What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[shawn38]

Originally (they have also been translated into many other languages). Semitic languages like Hebrew use “brother” to refer to cousins and some other relatives of close relation.

And the New Testament, though written in Greek, contains many Semitic idioms because most of the sources (Jesus & his Apostles) come from a Jewish and therefore Semitic background. Romans 9:13, for example, was written in Greek but employs Semitic idiom: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” This passage can be very misleading to one who doesn’t understand the Semitic background of the phrase.

“And the New Testament, though written in Greek, contains many Semitic idioms” is contraversial itself. Were the original manuscripts Aramaic (Peshitta) or Greek. Being that Aramaic is a sister language to Hebrew, it would make more sense that the NT would be,at least mostly, Aramaic. If not, Greek idioms would have been used.

In three different Aramaic translations, none have Rom 9:13 footnoted as an idiom. Even in the Greek, the translations are the same.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, Jerome doesn’t say that those fellows all held that Mary was ever-virgin. In C 15 Jerome deals with the identities of the Jameses and the Marys. In C 16 he starts dealing with the 4 kinds of “brethren” recognized by scripture. In C 17 he focuses on spiritual and general brethren. In C 18 Jerome has a bit of a rant and deals with Jesus being called the son of Joseph w/o actually being a son by blood. It is then at C 19 that he wrote:

We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.

a) Please note that he has said that he was dealing with trifles and tiny streams of opinion. As such, when he claims that “Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,… held these same views” it would seem that he means that they shared his views wrt to the use of “brethren” in the Bible or such other trifling matter. In other words, he doesn’t go as far as to claim that those fellows held to the PV of M.
b) I do not doubt that if Jerome could actually demonstrate that these 4 fellows (or any one or more of them) actually held to the PV of M by quoting their works, he would have done so. Jerome was very determined to destroy Helvidius’s argument. he would have produced a quote if he could.
c) Further, these 4 fellows (or any one or more of them) actually held to the PV of M then it is highly unlikely that their statements in support of the PV of M would have been lost in absolutely every case.

Well, you can argue this if you want to, but Jerome’s opinion seems pretty clear to me. Still, this must nag at you…why is Jerome taking issue with Helvidius over something that EVERYONE should have already known? If, of course, everyone really did think that Mary had other children. Why would someone of Jerome’s reputation be so dismissive about Helvidius’ statements? On the other hand, if everyone already knew that Mary had other children, one wonders why Helvidius even bothered to write anything at all or why anyone took any notice of him?

I don’t think that their alleged direct link to an apostle is a fact…what is your support for the claim?

Here is one source:

Irenaeus

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:4 [A.D. 189]).

Oh,… I would think it is safe to assume that Helvidius won’t be responding to your post.

And yet, as I predicted, someone did.

 

[shawn38]

First century Jews did not agree on this matter. Betrothal was a stage of marriage; legally the betrothed were already husband and wife. In Judea, sex between betrothed couples was common. In the Galilee, sex between the betrothed was not accepted. For this reason the Mishnah and Talmud say “one who eats at his father-in-law’s [home] in Judea without witnesses is not able [later] to make a claim [regarding his wife’s] virginity, because he was together with her. In Judea he cannot raise this claim, but in Galilee he can raise it.”

Aramaic translations
Matt 1:18 And the birth of Jesus the Messiah was thus. While his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they had cohabited, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

1. However, the birth of Jesus happened like this: as Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, while they were not married, she was found to be with child through the holy Spirit.

Whichever interpretation one favors, we must all remember that it is an interpretation. The text itself does not explicitly say what Joseph was unwilling to reveal about Mary, only that he was unwilling to reveal her secret.
Regardless what one thinks of that, I see another potential concern. If Joseph did not accuse Mary of adultery, the community would presume the child was his. Even if they thought he had grounds for divorce other than adultery, I question whether they would look kindly on the abandonment of his (presumed) child…

I think it’s evident based on the context.
18 And the birth of Jesus the Messiah was thus. While his mother **Mary was betrothed **to Joseph, before they had cohabited, she was **found to be with child **by the Holy Spirit.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am coming in late but will try to contribute as I can.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Whether you chose to believe Mary remained a Virgin or not, why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? It would not have been sinful for her to have relations with her husband and beget other children.

Salvation is through Chris alone! Mary is not a saviour and she recognized who is the saviour (Luke 1:47 greek - “theO tO sOtEri mou,” “God THE SAViour OF-ME.”

So why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? Would it cause the means to salvation to change? No!

Have not absorbed all that was said but a few comments on the OP here.
The question seems awkward to me since it sort of implies that there is a theological motive for Catholics to embrace and defend The PVoM doctrine independent of that God wants and what is an actuality. We embrace and defend for no other reason than because it is a revealed divine truth - there are no external motives other than propegating the faith/truth.

This dogma pulls together and harmonizes a LOT of OT topology with NT fulfillment and fulfills prophecy and just makes perfect sense.

We can speculate about why God wanted a virgin for His Mother from the obvious condition of His Majesty. It would be proper that no other man would be involved in relations for that reason alone. It would also be proper and fitting that there could never be any question about children being of human estate or of human-divine estate or any clouding of the inheritance imagery that is so important to the ancient Jewish traditions. Since Adam’s fall the procreative act is also tainted in that any child born of human intercourse must inherit sin from its parents. I don’t recollect the conventional belief as to which parent was seen in ancient times to be the carrier of the taint of sin or if both were. But by having perpetual virgin bear God’s child he is immediately broadcasting that something quite exceptional going on - no chance for inherited sin since the child was not conceived by human to human intercourse. But further it also ratifies many prophecies that speak of David’s Key and the East Gate that Ezekiel speaks of which no man but the Lord can enter and exit – these call all be seen as topologies of Mary and her Virginity:

*Rev 3:7 He who is holy, who is true, who has (D)the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:…

“This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall
enter by it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it
shall be shut” (Ez. 44: 1 -2). The prophet saw the glory of the Lord at this
gate which is in the East, and the house was filled with it (Ez. 43: 2,4,5).
From Eastern thought this symbolises the virginity of the Virgin who was from the
countries of the East; and how this virginity remained sealed.
Because she was that gate from the East, she was qualified as:
19. The gate of life, the gate of deliverance:
It was said about our Lady the Virgin in the book of Ezechiel: “As
for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before
the Lord; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go
out the same way” (Ez. 44:3). Since the Lord is the Life, then she is the gate of the Life. The Lord said: “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25). That is why the Virgin can be said to be the gate of the Life, that gate out of which the Lord came out,
granting life to all those who believe in Him.

It is not astonishing that we surname the Virgin “the gate”, because
the Church also was surnamed “the gate”. Our father Jacob said about
Bethel: “How awsome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!” (Gen. 28:17). 20. She was compared to the “Holiest of all”. That in which the chief priest entered once a year, to make atonement for all the people. The Lord of glory came once inside the Virgin Mary for the redemption of all the world.
*

Also from Paul’s NT accounts of Jesus as new Adam it is fairly straightforward to see that God is provisioning new spiritual parents for a new elevated humanity reborn through new divine-human and sinless human estate in a new cooperative between God and man. Mary is clearly the New Eve and for her to be “blessed above all women” she would need to be created sinless and never fall as did Eve. Perpetual Virginity would remove any doubt that Mary was blessed above all women and uniquely special as the Mother of God and also the mother of a new Humanity that was now spiritual in nature. So Jesus as Mary’s savior pre-saved her from ever sinning by shepherding her away from all occasions of sin with a supernatural presence of “voice” where Mary always followed Him the instant of her conception. If God can grant the miracle of the incarnation Jesus it is “child’s play” for God to also preserve Mary from original sin ( a different topic). Mary is the new arc of the new covenant and no man may touch her under penalty of death (ref. 1 Chron 13:10 Uzza touching the arc and instantly dieing)

Just wanted to put a few ideas out there to help prime the pump further.

James

 

[Radical]

Well, you can argue this if you want to, but Jerome’s opinion seems pretty clear to me. Still, this must nag at you…

Nag?..not so much. The way I see it the PV of M should divided into 3 parts:

a) Mary’s virginity at conception…we are all agreed on this and the miracle is the conception and not Mary’s virginity.
b) Mary’s virginity during birth…I reject this part w/o qualification. (I don’t think that Jerome even held to this part) IMHO the historical record clearly shows that this is a late 2nd century novelty that took a couple of centuries to really catch on. Here the miracle would be the manner of birth.
c) Mary’s virginity (sexual inactivity) after the birth….this part I dismiss as unlikely (though not impossible) and no miracle is involved.

I suspect that Jerome may have been doing what (I have seen) a number of modern Catholics do, namely, claim that the use of “virgin Mary” is to be understood as a title which really means “ever-virgin Mary”……the argument being that if she ceased being a virgin (through sexual activity) at some point in her life, it wouldn’t be appropriate to still use that title wrt her. As indicated, I am convinced that if Jerome had anything of any substance that he could have quoted from any one of these earlier church fathers, then he would have certainly done so….and if anything of any substance had been written on the PV by these earlier church fathers, then it would be highly unlikely that all of that substance would have been lost.

…why is Jerome taking issue with Helvidius over something that EVERYONE should have already known?

Helvidius responded to a monk who valued virginity and used Mary as an example. Helvidius thought Mary was not an ever-virgin and that she epitomized the ideal of both the married woman and the virgin…both being of equal value. Why would Helvidius think that Mary epitomized the ideal of both the married woman and the virgin if her ever-virginity was something that was (by your interpretation) taught by Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyr and Irenaeus? I do not think it valid to merely dismiss Helvidius as a heretic.

If, of course, everyone really did think that Mary had other children.

Obviously not everyone believed Mary had other children in Jerome’s time……but they sure did in Jesus’s time ……Turning back to Tertullian we see that the more orthodox of that time (very likely) viewed things along the same lines as Helvidius and not along the same lines as Jerome. (Tertullian being IMHO more orthodox that the fabricators of the Protevangelium of James) I”ll make an effort to flesh out Tertullian’s view of Mary in the next day or so.

Why would someone of Jerome’s reputation be so dismissive about Helvidius’ statements?

because Jerome was quite capable of making a mistake

Here is one source:

Irenaeus

I am familiar with this source….I would suggest that you should have said something like:

It is likely that Polycarp communicated directly with the apostle(s) and that Ignatius may have communicated directly with one or two of the apostles…as opposed to declaring such to be a fact…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nag?..not so much. The way I see it the PV of M should divided into 3 parts:

a) Mary’s virginity at conception…we are all agreed on this and the miracle is the conception and not Mary’s virginity.
b) Mary’s virginity during birth…I reject this part w/o qualification. (I don’t think that Jerome even held to this part) IMHO the historical record clearly shows that this is a late 2nd century novelty that took a couple of centuries to really catch on. Here the miracle would be the manner of birth.
c) Mary’s virginity (sexual inactivity) after the birth….this part I dismiss as unlikely (though not impossible) and no miracle is involved.

This is interesting, Radical. It appears to me that you have less difficulty with the PVoM than many. Why do you take such issue with something that you actually have little disagreement with?

I suspect that Jerome may have been doing what (I have seen) a number of modern Catholics do, namely, claim that the use of “virgin Mary” is to be understood as a title which really means “ever-virgin Mary”……the argument being that if she ceased being a virgin (through sexual activity) at some point in her life, it wouldn’t be appropriate to still use that title wrt her.

As indicated, I am convinced that if Jerome had anything of any substance that he could have quoted from any one of these earlier church fathers, then he would have certainly done so….and if anything of any substance had been written on the PV by these earlier church fathers, then it would be highly unlikely that all of that substance would have been lost.

Perhaps. But isn’t this an argument from silence? And isn’t that necessarily weak?

Helvidius responded to a monk who valued virginity and used Mary as an example. Helvidius thought Mary was not an ever-virgin and that she epitomized the ideal of both the married woman and the virgin…both being of equal value. Why would Helvidius think that Mary epitomized the ideal of both the married woman and the virgin if her ever-virginity was something that was (by your interpretation) taught by Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyr and Irenaeus? I do not think it valid to merely dismiss Helvidius as a heretic.

Why not? It seems that Jerome did…

Obviously not everyone believed Mary had other children in Jerome’s time……but they sure did in Jesus’s time

Really? This would come as big news to many people. Could you perhaps cite any proof of this?

……Turning back to Tertullian we see that the more orthodox of that time (very likely) viewed things along the same lines as Helvidius and not along the same lines as Jerome. (Tertullian being IMHO more orthodox that the fabricators of the Protevangelium of James) I”ll make an effort to flesh out Tertullian’s view of Mary in the next day or so.

And you side happily with a heretic in doing so.

because Jerome was quite capable of making a mistake

Granted. But there doesn’t appear to have been any fall-out from Jerome’s response to Helvidius. IOW, where is the outcry from those who said, “Jerome, you idiot! Why do you write such absurd things about Helvidius when we all believe him to be correct?”

Gee, am I now making an argument from silence?

I am familiar with this source….I would suggest that you should have said something like, “It is likely that Polycarp communicated directly with the apostle(s) and that Ignatius may have communicated directly with one or two of the apostles” as opposed to declaring such to be a fact…

Since Irenaeus specifically states that Polycarp was known to the apostles, who are we to question this. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, was he not? You are in a better position to know Polycarp’s history than Irenaeus?

I don’t think so.

 

[sablouwho]

I have read this thread with interest. I am not hostile to the PVM, but at present I am unsure as to what I believe about it. There has been a lot of back and forth here wrt whether the PVM is true, with proof texting and counter-proof texting, etc.

I will share this–for a newbie like me, who will soon be a confirmed Catholic, (and I suspect for others who are in a similar situation to me and are still lurking this thread) it would be very helpful to hear replies from those who not only affirm the PVM, but can also speak to how that belief works, in a “philosophical” manner. That is true regardless of whether the OP posted the question with the hopes of picking a fight!

Simply stating that “It is true, that is why it is significant” in all honesty doesn’t really seem to answer the OPs question, and I know for a fact that it doesn’t help me address my thirst for a deepening in understanding of this issue.

In post #205, CentralFLJames has made a few comments that I judge helpful and I hope that others who have something positive to add to the PVM subject in terms of it’s significance will continue along those lines.

Help a newbie out!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have read this thread with interest. I am not hostile to the PVM, but at present I am unsure as to what I believe about it.

I will share this–for a newbie like me, who will soon be a confirmed Catholic, (and I suspect for others who are still lurking this thread) it would be very helpful to hear replies from those who not only affirm the PVM, but can also speak to how that belief works, in a
“philosophical” manner.

There has been a lot of back and forth here wrt whether the PVM is true, with proof texting and counter-proof texting, etc.

Simply stating that “It is true, that is why it is significant” in all honesty doesn’t really seem to answer the OPs question, and I know for a fact that it doesn’t help me address my thirst for a deepening in understanding of this issue.

In post #205, CentralFLJames has made a few comments that I judge helpful and I hope that others who have something positive to add to the PVM subject in terms of it’s significance will continue along those lines.

Help a newbie out!

Here’s one attempt at answering your question:

Why Marian Dogmas are Important

One reason - perhaps the main reason - we seek to accept and understand the Marian dogmas is because of our love for our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Think about this for a moment…when you first fell in love with your husband, wife or current “significant other”, weren’t you completely fascinated by him or her? Didn’t you want to know all the details you could possibly learn about him or her?

Where she grew up? What kind of music he liked to listen to? Favorite restaurants, foods, books? Didn’t you want to know where (s)he went to school or where (s)he worked, lived and hung out on the weekends?

Didn’t you want to know what he/she thought about politics, religion and the local sports teams? Did you want to learn about his or her family background?

Loving Jesus is a lot like that. We study the scriptures to learn what He said. We read commentaries to get background information on the geography of Israel and the religious climate of the day. What and where are the Sheep Gate and Pool of Siloam? Why were the Romans in Jerusalem? Who were the Sadducees and what made them different from the Pharisees? What was life like for Jesus growing up, and what may have happened during those silent years before his public ministry began? We want to know these things because we love Him.

We look at Mary because we love her son, and we want to know everything we can about Him. Mary loves Him, too, and by her excellent example, she leads us right back to Him: “Do whatever He tells you.”

 

[aspirant]

IMHO the historical record clearly shows that [virginitas in partu] is a late 2nd century novelty

But you were unable to support that assertion when asked.

I am convinced that if Jerome had anything of any substance that he could have quoted from any one of these earlier church fathers, then he would have certainly done so

Hardly a convincing argument.

Obviously not everyone believed Mary had other children in Jerome’s time……but they sure did in Jesus’s time

No one has yet produced evidence of this.

Turning back to Tertullian we see that the more orthodox of that time (very likely) viewed things along the same lines as Helvidius

1. Tertullian did not actually say what you claimed he said.
2. Tertullian himself was not orthodox at the time he wrote the document you quoted.

Tertullian being IMHO more orthodox that the fabricators of the Protevangelium of James

More unsupported claims.

 

[aspirant]

it would be very helpful to hear replies from those who not only affirm the PVM, but can also speak to how that belief works, in a “philosophical” manner.

What do you mean by “how that belief works, in a ‘philosophical’ manner”?

 

[aspirant]

Matt 1:25

Does not contradict belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, it merely affirms the virginity of Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth.

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour

Catholics believe God is Mary’s savior: “the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin…”

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God

If you read this verse in context (both in Romans and in Psalm 14), it means “people of every nation, including Jews,” not “every single human who ever lived, without exception.” If it meant the latter, it would contradict Psalm 14:5, Hebrews 4:15, etc.

We inherited a sinful nature from Adam, not Eve. Since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, there was no sinful nature to be passed on.

Neither the term “sinful nature” nor the idea that the consequences of original sin are inherited from one’s father, as if through semen, are actually biblical. These are interpretations held by some, but not all, Protestants.

Were the original manuscripts Aramaic (Peshitta) or Greek.

Either way, you end up with Semitic idioms in Greek. Their presence is not questioned.

In three different Aramaic translations, none have Rom 9:13 footnoted as an idiom.

I would not expect footnotes to bother identifying idiomatic expressions.

First century Jews did not agree on this matter. Betrothal was a stage of marriage; legally the betrothed were already husband and wife. In Judea, sex between betrothed couples was common. In the Galilee, sex between the betrothed was not accepted. For this reason the Mishnah and Talmud say “one who eats at his father-in-law’s [home] in Judea without witnesses is not able [later] to make a claim [regarding his wife’s] virginity, because he was together with her. In Judea he cannot raise this claim, but in Galilee he can raise it.”

We’re all aware of Matthew 1:18 here. It does not contradict what the Mishnah and Talmud say about the different practices in the Galilee and Judea.

Whichever interpretation one favors, we must all remember that it is an interpretation. The text itself does not explicitly say what Joseph was unwilling to reveal about Mary, only that he was unwilling to reveal her secret.

Only if you read your preferred interpretation into the text.

 

[onenow1]

But they knew Jesus was God, back to 1Cor 7: 1 34.

Hi, Shawn ! Just want to clarify the above response to you,in regards to Joseph and Mary.
I wonder if you can even imagine the circumstances involved between Joseph and Mary Re: the incarnation ?

Knowing full well that Mary had given birth to the Word Incarnate, and that her Son was the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of GOD, he must have been awestruck by the event. He knew that just by her being the one chosen (Luke 1:27-33), and by an act of GOD, in protecting her virginity (Luke 1:34-38), that she was special, and by the special graces given to her, elevated her far above any other woman. After all what could possibly follow the honor and graces given her by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is her spouse and St. Joseph knew it when he was informed by the Angel in a dream (Matthew 1:20). Would any sane man be so vain as to father mere human children with her? The idea of the spouse of the Holy Spirit becoming a mother to one not by the Holy Spirit, would have been repulsive, and would have had all the ingredients of sacrilege to him.

Rev 12: 17 The dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

I wonder why only Catholics and only a few of our brethern in Christ, obey the command from God in verse 48 below ? I find it hard to believe any who read verse 48 disregard it.

Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and 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

God Bless

 

[Radical]

Hello, Aspirant. I had said: IMHO the historical record clearly shows that [virginitas in partu] is a late 2nd century novelty

But you were unable to support that assertion when asked.

If it was a late 2nd century novelty we would find that mention of it would be missing from the historical record prior to that time and such is indeed the case. All that you have for the time before the late 2nd century is your inference wrt Mary’s intention before the conception. Where is mention of a supernatural birth process in the NT? Do you have any inference to make in this regard? RandyCarson mentioned Jerome’s reference to four earlier church fathers holding to the same views…do you think Jerome argued for virginitas in partu at that point in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary such that you could possibly stretch that to include virginitas in partu? Do you think Jerome even endorsed the virginitas in partu? If so, on what basis?

I had said: *I am convinced that if Jerome had anything of any substance that he could have quoted from any one of these earlier church fathers, then he would have certainly done so. *

Hardly a convincing argument.

better than assuming otherwise and going against the improbability that all such substance would have been lost

I said: Obviously not everyone believed Mary had other children in Jerome’s time……but they sure did in Jesus’s time

No one has yet produced evidence of this.

Ahhh, but my inferences are so much stronger than yours.

I had said: Turning back to Tertullian we see that the more orthodox of that time (very likely) viewed things along the same lines as Helvidius

1. Tertullian did not actually say what you claimed he said.
2. Tertullian himself was not orthodox at the time he wrote the document you quoted.

earlier you had said:

Perhaps it will help to clarify this point. Tertullian is arguing in this passage that Jesus has human ancestry and family, contrary to the Marcionites who claimed Jesus had none…If someone wants to interpret Tertullian’s wording to mean that he believed Jesus had brothers through Mary, it’s possible, though more than he explicitly says.

If we look more closely at Tertullian we find the following:

*For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? *

Against Marcion 4:19 ** here Tertullian designates the brethern of Jesus to be Mary’s sons…now if you want to interpret Tertullian’s wording to mean that he believed Mary had sons by way of the pre-existing children of Joseph, it’s possible, though more than he explicitly says and unlikely given what else he said.**

*But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment denied mother and brethren. Our Lord’s brethren did not believe in him: this also is included in the Gospel as it was published before Marcion’s day. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open. When Jesus was teaching the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God, when he was occupied in healing infirmities and sicknesses, though strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent…‘Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?’? When Christ was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long ages past, was it without justification that he used this expression to castigate the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work? *

On the Flesh of Christ 7 here Tertullian indicates a lack of evidence of Mary’s adherence to Jesus, thereby questioning her faithfulnesss to the Lord at the time of John 7:5…Why do venerators say God ensured to perpetual virginity of Mary? Isn’t a main reason to emphasize her absolute purity…something entirely at odds with questioning her faithfulnesss to the Lord? Do you really think that Tertullian would call into question Mary’s faithfulness and still hold to her virginty after Christ’s birth?

continued next post

 

[Radical]

cntinuing…

*She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of opening the womb, wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not; it was the same sex that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. *

On the Flesh of Christ 23 ** Here Tertullian declares his belief in Mary’s virginity at conception and indictaes that the birth process opened her womb…no virginity through the birth process…but we both knew that was his position already. **

Turning now to the law, which is properly ours— that is, to the Gospel— by what kind of examples are we met, until we come to definite dogmas? Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest;…For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that (body)? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.

On Monagamy 8 ** Here Tertullian sounds as if he is putting forward a view similar to Helvidius’s (as described by Jerome)…namely that Mary held both of the titles of sanctity by being both the virgin and the wife (a wife being a non-virgin, as being under the very law of opening the womb).**

The foregoing should make it clear that Tertullian accepted Mary’s virginity at conception and rejected the idea that Mary remained a virgin through the birth process. It should also leave little doubt that Tertullian did not believe in Mary’s continued virginity after the birth of Christ.

Now if Randy Carson was true to form he said be asking, "But there doesn’t appear to have been any fall-out at that time from Tertullian’s remarks about Mary. IOW, where is the outcry from those who said, “Tertullian, you idiot! Why do you write such absurd things about Mary when we all believe her to be an ever-virgin?” I would be interested to see what you two could produce in that regard from the time 200-250 +/-.

So at one end of the gap we have scriptural and apostolic silence broken only by your inference(s) and at the other end we have the Proevangelium of James (pro) and Tertullian (con). I would be interested to see what you two could produce to show support for the Proevngelium of James from the time 200-250 +/-. My knowledge in that regard is limited to its much later rejection 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 that work seems to be essential for you to bridge the gap.

More unsupported claims.

why do you persist at throwing stones from the porch of your glass house?

 

[sablouwho]

What do you mean by “how that belief works, in a ‘philosophical’ manner”?

Let me try again

FIRST, however, I want to reiterate (in general, not towards you, aspirant) that I am open to exploring the PVM, I am not actively hostile towards the idea…I say this because there seems to be a lot of huffing and puffing on this thread and I’d like to avoid being the target of more of the same! I am willing to cautiously examine the PVM and give it some thought (and prayer).

But again, please, (not you, aspirant) I ask that no one here just say “because it’s TRUE”. Because, as someone like me who doesn’t have a sense of that “truth” already in place, such statements are useless. (Back when I didn’t believe in God, it was useless for people to say “but it’s TRUE” – I needed to understand, as a skeptic, WHY I should believe in God and why this made philosophical sense. It was only after reading apologetics that addressed these matters in an intelligent and philosophical manner that I was able to begin to believe in God. And yes, this ultimately led to my conversion to faith in Jesus, which was a REALLY big deal considering that I’m Jewish.)

The OP asked:

why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? It would not have been sinful for her to have relations with her husband and beget other children.

I will try to use an example to illustrate–please don’t jump all over me if it is an imperfect example as I’m certainly no professional philosopher… Think for a moment of a recipe for a yummy confection or complicated cake. (For those who may not realize/don’t bake, baking is very precise and if you leave out a critical ingredient or use too much/not enough of a specific ingredient, the final product may not come out very well–baking is much less forgiving than ordinary cooking).

So, thinking of faith as being similar to a cake, I do not understand WHY the PVM is a “necessary” ingredient of the Catholic faith. It seems like the “recipe” would still work without PVM. Nor do I understand its significance. What is the theological necessity of this belief ? Or perhaps, it is not actually theologically necessary, but it is believed nonetheless. Going back to the baking example, perhaps the PVM isn’t a “necessary” ingredient in order to have a successful “basic” cake, but is rather like an ingredient whose presence adds depth and flavor to the finished baked good, one that makes it much better than if it were just basic cake.

Shoot–it’s only 9am where I live, but now I want cake!

 

[Radical]

This is interesting, Radical. It appears to me that you have less difficulty with the PVoM than many. Why do you take such issue with something that you actually have little disagreement with?

well for starters I would have no difficulty with the CC teaching the PV of M if they did not elevate her further than that…does the CC have any difficulty with me (and others) rejecting the PV of M?..and then there is the fact that it is a brick in the pedestal that the venerators have (wrongly) built to place Mary upon.

I had said:

*I suspect that Jerome may have been doing what (I have seen) a number of modern Catholics do, namely, claim that the use of “virgin Mary” is to be understood as a title which really means “ever-virgin Mary”……the argument being that if she ceased being a virgin (through sexual activity) at some point in her life, it wouldn’t be appropriate to still use that title wrt her.

As indicated, I am convinced that if Jerome had anything of any substance that he could have quoted from any one of these earlier church fathers, then he would have certainly done so….and if anything of any substance had been written on the PV by these earlier church fathers, then it would be highly unlikely that all of that substance would have been lost. *

and you responded:

Perhaps. But isn’t this an argument from silence? And isn’t that necessarily weak?

any way you cut it, the lack of an actual reference must be explained. You say that the passages that Jerome had in mind have been lost, but this is what Jerome said of Ignatius in ** On Illustrious Men**:

Ignatius, third bishop of the church of Antioch after Peter the apostle, condemned to the wild beasts during the persecution of Trajan, was sent bound to Rome, and when he had come on his voyage as far as Smyrna, where Polycarp the pupil of John was bishop, he wrote one epistle To the Ephesians, another To the Magnesians, a third To the Trallians, a fourth To the Romans, and going thence, he wrote To the Philadelphians and To the Smyrneans and especially To Polycarp, commending to him the church at Antioch.

Isn’t that the exact list of letters that we have for Ignatius (in the middle recension)? Later on Jerome quotes Eusebius on Ignatius and Lightfoot maintains that Jerome had never seen the Epistles of Ignatius…but please, since we have what Jerome listed, show me the PV of M in Ignatius.

Next, this is what Jerome said of Polycarp in ** On Illustrious Men**:

Polycarp Bishop disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord…He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia.

Again we have that letter, so please show me the PV of M in that letter.

BTW, here is what Jerome said of Tertullian:

*Tertullian, the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, “Give me the master,” meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.

He composed, moreover, directly against the church, volumes: On modesty, On persecution, On fasts, On monogamy, six books On ecstasy, and a seventh which he wrote Against Apollonius. He is said to have lived to a decrepit old age, and to have composed many small works, which are not extant.*

Why not? It seems that Jerome did…

It doesn’t matter to me if Jerome or if the CC of his day labeled someone as a heretic. Such would only matter if (I didn’t believe that) the CC hadn’t deviated from the original rule of faith (by adding such things as the Catholic doctrines re Mary) such that a deviation from the CC’s beliefs would amount to a heresy wrt God’s actual teachings.

And you side happily with a heretic in doing so.

I believe that Tertullian’s reputation has largely been rehabilitated such that he isn’t viewed as much of a heretic these days…perhaps not even a heretic at all (as judged by the orthodoxy of his day). I can happily agree with everything in Tertullian’s rule of faith and with the rule of faith as described by Irenaeus…What is there about Tertullian’s montanism that you think would have caused him to stray from orthodoxy wrt the PV of M?

Granted. But there doesn’t appear to have been any fall-out from Jerome’s response to Helvidius. IOW, where is the outcry from those who said, “Jerome, you idiot! Why do you write such absurd things about Helvidius when we all believe him to be correct?”

well obviously Jerome’s view won the day…and those who would have attacked Jerome’s view would have been allied with Helvidius. Not surprisingly it seems that the victors ensured that the works of Helvidius et al did not survive. We don’t have an issue wrt what was the favoured view in Jerome’s day…our issue is what was believed by the apostles.

 

[shawn38]

Hi, Shawn ! Just want to clarify the above response to you,in regards to Joseph and Mary.
I wonder if you can even imagine the circumstances involved between Joseph and Mary Re: the incarnation ?

Knowing full well that Mary had given birth to the Word Incarnate, and that her Son was the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of GOD, he must have been awestruck by the event. He knew that just by her being the one chosen (Luke 1:27-33), and by an act of GOD, in protecting her virginity (Luke 1:34-38), that she was special, and by the special graces given to her, elevated her far above any other woman.

Using Aspirant’s quote:

Only if you read your preferred interpretation into the text.

I wonder why only Catholics and only a few of our brethern in Christ, obey the command from God in verse 48 below ? I find it hard to believe any who read verse 48 disregard it.

Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and 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.

Aramaic Translations
48. "Who gazed upon the willingness of His Mother,* …for, behold, as of now, Blessings of all the generations …shall be upon me.
*1:48 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: Or: He blessed her Motherhood
48 For he hath looked upon the humble condition of his hand maid; and lo, henceforth all generations will ascribe blessedness to me

We are all blessed, not her specifically, because she was the vessel which brought forth her’s and our savior…

God Bless

 

[aspirant]

If it was a late 2nd century novelty we would find that mention of it would be missing from the historical record prior to that time

Reason does not allow a conclusion of “novelty” from an absence of evidence. Only if you could present evidence that Christians believed the contrary could “novelty” be reasonably asserted.

Similarly, if I tell you that my great-great uncle Joe was a vegan, you cannot reasonably assert that this statement is a novelty unless you can produce some actual evidence that Joe’s diet included animal products. Without any evidence that he ate animal products, the most you can reasonably say is that my statement may or may not be so.

Where is mention of a supernatural birth process in the NT?

A great many things are not mentioned in the New Testament. So what?

I said: Obviously not everyone believed Mary had other children in Jerome’s time……but they sure did in Jesus’s time

No one has yet produced evidence of this.

You have yet to present anything stronger. Feel free.

now if you want to interpret Tertullian’s wording to mean that he believed Mary had sons by way of the pre-existing children of Joseph, it’s possible, though more than he explicitly says

Yep. That passage from Tertullian does not conclusively show us one way or the other.

here Tertullian [questions Mary’s] faithfulnesss to the Lord at the time of John 7:5

He suggests that she did not “adhere to” him at this moment. It says nothing to the question of whether she was a virgin.

Do you really think that Tertullian would call into question Mary’s faithfulness and still hold to her virginty after Christ’s birth?

No reason he couldn’t. There are Christians who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity who also question whether Mary immediately followed Jesus in all things.

Here Tertullian sounds as if he is putting forward a view… that Mary held both of the titles of sanctity by being both the virgin and the wife

We all believe Mary is both a virgin and a wife.

It should also leave little doubt that Tertullian did not believe in Mary’s continued virginity after the birth of Christ.

Nothing you’ve quoted actually affirms that Tertullian believed Mary had sex or children with Joseph.

Aquinas viewed the Proevangelium as being in conflict with scripture

Not with regard to the actual question at hand, of course.

 

[aspirant]

I am open to exploring the PVM, I am not actively hostile towards the idea…I say this because there seems to be a lot of huffing and puffing on this thread and I’d like to avoid being the target of more of the same!

I needed to understand, as a skeptic, WHY I should believe in God and why this made philosophical sense.

In my experience, “because it’s true!” is an answer that usually follows a question interpreted (rightly or wrongly) to mean “But why does it matter?” YMMV.

So, thinking of faith as being similar to a cake, I do not understand WHY the PVM is a “necessary” ingredient of the Catholic faith. It seems like the “recipe” would still work without PVM.

I think the weakness of the baking analogy is that if you want cornbread, some ingredients are strictly necessary. No cornmeal, no cornbread.

But the stuff of salvation history isn’t like this. I’ll choose something all Christians believe as an example: God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him. Was it strictly necessary that God choose Abraham? Would salvation be impossible if God had chosen some other guy? No. But God chose Abraham, and that choice affects many things.

Similarly, we don’t believe the perpetual virginity is strictly necessary. We don’t even believe the virginal conception is strictly necessary, as if God had no other options. But God chose virginal conception, and that choice affects many things.

Or perhaps… Going back to the baking example, perhaps the PVM isn’t a “necessary” ingredient in order to have a successful “basic” cake, but is rather like an ingredient whose presence adds depth and flavor to the finished baked good, one that makes it much better than if it were just basic cake.

A bit more like this. We often speak of the “fitness” of things. “It was fitting that God would choose a lamb rather than a wolf for the Passover.”

Shoot–it’s only 9am where I live, but now I want cake!

does the CC have any difficulty with me (and others) rejecting the PV of M?

The same kind of “difficulty” we would have with someone who doesn’t believe, for example, that the first epistle of John is part of the New Testament: We consider it an error.