The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TriuneUnity

Guest
Given that this subject is often raised by Protestant posters here on the forum, I thought I would, for the edification of those concerned, post this paper on the topic of Semper Virgo, written from a traditional Lutheran perspective (Pr. William Weedon of St. Paul’s Church, Hamel, IL) in agreement with the Church’s historic teaching that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. I posted this on the thread Societas Sancti Polycarpi, but thought I would make it available here, too. It is in Microsoft Word format:

stpaullutheranchurchhamel.org/Perpetual_Virginity.doc
 
TriuneUnity said:
Given that this subject is often raised by Protestant posters here on the forum, I thought I would, for the edification of those concerned, post this paper on the topic of Semper Virgo, written from a traditional Lutheran perspective (Pr. William Weedon of St. Paul’s Church, Hamel, IL) in agreement with the Church’s historic teaching that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. I posted this on the thread Societas Sancti Polycarpi, but thought I would make it available here, too. It is in Microsoft Word format:

stpaullutheranchurchhamel.org/Perpetual_Virginity.doc
Click to expand...
I can’t open your link.
 
TriuneUnity said:
…the Church’s historic teaching that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.
Click to expand...
While I admit to some issues with Church teachings, this is not one of them. This is simply something that I don’t care about. I’ve always wondered…why is this such a big deal?
 
Again, TU, just make the change, bro, your more Roman than most Catholics, you need to just sack up and do the deed.
 
Its a big issue because the some protestant churches like Jehovahs Witnesses and Iglesia ni Cristo, use this as an issue to disprove apostolic teachings, and use biblical text analysis (which in fact wrong) to prove that they are correct and the true re-emerge church. they have their own prophets, so, its the teaching of their prophet against the Apostolic teachings of the Catholic church. They also teaches that the ancient church turn its back on the correct teaching, and this is one of them.
rick43235 said:
While I admit to some issues with Church teachings, this is not one of them. This is simply something that I don’t care about. I’ve always wondered…why is this such a big deal?
Click to expand...
 
TriuneUnity said:
Given that this subject is often raised by Protestant posters here on the forum, I thought I would, for the edification of those concerned, post this paper on the topic of Semper Virgo, written from a traditional Lutheran perspective (Pr. William Weedon of St. Paul’s Church, Hamel, IL) in agreement with the Church’s historic teaching that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. I posted this on the thread Societas Sancti Polycarpi, but thought I would make it available here, too.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the intelligent article. I agree that Jerome’s reconciliation is plagued with problems. IMHO McHugh provides a better reconciliation…though one must keep in mind that providing an explanation as to how some could be called the brothers of Christ w/o also being children of Mary does not establish:

a) that these brothers were not the children of Mary;
b) that Mary didn’t have other children;
c) that Mary didn’t have sexual relations with Joseph; or
d) that Mary remained a virgin in partu.

From the perspective of someone who strongly doubts the perpetual virginity of Mary (the PVofM) I found these bits from the article rather interesting:
  1. The author seems to agree with Lightfoot that Jerome’s theory was Jerome’s own idea and was not based on tradition. As such, it seems that Jerome was not (by way of being privy to a tradition) in a better position than either Lightfoot or McHugh to explain the “brothers of Jesus”…and Jerome does the poorest job of it. The CC wants to believe that the PVofM is a tradition that goes back to the apostles, but there doesn’t seem to be much substance to the tradition at the time of Jerome. In actuality the historical record is completely silent with respect to an express statement regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary until we come to works which are at odds with scripture (such as the Protoevangelium of James or the Ascension of Isaias) or to the work of Tertullian who denied it.
  2. The author states that, in regard to his opposition to the PVof M, “…among the early fathers, Tertullian is a lonely voice on this question.” This statement is true if one is looking for express statements. The PVofM includes Mary’s virginity before conception, before birth, during birth and following birth. Scripture establishes the first two. As for the other two, if one is looking for an early father that comes out and expressly declares that Mary remained a virgin during both the birth process and after the birth process, then at the time of Tertullian, such an early father would also be a lonely voice (or rather a non-existent voice). The author notes that “For witnesses to the perpetual virginity, Jerome felt he could summon up no less an array of fathers than ‘Ignatius, Polycarp, Iranaeus, Justin Martyr.’” We have, however, the same letters that Jerome listed as being authored by Ignatius and Polycarp and those letters have nothing close to an express statement that declares the PVofM. I don’t think Polycarp even mentions Mary in his letter and Ignatius deals with her very briefly.
  3. The author, in conclusion, states that “only this explanation accounts satisfactorily for the absence of the mention of any other children of Mary and Joseph during the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12, for the fact that Mary is never called the mother of these “brothers”, and for the fact that Jesus commends her into John’s keeping from the cross.” “Satisfactory” is surely something that must be in the “eye of the beholder.” First, why should we expect that the other children of Mary and Joseph would get mentioned during the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12? What was their importance with respect to that story and its purpose? The author can believe (with satisfaction?) in the PVofM even though the alleged miraculous aspect of the birth process (which achieved virginity in partu) is given no mention in either of the gospels that deal with the birth,…and yet the failure to mention “any other children of Mary and Joseph during the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12” is somehow unsatisfactory if such children existed. Second, should we really be troubled by the fact that Mary is never called the mother of these “brothers”? Mary is given very little post partum attention by any of the gospel writers. The focus is properly on Jesus and, as such, we should expect that a person’s relation to Jesus would be stated before that person’s relation to Mary might get a mention. Again, it is interesting to note what the author finds to be satisfactory. He believes that James is the cousin of Jesus, but the author doesn’t seem to be dissatisfied that James is never called a cousin. In contrast, the author finds it unsatisfactory that James could be a true son of Mary, w/o Mary ever being called his mother. Third, the fact that Jesus commends Mary into John’s keeping from the cross can be satisfactorily explained by referring to an earlier passage in the very same gospel that tells of this fact. In John 7 it is explained that even Jesus’s own brothers did not believe in him and that factor could account for the need to entrust his mother to a disciple. As such, a perspective which holds that Jesus was Mary’s only child is not necessary for a satisfactory explanation of those three passages…and of course, even if Jesus was Mary’s only child, such a thing would not establish her virginity either in partu or post partum.
  4. The only times that I have seen Jerome’s argument used on these boards is when Catholics have used a form of it to “prove” that the apostle James, who was called the Lord’s brother, wasn’t actually the Lord’s brother. The “proof” involves the assumption that James, the brother of the Lord, must have also been one of the twelve. It would be nice if those Catholics would read this article so that they would be more inclined to lay their “proof” to rest.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Given that this subject is often raised by Protestant posters here on the forum, I thought I would, for the edification of those concerned, post this paper on the topic of Semper Virgo, written from a traditional Lutheran perspective (Pr. William Weedon of St. Paul’s Church, Hamel, IL) in agreement with the Church’s historic teaching that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. I posted this on the thread Societas Sancti Polycarpi, but thought I would make it available here, too. It is in Microsoft Word format:
stpaullutheranchurchhamel.org/Perpetual_Virginity.doc
Click to expand...
First of all this author has already discredited his commentary by misinforming and decieving his public by labeling the “doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary” to be St.Jeromes??? This is never St. Jeromes doctrine. In fact St. Jerome cannot and never invented any Catholic doctrine. It serves no justice to complete reading an article that decieves its readers from the very beginning. The doctrine of the Perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin Mary is never refuted until the reformation period. To which Martin Luther was a firm believer in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

In fact the Catholic Church has only publicly proclaimed 3 Marian Dogmas “Mary, the Mother of God,” was proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

The second dogma, the “Immaculate Conception,” was proclaimed in 1854 by Pope Pius IX
The third dogma, the “Assumption of Mary,” was proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII

The fact remains that the Catholic Church only defines an Apostolic teaching as dogma or be defined as doctrine, when the already practiced Apostolic Catholic comes under attack.

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary has never come under attack, this was always believed in since Apostolic times, the Catholic Church has never needed to make this an official doctrine because her members all believed and taught on her perpetual virginity.

"**This paper proposes to study Jerome’s doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary **and its impact on the Western church.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, has never been made officially proclaimed doctrine, so how can St.Jerome invent a doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This dogma is believed uncontested by the Popes and magisterium of the Catholic Church faithful which makes it a believed dogma.
Click to expand...
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
First of all this author has already discredited his commentary by misinforming and decieving his public by labeling the “doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary” to be St.Jeromes??? This is never St. Jeromes doctrine. In fact St. Jerome cannot and never invented any Catholic doctrine. It serves no justice to complete reading an article that decieves its readers from the very beginning. The doctrine of the Perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin Mary is never refuted until the reformation period. To which Martin Luther was a firm believer in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

In fact the Catholic Church has only publicly proclaimed 3 Marian Dogmas “Mary, the Mother of God,” was proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

The second dogma, the “Immaculate Conception,” was proclaimed in 1854 by Pope Pius IX
The third dogma, the “Assumption of Mary,” was proclaimed in 1950 by Pope Pius XII

The fact remains that the Catholic Church only defines an Apostolic teaching as dogma or be defined as doctrine, when the already practiced Apostolic Catholic comes under attack.

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary has never come under attack, this was always believed in since Apostolic times, the Catholic Church has never needed to make this an official doctrine because her members all believed and taught on her perpetual virginity.

"**This paper proposes to study Jerome’s doctrine **of the perpetual virginity of Mary and its impact on the Western church.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, has never been made officially proclaimed doctrine, so how can St.Jerome invent a doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This dogma is believed uncontested by the Popes and magisterium of the Catholic Church faithful which makes it a believed dogma.
Click to expand...
You mistook the author’s purpose in making that statement, Gabriel. The author affirms the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The article says “Jerome’s doctrine” because it is examining his conflict over the issue with Helvidius. It’s not stating that Jerome invented the teaching. It’s an analysis of his defense of the teaching.
 
TriuneUnity said:
You mistook the author’s purpose in making that statement, Gabriel. The author affirms the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The article says “Jerome’s doctrine” because it is examining his conflict over the issue with Helvidius. It’s not stating that Jerome invented the teaching. It’s an analysis of his defense of the teaching.
Click to expand...
Thank you I stand corrected. I recognized immediately that the commentary was not Catholic, when the author mentioned “Jeromes doctrine.” One who is unfamiliar with this Great Catholic Saint Jerome, can come away from this commentary leaving with an understanding that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary Doctrine was Jeromes invention which influenced the Western Church, which we know is never the case.

To which it is duly noted here, that this commentary proves and confirms that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virignity of Mary, was long believed in before the time of St. Jerome and Helvidus.

Peace be with you
 
for the Protestants who are Bible-only believers, where in the Bible did it say that Mary had other children?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top