be it opinion, truth]… then get upset when you don’t sway people to your side? …

And then get upset when someone points out - which is also factual - that Protestantism leads to this type of disunity … in fact - the result of the Scripture Authority with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - makes each reader their own Pope to decide what is truth and what is not - … and in Protestantism - like minded people form communities around those similar beliefs … if beliefs change or disunity enters into the community - someone leaves to create a new community or search for one that shares that like mindedness … their is no authority to whom to appeal …

You may not have appreciated the humorous approach - but what can you expect when you get a thread that says - its my opinion and I have that right …

So I will point out - that arguments now to the contrary:
It must be important for you to want to hold onto your views so strongly against all of the history and evidence presented - and come to a forum where people will hold a distinctly opposite belief - to try to argue and persuade your position to them …

FYI - one poster told me to read my bible … I do read my bible - regularly - and I have a Masters in Theology … was that suggestion insulting - yes … I can and do freely interpret the scriptures for my self - I have studied history - read the early church fathers and the writings of Catholics and Protestants and just so you know - many of my scripture professors were not Catholic - a Lutheran and Presbyterian were two of my most memorable Profs

Why does it matter if Mary was perpetually virgin or not? … the Truth … that is why it matters … The Truth always matters … Our Lord is not the Lord of confusion, disunity and falsehoods … Our Lord is the author of Truth - He founded One church, One faith, He prayed and sweat blood for us - His People - His Church to be One as He and the Father are One … that is why it matters - not any individual person’s opinion or interpretation

 

[AbideWithMe]

Like people who come to a Catholic forum and tell Catholics that they are wrong in this belief - offer opinions and provably false history - ignore the post that prove their history is false or through some other idea/topic … then say - its not important to my - I just disagree …

Oh yes - they quote the scriptures and then tell us we don’t interpret it properly - because Catholics don;t read the scriptures but only listen to that fallible man the Pope or the fallible Magisterium … and if we would just read the scriptures and listen to their interpretation then we would get to know Jesus better …

and oh yes - as the OP who said when they started this thread - They have always had a problem with the perpetual virginity of Mary … but now - this many posts later - it just does not matter really - they can go either way - not a matter that impacts Salvation … and aren’t some of the Catholics ‘sarcastic and mean’ in their posts … where is Jesus in that …

So I ask you - you admit now - its your opinion that Jesus had siblings - that it does not matter to you … So - why come here and start the conversation stating how wrong for others to hold a different belief [be it opinion, truth]… then get upset when you don’t sway people to your side? …

And then get upset when someone points out - which is also factual - that Protestantism leads to this type of disunity … in fact - the result of the Scripture Authority with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - makes each reader their own Pope to decide what is truth and what is not - … and in Protestantism - like minded people form communities around those similar beliefs … if beliefs change or disunity enters into the community - someone leaves to create a new community or search for one that shares that like mindedness … their is no authority to whom to appeal …

You may not have appreciated the humorous approach - but what can you expect when you get a thread that says - its my opinion and I have that right …

So I will point out - that arguments now to the contrary:
It must be important for you to want to hold onto your views so strongly against all of the history and evidence presented - and come to a forum where people will hold a distinctly opposite belief - to try to argue and persuade your position to them …

FYI - one poster told me to read my bible … I do read my bible - regularly - and I have a Masters in Theology … was that suggestion insulting - yes … I can and do freely interpret the scriptures for my self - I have studied history - read the early church fathers and the writings of Catholics and Protestants [and just so you know - many of my scripture professors were not Catholic - a Lutheran and Presbyterian were two of my most memorable Profs

Why does it matter if Mary was perpetually virgin or not? … the Truth … that is why it matters … The Truth always matters … Our Lord is not the Lord of confusion, disunity and falsehoods … Our Lord is the author of Truth - He founded One church, One faith, He prayed and sweat blood for us - His People - His Church to be One as He and the Father are One … that is why it matters - not any individual person’s opinion or interpretation

Huh?

That was my first post on this thread, YADA. I didn’t say whether I believed Jesus had siblings or not.
[/quote]