Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Philothei]

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' "
John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,V:5(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:33

Source

 

[Philothei]

"[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit..."
Epiphanius,Well Anchored Man,120(A.D. 374),in JUR,II:70

Source

 

[Philothei]

" But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."
Jerome,The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius,21(A.D. 383),in NPNF2,VI:344

Source

 

[razeontherock]

I find it hard to believe that God would dismiss any of his own precepts by fathering a child with a married woman in a putatative marriage.

Had to look that one up. No such word!

"A putative marriage is an apparently valid marriage, entered into in good faith on the part of at least one of the partners, but that is legally invalid due to a technical impediment, such as a preexistent marriage on the part of one of the partners."

Surely this is not what you meant?

 

[razeontherock]

In A.D. 213 he [Tertullian] certainly professed the universal belief of the Church in Mary's perpetual virginity when he wrote: "And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin and wife to one husband" (On Monogamy, 8).

Where does this say anything about PV, cause i missed it

(Your Origen quote doesn't either)

 

[justinangel]

"A putative marriage is an apparently valid marriage, entered into in good faith on the part of at least one of the partners, but that is legally invalid due to a technical impediment, such as a preexistent marriage on the part of one of the partners."

Surely this is not what you meant?

Yes, putative. Lax spelling on my part, sorry.

Morally a pre-existent marriage did exist between Mary and God who fathered the child Jesus together with her before Joseph took her home to be his wife to live with her, but not normally cohabit with her: paralambano gunaika is the phrase we find in the Gospel of Matthew, which does not connote a "coming together" or "laying with". Moreover, in ancient Jewish culture, the word "overshadow" and the phrase "to lay one's power over" (resuth) a woman are euphemisms for entering into marital relations. The angel says to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." Mary was perceived to be God's bride as Israel was. So she belonged only to Him in an exclusive covenantal relationship initiated by a mutual exchange of vows. Please see my reply (#636) above for a fuller explanation.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Where does this say anything about PV, cause i missed it

(Your Origen quote doesn't either)

First of all, if Origen regarded those who extolled Mary for her life of chastity as being of "sound mind", then obviously he held their beliefs in common.

Second, Tertullian refers to Mary as being both "a virgin and a wife" to Joseph. Until the middle ages, a Jewish marriage consisted of two stages. First came the betrothal (erusin) and then the wedding (nissuin). During the betrothal period the woman was legally married, but remained in her father's house until the wedding ceremony. The legal tie was eventually consummated once the bride and groom celebrated their wedding and cohabited together under one roof as husband and wife.

Mary became Joseph's wife in the full sense when he took her into his home after she had already conceived Jesus. Before the wedding ceremony, the bride was called the betrothed, not wife, although she was legally married upon betrothal. I'm sure Tertullian was conversant with this Jewish custom when he referred to Mary as Joseph's virgin wife. The angel does say to Joseph: "Do not be afraid to take Mary to your home as your wife."

PAX

 

[razeontherock]

Moreover, in ancient Jewish culture, the word "overshadow" and the phrase "to lay one's power over" (resuth) a woman are euphemisms for entering into marital relations. The angel says to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." Mary was perceived to be God's bride as Israel was. So she belonged only to Him in an exclusive covenantal relationship initiated by a mutual exchange of vows.

This makes it even less likely Mary had taken a vow of celibacy beforehand. Unless you're saying she knew she would become "the virgin Mary" before the annunciation?

 

[justinangel]

.

Not a CLUE what you're talking about..... Are you suggesting that it is a dogmatic fact that if one has sex, even once, this makes that one incapable of being used by God? If Joseph and Her had shared loving marital intimacies once, say 20 years after Jesus was born, this would suggest at the Incarnation, She was impure (sex defiles the wife - even retroactively?) and thus Jesus would be impure (sex not only defiles the wife but her adult children?). And THAT is the confirmation of the specific VOW Mary made to God, the precise content thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations EVER? Really?
​

That's the problem. You haven't any clue at all about the truth of the matter. Your prejudice is blinding you to the truth. Uniting with a woman just for the sake of having her produce an offspring for you amounts to using her. God doesn't use people by violating their dignity as persons created in his image. Mary was not a baby-making machine.

So, are you saying that God literally had sex with Mary? Are you a Mormon?

Frankly, this whole line of thinking is SO disrespectful and disturbing that I refuse to comment.

​

The physical act of copulating is unimportant. I'm saying that God and Mary begot a child together. It is your perception of God which I find not only disturbing, but categorically revolting: typically North American evangelical - alien to that of the historic Apostolic Christian faith and the sacred Tradition of the Church.

Where is the substantiation here that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations EVER, that she made a specific vow to God and the precise content of said vow? Yes, if correct, you have found a snippet from someone who believed this - from at least 300 years after Mary died (the only one who could have known this tidbit of sex info) with NOTHING to reveal it as true.

The substantiation lies in the right notion of God in his divine essence.

1. Your point was that IF one accepts a teacher as correct at one point, they must at every point. What you've done here is reveal that you reject your own argument, your own apologetic, your own rubric. Can't blame you. But then, oddly, you want me to accept what you reject.

I accept the teachings of one Church Father if it is in consonance with the orthodox teachings of the Church and unanimously held by all the other Fathers of the Church. Regrettably Tertullian and Origen succumbed to espousing heretical beliefs which were not universally held by the entire Church.

2. If individual opinions are to be disregarded, why do you keep quoting individuals? Individuals who never say it's true or give a clue why it is - and who seem to reveal no connection to Mary, Joseph or anyone else who even theoretically could have known this tidbit of sex info.

I quote individuals who held the same beliefs others did. Martin Luther and Joseph Smith invented their own personal novel beliefs which were unheard of until then. This is not the case with the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

3. Sure, if you want to insist that a certain teacher is exempt from accountibility and responsibility if said teacher alone so exempts self alone - then obviously, truth is irrelevant in that singular case. But then why are you posting here? The issue here is the TRUTHFULNESS of the claim of this specific vow, the precise content thereof, and whether it is a dogmatic FACT of highest IMPORTANCE to all and greatest CERTAINTY OF TRUTH that Mary Had No Conjugal Relations EVER. The question is not whether it is sound to exempt a teacher (such as the EO or RC) if said teacher so exempts self from the whole issue of truthfulness, honesty, responsibility and accountability.

Not if the teacher speaks for the whole Church, and not for himself only as you do with your pocket Bible. "The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15).

PAX

 

[justinangel]

This makes it even less likely Mary had taken a vow of celibacy beforehand. Unless you're saying she knew she would become "the virgin Mary" before the annunciation?

The covenant she had formed with God as a young girl living and serving in the temple to belong exclusively to him by remaining chaste her entire life does not necessitate that she had expected to beget a child with God upon making her vow. If this is what you mean. She couldn't have expected the virgin birth of Jesus in the first place, for as a devout Jew she believed that the coming Messiah would be of paternal Davidic lineage.

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The covenant she had formed with God as a young girl living

1. You've not confirmed She made any such vow. Or the content thereof if she did.


2. That is not confirmation that at the moment of Her death (or was it undeath?) she was a virgin, that She Had No Sex EVER .




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Uniting with a woman just for the sake of having her produce an offspring for you amounts to using her. God doesn't use people by violating their dignity as persons created in his image. Mary was not a baby-making machine.

You certainly seem to have a very strange view of marriage and the loving sharing of marital intimacies (the man USING his wife.... violating dignity).


But regardless, it offers NOTHING to confirm that Mary made a specific VOW to God, the precise CONTENT thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

The physical act of copulating is unimportant.

Then odd to have the insistence to the highest level possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

I accept the teachings of one Church Father if it is in consonance with the orthodox teachings of the Church . Regrettably Tertullian and Origen succumbed to espousing heretical beliefs

I see. So, when persons agree with you - they are correct and authoritative and whatever they say is confirmation of truth. When they disagree with you - they are wrong and nonauthoritative and whatever they say is to be disregarded as heretical. Got it. Yes - that IS pretty much what I was taught as a Catholic. "IF one agrees with the RCC, that one is authoritative and confirms the Church's teaching, IF he doesn't he's just wrong and to be disregarded." Think about that.

I quote individuals who held the same beliefs others did. Martin Luther and Joseph Smith invented their own personal novel beliefs which were unheard of until then.

As it appears Tertullian and Origen did. And yet....

After all, there is NOTHING to remotely indicate that Mary, Joseph, Jesus, any Apostle, anyone who even theoretically COULD have known Mary or any Apostle, or anyone who lived in the First Century, or second, had ever heard of this tidbit of bedroom data - either to affirm or deny it. Then, CENTURIES later, two mentioned it - one to deny it, one to embrace it. But then you denounce any who present "personal beliefs which were unheard of until then." Got it. Just not a clue why you reject your own point to accept that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.





.

 

[Thekla]

It is curious that notions of marriage consider conjugal relations as a core "meaning" of marriage.

But moreso, I'm not sure why there is an insistence that Joseph and Mary were married, though I may be missing something, I have not found this stated in Scripture.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is curious that notions of marriage consider conjugal relations as a core "meaning" of marriage.

Whether it is or not might be an interesting discussion for another day and thread (and forum). But whether it is or not is not confirmation of a specific VOW Mary made with God, the precise CONTENT of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.






.

 

[Thekla]

Whether it is or not might be an interesting discussion for another day and thread (and forum). But whether it is or not is not confirmation of a specific VOW Mary made with God, the precise CONTENT of said vow, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

Per Sola Scriptura, how can the question even be asked if there is no indication whatsoever that Joseph and Mary were married ?

Wouldn't that be applying an exterior assumption (non-Scripture) in order to interpret so that the question can be asked of others ?

IE, per SS, the question should not even be asked of others, as to ask the question relies on going beyond what is written ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

how can the question even be asked if there is no indication whatsoever that Joseph and Mary were married ?

I can appreciate your problem. But the point you want all to forget is that the issue is YOURS - exclusively, particularly, uniquely. YOU are the one insisting in the loudest, boldest manner possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. You are attempting to defend, to the level claimed, this dogma. You are standing with two (just two) denominations that have an official view (altogether a matter of ENORMOUS, HUGE interest) of how often couples have sex (at least this couple, at least after Jesus was born), this point of highest importance to all - Mary Had No Sex EVER.


I quite agree with you, it would be difficult to confirm - as a matter of greatest certainty of truth, as a dogmatic fact of highest importance - that Mary Had Lots Sex. But then, of the 50,000 + denominations Catholics at times insist exist, there is..... let's see...... NONE that formally teach that - as official teaching, as doctrine, as dogma, as de fide dogma. So, while I can appreciate your very, very focused desire to get the burden of proof off of you, to reverse the whole issue, and to place the burden of proof on the other side (If I were you, I'd try the same thing - even though I'm 100% confident you'd ridicule and rebuke it, never letting me get away with it), it's just not going to work. YOU are the one SO very, very focused on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, this tidbit of bedroom info, YOU are the one insisting that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's YOUR position, no other denomination has a position on this. They are "like all the Apostles, SILENT" (as our friend Phileothei noted). The proverbial ball is in your court. Your very, very focused desire to try to deflect it is noted (and I understand it completely) but there is no one to deflect it to - no other denomination has dogma on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, no other denomination even has a formal teaching on it or a doctrine on it. Sorry. You are in a difficult spot - I understand that.

Per Sola Scriptura, how can the question even be asked if there is no indication whatsoever that Joseph and Mary were married ?

IF the dogma were arbitrated according to the Rule of Scripture, I suspect we'd look to the dogma: Mary Had No Sex EVER. Since there is no dogma of "Mary was married," it would be impossible to arbitrate the dogma according to.... anything. Again, there is no dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex." So, nothing to arbitrate there (by any rule). The dogma before us is "Mary Had No Sex EVER." That it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I'm willing to participate in the arbitration of that to the level claimed by Scripture alone, it's probably a good suggestion from you. Let's proceed.







.

 

[Thekla]

I can appreciate your problem. But the point you want all to forget is that the issue is YOURS - exclusively, particularly, uniquely. YOU are the one insisting in the loudest, boldest manner possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. You are attempting to defend, to the level claimed, this dogma. You are standing with two (just two) denominations that have an official view (altogether a matter of ENORMOUS, HUGE interest) of how often couples have sex (at least this couple, at least after Jesus was born), this point of highest importance to all - Mary Had No Sex EVER.


I quite agree with you, it would be difficult to confirm - as a matter of greatest certainty of truth, as a dogmatic fact of highest importance - that Mary Had Lots Sex. But then, of the 50,000 + denominations Catholics at times insist exist, there is..... let's see...... NONE that formally teach that - as official teaching, as doctrine, as dogma, as de fide dogma. So, while I can appreciate your very, very focused desire to get the burden of proof off of you, to reverse the whole issue, and to place the burden of proof on the other side (If I were you, I'd try the same thing - even though I'm 100% confident you'd ridicule and rebuke it, never letting me get away with it), it's just not going to work. YOU are the one SO very, very focused on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, this tidbit of bedroom info, YOU are the one insisting that Mary Had No Sex EVER. It's YOUR position, no other denomination has a position on this. They are "like all the Apostles, SILENT" (as our friend Phileothei noted). The proverbial ball is in your court. Your very, very focused desire to try to deflect it is noted (and I understand it completely) but there is no one to deflect it to - no other denomination has dogma on Mary's sex life after Jesus was born, no other denomination even has a formal teaching on it or a doctrine on it.

The sum total of what you are saying is an observation that EO are not Lutheran.

So what is the value of observing what is already known ?
(After all, if one has read the Bible, one knows that there is no record of marriage, and that the term adelphos is ambiguous.)

And what is the value, and the purpose, of asking your questions:

1. of only one side of the issue, and completely ignoring the other
2. of engaging in a line of questioning that requires you to abrogate your adherence of Sola Scriptura
3. that the "proofs" you require for authenticity re: your question cannot be applied to the authenticity of Scripture, thereby exposing that you hold a standard which undermines the authenticity of Scripture

That inconsistency (which is somewhat understandable, as the Lutheran statement of doctrine in German applies the term "virgin" to Mary and in its contemporary Greek form applies the term "ever-virgin" to Mary) at the core of your questions again leads me to wonder about the purpose of your question.

 

[Thekla]

IF the dogma were arbitrated according to the Rule of Scripture, I suspect we'd look to the dogma: Mary Had No Sex EVER. Since there is no dogma of "Mary was married," it would be impossible to arbitrate the dogma according to.... anything. Again, there is no dogma of "Mary Had Lotsa Sex." So, nothing to arbitrate there (by any rule). The dogma before us is "Mary Had No Sex EVER." That it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER. I'm willing to participate in the arbitration of that to the level claimed by Scripture alone, it's probably a good suggestion from you. Let's proceed.

catching your edit:

If I remember your belief, arbitration is not part of Sola Scriptura.

I also recall asking you to list Lutheran dogma/s, and receiving no reply.

In order to proceed, an idea of what Lutherans believe as dogma is crucial - how else do we know how to communicate, if holding a different understanding of what the meaning of dogma is ?

 

[justinangel]

You certainly seem to have a very strange view of marriage and the loving sharing of marital intimacies (the man USING his wife.... violating dignity).


But regardless, it offers NOTHING to confirm that Mary made a specific VOW to God, the precise CONTENT thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations EVER.

I am referring to the Most High overshadowing Mary, not Joesph. He is not Jesus' father. Can't you read?

The Father would not have begotten the child with Mary unless there was a mutual exchange of vows and the entering into an exclusive covenantal relationship between them as there was in the marriage between YHWH and Israel.

As the "handmaid of the Lord", Mary is the personification of Daughter Zion. Like Israel, she belonged only to God, just as Ruth exclusively belonged to her husband Boaz as his handmaid. Ruth is one of many Jewish heroines who have prefigured Mary.

Then odd to have the insistence to the highest level possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all that Mary Had No Conjugal Relations EVER.

How so? The fact is Mary begot a child together with God. It makes no difference whether it was a supernatural occurence. By conceiving Jesus, Mary consummated a mystical marriage with God as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Morally, Joseph and Mary would have violated the precepts of the Torah and sinned against God if they came together. Like I said, God did not use Mary as a baby-making tool. He established an exclusive covenantal relationship with her that required a mutual exchange of vows and the bride's chastity. She was predestined to be the mother of Jesus, whose father wasn't Joseph.

"There is one Physician....both of Mary and of God...our Lord Jesus Christ."
Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians 7 (c.A.D. 110)

I see. So, when persons agree with you - they are correct and authoritative and whatever they say is confirmation of truth. When they disagree with you - they are wrong and nonauthoritative and whatever they say is to be disregarded as heretical. Got it. Yes - that IS pretty much what I was taught as a Catholic. "IF one agrees with the RCC, that one is authoritative and confirms the Church's teaching, IF he doesn't he's just wrong and to be disregarded." Think about that.

Not when they agree or disagree with me, but the Church. At the time of Origen and Tertullian there existed four patriarchates in the Catholic Church: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Ecumenical Councils were summoned to deal with the heresies of individuals and their adherents.

As it appears Tertullian and Origen did. And yet....

After all, there is NOTHING to remotely indicate that Mary, Joseph, Jesus, any Apostle, anyone who even theoretically COULD have known Mary or any Apostle, or anyone who lived in the First Century, or second, had ever heard of this tidbit of bedroom data - either to affirm or deny it. Then, CENTURIES later, two mentioned it - one to deny it, one to embrace it. But then you denounce any who present "personal beliefs which were unheard of until then." Got it. Just not a clue why you reject your own point to accept that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Marital Relations EVER.

Oral tradition has always served as a means of transmitting the truth from the beginning. In earliest times it superseded the written word. More was said than written, and most of what was written was confiscated and destroyed by the Roman authorities during the great persecutions which disrupted the life of the Church. Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters while being transported to the Roman Colosseum to be fed to the lions, and he had to keep them hidden until he could pass them on to someone trustworthy.

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You certainly seem to have a very strange view of marriage and the loving sharing of marital intimacies (the man USING his wife.... violating dignity).


But regardless, it offers NOTHING to confirm that Mary made a specific VOW to God, the precise CONTENT thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

The Father would not have begotten the child with Mary unless there was a mutual exchange of vows and the entering into an exclusive covenantal relationship between them as there was in the marriage between YHWH and Israel.

Nice opinion; you've offered NOTHING to remotely indicate that it's true or how it confirms that Mary made a specific VOW to God, the precise content of said vow or that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.


The idea that God and Mary were married comes lock, stock and barrel from Mormonism. I know of NOTHING in Scripture that remotely so indicates (and thus supports polygamy and that the incarnation was a result of a PHYSICAL act between Mary and God). Nope. NOTHING remotely says any of that.

As the "handmaid of the Lord", Mary is the personification of Daughter Zion.

Nope. Nothing of the sort.

She says "doulos." It's the common, everyday, popular word for a servant or employee or slave - it simply means one who is under the authority of another. She is saying that God is the lord here - as He always is for all of us. The word is found HUNDREDS of times in the New Testament, never once with the meaning of "perpetual virgin."

"There is one Physician....both of Mary and of God...our Lord Jesus Christ."

Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians 7 (c.A.D. 110)

Thank you. Where does this confirm that Mary made a specific vow to God, the precise content thereof, and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?

Oral tradition has always served as a means of transmitting the truth from the beginning.

I see. So, why is it that we have NOTHING from the beginning on this. Absolutely NOTHING. The first mention of it comes from around 220 AD, and that's to DENY it? If fact, the first two mentions of it you reject as of no significance.




.