R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I see that Jesus has invited the little girl from next door to have dinner with His mom and dad.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
Yes, blessings to Behur and Thetazlord. Special thanks to all on this thread who have behaved so charitably, Benhur and Thetazlord included.
Look for a new thread I started today on the evidence that the Lords Supper is an Ordinance (vs a Sacramental meal). Interested in everyone’s perspectives.
E
ericc
Guest
How do you know that she is NOT a spiritual sister or even a god sister or adopted sister? It is a possibility? What information do you have to zero in that she is a biological sister?
W
wmscott
Guest
I dont believe it is one either. I’m with you on this, it is going to be his ploy to accuse you of dropping a red herring on him.
T
thetazlord
Guest
With all due respect for Jerome, since you’re quoting the beliefs of a LATE FOURTH Century writing of an ECF, rather than Scripture, his writing isn’t any more “Inspiired” that your or mine. Jerome is simply examining the Scriptures & expressing his opinion of who the “brothers” of Jesus are. Ironically, Jerome actually DISAGREES with his fellow ECF (Augustine) who “believes” that they are Jesus’ older step-brothers, which he bases on Proto-James. So, Jerome is actually discounting Proto-James, the actual earliest source for Mary’s perpetual virginity for Mary’s perpetual virginity. Plus, although Jeromes “uses” Scripture, he doesn’t use ALL of the relevant Scriptures that discuss Jesus’ family - immediate as well as extended. And where he does, he “mixes” the “beliefs” of earlier ECFs regarding relationships that aren’t found in Scripture, & then unnecessarily “blends” the four “brothers” of Jesus with the “James & Joseph” who are the TWO sons of Alphaeus & the “other” Mary without any Scriptural support for it.
T
thetazlord
Guest
Again, because you are asking for a SINGLE verse that conflicts with the PVM, you aren’t understanding that you have to examine & cross-reference MULTIPLE verses - not just ONE - and in context, in order to realize that all these verses - collectively - do indeed conflict with the PVM. This is what I did in one of my previous posts which took THREE posts. Please go back & reread.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Yes. Egg-actly! Just like you, St. Jerome was examining the scriptures. Fifty-five times he refers to it, so he is responding to your comment here:
Keep in mind at the time he is writing, there was no bible, no affirmed universal canon of Scripture to be used at Mass. He would help with this a few years later by 400 ad.
He’s showing you Thetazelord 1,500 years ago the answer to your question, as many have on this post.
E
ericc
Guest
- Since you have identified James/Joses/Simon/Jude to be the children of Joseph and Mary, that will make these foursome maternal half brothers of Jesus.
(a) There is a Greek word for that.
(b) Since the gospel writers didn’t use that word, therefore
(c) these foursome can not be the maternal half brothers of Jesus.
- (a) Adelphos is used to describe the paternal half brothers Philip/Herod.
(b) Therefore these foursome could be/are Jesus paternal half brothers. - These foursome are adopted. Adelphos is equally appropriate to describe them. You may claim the Bible didn’t say that. And my response is the same as yours, the Bible didn’t say Joseph fathered these kids with Mary either.
Many Catholic and Protestant experts have gone through these a million times and they are gracious enough to admit that scriptural evidence is inconclusive at best. One can go either way. Humility may be exercised prudently here.
But it is your call. I am happy to go along and see this to an inconclusive end.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Benhur.
You said:
But your incorrect Marian doctrine, keeps you from a fuller view of Jesus.
**
Mary. The New Eve**
Eve was made from the Flesh of Adam . In not a mirror image, but rather a fulfillment, Jesus took His Sacred Flesh from the New Eve (Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 and the unanimous consent of the Early Church Fathers). The “New Eve” is the Blessed Virgin Mary.
You will see Eve as the fleshly “mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20), yet you will not see us as REALLY ACTUALLY being spiritual brothers and sisters of our Lord Jesus.
(Yes Jesus is our Lord, God taken (Mary’s) flesh to Himself, etc. etc. But He is ALSO our brother. And what do you call your brother’s mom? Hopefully “mom”. Then 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.—Cf. Revelation 12:17.)
**Mary is the fulfilled mother of all the living. **
If Jesus is “the new Adam” (see 1st Cor. 15:45 and Romans 5:14), WHO do you think the New Eve is? (Check the Fathers on this point too)
We have the same essential Christology yes.
But you do not see Christ as being so special that it is fitting that He have someone in humanity, at least ONE of us, that is SO DEVOTED to Him (by Grace—Full of Grace), that this person is totally consecrated to him by Heaven itself (“the Power of the Holy Spirit will overshadow you”, you who are kecharitomene or “full of grace” even before this occurs).
**
Temple Vessels–Wow!**
Yet you will admit the Temple vessels WERE special enough to have their consecration protected by God.
The Temple–Amazing!
You will admit a the Temple as being special and having a place in Christology even (for some people) embracing a phony invented “Rapture” theology that at least lauds some form of a “New Sacred Temple” for political guys running around managing world affairs.
Yet when it comes to seeing the fulfillment of Ezekiel 44, for Jesus HIMSELF, you are unable to see the significance of the fulfillment of the Temple is a function of HOW IMPORTANT what or rather WHO resides within that Temple—Jesus is.
The Ark of the Covenant? Absolutely Super Special!
And you will admit the Ark, after it was VERY SPECIALLY BUILT, and then was consecrated via being “overshadowed by the Holy Spirit” . . . WAS special enough to have its consecration protected by God (just ask Uzzah in 2nd Samuel 6:7 who was struck dead for simply touching her I mean “it”). And the Ark merely contained the stone tablets of the Law, Aaron’s rod, and measly manna albeit from Heaven.
The place where Jesus became flesh and entered into Humanity? Well I’m not so sure about this one.
Yet you DENY Jesus being special enough to have the consecration of HIS human vessel (the Blessed Virgin Mary), protected by God Himself. And the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the fulfillment of the Law, the Heavenly High Priest, and not mere manna, but FULFILLED Manna from Heaven.
In Summary
Eve? Yes. The mother of ALL the living in a fleshly sense. The Temple Vessels? Wow! The Temple? Great! The Ark of the Covenant? Double Wow!! . . . . but alas . . . . The New Eve? Maybe, maybe not. The living flesh and blood Temple of Jesus who was in one-flesh communion with Him in a special way for nine months? “Yawn. Ho hum. What’s the big deal?”
Where Does All Of That Lead You?
And I am saying a denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary leads one to this type of mundane Christologic view.
It quite naturally leads one to where Temples and Vessels and Arks are seen appropriately, but the living flesh and blood Temple, the living “Vessel” holding our Lord Jesus, the living flesh and blood Ark of Jesus is seen as a sort of an afterthought.
**Therefore . . . **
And that is the reflection on the contrasting of the “special-ness” of how people who affirm the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary see Jesus versus people who DENY the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary see Jesus.
And this is WHY Cardinal Newman (a convert from Protestantism) would warn people saying:
You said:
I think there is more then a grain of truth in us having the same Christology benhur.
But your incorrect Marian doctrine, keeps you from a fuller view of Jesus.
**
Mary. The New Eve**
Eve was made from the Flesh of Adam . In not a mirror image, but rather a fulfillment, Jesus took His Sacred Flesh from the New Eve (Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 and the unanimous consent of the Early Church Fathers). The “New Eve” is the Blessed Virgin Mary.
You will see Eve as the fleshly “mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20), yet you will not see us as REALLY ACTUALLY being spiritual brothers and sisters of our Lord Jesus.
(Yes Jesus is our Lord, God taken (Mary’s) flesh to Himself, etc. etc. But He is ALSO our brother. And what do you call your brother’s mom? Hopefully “mom”. Then 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.—Cf. Revelation 12:17.)
**Mary is the fulfilled mother of all the living. **
If Jesus is “the new Adam” (see 1st Cor. 15:45 and Romans 5:14), WHO do you think the New Eve is? (Check the Fathers on this point too)
We have the same essential Christology yes.
But you do not see Christ as being so special that it is fitting that He have someone in humanity, at least ONE of us, that is SO DEVOTED to Him (by Grace—Full of Grace), that this person is totally consecrated to him by Heaven itself (“the Power of the Holy Spirit will overshadow you”, you who are kecharitomene or “full of grace” even before this occurs).
**
Temple Vessels–Wow!**
Yet you will admit the Temple vessels WERE special enough to have their consecration protected by God.
The Temple–Amazing!
You will admit a the Temple as being special and having a place in Christology even (for some people) embracing a phony invented “Rapture” theology that at least lauds some form of a “New Sacred Temple” for political guys running around managing world affairs.
Yet when it comes to seeing the fulfillment of Ezekiel 44, for Jesus HIMSELF, you are unable to see the significance of the fulfillment of the Temple is a function of HOW IMPORTANT what or rather WHO resides within that Temple—Jesus is.
The Ark of the Covenant? Absolutely Super Special!
And you will admit the Ark, after it was VERY SPECIALLY BUILT, and then was consecrated via being “overshadowed by the Holy Spirit” . . . WAS special enough to have its consecration protected by God (just ask Uzzah in 2nd Samuel 6:7 who was struck dead for simply touching her I mean “it”). And the Ark merely contained the stone tablets of the Law, Aaron’s rod, and measly manna albeit from Heaven.
The place where Jesus became flesh and entered into Humanity? Well I’m not so sure about this one.
Yet you DENY Jesus being special enough to have the consecration of HIS human vessel (the Blessed Virgin Mary), protected by God Himself. And the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the fulfillment of the Law, the Heavenly High Priest, and not mere manna, but FULFILLED Manna from Heaven.
In Summary
Eve? Yes. The mother of ALL the living in a fleshly sense. The Temple Vessels? Wow! The Temple? Great! The Ark of the Covenant? Double Wow!! . . . . but alas . . . . The New Eve? Maybe, maybe not. The living flesh and blood Temple of Jesus who was in one-flesh communion with Him in a special way for nine months? “Yawn. Ho hum. What’s the big deal?”
Where Does All Of That Lead You?
And I am saying a denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary leads one to this type of mundane Christologic view.
It quite naturally leads one to where Temples and Vessels and Arks are seen appropriately, but the living flesh and blood Temple, the living “Vessel” holding our Lord Jesus, the living flesh and blood Ark of Jesus is seen as a sort of an afterthought.
**Therefore . . . **
And that is the reflection on the contrasting of the “special-ness” of how people who affirm the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary see Jesus versus people who DENY the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary see Jesus.
And this is WHY Cardinal Newman (a convert from Protestantism) would warn people saying:
T
thetazlord
Guest
Actually, I have. I can’t help you are having problems comprehending what I’m writing. Where your confusion lies is that although you acknowledge there are indeed FOUR WOMEN at the cross, instead of three, you seem to be fine with John omitting his OWN mother at the cross, even though Matthew & Mark mention her along with the two “Marys.” By acknowledging there are FOUR women at the cross, then that would make Salome - not the Mary of Clopas - Mary of Jesus’ sister. That is why this “theory” that Mary of Clopas is Mary of Jesus’ sister (in-law) is faulty, because there is no contextual reason to believe this, but rather taking unnecessary liberty to isolate a SINGLE meaning for “sister” to justify a religious dogma.
Then you unnecessarily “blend” the “James & Joseph” who are sons of Alphaeus & Mary of Clopas with the “James & Joseph” who are mentioned with Simon, Judas, & at least 2 unnamed sisters who are referred to as the brothers & sisters of Jesus - again, taking unnecessary liberty isolating a SINGLE meaning for “brothers” without any contextual reason for doing so. You also use “certain” ECF’s who “believe” that Clopas & Joseph were brothers - again, with no Scriptural support. But even “if” they were brothers, it still doesn’t change the fact that when Scripture references Mary of Clopas’ children, it ONLY mentions James & Joseph - both together as well as individually (refer to Mark Ch.15 & the beginning of Mark Ch.16). Scripture NEVER mentions either Mary of Clopas, nor Alphaeus having any other sons, let alone naming them, nor having daughters. Yet, when mentioned along with Joseph & Mary, the “James & Joseph” who are mentioned as Jesus’ UNBELIEVING brothers in Jesus’ “household” in Mark 6:3-4 ALSO mention Simon, Judas, & at least 2 unnamed sisters of Jesus.
One last thing to consider. It is the “belief” of some Catholics that the author of the epistle of James is James the Less. This is because the author of the epistle of Jude refers to himself as “the brother (adelphos) of James.” This “James” is believed to be the same James at the Jerusalem council in Acts Ch.15 who became the first bishop of the Jerusalem church, as well as the “James” who’s referred to as the “the brother (adelphos) of the Lord” in Galatians. If all of this is true (which I agree with the the last three sentences, because there is Scriptural support for this), then that would negate the “older step-brother theory” proposed by Proto-James because James the Less (& Joseph) would be ALPHAEUS’ sons - not older step-brothers of Jesus, which would negate Proto-James, & the “Mary & Joseph” in Proto-James would not be the same Mary & Joseph of Scripture.
The other issue with James the Less mentioned as the “brother of the Lord” & the leader of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 is that whenever James the Less is mentioned in the Gospels or Acts, he’s referred to as James the Less or James the son of Alphaeus. He’s NEVER referred to as “the Lord’s brother” like he is in Galatians. Plus, when he’s listed
with the other apostles, he’s always listed NINTH. And other than his familial relationship with James the Less, Alphaeus, & Joseph as well as being a disciple of Jesus, we know absolutely NOTHING about him. He doesn’t even speak ONCE in the Gospels. Yet, many Catholics believe that James the Less became leader of the Jerusalem church & even listed ABOVE Peter as “pillars of the Church” in Galatians, despite no Scriptural support for that “assumption”? Paul also makes it clear that the “James” that Jesus appeared to AFTER He appeared to “The 12” is a completely different James.
This is why appealing to the “beliefs” of “certain” ECF’s doesn’t help one way or another, because as previously demonstrated, & affirmed by CA Jimmy Akin, they disagreed on a LOT of things like Augustine & Jerome did - even pertaining to doctrine. And that’s because - like you & I - they too examined the Scriptures to make their conclusions, yet came to different conclusions about “who” the identity of the brothers were. Like you & I, ECF’s are capable of being wrong, as well as being right, as Church history has demonstrated. That’s why we still need to examine these “beliefs” of the ECF’s “to” Scripture. And Scripture does not support that the “brothers” of Jesus are anything other than Jesus’ half-brothers of Jesus, but rather Scripture supports it. At the very least, Scripture cannot disprove that Jesus had half-siblings, so should we adhere to the “beliefs” of these “certain” ECF’s & this related dogma since it can’t be disproven from Scripture that Jesus had half-siblings, let alone Mary “remaining” a virgin after the birth of Jesus?
(CONTINUED…)
T
thetazlord
Guest
(CONTINUED…PART 2)
This too might help too. This is a “modified” conversation with another Catholic I had on this topic. Hopefully, it’s help you see how many Catholics argue in circles on this issue, without even realizing it:
YOU: When the NT is talking about Jesus’ “brothers,” they could be talking about His disciples.
ME: No, because John 2:12 discerns between His disciples & His brothers, plus one of Jesus’ brothers is named Joseph, & Jesus did not have a disciple named Joseph.
YOU: Well, they could be His ‘believing’ brothers.
ME: No, because John 7:3-5 tells us His ‘brothers’ did NOT believe in Him, & it also discerns between His brothers & His disciples, & Matthew 12:46-50 discerns between His unbelieving brothers & His ‘believing’ brothers.
YOU: Well, they could be other family members, like cousins.
ME: If Jesus meant ‘cousins,’ the NT writers would have used the AVAILABLE & SPECIFIC Greek word for ‘cousin’ (‘anepsios’) just as Paul did in Colossians 4:10 to describe Mark’s relationship to Barnabas, as well as Mary’s relationship with Elizabeth (‘syggenis’) which can also be translated ‘cousin’.
YOU: Jesus didn’t speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. There was no Aramaic word for ‘cousin,’ so he used ‘brother’ to mean cousin.
ME: Paul also spoke Aramaic, yet he used the GREEK word for ‘cousin’ (‘anepsios’), instead of the ‘brother.’ Again, Luke also uses a Greek word that be translated ‘cousin’ (‘syggenis’) in Luke 1:36. In fact, even Vatican.va describes Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth as ‘cousins’ in Luke 1:36. Also, since the NT was written in Greek - not Aramaic, either NT Greek word for ‘cousin’ could have been used, just as Paul used it. (BTW, I think Jesus ‘knew’ how to speak Greek, since He was/is God).
YOU: Well, maybe they were Jesus’ close-relatives.
ME: No, because the other Greek word for ‘relative’ is ‘syggenes,’ Also, Jesus discerns between His own ‘countrymen,’ His own ‘relatives’ (sygennes), & members of His own ‘house’ who did not believe in Him (Mark 6:4). Those in His own house are described in Mark 6:3 - the carpenter (Joseph - Jesus’ step-father) & His mother (Mary) who were both believers, and Jesus’ ‘adelphos’ (not ‘syggenes’) who did NOT believe in Him.
YOU: Well, the members of His own house ‘could’ be Jesus’ step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph.
ME: There is ZERO Scriptural evidence that Joseph was married before. The EARLIEST religious ‘BELIEF’ that they were step-siblings didn’t originate until the MID-SECOND Century, from a pagan source – Proto-James, which states that Joseph was MUCH older & the author of it was James the Just (even though he was DEAD!) And even ‘IF’ they were His step-siblings, they wouldn’t have been ‘members of His house’ in His hometown, because according to Proto-James, they would have been grown by the time the MUCH older Joseph ‘adopted’ Jesus during Mary’s pregnancy, & therefore not living in His ‘house’ even when Jesus was a Child. So, we’ve been able to eliminate - from the Word of God - that the ‘brothers & sisters’ of Jesus CAN’T be His disciples, ‘believing’ brothers, cousins, relatives, nor OLDER & GROWN step-siblings from an ‘alleged’ previous marriage of this MUCH older “Joseph” from Proto-James, which is BASED on MID-SECOND Century pagan, false “gospel” – Proto-James. Therefore, the ONLY option left - which does NOT conflict with ANY PART of the Word of God, is that they were Jesus’ ACTUAL half-brothers.
YOU: Well, ‘brother’ doesn’t always mean ‘brother’ in the NT.
ME: <sigh!>
This too might help too. This is a “modified” conversation with another Catholic I had on this topic. Hopefully, it’s help you see how many Catholics argue in circles on this issue, without even realizing it:
YOU: When the NT is talking about Jesus’ “brothers,” they could be talking about His disciples.
ME: No, because John 2:12 discerns between His disciples & His brothers, plus one of Jesus’ brothers is named Joseph, & Jesus did not have a disciple named Joseph.
YOU: Well, they could be His ‘believing’ brothers.
ME: No, because John 7:3-5 tells us His ‘brothers’ did NOT believe in Him, & it also discerns between His brothers & His disciples, & Matthew 12:46-50 discerns between His unbelieving brothers & His ‘believing’ brothers.
YOU: Well, they could be other family members, like cousins.
ME: If Jesus meant ‘cousins,’ the NT writers would have used the AVAILABLE & SPECIFIC Greek word for ‘cousin’ (‘anepsios’) just as Paul did in Colossians 4:10 to describe Mark’s relationship to Barnabas, as well as Mary’s relationship with Elizabeth (‘syggenis’) which can also be translated ‘cousin’.
YOU: Jesus didn’t speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. There was no Aramaic word for ‘cousin,’ so he used ‘brother’ to mean cousin.
ME: Paul also spoke Aramaic, yet he used the GREEK word for ‘cousin’ (‘anepsios’), instead of the ‘brother.’ Again, Luke also uses a Greek word that be translated ‘cousin’ (‘syggenis’) in Luke 1:36. In fact, even Vatican.va describes Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth as ‘cousins’ in Luke 1:36. Also, since the NT was written in Greek - not Aramaic, either NT Greek word for ‘cousin’ could have been used, just as Paul used it. (BTW, I think Jesus ‘knew’ how to speak Greek, since He was/is God).
YOU: Well, maybe they were Jesus’ close-relatives.
ME: No, because the other Greek word for ‘relative’ is ‘syggenes,’ Also, Jesus discerns between His own ‘countrymen,’ His own ‘relatives’ (sygennes), & members of His own ‘house’ who did not believe in Him (Mark 6:4). Those in His own house are described in Mark 6:3 - the carpenter (Joseph - Jesus’ step-father) & His mother (Mary) who were both believers, and Jesus’ ‘adelphos’ (not ‘syggenes’) who did NOT believe in Him.
YOU: Well, the members of His own house ‘could’ be Jesus’ step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph.
ME: There is ZERO Scriptural evidence that Joseph was married before. The EARLIEST religious ‘BELIEF’ that they were step-siblings didn’t originate until the MID-SECOND Century, from a pagan source – Proto-James, which states that Joseph was MUCH older & the author of it was James the Just (even though he was DEAD!) And even ‘IF’ they were His step-siblings, they wouldn’t have been ‘members of His house’ in His hometown, because according to Proto-James, they would have been grown by the time the MUCH older Joseph ‘adopted’ Jesus during Mary’s pregnancy, & therefore not living in His ‘house’ even when Jesus was a Child. So, we’ve been able to eliminate - from the Word of God - that the ‘brothers & sisters’ of Jesus CAN’T be His disciples, ‘believing’ brothers, cousins, relatives, nor OLDER & GROWN step-siblings from an ‘alleged’ previous marriage of this MUCH older “Joseph” from Proto-James, which is BASED on MID-SECOND Century pagan, false “gospel” – Proto-James. Therefore, the ONLY option left - which does NOT conflict with ANY PART of the Word of God, is that they were Jesus’ ACTUAL half-brothers.
YOU: Well, ‘brother’ doesn’t always mean ‘brother’ in the NT.
ME: <sigh!>
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Thetazlord.
You said:
I want you to back your claim above up. (I don’t think you can.)
I see NOWHERE where St. Jerome appeals to “the Protoevangelium”.
I see lots of places where he appealed to Scripture. And I see where St. Jerome appeals to earlier Church Fathers too.
You said (parenthetical addition mine for context):
ST. JEROME Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, 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.
This (again) is what the early Church thought . . . .
ST. AUGUSTINE “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
To other readers of this thread:
I know CAF likes to close down a thread usually around 1000 posts (and it is past that now) so instead of discussing various points of contention I will place for reference (as some MAY want this) our local area Catholic men’s Bible study “Reverse Historical Timeline”.
It will focus on the Perpetual Virginity doctrine from about 650 A.D. backwards down to the time of Christ. The focus is on the in-partu inviolability of the Blessed Mother, but has quotes that go further than that too *).
PS nice post on this thread Mystophilus.*
You said:
I think you should stop asserting such things without giving quotes.
I want you to back your claim above up. (I don’t think you can.)
I see NOWHERE where St. Jerome appeals to “the Protoevangelium”.
I see lots of places where he appealed to Scripture. And I see where St. Jerome appeals to earlier Church Fathers too.
You said (parenthetical addition mine for context):
Yet St. Jerome said (here):
ST. JEROME Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, 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.
This (again) is what the early Church thought . . . .
ST. AUGUSTINE “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
To other readers of this thread:
I know CAF likes to close down a thread usually around 1000 posts (and it is past that now) so instead of discussing various points of contention I will place for reference (as some MAY want this) our local area Catholic men’s Bible study “Reverse Historical Timeline”.
It will focus on the Perpetual Virginity doctrine from about 650 A.D. backwards down to the time of Christ. The focus is on the in-partu inviolability of the Blessed Mother, but has quotes that go further than that too *).
PS nice post on this thread Mystophilus.*
T
thetazlord
Guest
That’s because the animal sacrifices in the OT didn’t “atone” for sins. Jesus’ shed blood did that. All the OT sacrifices did was “cover” the sins of the Israelites, which is why it required ongoing annual sacrifices. Jesus died ONCE as a propitiation (substitute) for our sins. During the Millennial Kingdom, the animal sacrifices will be as a “remembrance” of what Christ did for us, just as the animal sacrifices in the OT “forshadowed” the propitiation of Christ’s shed blood & death.Wait a second… I thought you said you were a follower of Christ? How can you believe that Jesus Christ serves as the propitiation for our sins, and yet hold on to the idea that animal sacrifices will atone for our sins during the Millennium?
Do you see how you’ve tied yourself in knots here? In order to reject the allusion to Jesus in Ezekiel, you need to reject Christ’s sacrifice. I hope that you prayerfully reconsider your interpretation here. Perhaps start by reading Paul’s letter to the Hebrews.
That’s because you “assume” that the “prince” mentioned who enters through this “gate” refers to Jesus. But if you keep reading through Ezekiel 44 into Ezekiel 45, this “prince” atones for his OWN sins, so this “prince” can’t be referring to Jesus, & - therefore - the “gate” can’t be referring to Mary.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Excalibur. I think these historical quotes will shed some light on the “WHY” of your original post. Some of the context won’t fit because I am copying and pasting from our Bible study group stuff locally.
There are OTHER quotes supporting the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary too, but I won’t necessarily include them here (because for the most part, as I said I am copying and pasting from this section of our Bible study and to get MORE quotes, and I would have to go to other sections of the study and pick them out—very time consuming and the thread may close at any post now. Also there is enough for you to get the idea from here).
Reverse Historical Timeline From About 650 A.D. Back to Time of Christ on Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (For those who MAY be interested)
St. Ildephonsus before his death in 667 A.D. wrote a treatise on this subject (that I do not have an English translation of). But the title in and of itself is revealing.
“De virginitate perpetuâ sanctae Mariae adversus tres infideles” (these three unbelievers are Jovinianus, Helvidius, and “a Jew”).
**Approx. 650 A.D. **
The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. (a non-Ecumenical Council but held under Pope St. Martin I and is thus considered authoritative)
LATERAN COUNCIL If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.
— The Lateran Council in 649 A.D.
**Approx. 500 A.D. **
The COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II back in the 500’s A.D. referred to Mary as “EVER-VIRGIN” FOUR TIMES!
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II Can. 2. If anyone does not confess . . . . of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and was born of her, let such a one be anathema.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, . . . . and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man, . . . . . or supports those who are bold enough to defend it or its heresies in the name of the holy fathers of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and persists in these errors until his death: let him be anathema.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II Additionally, we anathematize the heretical letter which Ibas is alleged to have written to Mari the Persian. This letter denies that God the Word was made incarnate of the ever virgin Mary, the holy mother of God, and that he was made man.
**
Approx. 450 A.D. **
Pope St. Leo the great, linking “Christ’s origin, to Mary and the fact that Mary was EVER-Virgin (“a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained”).
POPE SAINT LEO THE GREAT “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained”
—Pope St. Leo I (also called Leo the Great)
Died in 461 A.D. (Sermons 22:2A.D. 450]).
430 A.D.
We just keep reminding people about how Marian doctrines reflect on Jesus Christ. I was dialoguing with a Protestant over this issue of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. I was showing him how Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant among other things. He said “No Ark”. He could see how the Ark that contained the 10 Commandments, Aaron’s staff, and manna from Heaven, was utterly holy and sacred and deserving of all these special precautions and privileges. But when the “New Ark” came along, when Mary came along, who contained NOT MERE stone tablets, etc. he just couldn’t see Jesus as being holy and sacred enough to deserve His own Temple.
He didn’t deny the parallels between the Ark and Mary, he just couldn’t see Her as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and how fulfillments are GREATER than prefigurements.
I said to him, “Jesus just ISN’T THAT SPECIAL in your eyes to deserve a more majestic treatment than a container for sacred tablets, a staff, and manna is He?”
He never responded. But here is what St. Cyril of Alexandria said back in 430 A.D.
Continued . . .
There are OTHER quotes supporting the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary too, but I won’t necessarily include them here (because for the most part, as I said I am copying and pasting from this section of our Bible study and to get MORE quotes, and I would have to go to other sections of the study and pick them out—very time consuming and the thread may close at any post now. Also there is enough for you to get the idea from here).
Reverse Historical Timeline From About 650 A.D. Back to Time of Christ on Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (For those who MAY be interested)
St. Ildephonsus before his death in 667 A.D. wrote a treatise on this subject (that I do not have an English translation of). But the title in and of itself is revealing.
“De virginitate perpetuâ sanctae Mariae adversus tres infideles” (these three unbelievers are Jovinianus, Helvidius, and “a Jew”).
**Approx. 650 A.D. **
The Lateran Council in 649 A.D. (a non-Ecumenical Council but held under Pope St. Martin I and is thus considered authoritative)
LATERAN COUNCIL If anyone does not, according to the holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate, is Mother of God, since this latter age she conceived in true reality without human seed from the Holy Spirit, God the Word himself, who before the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned.
— The Lateran Council in 649 A.D.
**Approx. 500 A.D. **
The COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II back in the 500’s A.D. referred to Mary as “EVER-VIRGIN” FOUR TIMES!
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II Can. 2. If anyone does not confess . . . . of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and was born of her, let such a one be anathema.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, . . . . and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man, . . . . . or supports those who are bold enough to defend it or its heresies in the name of the holy fathers of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and persists in these errors until his death: let him be anathema.
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II Additionally, we anathematize the heretical letter which Ibas is alleged to have written to Mari the Persian. This letter denies that God the Word was made incarnate of the ever virgin Mary, the holy mother of God, and that he was made man.
**
Approx. 450 A.D. **
Pope St. Leo the great, linking “Christ’s origin, to Mary and the fact that Mary was EVER-Virgin (“a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained”).
POPE SAINT LEO THE GREAT “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained”
—Pope St. Leo I (also called Leo the Great)
Died in 461 A.D. (Sermons 22:2A.D. 450]).
430 A.D.
We just keep reminding people about how Marian doctrines reflect on Jesus Christ. I was dialoguing with a Protestant over this issue of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. I was showing him how Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant among other things. He said “No Ark”. He could see how the Ark that contained the 10 Commandments, Aaron’s staff, and manna from Heaven, was utterly holy and sacred and deserving of all these special precautions and privileges. But when the “New Ark” came along, when Mary came along, who contained NOT MERE stone tablets, etc. he just couldn’t see Jesus as being holy and sacred enough to deserve His own Temple.
He didn’t deny the parallels between the Ark and Mary, he just couldn’t see Her as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and how fulfillments are GREATER than prefigurements.
I said to him, “Jesus just ISN’T THAT SPECIAL in your eyes to deserve a more majestic treatment than a container for sacred tablets, a staff, and manna is He?”
He never responded. But here is what St. Cyril of Alexandria said back in 430 A.D.
Continued . . .
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)
430 A.D. (contd.)
But here is what St. Cyril of Alexandria said back in 430 A.D.
St. Cyril of Alexandria is teaching people to beware of people who deny Mary as ever virgin and St. Cyril ties this to WHO Jesus is (“The Word (Jesus) . . . . assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin”)!
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA “[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing”
— St. Cyril of Alexandria Against Those Who Do Not Wish to
Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 A.D. 430].
St. Cyril can readily see; Marian doctrine and Christologic doctrine are integrally involved with one another. Many people cannot see this. Notice there is a need in 430 A.D. for St. Cyril to “get more specific” than we will see earlier in the Church. Why? Because people were now denying these truths openly that’s why. We will see that phenomenon shortly.
429 A.D.
Nestorius is now denying other Marian doctrines to . . . .do what? . . . . To deny the full Divinity of Jesus Christ!
Objection: “Well this doesn’t have anything to do directly with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.”
Answer: Since all of Mary’s other titles and privileges flow from Her being the Mother of God, it does, but even if it didn’t just keep Bishop Nestorius in mind because we will come back to him and will see ties earlier in history concerning Bishop Bonosus who we will soon introduce and how Bonosus did explicitly deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
The Catholic Encyclopedia . . .
St. Augustine talking about what the Church readily recognized already as “Antidicomarite” heretics. Who are Antidicomarite heretics? Fortunately St. Augustine is going to tell us.
ST. AUGUSTINE “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
— St. Augustine Heresies 56A.D. 428]).
Why would St. Augustine feel the need to bring this up? Because the Antidicomarite heretics are spreading their error that’s why.
CCC 2089b . . . Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; . . .
There are people (Antidicomarite heretics) who are post-baptismally (Christians) that are denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity now in 428 A.D. Can you believe it?
390 A.D.
Jovinianus was an ex-monk who was trying to purport that the virginal life was lower than marriage, not higher.
The Catholic encyclopedia also states :
430 A.D. (contd.)
But here is what St. Cyril of Alexandria said back in 430 A.D.
St. Cyril of Alexandria is teaching people to beware of people who deny Mary as ever virgin and St. Cyril ties this to WHO Jesus is (“The Word (Jesus) . . . . assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin”)!
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA “[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing”
— St. Cyril of Alexandria Against Those Who Do Not Wish to
Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 A.D. 430].
St. Cyril can readily see; Marian doctrine and Christologic doctrine are integrally involved with one another. Many people cannot see this. Notice there is a need in 430 A.D. for St. Cyril to “get more specific” than we will see earlier in the Church. Why? Because people were now denying these truths openly that’s why. We will see that phenomenon shortly.
429 A.D.
Nestorius is now denying other Marian doctrines to . . . .do what? . . . . To deny the full Divinity of Jesus Christ!
Objection: “Well this doesn’t have anything to do directly with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.”
Answer: Since all of Mary’s other titles and privileges flow from Her being the Mother of God, it does, but even if it didn’t just keep Bishop Nestorius in mind because we will come back to him and will see ties earlier in history concerning Bishop Bonosus who we will soon introduce and how Bonosus did explicitly deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
The Catholic Encyclopedia . . .
428 A.D.
St. Augustine talking about what the Church readily recognized already as “Antidicomarite” heretics. Who are Antidicomarite heretics? Fortunately St. Augustine is going to tell us.
ST. AUGUSTINE “Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
— St. Augustine Heresies 56A.D. 428]).
Why would St. Augustine feel the need to bring this up? Because the Antidicomarite heretics are spreading their error that’s why.
CCC 2089b . . . Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; . . .
There are people (Antidicomarite heretics) who are post-baptismally (Christians) that are denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity now in 428 A.D. Can you believe it?
390 A.D.
Jovinianus was an ex-monk who was trying to purport that the virginal life was lower than marriage, not higher.
The Catholic encyclopedia also states :
St. Jerome wrote two books against Jovinianus at the time.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)
393 & 392 A.D.
Bishop Bonosus also started to propagate this idea of Mary having other children (just like Helvidius did earlier in time—we will see this shortly) was already now doing.
The local Council of Capua was called in 391 A.D. to investigate Bishop Bonosus concerning these new teachings (met in 392 A.D.).
These Bishops turned it over to other **Bishops (in the East) who stripped Bonosus of his faculties over this issue of denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary! **
At this point, it is clear that the Church thought it was unacceptable to DENY Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
A Bishop was deposed not even by a Pope but by a group of Bishops (the WHOLE GROUP already knew the CORRECT teaching concerning Mary’s Perpetual Virginity).
This thrusting from office of Bishop Bonosus (no small matter) was then ratified by Pope Siricius who . . . .
A Protestant historical website refers to Bishop Bonosus disgracefully with the dubious distinction of being called a . . . . “fore-runner of Nestorius” and I think they are correct.
Bonosus is alleged to have slipped into other heresies too (naturally).
Now let’s go to St. Jerome in 383 A.D. St. Jerome was approached by some people asking him to refute a man named Helvidius. Helvidius was denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
And look at what St. Jerome DOESN’T say . . .
**ST. JEROME ** 1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating.
Let’s see St. Jerome tie these Marian doctrines to Christologic teachings below as well referring to Mary’s womb as “sacred lodging” for Jesus (9 months on our calender today, were 10 months on their calender back then).
ST. JEROME 2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born.
The “Bride” situation above is not kiddushin but in the sense of nisuin.
St. Jerome asks WHY St. Joseph would bother to wait until after Jesus is born to have relations if Mary and Joseph planned on having them?
St. Joseph wasn’t commanded to do so. He was told not to be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.
St. Jerome is implying: “If you can figure out WHY St. Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary BEFORE Jesus was born Helvidius, you’ll probably be able to figure out WHY St. Joseph wouldn’t have had conjugal relations with Mary afterwards either.
ST. JEROME 8. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery?
Approx. 383 A.D. & Helvidius was out spewing forth his errors.
Allegedly when St. Jerome first heard this it was said that St. Jerome stated that Helvidius’ denial of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world”!
Tertullian was the only person in history Helvidius could try to appeal to for backing of his denials of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity!
Helvidius tried to use Bishop Victorinus but that went nowhere.
ST. JEROME 19. . . . . Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he (Helvidius) there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature.
393 & 392 A.D.
Bishop Bonosus also started to propagate this idea of Mary having other children (just like Helvidius did earlier in time—we will see this shortly) was already now doing.
The local Council of Capua was called in 391 A.D. to investigate Bishop Bonosus concerning these new teachings (met in 392 A.D.).
These Bishops turned it over to other **Bishops (in the East) who stripped Bonosus of his faculties over this issue of denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary! **
At this point, it is clear that the Church thought it was unacceptable to DENY Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
A Bishop was deposed not even by a Pope but by a group of Bishops (the WHOLE GROUP already knew the CORRECT teaching concerning Mary’s Perpetual Virginity).
This thrusting from office of Bishop Bonosus (no small matter) was then ratified by Pope Siricius who . . . .
This is serious matter!
A Protestant historical website refers to Bishop Bonosus disgracefully with the dubious distinction of being called a . . . . “fore-runner of Nestorius” and I think they are correct.
Bonosus is alleged to have slipped into other heresies too (naturally).
Monsignor Calkins states . . .
383 A.D.
Now let’s go to St. Jerome in 383 A.D. St. Jerome was approached by some people asking him to refute a man named Helvidius. Helvidius was denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
And look at what St. Jerome DOESN’T say . . .
St. Jerome says NOTHING like that. Here is what St. Jerome DOES say .
**ST. JEROME ** 1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating.
Let’s see St. Jerome tie these Marian doctrines to Christologic teachings below as well referring to Mary’s womb as “sacred lodging” for Jesus (9 months on our calender today, were 10 months on their calender back then).
ST. JEROME 2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born.
The “Bride” situation above is not kiddushin but in the sense of nisuin.
St. Jerome asks WHY St. Joseph would bother to wait until after Jesus is born to have relations if Mary and Joseph planned on having them?
St. Joseph wasn’t commanded to do so. He was told not to be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.
St. Jerome is implying: “If you can figure out WHY St. Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary BEFORE Jesus was born Helvidius, you’ll probably be able to figure out WHY St. Joseph wouldn’t have had conjugal relations with Mary afterwards either.
ST. JEROME 8. In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery?
Approx. 383 A.D. & Helvidius was out spewing forth his errors.
Allegedly when St. Jerome first heard this it was said that St. Jerome stated that Helvidius’ denial of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world”!
Tertullian was the only person in history Helvidius could try to appeal to for backing of his denials of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity!
Helvidius tried to use Bishop Victorinus but that went nowhere.
ST. JEROME 19. . . . . Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he (Helvidius) there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature.
T
thetazlord
Guest
T
thetazlord
Guest
Back at ya’!Yes, blessings to Behur and Thetazlord. Special thanks to all on this thread who have behaved so charitably, Benhur and Thetazlord included.
Look for a new thread I started today on the evidence that the Lords Supper is an Ordinance (vs a Sacramental meal). Interested in everyone’s perspectives.
BTW, refer to post #1005.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)
And St. Jerome’s assertion seems to be correct.
We see NOBODY calling themselves Christians that denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity! Nobody.
Tertullian denied it (as we see later) but Tertullian was a heretic.
Tertullian denied the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood adequate and that we were in need of a new covenant.
Tertullian denied the adequacy of Jesus’ blood to remit sexual sins that people wanted forgiveness for and had repented of!
Not one person.
Let’s go to the PRE-HELVIDIAN Heretical period and see what we get.
We see very delicate language treating a delicate topical with appropriate Sacred propriety.
Instead of the need to always define the intactness of Mary, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary had no relations with Joseph, etc. the Fathers before this time period usually just referred to Mary as “the Virgin.”
The Virgin. That is a moniker for Mary from the ancient Church Fathers. Yes there are more explicit statements but “the Virgin” is assumed to sum it all up in most instances.
WHY wouldn’t the earlier Church Fathers start giving definitions and graphic details of how Mary remained a Virgin much like the later Church Fathers?
Because there was no need to that’s why.
Because nobody was making these denials (at least publicly).
Remember the teachings that Mary was EVER-Virgin were already well ingrained in the Bishops minds. That’s WHY a whole council of Bishops can depose Bonosus (as we saw from 393 A.D.) and the Pope can and did ratify that removal.
Deposing a Bishop is no small matter. They often had not only theological training but often temporal power too. Why go through all of this if denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity were not an important item? Because the Early Church thought this doctrine WAS an “important item”.
Let’s go to the PRE-Helvidius time frame and look at St. Basil.
PRE 379 A.D.
And St. Jerome’s assertion seems to be correct.
We see NOBODY calling themselves Christians that denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity! Nobody.
Tertullian denied it (as we see later) but Tertullian was a heretic.
Tertullian denied the New Covenant in Jesus’ blood adequate and that we were in need of a new covenant.
Tertullian denied the adequacy of Jesus’ blood to remit sexual sins that people wanted forgiveness for and had repented of!
Before Helvidius in almost 400 A.D., we see NOBODY calling themselves Christians that denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
Not one person.
Let’s go to the PRE-HELVIDIAN Heretical period and see what we get.
We see very delicate language treating a delicate topical with appropriate Sacred propriety.
Instead of the need to always define the intactness of Mary, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary had no relations with Joseph, etc. the Fathers before this time period usually just referred to Mary as “the Virgin.”
The Virgin. That is a moniker for Mary from the ancient Church Fathers. Yes there are more explicit statements but “the Virgin” is assumed to sum it all up in most instances.
WHY wouldn’t the earlier Church Fathers start giving definitions and graphic details of how Mary remained a Virgin much like the later Church Fathers?
Because there was no need to that’s why.
Because nobody was making these denials (at least publicly).
Remember the teachings that Mary was EVER-Virgin were already well ingrained in the Bishops minds. That’s WHY a whole council of Bishops can depose Bonosus (as we saw from 393 A.D.) and the Pope can and did ratify that removal.
Deposing a Bishop is no small matter. They often had not only theological training but often temporal power too. Why go through all of this if denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity were not an important item? Because the Early Church thought this doctrine WAS an “important item”.
Let’s go to the PRE-Helvidius time frame and look at St. Basil.
PRE 379 A.D.
- Status