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
