Scripture and Mary

[teachccd]

What if Scripture was explicit concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary? How would that change Christianity according to Protestant theology? Would that lessen the role of Christ? Why are Protestants so up in arms concerning this teaching??

 

[EphelDuath]

Scripture is explicit.

“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” (Ezekiel 44:2)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Scripture is explicit.

“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” (Ezekiel 44:2)

[SIGN]AMEN![/SIGN]

 

[Rightlydivide]

What if Scripture was explicit concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary? How would that change Christianity according to Protestant theology? Would that lessen the role of Christ? Why are Protestants so up in arms concerning this teaching??

I do not think it would change anything. We are only defending the integrity and plain meaning of scripture. But in the scheme of things, it does not matter to me that she had at least 6 other children, nor would it matter if she did not.

 

[TOME]

Firtst Happy Thanksgiving to you and all in this forum.

As with anything human there are always a multitude of reasons why we say things, have opinions and do things.

I think in regards to our protestant brethern’s attitude towards Our Blessed Mother is no different. So as I was thinking about this reply I came up with a couple of reasons (and I am sure as soon as I send my reply I will think of a few more - perhaps the ones that are really important).

My first thought is some of the early reformers were not anti-Mary and there were those, like Luther, who continued to have a devotion to her. However, I think they sincerely held a belief that the Church’s devotion to Our Blessed Mother needed reform as well - devotion to Mary was clouding a proper understanding of Christ. I think we find this same attitude amoung many protestants today and in a way I can understand where they are coming from.

Without an almost instinctive understanding of Catholic Theology many of us have, because we were raised as Catholics, what we take as a given, namely, the role of Mary is always dependant on Christ and cannot be understood otherwise, if one looks at the prayers and attitudes we have towards Mary it could appear to an outsider that instead of venerating Mary we worship her. Of coarse we don’t worship her! Do to that would be blasphemy and really would betray the love we are trying to proclaim for our Mother.

Still, if you look at some of our older prayers and writings about Mary coming from our popes and saints and not understand the poetic language being used it can, I believe that it could reasonably be misunderstood as worship. Also, from my experience, I think the way we do venerate Mary sometimes blurs the boundry between veneration and worship. Even Pope John XXIII acknowlegded this and called for our reforms in Marian devotion.

Just a little side note, I find it interesting that when I hear or read a protestant attack on the Church’s devotion of Mary I only hear them quoting the prayers and sayings of pope and saints of the past ( again failing to understand the culture and language of the men and women and the Christology which all their works were rooted in - what ever happened to “Historical-Criticism”?) yet I don’t remember any of them using the works of Pope John Paul II or Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI or a theologian such as Hans Urs von Balthasar. But if they do then I am sure their criticism would show a certain ignorance of how contemporary Marian devotion is strongly rooted in Scripture, Christology and Ecclesiology. (I know that in many of my post I make references to these three great theologians, I do this because I feel they represent a whole school of modern Catholic Theology and thought and I hope if anyone reads at least on of their works this will inspire them to start to study the works of the other theologians of the Ressourcemento - forgive my spelling).

So my first reaction is many protestants do have a respect for Our Blessed Mother but do not understand Catholic Theology and end up totally missing the point of our veneration for our Blessed Mother.

But there are others who just outright reject any veneration our our Blessed Lady and can see it as nothing else but “Mary-Worship” and completely without any scriptural basis. From what I have heard and read I find a couple of reasons for this but I have to end here for a little while but God willing I will be able to continue my thoughts in a little while.

 

[TOME]

(#5 continued) Another reason that many protestants are so against anything having to do with Mary, and her perpetual virginity included, is rooted in a very old hatred for anything “Roman” or the “Roman” Catholic Church. I don’t find the hatred of the Roman Catholic Church anywhere what it was, from what I read, during the time of the Reformation or even a half century ago but there are certain vestiges still around that, from my opinion, evidence themselves in the form of prejudice - the prejudice that will not even consider a diologue concerning the Church’s Mariology.

But there is, in my opinion, another fundelmental reason for a protestant attitude against such Church dogma such as Mary’s perpetual virginity. At the root of this difference is the understanding of the Catholic Church (East and West -Orthodox and Roman Traditions) and protestants in regards to what Church is. We all believe the Church is the Body of Christ but in the Catholic Tradition we see the Church in light of Scripture, our Creeds and Sacraments where as the Reformed Churchs see themselves in light of only the Word (Scripture) Faith.

Our ecclesiology is rooted in our Christology and in the Incarnation and from this we understand that Christ is alive and present in this world through the Church and her Sacraments and Institutions. Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium expresses this far better than I could ever hope to so please read this document. Still the Church’s theology of Mary, as expressed in Lumen Gentium, is intrinsiclly rooted in our ecclesiology. All the Church teaches on Mary is rooted in Christ and from this in order to understand Mary we have to understand The Church and to understand the Church we have to understand Mary and her relationship to Christ and the Father and Hoy Spirit.

But in accepting just the scriptures as the source of her understanding of the Church protestants have rejected the institution of the Church and from this have rejected Apostolic Tradition as a source of revelation. Also in their rejection of the institution of the Church (that is the Magisterium of the Church) many protestant reformers and present day theologians have rejected many of the Councils of the Church and the Creeds which came out of these Councils - especially the Council of Nicea and the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

If these protestant churchs have rejected Apostolic Tradition, the authority of many of the Church Councils with their Creeds than it is understandable why they would reject a dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. And as I wrote above, sometimes protestant theologians will not even fully discuss the implications of the Christology of some of the Church Councils such as Ephesus and Nicea failing then to see the logical development of the Church’s Mariology. Also, in rejecting the teaching authority of the Church the writings of the Church Fathers is often not accepted or when it is the few Fathers who did question the “Immaculate Conception” are usually cited but without mentioning the fact that the same Fathers never questioned Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Also, as I wrote above, protestant ecclesiology does not see the Sacramental Nature of the Church as does the Catholic Church (East and West). At the center of the Sacramental Nature of the Church is the celebration of the Eucharist and the centrality of the Liturgy in Catholic theology. They reject then that what the Church holds to be true is expressed not only in Dogma and doctrines but through the celebration of the Liturgy. Yet we know from studying Church history, the proclamation and celebration Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in the liturgy of the Church (East and West) is a very ancient practice.

Classic protestant teaching in this matter is often based on the mentioning of Jesus’ brothers and sisters in the gospels, the role of James (the brother of the Lord) in Act and Paul’s letter to the Galetians and the phrase in the gospel of Matthew 1:25 about Joseph not having any relations with Mary “Until” she bore a son. Yet, my question is this is based on biblical interpertation developed since the 1500’s and in more recent times based on an understanding that has been heavily influnced by the “Enlightment”. One of my questions is why give creedence to these interpertations of scripture yet reject interpertations of scripture concerning Mary’s perpetual virginity that existed and were accepted in both the East and the West from the 2nd Century to the present. And the only real challange to this belief, before the protestant reformation and the age of the enlightment came from herecies that arosed that either denied Christ’s Human nature or His Divine Nature? Other wise, it was clearly accepted by the two Great Traditions of the Church? Was the Holy Spirit asleep, so to speak, at the wheel for 1500 years or was the Holy Spirit so weak he could not over come such misinterpertations by the Church for such a long time?

 

[teachccd]

Firtst Happy Thanksgiving to you and all in this forum.

So my first reaction is many protestants do have a respect for Our Blessed Mother but do not understand Catholic Theology and end up totally missing the point of our veneration for our Blessed Mother.

But there are others who just outright reject any veneration our our Blessed Lady and can see it as nothing else but “Mary-Worship” and completely without any scriptural basis. From what I have heard and read I find a couple of reasons for this but I have to end here for a little while but God willing I will be able to continue my thoughts in a little while.

TOME, I read through both of your posts. You really did your homework. Keep up the good work. As the OP, I hope to also hear from non-Catholic Christians and their take on this. God Bless…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

I do not think it would change anything. We are only defending the integrity and plain meaning of scripture. But in the scheme of things, it does not matter to me that she had at least 6 other children, nor would it matter if she did not.

Plain meaning of Scripture?? HMMM…30,000 Christian denominations all using the same Bible. So Jesus would just be one of her seven children…

I kind of hold that Jesus is special and that once Mary gave birth to the God-Man that her womb was sanctified and set aside for a human event comparable to none. God taking on her flesh. Perhaps you see it differently. I see it as the course of human history being changed and you see the birth of our Lord as just another kid… one of seven or so… Wow…:crying:

 

[Rightlydivide]

Plain meaning of Scripture?? HMMM…30,000 Christian denominations all using the same Bible. So Jesus would just be one of her seven children…

I kind of hold that Jesus is special and that once Mary gave birth to the God-Man that her womb was sanctified and set aside for a human event comparable to none. God taking on her flesh. Perhaps you see it differently. I see it as the course of human history being changed and you see the birth of our Lord as just another kid… one of seven or so… Wow…:crying:

I also hold that Jesus is special.
I see the course of human history being changed.
I do not see it as just another kid.
I do see that it was accomplished how it was accomplished and the humanity of it is beautiful The cleaned up nonbiblical version…not so much.

 

[teachccd]

I also hold that Jesus is special.
I see the course of human history being changed.
I do not see it as just another kid.
I do see that it was accomplished how it was accomplished and the humanity of it is beautiful The cleaned up nonbiblical version…not so much.

You concentrate so much on the humanity that I tend to wonder if you realize that Mary held within her womb the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself. It’s almost as if you’re so focused on the messyness of humanity that you neglect to see the perfection of divinity…I’m at a loss…

 

[Rightlydivide]

You concentrate so much on the humanity that I tend to wonder if you realize that Mary held within her womb the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself. It’s almost as if you’re so focused on the messyness of humanity that you neglect to see the perfection of divinity…I’m at a loss…

I do know that she held God himself. Yes. I think that you sanitize it so much that it takes away the beauty of how God chose to come into the world.

It was not a chapel built for a king.
It was a lowly stable surround by excrement and smelly animals.
It was not by an earthly queen.
It was by a simple faithful Jewish girl who would someday be the hardworking mother of a large family. Most likely a widow, left to fend for herself and her faith in God.
It was not a glorious family arrayed in a halo and bright clothes.
It was the dirty and stained garments of a family riding a beast for days at a time.
It was BEAUTIFUL.

 

[teachccd]

I do know that she held God himself. Yes. I think that you sanitize it so much that it takes away the beauty of how God chose to come into the world.

It was not a chapel built for a king.
It was a lowly stable surround by excrement and smelly animals.
It was not by an earthly queen.
It was by a simple faithful Jewish girl who would someday be the hardworking mother of a large family. Most likely a widow, left to fend for herself and her faith in God.
It was not a glorious family arrayed in a halo and bright clothes.
It was the dirty and stained garments of a family riding a beast for days at a time.
It was BEAUTIFUL.

You mention that I “sanitize” things. I know all of the elements that Jesus was born into. He came into our world. Your description in your quote above is perfect and I couldn’t agree more.BUT…If Mary indeed sinned then when she stood at the foot of her Son’s cross she would have been one to drive the nails in His hands and feet. She would have crucified her own Son with her sins. Yes, my friend,*** it was beautiful***. So beautiful that she could stand at the foot of the cross and know that she did EVERYTHING that God required of her. She was drenched with His blood, the blood that was from her blood. But she, as any Jewish mother would, removed herself with the grace of God, from His execution…Wow! What a mom…

Oh and one more thing…Do I sanitize things when I know that Jesus was not conceived in the same way that we are?? I guess that the Father did reserve some special things for His Son…

 

[jcrichton]

It was by a simple faithful Jewish girl who would someday be the hardworking mother of a large family. Most likely a widow, left to fend for herself and her faith in God.

***Hi, Rightly divide!

I do not usually speak on this subject (too verbose with few results)… but your assumption really drove it home for me… it is very Protestant (going against the Church for the simple reason of doing so); you place Mary as a mother of a large family… but have you noticed how many children Paul had?

I’ve not heard a single word against Paul submitting himself to God in an all out celibate priesthood–not even when he calls on others to be as he is… so here’s this guy who discovers Jesus and decides to serve Him and not engage in sexual acts… while this young woman who just happens to bring Jesus onto the world cannot think of another thing to do but to have lots of kids!

So Mary had no self-control, but Paul, being the model of perfect submission, is able to fight the flesh…

…doesn’t ring well to me… one day Mary risks her life to carry a child that was not Joseph’s (under Jewish law, if it were discovered, it would have meant her death by stonning) and another day she is too weak to think of nothing but having more children…

She must have been a really bad Mother… from what we know from Scriptures Jesus was the only son she doted on…

…pssst… another no brainer… remember Jesus’ first miracle… either He was always performing for Mary or she, as none other, had a clear understanding of who He really was!

Though it is not contingent upon salvation, I am sure Jesus would want us to have a little more reservation when evaluating Mary and her understanding of the Emmanuel!

God Bless!

Angel***

 

[teachccd]

Angel, Isn’t it amazing how and what great lengths one will take to lessen the Mother of our Lord? Boggles the mind…Great post! Keep up the good fight…teachccd

 

[Pwrlftr]

Angel, Isn’t it amazing how and what great lengths one will take to lessen the Mother of our Lord? Boggles the mind…Great post! Keep up the good fight…teachccd

If Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, how would that lessen her?

 

[Mannyfit75]

If Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, how would that lessen her?

This would take a much deeper thinking concerning Mary. But I’ll give my analytical view.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, but at least try to understand this with an open mind.

If Mary didn’t remain a virgin, it would be like breaking her own vow to God himself. It our ancient tradition, Jewish girls who were consecrated to the Temple have taken a vow to th Lord, Our God.

According to our tradition, Mary was consecrated to the Lord. The Protoevangelium of James records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

If she had sex with Joseph, this vow to her God would be broken. For Mary is the type of Ark of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. Consider the parallels of several Biblical Passages:

The words of Ex. 40:34-38, referring to the cloud of the Lord’s presence “covering” the tent of the Ark are echoed in Gabriel’s words to Mary in Luke 1:35: **"…the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow." **

David greets the Ark in fearful awe with the words “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam.6:9); Elizabeth greets Mary with the words, **“Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” **

In 2 Samuel 6:10-12 the ark is sent to the hill country of Judea and stays at the household of Obededom for three months; similary, Mary journeys to Elizabeth’s house and stays there three months.

Just as David danced in the presence of the Ark (2 Sam. 6:14), the babe in Elizabeth’s womb (John the Baptist) dances in the presence of God’s Shekhinah in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:41).
Additionally, in Revelation, St. John, immediately after seeing the Ark in heaven, sees the woman “clothed with the sun” who bears the Child who will rule the world (Revelation 11:19-12:5).

These verse are not mere incoincidence. They were written for a reason.

What is contain in the Ark of Old Covenant:

1. Aaron’s Staff, symbolizes priesthood.
2. Manna.
3. The Written Word of God (Tablet of the Ten Commandments.

What is contain in the New Ark of the Covenant:

1. Jesus, the High Priest.
2. The True Manna, (See John 6:51)
3. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.

Just as the Ark of old Covenant is made of beaten pure gold. Mary had to be pure. This is concern the writings of some of Our Early Church Fathers like St. Athanasius.

O Ark of the new covenant, clad on all sides with purity in place of gold; the one in whom is found the golden vase with its true manna, that is the flesh in which lies the God-head."

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

 

[jcrichton]

***Teachccd, I think it stems from Church bashing… in their minds, if they can disprove any of the Church’s Teachings they have removed the Church’s Authority and claim on being Christ’s only founded Church!

Claiming that there’s definite proof against Mary’s perpetual virginity elevates their “church” to a higher authority than the Catholic Church–it’s like claiming to being a Christian while reducing Christ to an angel. They do not see that by denouncing Christ’s Church they are denouncing Christ!

God Bless!

Angel***

 

[TOME]

Pwrlftr,

First, as a Catholic one of my starting points is Divine Revelation comes to us through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition - as interperted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So I guess there is a dichotomy between us that cannot be bridged without giving up basic principles of our faith. However, I hope to proceed not from what divides us but what we do have in common.

In regards to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and using scripture itself I think there is reason to state there is a scriptural basis for our Catholic belief.

Isn’t it an understanding amoung protestants that we should use scripture to interpert scripture? I think the scriptural references to the Arc of the Covenant and the reference from Ezekiel provide a strong basis for Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Here I am going to borrow heavily from Pope Benedict XVI’s writings writen as a theologian prior to his becoming Pope. (And yes I acknowledge that if what I am writing here was for a more formal presentation or forum the chage a plagiarism would be justified).

Cardinal Ratzinger in his works “Daughter Zion”, “Mary The Source of the Church” and "Introduction to Christianity) points out what I think are important scriptural references. In writing about Gabriel’s announcement to Mary (Lk 1: 28) points out that the angel’s greeting would best be translated not as “Hail” as we are all familiar with, but “Rejoice”. And from this he shows how this greeting (Rejoice) is rooted in the prophet Zephaniah’s promise to Israel of messianic hope and what follows are the words “Full of Grace” also translated as “Highly Favored”. However, from the scriptural context either phrase points to God’s special favor and presence. Just as God took up his dwelling in Israel through the Annunciation and Incarnation God now takes up his dwelling the Mary. Cardinal Ratzinger equates Mary with Israel or as he calls her “Daughter Zion”.

The next important point Benedict (please allow me to use refer to the same person either as Ratzinger or Benedict - which is a biblical practice I think you would agree e.x. Paul/Saul or Simon/Peter) describes how in Mary’s dialogue with the angel, Gabriel in answer to Mary’s question of how she will become pregant uses the term “Overshadow” (Lk 1:35). Going back to the OT the same word is used to describe God’s presence in the Tent inwhich the Ark was. God’s presence overshadowed the tent and took up his dwelling in the Tent and the Ark.

I am not doing Pope Benedict’s writings the justice they deserve but hopefully I am close enough to his ideas . To use scripture to interpert scripture we find in the references in Zaphaniah Mary as the personification of Isreal (Daughter Zion) and how the OT points to Mary being the Living Ark of the Covenant - The dwelling place of the covenant; Jesus. I think from this the reference to Ezekial is not without merit and forms a scriptural basis for the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

One important point. Some may say that the translation Cardinal Ratzinger used may not be the best because it is based on the Greek of the LXX and not hebrew. But this isn’t the case because he goes back to the hebrew terms for overshadow and indwelling because he finds them richer in meaning when pointing to Mary as the Living Ark of the Covenant and Daughter Zion. Again, please read the works I cited above to really see what he wrote (and hopefully I am not too far off).

 

[TOME]

(continued from #18) From what I have read and heard another reason many protestants reject Mary’s perpetual virginity is based on the fact that the gospels states that Mary was in the company of Jesus’ brothers and sisters and they give us the names of Jesus’ “siblings”. I think here we come to a classic case of two interpertations of the meaning of “brothers” and “sisters”. Traditional Catholic (Eastern and Western Traditions) translate these trem as cousins although there was also a tradition amoung one or two Church Fathers that the brothers and sisters were actually the sons and daughters of Joseph from a previous
marriage. We have already been presented with reasons for and against why the term “Brother” refers to another child(ren) of Our Blessed Mother and why this term actually means “Cousin” so I will not repeat this argument. But, I will ask this given the fact that the older tradition in the Church is the term refers to “Cousin” why is this “Interpertation” by so many for so long wrong? Consider just from a historical point of view that so many Christians of both the Eastern and Western Traditions believed that the term used here meant cousin why would a later interpertation have more weight? Historically, prior to the Reformation, the only challange to Mary’s perpetual Virginity came from heresies that denied Christ’s Divinity. I am sure you do not deny that Christ is fully human and fully Divine so please do not think this is my point. My point again, just from a historical perspective, the believe that the term “brothers/sisters” actually meant cousins was held for about a 1000 years before The Reformation. Could these Christians have gotten it wrong for such a long period of time. Also, who is actually in authority to say they and Catholics today are wrong if this is how we interpert scripture? Earlier, I gave a all to brief explanation of biblical sources for Mary’s perpetual virginity - who amoung the protestant churchs has the authority to say I am wrong?

No I beleve both scripture and history are on the side of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Manny and Tome,

I appreciate your answers but for the sake of my original question “If Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, how would that lessen her?”, let’s assume that she made no vow and that your church never taught such a doctrine. I don’t wish to make this a doctrinal debate over such a simple question.

So, “If Mary didn’t remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, how would that lessen her?”