Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[patricius79]

No. I am not saying that. I am saying that sexual relations did not define virginity in their world. To be sure, they understood that sexual relations would definitely end virginity, but then so would many other acts, not the least of which was the act of childbirth. If Jesus Christ passed through Mary's birth canal and broke her hymen in the process, then her virginity was forever lost and it would be a moot point as to whether or not she had marital relations with Joseph.

I'm not sure I understand entirely. But in any case, if the fathers believed that the Mother of God never had sexual relations, than the Christian dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the New Eve was held by the fathers.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm not sure I understand entirely. But in any case, if the fathers believed that the Mother of God never had sexual relations, than the Christian dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the New Eve was held by the fathers.

If a few believed that Mary retained her virginity, which meant that Jesus did not pass through her birth canal and break her hymen, would you believe them? That was the issue for them, not whether she had sexual relations in order to retain her virginity. That was merely a secondary issue. As seen earlier on this thread, there were several Church fathers who disputed the idea that Jesus was not actually born of the flesh through natural birth, but was a magical being who passed mysteriously through the side of Mary to enter the world. These Fathers held that Jesus actually was born physically by the natural way all people are born into this world. One of the results of this birth, in their understanding, was that in the birth process Mary's hymen was broken and her virginity was, therefore ended.

The choice is yours to make - Jesus Christ entering the world magically through the side of Mary or Jesus Christ, the human, entering the world through normal physical birth. Which do you believe happened?

 

[patricius79]

If a few believed that Mary retained her virginity, which meant that Jesus did not pass through her birth canal and break her hymen, would you believe them? That was the issue for them, not whether she had sexual relations in order to retain her virginity. That was merely a secondary issue. As seen earlier on this thread, there were several Church fathers who disputed the idea that Jesus was not actually born of the flesh through natural birth, but was a magical being who passed mysteriously through the side of Mary to enter the world. These Fathers held that Jesus actually was born physically by the natural way all people are born into this world. One of the results of this birth, in their understanding, was that in the birth process Mary's hymen was broken and her virginity was, therefore ended.

The choice is yours to make - Jesus Christ entering the world magically through the side of Mary or Jesus Christ, the human, entering the world through normal physical birth. Which do you believe happened?

My understanding is that the Ever-Virginal Mother of God gave birth to Christ through a physical birth. I accept whatever the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My understanding is that the Ever-Virginal Mother of God gave birth to Christ through a physical birth. I accept whatever the Catholic Church teaches.

I have never had the slightest doubt that you accept whatever the Catholic Church teaches. The problem is that the Catholic Church has significantly shifted its understanding of the perpetual virginity of Mary, so that what you accept today was unknown to the Church Fathers. Your understanding (as well as that of the Catholic Church) cannot be traced farther back than the thirteenth century.

As for myself, I accept what the writers of the New Testament, who knew Mary personally, have taught. That is, that Jesus Christ was born as a physical, human baby by the natural process of birth (thereby proving that He was a real human).

 

[patricius79]

I have never had the slightest doubt that you accept whatever the Catholic Church teaches. The problem is that the Catholic Church has significantly shifted its understanding of the perpetual virginity of Mary, so that what you accept today was unknown to the Church Fathers. Your understanding (as well as that of the Catholic Church) cannot be traced farther back than the thirteenth century.

As for myself, I accept what the writers of the New Testament, who knew Mary personally, have taught. That is, that Jesus Christ was born as a physical, human baby by the natural process of birth (thereby proving that He was a real human).

But the idea that Mary is Ever-Virgin and is the New Eve, and the Mother of God can be traced back much further than the 13th century, and I believe the Catholic belief system is well-attested, historically.

I suppose one can look back and find people who don't believe that Mary is Ever-Virgin. But can only find any group of people who fit with one's beliefs as closely as the early Church fathers fit with the beliefs of Catholics today? Sure there is development, but there's a lot of consistently.

As with any beliefs, there are difficulties. You mention the New Testament, which is good. The New Testament says to hold fast to both the written and oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15), and the New Testament never even mentions its Canon or even that there is a New Testament.

But that shouldn't stop our faith.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But the idea that Mary is Ever-Virgin and is the New Eve, and the Mother of God can be traced back much further than the 13th century, and I believe the Catholic belief system is well-attested, historically.

I suppose one can look back and find people who don't believe that Mary is Ever-Virgin. But can only find any group of people who fit with one's beliefs as closely as the early Church fathers fit with the beliefs of Catholics today? Sure there is development, but there's a lot of consistently.

As with any beliefs, there are difficulties. You mention the New Testament, which is good. The New Testament says to hold fast to both the written and oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15), and the New Testament never even mentions its Canon or even that there is a New Testament.

But that shouldn't stop our faith.

One can easily use the historical record to affirm one's doctrinal positions. The EOC does a superlative job in that area IMO. The problem, of course, is that the historical record is not entirely consistent, as we have seen concerning the early debate concerning Mary's virginity. If you wish to support the Catholic position from the Church fathers then you are placed in a real quandary. As we have seen those Church fathers who stood fast on the issue of her virginity believed that Jesus was not born naturally but mysteriously emerged from the side of Mary. Those Church fathers who agreed with their predecessors in the faith and maintained that Jesus Christ was actually and really a physical human being who was born naturally, then accepted the fact that her hymen had been broken in the process of birth and she was no longer a virgin.

The dilemma of the Catholic church on this dogma is that if they accept the mysterious view of Christ's birth, they are, perforce, accepting that in that aspect He was not really and entirely a physical human being. This borders on Gnosticism, of course. If they accept the concept of a natural birth (which they do at present) then the definition of virginity has to be radically altered so that it is limited merely to having marital relations and nothing more. The ECF's who maintained the doctrine of perpetual virginity flatly denied this definition.

In any event, one certainly cannot say that the modern dogma of the PV of Mary can be found much earlier than the thirteenth century. As for the other titles applied to Mary, those are the topic of another thread or two.

 

[patricius79]

One can easily use the historical record to affirm one's doctrinal positions. The EOC does a superlative job in that area IMO. The problem, of course, is that the historical record is not entirely consistent, as we have seen concerning the early debate concerning Mary's virginity. If you wish to support the Catholic position from the Church fathers then you are placed in a real quandary. As we have seen those Church fathers who stood fast on the issue of her virginity believed that Jesus was not born naturally but mysteriously emerged from the side of Mary. Those Church fathers who agreed with their predecessors in the faith and maintained that Jesus Christ was actually and really a physical human being who was born naturally, then accepted the fact that her hymen had been broken in the process of birth and she was no longer a virgin.

The dilemma of the Catholic church on this dogma is that if they accept the mysterious view of Christ's birth, they are, perforce, accepting that in that aspect He was not really and entirely a physical human being. This borders on Gnosticism, of course. If they accept the concept of a natural birth (which they do at present) then the definition of virginity has to be radically altered so that it is limited merely to having marital relations and nothing more. The ECF's who maintained the doctrine of perpetual virginity flatly denied this definition.

In any event, one certainly cannot say that the modern dogma of the PV of Mary can be found much earlier than the thirteenth century. As for the other titles applied to Mary, those are the topic of another thread or two.

I think the early Fathers did believe that Mary is Ever-Virgin in the sense that she never had sex.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think the early Fathers did believe that Mary is Ever-Virgin in the sense that she never had sex.

You are certainly free to think whatever you wish. Do you have statements from any of them that virginity is defined as the absence of sexual relations only?

 

[Standing Up]

You are certainly free to think whatever you wish. Do you have statements from any of them that virginity is defined as the absence of sexual relations only?

In addition to lacking that evidence, they also have zero evidence for anyone in the first couple hundred years who thought Christ was born normally in the normal way with cord, placenta, water and blood, and Mary remained a virgin upon/at that normal birth. All those who thought she was EV are of the docetic side, arguing for a phantom flesh, phantom birth, miracle birth passing through Mary like water through a straw. No cord, no afterbirth was their thought. For Christians at that time (and some of us now), we maintain that Christ was born normally with everything that entails.

 

[patricius79]

You are certainly free to think whatever you wish. Do you have statements from any of them that virginity is defined as the absence of sexual relations only?

No, I'm not a Church historian either. I just know that they believed that virginity included never having sex, and that they believed that the Mother of God never had sex.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, I'm not a Church historian either. I just know that they believed that virginity included never having sex, and that they believed that the Mother of God never had sex.

How do you know this to be a fact? I might "know" that John the Baptist had seven heads, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he did, does it?

 

[patricius79]

How do you know this to be a fact? I might "know" that John the Baptist had seven heads, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he did, does it?

How do you know that John the Baptist had seven heads?

 

[bbbbbbb]

How do you know that John the Baptist had seven heads?

Very simple. The Catholic Church has consecrated seven partial and/or full skulls as being the genuine skull of John the Baptist. It is not unreasonable to believe that if one has had a skull, that skull was an essentially part of the head. Thus, if I am told that there are seven full or partial skulls which belonged to John the Baptist, then I can conclude the following:

1. My source is in error because people only have one head. Therefore, none of the skulls belonged to John the Baptist.
2. My source is in error because people only have one head. Therefore, only one of the skulls actually belonged to John the Baptist and it is up to me to determine which of the seven it is.
3. My source is incapable of error. Therefore, John the Baptist had seven skulls and thus seven heads.

The question, if number three is valid, is whether John the Baptist has his seven head simultaneously or in succession.

 

[patricius79]

Very simple. The Catholic Church has consecrated seven partial and/or full skulls as being the genuine skull of John the Baptist. It is not unreasonable to believe that if one has had a skull, that skull was an essentially part of the head. Thus, if I am told that there are seven full or partial skulls which belonged to John the Baptist, then I can conclude the following:

1. My source is in error because people only have one head. Therefore, none of the skulls belonged to John the Baptist.
2. My source is in error because people only have one head. Therefore, only one of the skulls actually belonged to John the Baptist and it is up to me to determine which of the seven it is.
3. My source is incapable of error. Therefore, John the Baptist had seven skulls and thus seven heads.

The question, if number three is valid, is whether John the Baptist has his seven head simultaneously or in succession.

I don't believe that the the Catholic Church has every dogmatized that any skull is definitely the skull of John the Baptist.

She has dogmatized that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't believe that the the Catholic Church has every dogmatized that any skull is definitely the skull of John the Baptist.

She has dogmatized that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

That is quite true. The Catholic Church really has not dogmatized much in the way of doctrine. For example, things like Purgatory are not dogmatized. Does that mean that Catholics don't believe in Purgatory because it is not dogmatized?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

That is quite true. The Catholic Church really has not dogmatized much in the way of doctrine. For example, things like Purgatory are not dogmatized. Does that mean that Catholics don't believe in Purgatory because it is not dogmatized?

The Church has a penchant for slowly declaring things true as enough time goes by without opposition. That's exactly what happened with the dogma of Mary's Assumption, coming 1950 years later the Pope declaring infallibility and calling it in.
It was so obviously an attempt to vamp up the Catholic body. Otherwise, why would it just sit in doctrinal purgatory for almost two thousand years when it should have been most apparent in the earlier centuries?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church has a penchant for slowly declaring things true as enough time goes by without opposition. That's exactly what happened with the dogma of Mary's Assumption, coming 1950 years later the Pope declaring infallibility and calling it in.
It was so obviously an attempt to vamp up the Catholic body. Otherwise, why would it just sit in doctrinal purgatory for almost two thousand years when it should have been most apparent in the earlier centuries?

Quite true. I love the flip that comes immediately after dogmatization when the Catholic Church asserts it is has believed this "since the beginning".

 

[patricius79]

That is quite true. The Catholic Church really has not dogmatized much in the way of doctrine. For example, things like Purgatory are not dogmatized. Does that mean that Catholics don't believe in Purgatory because it is not dogmatized?

I don't know that Purgatory isn't dogmatic. Wasn't it defined at Trent?

 

[Standing Up]

No, I'm not a Church historian either. I just know that they believed that virginity included never having sex, and that they believed that the Mother of God never had sex.

That is part of the definition, but not the whole part. The dogma reads a virgin, before, during, and after nativity (birth).

We all agree she was a virgin before birth.
Some of us might even agree she and Joseph never "knew" each other.
But some of us cannot agree that Christ was not born normally in the normal way with an umbilical cord, placenta, water and blood. As such, virginity ended. (IOW, to believe Mary remained a virgin upon birth is to affirm the mystic docetic point of view from some 2,000 years ago.)

 

[patricius79]

The Church has a penchant for slowly declaring things true as enough time goes by without opposition. That's exactly what happened with the dogma of Mary's Assumption, coming 1950 years later the Pope declaring infallibility and calling it in.
It was so obviously an attempt to vamp up the Catholic body. Otherwise, why would it just sit in doctrinal purgatory for almost two thousand years when it should have been most apparent in the earlier centuries?

Then why wasn't the Canon and the doctrine of the Trinity given definitively by the Apostles?