What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Randy_Carson]

No it doesn’t!

If you believe that the Bible teaches that Mary had other children, please provide the verses that support your belief. Thanks.

 

[PJM]

=shawn38;6163376]Is your point that you’re affixing salvation through Mary (ie co-redemptrix)?

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

From your first pope:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So no Mary and no saints!

***Hi Shawn,

Please permit me to butt-in. You and Bother Randy are having such a nice conversation.

What Randy has stated is not and ought not to be interpreted as you seemingly have.

But I’ll allow Randy to address that point.

I would however take this opportunity to clarify for you [and others] what Catholic terminology and theology actually means in regard to Mary, the Mother of God; Jesus as "Co- redemptrix)? "

Point 1.* This is yet to be a defined Dogma or even a Formal Doctrine of our beliefs; all though it might well become one?

Point 2 The proper Catholic [as in Universal] understanding of this term does NOT imply that Mary along with Her Son, Jesus are BOTH Redeemers!

Point 3 A proper understanding is as follows: Mary, by the Will of God, warranted [in God‘s opinion] by the Devine Merits of Her Son, is worthy of and therefore granted the singular and unique privilege of DISPENSING the graces granted by, and through Her Son, as necessary to ones personal salvation. A far more accurate term would be “Mary; ***Dispenser of Grace.” ***

I hope this clarifies the issue for you**?

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[aspirant]

Tertullian is indicating that the “brethern outside” are brothers of Jesus by birth.

He believes they are born to Jesus’ family (as do I, for the record). Whether they are born to Mary is a different question.

Do you actually believe that Tertullian didn’t believe that Mary had other children

I don’t believe, as some other readers do, that his writings actually tell us his beliefs on this matter, one way or the other. His real point in Against Marcion is something quite different, and his words on this matter inconclusive.

Yes, Jerome’s ad hominen lacked substance then and it still does now.

It is not at all “ad hominem” to point out that the assertions of a heretic do not necessarily reflect the belief of the Catholic Church.

It doesn’t matter if the doctrine was taught for 200 years or 2000 years

Yes, it does.

The ideas of Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Christ arose during the second century… The doctrine of the Protevangelium of James was an oddity and a novelty in the second century. The doctrine of PV didn’t win the day b/c it could trace its roots back to Mary, Jesus and the apostles.

All of these assertions are baseless and, frankly, incorrect.

 

[Radical]

All of these assertions are baseless and, frankly, incorrect.

Baseless? So you have read Hunter’s book then? And your qualifications which would give any weight to this opinion of yours are what exactly? Like David G Hunter, are you one of the editors of The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Perhaps you are also a published author of works that touch of this issue? Perhaps you can specify how you trace the PV of Mary to back to Mary, Jesus and the Apostles (apart from your inference of a commitment to virginity)…

 

[aspirant]

Baseless?

As you summarized the claims, they are indefensible.

So you have read Hunter’s book then?

No. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you summarized it correctly. I admit that it’s possible you’re misrepresenting Hunter.

And your qualifications which would give any weight to this opinion of yours are what exactly?

Familiarity with ancient Christian sources, a somewhat reasonable mind, etc.

Perhaps you are also a published author of works that touch of this issue?

As I prize my anonymity, I will not be referring to my published works by name or content.

Perhaps you can specify how you trace the PV of Mary to back to Mary, Jesus and the Apostles (apart from your inference of a commitment to virginity)…

This sort of comment made me think that perhaps you are misrepresenting the Hunter text after all, so I looked it up, and it turns out that in some respects you did. The bit about the Protoevangelium, for example, was referring specifically to virginitas in partu, and commenting on how it is the only text of its time to explicitly mention that.

 

[shawn38]

Formally Catholic, I’m quite aware of this position and the devotion to Mary and the saints. I use to wear and pray the rosary. I used to wear my brown scapular. With blind faith, I accepted the all mysticism the priests taught.

---

I would however take this opportunity to clarify for you [and others] what Catholic terminology and theology actually means in regard to Mary, the Mother of God; Jesus as "Co- redemptrix)? "

Point 1.*** This is yet to be a defined Dogma or even a Formal Doctrine of our beliefs; all though it might well become one?

Point 1 - I know there’s a push by many for to become doctrine.

Point 2

The proper Catholic [as in Universal] understanding of this term does NOT imply that Mary along with Her Son, Jesus are BOTH Redeemers!

Point 2 - If Mary is a redeemer, then this takes away from the atoning work of Christ who was the perfect sacrificial lamb, who alone could atone for the sins of the world.

Couple points:

1. Rev 5 1:5 How come Mary is not worthy to open the scroll?
2. According to John’s Gospel account, Mary was at the foot of the cross at this time, yet the thief didn’t go first to her to get to Jesus; neither did Jesus make the repentant thief go through Mary to come to Him!
3. “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

Yet you refuse to come to me to have life (John 5:40).

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35).

On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink (John 7:37).

Never once did Jesus say go to Mary. Salvation is through no other, but Christ.

Point 3

A proper understanding is as follows: Mary, by the Will of God, warranted [in God‘s opinion] by the Devine Merits of Her Son, is worthy of and therefore granted the singular and unique privilege of DISPENSING the graces granted by, and through Her Son, as necessary to ones personal salvation. A far more accurate term would be “Mary; ***Dispenser of Grace.” ***

Point 3 - Please show me in the Bible where this is found. It’s not.

I suppose it is significant after all because it goes to show that the Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of Jesus. A former supposed nun wrote, but regardless good points

(1) According to Catholic tradition from Augustine of Hippo, “heretics” deny Mary’s perpetual virginity.
(2) Another reason why it is important to know the truth about Mary’s virginity is because the Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible. In other words, the image of Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been changed by Catholicism into something different than the real. She is presented by such as the sinless virgin, Mother of the Church, Mother of Mercies, Door of Paradise, Our Lady of Fatima, The Virgin of the Poor, Lady of the Roses, Co-redemptrix, Queen of Peace, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mediatrix of all Graces, Mother of God, Refuge of Sinners, Gate of Heaven, Queen of Heaven and more.

 

[Radical]

As you summarized the claims, they are indefensible.

based on your familiarity with ancient Christian sources no doubt…so let’s see what you got

Familiarity with ancient Christian sources, a somewhat reasonable mind, etc.

so again, what are those ancient Christian sources that bridge the gap (wrt the PV of Mary) between the Protevangelium of James and the time of Mary, Jesus, and the apostles?
I had said:

As David G Hunter points out in Marriage, celibacy and heresy in ancient Christianity The ideas of Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Christ arose during the second century and remained in dispute well into the fourth century. (p 172) The doctrine of the Protevangelium of James was an oddity and a novelty in the second century (p 180). The doctrine of PV didn’t win the day b/c it could trace its roots back to Mary, Jesus and the apostles.

To which you responded:

All of these assertions are baseless and, frankly, incorrect.

All! So let us break it down into the three assertions I provided (two attributed to Hunter).

First: ** The ideas of Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Christ arose during the second century and remained in dispute well into the fourth century. **

Did Hunter get this right…or do you have something other than your inference(s) upon which to render his opinion baseless?

Second: **The doctrine of the Protevangelium of James was an oddity and a novelty in the second century ** I note the page should have been 179

I see you are trying to find something to attack and so you want to present this as my representation that Hunter said ** all of the doctrine set out in** of the Protevangelium of James was an oddity and a novelty in the second century. You want to limit Hunter’s comment to virginitas in partu and in so doing I believe you go to far…but maybe you could solve this for us by clarifying:

Did Hunter get it right wrt virginitas in partu?

And when Hunter states on page 184 that “Origen was the first Christian author outside of the Protevangelium to teach explicitly that Mary might have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus”…did he get that right?

If you think not, and hold that these assertions are baseless…then please share those ancient Christian sources that render these assertions baseless.

Third: ** The doctrine of PV didn’t win the day b/c it could trace its roots back to Mary, Jesus and the apostles.**

So again, please provide those ancient Christian sources that bridge the gap (wrt the PV of Mary) between the Protevangelium of James and the time of Mary, Jesus, and the apostles …so that the above is baseless.

As I prize my anonymity, I will not be referring to my published works by name or content.

Thanks, I suspect that you just supplied the entire content right there and then

This sort of comment made me think that perhaps you are misrepresenting the Hunter text after all, so I looked it up, and it turns out that in some respects you did.

I see that you elected to grasp at anything in order to avoid providing the requested information. Here is the request again:

Perhaps you can specify how you trace the PV of Mary to back to Mary, Jesus and the Apostles (apart from your inference of a commitment to virginity)…You say the assertions were baseless, so let’s see some substance and some ancient sources behind that opinion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There is no difference between the Mary of Catholicism and the Mary of the Bible. 'That’s because Catholics read the Bible in its entirety and in context, and have as well Sacred Tradition AND the Holy Spirit to guide us.

There is however a great difference between the Virgin Mother of Jesus as she truly is,(and Catholics show her) and the ‘vessel’, the "sinful one’, and the ‘nonentity’ of some (not all) Protestants.

There is a great difference between the humble Mary of the Bible and Catholic teaching, and the ‘no-count’ Mary of some (not all) Protestant teaching.

In Scripture we often see the humble woman (Esther, Deborah, Susanah, Ruth). We see that they, while perhaps at first ‘poor’ in worldly goods, or in the sight of the rich and mighty, are, without exception, proven to be of greater ‘worth’. . .and we see them, at the ‘conclusion’ of their Biblical histories, ‘risen’ to great heights. Esther becomes a queen, Deborah and Susannah Judges, Ruth no longer a poor alien widow but a beloved wife and an ancestor of Jesus Christ.

Now. . .let’s see. (Remember, God doesn’t change). We hear in Scripture that the lowly will be exalted. We see examples of this.

What then do we see? A lowly maiden. Raised to great heights. . .she will bear the King of Kings.

OK. . .so. . .seems like another example, right? The poor, humble Mary becomes. . .wait for it. . .the Queen Mother (the title given by Jews to the mother of the ruling King).

Except golly gee, some (not all) Protestants want to rewrite the story!

They don’t want to see Mary go from lowly to exalted. That 's too much like the Catholic version and at all costs we need to keep away from the Catholic version.

So. . .in a new and distinct twist, we see the lowly Mary not just kept lowly, but degraded, made into not the lowly humble pious maiden to be rewarded with God’s grace and glory, exalted in the eyes of all people. . .but into a ‘vessel’, a stupid ignorant nobody who never ‘understands’ her Son, is totally humiliated and degraded by Him as being ‘nothing’, and is to sink into obscurity as ‘just another wife/mother’, not worthy of her God-Son, who brings up her ‘other children’ which she is ‘assumed’ to have to be such louts and jerks that they think Jesus is crazy, and at the very end, just to show that Jesus has no hard feelings even though she is totally unimportant, tells a disciple that, "she’s YOUR headache now. . "

What a crazy twisted and false doctrine that some (not all) Protestants have erected to make Mary into the ‘anti-Mary’.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks, I suspect that you just supplied the entire content right there and then

Hmmm…I note that your tone has changed now that you have squared off with Aspirant instead of me. Having to work a bit harder now, are you?

In light of Aspirant’s superior knowledge, I’m content to watch and learn, but I would like to ask the same question that you felt free to ask Aspirant: What are YOUR credentials, Radical?

Respectfully, is there any reason why we should grant special consideration to your posts? Publications? Degrees?

If you’ve got the chops, don’t hestitate to tell us.

Thanks.

 

[aspirant]

based on your familiarity with ancient Christian sources no doubt

Based more on reason, actually. A statement like “The ideas of Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Christ arose during the second century” cannot be supported with existing evidence. Hunter does not even try. If evidence existed that 2nd century belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not simply a continuation of prior Christian belief, it would be an easy matter to present it. No one has, so there is no reason to believe Hunter’s baseless assertion.

what are those ancient Christian sources that bridge the gap (wrt the PV of Mary) between the Protevangelium of James and the time of Mary, Jesus, and the apostles?

The scriptures themselves.

Did Hunter get it right wrt virginitas in partu?

If he is saying what he appears to be saying, I believe he is wrong. But his meaning is unclear enough to let him off the hook.

And when Hunter states on page 184 that “Origen was the first Christian author outside of the Protevangelium to teach explicitly that Mary might have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus”…did he get that right?

I have no objection.

Thanks, I suspect that you just supplied the entire content right there and then

I affirmed that I’ve written published works. I will not say more about them in this venue.

 

[Radical]

Based more on reason, actually.

Well, from here it looks less like reason and entirely like faith.

A statement like “The ideas of Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Christ arose during the second century” cannot be supported with existing evidence. Hunter does not even try. If evidence existed that 2nd century belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not simply a continuation of prior Christian belief, it would be an easy matter to present it.

Here it seems that you expect your opposition to prove the negative. For the gap between Mary’s existence and the appearance (in the historical record) of the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity in the 2nd century the belief you (seem to) want evidence that it was not taught. Contrary to your assertion, proving the negative is not a simple task….we can’t expect that Ignatius would mention Mary’s virginity and then go on to clarify that although they held to Mary’s virginity at conception, they hadn’t yet started to entertain the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

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.

The scriptures themselves.

Right….So there we have it. You jump from the scriptures to the Protevangelium of James and in between you think there is this bridge named “the continuous teaching of the Church”. At one end, the bridge rests on your enabling inferences and at the other end, the bridge rests on the fanciful and spurious Protevangelium of James. A bridge which is supported in that fashion cannot be crossed with anything but a leap of faith….and having made that leap, you declare Hunter’s assertion to be baseless. I prefer Hunter’s approach.

 

[Radical]

Hmmm…I note that your tone has changed now that you have squared off with Aspirant instead of me. Having to work a bit harder now, are you?

Not so much,…lately it has been hard work trying to get the fellow to just answer my questions and support his assertions

In light of Aspirant’s superior knowledge, I’m content to watch and learn, but I would like to ask the same question that you felt free to ask Aspirant: What are YOUR credentials, Radical?

Not so fast…you’ll have to wait till I do what Aspirant did, namely, dismiss an established academic’s opinion based on nothing but one’s own authority.

Respectfully, is there any reason why we should grant special consideration to your posts? Publications? Degrees?

I’ll tend to offer actual reasoning behind my bold assertions….and so my assertions should be evaluated on that reasoning. No special consideration is expected…the rule with me is that my opinion is only as good as the support I give it…same as for you and good Aspirant.

If you’ve got the chops, don’t hestitate to tell us.

I feel as if I have ignored you lately…sorry, I’ll try to find the time to address the 3+/- posts of yours (addressed to me) that I have ignored till now.

 

[aspirant]

Well, from here it looks less like reason and entirely like faith.

If you don’t think Hunter’s assertion is baseless, please provide the evidence supporting Hunter’s assertion.

Here it seems that you expect your opposition to prove the negative.

No, I expect a person making an assertion either to provide some evidence supporting the assertion or to admit that there is no supporting evidence.

The atheist who asserts that God does not exist places an onus upon himself that an agnostic (who says he does not know whether God exists) does not place upon himself.

For the gap between Mary’s existence and the appearance (in the historical record) of the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity in the 2nd century the belief you (seem to) want evidence that it was not taught.

Only from people who actually assert that it was not taught.

proving the negative is not a simple task

It would be a very simple task if the assertion was not baseless. If evidence existed that 2nd century belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not simply a continuation of prior Christian belief, you could simply produce the first century Christian texts demonstrating their belief that Mary had biological children other than Jesus. If, on the other hand, there are no such texts, then the assertion that “The ideas of Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Christ arose during the second century” is an assertion without support.

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 [in early Christian writings]

I don’t find this assertion particularly plausible, either. What’s so surprising about the Protoevangelium is not what it teaches, but how explicit it is.

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.

Luke 1 does touch on both the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception of Mary implicitly.

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….

I would never assume that men living in such different circumstances would necessarily behave in the same way.

I prefer Hunter’s approach.

If you choose to follow assertions entirely lacking in supporting evidence, that’s your choice.

 

[aspirant]

I’ll tend to offer actual reasoning behind my bold assertions….and so my assertions should be evaluated on that reasoning… …the rule with me is that my opinion is only as good as the support I give it

We await any shred of support for your assertions-- or Hunter’s-- with bated breath.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not so much,…lately it has been hard work trying to get the fellow to just answer my questions and support his assertions

My take is that he’s doing just fine.

Not so fast…you’ll have to wait till I do what Aspirant did, namely, dismiss an established academic’s opinion based on nothing but one’s own authority.

I see. How did you phrase it…ah, yes:
Thanks, I suspect that you just supplied the entire content right there and then

I’ll tend to offer actual reasoning behind my bold assertions….and so my assertions should be evaluated on that reasoning. No special consideration is expected…the rule with me is that my opinion is only as good as the support I give it…same as for you and good Aspirant.

Fair enough.

I feel as if I have ignored you lately…sorry, I’ll try to find the time to address the 3+/- posts of yours (addressed to me) that I have ignored till now.

No worries. I see you have your hands full with a much stronger opponent.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here it seems that you expect your opposition to prove the negative. For the gap between Mary’s existence and the appearance (in the historical record) of the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity in the 2nd century the belief you (seem to) want evidence that it was not taught. Contrary to your assertion, proving the negative is not a simple task….we can’t expect that Ignatius would mention Mary’s virginity and then go on to clarify that although they held to Mary’s virginity at conception, they hadn’t yet started to entertain the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

My question would be this: Since the Early Church Fathers were fairly quick to jump all over anything that they considered heretical or a theological novelty, shouldn’t we expect to have something from them condemning an fabrication like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Instead, it appears that the exact opposite has occurred in this instance. When Helvidius dares to suggest that Mary did NOT remain ever-virgin, Jerome leaps to her defense.

What am I missing?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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….

Hmmm…if the early Church was contending with a Roman culture that embraced polytheism and a variety of goddesses, it almost seems prudent for the early Church to have focused exclusively on Trinitarian monotheism until such time as the risk of deification of Mary was eliminated.

One can almost see the hand of God guiding the Church to avoid this pitfall…

 

[aspirant]

the early Church was contending with a Roman culture that embraced polytheism

They did have to be very cautious about presentation. Some of the folks in Athens thought Paul was preaching about “foreign gods” named “Jesus” and “Resurrection.”

 

[shawn38]

What am I missing?

I think you can find your answer in 1 Corinthians Chapters 1 and 2.

What was the primary issue the drove Paul to go to Corinth?
What did he tell them?

I think the simplicity of the gospel has become a stumbling block for many. Once you get tied up in all the mysticism, you lose focus of the gospel message. Perhaps somethings literally mean what they say.

Who and what was Paul’s focus on during his entire ministry?
Did Paul mention Mary even once? I don’t recall.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you can find your answer in 1 Corinthians Chapters 1 and 2.

What was the primary issue the drove Paul to go to Corinth?
What did he tell them?

I think the simplicity of the gospel has become a stumbling block for many. Once you get tied up in all the mysticism, you lose focus of the gospel message. Perhaps somethings literally mean what they say.

You mean things like “This is my body”, “If you forgive men’s sins they are forgiven”, and “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”?