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

[Tigger45]

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.

I'd second that

 

[Liberasit]

Mary was a good and faithful servant. That is "good enough".

 

[Job8]

...but the burden of proof rests on those that deny that perpetual virginity is the Catholic belief.

The issue is not whether it is "the Catholic belief" (which it is) but whether it is Bible truth. According to Scripture the perpetual virginity of Mary is a myth.

Throughout the ages a multitude of myths have been promoted and accepted as "Gospel Truth". The Jews promoted (and continue to promote) the myth that man can be justified by Torah observance. Gospel Truth says otherwise (Rom 3:19,20).

Gospel Truth (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21) also says that Mary had several sons, and when Mary and her sons were seeking to communicate with Christ during a public gathering, the Lord did not respond to that request, but instead identified His disciples as His "mother and brethren". This is a significant passage which is evidently ignored, since it does not fit with the perpetual virginity myth.

For Christians, the sole focus of our worship should be the triune Godhead (Rev 4:1-5:14).

 

[PaladinValer]

The issue is not whether it is "the Catholic belief" (which it is) but whether it is Bible truth. According to Scripture the perpetual virginity of Mary is a myth.

See post nine here.

There is nothing clean cut at all.

Furthermore, I'd like to welcome you to TT. Please review the special rules here, because this is a safehouse for who follow historically-verified, traditional Christian practices and beliefs.

Throughout the ages a multitude of myths have been promoted and accepted as "Gospel Truth". The Jews promoted (and continue to promote) the myth that man can be justified by Torah observance. Gospel Truth says otherwise (Rom 3:19,20).

They never claimed to be Christians, so I don't see how any of that is relevant.

Gospel Truth (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21) also says that Mary had several sons, and when Mary and her sons were seeking to communicate with Christ during a public gathering, the Lord did not respond to that request, but instead identified His disciples as His "mother and brethren". This is a significant passage which is evidently ignored, since it does not fit with the perpetual virginity myth.

The very word in Greek is not so specific as it can only mean biological kin. It actual meaning in Greek is a lot more diverse, so it is actually ambiguous. It could mean step- or half-siblings, the latter of which would be verified by the Protoevanglium of St. James. It could even mean any close relation, like a first cousin, although again the Protoevangelium, a second century ce witness, shows a clear ancient belief that they were indeed half-brothers.

For Christians, the sole focus of our worship should be the triune Godhead (Rev 4:1-5:14).

Straw Man. No one questioned this, and its mention implicitly states that we who hold historically-verified, orthodox, and traditional Christian worship anyone other than Yahweh. I most certainly hope that was simply a bad application of logic.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The issue is not whether it is "the Catholic belief" (which it is) but whether it is Bible truth. According to Scripture the perpetual virginity of Mary is a myth.

Throughout the ages a multitude of myths have been promoted and accepted as "Gospel Truth". The Jews promoted (and continue to promote) the myth that man can be justified by Torah observance. Gospel Truth says otherwise (Rom 3:19,20).

Gospel Truth (Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21) also says that Mary had several sons, and when Mary and her sons were seeking to communicate with Christ during a public gathering, the Lord did not respond to that request, but instead identified His disciples as His "mother and brethren". This is a significant passage which is evidently ignored, since it does not fit with the perpetual virginity myth.

For Christians, the sole focus of our worship should be the triune Godhead (Rev 4:1-5:14).

Jews and Torah are irrelevant to this thread.

As Paladin and others have posted here, it is very clear that one can not conclude that this is a myth. If anything, one can only say that Scripture is "unclear" on this matter. However, your quoted verse included, for those of us who hold the PV, find that Scripture gives this belief (call it pious opinion if you like) much support.

Implying that those who hold this belief do not give all the Glory to God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is way off base. I'm sure that if we were to say that protestants who deny the PVoM dishonor our Lord Jesus Christ by dishonoring His Mother's blessed memory; that would not be well received either.

 

[Liberasit]

Jews and Torah are irrelevant to this thread.

As Paladin and others have posted here, it is very clear that one can not conclude that this is a myth. If anything, one can only say that Scripture is "unclear" on this matter. However, your quoted verse included, for those of us who hold the PV, find that Scripture gives this belief (call it pious opinion if you like) much support.

Implying that those who hold this belief do not give all the Glory to God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is way off base. I'm sure that if we were to say that protestants who deny the PVoM dishonor our Lord Jesus Christ by dishonoring His Mother's blessed memory; that would not be well received either.

Is Job8 not allowed to have his own point of view?

 

[PaladinValer]

Is Job8 not allowed to have his own point of view?

The Welcome to Traditional Theology sticky and the Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose sticky spell out the specific and special rules that govern this little corner of CF.

This place is a safehouse for those who adhere to, as I put it earlier, historically-verified, orthodox, traditional Christianity. We place high emphasis on liturgy, sacraments, the Councils, the Apostolic Witnesses, and other such things here.

Those who don't are welcome to come here to fellowship, ask questions, and to learn what authentic orthodox, historical Christianity is all about; the faith once given to the Apostles. We encourage people to ask and learn in fact. However, posts that would insinuate a hostile view of this authentic Christian expression, like posts that propound rabid anti-anything-sounding/seemingly-"Catholic", won't be tolerated. And pot shots in return aren't tolerated here either. This place is fair to all, especially to its guests and visitors.

Again, the two links above will spell things out quite nicely.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

I'd second that

Those are also some of the reasons that convinced me to take another look. (Minus the Creed - I hadn't thought of it that way.)

That along with the fact that the "brother of The Lord" did NOT believe on Him (while His mother did), until after the resurrection. It makes sense that an older brother might not accept a younger as being anything special, but it seems a little odd that a younger brother of Jesus Christ would grow up not accepting His claims. It's not conclusive on it's own, but paired especially with the giving over of Mary into the care of John, when the "brothers of The Lord" were still alive, if they were younger sons of Mary, makes no sense.

 

[Anhelyna]

<Staff Edit>

We ask all who come here to be polite and welcoming . We trust they are here in fellowship.

We are here to learn from each other - and we can disagree politely with their views - open warfare is not wanted.

Job8 made his point rather more forcibly than is strictly necessary but we have to respect that it's his view even if not ours. And if he stays with us I'm sure he will learn a lot from us - even if he doesn't always agree.

PV was correct in pointing out the rules .

Liberasit - foot stamping wasn't necessary

 

[Biblicist]

I agree that her supposed perpetual virginity (as with most teachings that surround her) are nothing more than myths that have absolutely no support from within the Scriptures.

PS. Shouldn't this thread be on another sub forum?

 

[topcare]

No because it's about learning what historically-verified, orthodox, and traditional Christianity is all about (a) not protestant opinion. You will find that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary the Blessed Mother was a belief of the ancient Church.


--------

a. Source
http://www.christianforums.com/t7867551-3/#post67104760

 

[PaladinValer]

I agree that her supposed perpetual virginity (as with most teachings that surround her) are nothing more than myths that have absolutely no support from within the Scriptures.

PS. Shouldn't this thread be on another sub forum?

It is part of Traditional Theology, so it is well within the pervue of this forum.

Furthermore, the idea of it being a "myth" has yet been substantiated. All we have is the word. The opposing and authentic side has an ancient witness, the actual meaning of the Greek word for "brothers", and, I should note, the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

So where is the evidence supporting the opposing view? The word "myth" isn't enough.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

As I do dislike doing staff actions but do like extending grace we are going to have a multi-point lesson:

• In accord with not only this forums statement of purpose but CF rules as well, flaming is not allowed. In this forum, there is less tolerance than any of the other forums, in that they earn bans, not just staff actions; however, there will be no bans tonight.
• Snarkyness = Flaming, and bans can be handed out for this also.
• Stating or implying that anyone here is not Christian, not an orthodox Christian, not fully Christian is flaming also.
• Yes, this topic is traditional theology. You are free to disagree with this belief; be prepared to defend your disagreement. If you want to argue about it, then post a thread in Mariology in General theology. Here we discuss things civilly. People in here defend civility very actively.

Re-read the links in Paladin's post above; if you find the expectations of this forum to be unreasonable; we will not force you to post here. We will strive to treat everyone, regardless of their opinion in a respectful way. Disrespectful posting will result in me doing this at the very least; and while I don't like banning people, be assured that I and the rest of staff are not only qualified, but well practiced, in the administration of the ban-hammer.


Some posts have been deleted, others edited to remove unpleasantness.


We all know what happened here, and we are all mature enough to put it behind us and move forward.


Here endeth the rant.


Mark
Admin

 

[Biblicist]

It is part of Traditional Theology, so it is well within the pervue of this forum.

Furthermore, the idea of it being a "myth" has yet been substantiated. All we have is the word. The opposing and authentic side has an ancient witness, the actual meaning of the Greek word for "brothers", and, I should note, the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

So where is the evidence supporting the opposing view? The word "myth" isn't enough.

The problem is that there is not even a hint within the Scriptures that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, for that matter, how can anyone remain a virgin when the Scriptures say that Mary bore a number of other children. But as this is the traditional theology section I think that I will bow out as it is way outside of the parameters that I work within.

 

[Shane R]

The problem is that there is not even a hint within the Scriptures that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, for that matter, how can anyone remain a virgin when the Scriptures say that Mary bore a number of other children. But as this is the traditional theology section I think that I will bow out as it is way outside of the parameters that I work within.

Where do the Scriptures say, explicitly, that Mary bore a number of other children? I think I know the texts you might sight and none are explicit. It may be assumed or inferred based on our understanding of family, but it is not explicit. Also, what does the absence of Joseph from the bulk of the gospel narratives signify, if anything, regarding this topic? The Protoevangelium at least proposes a solution, as Joseph is said to be a much older man who presumably would have died before Mary, the 'maiden' (RSV/NRSV). The fact is the text of the gospels is not concerned with this issue and thus is ambiguous as to either position, but the church has a long standing tradition advocating her perpetual virginity. Why, and why should we reject the tradition?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The problem is that there is not even a hint within the Scriptures that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, for that matter, how can anyone remain a virgin when the Scriptures say that Mary bore a number of other children. But as this is the traditional theology section I think that I will bow out as it is way outside of the parameters that I work within.

When we read the Bible it is not hard for one to see what one wants or expects to see. This is one of the issues that I have when people advocate personal interpretation. Now before any one points fingers and says "Look at Luther, talk about personal interpretation"; read Luther, and note that, great Bible Scholar that he was, he often quoted the Early Church Fathers and did much research to make sure that there was sound grounds for his opinion.

You see the Bible supporting your side, we see it supporting ours. Proof has been provided that the Bible clearly teaches neither. If we look to the "cloud of witnesses" that the Bible speaks of, we have the ancient, classical and present day Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church in overwhelming majority holding this theology (including Zwingli and Calvin); and Scripture does not say that they are wrong.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is one hint in the holy scriptures that Blessed Mary had one son and no more. In the holy scriptures The Blessed Virgin Mary is called the mother of Jesus but she is never called the mother of any other male or female.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is one hint in the holy scriptures that Blessed Mary had one son and no more.

Rather underwhelming, I'm sure all agree.... especially for DOGMA.


And, with all due respect, there is no such dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs." Perhaps (?) you have that nonexistent dogma confused with an entirely, completely, wholly different dogma of 2 or 3 denominations, that of "Mary Had No Relations with Joseph." A whole other enchilada. While I think all would agree that IF (big word) it could be shown (not "just one tiny HINT") that Mary bore children other than Jesus, that would provide some support to the idea that she probably did have relationship with her spouse. But the opposite is of course entirely baseless. It is simply absurd to insist (especially as the basis for DOGMA) that if a couple has relations even once, ERGO, THEREFORE, it is biologically MANDATED and INESCAPABLE that they must have a child (especially one specifically mentioned in the pages of the Bible). This argument COULD be applicable IF it can be documented she had other children but it's entirely irrelevant (and kind of silly) applied otherwise.




Sorry.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where do the Scriptures say, explicitly, that Mary bore a number of other children?

Good point. And where do the Scriptures say, explicity, that Mary did not bore other children?

And where do the Scriptures state, explicitly, how often Mary and Joseph had relations - if at all - after Jesus was born?

And where do the Scriptures state, explicitly, what exactly happened to Mary's body and soul at the microsecond of her death (or was it undeath?).


Seems to ME there are things where SILENCE prevails..... from Mary, from Joseph, from the Apostles, from Scripture. Could it be that if silence was appropriate the best then, might it still be???? Just a rhetorical question.....

The Protoevangelium at least proposes a solution

This false, REJECTED, noncanonical, nonauthoritative book states nothing about how often Mary did or did not have relations after Jesus was born..... or what precisely happened to Her body and soul at the microsecond of Her death (or was it undeath?). Nothing. Even if it remotely mattered if it did.




Sorry.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Rhamiel]

who were the first theologians to say that Mary was not a virgin?