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

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just because written sources don't record any tradition doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition around- one way or another. We just don't have access to whatever oral tradition was floating around at the time. And I don't think Wikipedia is implying anything else.

I agree..... nothing to confirm anything. Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion from all this is what we HAVE is.... silence? From Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, Scripture, earliest church?





.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Then it's easy, isn't it? All you have to do is quote the verbatim words in this book that state that Mary died without ever having had marital relations and that at the moment of her death, her body and soul were assumed into heaven. If it states that in this book, all you need to do is quote it. Thank you.






1. It's a non-canonical, rejected, false, non-authoritative book. There is no evidence the unknown author of this false book ever spoke with Mary or Joseph, who it would seem would be the only ones to know about their private marital relations.

2. AGAIN...... there is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs" or "Jesus Had Sibs." And those two non-existent dogmas are not the subject of this thread. AGAIN...... sure, IF it could be proven that Mary had other children, I agree that would be a strong point against the dogma in 2 or 3 denominations of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, but in my opinion, it is irrelevant in the case of no such children. AGAIN, I do not agree that a woman not having any children (at least specifically named in the pages of the Bible) confirms as a dogmatic point of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible - as the only possilble and mandated result - that such a woman never once had marital relations. If my knowledge of human biology is amiss, you are welcome to correct it. The point that "Mary had no other children" (a point that IMO is entirely without support) does NOTHING to support the dogma of the PVM.







.

CJ you were right, in Lutheranism one is free to hold, reject or have no opinion of things adiaphora.

Regarding the PoJ, I agree with the statements the FireDragon76 made below. The Didache is not part of the canon, but none the less with Revelation and Jewish tradition are the basis of all liturgical worship.

A book need not be part of the canon to be a resource for Christian practice and tradition. Heck, we quote the BoC all the time and it's not in the Bible.

Something to keep in mind, just because a book is not in the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't have some kind of authority, or is necessarily "false". It just means it doesn't have infallible authority. The Church Fathers, for instance, are indeed a source of authoritative teaching about the interpretation of Scripture, they just are not infallible sources. Where the Church Fathers agree, one has to give more weight to their catholicity than to where they disagree.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ you were right, in Lutheranism one is free to hold, reject or have no opinion of things adiaphora.

Then I think we both disagree with the post in reference to that.

So far, I've not given an opinion on either of these.... but I am currently leaning toward silence: neither affirming as DE FIDE DOGMA or condemning as HERESY. No problem as pious opinion, however, as long as the context of that is not dogma.

Regarding the PoJ, I agree with the statements the FireDragon76 made below. The Didache is not part of the canon, but none the less with Revelation and Jewish tradition are the basis of all liturgical worship.

1. I would not set the Didache, the Protoevangelium, the Book of Concord and Scripture on the same level or in any sense equate them.

2. A point was made that the words of the Protoevangelium states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin all her life and that she was ASSUMED into heaven upon her death or undeath..... I challenged that will the remark that this book does NOT do that, to which the reply was "actually, it does." I still challenge that. If our friend would quote the book on that, I think we'd at least agree that it so states..... then perhaps we could disagree on the relevance and authority of that book. But so far, no such quote has been provided.


LOTS of attention seems to be on "tradition" to confirm these two views as de fide dogma. Frankly, as I look at such, I don't see these views..... I see silence in Scripture and from Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the apostles and at least the First and perhaps also the Second for the PVM and well beyond that for the Dogma of the Assumption. Then adding to that, two conflicting traditions that lasted for some time. I simply asked, "which tradition?" And when it was stated that we should go with the "Church Fathers" (none noted WHICH church), again - which? Which fathers? Were any of them silent? Any indicating that Mary WAS a PV, others that she was NOT?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

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.

Rather underwhelming...

Hints are not intended to be overwhelming, they are hints.

 

[FireDragon76]

There would be no reason why anyone would have denied it until the second Century, when it first appeared. And even in the 2nd Cent, there's no reason to expect people to have denied it until it become fairly common. Writers don't typically make statements on every doctrine that they disagree with.

The Eastern Orthodox explanation I have generally encountered is that it was not something that was widely discussed in the written literature because the written literature was focused on the issues that were considered central to the religious discussion of the day. As you say, it only really became an issue later when attention started shifting away from questions about Jesus divinity to questions about how Mary was related to Christ as a divine person (look at the Nestorian controversy and the title Christotokos, for instance).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Then I think we both disagree with the post in reference to that.

So far, I've not given an opinion on either of these.... but I am currently leaning toward silence: neither affirming as DE FIDE DOGMA or condemning as HERESY. No problem as pious opinion, however, as long as the context of that is not dogma.






1. I would not set the Didache, the Protoevangelium, the Book of Concord and Scripture on the same level or in any sense equate them.

2. A point was made that the words of the Protoevangelium states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin all her life and that she was ASSUMED into heaven upon her death or undeath..... I challenged that will the remark that this book does NOT do that, to which the reply was "actually, it does." I still challenge that. If our friend would quote the book on that, I think we'd at least agree that it so states..... then perhaps we could disagree on the relevance and authority of that book. But so far, no such quote has been provided.


LOTS of attention seems to be on "tradition" to confirm these two views as de fide dogma. Frankly, as I look at such, I don't see these views..... I see silence in Scripture and from Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the apostles and at least the First and perhaps also the Second for the PVM and well beyond that for the Dogma of the Assumption. Then adding to that, two conflicting traditions that lasted for some time. I simply asked, "which tradition?" And when it was stated that we should go with the "Church Fathers" (none noted WHICH church), again - which? Which fathers? Were any of them silent? Any indicating that Mary WAS a PV, others that she was NOT?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Certainly within our tradition, none of this is considered De Fide; right or wrong, some other Churches do; and that is OK as neither you nor I am members of those Churches. I think the big question is not if or if not these beliefs should be De FIde, but why they are De Fide, or why the felt that they must be made De Fide.

Certainly, I would put the Didache well above the PoJ, but the PoJ does speak to traditional views. Written by James or not (very unlikely), whoever did write it did believe in the PVoM. The point being made was that it is not gospel, but there is precedent.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Certainly within our tradition, none of this is considered De Fide; right or wrong, some other Churches do; and that is OK as neither you nor I am members of those Churches. I think the big question is not if or if not these beliefs should be De FIde, but why they are De Fide, or why the felt that they must be made De Fide.

Certainly, I would put the Didache well above the PoJ, but the PoJ does speak to traditional views. Written by James or not (very unlikely), whoever did write it did believe in the PVoM. The point being made was that it is not gospel, but there is precedent.

Not just precedent but truly ancient precident. The Protoevangelium of James is regarded as early second century AD and that makes it a very early document indeed. Clearly there were Christians for whom the story of Mary's conception and birth were important:

4. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by, saying: Anna, Anna, the Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive, and shall bring forth; and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world. And Anna said: As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God; and it shall minister to Him in holy things all the days of its life. 1 Samuel 1:11 And, behold, two angels came, saying to her: Behold, Joachim your husband is coming with his flocks. For an angel of the Lord went down to him, saying: Joachim, Joachim, the Lord God has heard your prayer. Go down hence; for, behold, your wife Anna shall conceive. And Joachim went down and called his shepherds, saying: Bring me hither ten she-lambs without spot or blemish, and they shall be for the Lord my God; and bring me twelve tender calves, and they shall be for the priests and the elders; and a hundred goats for all the people. And, behold, Joachim came with his flocks; and Anna stood by the gate, and saw Joachim coming, and she ran and hung upon his neck, saying: Now I know that the Lord God has blessed me exceedingly; for, behold the widow no longer a widow, and I the childless shall conceive. And Joachim rested the first day in his house.

5. And on the following day he brought his offerings, saying in himself: If the Lord God has been rendered gracious to me, the plate on the priest's forehead will make it manifest to me. And Joachim brought his offerings, and observed attentively the priest's plate when he went up to the altar of the Lord, and he saw no sin in himself. And Joachim said: Now I know that the Lord has been gracious unto me, and has remitted all my sins. And he went down from the temple of the Lord justified, and departed to his own house. And her months were fulfilled, and in the ninth month Anna brought forth. And she said to the midwife: What have I brought forth? And she said: A girl. And said Anna: My soul has been magnified this day. And she laid her down. And the days having been fulfilled, Anna was purified, and gave the breast to the child, and called her name Mary.​

And the story of Mary's motherhood of our Lord mattered to them too:

19. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither are you going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Are you of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not your wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit.

And the midwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. ...​

 

[MKJ]

I'm not arguing anything.... I simply view these two dogmas as issues about which Scripture is silent. And so is earliest Tradition. IMO, the earliest Tradition is silence. Which happens to be the dogmatic position of virtually all denominations.



Perhaps you'd clarify. Does this forum mandate that any source anyone may reference (but perhaps not quote) must be accepted as fully authoritative and normative? Is silence not considered a part of Tradition? Is STATUS not a part of Tradition?

No, Mark did NOT say that in Lutheranism, these two views are DOGMA. In fact, he stated that, as a Lutheran, he thinks the PVM is one people are free to accept or not (and I think that includes simply not taking a view), and that he seems unconvinced about the Assumption of Mary. He did NOT state these are Lutheran dogmas.

And.... I've not "argued" with any position, not stated that ANYONE taking ANY side is right or wrong in their position. I've not even challenged holding a pious opinion here.

Mark asked us what we think of these two Dogmas. I have yet to give my opinions.... I'm simply raising the issue that perhaps neither of these are clearly from Scripture or earliest Tradition.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

I have no problem with anything Mark said, I have a problem with what you said. You seem to specifically be arguing that anything outside of scripture is false and without authority, and that there is no continuous sense of the Church being in touch with the Holy Spirit.

That isn't something that you can really say within the context of the CHristian tradition.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You seem to specifically be arguing that anything outside of scripture is false and without authority, and that there is no continuous sense of the Church being in touch with the Holy Spirit.

I posted no such thing, of course (as you noted). To date, I've not disagreed with anything except that the Photoevangelium of James states that Mary remained a virgin through the time of her death (or undeath) and states that she was assumed, body and soul, at the moment of her death (or undeath). The only point I disagreed with any here concerning is that that book states those things. I only disagree with THAT. And yes, I did imply at least that I don't consider it as authoritative as Scripture (although that's an entirely irrelevant point here).


I simply replied to the comment that these two views as de fide dogma come "from tradition" and "the Fathers taught it." I've tried to pin down WHICH tradition..... WHICH fathers...... WHEN...... but that seems to be of no concern to those that claim such. I wonder (I have presented these as questions)..... I wonder if there is more than one Christian tradition (the oldest and original and apostolic one being silence, I asked?) and more than one position among the RCC and EOC "Fathers" (and I think that's also the case among Protestant Fathers). But again, that seems to be of no concern. And, very surprising to me, even just asking the question (with out ANY attempt to disagree) seems to have angered some (which i find disappointing). I had the impression this was a friendly forum.

That isn't something that you can really say within the context of the CHristian tradition.

I've read this sentence several times and, sorry, I just don't understand what you are conveying. I guess the QUESTION I raised is if there IS just one Christian tradition here.



Sorry. Back to the discussion (which I now will flee). I was under the impression this was a friendly forum. Again, sorry.




Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[hedrick]

I posted no such thing, of course (as you noted). To date, I've not disagreed with anything except that the Photoevangelium of James states that Mary remained a virgin through the time of her death (or undeath).

I looked through several translations to see what it said about that. I agree that it's not there explicitly. There's a general assumption that virginity is pure, and that Joseph was expected to keep Mary "pure." There's an explicit account of verifying that she was a virgin after Jesus' birth. There is no statement that she remained a virgin to the end of her life.

However given the supposed importance of keeping Mary "pure," and the book's definition of purity, it seems pretty clear that she would remain a virgin for the rest of her life.

 

[Thekla]

The Scriptures don't discount the possibility of Mary having only one child - Jesus.

There are at the least hints in the Scripture that she remained virgin; the use of Virgin (as a title/appellation) in early texts are a route of investigation that is less obvious in translation. (The view of those expert in the language of the NT Scriptures, who did not need to learn this language, might be worthy of consideration as well - many of these were well educated.)

That this understanding, of Mary as ever-virgin, is still held in ancient Churches no longer in communion might be considered to be instructive.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Scriptures don't discount the possibility of Mary having only one child - Jesus.

There are at the least hints in the Scripture that she remained virgin; the use of Virgin (as a title/appellation) in early texts are a route of investigation that is less obvious in translation. (The view of those expert in the language of the NT Scriptures, who did not need to learn this language, might be worthy of consideration as well - many of these were well educated.)

That this understanding, of Mary as ever-virgin, is still held in ancient Churches no longer in communion might be considered to be instructive.

I simply don't accept that HINTS and POSSIBILITIES are the sound basis for divisive, condemning DOGMA - matters of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of fact possible, impacting eternal salvation of souls. If HINTS and POSSIBILITIES were sound basis, I think we'd be compelled to accept a LOT of things none of here do. After all, Scripture itself boldly asserts that "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD." All things..... possible. But I disagree that THEREFORE all things are dogmatic facts of highest importance possible and greatest certainly of fact possible which impacts the salvation of souls.


Perhaps there is enough here to "justify" pious opinion - but DOGMA?????? The very reality that defenders of DOGMA are insisting it's just "possible" and there are only "hints".... and that silence on this prevailed for a long time and from Mary, Joseph, and all the Apostles..... that, to ME, seems to undermine the entire insistence on its dogmatic status. I'm NOT saying it's wrong, just that the arguments actually seem to be hurting the insistent status.



Sorry.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[PaladinValer]

I simply don't accept that mere HINTS and theoretical POSSIBILITIES is the sound basis for divisive, condemning DOGMA - matters of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of fact possible, impacting eternal salvation of souls. If HINTS and POSSIBILITIES were sound basis, I think we'd be compelled to accept a LOT of things none of here do. After all, Scripture itself boldly asserts that "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD." All things..... possible. But I disagree that THEREFORE all things are dogmatic facts of highest importance possible and greatest certainly of fact possible which impacts the salvation of souls.

Where, in the post this is in reply to, or in any other post written by its author, suggest "dogma"?

Until that is found, there is no reason to even consider this, since it is a Straw Man unless the claim is substantiated.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where, in the post this is in reply to, or in any other post written by its author, suggest "dogma"?

Obviously, there are always two issues when discussing de fide Dogma..... the view and its status.

And I'm under the impression that all views are welcome here, my concern is not for the view itself (which I've chosen to yet remain silent) but on its status.

it is a Straw Man unless the claim is substantiated.

Yes, it is dogma. I'm glad to substantiate (then I hope you'll remove your "strawman" accusation)

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/

http://iamonetruth.com/perpetual_virginity_mary.html

http://www.holytrinityparish.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Perpetual-Virginity-of-Mary.pdf

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/mariandogmas.html

http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm


Here is an EOC one: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx



Do you need more to substantiate that this is a dogma?






.

 

[Rhamiel]

the Church is here to tell us what is true and what is not

 

[PaladinValer]

Obviously, there are always two issues when discussing de fide Dogma..... the view and its status.

The poster whose post is quoted in your reply is Eastern Orthodox.

Thus, your reply is a Straw Man.

And I'm under the impression that all views are welcome here, my concern is not for the view itself (which I've chosen to yet remain silent) but on its status.

I myself have linked to the specific rules here. The non-traditional ones are the ones that need to prove things, not the traditional ones. That's why this is TT.

Yes, it is dogma. I'm glad to substantiate (then I hope you'll remove your "strawman" accusation)

The Four Marian Dogmas :: Catholic News Agency

Mary - Perpetual Virginity

http://www.holytrinityparish.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Perpetual-Virginity-of-Mary.pdf

The Marian Dogmas

Catholic Apologetics - Dogmas of Our Lady - Virgin Mary

The individual isn't a member of that church. Bringing all that up is a Straw Man.

It is incredibly rude to issue them over and over and over again and again and again, and that goes against the very spirit on this place.

Here is an EOC one: Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

I see nothing like an nihil obstat or imprimatur given, so that's not good enough.

Do you need more to substantiate that this is a dogma?

I'm not the subject.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The poster whose post is quoted in your reply is Eastern Orthodox. Thus, your reply is a Straw Man.

Only if the PVM is not doctrine in the EOC. But it is. Thus it is not a "straw man" to address that point (even if the discussion of this forum were limited to EOC's, which I understand it is not).

The non-traditional ones are the ones that need to prove things, not the traditional ones. That's why this is TT.

I think I DID "prove" that the PVM is doctrine in the EOC. As well as in the RCC.


Since I have not yet given my view on either of these things, I don't think it is necessary for me to "prove" it.

The statement I made, which you seem to refer to as a "straw man" and demand that I "prove" is that the PVM is doctrine in the EOC. I honestly didn't know that was a matter of dispute (you, for example, didn't dispute that).

It is incredibly rude to issue them over and over and over again and again and again

Issue what? What "them?"

What I find... rude (and disrespectful) is the entire ignoring of the conversation and the posts of others by simply rebuking the poster. The constant "straw man" accusation - with nothing to support such - in complete lieu of conversation is what I personally find disconcerting.

I see nothing like an nihil obstat or imprimatur given, so that's not good enough.

Then is your point that the PVM is NOT a doctrine in the EOC?



http://www.orthodoxcatechism.com/evervirginmary.htm Note in the second sentence how this view is specifically referred to as "DOGMA."


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

there is no reason to even consider

Then don't. There is no rule at CF that every post MUST be considered and replied to by every poster.

I'm sharing MY concern about STATUS. I think people are welcome to share their views. If you don't want to read what I post or consider it or reply to it - I think that is permissible.





.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm afraid I've gotten a bit lost about what the contention is, perhaps?

It seems to be about the status of the belief of the PV of the Theotokos among various Traditions?

Of course the Orthodox Church holds this as a teaching. I doubt a person could attend a single service and remain in doubt about that fact. She (the EO Church) is not "sola scriptura" in the sense that many modern Protestants define it, certainly. There are Traditions that inform the belief, and we know this. She is not at all likely to change either.

But I'm not sure what the disagreement/discussion/problem actually is?

Forgive the interruption, but that might help some of us who might be observing? Thank you.

 

[Thekla]

I simply don't accept that HINTS and POSSIBILITIES are the sound basis for divisive, condemning DOGMA - matters of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of fact possible, impacting eternal salvation of souls. If HINTS and POSSIBILITIES were sound basis, I think we'd be compelled to accept a LOT of things none of here do. After all, Scripture itself boldly asserts that "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD." All things..... possible. But I disagree that THEREFORE all things are dogmatic facts of highest importance possible and greatest certainly of fact possible which impacts the salvation of souls.


Perhaps there is enough here to "justify" pious opinion - but DOGMA?????? The very reality that defenders of DOGMA are insisting it's just "possible" and there are only "hints".... and that silence on this prevailed for a long time and from Mary, Joseph, and all the Apostles..... that, to ME, seems to undermine the entire insistence on its dogmatic status. I'm NOT saying it's wrong, just that the arguments actually seem to be hurting the insistent status.



Sorry.


Pax


- Josiah






.

As the EOC is not a Sola Scriptura adherent Church, I think your standard re: explicit in Scripture might be an mis-application of your standard to others.