Perpetual virginity

[Ignatius33]

Not unanimous, Tertullian for one was against it (way before Augustine and Jerome, and before his Montanist period).

It’s also important to reflect on what the THEOLOGICAL meaning of this teaching is (not just the biological).

Ok, virtually unanimous. If you have the passage from Tertullian handy, could your provide it (or at least let me know what work it comes from; I’d be interested in reading it)? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ok, virtually unanimous. If you have the passage from Tertullian handy, could your provide it (or at least let me know what work it comes from; I’d be interested in reading it)? Thanks.

I think my point is that this teaching developed over time. It’s first mentioned (to my knowledge) in the Protevangelium of James which is likely from the 2nd century. And of course it’s not in the canon of Scripture despite its early date and suggested Apostolic origin. Which is fine, just something to consider.

The places I know that are often used to indicate Tertullian either denied the perpetual virginity – or, simply, never entertained the idea because it was not widespread yet – are his On the Flesh of Christ 4 and 23, Monogamy 8, and Against Marcion IV, 19.

Jerome, writing against Helvidius in On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, cites Helvidius’ claim that Tertullian does not support the teaching of the perpetual virginity (Helvidius also notes that Bishop Victorinus did not support the teaching). But this is almost 200 years later than Tertullian.

The Church fathers that clearly support the perpetual virginity (e.g. Jerome and Augustine) are much later, that’s again part of what I was thinking about regarding unanimity. Unanimity came about over time, I just don’t think we have any evidence to claim that the same unanimity that exists now, or that existed in the time of Augustine and Jerome, existed in the earlier centuries.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

It is notable that the Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief that Mary was perpetually a virgin. If you want their perspective, I recommend that you read St. Jerome’s short treatise called “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary.” It is available for free on NewAdvent’s website. In his treatise, Jerome basically uses the Bible alone to demolish his opponent’s arguments against Mary’s virginity. You’ll see that his opponent employed the very same arguments used by Protestants today (e.g., Jesus’s “brothers and sisters”; Jesus was the “first-born,” etc.). Jerome methodically debunks these misinterpretations. It’s a quick read – check it out.

It’s an awesome read. I’ve read that document three times and it formed a stronghold of my understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, when I was coming to believe.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I think my point is that this teaching developed over time. It’s first mentioned (to my knowledge) in the Protevangelium of James which is likely from the 2nd century. And of course it’s not in the canon of Scripture despite its early date and suggested Apostolic origin. Which is fine, just something to consider.

I don’t know if you’ve read all the posts presented in this thread, but many people have pointed out both New Testament and Old Testament passages supporting the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Also, you say “it’s first mentioned,” but this is guesswork. Even if there was no basis for believing in the Perpetual Virginity from Scripture (which there definitely is), the Protoevangelium of James was a very early document and one certainly can’t know it’s the first time anyone mentioned their belief in this. Documentation also survives from Origen containing his conviction of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. There are many documents written back then that haven’t survived all the way to the modern era. Also, many people passed on their beliefs orally back then, and Jerome cites people such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and all the other Early Church Fathers as holding this belief. Jerome says that no one before Helvidious held this belief (he doesn’t count Tertullian, because Tertullian left the Church).

The places I know that are often used to indicate Tertullian either denied the perpetual virginity – or, simply, never entertained the idea because it was not widespread yet – are his On the Flesh of Christ 4 and 23, Monogamy 8, and Against Marcion IV, 19.

Jerome, writing against Helvidius in On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, cites Helvidius’ claim that Tertullian does not support the teaching of the perpetual virginity (Helvidius also notes that Bishop Victorinus did not support the teaching). But this is almost 200 years later than Tertullian.

Jerome also refutes Helvidious’ claim that Victorinus denied the Perpetual Virginity. He doesn’t bother to say anything about the claim regarding Tertullian, because he points out the Tertullian left the Church, so his errors are of no consequence. He also cites the Church’s then existing oral tradition, saying Ignatius, Irenaeus and all the other Early Church Fathers believed in the Perpetual Virginity. He was in a position to know this far better than we are today, as he lived back then and had the information. There is no evidence against his claim, either. The evidence from those centuries that exists (and I admit it’s sparse) all supports his claim. Within the 4th century, there is a lot of evidence among the Fathers for the widespread belief in this doctrine. Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius and Epiphanius, in addition to Jerome, Didymus the Blind and Ambrose of Milan all refer to it in their writings. Prior to this, Origen and the Protoevangelisum of James, as well as a few significant passages in the Bible, all also refer to it, the Fathers describing it explicitly and the writers of the Bible several times implicitly. Only Tertullian, of all the Fathers who talked about the subject in surviving writings, denied it. Jerome explicitly states, based on the oral and perhaps written tradition of his time, that this idea (that Mary was not perpetually a virgin) was unknown in the Church before Helvidious.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Within the 4th century, there is a lot of evidence among the Fathers for the widespread belief in this doctrine.

Indeed. Aside from Tertullian we see a consensus of the early Church all believed in virginitas in partu (physical miracalous virginity through childbirth) and virginitas post partum (no marital relations of any kind). St. Hilary of Poitiers was insistent on this point of view in his writings and referred to those who promulgated a teaching contrary to her perpetual virginity as being irreligious individuals, utterly divorced from spiritual teaching. (Haffner, Paul. The Mystery of Mary. Chicago, IL: Liturgy Training, 2004/2008) .

If The Church (both East and West) was not absolutely sure of this teaching it would NEVER have risked making it a de fide teaching (required belief). This belief is ever present in the historical liturgies that we have in our archives.

This belief is present in Catholic art and some of this art even depicts Salome, an important figure in the Protoevangelium of James, who is severely punished by God for personally trying to examine Mary to witness to her post birth virginity (which immediately reminds us of the hapless Uzzah OT servant being struck dead for touching the arc of the covenant).

Origen , in his Commentary on Matthew (c. 248), expressly states belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. In the words of Luigi Gambero, “Origen not only has no doubts but seems directly to imply that this is a truth already recognised as an integral part of the deposit of faith.” [11] In this context, Origen interpreted the comments of Ignatius of Antioch (d. c 108) as significant:

In a letter of the martyr Ignatius, “second bishop of Antioch after Peter[12]
who fought with the wild beasts during the persecution in Rome”. *Mary’s virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, hidden thanks to Joseph and her marriage to him. Her virginity was kept hidden because she was thought to be married. *[13]

From the fifth century on no opposition whatever to the doctrine was expressed in either East or West until modern times.

Even many of the Protestant Reformers accepted this as fact (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley et-al). The Reformer’s followers are the one’s who in desperation to keep the defunct teaching of sola scriptura afloat have to sacrifice Mary’s virginity to hold to the principal that nothing can be held true concerning Christianity unless it is in the Bible - EVEN AGAINST WHAT EVERYONE BELIEVED AND WANTED TO BELIEVE!

Thus Protestants fall on their own sword of rebellion to spite themselves just to hold to a false doctrine in opposition to what they loved and held true as is shown in the following:

Diarmaid MacCulloch , a historian of the Reformation, wrote that the reason why **the magisterial reformers upheld Mary’s perpetual virginity, and why they had a “genuinely deep reverence and affection” toward Mary, was that she was “the guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ”, a teaching that was being denied by the same radicals that were denying Mary’s perpetual virginity. **[35] However, the absence of clear Biblical statements expressing the doctrine, in combination with the principle of sola scriptura , kept references to the doctrine out of the Reformation creeds and, together with the tendency to associate veneration of Mary with idolatry [36] and the rejection of clerical celibacy [37] led to the eventual denial of this doctrine among Protestants, who, thus uncommitted to a doctrine the perpetual virginity, take the “brothers” (ἀδελφοί) οf Jesus mentioned in the New Testament most naturally (but not certainly) to be children of Mary and thus Jesus’ half brothers, rather than his cousins or stepbrothers from a postulated previous marriage of Joseph. [38]

In Eastern Iconography Mary’s perpetual virginity is signified by three stars that appear on her left, her right, and above her or on her head, which represent her virginity before, during and after giving birth.

But I think the best proof comes from an exegesis and projection of sentiments from St. Irenaeus’ argument for the Virgin Birth in his work Against Heresies (circa 165 A.D.). This man was at a deep spiritual insight of the scriptural meaning of the virgin birth and it becomes almost child’s play (viz the virginal Incarnation) to see that these same principals he used in arguing for the balancing the ancient wrongs of Eve committed as virgin in sin/disobedience had to be offset by the new Eve, Mary, as a virgin in obedience! Further since the wrong was an eternal offense the remedy had to be an eternal correction since the principal of Justice MUST extend to eternity. In essence, because God is Eternal, the eternal equations for Divine Justice DEMANDED a supernatural and perpetual obedience of a perpetual virgin to remedy Eve’s sin! QED - MARY HAD to be perpetual virgin to offset Eve’s virginal transgression for all of time and space. The insight offered through Irenaeus’ imagery in the NT is profound when one starts to notice that Jesus as new Adam is offsetting the ancient evil committed by Adam through The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is carried on Jesus’ shoulder on the Tree of Life (the cross). As Adam and Eve were shamed in their virginal nakedness Jesus as pure unblemished virgin walks naked through the path to Calvary NAKED but WITHOUT SHAME since He has committed no evil and knows not the shame that Adam did. The correspondence is profound and should axiomatically prove the concept of a divine balance is valid and to make a believer out of anyone who can perceive this seamless divine balancing act. No one could invent this stuff through 2,000 years of prophecy and history!

We can quite nearly prove through induction that Mary HAD to be ever virgin in the fullest and most complete sense for all eternity.

James

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t know if you’ve read all the posts presented in this thread, but many people have pointed out both New Testament and Old Testament passages supporting the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Of course! I never said anything contrary. Yet, the Bible supporting such and such a teaching is different than saying the Bible teaches something explicitly. There’s no mention in the Bible of Mary’s perpetual virginity (ditto for the Assumption, Immaculate Conception). Sure they’re true, sure they are supported by or don’t conflict with anything in the Bible…but they are not explicitly in the Bible.

Also, you say “it’s first mentioned,” but this is guesswork.

No, it’s not guesswork, it’s simply a statement of the current evidence we have as I understand it. If you or anyone knows of any historical evidence earlier than the Protevangelium of James that explicitly talks about Mary’s perpetual virginity please let us know.

And of course there was oral tradition before written texts. I was not talking about oral tradition.

Yes, Jerome dismissed Tertullian because of Tertullian’s later leaving the Church – though I wonder if that was simply a way to avoid the issue by attacking the person. Jerome seemed to be quite argumentative and polemical from some of his writing. Who knows. Yes, there’s evidence from Origen but he was later than the Protevangelium and Tertullian (and he too was considered heretical by many for a long time…some of his ideas are clearly out of line with Catholic teaching…so why not dismiss him too?).

He was in a position to know this far better than we are today, as he lived back then and had the information.

History has proven that idea wrong many times. It’s a generalization that does not always stand up to fact.

 

[diggerdomer]

In a letter of the martyr Ignatius, “second bishop of Antioch after Peter[12]
who fought with the wild beasts during the persecution in Rome”. *Mary’s virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, hidden thanks to Joseph and her marriage to him. Her virginity was kept hidden because she was thought to be married. *[13]

But I think the best proof comes from an exegesis and projection of sentiments from St. Irenaeus’ argument for the Virgin Birth in his work Against Heresies (circa 165 A.D.). This man was at a deep spiritual insight of the scriptural meaning of the virgin birth and it becomes almost child’s play (viz the virginal Incarnation) to see that these same principals he used in arguing for the balancing the ancient wrongs of Eve committed as virgin in sin/disobedience had to be offset by the new Eve, Mary, as a virgin in obedience! Further since the wrong was an eternal offense the remedy had to be an eternal correction since the principal of Justice MUST extend to eternity. In essence, because God is Eternal, the eternal equations for Divine Justice DEMANDED a supernatural and perpetual obedience of a perpetual virgin to remedy Eve’s sin! QED - MARY HAD to be perpetual virgin to offset Eve’s virginal transgression for all of time and space. The insight offered through Irenaeus’ imagery in the NT is profound when one starts to notice that Jesus as new Adam is offsetting the ancient evil committed by Adam through The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is carried on Jesus’ shoulder on the Tree of Life (the cross). As Adam and Eve were shamed in their virginal nakedness Jesus as pure unblemished virgin walks naked through the path to Calvary NAKED but WITHOUT SHAME since He has committed no evil and knows not the shame that Adam did. The correspondence is profund and should make a believer out of anyone who can perceive this seamless divine balancing act. No one could invent this stuff through 2,000 years of prophecy and history!

We can quite nearly prove through induction that Mary HAD to be ever virgin in the fullest and most complete sense for all eternity.

James

Can you tell us where exactly Ignatius and Irenaeus talk about Mary’s perpetual virginity? I’d like to read it. Thanks.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Can you tell us where exactly Ignatius and Irenaeus talk about Mary’s perpetual virginity? I’d like to read it. Thanks.

I did not mean to say or imply they spoke explicitly to perpetual virginity. The did not. They spoke of the virgin birth. But they project in their zeal a clear personal attitude that Mary was special and just did not carry forward the full implicaitons of what they held or should have held privately or subconsciouly to paper.

I used Irenaeus’ own style of argument to extend his concept of balancing the injustices committed by the disobedient virgin Eve (which is an eternal offense since it is committed against God) with an offsetting remedy of an obedient ever-virgin Eve to more than offset the eternal injustice. Mary remained not only always obedient and full of grace (without sin) but also had to be ever-virgin to remedy the consequence of Eve’s sin. The last had to be first since the first (Adam & Eve) started off virgin and Mary closes the loop/equation by being eternal virgin to “one up” Eve (who is not ever virgin ) so that Mary is unequivocally blessed above all women.

Here is Irenaeus’ writings with some of my embedded comments and highlights:
Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus 165 AD):

That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree [ed: the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil], through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done aways with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,–was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former [ed: Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter [ed: Mary], by an angelic communication receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death. (ch. 19, 1)

In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”(2) But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise "they were both naked, and were not ashamed,"(3) inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age,(4) and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled.(6) For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.(7) **And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, “instead of fathers, children have been born unto thee.”(8) For the Lord, having been born “the First-begotten of the dead,”(9) and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die.(10) **Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. (ch. 22, 4).

James