Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption/Dormation of Mary...

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Both of these beliefs have been part of traditional and historic Christian belief and practice.

While our Lutheran Confessions are silent regarding the Assumption/Dormation, Lutherans have seen fit to retain the date of this commemoration in our calendars as a day to honor the Blessed Virgin.

Our Confessions do, however, state a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary:

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord VIII. The Person of Christ, 24)

It is generally accepted that one need not hold this belief in order to be saved; that is one is free to accept or reject this belief.

I personally have no problem accepting and holding a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The assumption is a bit more difficult for me, but in all honesty, it would be a great and wondrous thing.

What are your thoughts on these two ancient teachings of the Chruch?

 

[Tigger45]

I'm Lutheran and when ever possible embrace traditional Christian beliefs. I vote yes for both the perpetual virginity and dormition of the BVM.

 

[PaladinValer]

Perpetual Virginity? No problem. It was historically an Anglican belief, both pre- and post- our formal exclusion of the Pope.

The Dormition? Again, no problem.

The Assumption? In essence, no problem, but only as a pious belief. Anglicanism's objection is with the dogmatization of it.

The Immaculate Conception? We have an obvious issue. Even though it isn't meant in the way people make it out to be, it is saturated in the concepts of Purgatory and Treasury of Merits, and thus, no.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Both of these beliefs have been part of traditional and historic Christian belief and practice.

While our Lutheran Confessions are silent regarding the Assumption/Dormation, Lutherans have seen fit to retain the date of this commemoration in our calendars as a day to honor the Blessed Virgin.

Our Confessions do, however, state a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary:



It is generally accepted that one need not hold this belief in order to be saved; that is one is free to accept or reject this belief.

I personally have no problem accepting and holding a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The assumption is a bit more difficult for me, but in all honesty, it would be a great and wondrous thing.

What are your thoughts on these two ancient teachings of the Chruch?

The PVM has strong historic and ecumenical support, although nothing whatsoever from Scripture or early Tradition. I do not accept it as the DOGMA that it now is in the RCC or as the doctrine that it is in the EOC, but I do accept it as valid "pious opinion." The TEACHING per se seems okay (although I'm at a complete loss to know why it is regarded as so important - in spite of Scripture and early Tradition seeming to believe silence on the matter is more appropriate).... what concerns me more is the STATUS given to it.

The Assumption is a newer teaching, with less formal embrace, and also ENTIRELY without any support from Scripture or early Tradition. IMO, it's a significant notch below the PVM. But again, I do note that it's been believed quite ecumenically and historically (just not as much so as the PVM). Again, the TEACHING per se seems acceptable (although again, what's the point, why is this SO very important?). I'd accept this as pious opinion but I reject it as dogma (which it is only in the RCC and I believe only since 1950).



That's my perspective....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Shane R]

The PVM has strong historic and ecumenical support, although nothing whatsoever from Scripture or early Tradition. I do not accept it as the DOGMA that it now is in the RCC or as the doctrine that it is in the EOC, but I do accept it as valid "pious opinion." The TEACHING per se seems okay (although I'm at a complete loss to know why it is regarded as so important - in spite of Scripture and early Tradition seeming to believe silence on the matter is more appropriate).... what concerns me more is the STATUS given to it.

I think the Protoevangelium of James strongly suggests, if not openly advocating, the perpetual virginity of Mary: CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

What do you make of that text in light of your assertion that there is "nothing whatsoever" in early tradition?

 

[topcare]

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​

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would agree that the perpetual virginity seems to have a strong basis in early writings. It was something I never heard of before inquiring into Orthodoxy, and it was one of the more difficult doctrines for me to accept. But with some investigation, I came to realize that the reasons I had against it had no real foundation in Scripture, and even ran into logical difficulties from the Scriptural account.

So I eventually decided evidence appears to indeed favor the perpetual virginity, though I also have difficulty (so far) quite understanding the reason(s) for the importance placed upon it, beyond what it means for the supernatural aspects of Christ.

I don't subscribe to the Immaculate Conception, and the theological problems it seems to cause (a kind of separation between ourselves and Christ) are more of a problem for me than any answers such a teaching would provide, since it answers other issues that are not part of Orthodoxy teaching.

The Dormition/Assumption is a bit interesting to me. There are stories which speak of the Dormition, and it is a major feast in our Church. So I actually have difficulty accepting the Assumption when we already had an observance of the Dormition.

In thinking about these things some months ago, along with other events in the Protoevangelion of James, and the accounts in Scripture of the wondrous events surrounding Christ's birth (the appearance of angels, for example) ... to me it all seems to fit together into a larger picture of something "special" about Christ and His birth. If we can accept the sudden appearance of choirs of angels filling the sky (Scripture), why could we not accept a supernatural birth? Much more could be said on the "whys" and so on, but the first time I considered it all as one narrative, it seems to make a great deal of sense.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think the Protoevangelium of James strongly suggests, if not openly advocating, the perpetual virginity of Mary: CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

What do you make of that text in light of your assertion that there is "nothing whatsoever" in early tradition?

1. Nope, I can't find it stated there anywhere.

2. Nope, it's not Scripture.

3. Nope, it's not First Century.

But I agree, this is an old concept. And widely embraced. I just don't think it has the status of DOGMA (or heresy).





.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Nope, I can't find it stated there anywhere.

What individuals can or cannot do is immaterial. The text itself is quite clear: Protoevangelium 9:8; 17:1-4. When we compare these to the verses in Holy Scripture where the people say "here are His brothers and sisters", it does indeed strongly imply by its testimony, through that vital context, that she remained a virgin.

2. Nope, it's not Scripture.

Straw Man. He didn't suggest it was in that post.

3. Nope, it's not First Century.

Straw Man again. He didn't suggest it was in that post.

Let's play fair and not implicitly accuse others of arguing or believing something they don't. It goes with the spirit of this forum.

 

[hedrick]

We were asked what various of us think about the key events of Mariological tradition. It should not surprise the OP to know that opinion vary, even in this group.

Whether there is early Christian support depends upon what you mean by early.

I accept sola scriptura. However as we all know, different people have different ideas of what it means. I’m not a fundamentalist. However one thing I do think it means is that Scripture is the only credible primary source for historical events in Jesus’ life. That wouldn’t have been true in the 1st Cent. Then, oral accounts were circulating that had not been recorded. However I don’t find it credible that oral accounts about the Mariological events circulated, first to be heard of in the 3rd Cent. It’s a lot more plausible that this is popular legend that made its way into theology.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

We were asked what various of us think about the key events of Mariological tradition. It should not surprise the OP to know that opinion vary, even in this group.

Whether there is early Christian support depends upon what you mean by early.

I accept sola scriptura. However as we all know, different people have different ideas of what it means. I’m not a fundamentalist. However one thing I do think it means is that Scripture is the only credible primary source for historical events in Jesus’ life. That wouldn’t have been true in the 1st Cent. Then, oral accounts were circulating that had not been recorded. However I don’t find it credible that oral accounts about the Mariological events circulated, first to be heard of in the 3rd Cent. It’s a lot more plausible that this is popular legend that made its way into theology.

Well stated. Topcare provided a number of early testimonies of this belief; it would be fair to say that in that day and age with out electronic communication, this belief would have to be wide spread for so many to comment on it in unity.

I wonder if there are any contemporary theologians who's writings oppose the perpetual virginity?

 

[hedrick]

Well stated. Topcare provided a number of early testimonies of this belief; it would be fair to say that in that day and age with out electronic communication, this belief would have to be wide spread for so many to comment on it in unity.

I wonder if there are any contemporary theologians who's writings oppose the perpetual virginity?

If you accept Wikipedia, most but not all not accepted it in the third cent, but it was generally accepted.un the fourth. Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MKJ]

I think it is difficult to reject something that was of early origin and what is more so universally accepted by the Church. As well, while it isn't really a logical argument, I am not so trusting of the theological company I would be in by rejecting it.

As far as the assumption/dormition, I am ok with that, though I prefer not to talk about Mary being assumed before her death because I think it is connected to a period of unreasonable speculation about Mary in the Catholic Church.

I find myself in an odd place with the question of what is necessary for salvation and what should be made dogma and what is necessary to have a really well functioning Christian teaching.

On the one hand, I think likely there will be people saved who never even heard of Jesus in this life, or perhaps rejected Christianity or theism altogether. So, in a way the bar of "necessary beliefs for salvation" is pretty low - my bare minimum might be hope. Clearly, however, that is not any kind of ideal way to teach Christianity.

On the other hand, I am rather suspicious of the need to dogmaitze things or say "this is what you need to believe in order to be a Christian/member of our Church". I might dogmatize very little. Clearly, however, more than that is needed when we decide what teachings are not acceptable, or when we decide what our leaders need to believe.

And finally, I think that the line drawn that says anything not in scripture is just pious opinion might not go far enough. It could conceivably for example allow for the removal of liturgy, which I think is simply unacceptable. Another example found in some Protestant groups is paying attention to the communion of saints - I have come to the conclusion that saying this is unnecessary may in fact leave quite huge holes in theology and practice. And yet many consider this a completely optional aspect of Christian faith.

So I am very wary of assuming ideas that have been prominent in Christian teaching and worship have no larger systematic significance.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think it is difficult to reject something that was of early origin and what is more so universally accepted by the Church. As well, while it isn't really a logical argument, I am not so trusting of the theological company I would be in by rejecting it.

As far as the assumption/dormition, I am ok with that, though I prefer not to talk about Mary being assumed before her death because I think it is connected to a period of unreasonable speculation about Mary in the Catholic Church.

I find myself in an odd place with the question of what is necessary for salvation and what should be made dogma and what is necessary to have a really well functioning Christian teaching.

On the one hand, I think likely there will be people saved who never even heard of Jesus in this life, or perhaps rejected Christianity or theism altogether. So, in a way the bar of "necessary beliefs for salvation" is pretty low - my bare minimum might be hope. Clearly, however, that is not any kind of ideal way to teach Christianity.

On the other hand, I am rather suspicious of the need to dogmaitze things or say "this is what you need to believe in order to be a Christian/member of our Church". I might dogmatize very little. Clearly, however, more than that is needed when we decide what teachings are not acceptable, or when we decide what our leaders need to believe.

And finally, I think that the line drawn that says anything not in scripture is just pious opinion might not go far enough. It could conceivably for example allow for the removal of liturgy, which I think is simply unacceptable. Another example found in some Protestant groups is paying attention to the communion of saints - I have come to the conclusion that saying this is unnecessary may in fact leave quite huge holes in theology and practice. And yet many consider this a completely optional aspect of Christian faith.

So I am very wary of assuming ideas that have been prominent in Christian teaching and worship have no larger systematic significance.

As I understand it, there is a "middle ground" between apostate, anti-Scriptural, HERESY on the one hand, and, on the other, "Dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty possible."


In Lutheranism (and I THINK beyond), there is the concept that we Lutherans call "pious opinion." This is something that MAY be believed but is not manditory (especially in the sense of salvation or to be a Christian - it MAY be from a confessional, institutional perspective). For us, "pious opinion" is something the Bible NEITHER confirms or rejects (thus, not exactly Dogma OR heresy) but that has ecumenical, historic embrace. In terms of mariology, that probably could include the perpetual virginity of Mary. PERHAPS it could include the Assumption of Mary. I'd tend to doubt that the Immaculate Conception would apply.

In these issues, there are always TWO issues: the belief and its status. As a Lutheran, there are several things in modern, contemporary Catholicism that I do NOT regard as "heresy" (and at times, don't even disagree with) but I do NOT regard them as DE FIDE DOGMA - thus, I cannot be Catholic but was mandated to "leave." Of course, there ARE some issues where I disagree with the teaching/belief too (but none of the Marian views apply there).



Illustration: Among the Bible Study groups I attend, is the one lead by our Lutheran pastor before Sunday worship. It's always a verse-by-verse study of some book but (truth be told) it is VERY easy to get the pastor off-topic (which he seems to welcome). I don't recall why, but some time ago, the discussion got off on Mary (about half of the members of my Lutheran parish are former Catholics, so Mary does seem to come up more than one might expect). Anyway, our pastor affirmed his personal pious opinion in the PVM. I knew that already (I think some at the study did, some did not) but there followed a "lively" discussion. I'd say roughly 1/3 were in agreement with him.... about an equal number in disagreement.... and about an equal number (including me, lol) expressing that we can't know and it's not important. MY POINT IS: all these views were permitted. Not dogma, not heresy. My pastor KNOWS I don't embrace his view on this - and he dose not ergo question my salvation or my status as a FULL Christian.

Another: I do not question that IN THE WEST (just the west), beginning in the 13th Century, the western, medieval, "scholastic" theory of Transubstantiation/Accidents came to be increasingly embraced in the West. Yup, that seems to be the case. But 300 years later, in Luther's time, it was still not considered dogma or heresy, it was ONE of the THEORIES of some WESTERN Catholic "scholastics" that a lot of westerners thought made sense. Luther, who did not accept that, never got into any trouble on that count - it wasn't dogma. PERSONALLY, while I don't like this theory, if it was still just a theory, on that count, I'd still be Catholic - because AS THEORY, I could "live" with it. But, a bit after Luther's death, the RCC made it dogma (a way to put another nail in Luther's excommunication, albeit after the fact). It's the STATUS of the view that is more the problem than the view itself. But there are always those two factors.




I hope that contributes SOMETHING....


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm always reminded of my very early days in the Orthodox Church, after some service, during coffee hour, one of the older men (thankfully I didn't know anyone then so I don't remember who it was) was expounding on how Mary did indeed have other children and was giving me all the Scriptures to "prove" it. I am a little surprised that no one corrected him at that time. I already knew enough about Orthodox teaching to know that he wasn't in agreement with the Church (you don't have to listen to very many hymns or prayers to figure that out anyway), but I didn't correct him either.

I don't think it's a salvation issue either. Technically, I do think a person is supposed to assent to it in order to be baptized. I have had several priests tell me no one HAD to ask intercession of the Theotokos or any Saint, either. (The Dormition is perhaps another matter, since we do have a major feast and even small season connected to it.)

But ... as I have learned more and more, and embraced some of the mindset and theology of the Church, the very fact of the Saints being part of the Church (whether one asks their intercession or not, I suppose) creates such a completeness of "Church" that I never had before, such that my prior experience of the faith seems a pale shadow of what I now know. I don't think it's necessary for salvation, such that one who doesn't have it can't be saved. But it's like the difference between holding onto a life preserver being towed by a ship, holding on under your own power and being alone, as compared to being pulled onto the ship itself and embraced by everyone there. Both people can reach the ship's destination, but the experience is hugely different.

And yes, dogma is different. That is another reason I cannot be Catholic. In conscience, I do have to be able to accept whatever a Church requires as dogma in order to belong. I think actual dogma should be kept to the minimum of what is required for the faith. But of course I'm not the one deciding, and that's just my opinion.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And yes, dogma is different. That is another reason I cannot be Catholic. In conscience, I do have to be able to accept whatever a Church requires as dogma in order to belong. ... and that's just my opinion.

... an opinion I agree with.


As I noted, there ARE two different issues involved: The believe AND the status.

But ... as I have learned more and more, and embraced some of the mindset and theology of the Church, the very fact of the Saints being part of the Church (whether one asks their intercession or not, I suppose) creates such a completeness of "Church" that I never had before, such that my prior experience of the faith seems a pale shadow of what I now know. I don't think it's necessary for salvation, such that one who doesn't have it can't be saved. But it's like the difference between holding onto a life preserver being towed by a ship, holding on under your own power and being alone, as compared to being pulled onto the ship itself and embraced by everyone there. Both people can reach the ship's destination, but the experience is hugely different.

After I left the RCC and settled in at Lutheranism, I had a similar PROFOUND awareness - that was beautiful for me. I had been taught a view of the church as the specific, particular, unique, singular, institutional, all-powerful, individual RCC. Christianity = the RCC. In Lutheranism, there is a very strong sense of community... that the church is US.... that it has nothing to do with politics or power or denominations..... the church is US..... all with the divine gift of faith.... equally..... fully...... alive and in heaven...... what denomination happens to own and operate the parish we are officially registered with has nothing to do with it. A very, very central affirmation of the church as the communion of all believers - including the saints before us - spread out over all the centuries and continents. It was such a RADICALLY different view, a HUGE paradigm shift. And I embraced it eagerly and joyously.

It's ONE of the reasons I can embrace you as my FULL, unseparated, equal, equally-blessed sister in Christ and equally a part of the Body of Christ and the church of Christ. We disagree on a FEW things.... family often does.... but we are one faith, one Lord, one baptism, one church...... getting ready to spend all eternity together in heaven. Old Protestant proverb: "it's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE" (pardon the grammar). Soli Deo Gloria.



Sorry


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Both of these beliefs have been part of traditional and historic Christian belief and practice.

While our Lutheran Confessions are silent regarding the Assumption/Dormation, Lutherans have seen fit to retain the date of this commemoration in our calendars as a day to honor the Blessed Virgin.

Our Confessions do, however, state a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary:



It is generally accepted that one need not hold this belief in order to be saved; that is one is free to accept or reject this belief.

I personally have no problem accepting and holding a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The assumption is a bit more difficult for me, but in all honesty, it would be a great and wondrous thing.

What are your thoughts on these two ancient teachings of the Chruch?

I have such a hard time on this and go back and forth.

For one, I have no theological problem believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary or her assumption (pre- or post-dormition). And in general, where I have the option and have no theological objections, I tend to stick with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox tradition.

However, as a student of historical Jesus scholarship, I have an extremely difficult time even imagining either to be the case. John P. Meier, a Catholic biblical scholar and author the world's most comprehensive study on the historical Jesus (A Marginal Jew, four volumes and counting), concluded, "the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were true siblings" (vol. 1, pg. 331). As for the assumption, its complete absence from first century documents and the legendary nature of later documents that depict it simply strains credulity.

At the same time, Catholic theological labels for Mary like Theotokos, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Ark of the New Covenant all seem grounded in sound theological reflection on biblical typology. I see no reason why I cannot hold to these even as I celebrate her as virgin rather than ever-virgin, and celebrate her dormition rather than her assumption.

 

[MKJ]

As I understand it, there is a "middle ground" between apostate, anti-Scriptural, HERESY on the one hand, and, on the other, "Dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty possible."


In Lutheranism (and I THINK beyond), there is the concept that we Lutherans call "pious opinion." This is something that MAY be believed but is not manditory (especially in the sense of salvation or to be a Christian - it MAY be from a confessional, institutional perspective). For us, "pious opinion" is something the Bible NEITHER confirms or rejects (thus, not exactly Dogma OR heresy) but that has ecumenical, historic embrace. In terms of mariology, that probably could include the perpetual virginity of Mary. PERHAPS it could include the Assumption of Mary. I'd tend to doubt that the Immaculate Conception would apply.

In these issues, there are always TWO issues: the belief and its status. As a Lutheran, there are several things in modern, contemporary Catholicism that I do NOT regard as "heresy" (and at times, don't even disagree with) but I do NOT regard them as DE FIDE DOGMA - thus, I cannot be Catholic but was mandated to "leave." Of course, there ARE some issues where I disagree with the teaching/belief too (but none of the Marian views apply there).



Illustration: Among the Bible Study groups I attend, is the one lead by our Lutheran pastor before Sunday worship. It's always a verse-by-verse study of some book but (truth be told) it is VERY easy to get the pastor off-topic (which he seems to welcome). I don't recall why, but some time ago, the discussion got off on Mary (about half of the members of my Lutheran parish are former Catholics, so Mary does seem to come up more than one might expect). Anyway, our pastor affirmed his personal pious opinion in the PVM. I knew that already (I think some at the study did, some did not) but there followed a "lively" discussion. I'd say roughly 1/3 were in agreement with him.... about an equal number in disagreement.... and about an equal number (including me, lol) expressing that we can't know and it's not important. MY POINT IS: all these views were permitted. Not dogma, not heresy. My pastor KNOWS I don't embrace his view on this - and he dose not ergo question my salvation or my status as a FULL Christian.

Another: I do not question that IN THE WEST (just the west), beginning in the 13th Century, the western, medieval, "scholastic" theory of Transubstantiation/Accidents came to be increasingly embraced in the West. Yup, that seems to be the case. But 300 years later, in Luther's time, it was still not considered dogma or heresy, it was ONE of the THEORIES of some WESTERN Catholic "scholastics" that a lot of westerners thought made sense. Luther, who did not accept that, never got into any trouble on that count - it wasn't dogma. PERSONALLY, while I don't like this theory, if it was still just a theory, on that count, I'd still be Catholic - because AS THEORY, I could "live" with it. But, a bit after Luther's death, the RCC made it dogma (a way to put another nail in Luther's excommunication, albeit after the fact). It's the STATUS of the view that is more the problem than the view itself. But there are always those two factors.




I hope that contributes SOMETHING....


Pax


- Josiah






.

Well, I think my problem here is that while I think that in many cases it is better not to dogmatize too much, I think that when we relegate things to the status of pious opinion, things get left out which are actually very important - the conclusion is, at best, that they are not really necessary so it doesn't matter if we don't bother about them, and often people conclude it should be only a private piety and cut out of public worship.

 

[FireDragon76]

I just consider them pious beliefs. I don't think people that do not believe in it are denying something central to the faith. On the other hand, I believe they are wrong, and I think MKJ makes a good point, "pious opinions" often contain things that are important in terms of the mystagogy of the Christian faith, that, if denied, tend to impoverish that faith and leave it vulnerable to secularization.

I'd point out is that our Creed says that Christ was born of the "Virgin Mary", not the "once-virgin Mary" or "Mary, who was a virgin at the time"... true, perpetual virginity is not implicitly stated, but the burden of proof rests on those that deny that perpetual virginity is the Catholic belief.

And the perpetual virginity of Mary actually fits better with the Scriptural account in several ways. It explains why it was necessary that Jesus should give custody of Mary to John, for instance, because he had no blood relations to whom he could entrust that task. If his "brothers" mentioned elsewhere had been blood relations, they would have been the logical choice. The Protovangelion's account of Joseph as a widower also explains his absence from Jesus' adult life- he was too old and had passed on by that point.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I just consider them pious beliefs. I don't think people that do not believe in it are denying something central to the faith. On the other hand, I believe they are wrong, and I think MKJ makes a good point, "pious opinions" often contain things that are important in terms of the mystagogy of the Christian faith, that, if denied, tend to impoverish that faith and leave it vulnerable to secularization.

I'd point out is that our Creed says that Christ was born of the "Virgin Mary", not the "once-virgin Mary" or "Mary, who was a virgin at the time"... true, perpetual virginity is not implicitly stated, but the burden of proof rests on those that deny that perpetual virginity is the Catholic belief.

And the perpetual virginity of Mary actually fits better with the Scriptural account in several ways. It explains why it was necessary that Jesus should give custody of Mary to John, for instance, because he had no blood relations to whom he could entrust that task. If his "brothers" mentioned elsewhere had been blood relations, they would have been the logical choice. The Protovangelion's account of Joseph as a widower also explains his absence from Jesus' adult life- he was too old and had passed on by that point.

Well stated. These are the same reasons that have lead me to embrace this traditional teaching.