• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

Status
Not open for further replies.

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how your "reply" has any relation whatsoever to our discussion. Please read the exchange.






.

that was not the exchang...the exchange was that you said that if one ru mors the pope being gay then it should become dogma (lol) so my answer to that was NO... as a council does not approve of "gossip" or then all decisions of the councils would be gossip... :D
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Protestant view:

Joseph: "Say baby, I know you concieved the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit and all that, but a man needs to get his freak on, you know what I mean?"
Mary: "Oh you (giggles)!"


Perhaps you can quote some Protestant Catechism there?


How does your reply confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?


Actually, the position of every Protestant denomination known to me is "We have none." It's silence - one way or the other - what appears to be the case (given the known evidence) from Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, everyone who even had the theoretical possibility of even meeting Mary. You have NOTHING from Mary saying "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that at the moment of My death (or is it undeath), I will have had no sex EVER." And you have nothing similar from any Protestant denomination. Now, you can invent stuff to put into Mary's mouth based on this apparent silence just as easily as you can into any Protestant denomination but all that is just your baseless invention and does NOTHING to confirm to that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER.







.
 
Upvote 0

mrmccormo

Newbie
Jul 27, 2011
557
64
✟23,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. No, it is not. My CATHOLIC teachers taught us that those who teach things usually claim they are true - but that such does not make it true. Luther (and millions of others) taught that the Papacy is the anti-Christ and yes, he said it was true, ergo is it a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that the Papacy IS the anti-Christ? You seem to both condemn AND embraced to the greatest degree possible the exact same rubric. Is it right or is it wrong?
It is not true because they said it. It is true, and they happened to repeat the truth. Simple. You're making it far more convoluted than it actually is.

2. As I've noted a few times, you seem to be discussing an issue NO ONE is debating and is NOT the topic of this thread (and may be disallowed). NO ONE has denied or questioned that some BELIEVE this. Some believe in bigfoot too. Some believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Some believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved." Some believe in Transubstantiation, some that alien bodies are being kept at Area 51. Some believed the world is flat. NO ONE DENIES that. And NO ONE asked about that. The issue here is: is it true? What is the confirming substantiation to the level claimed for this position that Mary made a specific VOW to God, the precise CONTENT of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Of course some believe it. It seems some have since the 4th century. The question is NOT "did they believe it?" The question is: IS IT TRUE - as a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth?
You refuse to acknowledge what I am saying. You are separating "did they believe it?" and "is it true?". I do not separate those two things. The fact that someone believed it (or did not believe it) is an indication if something is true or not. You are demanding that people prove "is it true?" while artificially culling the very proof they would like to show you. Unfair, and unrealistic.

The fact that people believed it - the same people who formed our Bible and many of our Christian doctrines - is "confirming substantiation", though perhaps not in the exact form that you have in your mind.

It's part of your "picking and choosing." You have NOTHING from Scripture,
Plenty has been shown in Scripture. You simply deny that interpretation of what those verses mean.

from Mary, from Joseph, from Jesus, from any penmen of Scripture,from anyone who lived in the First (and likely Second or Third) Centuries
We have Tradition, which is the truth passed down orally from these people. You are under the false impression that unless these people wrote it down in a document that we physically possess, then they were silent on the issue. You are incorrect.

You have NOTHING from anyone who even COULD have known Mary or Joseph
Again, false. I have the oral Tradition passed down through the Church and preserved from Rome to Jerusalem (and beyond).

- so you search and search and search until you can find some snippet from CENTURIES later that offers NO SUBSTANTIATION at all - just that seems to indicate this person seems to believe it. "Ah!!! Gotta be dogma!"
What we have shown you is hardly a "snippet". Keep stomping your feet and shaking your fists, but the evidence has been shown to an overwhelming degree. The problem is that you are making the conscious choice to ignore the evidence on personal, non-Biblical, non-Scientific, non-rational grounds.

You even quote Luther - even though your denomination regards him as a heretic and apostate!
Do you even know what my denomination is?

"Ah, Luther believed it - that's confirmation that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER!"
Yet again, you show that you have lost this argument, since you have resorted to strawman arguments to support your point. I never once said "Luther believed it, therefore it is a dogmatic fact". I said "Luther believed it, which is simply one piece of the puzzle to determine whether or not it is true"


(But you don't want me to quote him on the Papacy..... interesting!).
Yet again, you are dishonestly twisting the argument because - in truth - you have already lost it and I think deep down you know it. I said that you can certainly quote Luther about the Pope! Go ahead! I'm all ears! But wait...is that the topic we're talking about? Are Luther's quotes about the Pope relevant? You have made it clear that you are very, very concerned about making sure we stay "on topic". Would discussing Luther's stance on the Papacy be "on topic"?

Start showing some honesty, please.

Yes, you have no confirmation. I agree. In fact, in YOUR summery of your "evidence" some while back in this thread, you actually give LESS support for this view than many (maybe even me) would give
Really? According to what standard? You have failed to express by what standard you're judging this.

- kind of surprising, and you gave GREAT credence - more than any would expect of you - for those who are silent. Oh, well. You don't want to discuss what you gave - or my response, I know that.
Yes, in a rhetorical sense I do give credence to doubts and to the silence of some sources, to point out that even WITH that silence, this doctrine has a great deal of positive evidence to show that it is true. Since you cannot engage in a debate on the most basic of levels, I'm not surprised that you cannot grasp the concept of using rhetoric to prove a point.

No, I've not made ANY assumptions.
Yes you have. You assume that it is not true, or at the very least, that the most reasonable recourse on this topic is to "be silent" on it, since you declared that the evidence both "for" and "against" are equally weak.

Now you have been caught in a lie, CalifornianJosiah, just one lie on top of many other deceptions and twisits. Please, for the sake of us all, stop trying to play the "I have no assumptions" card. It is untrue and your own posts are proof of it.

Your apologetic is entirely and completely and totally based, built and developed on assumptions (ones you reject if any other does as you do), for example, if one has an opinion it is ergo dogmatic confirmation of Truth of the greatest certainty.
Do you know what the word "assumption" means?

How are quotes from the early church fathers, quotes from Scripture, documentation of ecumenical councils, and historical facts "assumptions"? I'll just take the above paragraph as slander and ignore it, since all you've really done is resorted to intellectual name-calling.

Again, you seem to have our positions reversed. YOU are the one insisting - in the most powerful way possible - that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.
Quote me. Where did I "insist" that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance? I'm simply stating that it's true. Again, you put strawman arguments in the mouths of the others here because you are truly incapable of engaging in actual debate. You're not debating us; you're trying to cram our stance into a box, slap a label on it, and then debate the box. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way.

The problem is that you cannot seem to explain how we are supposed to "prove" it.

Not once in this thread have you answered this question. You keep saying "no, it's not MY doctrine". Yes, yes, we get that. But if our current explanations are insufficient for you, then how should we prove it, instead? Yet, you can offer no answer. You flail your arms and repeat the same excuses.

I will ask you again: if our current evidence fails to meet your criteria of "proof", what would you prefer?

Can you answer that very simple question?

If all you have for this are apologetics you reject as invalid, then so be it - but that's YOUR position. I've never said She had sex. Once, twice or at all. I never said She didn't. I never said it's a matter of highest importance to all the world if this is zero times, one time, two times or more
And no one is bothered by what you said. No one is claiming YOU said she had sex. No one is claiming YOU said she didn't have sex. We're just offering the proof you asked for. More strawmen, Josiah. Your logic has utterly failed. No one is saying these things that you have spend pages upon pages repeating.

YOU did (you just refuse to say why).
Quote please. Where did I say that it was of the most dogmatic importance etc. etc. etc.? More strawmen. If you want to debate, it would help to address the people who are actually in the thread, not figments of your imagination who are not a part of this thread.

I never said it's a matter of greatest certainty of Truth - YOU did (then went out of your way to reveal how surprisingly weak it is - you actually seem to think it's weaker than I do).
Quote, please. And by what standard do I "reveal how surprisingly weak it is"? Once again, this is the babbling of someone who cannot engage in an actual debate. You have not proven - in any tangible way - why what I said is "weak". You simply say it.

YOU are saying it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty NOT me. The only point that needs proving is YOURS - but, as we've seen....
What does "proof" mean to you? You keep changing your tune. We keep trying to accomadate you. You change your tune again.

So all we have seen is how you cannot actually debate. You cannot answer questions. You cannot even articulate your stance in this issue. Rather, you continue to repeat the same ol' line: "It is not MY belief that this is a dogmatic fact etc. etc. etc."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorothea
Upvote 0

Philothei

Love never fails
Nov 4, 2006
44,893
3,217
Northeast, USA
✟75,679.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
We have Tradition, which is the truth passed down orally from these people. You are under the false impression that unless these people wrote it down in a document that we physically possess, then they were silent on the issue. You are incorrect.

Furthermore even if we had that document still it could be rejected as NOT valid as it is not scripture...which again takes us to what is 'valid" in reality nothing as the NT was NEVER found WHOLE from its original writtings. We go by faith that the copies are valid. In reality once can dispute that as 'truth' if one wanted to be 'legalistic' about sources. The Fathers did indeed do their homework and research for they lived at an earlier times than we are now. So if we reject them as "convuluted" then the whole of the ...NT should be also... Sadly that is the fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorothea
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
You are separating "did they believe it?" and "is it true?". I do not separate those two things.


I see. Luther believed the Pope to be the Anti-Christ, ergo it must be a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of truth? Some Calvinists believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved," ergo it must be a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of truth? Millions of LDS believe that Joseph Smith found those plates, ergo it must be a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of truth? Got it.





The fact that someone believed it (or did not believe it) is an indication if something is true or not.


Ergo, Bigfoot exists. There are alien bodies kept at Area 51. The Pope is the Anti-Christ. Catholics worship Mary. Once Saved Always Saved is a dogmatic fact. Odd rubric you are defending there....







Plenty has been shown in Scripture. You simply deny that interpretation of what those verses mean.


No. SCRIPTURE does NOT say it.

YOUR interpretation simply agrees with your interpretation. YOU are saying it. Apples and oranges.






the truth passed down orally from these people.


1. You've not established that it's truth - much less a teaching of highest importance for all and greatest certainty of Truth.


2. You've not established from whom. You have NOTHING to indicate that Mary believed or taught this. NOTHING that Joseph did. Who else would know? Well, NOTHING from Jesus. NOTHING from ANY Apostle. NOTHING from anyone who ever even just saw any of the above or even just lived when they did. So, WHO is this bedroom tidbit of information from? Can you document that?






You are under the false impression that unless these people wrote it down in a document that we physically possess, then they were silent on the issue. You are incorrect.


No, it's ENTIRELY possible they taught this. It's just you have ZERO evidence of such. It's ENTIRELY possible that Mary believed the world was flat but I have NOTHING to so indicate, much less that ergo it is a matter of highest importance for all to know and greatest certainty of Truth that the Earth is. It's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that Mary believed that drinking milk is bad for you but I have NOTHING to so indicate. THAT'S what I noted - not that it's IMPOSSIBLE or even that it's wrong, but that you have NOTHING to substantiate this claim that they taught it.





I never once said "Luther believed it, therefore it is a dogmatic fact". I said "Luther believed it, which is simply one piece of the puzzle to determine whether or not it is true"

... then your point is if Luther said it, it at least gives credence. Okay, shall we talk about Luther on other issues? Or is this a classic case of "cherry picking?" "If someone agrees with me, they MUST be right - if they don't, they MUST be wrong?"






You assume that it is not true

You seem to need to reverse positions....




Now you have been caught in a lie, CalifornianJosiah, just one lie on top of many other deceptions and twisits.


Before this is concluded as a personal attack and a case of flaming, I'll give you a change to prove that I "lied." Otherwise...




you've really done is resorted to intellectual name-calling.


When you call me a "liar?"






You're not debating us


That's right. I would have to have a position in order to engage in a debate.

What I'm doing is EXACTLY what Catholics and Orthodox do when those not members of those denominations state a position (even if it's far from a dogma), I'm just being FAR more generous and less demanding. What I'm doing is what my CATHOLIC teachers taught us: "Gossip is a terrible sin! Gossip is spreading a personal story - especially one potentially hurtful or embarrassing or simply no ones business - which we don't personally know is true." To DATE, I don't personally KNOW - but I'm not saying ANYTHING about how often She did or did not have sex, no more than I'm saying how often you or your mother or your sister has sex. But yes - you've raised the bar to the very highest level possible by insisting on this as DOGMA: a point of highest importance and greatest certainty.

No, I don't think this is being "unfair" or that I'm pickin' on pur you. IF a Protestant posted, "I can find 6 people who have never even seen the Pope who seem to believe the Pope is gay, ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that he is!" I don't think you'd accept that as documentation of the truthfulness - at all, much less to the level claimed and as a matter of importance claimed. But, honestly, I'm not sure that would be your position.




Not once in this thread have you answered this question. You keep saying "no, it's not MY doctrine". Yes, yes, we get that. But if our current explanations are insufficient for you, then how should we prove it, instead? Yet, you can offer no answer. You flail your arms and repeat the same excuses.

Actually, I've been waiting for ANYTHING my CATHOLIC teachers might accept if the position was "the Pope is gay" or "Catholics worship Mary" or anything else - even if nowhere near dogma. Something other than, "those who say it's true say it's true" since I'm confident you reject that rubric or else you'd be shouting that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, Joseph Smith found those plates, Catholics worship Mary, Catholics changed the Sabboth Day, etc; something other than "If my interpretation agrees with my interpretation then my interpretation is correct - and God must agree with me." I'm looking for some level ground. Some intellectual honesty. Not, "this apologetic is valid when I use it and laughable if you or some Calvinist or LDS does it."




No one is saying these things that you have spend pages upon pages repeating.

So, I've invented all the quotes?







If you want to debate, it would help to address the people who are actually in the thread

I don't. I can't - I don't have a position.

Um, who is quoting those NOT participating in this thread? READ this thread. I don't recall numerous posts from ME of persons not current users at CF, um, I again think you have use reversed.






So all we have seen is how you cannot actually debate.


This is why: To debate, one must have a position. I don't.
YOU do.
You keep forgetting that.
You have DOGMA on this.
I have nothing.
What is so puzzeling about that to you?


IF you were to state, "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that there are 6.312 billion furry brown critters living on the Moon on Endor" and I said, "I don't know - to that level especially - if there are or not," then YOU would have a position. I would not. But in any case, the proposition is YOURS and the burden of proof is YOURS. I don't know why that is such an extremely difficult concept to you.






.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I can't think of a particular vow occurring in the Bible as an example, only that if a woman makes a vow - and makes it known to her future husband and father - they may not later overrule her right to make and keep the vow. (Numbers 30)

As for periods of chastity, there are examples in the Bible; and, these are associated with approaching the "holy". For example, when the Israelites are to accompany Moses to the Mt., they are to keep away from women for 3 days iirc. Likewise, when David asks to eat the showbread, the priest assents after making sure that David and those with him have refrained from sex for a period of time.

In Midrash it is explained that after his encounter with God, Moses remained celibate for the rest of his life. I do not recall if Midrash claims he made a vow. Josephus does recount the Theraputae (I think that's the name) who remain chaste for life.

Per vows in general (including the Nazarite vow), the directives are included in Numbers 30. It seems that according to the Mishneh Torah (collected, 12th c.) the way a vow is expressed is rather fluid. (According to a cited statement in Wikipedia, it is enough to say "me too" when a Nazarite passes. Nazirite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks so much, Thekla. :)
 
Upvote 0

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟21,449.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not a single affirmation (much less substantiation) for the specific VOW of Mary, the precise CONTENT thereof, or that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty that Mary Had No Sex EVER. None of these say ANYTHING about how often She did or did not have sex up to and including the moment of Her death (or was it undeath?). Nothing about Mary being a PERPETUAL anything at all, much less substantiation for it.

First of all, Mary's vow belongs to a private tradition of Marian devotion. It isn't an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. I can't speak for the EOs. The Council of Constantinople ll does anathematize those Christians who refused to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, although I didn't include this anathema in my quotes. The point is that the PVof Mary has always been a universal traditional belief held by the greater majority of Catholics who profess the orthodox Christian faith no less than were the Christological traditional beliefs that I cited and alluded to. You may as well demand that we produce 1st century documented evidence for our belief in the two natures and wills in the one person of Jesus. All our orthodox teachings began by the transmission of the oral word spoken by the apostles and their valid successors in the episcopate and presbytery.

The truth is you have appointed yourself to be the Magisterium of the Church to judge for youself what is the divine truth by privately interpreting the scriptures according to your sensibilities. Meanwhile, you subscribe to Catholic Christological teachings (I assume you do.) that the written word doesn't clarify and had to be defined by the holy fathers of the general councils according to transmitted universal traditional beliefs prompted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


Nor do I see these confirming the apologetic that "the majority of believers since 33 AD believed this ergo it is a dogmatic fact!" Or "all those that lived during the time of the Apostles believed this, ergo it is a dogmatic fact." Or "the Apostles all taught it ergo it is a dogmatic fact."

The general councils condemned the heresies of private individuals who strayed from the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. The holy fathers validly succeeded the apostles as guardians of the true faith. Helvidius, for instance, was condemned for denying Mary's perpetual virginity, not for believing in it. Likewise, Nestorius was condemned for believing that there were two persons - one divine, the other human - cohabiting in the body of Jesus. Are you saying that these private individuals were right, and the universal Church was wrong? If they were right, then Jesus broke his promise to send the Paraclete to guide the Church in all truth until the end of time (Jn 16:12-13). And Paul was wrong in describing the Church as "the pillar of truth". The gates of hell would have prevailed if the Holy Spirit wasn't present to declare what is true during the tempestuous times of the great heresies and general councils.

"Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church... those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 26:2 (A.D. 180)

The bishop of present day Lyons was a disciple of Bishop Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus refers to Mary as "The Virgin" in other writings of his. His knowledge of the PVof Mary can be traced back to John's oral teaachings. He didn't need any written document to verify his belief in Mary's chastity. In fact, Irenaeus is the first Church Father to associate Mary's chastity with her sinlessness in his treatment of Mary as the new Eve.

PAX
:angel:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Otherwise.....what? You've made it clear that your own criteria for "proof" is entirely inconsistent and illogical with secular logic, with church history, and with the Bible.

#3 has already been accomplished multiple times throughout this thread many times over, not just with the teachings of St. Jerome, Athanasius, etc. but also with many other church leaders.

As far as #1 and #2 goes, you've yet to explain why "they believed it since 33AD" means "if there is a claim they believed it since 33AD, then we must produce a document from that same time period to prove it". You go round and round in circles, refusing to justify why we must do this, yet all the same insisting that YOU never made the claim or that YOU never made the criteria.

The proof is in Tradition. Holy Tradition is - by nature - passed down right from the beginning. Therefore, if you do not agree with what the Holy Tradition postulates, then it would be very helpful to show us from where the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity materialized. You would need to show us an "before and after" snapshot of Christianity.

Though the idea makes you squirm, the fact of the matter is that Holy Tradition is the best evidence we have for the majority of Christianity's teaching, not just Mary's virginity, but also the canon of Scripture, the doctrine of original sin/depravity of man, the Trinity, and much more.

If you doubt Tradition, you doubt the Christian faith. As crazy as that might sounds and as contrary as that is to your Lutheran sensibilities, it is true, not just in an "early church" sense but also in a Biblical sense.
Yes, but the original Christian doctrine on original sin was not one of total depravity or the inheritance of Adam's guilt. This is not an Orthodox teaching. Just and FYI. :)
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I do wonder how all in this conversation even think of or define "vow" ?

I tend to think of it as a willing decision based on a deep seated conviction.

The sense of conviction is central (euxe is also used to mean prayer).

I do not think of it as necessarily verbalized.

Perhaps do others think of it as a "contract" ?

That's a good point. I do think it's more "normal" not to announce something you've made a vow or commitment to, especially back in those times when most things were more private and not everything known like in today's world. Don't know about the contract thing. Sounds awfully legalistic.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Jerome

But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] 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. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Didymus the Blind

It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])

Pope Siricius I

You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the Flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, chat court of the eternal King (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

In being born of a virgin who chose to remain a virgin even before she knew who was to be born other, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

Leporius

We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

The 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 (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus


Two dogmas concerning the Mother of God are bound up, in closest fashion, with the dogma of God the Words becoming man. They are: a) Her Ever-virginity, and b) Her name of Theotokos. They procede immediately from the dogma of the unity of the Hypostasis of the Lord from the moment of His Incarnation-the Divine Hypostasis.

The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Virgin is testified to directly and deliberately by two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke. This dogma was entered into the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council, where we read: Who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. The Ever- virginity of the Mother of God is testified by Her own words, handed down in the Gospel, where she expressed awareness of the immeasurable majesty and height of Her chosenness: My soul doth magnify the Lord... For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed... For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His Name (Luke 1:46-49).

The Most Holy Virgin preserved in her memory and in her heart both the announcement of the Archangel Gabriel and the inspired words of righteous Elizabeth when she was visited by Mary: And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to Me? (Luke 1:43); both the prophecy of the righteous Symeon on meeting the Infant Jesus in the Temple, and the prophecy of the righteous Anna on the same day (Luke 2:25-38). In connection with the account of the shepherds of Bethlehem concerning the words of the angels to them, and of the singing of the angels, the Evangelist adds: But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart (Luke 2:19). The same Evangelist, having told of the conversation of the Divine Mother with the twelve-year-old Jesus after their visit to Jerusalem on the Feast of Pascha, ends his account with the words: But His mother kept all these sayings in her heart (Luke 2:51). The Evangelists speak also of the understanding of the majesty of her service in the world by the righteous Joseph, her espoused husband, whose actions were many times guided by an angel.

When some people refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the "brothers and sisters of Jesus," they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:

a) In the Gospels there are named four "brothers" (James, Joses, Simon and Jude), and there are also mentioned the "sisters" of Jesus—no fewer than three, as is evident in the words: and His sisters, are they not ALL with us? (Matt. 13:56).

On the other hand, b) in the account of the journey to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy Jesus, where there is mention of the "kinsfolk and acquaintances" (Luke 2:44) in the midst of whom they were seeking Jesus, and where it is likewise mentioned that Mary and Joseph every year journeyed from faraway Galilee to Jerusalem, no reason is given to think that there were present other younger children with Mary: it was thus that the first twelve years of the Lord's earthly life proceeded.

c) When, about twenty years after the above-mentioned journey, Mary stood at the cross of the Lord, she was alone, and she was entrusted by her Divine Son to His disciple John; and from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (John 19:27). Evidently, as the ancient Christians also understood it, the Evangelists speak either of "half' brothers and sisters or of cousins.

*From Fr. Michael Pomazansky, trans. Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 187-189.

+ + +
The seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel, whereas the Church of Christ from of old confesses Christ incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary." But the birth of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling stone for those who wished to call themselves Christians but did not wish to humble themselves in mind and be zealous for purity of life. The pure life of Mary was a reproach for those who were impure also in their thoughts. So as to show themselves Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ was born of a Virgin, but they began to affirm that Mary remained a virgin only until she brought forth her first-born son, Jesus (Matt. 1:25).

"After the birth of Jesus," said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, and likewise many others before and after him, "Mary entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him children, who are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ." But the word "until" does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word "until" and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God's righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (I Cor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, "On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.") The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)

It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His Most Holy Mother. The names of "brother" and "sister" have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any case, people are called brothers or sisters if they have a common father and mother, or only a common father or mother; or even if they have different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become widowed) have entered into marriage (stepbrothers); or if their parents are bound by close degrees of kinship.

In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise, the sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children, who in view of such close kinship with full right could also be called brothers of the Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved disciple John. Why should He do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, did not consider themselves obliged to take care of one they regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not have for Her such love as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had for Her.

Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete clarity the insubstantiality of the objections against the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently.

Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

A couple of interesting reads/articles.

*Italic word edited for forum rules.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
That's a good point. I do think it's more "normal" not to announce something you've made a vow or commitment to, especially back in those times when most things were more private and not everything known like in today's world. Don't know about the contract thing. Sounds awfully legalistic.

Contract sounds too legal to me, too.

But perhaps because I think of vow as a conviction. An outward expression of such a conviction may be shown or said.

For ex., my love for and sense of responsibility to my children governs choices that I make that are expressed as actions.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Pulled from Dorothea's link - interesting thought:


"Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child". Do you suppose they could have gotten married at some point after that without being stoned to death first?" Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorothea
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Contract sounds too legal to me, too.

But perhaps because I think of vow as a conviction. An outward expression of such a conviction may be shown or said.

For ex., my love for and sense of responsibility to my children governs choices that I make that are expressed as actions.

:thumbsup: I do think of a vow as something convicted from the heart.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Pulled from Dorothea's link - interesting thought:


"Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child". Do you suppose they could have gotten married at some point after that without being stoned to death first?" Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

Yes. I think the subject of being stoned to death at that time in Jewish culture was brought up in this thread, but not in detail. Good point the author makes.
 
Upvote 0

washedagain

Resting in the Palm of His Hand
Jul 11, 2011
880
23
Austin Tx
✟23,654.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Pulled from Dorothea's link - interesting thought:


"Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child". Do you suppose they could have gotten married at some point after that without being stoned to death first?" Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?


So Joseph disobayed the command from the lord via the angel to take her as his wife?

  1. Matthew 1:20
    But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
  2. Matthew 1:24
    When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
So Joseph disobayed the command from the lord via the angel to take her as his wife?

  1. Matthew 1:20
    But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
  2. Matthew 1:24
    When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

I think you might want to check the translations. The term translated here as "wife" is actually 'gyne', and means a woman of any age. Christ uses the term to address His mother, and other women - it can also mean betrothed or wife.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorothea
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
An interesting perspective from the Coptic Orthodox:

The virginity of St. Mary is not a matter of her own private life, but rather a ‘biblical reality’, which belongs with our faith in Jesus Christ. For when the Word of God was Incarnated, He was not particular about the kind of place where he would be cradled, or the clothes He would wear, or the food He would eat; but He was definitely very particular about the Virgin who was to be His mother(2) . The prophet Isaiah gives us a prophetic sign of the Virginal Birth. (1) Theotokia is a hymn praises St. Mary the Theotokos “Mother of God” (2) J. B. Carol: Mariology, 1955, Vol. 1, p. 51 9

“Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel.” Here the text refers to St. Mary the virgin mother of Emmanuel, directly and literally. It is very accurate, describes St. Mary’s state as being virgin and engaged at the same time. For the Hebrew term used for “virgin” is ‘almah’ and not ‘betulah’ nor ‘issa’. The word ‘almah’ means a virgin maiden who may be engaged, while ‘betulah’ means a virgin who is not engaged. The word ‘issa’ means a married lady. If the Scripture uses the word ‘issa’, it does not signify an extraordinary miracle about to be performed by God. (Isaiah 7:10,11), for the married woman can conceive and bear a son. If it uses the word ‘betulah’, it does not describe the state of St. Mary, who was engaged to St. Joseph. But it uses the word ‘almah’, which fits her state accurately, as a virgin and engaged to St. Joseph who protected her and became a faithful witness of her chastity, leaving no chance for any doubts or suspicion. It is worth noting that this word ‘almah’ is etymologically used in this sentence to mean the continuation of the state of virginity, and for this reason it has been translated ‘the virgin’, and not ‘a virgin’, to describe the Emmanuel's mother as the virgin even after her child's birth.

Saint Mary in the orthodox concept by father Tadros Jakob malty
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.