Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[Standing Up]

Texts which were considered to be inspired at one time include The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermes, of the 1st century. So how is it that none of these texts weren't inspired, seeing that they contain nothing unorthodox in contravention of sacred Tradition, but rather affirm traditional beliefs of the early Church? We could know that they weren't inspired only by extra-biblical sources of authority: tradition, scholarship, and the infallible ruling authority of the 'Catholic' Church functioning in harmony under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and divine author of the sacred texts.

PAX

So now you're thinking RC got the wrong books canonized, seeing as how they left at least those three out.

This is off subject.

 

[Standing Up]

It makes sense that Mary remained a virgin from a very rudimentary perspective- she's the mother of a divine, virgin birth. It's not in the least bit unreasonable to conclude that she would choose to remain such, as her womb was deemed precious.

Thus we get the alternative tradition that Jesus was born from her side.

Can't have it both ways. Either Christ was born normally, thus virginity is over. OR Christ was born unlike His brethren, thus virginity preserved.

 

[justinangel]

So now you're thinking RC got the wrong books canonized, seeing as how they left at least those three out.

This is off subject.

Whatever gave you that idea? Those three 1st century books were correctly left out. And with regard to the subject, if you are going to reject the PVM by citing the gospels of Matthew and Mark, for instance, you can only do so by concurring with the Catholic Church that these texts are indeed the inspired word of God. However, you believe the same Church to be wrong about the PVM. Obviously you are picking and choosing what you want to believe. If the Catholic Church is in fact wrong about the PVM, then you can't be sure that the gospels you cite in your objection to the PVM are authentic and reliable sources which support it, since it was the Catholic Church that ruled which books rightly belonged to the canon. The bottom line is that you have absolutely no authority, least of all any viable position, to determine the veracity of any Church doctrine or ruling of any time since Pentecost. We believe the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church in all truth (Jn 16:12-13) in all matters of faith and morals since the beginning. The Catholic Church has been right about the canon of Scripture no less than it has been about the PVM.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Thus we get the alternative tradition that Jesus was born from her side.

Can't have it both ways. Either Christ was born normally, thus virginity is over. OR Christ was born unlike His brethren, thus virginity preserved.

Where on earth did you get this idea from? That Jesus was born from Mary's side is not the Catholic tradition. Father Juniper Carol, OFM, sums up what the Patristic Fathers Doctors, and Magisterium have taught about the virginity of Mary during the birth of Jesus.

"At the appropriate time, Our Blessed Lord left the womb of His Mother through the natural channels but in a miraculous way, that is, without in any manner opening any part of Mary’s body. In other words, there was no dilatation of the normal passage, no opening of the vagina, no breaking of the virginal hymen."

I believe it was St. Ambrose in the late 4th century who first spoke of the virginitas inpartu by citing Ezekiel 44.

“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. He said to me: ‘This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.'” … Who is this gate, if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when he was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity (quando virginali fusus est partu, et genitalia virginitatis claustra non solvit). (15) … There is a gate of the womb, although it is not always closed; indeed only one was able to remain closed, that through which the One born of the Virgin came forth without the loss of genital intactness (per quam sine dispendio claustrorum genitalium virginis partus exivit)."
De institutione virginum

The Catechism of the Council of Trent

'For in a way wonderful beyond expression or conception, he is born of his Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity. As he afterwards went forth from the sepulcher while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which his disciples were assembled, although “the doors were closed” (Jn. 20:19), or, not to depart from natural events which we witness every day, as the rays of the sun penetrate the substance of glass without breaking or injuring it in the least: so, but in a more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity...

'To Eve it was said: “In pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen. 3:16). Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.'

You may as well think that we believe Jesus entered through Mary's side when she conceived him. The truth is that both the conception and birth of Jesus were miraculous within the course of nature. The prophet Isaiah foretells this (7:14):

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son.

Before she travailed, she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy.
Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?
66, 7-8

The rays of the sun which penetrate through glass without damaging it consist of physical properties, so you can discard your false notion of any Docetism here.

PAX

 

[Open Heart]

We can know that Paul was once married because he was part of the Sanhedrin.

What makes you think Paul was once a member of the Sanhedrin?

 

[Standing Up]

Where on earth did you get this idea from? That Jesus was born from Mary's side is not the Catholic tradition. Father Juniper Carol, OFM, sums up what the Patristic Fathers Doctors, and Magisterium have taught about the virginity of Mary during the birth of Jesus.

"At the appropriate time, Our Blessed Lord left the womb of His Mother through the natural channels but in a miraculous way, that is, without in any manner opening any part of Mary’s body. In other words, there was no dilatation of the normal passage, no opening of the vagina, no breaking of the virginal hymen."

I believe it was St. Ambrose in the late 4th century who first spoke of the virginitas inpartu by citing Ezekiel 44.

“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. He said to me: ‘This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.'” … Who is this gate, if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when he was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity (quando virginali fusus est partu, et genitalia virginitatis claustra non solvit). (15) … There is a gate of the womb, although it is not always closed; indeed only one was able to remain closed, that through which the One born of the Virgin came forth without the loss of genital intactness (per quam sine dispendio claustrorum genitalium virginis partus exivit)."
De institutione virginum

Now you're thinking they didn't know physiology It'd be the south gate, not the east gate, if the metaphor was applicable.
Again, in the first few centuries, there were two choices. Either Christ was born normally and thus virginity was over. Or born abnormally, maybe without true flesh, or from Mary's side, that the infant just appeared and Mary was left in the childbirth state.

It took 300 years to invent the story you now believe.

 

[Standing Up]

The Catholic Church has been right about the canon of Scripture no less than it has been about the PVM.

PAX

At least you have a sense of humor.

 

[justinangel]

Now you're thinking they didn't know physiology It'd be the south gate, not the east gate, if the metaphor was applicable.

I see you still have a hard time making any sense.

In the first few centuries, there were two choices. Either Christ was born normally and thus virginity was over. Or born abnormally, maybe without true flesh, or from Mary's side, that the infant just appeared and Mary was left in the childbirth state.

Again, there were no two choices in the early centuries. A miraculous birth isn't an abnormal one. Are you suggesting that Jesus' conception was abnormal as well? Pay attention to the prophet Isaiah: "The virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

And as I pointed out
It took 300 years to invent the story you now believe.

"The Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man—the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God."
Against Heresies, 4, 33, 12 [A.D.180-190]

Catholics believed in the virginitas inpartu long before the 4th century.

It took about 1700 years for what your kind invented.


PAX

 

[justinangel]

At least you have a sense of humor.

Thanks. But I think you should forget about citing Matthew and Mark when contesting the PVM. The Catholic Church could have been wrong. These two gospels are not self-authenticating any more than the Didache is. But we believe that the Holy Spirit has been faithful and true as promised by Christ in the transmission of both the written and unwritten word of God.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Paul says it's fine to be celibate---AND NOT MARRY!! He never said--get married, and remain celibate! Want to dedicate yourself to God?---great, be celibate--and do not marry!!!

And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1, 26-27

Mary and Joseph weren't simply engaged as the Corinthians would have understood the meaning of this word in their culture. The couple were already legally married (betrothed / espoused) after having sworn their oaths and signed a contract (ketubah) before two witnesses by the time of the Annunciation. This was upon the first wedding ceremony (Kiddushin) pending the second wedding ceremony of solemnization (Nisuin) at which time Joseph could rightfully bring his wife Mary into his home. So when the angel appeared to Mary, Joseph was espoused to a virgin. He wouldn't have wed Mary if he intended to have children, since Mary told the angel, "I do not know man" (1:34).

PAX

 

[Standing Up]

I see you still have a hard time making any sense.



Again, there were no two choices in the early centuries. A miraculous birth isn't an abnormal one. Are you suggesting that Jesus' conception was abnormal as well? Pay attention to the prophet Isaiah: "The virgin shall conceive and bear a son."

The history of this controversy tells otherwise. Valentinus, Marcion, PoJames, and others were on one side, arguing for a phantom passing through Mary like water through a straw. Or if born, just not with flesh. On the other side was the NT and men like Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Clement of Alexandria.

What you won't find is anyone arguing for a normal human birth as a miracle in the first few centuries. It took longer for someone to meld the two diametrically opposed hot and cold ideas.

"The Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man—the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God."
Against Heresies, 4, 33, 12 [A.D.180-190]

Catholics believed in the virginitas inpartu long before the 4th century.

We've already gone through that. Irenaeus explained his view of the "pure womb" earlier in the same letter. Mary's womb, while yet a virgin, didn't regenerate you or I to God. Regeneration comes from hearing the word and believing. You know saved by grace though faith.

 

[Standing Up]

Thanks. But I think you should forget about citing Matthew and Mark when contesting the PVM. The Catholic Church could have been wrong. These two gospels are not self-authenticating any more than the Didache is. But we believe that the Holy Spirit has been faithful and true as promised by Christ in the transmission of both the written and unwritten word of God.

PAX

Paul calls Mt. scripture (Mt. 10:10 and 1 Tim. 5:18). Long before what would become RC, the NT canon was written and formed. But again, off subject.

 

[justinangel]

The history of this controversy tells otherwise. Valentinus, Marcion, PoJames, and others were on one side, arguing for a phantom passing through Mary like water through a straw. Or if born, just not with flesh. On the other side was the NT and men like Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Clement of Alexandria.

The controversy was between the Church and the Gnostic sects. There was no controversy within the Church over the physical nature of Jesus' birth. Here is the excerpt from the PoJ which relates the birth of Jesus. There is no indication of Docetism, but only of a supernatural or miraculous occurrence here. Jesus is physically born, but his coming forth is obscured by a glorious light reminiscent of the bright shekinah glory cloud which overshadowed the tent of meeting and enveloped the ark inside. Mary is found to be virginally in tact after giving birth. There is no description that supports your claim that PoJ records the birth of a phantasmal figure. Jesus is presented as a physical infant who takes the breast of his mother and is carried in Salome's arms. Moreover, Salome is presented as a type of doubting Thomas. The angel instructs her to feel Mary and to put her hand on the infant so as to be assured that whom she held was no ghost whose mother nonetheless retained her virginal integrity. Thomas thought that Jesus was a ghost since our Lord had entered the room through locked doors after his death. But he was instructed by Jesus to put his finger through the nail holes in his hands and the spear mark in his side to see that our Lord was just as physical as he was. Jesus physically passed through the locked door just as much as he passed through the closed gate of Mary's womb. As usual, you are reading into a text to accommodate your bias and preconceived notions and thereby distorting it. Ignorance is bliss.

19. ....And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for You know, O Lord, that in Your name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Your hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things you have seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.

Tertullian was the only Church Father who rejected the PVM. I already showed you how poorly you comprehended what Cyril and Clement wrote. But if you wish to remain in that state of bliss, fine.

What you won't find is anyone arguing for a normal human birth as a miracle in the first few centuries. It took longer for someone to meld the two diametrically opposed hot and cold ideas.

That's because no heretic disputed the miraculous but physical birth in the first few centuries, at least not in extant writings. Though Irenaeus does affirm it. And so, there never was a welding of two diametrically opposed ideas within the Church. All you can do is imagine there was.

We've already gone through that. Irenaeus explained his view of the "pure womb" earlier in the same letter. Mary's womb, while yet a virgin, didn't regenerate you or I to God. Regeneration comes from hearing the word and believing. You know saved by grace though faith.

The Church did not become flesh. The divine Word did. Paragraph 11 refers to Mary's womb. In the course of this chapter the symbol of the womb represents both Mary and the Church just as the Woman of Revelation 12 symbolizes Mary, the Church, and Israel from different perspectives. This is what we call polyvalent symbolism. Mary, the new Eve and the virgin daughter of Israel, is also the Church, the mother of those who bear witness to Jesus (Rev 12:17; cf. Jn 19:26-27). Irenaeus did designate Mary as the new Eve in his writings, which I've already familiarized you with. There is an abundance of patristic texts in which Mary and the Church are identified with each other. The two excerpts below are from closely above the time of Irenaeus.

"For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself, like a bridegroom, in the sufferings of the cross, in order that by uniting His own power with our moral body, and by mixing the incorruptible with the corruptible, and the strong with the weak, He might save perishing man."
Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, 4 (A.D. 200)

"But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her [Mary] the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202)

PAX

 

[Standing Up]

The controversy was between the Church and the Gnostic sects. There was no controversy within the Church over the physical nature of Jesus' birth.

Correct, that's what I said. For example, Valentinus who taught a type of docetism flourished at Rome said Eusebius.
Two questions:
Why did the midwife in the tale of PoJames, not Salome, believe Mary remained a virgin?
Also you never answered whether you believed Jesus Christ came in the flesh?

The Church did not become flesh.

Like John, Paul says otherwise
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"
Apparently you didn't know that, which is why you fail to understand Irenaeus' concept of "pure womb".

 

[Standing Up]

The two excerpts below are from closely above the time of Irenaeus.

"But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202)

I'm sure you didn't mean to quote that. Clement and Irenaeus are saying the same thing. The church is the virgin and mother.

 

[sahjimira]

Some strange doctrine out there. Bible says Mary was a virgin. Also says Jesus had brothers and sisters so she did not remain a virgin after Jesus birth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Some strange doctrine out there. Bible says Mary was a virgin. Also says Jesus had brothers and sisters so she did not remain a virgin after Jesus birth.

Ditto. It requires some really bizarre imagination to spin the holy scriptures otherwise.

 

[justinangel]

Correct, that's what I said. For example, Valentinus who taught a type of docetism flourished at Rome said Eusebius.
Two questions:
Why did the midwife in the tale of PoJames, not Salome, believe Mary remained a virgin?
Also you never answered whether you believed Jesus Christ came in the flesh?

Why didn't Thomas believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead until he touched our Lord? Same reason. It was just too inexplicable for him - something never before seen and unheard of.

“Before she was in labor
she gave birth;
before her pain came upon her
she was delivered of a son.
Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?
Isaiah 66, 7-8

I've already told you that Jesus came forth in the flesh, but miraculously. You just don't pay attention.

Like John, Paul says otherwise

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"
Apparently you didn't know that, which is why you fail to understand Irenaeus' concept of "pure womb".

Incredible!

PAX

 

[justinangel]

I'm sure you didn't mean to quote that. Clement and Irenaeus are saying the same thing. The church is the virgin and mother.

Mary is the subject in The Instructor 1:6 as well.

But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands!

[cf. Luke 1:42; 11:27-28; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Revelation 12:17]

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Some strange doctrine out there. Bible says Mary was a virgin. Also says Jesus had brothers and sisters so she did not remain a virgin after Jesus birth.

For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife."
Mark 6, 17-18

Do you think that Herod and Philip were uterine brothers? In fact, they were half-brothers, having different mothers but the same father. They would have been referred to as brothers even if they were second cousins in Jewish family culture.

PAX