The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

[Radical]

You put out the following “Matthew 1:25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.” as a statement to choy’s querstion " for the Protestants who are Bible-only believers, where in the Bible did it say that Mary had other children?" in effect you are saying that the Blessed Mothers Perpetual Virginity is false based on you own interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Then you go on to state “I just looked at the Bible and then compared the word ‘until’ with other NT uses and came to my own conclusion, as wrong (or right) as it may be”. You don’t see why you are being challenged on you assertions?

Catholic here have provided you in this thread and others, references from Sacred Scripture…

Perhaps, but nothing that doesn’t require a questionable interpretation/inference. Choy, would have been better advised to ask, " for the Protestants who are Bible-only believers, where in the Bible did it say that Mary remained a virgin her entire life?”

….and from Church history from the Early Church Fathers,

perhaps, but nothing from before 175+/- AD. The Venerators are fond of asserting that these Marian beliefs have a 2000 year history, but there is that rather alarming gap (w/o historical evidence of the belief) at the very start. It is either a “2000 year old belief” or a “1800 year old error” (wrt the perpetual virginity…not so old wrt things such as the Bodily Assumption and Immaculate Conception).

…Doctors of the Church,

would Jerome be one such Doctor? In the article that is linked in the OP, it is discussed how Jerome’s theory has problems. Both Lightfoot and McHugh provide a superior analysis, so why should I view Jerome’s opinion as being superior (or even equal) to the opinion of a modern scholar? Jerome claimed that he could refer to Ignatius and Polycarp for support in his argument against Helvidius. In On Illustrious Men Jerome lists the exact 8 letters from those two that most today recognize as legitimate. Could you show me where, in those eight letters, we have a claim for the perpetual virginity of Mary? If not, why should I consider Jerome as a reliable source for tradition?

….Popes, priests, and prominent theologians throughout history, and all you come back with opinions and misinterpreted Bible verses.

It all comes back to that 175 year gap at the very start. It doesn’t matter if you can show that the Popes from 400 AD to present all believed that Mary was an ever-virgin as 1600 years of adherence to an error does not remedy that error. You need to establish that the belief existed from the very start so that it isn’t an error.

Had you studied or even glanced or read at some level any of Church history on the various subjects that you participate in, you may have come across things like Helvidius and the Churche’s defense against his heretical teachings.

Too little, too late.

 

[Dokimas]

Do you find it impossible for God to have willed that His Son would be born from a Virgin for life? This is not a man’s invention, it is the will of God that it happened that way. Is your god incapable of achieving that, because my GOD is Omnipotent! Blessed be God, Blessed be His Son Jesus, Blessed be the Holy Spirit and Blessed be Jesus mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary!

Nope. God can do what He wills. He doesn’t answer to me and I’m very greatful. Seems He answers to the CC or some of their adherants.

What I don’t find is Biblical reason to think Mary was a virgin her whole life.​

I’m with you with all thoses Blesseds except the last one.

 

[wmscott]

Perhaps, but nothing that doesn’t require a questionable interpretation/inference. Choy, would have been better advised to ask, " for the Protestants who are Bible-only believers, where in the Bible did it say that Mary remained a virgin her entire life?”

perhaps, but nothing from before 175+/- AD. The Venerators are fond of asserting that these Marian beliefs have a 2000 year history, but there is that rather alarming gap (w/o historical evidence of the belief) at the very start. It is either a “2000 year old belief” or a “1800 year old error” (wrt the perpetual virginity…not so old wrt things such as the Bodily Assumption and Immaculate Conception).

would Jerome be one such Doctor? In the article that is linked in the OP, it is discussed how Jerome’s theory has problems. Both Lightfoot and McHugh provide a superior analysis, so why should I view Jerome’s opinion as being superior (or even equal) to the opinion of a modern scholar? Jerome claimed that he could refer to Ignatius and Polycarp for support in his argument against Helvidius. In On Illustrious Men Jerome lists the exact 8 letters from those two that most today recognize as legitimate. Could you show me where, in those eight letters, we have a claim for the perpetual virginity of Mary? If not, why should I consider Jerome as a reliable source for tradition?

It all comes back to that 175 year gap at the very start. It doesn’t matter if you can show that the Popes from 400 AD to present all believed that Mary was an ever-virgin as 1600 years of adherence to an error does not remedy that error. You need to establish that the belief existed from the very start so that it isn’t an error.

Too little, too late.

What on God’s green earth does that “175 year gap at the very start” have to do with anything? Are your serious or are you playing. So what if there is a 175 year period where the ECFs did not discuss issues surrounding the Blessed Mother. There was no need to; it was common and accepted knowledge or belief. There were never any challenges to it until Irenaeus had to defend it against heresies that arose around 180 A.D.

This assertion is just more rhetoric that is anti-Catholic, the three top smears that some Protestants attack the Catholic Church are: the Blessed Mother, the Pope, and the Eucharist. In addition, you are predictably using the same anti-Catholic playbook as the rest.

This next statement is taken from the CAF library:

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

If you would like to read the Protoevangelium of James in its entirety you can go here.

 

[wmscott]

Nope. God can do what He wills. He doesn’t answer to me and I’m very greatful. Seems He answers to the CC or some of their adherants.

What I don’t find is Biblical reason to think Mary was a virgin her whole life.​

I’m with you with all thoses Blesseds except the last one.

Luke 1:47-49
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

Is this quote in the Bible you use?

 

[Radical]

wmscott:

What on God’s green earth does that “175 year gap at the very start” have to do with anything? Are your serious or are you playing.

serious….175 years is a long time

So what if there is a 175 year period where the ECFs did not discuss issues surrounding the Blessed Mother. There was no need to; it was common and accepted knowledge or belief.

That is merely your grand assumption. It would seem that this assumption is the only means you have for bridging that 175 year gap…as one encounters the assumption often. Here is what I said last time I was told that there was no need for the ECFs to write about these Marian beliefs:

In contrast, we could very much expect that things like the perpetual virginity of Mary and the immaculate conception (and sinlessness) of Mary would be mentioned b/c the first would be of use in convincing an audience of the uniqueness of Jesus and the second would have been of great use in the arguments against the Gnostics.

For example, wrt the PV, the end of Matt 1 would have been a good place to mention the fact. As discussed, Luke 1 would have been a good place to mention the miraculous fact….in both cases a couple of words would have gotten the job done. The later ECFs definitely perceived a value in putting forward their belief in the PV and one would expect that the early ECFs would have seen the same value and would have done likewise….

For example, wrt the immaculate conception and its usefulness against the Gnostics, we should expect that an ECF would 1) point to the widely held belief in Mary’s absolute sinlessness and then 2) assert that there would be no need for God to have made Mary to be free of all sin if she did not actually carry the very flesh of the Lord in her womb. That effort by God would serve as proof of Jesus coming in the flesh.

There were never any challenges to it until Irenaeus had to defend it against heresies that arose around 180 A.D.

Oh…so did Ireneaus believe in Mary’s virginity in partu so that he was defending the full belief (as it is presently understood)?

This assertion is just more rhetoric that is anti-Catholic, the three top smears that some Protestants attack the Catholic Church are: the Blessed Mother, the Pope, and the Eucharist. In addition, you are predictably using the same anti-Catholic playbook as the rest.

so an historical approach has now become an “anti-Catholic playbook”? …you might be on to something there.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

I think 120 AD is about 50 years too early. BTW, this early resource of yours was a spurious and fanciful tale that was rejected by Aquinas, Jerome, popes Damasus, Innocent I and Gelasius (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3 and Mary for Evangelicals p 128) Both Jerome and Aquinas viewed the Proevangelium as being in conflict with scripture…and this is what you want to use as early evidence of the belief by the Church?

 

[Palaeologos]

perhaps, but nothing from before 175+/- AD. The Venerators are fond of asserting that these Marian beliefs have a 2000 year history, but there is that rather alarming gap (w/o historical evidence of the belief) at the very start. It is either a “2000 year old belief” or a “1800 year old error” (wrt the perpetual virginity…not so old wrt things such as the Bodily Assumption and Immaculate Conception).

Regarding AD 175 : you know we don’t have a canon of the NT that corresponds to ours until about AD 281, yes?

I would like an explanation of how the Church can be trusted to determine the canon of Scripture if its decisions regarding Marian veneration are so untrustworthy. And I would also like to know the specific hermeneutic that allows you to determine that the canon of Scripture is authentic, while devotional and liturgical practices that predated its establishment are not.

 

[Dokimas]

Luke 1:47-49
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

Is this quote in the Bible you use?

From the New King James Version:

Luke 1:

47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.
49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me, And holy is His name.​

Interesting that Mary said of herself that she was of a lowly state.

5014 ~ταπεινωσις~ tapeinosis @tap-i’-no-sis@

from 5013; TDNT-8:1,1152; n f

AV-low estate 1, humiliation 1, vile 1, be made low 1; 4

1. lowness, low estate
2. metaph.
   2a) spiritual abasement, leading one to perceive and lament his
   (moral) littleness and guilt

Mary sure was humble. I think she’d be mortified to see who some have elivated her to a position she doesn’t want.​

I’m trying to find in those verses you have me anything about perpetual virginity. I’m not understanding.

 

[Dokimas]

Regarding AD 175 : you know we don’t have a canon of the NT that corresponds to ours until about AD 281, yes?

I would like an explanation of how the Church can be trusted to determine the canon of Scripture if its decisions regarding Marian veneration are so untrustworthy. And I would also like to know the specific hermeneutic that allows you to determine that the canon of Scripture is authentic, while devotional and liturgical practices that predated its establishment are not.

Those letters were copied and circulated throughout the Christian ‘world’.​

There wasn’t and still isn’t agreement as to what is and what isn’t in the NT. There are 27 books of agreement. Others are not agreed upon.​

With these things said, what’s your point?

 

[Dokimas]

serious….175 years is a long time

Wrong teaching was nothing new to the new church. Within a few yrs of Jesus’ resurrection, the church leaders tried to deal with wrong teaching. 175 yrs is a long time for more wrong teachings to creep in.

 

[Palaeologos]

Those letters were copied and circulated throughout the Christian ‘world’.​

There wasn’t and still isn’t agreement as to what is and what isn’t in the NT. There are 27 books of agreement. Others are not agreed upon.​

With these things said, what’s your point?

Whose canon of the NT includes more than 27 books?

The earliest canon of the NT that exactly matches ours is that of Athanasius, in AD 367. That’s nearly 200 years after the earliest discovered reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity. You keep eliding the issue that plainly jumps out of this, which is that you trust the Church to vet the NT, yet not to make certain other doctrinal or practical decisions. I want to know how you’re deciding that the canon is correct and these other things are not.

 

[Prieldedi]

Nope. God can do what He wills. He doesn’t answer to me and I’m very greatful. Seems He answers to the CC or some of their adherants.

What I don’t find is Biblical reason to think Mary was a virgin her whole life.​

I’m with you with all thoses Blesseds except the last one.

The following passage is inspired by the Holy Spirit:

Luke 1:48, “He has looked upon his servant in her lowliness, and people forever will call me blessed.”

I hope you realize that by refusing to call Jesus mother “Blessed” you are refusing to follow the Bible, you are refusing to follow the Holy Spirit, you are refusing to follow your own Savior.

I can’t understand how on one hand you claim to obey and comply with the Word of God, while at the same time you refuse to obey and comply with Luke 1:48.

 

[Dokimas]

The following passage is inspired by the Holy Spirit:

Luke 1:48, “He has looked upon his servant in her lowliness, and people forever will call me blessed.”

I hope you realize that by refusing to call Jesus mother “Blessed” you are refusing to follow the Bible, you are refusing to follow the Holy Spirit, you are refusing to follow your own Savior.

I can’t understand how on one hand you claim to obey and comply with the Word of God, while at the same time you refuse to obey and comply with Luke 1:48.

Could you please point out where I said I obey and comply with the Word of God?​

While you’re at it, could you point out where I said I refuse to call Mary blessed?​

I’m holding my breath until you show me where I said these things.

 

[Radical]

Regarding AD 175 : you know we don’t have a canon of the NT that corresponds to ours until about AD 281, yes?

I would like an explanation of how the Church can be trusted to determine the canon of Scripture if its decisions regarding Marian veneration are so untrustworthy.

How can a body of believers get something right and get something else wrong? That seems to be a rather obvious possibility. How can I know that they got the NT canon right? I guess I don’t know with absolute certainty. For me, the NT canon should consist of those books that reliably reflect what Jesus did and taught and what the Apostles did and taught. I can look at the manuscripts and do an analysis to see how accurately our current texts reflect what was originally written and how likely it is that additions or other changes have been made. I can look at the Apostolic Fathers and see how the very earliest fathers viewed and used the books that now comprise the NT. I can look at subsequent ECFs and see what they say about the origin of those books and how they viewed and used the books that now comprise the NT. Specifically, I can look at Eusebius’s history and see what he has to say about what the apostles wrote and what works were utilized as scripture. I can do the same for the books that were not included. From that effort I can assess the decision of the ECFs.

The situation with the Marian doctrines is quite different. First, the canon and Marian doctrine are different sorts of things. The canon was about determining which written records stood above and apart from all other written records. The Marian doctrines were about Mary’s history and status. Second, I trust you can see the difference between the historical evidence that exists from the first centuries with respect to the determination of the canon of the NT and the historical evidence that exists from the first centuries wrt the Marian doctrines. Eusebius’s history demonstrates the difference quite nicely. We look at his work and we can learn quite a bit about the NT books and how they were viewed. In contrast, we look at Eusebius’s work, with its stated purpose of describing the most important people and events in the history of the Church and Mary is rarely mentioned. Think about that. If the Church at the time of Eusebius held Mary in the same elevated regard as do the modern Venerators, then how is it that she got so little attention from Eusebius? Further, almost all scholars will place the production of the NT books in the first 80 years after the cross. Do you think that there exists a similar consensus wrt the assertion of the Marian doctrines of the Venerators? If not, ask yourself why the scholars have not come to that same consensus…and you might find some reasons to trust the NT canon as being a reliable source for apostolic teachings and you might find some reasons to not trust the Marian doctrines as being apostolic teachings.

 

[wmscott]

Perhaps, but nothing that doesn’t require a questionable interpretation/inference. Choy, would have been better advised to ask, " for the Protestants who are Bible-only believers, where in the Bible did it say that Mary remained a virgin her entire life?”

perhaps, but nothing from before 175+/- AD. The Venerators are fond of asserting that these Marian beliefs have a 2000 year history, but there is that rather alarming gap (w/o historical evidence of the belief) at the very start. It is either a “2000 year old belief” or a “1800 year old error” (wrt the perpetual virginity…not so old wrt things such as the Bodily Assumption and Immaculate Conception).

would Jerome be one such Doctor? In the article that is linked in the OP, it is discussed how Jerome’s theory has problems. Both Lightfoot and McHugh provide a superior analysis, so why should I view Jerome’s opinion as being superior (or even equal) to the opinion of a modern scholar? Jerome claimed that he could refer to Ignatius and Polycarp for support in his argument against Helvidius. In On Illustrious Men Jerome lists the exact 8 letters from those two that most today recognize as legitimate. Could you show me where, in those eight letters, we have a claim for the perpetual virginity of Mary? If not, why should I consider Jerome as a reliable source for tradition?

**My point to you is that the 175 years “Gap” is a red herring you are inserting. Something that is understood and taught via “Sacred Tradition”, which I know you do not agree with, with regards to the subject of the Blessed Mothers Virginity, this teaching was not in question and did not need documentation from hour one. The protoevangelium of James is useful as a historical document to illustrate that at 60 years (not 175) after the Blessed Mothers death the Perpetual Virginity concept was from the beginning. From what I gather, you want all beliefs to be accounted for and “Documented” minute by minute from hour one. All this other stuff you are throwing out is just a way to misdirect the fact that the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother is a “Hour” one teaching. **

It all comes back to that 175 year gap at the very start. It doesn’t matter if you can show that the Popes from 400 AD to present all believed that Mary was an ever-virgin as 1600 years of adherence to an error does not remedy that error. You need to establish that the belief existed from the very start so that it isn’t an error.

**It is your opinion that there is 1600 years of error. Why? Because you believe in the errors of the Reformer’s and the 500+ years of continual error against the body of Christ. **

Too little, too late.

 

[Prieldedi]

Could you please point out where I said I obey and comply with the Word of God?​

While you’re at it, could you point out where I said I refuse to call Mary blessed?​

I’m holding my breath until you show me where I said these things.

Check your reply in post #41:

I said: Blessed be God, Blessed be His Son Jesus, Blessed be the Holy Spirit and Blessed be Jesus mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary!

You said: *I’m with you with all thoses Blesseds **except the last one. ***

If this is not a refusal, what is it?

If you’re a Christian, you have to obey and comply with the Word of God. Since your religion says “Christian” I assume you have to obey and comply with God’s Word.

 

[Dokimas]

Check your reply in post #41:

I said: Blessed be God, Blessed be His Son Jesus, Blessed be the Holy Spirit and Blessed be Jesus mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary!

You said: *I’m with you with all thoses Blesseds **except the last one. ***

If this is not a refusal, what is it?

If you’re a Christian, you have to obey and comply with the Word of God. Since your religion says “Christian” I assume you have to obey and comply with God’s Word.

Could you take another look? Didn’t you mention Mary twice? I agreed with the first ‘blessed’ and not with blessing the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Dokimas]

Check your reply in post #41:

I said: Blessed be God, Blessed be His Son Jesus, Blessed be the Holy Spirit and Blessed be Jesus mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary!

You said: *I’m with you with all thoses Blesseds **except the last one. ***

If this is not a refusal, what is it?

If you’re a Christian, you have to obey and comply with the Word of God. Since your religion says “Christian” I assume you have to obey and comply with God’s Word.

Are you tellin gme that you obey every part of God’s Word all the time? You never sin?

 

[Palaeologos]

How can I know that they got the NT canon right? I guess I don’t know with absolute certainty.

Then how can Scripture be used as a yardstick to deny Marian doctrines?

 

[Radical]

Then how can Scripture be used as a yardstick to deny Marian doctrines?

It is not a yardstick. There is no reference to the phoenix in the NT, but based on an extra-biblical source I am prepared to acknowledge that members of the church in Rome (about 100 AD) believed that the phoenix was a remarkable sign of the resurrection. I am not prepared to acknowledge that the church in Rome received that belief from an apostle and so I am inclined to believe that Christians were prepared to add (that which they thought to be true) to that which they received from the apostles. The NT is part of a body of evidence concerning what the earlier church believed. We have the NT books and we have the Apostolic Fathers. These are the earliest records of early church belief and they do not contain the Marian doctrines. Why should one believe that the Marian doctrines are not novelties when they don’t appear in the historical record until quite a few decades (in the case of the ever-virginity) or a few centuries later (in other cases)?

 

[Palaeologos]

It is not a yardstick. There is no reference to the phoenix in the NT, but based on an extra-biblical source I am prepared to acknowledge that members of the church in Rome (about 100 AD) believed that the phoenix was a remarkable sign of the resurrection. I am not prepared to acknowledge that the church in Rome received that belief from an apostle and so I am inclined to believe that Christians were prepared to add (that which they thought to be true) to that which they received from the apostles. The NT is part of a body of evidence concerning what the earlier church believed. We have the NT books and we have the Apostolic Fathers. These are the earliest records of early church belief and they do not contain the Marian doctrines. Why should one believe that the Marian doctrines are not novelties when they don’t appear in the historical record until quite a few decades (in the case of the ever-virginity) or a few centuries later (in other cases)?

The Protoevangelium of James is the earliest written instance of Mary’s perpetual virginity in print. It dates from AD 150, which isn’t long after the Revelation was written.

I can see where you’re drawing the line, and there’s more consistency to your position than in some others I’ve read here. I appreciate that. At the same time, if you draw the line at the Apostolic Fathers then how do you justify Chalcedonian Christology? It’s pretty clearly a doctrinal development that wasn’t contemplated before the early 5th century. I think it can be argued that it’s a development of ideas that are germinal in the NT, but there are some who argue that it’s a perversion of Apostolic faith.

My position is that the Church has the authority to define doctrines, even new ones, providing that they are not contradicted by Scripture or by any pre-existing deposit of faith. Having said that, I am perfectly happy with viewing Mary’s perpetual virginity as a spiritual state rather than a physical one; I have no stake in her physical status as virgo intacta.