Question about the importance of Mary's virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter drblank1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you drblank1 for posting this question. And thank you all, most especially Cathoholic for such beautiful replies. What a total blessing this was for me…a recent convert. With information so readily at our finger tips I can’t believe Protestantism could last that much longer. God bless you all.
 
Susanlo. In post 29 you said . . . .
I have also wondered why it truly matters to us today. Whether she was or wasn’t a perpetual virgin does not change . . . .
Click to expand...
If it doesn’t matter, just affirm the Blessed Virgin as Perpetual Virgin.
 
Susanlo. In post 29 you appealed to the “brothers” argument.

“The brothers of Jesus” argument = the concept of the Blessed Virgin Mary as having other biologic offspring is . . . .

. . . . . Scripturally unsupportable.

Why?

Because the Hebrew word for “brothers”, “ach” or “ah” (Aramaic, a Semitic language variant) meant not only uterine bothers, but cousins, second cousins, third cousins, fellow tribesmen , etc. etc.
  • ach = brothers
  • ach = cousins
  • ach = second cousins
  • ach = third cousins
  • ach = distant relatives
  • ach = fellow tribesmen
There is no word in Aramaic for “cousin”, “second cousin”, etc.

As the late Fr. Stanley Jaki once said . . . .

. . . Christians still have to wake up to the age-old information that in Hebrew the word “brother” (ah) can readily mean cousins, second cousins, third cousins, and even more distant cousins.

(The Virgin Birth and The Birth of Science, by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki. Real View Books 1998. See page 17.)

The anepsios/sungenis arguments don’t cut it either.

Why? Because nobody is saying these “brothers” are “cousins” except you.

They may be “second cousins” or more distant “close relatives”.

CCC 500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

The fact remains the Jewish people used the word “brothers” (ah) so when it is translated as “brother” by the Sacred Authors it is inappropriate to say they SHOULD have used “anepsios” (etc.).
Even the verses you appealed to undermine your own position in some cases.

Why?

Well let’s look for example at Matthew 13:55 which you think upends the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

MATTHEW 13:55 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

If Mary and Joseph had a bunch of kids running around the neighborhood you would have expected something like . . . .

NOT MATTHEW 13:55 but a Phantom Verse 55 Is not this ONE OF the carpenter’s SONS? Is not THEIR mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

But that wasn’t said.

You appealed to Mark 6:3. Well let’s look at that too.

MARK 6:3-4 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”

Notice what is NOT said . . . . .

NOT MARK 6:3 but a Phantom Verse 3 Is not this the carpenter, ONE OF THE SONS of Mary . . . .

The verses you are appealing to, actually ADD SUPPORT to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

You thought Galatians 1:19 supported your newfangled tradition of denial. We can look at that too.

GALATIANS 1:19 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

There are three (maybe four) “James” in the Gospels.

But this “James” in Galatians 1:19 is explicitly described as an “Apostle”.

**Apostles Named James in the Gospels **
  • We have James the son of Zebedee (this James was an Apostle).
  • We also have James the son of Alphaeus (this James was an Apostle).
  • And we have a non-Apostle James the father of Jude Thaddeus (an Apostles dad at least although not an “Apostle”)
Now if you are going to invent a theological novum such as DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, you are going to need some hard evidence that this “Apostle” James in Galatians 1:19 had the Blessed Virgin Mary for his mom.

I know you can’t do it.
You know you can’t do it.
And the readers know you can’t do it.

I want to challenge you Susanlo to give me . . .

. . . . JUST ONE VERSE that explicitly identifies the Blessed Virgin Mary as having any other children (in a biologic sense).

OR . . .

. . . . JUST ONE VERSE that explicitly identifies any person other than Jesus where Mary is described as their mother (in a biologic sense).

(Psalm 69 isn’t going to work and if you want we can go through “why” later.)
 
Susanlo. You said in post 29. . . .
To be married and not have children was shameful in Judaism
Click to expand...
That is not true.

It was true of SOME people in the Old Covenant, but not “in Judaism” in general.

Let’s look at the Biblical Vow to “afflict oneself” in Numbers . . . .

(Quotes below from our local Men’s Catholic Bible Group and insights below from Dr. Brant Pitre . . . )

As Dr. Brant Pitre points out this concept of a Josephite marriage is not unheard of in ancient times either (although of course in Old Testament times they would not have called it a “Josephite” marriage).

The context of Numbers 30 is concerning a woman and an oath she takes to “afflict herself”. When she gets married her husband can make void or accept this vow that she has taken to “afflict herself”.

NUMBERS 30:13 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.

What does it mean when this woman takes a binding oath to “afflict herself”?

The Hebrew word “anah” (for “afflict”) although not explicitly defined in Scripture implicitly means to practice self-denial.

Afflict = The practice of voluntary relinquishment. Self-denial or voluntary relinquishment of what?

To “afflict oneself” is a general term that has to do with voluntary abstaining from sense-pleasure for the glory of God.

This can take several forms. It can take the form of self-denial from food (fasting), but it can also take the form of self-denial from sexual relations.

The woman in Numbers 30 is taking a “binding oath to afflict herself” and it is discussed all in the context of not food but a man in her life, a husband (what do you think “afflict herself” concerns in this context?).

To this day, the rabbinic Jews as part of their self-affliction for Yom Kippur abstain from sexual intercourse.

Also Rifat Sonsino is Rabbi Emeritus at Temple Beth Shalom, Needham, MA and has this to say concerning afflicting oneself.

"You shall afflict"

Even though in the earlier biblical times “afflicting oneself” was a general term for “self-denial,” during the late biblical period, it was clearly understood as “fasting,” based on the parallelism between “fasting” and “affliction” in Isa 58: 3 (cf. v. 5). [6] Similarly, we are told that Ezra had “proclaimed a fast [tzom] there by the Ahava River to afflict ourselves [le-hitannot] before our God” (8:21). Later on, the rabbis too [7] interpreted the injunction as “fasting” and elaborated: “Food and drink, and the other pleasures of the sense of touch, arouse the physical self to be drawn after desire and sin; and they can interrupt the form of the spirit of wisdom from seeking after the truth, which is the service of God and His good and sweet moral lessons.” [8] . . .

. . . . Even from Ps. 35:13, “I afflicted myself with fasting” [inneti batzom nafshi], we can learn that “fasting” was only one way of expressing regret.

In the early rabbinic period, the Mishna [10] specified that on Yom Kippur “self-denial” covered not only eating and drinking, but also bathing, anointing, wearing sandals, and sexual intercourse. The Talmud argued (Yoma 74b) that “affliction” simply meant “abstention,” and not torture. Based on Deut. 8:3, [11] it added that this was to be done primarily through hunger. However, it stressed that children, pregnant women, and those who are ill should not fast (Yoma 82a-3a).

The Book of Judges implicitly tells us that Samson was engaging in illicit sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife.

Samson was having relations with a Philistine spy named Delilah.

When Delilah “afflicts” Samson in Judges 16:19, she is not withholding bread or food from Samson (fasting).

Delilah is cutting off Samson from the illicit sexual relations he was heretofore used to engaging in (and Samson was certainly in part “blinded” by these sins that he was engaging in).

After Delilah “afflicts” (in the RSV “torments”) Samson, she then has Samson attacked by Philistines.

JUDGES 16:19 (KJV) And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict (anah) him, and his strength went from him.​
  • Context of “afflicting Samson” = Delilah rejecting Samson’s advances (Delilah cutting Samson off from sexual relations)
JUDGES 16:18-21 18 When Delilah saw that he had told her all his mind, she sent and called the lords of the Philistines, saying, “Come up this once, for he has told me all his mind.” Then the lords of the Philistines came up to her, and brought the money in their hands. 19 She made him sleep upon her knees; and she called a man, and had him shave off the seven locks of his head. Then she began to torment him, and his strength left him. 20 And she said, “The Philistines are upon you, Samson!” And he awoke from his sleep, and said, “I will go out as at other times, and shake myself free.” And he did not know that the LORD had left him. 21 And the Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with bronze fetters; and he ground at the mill in the prison.

Yes this is an example of Delilah “afflicting” Samson, and certainly not Samson “afflicting himself”, but it does give us an idea of how “afflict” (anah) can be used in an ancient Scriptural sense concerning sexual relations.

Let’s look at Numbers 30:13 again in the context of “afflict herself”.
​

***Continued . . . . ***
 
***Continued from last post . . . . ***

NUMBERS 30:13 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.

Here is what Dr. Pitre has to say concerning “afflict” . . .

The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman’s vows to “afflict herself,” which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse.

Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15) .

So the binding oath to “afflict herself” in Numbers 30 concerns “fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse” in this case according to Pitre (as per Jacob Milgrom).

Dr. Pitre points out it’s hard for us to envision this oath in our sex-saturated society, but the fact remains even in our society today, we have consecrated virgins, both male and female.

Numbers 30 concerns women who “afflict” themselves in 3 different situations, and how they may or may not be released from that oath to “afflict” themselves.

Here again are the different types of women that these oaths concern in Numbers 30.
  • Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
  • Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
  • Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.
Let’s look first at the example of “Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.”

NUMBERS 30:3-5 3 Or when a woman vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house, in her youth, 4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5 But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

We will come back to this shortly, but Numbers 30:3-5 is probably what St. Paul is referring to when he talks about the context of a father giving his daughter in marriage or refraining from giving her in marriage (in union with her choice of course) for the sake of virginity.

1st CORINTHIANS 7:38 (DRV) Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.

Now let’s look at the example of “Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman!”

NUMBERS 30:6-8 6 And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, 7 and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

And last let’s review “Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.”

NUMBERS 30:9 9 But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.

And in closing let’s continue in Numbers 30 verses 13 and following. . . .

NUMBERS 30:13-16 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. 15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity." 16 These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, as between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter, while in her youth, within her father’s house.

Then someone raised the question to Dr. Pitre about the possibilities that these vows are merely temporary in the first place, Pitre replied in this way. . . .

I’d like to respond to one possible objection to this argument: “Couldn’t a vow of abstinence be a temporary vow? I don’t believe that those verses mentioned anything of a perpetual vow of abstinence.”

In response, I would certainly not deny that the text could be applied to temporary vows, but there are two things that make me think the primary context is permanent vows.

First, what meaning would a temporary vow of sexual abstinence have for an unmarried virgin in her father’s house?!! This is the first category, and as far as I can see it must primarily refer to a permanent vow of abstinence, of which the father approves. To suggest otherwise would mean that Numbers envisions the unmarried woman having sexual relations outside of marriage. This makes no sense.​

***Continued . . . ***
 
Second, what meaning would a temporary vow of abstinence have for a widow? If she was taking a vow of temporary abstinence for sexual relations with her husband, she would obviously be automatically be released from the vow by his death!

If a permanent vow of sexual abstinence is in view in both these cases, it makes sense to me to suggest that the primary meaning of the third category is the same: a *permanent *vow of sexual abstinence. In Mary’s case, it is only a permanent vow that explains her response to Gabriel while she is betrothed to Joseph: “How shall this be, since I know not man” (Luke 1:34; present tense).

Also Jesus states in Matthew 19:12 there are people who have renounced marriage and sex altogether “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” as well (not merely just married women).

MATTHEW 19:12 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."​

Sorry about the long post sequence but I thought perhaps some here may want to copy it and save it to your files under “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” or some such.

Much credit here to Dr. Pitre on this exegesis.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
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
Click to expand...
Nope, that is not the question. Sorry my friend. It’s my question and even my wife (who is Catholic) agrees that the church does place great important on her virginity and my wife too doesn’t under. She “thinks” its because Mary purportedly was a virgin by choice her whole life and that many within the Catholic/Orthodox circles believes it is a purer/higher road to take but she was just guessing.

Just to defend your misconceptions about Protestant views on Mary and her virginity, you are mostly wrong. Yes there are some who are very anti-Catholic and set out to PROVE Catholicism is wrong. But that is not unique to the Protestant movement just as there are many anti-Protestant Catholics. So it goes both ways. But Protestants believe doctrine should be strictly derived from the Bible. Protestants (and rightly so) are concerned with any worship or devotion of any kind to anyone other than God. That is the majority’s concerns.

And to say this or that subject has been accepted for 1500 years is an incorrect assertion. We can see disagreements on many doctrines as early as just after the apostolic fathers. There were struggles within the church on doctrine right up to the Reformation. Don’t forget that many of the fathers of the Reformation were Catholic priests. That is why most Protestants will limit doctrinal decision strictly to the Bible and support of those decision to the mostly the apostolic fathers writings. We have traditions, but they are not sacred like doctrine.

God bless you my friend
 
Robert_in_SD said:
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”
Click to expand...
Robert, my question was not to prove or disprove anything but only to gain an understanding of the importance to Catholic/Orthodox and to a lesser degree some Protestant churches.

God bless you
 
drblank1 said:
Why is it so important to Roman Catholicism that Mary remained a virgin her entire life?

I have asked my wife (who is Catholic) and she does not know the answer. This question is not to debate that the Bible indicates she didn’t remain a virgin. I only want to know why it seems, at least from an outsider’s perspective, this is important to Roman Catholicism. Maybe my perception is wrong and it is not that important. Just curious.

God bless
Click to expand...
It is important because the RCC teaches the fullness of truth. And it is a truth that Mary dedicated her life and self to God. Just like is important that a Priest keeps his promise to God his entire life.
 
drblank1 said:
Nope, that is not the question. Sorry my friend. It’s my question and even my wife (who is Catholic) agrees that the church does place great important on her virginity and my wife too doesn’t under. She “thinks” its because Mary purportedly was a virgin by choice her whole life and that many within the Catholic/Orthodox circles believes it is a purer/higher road to take but she was just guessing.

Just to defend your misconceptions about Protestant views on Mary and her virginity, you are mostly wrong. Yes there are some who are very anti-Catholic and set out to PROVE Catholicism is wrong. But that is not unique to the Protestant movement just as there are many anti-Protestant Catholics. So it goes both ways. But Protestants believe doctrine should be strictly derived from the Bible. Protestants (and rightly so) are concerned with any worship or devotion of any kind to anyone other than God. That is the majority’s concerns.

And to say this or that subject has been accepted for 1500 years is an incorrect assertion. We can see disagreements on many doctrines as early as just after the apostolic fathers. There were struggles within the church on doctrine right up to the Reformation. Don’t forget that many of the fathers of the Reformation were Catholic priests. That is why most Protestants will limit doctrinal decision strictly to the Bible and support of those decision to the mostly the apostolic fathers writings. We have traditions, but they are not sacred like doctrine.

God bless you my friend
Click to expand...
What does disagreements of a Church Doctrine of one or many Catholic Priests have to do with the truth of Church Doctrine?
 
Wow, this ridiculous discussion is still going on ? :eek:

I dropped out about 5 pages ago…long comments about a topic we as Catholics must accept. The Bible is not clear on St. Joseph’s & Blessed Mother’s love life…so 👋
 
drblank1 said:
Nope, that is not the question. Sorry my friend. It’s my question and even my wife (who is Catholic) agrees that the church does place great important on her virginity and my wife too doesn’t under. She “thinks” its because Mary purportedly was a virgin by choice her whole life and that many within the Catholic/Orthodox circles believes it is a purer/higher road to take but she was just guessing.

Just to defend your misconceptions about Protestant views on Mary and her virginity, you are mostly wrong. Yes there are some who are very anti-Catholic and set out to PROVE Catholicism is wrong. But that is not unique to the Protestant movement just as there are many anti-Protestant Catholics. So it goes both ways. But Protestants believe doctrine should be strictly derived from the Bible. Protestants (and rightly so) are concerned with any worship or devotion of any kind to anyone other than God. That is the majority’s concerns.

And to say this or that subject has been accepted for 1500 years is an incorrect assertion. We can see disagreements on many doctrines as early as just after the apostolic fathers. There were struggles within the church on doctrine right up to the Reformation. Don’t forget that many of the fathers of the Reformation were Catholic priests. That is why most Protestants will limit doctrinal decision strictly to the Bible and support of those decision to the mostly the apostolic fathers writings. We have traditions, but they are not sacred like doctrine.

God bless you my friend
Click to expand...
Thanksf for the blessings drblank. God bless you as well.

I appreciate that it’s *your *question. And I assume wholeheartedly that it was offered in good faith because you were seeking the Catholic position on the doctrine. My point was that the present controversy itself is raised by Protestants against Catholics. The Catholic Church in the East and West, and the Orthodox Churches, all have accepted the doctrine. And the root of the question is indeed one of authority, because, as you and others have already noted, without an authority outside of scripture we will never come to an agreement. You will stick to your relatively new American evangelical interpretation, and Catholics will stick to the ancient interpretation of the majority of Christendom.

As for the history of the doctrine, of course from time to time there were objections by some. But the consistent teaching from the ancient churches was that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Those who dissented from the common teaching of these historical churches were just that… *dissenters *from the common teaching.

I also understand that Protestants, for the most part, adhere to the concept of sola scriptura. My comment was not an attack upon that construct. My point was that one can, using the bible alone, support the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. As you yourself acknowledge, there are even Protestant ecclesial communities (presumably sola scriptura Protestants) who accept the teaching as a doctrine of the faith.

Respectfully, I don’t see how a discussion of Mary’s perpetual virginity gives rise to a concern over idolatry? Priests take a vow of lifelong celibacy, giving up a good (marital union) for a greater good (mirroring the heavenly life where there is no marrying or giving in marriage). We do not worship them or consider them divine for this sacrifice. Again, I think that your perception of the doctrine both reads too much importance into it, and in a sense fails to take seriously the profundity of Mary’s unique situation in salvation history. Her womb was quite literally the doorway through which God entered into creation. In addition to the wealth of biblical authority and the biblical typography previously cited by others so far on this thread, one can make a reasonable assumption that, having given birth to Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, Mary (along with her womb) was consecrated by God, and made holy (i.e. set aside for God alone). Does that make her an idol, or a goddess? Of course not. (Your preconceptions about what Catholics believe may be showing through here.) This makes her the mother of Jesus, a position that is accorded great honor, but never adoration which is due to God alone. Protestants and Catholics both honor the saints who have gone before us, many of the same men and women from church history. There is nothing unbiblical about bestowing honor on men and women of God.

Again, my point is that if there is biblical support for the position on Mary’s perpetual virginity, and nothing in the bible that directly contradicts the position, why do many Protestants hold out on this point with such vigor? Why hold the doctrine out as a controversy except for the fact that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is the underlying concern. Protestants who abandon the objection would have to impliedly admit that their relatively novel, and historically dissenting, position that Mary had other children after Jesus is wrong, and the historical position of the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox, and the Copts, and the Anglican Church, and the Lutherans, etc. etc.) was correct. And I think that can be a bone in the throat to many bona fide separated Christian brothers and sisters.

Peace,
Robert
 
drblank1 said:
Just to defend your misconceptions about Protestant views on Mary and her virginity, you are mostly wrong. Yes there are some who are very anti-Catholic and set out to PROVE Catholicism is wrong. But that is not unique to the Protestant movement just as there are many anti-Protestant Catholics. So it goes both ways. But Protestants believe doctrine should be strictly derived from the Bible. Protestants (and rightly so) are concerned with any worship or devotion of any kind to anyone other than God. That is the majority’s concerns.
Click to expand...
And yet the radical redefinition of the Church and all that entails, remaking the faith from the Bible alone apart from tradition (which is little to great depending on the denomination, for not all have walked the same path) is profoundly… welll, unChristian, if we’re going by how the Church has been understood for most of its history. I don’t mean to claim Protestants are not Christians, they are, but the traditions and apostolic teachings and the authority of the Church in establishing right doctrine and practice are natural to the Christian faith, and it seems many denominations have excised it from theres, to varying degrees. It’d be as absurd of tossing out the Bible but keeping to the traditions only.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Thanksf for the blessings drblank. God bless you as well.

I appreciate that it’s *your *question. And I assume wholeheartedly that it was offered in good faith because you were seeking the Catholic position on the doctrine. My point was that the present controversy itself is raised by Protestants against Catholics. The Catholic Church in the East and West, and the Orthodox Churches, all have accepted the doctrine. And the root of the question is indeed one of authority, because, as you and others have already noted, without an authority outside of scripture we will never come to an agreement. You will stick to your relatively new American evangelical interpretation, and Catholics will stick to the ancient interpretation of the majority of Christendom.

As for the history of the doctrine, of course from time to time there were objections by some. But the consistent teaching from the ancient churches was that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. Those who dissented from the common teaching of these historical churches were just that… *dissenters *from the common teaching.

I also understand that Protestants, for the most part, adhere to the concept of sola scriptura. My comment was not an attack upon that construct. My point was that one can, using the bible alone, support the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. As you yourself acknowledge, there are even Protestant ecclesial communities (presumably sola scriptura Protestants) who accept the teaching as a doctrine of the faith.

Respectfully, I don’t see how a discussion of Mary’s perpetual virginity gives rise to a concern over idolatry? Priests take a vow of lifelong celibacy, giving up a good (marital union) for a greater good (mirroring the heavenly life where there is no marrying or giving in marriage). We do not worship them or consider them divine for this sacrifice. Again, I think that your perception of the doctrine both reads too much importance into it, and in a sense fails to take seriously the profundity of Mary’s unique situation in salvation history. Her womb was quite literally the doorway through which God entered into creation. In addition to the wealth of biblical authority and the biblical typography previously cited by others so far on this thread, one can make a reasonable assumption that, having given birth to Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, Mary (along with her womb) was consecrated by God, and made holy (i.e. set aside for God alone). Does that make her an idol, or a goddess? Of course not. (Your preconceptions about what Catholics believe may be showing through here.) This makes her the mother of Jesus, a position that is accorded great honor, but never adoration which is due to God alone. Protestants and Catholics both honor the saints who have gone before us, many of the same men and women from church history. There is nothing unbiblical about bestowing honor on men and women of God.

Again, my point is that if there is biblical support for the position on Mary’s perpetual virginity, and nothing in the bible that directly contradicts the position, why do many Protestants hold out on this point with such vigor? Why hold the doctrine out as a controversy except for the fact that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is the underlying concern. Protestants who abandon the objection would have to impliedly admit that their relatively novel, and historically dissenting, position that Mary had other children after Jesus is wrong, and the historical position of the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox, and the Copts, and the Anglican Church, and the Lutherans, etc. etc.) was correct. And I think that can be a bone in the throat to many bona fide separated Christian brothers and sisters.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
Well stated. I have read many conversions over the years, and been involved in numerous discussions. Every convert said it was about authority. Every discussion comes down to authority.

Every schism has always been about authority. The Reformers, when throwing off the authority of the bishops, knew they had to still be governed by some authority, so they chose the bible. But the bible is an inanimate authority. It still needs interpretation. So in reality the Reformers threw off the authority of the bishops, not for the bible, but for their interpretation of the bible.

There is a great article on Calledtocommunion.com how *sola scriptura *in reality is always solo scriptura.
 
Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church as a divine institution whose task it was to profess, affirm and proclaim the truth.

the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is true. Mary remained and remains a virgin. that is the reality that God created. that is why it is important for the Church to teach it.

it seems to me that we should all want to profess, affirm and proclaim the truth.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
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
Click to expand...
Why the change? Because She will crush the serpents head and Satan hates Her?
 
Non-Catholics often have difficulty accepting Mary’s designation as “Mother of God.” But the Person whom she bore was the Second Person of the Trinity, so the title is apt. If Jesus had biological siblings, I suppose there would also be controversy over referring to them as “brothers of God” and “sisters of God.”

At root, every Marian doctrine has Jesus at its core, seeking to preserve the idea of Who Jesus is.
 
Cathoholic said:
NeuroTypical. You list yourself as LDS. Fair enough.

You said:

Do you REALLY think that? (or have you not thought it over much?)

Think about it.

You have the Temple in Salt Lake City. And it is “CONSECRATED” or has a “Dedication for a Holy Purpose”.

Not even just Mormons are allowed in certain places there.

Vendors off the streets would not be allowed to go into there and sell, say . . . “pronto pups”. They wouldn’t even be allowed in there.

Why? Because it would “PROFANE” (“make common”) a place that has a HOLY dedication that’s why.

You must be “Temple Worthy”.

If such is true for the Temple, a mere bldg., how much MORE true would that be for Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, concerning His “Consecrated” Blessed Mother?
Click to expand...
Well … if I felt that way, then being allegedly “married” to her in the first place would seem like an unworthy sham. If all this were true, then pretending to be her husband would be at least as unseemly as consummating the non-marriage. No offense meant, but why pose to all & sundry as the ostensible profaner of the allegedly dedicated temple?
 
Le_Cracquere said:
Well … if I felt that way, then being allegedly “married” to her in the first place would seem like an unworthy sham. If all this were true, then pretending to be her husband would be at least as unseemly as consummating the non-marriage. No offense meant, but why pose to all & sundry as the ostensible profaner of the allegedly dedicated temple?
Click to expand...
Sham?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top