Ever-virgin Mary

[CelticRebel]

Is this a required belief in Orthodoxy?

 

[jckstraw72]

absolutely. it's the consistent teaching of the Church Fathers, and it's in every single one of our services. and it's also confirmed in the second and sixth anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which is binding on all. see here: NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[rusmeister]

For me, it was learning foreign languages and cultures, and problems of translation, that convinced me (Baptist upbringing) that the Protestant views denying her ever-virginity are based on bad translation and lack of knowledge of foreign cultures.

 

[Kristos]

Is this a required belief in Orthodoxy?

It's part of her title, and thus used in almost every service. It is "required" as in your salvation depends on it? I wouldn't make such an explicit statement, but it's hard to imagine being Orthodox and not believing it.

The teaching that she did not remain a virgin is actually relatively modern - post-reformation in fact.

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

It is required in the sense that it is considered true and Orthodox, dogmatically so, since it was taught at the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553. The only other Marian dogma in Orthodoxy is that she was the "Theotokos". The council recognised that the ever virginity had been taught throughout the universal Church and enjoyed the broad consensus of the Fathers. St. Athanasius, who gave us our existing New Testament Canon, strongly defended the ever-virginity, so he evidently found no conflict with that belief and Scripture.

Here's a good discussion of the Scripture.

Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

 

[CelticRebel]

Thank you all for your replies so far. I appreciate all of them.

I do have my own views on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity, based on scripture and church history, but I will not state them here. I just wanted to know if belief in it was a required belief in Orthodoxy, and I believe my question has been sufficiently answered. Of course, I welcome other people contributing and also welcome additional posts from those who have already responded.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yep, it is. it is clear in Scripture that she had no other children. her typology in the OT shows that she never lost her virginity. it is not something that must be understood. I did not get it when I looked into Orthodoxy, but it is perfectly clear now.

feel free to keep asking questions dude!

 

[prodromos]

In case you are worried about the implications of Jesus' brothers and sisters, it is the understanding of the Orthodox Church that Joseph was an elderly widower with children of his own when Mary was betrothed to him. We also find that the attitude and behavior of Jesus' brothers towards Him as recorde in scripture is entirely consistent with them being older than Jesus.

 

[CelticRebel]

yep, it is. it is clear in Scripture that she had no other children. her typology in the OT shows that she never lost her virginity. it is not something that must be understood. I did not get it when I looked into Orthodoxy, but it is perfectly clear now.

feel free to keep asking questions dude!

I came to another conclusion, so I guess that means I couldn't be Orthodox. There are a few other things I disagree with. However, I also agree with many Orthodox teachings -- on man, sin, God, salvation. And the one doctrine I agree the most with, and that is the Orthodox view of the atonement. I cannot abide Western views, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. I especially disagree with the Satisfaction theory and Penal Substitution.

I've looked for a church home for quite some time. My problem is that my views seem to span many church bodies, denominations, or whatever you want to call them. I have quite diverse views, such that they all would not fit into one church body. Maybe the closest my views would come to doing that would be Anglicanism which can accommodate astonishingly diverse views. I also considered Mennonites. Believe it or not, I found many early Mennonites to have soteriological views similar to Orthodoxy.

I am conservative on ethical and moral issues, so I wouldn't fit into very liberal churches of any kind. But I am not fundamentalist, either. Well, enough of that. I don't want to wear out my welcome so quick.

Could I ask you how you came to be Orthodox?

 

[rusmeister]

I came to another conclusion, so I guess that means I couldn't be Orthodox. There are a few other things I disagree with. However, I also agree with many Orthodox teachings -- on man, sin, God, salvation. And the one doctrine I agree the most with, and that is the Orthodox view of the atonement. I cannot abide Western views, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. I especially disagree with the Satisfaction theory and Penal Substitution.

I've looked for a church home for quite some time. My problem is that my views seem to span many church bodies, denominations, or whatever you want to call them. I have quite diverse views, such that they all would not fit into one church body. Maybe the closest my views would come to doing that would be Anglicanism which can accommodate astonishingly diverse views. I also considered Mennonites. Believe it or not, I found many early Mennonites to have soteriological views similar to Orthodoxy.

I am conservative on ethical and moral issues, so I wouldn't fit into very liberal churches of any kind. But I am not fundamentalist, either. Well, enough of that. I don't want to wear out my welcome so quick.

Could I ask you how you came to be Orthodox?

Hey, CR,
The main thing I'd say is that the goal should not be finding a church that completely agrees with your views, but to find the Church that teaches the Truth. And the whole Truth is bound to include things we don't like, that make us uncomfortable.
In my own journey, for example, I had real issue with the idea of Confession. My view was that it was wrong to confess in front of a priest, that it should be "between you and God". What I came to realize (I had been attending a secular men's group for a few years) was that I had been confessing in front of an entire group of men (kind of like Alcoholics Anonymous) for years and had no trouble with that, and that it was my understanding, my view, that was wrong and needed to be changed. i had thought that Confession was "to" the priest; I learned that it was "to" God "in front of" the priest, and I had been making a big deal out of nothing; building my own barrier. When I figured that out, I converted.
So views may come and go. What you should want is the Truth.
(And that's without dealing with what I learned about languages and why Prodromos is right.)

 

[Lukaris]

For me it came down to needing to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, continuing to realize my sins, repentance, realize that salvation is a gift that must be given thanks for, to realize and have hope in many possibilities for the salvation of potentially anyone, to realize heaven & hell and the need to pray for my own & the salvation of my neighbor.

 

[buzuxi02]

The only other Marian dogma in Orthodoxy is that she was the "Theotokos". The council recognised that the ever virginity had been taught throughout the universal Church and enjoyed the broad consensus of the Fathers.

Just to clarify a bit, I would say the title Theotokos is the only Orthodox dogma pertaining to the the Blessed Virgin Mary, as this is a Christological title. It signifies the very real hypostastic union of the incarnation of the God-man.

The ever-virginity of Mary is more mysteriological or liturgical. It signifies that the Theotokos was consecrated (set apart) as a holy vessel, the instrument in which God descended from heaven and united himself to humanity on earth. Just like any temple that is consecrated (set apart) it cannot go back to its former use as that would be sacrilege, hence 'set apart' to serve the holy and sacred. Thus the Theotokos being consecrated as a sacred vessel used by God cannot return to an unsacred defiled state.

The ever-virginity of Mary is confirmed, where upon the Cross, Christ entrusted His mother to his youngest disciple John saying:
'Woman, Behold thy Son', and to the disciple, "Behold your Mother, and from that hour the disciple took her unto His own home."(John 19.26-27)

If Mary had other biological children, it would mean she forsook her other children by literally packing her bags and leaving the house of James to move in with John. It would have also been a scandalous act on the part of Jesus disrespecting his siblings who by the mosaic tradition are obliged to take care of her by uniting their mother with a stranger. Instead Mary was a widow and Jesus her only Son, paralleling the miracle of the healing of the only son of a widowed mother in (Luke 12. 13-15)

 

[Kristos]

It is required in the sense that it is considered true and Orthodox, dogmatically so, since it was taught at the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553. The only other Marian dogma in Orthodoxy is that she was the "Theotokos". The council recognised that the ever virginity had been taught throughout the universal Church and enjoyed the broad consensus of the Fathers. St. Athanasius, who gave us our existing New Testament Canon, strongly defended the ever-virginity, so he evidently found no conflict with that belief and Scripture.

Here's a good discussion of the Scripture.

Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

Could you provide a link or reference to exactly what you are referring in the Fifth Ecumenical council? Thanks!

 

[All4Christ]

Hey, CR,
The main thing I'd say is that the goal should not be finding a church that completely agrees with your views, but to find the Church that teaches the Truth. And the whole Truth is bound to include things we don't like, that make us uncomfortable.
In my own journey, for example, I had real issue with the idea of Confession. My view was that it was wrong to confess in front of a priest, that it should be "between you and God". What I came to realize (I had been attending a secular men's group for a few years) was that I had been confessing in front of an entire group of men (kind of like Alcoholics Anonymous) for years and had no trouble with that, and that it was my understanding, my view, that was wrong and needed to be changed. i had thought that Confession was "to" the priest; I learned that it was "to" God "in front of" the priest, and I had been making a big deal out of nothing; building my own barrier. When I figured that out, I converted.
So views may come and go. What you should want is the Truth.
(And that's without dealing with what I learned about languages and why Prodromos is right.)

I had a similar situation. For me with was about the Theotokos. I had no problem with her title of "The Mother of God", but I was uneasy with asking her for her intercessions. Eventually, I got to the point that I felt like Orthodoxy was truth...except I had a hard time accepting some parts of it. I decided once when I had some tough things going on, that I would ask for her intercessions. Before starting - I prayed to God - if this isn't right, please forgive me! After doing that though, I felt at peace about it (more so at least) and felt like I should attempt to learn about it without the preconceptions I previously had. I've come to the conclusion that it is right and good to do that, keeping in mind the Christ is our Lord and Savior. Everything about the Theotokos points back to Christ.

Take your time to figure out what you believe and continue to approaching it thoughtfully and prayerfully. You are most welcome here!

 

[Kristos]

Could you provide a link or reference to exactly what you are referring in the Fifth Ecumenical council? Thanks!

This is open to anyone btw.

I've seen it said so many times that the Fifth Ecumenical Council dogmatized the Ever-Virginity of Mary, but have yet to find it myself.

Now Canon 79 of Trullo, brings up some interesting things, but still doesn't dogmatize the concept of Ever-Virgin.

 

[All4Christ]

This is open to anyone btw. I've seen it said so many times that the Fifth Ecumenical Council dogmatized the Ever-Virginity of Mary, but have yet to find it myself. Now Canon 79 of Trullo, brings up some interesting things, but still doesn't dogmatize the concept of Ever-Virgin.

This is the Capitula of the council from the 5th ecumenical council. Here is a quote:

If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born [of her]; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man (ἀνθρωποτόκο&nu or the Mother of Christ (Χριστοτόκο&nu, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema.

 

[All4Christ]

This is the Capitula of the council from the 5th ecumenical council. Here is a quote:

Forgot to include the link:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vii.html

"Ever-virgin" can be found in other places as well...but the quote above pretty much states it clearly - both about the Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin.

 

[All4Christ]

Forgot to include the link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vii.html "Ever-virgin" can be found in other places as well...but the quote above pretty much states it clearly - both about the Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin.

Also see this link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html (towards the end of the page)

 

[Kristos]

Could you provide a link or reference to exactly what you are referring in the Fifth Ecumenical council? Thanks!

This is the Capitula of the council from the 5th ecumenical council. Here is a quote:

This about Mary being the Mother of God. The use of the title "Ever-Virgin" is not the point of the statement. In others words - it does not say if you don't call Mary "Ever-Virgin" then you anathema. It says that if you don't call Mary the Mother of God you are anathema.

 

[All4Christ]

This about Mary being the Mother of God. The use of the title "Ever-Virgin" is not the point of the statement. In others words - it does not say if you don't call Mary "Ever-Virgin" then you anathema. It says that if you don't call Mary the Mother of God you are anathema.

Ugh, I just wrote a long post on the mobile app and it crashed right before I sent it. :-/

Short version - Fair enough...You're right that it doesn't specifically anathematize not saying ever-virgin, but it does show that the church held that as her title.

I'll be interested to hear from others that know more where it is anathematized.