D
drblank1
Guest
Very thoughtfully written. Thank you.
- Status
D
Duane1966
Guest
But you said they mean specifically brother and sister, yet we see Plato, writing before the time of Christ, using them in a way not consistent with what you stated.
But you said adelphos can not mean relative in an earlier post. The OT clearly proves that adelphos can be referring to a relative who is not a sibling.
Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period.
That is a horribly weak argument. Would Jesus not be using a derivative of that same word? Are not the authors of the New Testament translating a derivative of the same word that the authors of the Septuagint were? You seem to be saying since Jesus’ words were not written down yet, the authors had the liberty to write them in a stricter sense than the Greek Jews would be accustomed to. The writers themselves probably learned the Greek from the Septuagint. They would have grown up seeing adelphos used referring to relatives. We are almost positive that Matthew’s was originally written in Aramaic. Guess what? There are scholars who believe** that all four Gospels and much of Acts was originally written in Aramaic.** The Semitic influence on the Greek in the Gospels is too much to ignore.
Because you have different writers, and different copyists, copying and translating only sections of the New Testament. The Greek Jews would be used to seeing adelphos used in Scripture in a broader sense, of this there is no doubt because we see it used in the Septuagint in a broader sense. Why would the Gospel writers all of a sudden only use it in a stricter sense, than their readers had seen it used before?
Because we don’t know if they are step-brothers. Who says they used the wrong word? It seems that the Hellenistic Jews used the term adelphos in a way that was much broader than the narrow definition that many scholars try to read into it.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Million dollar question.
I think some folks(not saying anyone in particular) view the Septuagint as some sort of obscure book of equal or lesser value than the Dead Sea scrolls. When in reality, this was scripture of that era and it’s what was quoted from by Jesus and the apostles. So that alone shows us just how valuable it was/is.
J
James248
Guest
We know from the Fathers that Matthew, the first gospel was written in Aramaic. So…
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Which Fathers?We know from the Fathers that Matthew, the first gospel was written in Aramaic. So…
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I disagree with nothing you’ve written in this specific quote.
So where is it that she had relations/other kids per Tertullian? I ask because the text you and I cited is actually used as one of the many examples of early Church fathers defending the ancient understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Again, from the same text:
“…a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.”
“…who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple…”
“Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age.”
Please recall what Tertullian is addressing in the topic: Having one wife. As the blessed household of Jesus was monogamous (Joseph had one (1) wife), we as Christians should follow the example.
He actually takes substantial care here to preserve her status all the perpetual virgin; indicated by the highlights.
So I’m still very confused about 1.) how this shows Mary had relations with Joseph and 2.) how you think the perpetual virginity of Mary wasn’t the only belief about her sexual status in Christianity since literally day one.
This goes without mentioning what an absolute insult to Christ’s biological half-brothers and brothers-in-law it would have been for Mary to be under John’s care rather than theirs upon the death of Christ. If they existed (which they didn’t) they couldn’t even have gone to the markets to get groceries without public shaming and ridicule.
“There goes the man who allows the very matriarch of his house to sleep in the beds of strangers!”
J
James248
Guest
Jerome.
P
pablope
Guest
It was declared as truth by an Ecumenical Council of the Church…
udayton.edu/imri/mary/p/perpetual-virginity-dogmatic-status-and-meaning.php
The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin). For example, an anathema against the ‘three chapters’ condemns those who deny:
that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her …
These statements were not made in reference to a direct discussion of Mary’s virginity. Hence, some argue that this statement was not a dogmatic definition, even though it was issued within a definitory document. For Catholics, such definitions may be made by the Episcopal college, in communion with its President, the Bishop of Rome, or by the Pope in virtue of his Presidency over the entire Episcopal college. Such definitions must be derived, at least implicitly, from the revelation closed at the death of the Apostles.
The dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not merely a reference to a historical fact. This historical fact has a a deeper meaning, a spiritual dimension. It speaks of the radical character of her God-relatedness. The life of Mary exists only for, in and through God. Further, it speaks of the singularity of the Christ event. Finally, note that this teaching illustrates Mary’s character as type of the Church:
Following the example of Mary, the Church remains the virgin faithful to her spouse … For the Church is the Spouse of Christ, as is clear from the Pauline Letters (cf. Eph. 5:21-33; 2 Cor. 11:2), and from the title found in John: “bride of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9). If the Church as spouse “keeps the fidelity she has pledged to Christ,” this fidelity, even though in the Apostle’s teaching it has become an image of marriage (cf Eph. 5:23-33), also has value as a model of total self-giving to God in celibacy “for the kingdom of heaven,” in virginity consecrated to God (cf. Matt 19:11-12; 2 Cor.11:2). Precisely such virginity, after the example of the Virgin of Nazareth, is the source of a special spiritual fruitfulness: it is the source of motherhood in the Holy Spirit. (Mother of the Redeemer #43)
P
pablope
Guest
It was important enough for St. Jerome to defend the perpetual virginity against Helvedus:
newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
- But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.
P
pablope
Guest
According to St. Jerome…Joseph too remained celibate, a virgin:
newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.
P
pablope
Guest
And let me ask…what did the Perpetual Virginity become the only acceptable belief?
What happened?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Susanlo claims Tertullian’s support in error.
He supported no such notion as she purports. Quite the contrary, even.
He supported no such notion as she purports. Quite the contrary, even.
P
pablope
Guest
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9759
Well…how about from a non-catholic:
aleteia.org/2013/10/10/a-protestant-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/
To say that Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth to a son” (my emphasis), many Protestants argue, seems to imply very strongly that Joseph did “know” Mary after she had given birth to Jesus. Another traditional response:
“This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.
“He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers.”
The explanations quoted above in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, while accurate, are fairly poignant. So who are they from? None other than the…
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
G
gazelam
Guest
Is there merit in quoting Aquinas on this or any other topic since he himself late in life said that his writings were as straw?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Is there merit in quoting Joseph Smith on any topic when he declared polygamy and then later preached against it in front of the angry mob?
I suppose it’s complicated.
D
Duane1966
Guest
He had two visions. After one, he said the vision he saw was so glorious that his writings were like straw. **This has never been considered a retraction, or a refutation by him of anything he wrote. **
I noticed you left out the other vision, where fellow priests heard a voice that said:
So yes, there is tremendous merit in quoting Aquinas.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello drblank.
I don’t think that it is as much “so important” to Catholicism as it is “so important” to Protestantism to prove that the Catholic Church is somehow “wrong” in continuing to consistently teach what Christendom believed to be true up to the point of the Reformation. I think the better question is to ask why, after 1500 years of affirmation of this doctrine, did some reformed church communities decide to reject the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity? Why break with a tradition that remains in the universal Church, both West and East, as well as the Orthodox Churches and many Protestant denominations? The Gospels were not changed. The underlying language remains the same. So why did some Protestant groups eventually start reading the passages so differently? What changed in their hearts? Certainly, Protestant theology would not fall apart if Mary’s perpetual virginity could be proven true as a matter of fact. So why make this a point of contention between us? Why not accept the doctrine as true to narrow the gap between our communities? Why the stubborn refusal to accept that it is possible for a person like Mary to live a life of celibacy. Christ did it as a human being. Paul did it as an Apostle. Many good nuns and priests have fulfilled their vows of celibacy in imitation.
The answer seems to me to be that this controversy is really just another way to contest the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. There is no serious dispute that one can support the doctrine, even if some Protestants would reject such scriptural interpretations, and dismiss 1500 years of doctrinal tradition for their own personal interpretation. It all comes down to the question of authority.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I don’t think you can dismiss the entire works of Thomas Aquinas based on a comment he made when touched by a vision (perhaps of Heaven). Scholars have never taken this comment as a retraction or repudiation of anything that he wrote.
catholic.com/qa/when-st-thomas-aquinas-likened-his-work-to-straw-was-that-a-retraction-of-what-he-wrote
Peace,
Robert
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Individual protestants notwithstanding, I think that’s a lance that strikes true.
Anything, I mean anything to support the notion of a fallen, errant Church in need of “restoration” is critical to the survival of that paradigm.
This isn’t hyper-applicable to the “main-lines” that arose near the beginning of the Reformation. But for the evangelicals that represent more and more of wider Protestantism everyday, your suggestion is spot-on. To quote an uncle of mine when I was questioning the historical continuity problems my old denomination experiences prior to the mid 19th and 17th centuries, the reply was “Well, the True Faith certainly isn’t Catholic”.
surprise
- Status