The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

[Radical]

My point to you is that the 175 years “Gap” is a red herring you are inserting.

the 175 years gap is a historical fact that must be properly explained and, as such, it isn’t a colored fish.

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.

this “it wasn’t questioned, so it wasn’t mentioned” theory seems extremely weak…do you know of any reputable historians that have endorsed it lately?

The protoevangelium of James is useful as a historical document to illustrate that at 60 years (not 175) after the Blessed Mothers death the Perpetual Virginity concept was from the beginning.

Really?

a) could you tell me when, where and how Mary died and when, where and by whom the Protoevangelium was written so that I can verify your math? Please include your sources.
b) Given that the Protoevangelium was rejected by so many (such as Jerome) could you tell me why I should believe that the Protoevangelium wasn’t the product of a imaginative group and did not represent a novel view at the time of its production?
c) Given that the Protoevangelium is falsely attributed to James and that it contains some fairly farfetched details, why should I give it (or any portion of it) any credibility?….again, IIRC guys like Jerome called it garbage or something similar

From what I gather, you want all beliefs to be accounted for and “Documented” minute by minute from hour one.

nope,… suggesting an explanation is needed for a 175 year/approx 92,000,000 minute silence is hardly a demand for a minute by minute accounting.

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.

you can keep calling it a fact, but that effort won’t make it one.

It is your opinion that there is 1600 years of error.

yep

Why? Because you believe in the errors of the Reformer’s and the 500+ years of continual error against the body of Christ.

Nope, I don’t think it is an error b/c some of the reformers thought it was an error. Instead, I think it is an error b/c I think that, the best conclusion based on the historical evidence, is that it is a novelty introduced some time in the 2nd century….and which gradually gained acceptance thereafter. My faith does not require me to believe that it is an error, but I suspect your faith requires you to believe that it is an “Hour one” teaching

 

[Radical]

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 wouldn’t be too adamant about the dates of either Revelation or the Protoevangelium…though I think wmscott has got the latter pegged too early

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?

I draw the line (wrt the PV of Mary) at the Apostolic Fathers b/c the idea shows up shortly thereafter…for other things such as the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption the line can be pushed quite a bit farther back. I don’t feel a need to justify Chalcedonian Christology…I will readily admit that the nature of God and the incarnation are beyond my understanding…

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.

It is a development of ideas that are germinal in the NT, I just don’t think that the development is inspired. Intelligent and rational, but not inspired.

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.

Yours is a reasonable position…it just isn’t mine and it doesn’t appeal to me and also, I wouldn’t define the Church in the same way that you would.

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.

fair enough…Cheers

 

[wmscott]

I wouldn’t be too adamant about the dates of either Revelation or the Protoevangelium…though I think wmscott has got the latter pegged too early

I draw the line (wrt the PV of Mary) at the Apostolic Fathers b/c the idea shows up shortly thereafter…for other things such as the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption the line can be pushed quite a bit farther back. I don’t feel a need to justify Chalcedonian Christology…I will readily admit that the nature of God and the incarnation are beyond my understanding…

It is a development of ideas that are germinal in the NT, I just don’t think that the development is inspired. Intelligent and rational, but not inspired.

Yours is a reasonable position…it just isn’t mine and it doesn’t appeal to me and also, I wouldn’t define the Church in the same way that you would.

fair enough…Cheers

The Protoevangelium…was written 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.

 

[Radical]

The Protoevangelium…was written 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.

Earlier, in response to a very similar assertion by you, I had said:

Really?

a) could you tell me when, where and how Mary died and when, where and by whom the Protoevangelium was written so that I can verify your math? Please include your sources.
b) Given that the Protoevangelium was rejected by so many (such as Jerome) could you tell me why I should believe that the Protoevangelium wasn’t the product of a imaginative group and did not represent a novel view at the time of its production?
c) Given that the Protoevangelium is falsely attributed to James and that it contains some fairly farfetched details, why should I give it (or any portion of it) any credibility?….again, IIRC guys like Jerome called it garbage or something similar

I am to understand that you have no answers to these questions?

 

[wmscott]

Earlier, in response to a very similar assertion by you, I had said:

Really?

a) could you tell me when, where and how Mary died and when, where and by whom the Protoevangelium was written so that I can verify your math? Please include your sources.
b) Given that the Protoevangelium was rejected by so many (such as Jerome) could you tell me why I should believe that the Protoevangelium wasn’t the product of a imaginative group and did not represent a novel view at the time of its production?
c) Given that the Protoevangelium is falsely attributed to James and that it contains some fairly farfetched details, why should I give it (or any portion of it) any credibility?….again, IIRC guys like Jerome called it garbage or something similar

I am to understand that you have no answers to these questions?

You know, I have been out there researching this subject because of your assertions, and what I have found is that you are parroting from the anti-Catholic sites. I can’t find the specific writings of St Jerome for most of what you are asserting so please provide me with St Jerome’s writings as to this effect.

I believe that the CC does acknowledge that St James did not write the Protoevangelium, that is was probably someone else. However, as to the farfetched details, are you referring to Mary’s perpetual virginity?

The Protoevangelium of James is a historical, not canonical. However, what it does do is to illustrate that Mary was a consecrated virgin and it was written early on, so it gives us a glimpse of the mindset or beliefs of the early Christians. St. Jerome steadfastly defended the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

What you want is a written Gospel account of this or any Catholic belief with a minute by minute accounting of every minute detail of Catholic beliefs.

 

[Radical]

I can’t find the specific writings of St Jerome for most of what you are asserting so please provide me with St Jerome’s writings as to this effect.

For Jerome on the Protoevangelium see his work entitled The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (chapter 10)…look for “ravings” or “mad ravings” depending on the translation.

For Jerome’s lists of works by Ignatius and Polycarp in On Illustrious Men see his work entitled On Illustrious Men (chapters 16 and 17)

Was there anything else?

I believe that the CC does acknowledge that St James did not write the Protoevangelium, that is was probably someone else. However, as to the farfetched details, are you referring to Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Take your pick, there seems to be plenty of such details

 

[wmscott]

For Jerome on the Protoevangelium see his work entitled The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (chapter 10)…look for “ravings” or “mad ravings” depending on the translation.

For Jerome’s lists of works by Ignatius and Polycarp in On Illustrious Men see his work entitled On Illustrious Men (chapters 16 and 17)

Was there anything else?

Take your pick, there seems to be plenty of such details

Having trouble locating it, do you have a link to the writings of St Jerome. I have googled it but i cant find it.

 

[wmscott]

Having trouble locating it, do you have a link to the writings of St Jerome. I have googled it but i cant find it.

Still curious as to the a link you have to the writings of St Jerome that suggests you assertions.

 

[Radical]

Having trouble locating it, do you have a link to the writings of St Jerome. I have googled it but i cant find it.

Church Fathers

 

[wmscott]

Church Fathers

I was here but I can not find where St Jerome had anything to say about the Protoevangelium. So please be patient with me and on this link show me where St Jerome is discussing the Protoevangelium. Thanks in advance.

 

[Roblox84]

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.

Keep in mind that these “wrong” teachings are what most of the Christians believe in. So if you disagree with them then you are just the minority trying to prove something that isn’t and which is adhered by most people in the Christian world.

 

[Dokimas]

Keep in mind that these “wrong” teachings are what most of the Christians believe in. So if you disagree with them then you are just the minority trying to prove something that isn’t and which is adhered by most people in the Christian world.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Roblox84]

Can you be more specific?

I’m just saying that most people that don’t believe in these teachings about Mary or even the Eucharist are the very minority. There is no way that anyone can provide any evidence out of the bible to disprove the biblical teachings that most of Christianity adheres to. By doing this you are just saying that most Christians in this world are wrong and the very few that deny the facts are right.

 

[Radical]

I was here but I can not find where St Jerome had anything to say about the Protoevangelium. So please be patient with me and on this link show me where St Jerome is discussing the Protoevangelium. Thanks in advance.

I had said earlier:

For Jerome on the Protoevangelium see his work entitled The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (chapter 10)…look for “ravings” or “mad ravings” depending on the translation.

Here is the sentence from that work:

No midwife assisted at His birth; no women’s officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, Luke 2:7 “and laid Him,” we are told, “in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn”; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn.

The Protoevangelium is an apocryphal account containing “ravings” that state a midwife assisted Mary.

 

[Radical]

I’m just saying that most people that don’t believe in these teachings about Mary or even the Eucharist are the very minority.

Really? I would say that about 75% of Catholics (in the US) believe these teachings about Mary…less than 60% believe in a Real Presence. Source Rather than a “very minority”, it just might be a majority of Christians that deny these teachings about Mary and deny the RP in the Eucharist.

 

[Dokimas]

I’m just saying that most people that don’t believe in these teachings about Mary or even the Eucharist are the very minority. There is no way that anyone can provide any evidence out of the bible to disprove the biblical teachings that most of Christianity adheres to. By doing this you are just saying that most Christians in this world are wrong and the very few that deny the facts are right.

Do numbers make correct? Most of the world isn’t Christian. Using what seems to be your logic, then Christianity isn’t true.​

It matters not what you or I believe; it matters what God knows is the Truth. Well, I guess for me it matters if I am correct or incorrect on some important issues only in the respect of my relationship to God.

 

[Roblox84]

Do numbers make correct? Most of the world isn’t Christian. Using what seems to be your logic, then Christianity isn’t true.​

It matters not what you or I believe; it matters what God knows is the Truth. Well, I guess for me it matters if I am correct or incorrect on some important issues only in the respect of my relationship to God.

I’m just mainly talking about Christianity since Catholicism even by itself not including protestants is bigger then any other Islam or Muslim religions or any other religion that doesn’t believe in the Christian God. And I do believe that numbers play a huge role because it just shows that a lot of the break away denominations just didn’t want to adhere to the majority and basically wanted to preach new things. They didn’t have better truths or interpretations, they just didn’t want to be part of the “group” so to say. The greater numbers also show that other faiths are lacking something in some perspective, possibly lacking in a sound doctrine maybe.

 

[wmscott]

I had said earlier:

For Jerome on the Protoevangelium see his work entitled The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (chapter 10)…look for “ravings” or “mad ravings” depending on the translation.

Here is the sentence from that work:

No midwife assisted at His birth; no women’s officiousness intervened. With her own hands she wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, herself both mother and midwife, Luke 2:7 “and laid Him,” we are told, “in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn”; a statement which, on the one hand, refutes the ravings of the apocryphal accounts, for Mary herself wrapped Him in the swaddling clothes, and on the other makes the voluptuous notion of Helvidius impossible, since there was no place suitable for married intercourse in the inn.

The Protoevangelium is an apocryphal account containing “ravings” that state a midwife assisted Mary.

Thanks for being patient with me and being specific. However, what I see is that St Jerome made one reference towards the apocryphal account containing “ravings”. But what is ignored by you is that St Jerome ardently defended the Perpetual virginity of Mary.

Also the “ravings” can also mean or extravagant utterance or declamation. It does not always mean it is lunacy.

On the same site you sent me to, it also has the following.

Apocryphal gospels of Catholic origin

The Protoevangelium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James

It purports to have been written by “James the brother of the Lord”, i.e. the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic. The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. They are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age.