When did Mary stop being "ever virgin?"

[ultimate_ed]

Alright, just to be clear, I’m a practical Catholic and I understand the Marian doctrines and why we as Catholics believe them.

But, to my Baptist in-laws, the notion that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life is a completely alien concept to them. That Mary had other children “The bretheren of the Lord”, is something that they’ve “known” for generations.

My question is really more of a historical one. I understand that even Martin Luther believed in the Church doctrines regarding Mary. So, some where along the way, someone began to espouse and propagate the idea that Mary didn’t not remain a virgin throughout her life. Can anyone give me some pointers on the historical development of the “non-virgin” belief that seems prevalent in Protestant communities?

Thanks.

 

[SunnaB16]

Sorry, cant give you any info on the post-Reformation development of the "nonvirgin' idea, but if you can get hold of Karl Keatings (!) book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”, you`ll
find a good chapter covering general Marian beliefs. The whole book is a good weapon to
use against most Fundamentalist attacks.

In the “Marian Beliefs” chapter, the author states that around AD380, a writer named Helvid-
ius was the first to claim that the “brethren of the Lord” were children of Mary and Joseph.
Jerome commented that Helvidius` claim was a “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the
faith of the whole world”. The word “novel” says a lot.

The mindset of anti-Catholics is discussed in various places in this book; and that`s worth
knowing as well.

Apologies for the rant if you already have this book.

 

[Lutheranteach]

My thoughts on this (which count for less than nothing in the larger picture) is that Mary’s perpetual virginity may be an unknowable. I’ve seen some very well presented arguments on both sides. I lean toward the side that she did in fact have other children. I’ve wondered at times wouldn’t it be cruel to Joseph if it were otherwise? Why would some of the Christmas Gospels call Jesus Mary’s first born son if he were her only child? But those can be explained away.

 

[kepha1]

All of the early reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. I don’t know an exact year when reformers started reforming the former reformists, but it is a much newer Protestant belief than sola scriptura or sola fide. If Baptists want to claim they have held the belief that Jesus had biological brothers “for generations”, they can probably count them on one hand.

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves (see here) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation. Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been “covered up” by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. This “cover-up” can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that “Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers’ almost universal acceptance of Mary’s continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner”. He then asks if it is “a favourable providence” that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being “transmitted to the Protestant churches”!17

What is interpreted as “Providence” by a Marian critic may legitimately be interpreted as a force of a very different kind by a Christian who has recognized the role of Mary in God’s plan.

17 David F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 180.

mariology.com/content/view/16/28/

 

[Des]

I’ve wondered at times wouldn’t it be cruel to Joseph if it were otherwise?

Hello Lutheranteach. I would have to say that God picked Joseph perfectly for Mary. He strengthened him with His Grace and knew He’d handle this situation with perfect obedience. I don’t believe that it would be impossible for the Lord to find the perfect spouse for Our Lady.

Why would some of the Christmas Gospels call Jesus Mary’s first born son if he were her only child? But those can be explained away.

From what I’ve read about that term, the Jewish law required every first-born to be consecrated to God forty days after they were born as is implied in Exodus 13. So it was surely an honour to be called the ‘first-born’ whether you were an only child or not.

 

[SunnaB16]

The term “first born” simply means the one who opens the womb, regardless of whether
or not there were other children.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is Ever Virgin. It`s dogma, so we are bound to
believe it.

Regarding Joseph: is it so difficult to believe that, after his wife gave birth to the God/man,
Joseph would not have wanted to enter her sacred temple (see Theology of the Body)?
Joseph,s role in the Holy Family had a much higher dignity than mere sexual intercourse;
he had to play the part of being father to the Child. If thats not an awesome privilege and responsibility, then what is it? Josephs role was vital; a “father figure” is vital. And every
wife and mother should have a man who will protect her and provide for her. Joseph was
the breadwinner.

 

[Radical]

My question is really more of a historical one. I understand that even Martin Luther believed in the Church doctrines regarding Mary. So, some where along the way, someone began to espouse and propagate the idea that Mary didn’t not remain a virgin throughout her life. Can anyone give me some pointers on the historical development of the “non-virgin” belief that seems prevalent in Protestant communities?

Thanks.

Take a look at Menno Simons (1496-1561). I don’t know if he was the first Reformer to challenge the PV, but I expect that he would have been one of the earliest to do so. Once one looks at Catholic beliefs with the understanding that error is possible, questioning the PV is not hard…and likely unavoidable. The first evidence of the belief comes from a spurious document from the middle of the 2nd Century…not exactly a good foundation. Further, if one approaches the Bible with the ability to question that belief, there is really nothing that teaches a PV and there are a number of passages that strongly suggest otherwise.

 

[TinaG]

Hi!

Probably some people will not like this post. I am sorry if you find it offensive.

As far as I can tell she stopped being ever-virgin when she married Joseph. I have looked at a lot of the passages about Jesus’ brothers, etc., and the words for cousin and brother, etc., and in all honesty it seems that the Catholic-Orthodox position forces a meaning on the text that is much more readable as it appears: Jesus had natural brothers. Any other interpretation seems forced.

The idea of Mary Immaculate arose in the church with the emphasis on monasticism, itself influenced heavily by gnosticism and Manicheanism prevalent in the early church. Matter is bad, spirit is good, which led to clerical celibacy, etc. The protoevangelium of John, from which the whole story of Mary being a life-long virgin arose, was actually on a list of condemned books, condemned by a pope. This was a very weak basis on which to found the whole edifice of Marian devotion. The reformers realized that grace does not require the intercession of Mary and the position of Mary in the Catholic Church was anti-Scriptural (we see the Son and the Holy Spirit as our intercessors, not Mary, in Romans 8, for example). Anyway, that is what they say in the places I frequent, in the rare intervals it is ever discussd, which is almost never.

Mary could be a good and holy and loving pious Jewess and an example to follow and have a high place in honor in the church without being ever-virgin. It is a slam against no woman to praise her as a loving mother of many children. The last chapter of Proverbs, anyone?

It is true, I have been told, that Luther was Marian in his early theology but gradually moved away from it. I would be surprised if Calvin was Marian.

AT THE SAME TIME I hesitate to lightly discard the long-cherished belief in the ever-virginity of Mary. The passages do not completely eliminate its possibility. The reformers were not always right. Those who have taught me are imperfect, and I am imperfect. We have to be very careful in dealing with 2000 year old language and culture that is no longer on the earth. There is the whole theology regarding Mary and the Ark. The Church could be teaching this because it is true.

-Tina “Definitely All Over the Map” G

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi!

Probably some people will not like this post. I am sorry if you find it offensive.

Your post is not offensive. It’s simply erroneous. I hope that is not offensive.

As far as I can tell she stopped being ever-virgin when she married Joseph. I have looked at a lot of the passages about Jesus’ brothers, etc., and the words for cousin and brother, etc., and in all honesty it seems that the Catholic-Orthodox position forces a meaning on the text that is much more readable as it appears: Jesus had natural brothers. Any other interpretation seems forced.

This is incorrect. However, in order to show this to you, I first need to ask you to provide a passage that you believe shows that Jesus had natural brothers.

The idea of Mary Immaculate arose in the church with the emphasis on monasticism, itself influenced heavily by gnosticism and Manicheanism prevalent in the early church. Matter is bad, spirit is good, which led to clerical celibacy, etc. The protoevangelium of John, from which the whole story of Mary being a life-long virgin arose, was actually on a list of condemned books, condemned by a pope. This was a very weak basis on which to found the whole edifice of Marian devotion. The reformers realized that grace does not require the intercession of Mary and the position of Mary in the Catholic Church was anti-Scriptural (we see the Son and the Holy Spirit as our intercessors, not Mary, in Romans 8, for example). Anyway, that is what they say in the places I frequent, in the rare intervals it is ever discussd, which is almost never.

Much to comment on here, but the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately can be inferred from the Angel’s greeting at the Annunciation.

Mary could be a good and holy and loving pious Jewess and an example to follow and have a high place in honor in the church without being ever-virgin. It is a slam against no woman to praise her as a loving mother of many children. The last chapter of Proverbs, anyone?

It is no slam, true. However, it is not true that Mary had other children. Scripture does not teach that she did, and the constant teaching of the Church tells us otherwise. Luther, Calvin, Wesley…they all held that Mary remained ever-virgin. The idea that she did not is a modern Protestant novelty.

It is true, I have been told, that Luther was Marian in his early theology but gradually moved away from it. I would be surprised if Calvin was Marian.

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

AT THE SAME TIME I hesitate to lightly discard the long-cherished belief in the ever-virginity of Mary. The passages do not completely eliminate its possibility. The reformers were not always right. Those who have taught me are imperfect, and I am imperfect. We have to be very careful in dealing with 2000 year old language and culture that is no longer on the earth. There is the whole theology regarding Mary and the Ark. The Church could be teaching this because it is true.

 

[TinaG]

Your post is not offensive. It’s simply erroneous. I hope that is not offensive.

No.

This is incorrect. However, in order to show this to you, I first need to ask you to provide a passage that you believe shows that Jesus had natural brothers.

This has been hashed and rehashed a million times. I’ve seen both sides, and I expect you have also. I don’t think either of us will change our minds on this, do you?

Much to comment on here, but the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately can be inferred from the Angel’s greeting at the Annunciation.

I apologize for that section of my post. If I were reading it from your perspective, I think I would object to a lot in it and the post is basically a bag of loose ends without proof, and most of it should be debated outside the current thread. It gives you a general idea of where I am at, however, and I do not apologize for that.

There are endless posts on the meaning of kecharitomene. I think you lean too heavily on the supposed inference of one verse for as much as you put on it. It could equally mean other things. It does not, for example, indicate the time of the fulfilling: it could be at the conception of Mary, the annunciation to Mary, or some other time.

If the Orthodox are correct then there was no original sin and no need for an Immaculate Conception. Their complaint on this is that the Catholics have boxed themselves into a scholastic corner. I am sympathetic to that complaint.

It is no slam, true. However, it is not true that Mary had other children. Scripture does not teach that she did, and the constant teaching of the Church tells us otherwise. Luther, Calvin, Wesley…they all held that Mary remained ever-virgin. The idea that she did not is a modern Protestant novelty.

I am not convinced it is a ‘modern Protestant novelty’, which may be construed as a disparagement you would do well to rid yourself of, unless you are prepared to accept certain Catholic developments in doctrine as “modern Catholic novelties.” Which I doubt.
From what I have heard, there is an enormous silence on this in the ancient Fathers - it was a non-issue. Either it was settled or it had not yet risen as an issue of any theological importance. I concede it could have been settled toward the Catholic/Orthodox position.

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

That was fast. Link, please? And I do not hold Calvin in the same regard as Catholics hold popes.

And Calvin gives good advice here: we should not keep up the argument due to an extreme fondness for disputation.

Overall here I am attempting to illustrate a perspective, for the OP, that had not been presented on this thread. I should have posted with more restraint. For that I apologize.

-Tina

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Matthew 1:25-And he knew her not ***till ***

she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Most protestants see the word until as something meaning he must have had relations later. The word until was used at that time, as in many other parts of the Bible, to mean up until that time. It means nothing about after.

Mark 6:3- Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.

There is no word for cousin in hebrew or aramaic, so the word brother is used. These men were cousins. Those known as sisters where female cousins.

Here is a whole page explaining it.

 

[Wowbagger]

I’ve wondered at times wouldn’t it be cruel to Joseph if it were otherwise?

Interesting tidbit on that, actually. According to Aquinas’s argument in the Summa (III.q28.a4), Joseph and Mary had already taken a vow of virginity, and always intended for their marriage to go unconsummated. The fact that they had children at all, then, was quite a surprise.

Now, Aquinas’s argument is purely speculative, and indeed is built on the assumption that Mary was ever-virgin, but it is not wholly unbelievable. It’s fairly common to find in the lives of very holy married people that, at some point, they took a vow of continence. Sometimes that’s only after many years of marriage, but other times holy couples would vow continence before marriage, and this was considered especially exemplary.

My feelings for the practice aren’t all that warm and fuzzy, I must admit, but it’s strongly a part of the tradition and God does seem to smile on these couples that make such a great sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom. It stands to reason, then, that the holiest couple in the history of the world, Mary and Joseph, would have numbered themselves among the holy married virgins with or without the Incarnation.

 

[djeter]

Back in 2001, Time magazine called Stanley Hauerwas, the Duke University Divinity School professor, “America’s Best Theologian.” Needless to say he earned the praise for his maverick writings on pacifism, homosexuality, American patriotism, etc., etc.

That would hardly be the sort of recommendation that would earn his inclusion to a traditional Catholic weblog. Further, Hauerwas is not a member of the Church but belongs to the United Methodist denomination. Despite all of that I found his book Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible) a compelling read.

I have some reading selections from the opening chapters and a few have some interesting comments on Mary. If you scroll down they strart at

1. 
   *]The Importance Of Mary’s Conception Through The Spirit
   
   *]The Virgin Birth
   
   *]Mistaking The Virgin Birth
   
   *]The Holy Family
   
   *]Without Mary’s Virginity The Story Cannot Be Told
   
   *]Mary Is Also Our Abraham
   
   "Matthew’s story of Mary’s pregnancy lacks the charm and detail of Luke’s account, but that may well be its value. One of the great enemies of the gospel is sentimentality, and the stories surrounding Jesus’ birth have proven to be ready material for maudlin sentiment.
   
   Matthew’s account of Jesus’ conception and birth is unapologetically realistic. Joseph, not Mary, is the main actor. John Chrysostom praises Joseph as a man of exceptional self-restraint since he must have been free of that most tyrannical passion, jealousy. Unwilling to cause Mary distress, to expose her to public disgrace, he planned to dismiss her discreetly. Joseph, therefore, refused to act according to the law, but rather chose to act in a manner that Jesus himself would later exemplify by his attitude toward known sinners (Matthew. 9:10-13).
   
   Yet Joseph still required a revelation so that he would know the character of Mary’s pregnancy. He is also given the honor to name Jesus as the new Joshua capable of rescuing his people from their sins. The Joshua of old had been given the task of conquering the Promised Land, but this Joshua is sent to save his people from their sins, making it possible for them to live as the people of the promise. Joseph did as he was instructed, taking Mary for his wife and naming his son Jesus."
   
   Much more about Matthew here:
   
   payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/10/02/book-recommendation-matthew-brazos-theological-commentary-on-the-bible-by-stanley-hauerwas/
   
   but scroll down to get to all the Mary stuff. I know its not quite the historical approach you are taking here but I liked how Hauerwas approaches the gospel and what he finds in it.
   
   And let me know what you think. I’m just a recent convert who takes in a lot of stuff about the gospels and my Church – this could be questionable stuff but I enjoyed it.
   
   dj

 

[Randy_Carson]

This has been hashed and rehashed a million times. I’ve seen both sides, and I expect you have also. I don’t think either of us will change our minds on this, do you?

I am more optimistic because I am confident that the Holy Spirit can enlightenment, and I am hopeful that He will. All of us who have converted eventually reach a tipping point.

If the Orthodox are correct then there was no original sin and no need for an Immaculate Conception. Their complaint on this is that the Catholics have boxed themselves into a scholastic corner. I am sympathetic to that complaint.

An interesting sympathy for an Evangelical. However, if there is no original sin, then the only remaining issue would be whether God protected Mary from ever committing personal sin. Gee, you’re conceding the Biggest objection most Protestants have to the Immaculate Conception…“for all have sinned” and all that. Sounds like you’re halfway home.

I am not convinced it is a ‘modern Protestant novelty’, which may be construed as a disparagement you would do well to rid yourself of, unless you are prepared to accept certain Catholic developments in doctrine as “modern Catholic novelties.” Which I doubt.

I will be happy to discuss your ideas about “modern Catholic novelites” if you’d care to name one or two for starters. However, yes, it is a disparagement, and I do not think that it is unwarranted. The original Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus) all accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary as did Wesley much later. Therefore, the idea that Mary did not remain ever-virgin is something new (a novelty) of more recent (modern) non-Catholics (Protestants). How have I mis-spoken.

That was fast. Link, please? And I do not hold Calvin in the same regard as Catholics hold popes.

As well you should not!

John Calvin

• Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

• [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

• Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
These and many other Protestant quotes supporting the Perpetual Virginity of Mary found here:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/luther-calvin-and-other-early.html

 

[Radical]

The original Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus) all accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary as did Wesley much later. Therefore, the idea that Mary did not remain ever-virgin is something new (a novelty) of more recent (modern) non-Catholics (Protestants). How have I mis-spoken.

You seem to be forgetting about the early anabaptists who did not accept the perpetual virginity of Mary…therefore, it is a 450 year old “novelty” …same age as that concept of separation of church and state whereby the king/prince does not impose his religion on his subjects by use of the sword. Not bad “novelties” really.

I will be happy to discuss your ideas about “modern Catholic novelites” if you’d care to name one or two for starters. However, yes, it is a disparagement, and I do not think that it is unwarranted.

well, with respect to modern Catholic novelties you could start by showing that the Catholic Marion doctrines were actually taught by the apostles and by the apostloic fathers. When that task proves to be entirely dependent on inferences you might want to acknowledge that it is very possible that these dcotrines are in fact merely 1850-1000 year old novelties…which, of course, would make the rejection of those doctrines not true novelties, but rather they would be the re-establishment of truth by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Radical]

Hi TinaG

The protoevangelium of John, from which the whole story of Mary being a life-long virgin arose, was actually on a list of condemned books, condemned by a pope. This was a very weak basis on which to found the whole edifice of Marian devotion. The reformers realized that grace does not require the intercession of Mary and the position of Mary in the Catholic Church was anti-Scriptural (we see the Son and the Holy Spirit as our intercessors, not Mary, in Romans 8, for example). Anyway, that is what they say in the places I frequent, in the rare intervals it is ever discussd, which is almost never.

you are spot on except you meant " proto-evangelium of James".

 

[ccolley]

Alright, just to be clear, I’m a practical Catholic and I understand the Marian doctrines and why we as Catholics believe them.

But, to my Baptist in-laws, the notion that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life is a completely alien concept to them. That Mary had other children “The bretheren of the Lord”, is something that they’ve “known” for generations.

My question is really more of a historical one. I understand that even Martin Luther believed in the Church doctrines regarding Mary. So, some where along the way, someone began to espouse and propagate the idea that Mary didn’t not remain a virgin throughout her life. Can anyone give me some pointers on the historical development of the “non-virgin” belief that seems prevalent in Protestant communities?

Thanks.

True, Martin Luther did believe in it as did Zwingli and Calvin.

Calvin:
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage[Matt1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; what folly is this? For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had, therefore, never dwelt with her not had he shared her company…” (Beginning Apologetics, Vol 1, Chacon and Burnham; pg.20).

CC
[SIGN]I love my German Shepard[/SIGN]

 

[TinaG]

I am more optimistic because I am confident that the Holy Spirit can enlightenment, and I am hopeful that He will. All of us who have converted eventually reach a tipping point.

May I remind you that conversions go both ways? I belong to a church that is about 75% ex-Catholic. The pastor once asked for a show of hands of how many were ex-Catholic, and that was it. You may find yourself with us someday. Or I with you.

An interesting sympathy for an Evangelical. However, if there is no original sin, then the only remaining issue would be whether God protected Mary from ever committing personal sin. Gee, you’re conceding the Biggest objection most Protestants have to the Immaculate Conception…“for all have sinned” and all that. Sounds like you’re halfway home.

Since there is NO exclusion from all of creation being reckoned as sinful (Christ being made sin for us as well) it is just plain silly to consider Mary outside the reckoning for sin. She did not need a savior if she had not been reckoned as sinning. She was within the convenant of God, therefore she was reckoned as having sinned, whether she actually herself sinned at all. Therefore the question of whether she sinned is irrelevant. I have hear
that Chrysostom believed she personally sinned.

I will be happy to discuss your ideas about “modern Catholic novelties” if you’d care to name one or two for starters. However, yes, it is a disparagement, and I do not think that it is unwarranted. The original Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus) all accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary as did Wesley much later. Therefore, the idea that Mary did not remain ever-virgin is something new (a novelty) of more recent (modern) non-Catholics (Protestants). How have I mis-spoken.

There is the innovation of papal infallibility and the current fad about a coredemptrix.

You should avoid disparagement. Getting people angry does not persuade them. It clouds thinking and makes enemies. We should all post as charitably as possible.

With that in mind, I offer the following tirade.

I was thinking about this whole topic this morning. Typically it would be downright rude and nosy and impolite to discuss whether someone we know kept his wife a virgin and whether their children were adopted. Essentially such are private matters. How much more so is this for Mary in her relations with her husband, and Jesus in His relations with them and His brothers? There is a certain ambiguity and restraint in the Scriptures towards this that we should maintain. My attitude at hearing “ever-virgin” during the Mass has been to wince, and now I can articulate it. It approaches crass. Discussions regarding the state of a woman’s hymen are not socially acceptable. For it to be mentioned in church brings terms to my mind like weird and disgusting.

It goes further that, and that is that in praising one woman for being so, it downgrades all other women. Shame on you, mothers! You are not virgins! Shame on you, non-virgins, for you are degraded, not to be praised! You are filthy and contaminated, dishonorable and repulsive in the eyes of God! That is what I hear when I hear “ever-virgin.”

-Tina “Happily, Not Shamefully Married” G

 

[Randy_Carson]

You seem to be forgetting about the early anabaptists who did not accept the perpetual virginity of Mary…therefore, it is a 450 year old “novelty” …

Oh, okay. So, the fact that it was unknown to Christianity for 1500 years prior to that means nothing? Yeah, in the grand scheme of things 450 years is NOTHING.

But thanks for CONFIRMING that the idea that Mary was NOT ever-virgin was introduced loooooooooong after the close of the Apostolic era.

well, with respect to modern Catholic novelties you could start by showing that the Catholic Marion doctrines were actually taught by the apostles and by the apostloic fathers. When that task proves to be entirely dependent on inferences you might want to acknowledge that it is very possible that these dcotrines are in fact merely 1850-1000 year old novelties…which, of course, would make the rejection of those doctrines not true novelties, but rather they would be the re-establishment of truth by the Holy Spirit.

I’m always happy to discuss Catholic dogma with my separated brethren…start a thread and let me know.

 

[Randy_Carson]

May I remind you that conversions go both ways? I belong to a church that is about 75% ex-Catholic. The pastor once asked for a show of hands of how many were ex-Catholic, and that was it. You may find yourself with us someday. Or I with you.

Indeed it does, but don’t hold dinner while you wait for me. The fact of the matter is that boatloads of poorly catechized people have left and are leaving the Catholic Church. Not surprising considering the “full court press” that Satan has been running at the Church. Happily, the time of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, cafeteria Catholic is almost over. What should be disconcerting to you is the large number of well-educated Protestant clergy who are making their way home to Rome. You’re getting quantity; we’re getting quality. I wouldn’t judge it a fair exchange.

Since there is NO exclusion from all of creation being reckoned as sinful (Christ being made sin for us as well) it is just plain silly to consider Mary outside the reckoning for sin. She did not need a savior if she had not been reckoned as sinning.

She needed a savior to protect her from Original Sin. She did not commit actual sins nor did she inherit Original Sin, and there is no scripture that proves otherwise.

She was within the convenant of God, therefore she was reckoned as having sinned, whether she actually herself sinned at all. Therefore the question of whether she sinned is irrelevant.

Is this an assertion or do you plan to make an actual argument?

There is the innovation of papal infallibility and the current fad about a coredemptrix.

I can make the case for papal infallibility from scripture, and the idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix is A) not a defined doctrine and B) completely reasonable if properly understood.

You should avoid disparagement. Getting people angry does not persuade them. It clouds thinking and makes enemies. We should all post as charitably as possible.

A reasonable suggestion.

With that in mind, I offer the following tirade.

I was thinking about this whole topic this morning. Typically it would be downright rude and nosy and impolite to discuss whether someone we know kept his wife a virgin and whether their children were adopted. Essentially such are private matters. How much more so is this for Mary in her relations with her husband, and Jesus in His relations with them and His brothers? There is a certain ambiguity and restraint in the Scriptures towards this that we should maintain. My attitude at hearing “ever-virgin” during the Mass has been to wince, and now I can articulate it. It approaches crass. Discussions regarding the state of a woman’s hymen are not socially acceptable. For it to be mentioned in church brings terms to my mind like weird and disgusting.

Well I should say so when you put it in those terms…as if it were purely a prurient or physiological curiosity. But the Marian Dogmas - ALL of them are Christological. They protect and/or teach truths about Christ. Protestants seem to misunderstand this point somehow.

It goes further that, and that is that in praising one woman for being so, it downgrades all other women. Shame on you, mothers! You are not virgins! Shame on you, non-virgins, for you are degraded, not to be praised! You are filthy and contaminated, dishonorable and repulsive in the eyes of God! That is what I hear when I hear “ever-virgin.”

-Tina “Happily, Not Shamefully Married” G

Perhaps you need to adjust your hearing. Jesus was not married. Nor was Paul. Should I feel ashamed because I could not control myself and remain single like Paul?

Why not consider the fact that Mary offers an example to those who are called to the single life AND to those who are called to Motherhood? She is both Mother AND Virgin and has much to teach to those in either state.

If you listen more closely, you will find that the Church speaks of Mary as Mother more than she speaks of her as Virgin.