Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[Light of the East]

I think that God alone has authority. I'm willing to listen to him through his word. I'm willing to listen to any church or preacher who preaches his word. But if they make claims that are not based on his word then I will not readily accept them.

God grants His authority to people.

Gen 1:26 And God saith, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over (dominion or authority) fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'

Num 12:1 And Miriam speaketh -- Aaron also -- against Moses concerning the circumstance of the Cushite woman whom he had taken: for a Cushite woman he had taken;

Read the rest of the chapter to see what happens to them for mouthing off against Moses, who is the leader of Israel. Likewise with Dathan and Abihu, who were swallowed up by the earth because they dared stand against Moses and his authority.

God has stated "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft...." One can only rebel against authority. Rebellion presumes authority which is being rebelled against.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Even civil authorities are ordained of God to enforce His law upon the wicked and bring peace to the just.

I do not believe, like the Romans do, that my church is the only church or that we have a monopoly on truth. I do, however, believe that the word of God is true and that any church teaching it ought to be listened to. Any doctrines not based on the word of God need not be accepted.

Does the Bible speak of "the Church" or of "churches?" Is there one Church of God or thousands? If there are thousands, then which one is true, because they all cannot be true if they do not agree with one another. You probably don't agree with Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists, because you have not identified with them in your avatar. Yet they will insist, as do all non-Catholic assemblies, that they have the truth because they find what they practice in the Bible. Yet they do not agree with each other nor with hundreds of other assemblies who make the identical claim.

Jesus speaks of one Church which is His Bride, not hundreds or thousands. One. That Church existed from the very beginning and by the end of the first century, it came to be called "katholicos" or Catholic, meaning "of the whole" or "universal." There was no idea of hundreds of different doctrines. Those who held different teachings wore the title "heretic," and they were few in number.

So I'm willing to accept PV if it can be established from Scripture. Since it cannot be, I do not accept it.

No, you don't, and I'll prove it in one short sentence. "This IS My Body." But you don't believe in the Eucharist, even though this verse is in the Bible without any lack of clarity at all. There is no ambiguity, no parable or metaphor to figure out. Jesus said "This IS my Body." End of discussion for you if you are a Bible believer. But you are not. You are a believer in whatever your pastor tells you is correct, no matter how badly he distorts the Scriptures.

The church only has authority when she is teaching the word of God. When she is teaching her own ideas she has no authority. It's always been this way since the establishment of the church with Abraham.

That is the whole point of Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the check upon the wild and crazy ideas of the heretics, like Arias. When the heretic priest Arias defended his ideas at Nicea, he appeal to scripture alone. He was the first sola scripturalist. And what did the Church do? They went back through history and in that history, they pulled out what had always been believed from the start with the Apostles -which is Holy Tradition - and they rightfully destroyed the heretic's argument and sent him packing!

The Church does not teach Her own ideas. She teaches what has been taught from the beginning, and Holy Tradition is that set of rails that guides us in navigating the treacherous forests of false teaching.

 

[Light of the East]

"Spouse of the God the Holy Spirit". That's one I've not heard before. This is where I think Mary veneration goes too far and becomes biblically unwarranted.

As to why make something like that up: I don't know. People, church leaders included, contrive false doctrines all the time. I'm sure some have some interesting theories as to why this particular doctrine was formulated.

Then Jesus LIED, didn't He, because He promised that the Church would not be prevailed against by the gates of hell. Worse than that, how do you know that your pastor, whose teachings you devour, is not deceived, and by what standard of Christian history do you make that statement?

 

[Mountainmike]

And by discarding what tradition said scripture meant, leaving only what it says in all its ambiguity, and allowing the "Priesthood of all believers" to choose their own interpretation, the reformation was also the father of 100000 schisms.

I have listed them before...
But post reformation there are at least 5 MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! interpretations of...
Eucharist
Baptism
Other sacraments
Marriage Divorce
Priesthood ordination
Salvation
Godhead
Rapture
LGBT issues
Mariology
Purgatory, purgation, theosis...call it what you will...
Authority
Tradition (even Calvinists have it, but it is called variously Tulip, articles , confessions etc, and they certainly all ARE man made tradition! sometime around the time of Calvin!!!!)

Moral issues, pro choice, pro life, contraception.
And 1000 other arcane issues...like what happens to a child that dies pre baptism? Congregations have come to blows and fractured even over that one issue!

You name it protestants DISAGREE with each other on it.
And since the truth is unique, and there are at least 100000 permutations of exclusive belief in the table above, someone somewhere holds every combination, the only thing you can be sure of is 99.999 percent of protestants are preaching at least one UNTRUTH on some part of doctrine and probably more. Logically It must be so...


Somewhere along the way they missed the fact.. that
" the pillar and bulwark of truth is the CHURCH ", which is the "household of god" not scripture!!!
That in the early days there was no new testament ONLY apostolic succession and tradition... to which paul says hold true.
And that without the authority/ inspiration of councils you have no bible!!

So the only question left is which church is referred as the pillar of truth.
Clue 1/ It is the physical church because that is the meaning of "household of god" in the OT
Clue 2./ NO post reformation church can be it, because they did not exist at the time the pillar of truth was stated as the church!!!

Luther in the end despaired of the monster, he , calvin and Zwingli created, lamenting that "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" but he could not put pandora back in the box, and christianity has suffered for it ever since in endless disagreements.


Far better there are four senses of scripture, than no sense is scripture because reformationists want to divorce what it means from what it says!
So all choose random meanings.

One of the best things that the Reformation did for Biblical exegesis was to discard all of the excesses of analogical interpretation and the "four senses of Scripture". I don't understand why you, @Sine Nomine, would want to return to that.

 

[Sine Nomine]

One of the best things that the Reformation did for Biblical exegesis was to discard all of the excesses of analogical interpretation and the "four senses of Scripture". I don't understand why you, @Sine Nomine, would want to return to that.

There is incredible richness in an anagogical approach to some things. God's Word and Spirit worked with more anagogical theologians in the past to yield people you'd recognize as Christians today. They didn't require a historic/textual exegesis to experience the fullness of Christ.

Alfric of Eynsham (circa 966) was the first to translate the first 6 books of the OT into Old English for people to read. His writings were used by the Reformers to justify some of their reasoning by showing they had been a part of the church in the past. Almost every sermon he recorded was heavily anogogic.

When there are mysteries involved, the allegorical and anogogic senses become much more useful to faith than the literal.

 

[Light of the East]

Nowhere in Scripture is Mary called the bride of God the Holy Spirit. She was married to Joseph of Nazareth. Are you ready to claim that the Holy Spirit committed adultery?

Where in Scripture does it say this?

The Contents of the Arks
Ark Contained the Commandments, Manna, & Aaron’s Rod
New Ark Contained Christ Our Lord: Logos, Bread of Life, King/Priest

The Old Testament Ark was said to contain three things: the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments carved by the finger of God, the priestly rod of Moses’ brother Aaron, and the heavenly manna that sustained Israel in post-Egyptian wandering.

While the old Ark is acacia wood wrapped in gold, the New Ark of the Covenant is the Immaculate Woman Mary. Since being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, her womb became the dwelling place of God on Earth until the birth of Christ. As the New Testament is a perfection and fulfillment of the Old, so too is Christ’s Incarnation in the Virgin Mary a perfection of the Old Ark of the Covenant. The contents of the New Ark perfect the contents of the Old Ark insofar as Christ the Lord takes upon himself the roles of the former objects: Word of God, Bread of Life, & Eternal Priest.

If you actually knew how to study the Bible and do typology, you would have such questions.

 

[Sine Nomine]

And by discarding what tradition said scripture meant, leaving only what it says in all its ambiguity, and allowing the "Priesthood of all believers" to choose their own interpretation, the reformation was also the father of 100000 schisms.

I have listed them before...
But post reformation there are at least 5 MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! interpretations of...
Eucharist
Baptism
Other sacraments
Marriage Divorce
Priesthood ordination
Salvation
Godhead
Rapture
LGBT issues
Mariology
Purgatory, purgation, theosis...call it what you will...
Authority
Tradition (even Calvinists have it, but it is called variously Tulip, articles , confessions etc, and they certainly all ARE man made tradition! sometime around the time of Calvin!!!!)

Moral issues, pro choice, pro life, contraception.
And 1000 other arcane issues...like what happens to a child that dies pre baptism? Congregations have come to blows and fractured even over that one issue!

You name it protestants DISAGREE with each other on it.
And since the truth is unique, and there are at least 100000 permutations of exclusive belief in the table above, someone somewhere holds every combination, the only thing you can be sure of is 99.999 percent of protestants are preaching UNTRUTH. It must be so...


Somewhere along the way they missed the fact.. that
" the pillar and bulwark of truth is the CHURCH ", which is the "household of god" not scripture!!!
That in the early days there was no new testament ONLY apostolic succession and tradition... to which paul says hold true.
And that without the authority/ inspiration of councils you have no bible!!

So the only question left is which church is referred as the pillar of truth.
Clue 1/ It is the physical church because that is the meaning of "household of god" in the OT
Clue 2./ NO post reformation church can be it, because they did not exist at the time the pillar of truth was stated as the church!!!

Luther in the end despaired of the monster, he , calvin and Zwingli created, lamenting that "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" but he could not put pandora back in the box, and christianity has suffered for it ever since in endless disagreements.


Far better there are four senses of scripture, than no sense is scripture because reformationists want to divorce what it means from what it says!
So all choose random meanings.

You certainly make a good point here, but the presence of disagreements on one side doesn't mean that the unified voice on the other is without flaws. I'm 100% sure that the RCC today is different in many ways from the church of he past. Arguing an unchanging church is not convincing.

 

[Mountainmike]

You certainly make a good point here, but the presence of disagreements on one side doesn't mean that the unified voice on the other is without flaws. I'm 100% sure that the RCC today is different in many ways from the church of he past. Arguing an unchanging church is not convincing.

The church has surely evolved, as it has grown from an embryo.
An oak tree looks different from an acorn, and has different structures and problems, but it is still the same species, just grown.

In the end, look back at early fathers. Read ignatius letter to the Smyrneans a generation after Christ and taught by the apostles..
See a church that was..liturgical, sacramental, believed in real presence, and baptismal regeneration, had succession bishops , and only they were empowered to perform a valid eucharist, etc etc..

So if your church does not have those characteristics , or can show a valid succession of priesthood, it cannot claim to BE the chuch that is stated the pillar of truth by scripture, nor can your church claim to be following the belifes of the early church, which are documented in early fathers.

Most reformationists would do well to study where ( and when) their new testament came, and the presumption of divine inspiration by the councils that adopted it, without which there would be no new testament.

And there is the problem....study what those fathers believed and you see (for example) both lists of succession of popes, ( see such as Augustine talking of donatists) and those that were outspoken on the powers of intercession of saints and mary.

Either the fathers were inspired or they were not. If you accept they were, you must accept the dogma in which they believed.

If you do not accept they were inspired, then you lose the new testament too. It is a problem dilemma for protestants.

A dilemma that saw many (like me) come home from protestant later evangelist, back to Rome after a lot of agonising..

And on the final point, there is the catechism. To be a catholic you have to hold to the teaching authority of the magisterium so accept the catechism. In that sense we are all unified. Our beliefs are not massively different from those of orthodox too.

 

[brightlights]

I'm outa this thread. Too many uppity Romans!

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm outa this thread. Too many uppity Romans!

hardly "uppity" brightlights.

we rose to your challenge on senses of scripture.

I would be interested in your defence of what I regard as the inevitable lack of unanimity of protestants (and therefore calvinists) precisely because they lost the central authority of interpretation of doctrine.

 

[SolomonVII]

The Bible connects Jesus to "the word of God". But the Bible does not connect Mary to "the word of God". So which theology is a better representation of the Bible?

The Bible connects Mary to the Word of God, who is Jesus.
It is a Biblical concept that he is the fruit of her womb.
There is an ongoing controversy among Christians as to whether Scripture and Christ are interchangeable.
I myself think it is kind of bad theology to speak of Scipture and Jesus as one and the same, but it really is up to you if that is your understanding.
It was never my intention to disabuse anyone of their theologies. It was my intention to give an understanding of the dogma of Perpetual Virginity that goes beyond a focus on lady parts.
Have I been able to do that, in your mind?

 

[Hank77]

Luke 24:10 tells us that there was a Mary who was Mother of James.
Is this had been Mary mother of Jesus, the author would have sa

This is convincing evidence that Mary of Cleopus was the mother of those called Jesus' brothers. Her husband would have been the brother of Joseph.

 

[Light of the East]

I'm outa this thread. Too many uppity Romans!

"Uppity" means "knowledgeable" and therefore I can't win the argument, so I'm taking my ball and going home.

Buh bye!!

 

[Sammy-San]

The OP asked "Why believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?"

So far it seems we've got:

1. Many church fathers believed it.
2. Scripture does not explicitly say that Mary ever lost her virginity.
3. If Mary was not a perpetual virgin then somehow her holiness or purity would be compromised.
4. The Roman Church teaches this doctrine.

As far as 1) is concerned it's interesting that church fathers believed this. But many church fathers also believed that the earth was flat. I respect the fathers, but I do not feel inclined to embrace all their beliefs (even all their beliefs about God and Scripture) just because they believed them. If these beliefs are not grounded in Scripture then they cannot be certain.

2) is an argument from silence, in part. It's also incorrect. Scripture does explicitly say that Jesus had siblings. Also someone else suggested that Mary had taken a perpetual vow of celibacy before her marriage to Joseph. But a vow of celibacy would preclude marriage. A betrothed woman would never have taken such a vow. There is no marriage without sex in Scripture.

And I don't see why 3) should be true. Sex within the confines of marriage is good and created by God. Nothing about sex within marriage per se should damage someone's holiness or purity.

4) Highlights a major difference between Romans and other Christians. Romans believe that their church has authority beyond Scripture. Other Christians believe that the church only has authority where Scripture speaks. So the church has authority when it is expounding Scripture. Since the doctrine of perpetual virginity is not based on Scripture there is no obligation to accept it - even if a church teaches it.

Am I missing other reasons to believe this doctrine?

Does holiness and purity mean the same thing?

 

[Sine Nomine]

The church has surely evolved, as it has grown from an embryo.
An oak tree looks different from an acorn, and has different structures and problems, but it is still the same species, just grown.

This seems a good arguement for Protestant churches--just offspring of the parent tree. Younger, but the same species.

In the end, look back at early fathers. Read ignatius letter to the Smyrneans a generation after Christ and taught by the apostles..
See a church that was..liturgical, sacramental, believed in real presence, and baptismal regeneration, had succession bishops , and only they were empowered to perform a valid eucharist, etc etc..

So if your church does not have those characteristics , or can show a valid succession of priesthood, it cannot claim to BE the chuch that is stated the pillar of truth by scripture, nor can your church claim to be following the belifes of the early church, which are documented in early fathers.

No sure why you think these characteristics are essentials. I read the letter but don't see that it entails all you suggest it does. Generally speaking one must be an Elder (Presbuteros=Bishop) to officiate Communion and Baptism in most Reformed churches. Also, I believe that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli all had positions within the Catholic Church--and thus part of the apostolic succession. Outsiders wouldn't be Reformers.

Most reformationists would do well to study where ( and when) their new testament came, and the presumption of divine inspiration by the councils that adopted it, without which there would be no new testament.

And there is the problem....study what those fathers believed and you see (for example) both lists of succession of popes, ( see such as Augustine talking of donatists) and those that were outspoken on the powers of intercession of saints and mary.

Either the fathers were inspired or they were not. If you accept they were, you must accept the dogma in which they believed.

If you do not accept they were inspired, then you lose the new testament too. It is a problem dilemma for protestants.

A dilemma that saw many (like me) come home from protestant later evangelist, back to Rome after a lot of agonising..

I believe that the inspiration of the texts was accepted at the councils, not the inspiration of the fathers. I'm not sure what your point is. I don't lose the NT if those at the council were not inspired. I'm not even sure what you mean by an inspired person--this might be applied to all Christians who are recipients of the Holy Spirit....

And on the final point, there is the catechism. To be a catholic you have to hold to the teaching authority of the magisterium so accept the catechism. In that sense we are all unified. Our beliefs are not massively different from those of orthodox too.

Again, just because the beliefs are accepted by all (your out of you disagree on a single point, right?) doesn't make all of the points right. That would require infallibility which the Bible teaches against--all have sinned, no one is without sin--I.e none but Christ is perfect.

 

[truefiction1]

I think you mean not a brother ( as in sibling)
The word translated as brother normally means "Kinsman" which can be and probably is a cousin.

But Cousin is still a blood relative, although more distant than brother.

John 19:25 tells us that Mary had a sister.
And
Luke 24:10 tells us that there was a Mary who was Mother of James.
Is this had been Mary mother of Jesus, the author would have said so.

Orthodox Church tradition sees James as a son of Joseph, which makes James an older brother of Jesus, by the marriage between Joseph and the Theotokos. So I did indeed mean that James is the Lord's stepbrother.

 

[Sammy-San]

I really don't know. I could take a guess that it was because of the pagan culture all around them at the time. Temple prostitution, young boys and men used a paramours, it was an over sexual environment. The Catholic church being in it's early stages of development and new believers coming out of this type of cultural may have made him overly aggressive in his teachings in order to clean things up.

What about the early church father comments do you find to be the most unbibical?

 

[truefiction1]

I will absolutely admit I am outside of the orthodox church. And that historically speaking the Orthodox Church has been an entity for much longer than the Protestants. However the very word Protestant means to protest the established Church beliefs from the 15th and 16th Century. We came from the orthodox church. We also look at what historical Church leaders say from the beginning of the Church itself. The people we look back to in the early Church are (atleast most of them) considered Catholic Saints. The church has had prominent leaders disagree on Theology since the very beginning. Look at how Paul refers to Peter or Peter to Paul. (2 Peter 3:16, Galatians 2:11-21) Or in the 4th Century with Saint Augustine and Saint Pelagian. So your statements of we can not truly know because we are outside of The Church of Antiquity, is lifting up the church over common reasoning, (which I am not saying you don't have just that our reasonings in this topic would be opposed) Historical evidences, (like church History recognizing James the Leader in Jerusalem and one of the 3 main leaders of the church at that time was a biological brother to Jesus, and scripture. (The explanation of Brothers means cousins is a logical explanation but so is the argument that brother means brother)

Now I am not saying that 100% you can not be right. Because both sides are trying to piece together their belief from History and Scripture. We interpret scripture differently and have different historical sources. So honestly we will not know the true answer until Lord willingly we get to heaven. (If we even still care at that point which I doubt we will)

Now that being said even though I cant say your wrong 100% I do believe you are wrong or else I wouldn't believe what I believe. Meaning that if I didn't believe I was right than I would be questioning my belief, because I am not trying to purposely believe false doctrine. And maybe God will open my eyes one day and show me your stance is right with Biblical truth and Biblical reasoning. But I also pray that if I am right (as I obviously believe) God would open your eyes in the same way.

You see my goal is not to disagree with The Catholic Church or Greek Orthodox or anyone in particular for that matter. My goal is to use the Word of God and the history that he gave us to properly interpret that word and become more like Christ. There are areas of my doctrine that are wrong! I don't know what they are, but I will continue to question my beliefs with scripture to try and be the best follower I can.

P.s. I have appreciated this thread because I have read into a lot of the things that both you and MountainMike have posted and I feel not only more educated to your viewpoint but (and I know this is the opposite of your intent) I also feel more firmly grounded in my own viewpoint.

The Protestant reformation didn't come out of the Church, it came out of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is itself a reformation of both the nature of the practice of theology and the nature of authority within the Church. Roman Catholicism came out of the Church, Protestantism came out of Roman Catholicism.

Reformers have one thing in common: An authority that stands above the Church (i.e. outside of the Church) that is not God alone. For Rome that authority is the Papacy. For Protestants that authority is Scripture and one's own reasoning. Neither concept is the Truth. The Church is the body of Christ in the world and Christ is the head of the body and the Holy Spirit is the very Breath of Life breathing in that body. It was like this from the beginning and remains so until Christ returns. The body of Christ is still right here: And many of those who are its members are witnesses of the Power of God in the Lives and experiences of those who commemorate Theotokos as ever-virgin. I myself have witnessed things that if I were to tell outsiders of them, they would not care to believe anyhow, or else they would simply dismiss and forget about them. I guess a person just has to come and see for themselves, and they'll do this if they're called, otherwise they won't.

Common reasoning does not produce Faith in the Gospel, so it definitely will not produce faith in the ever-virginity of Mary. The Power of God does: "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Corinthians 2:4-5)

 

[T.C]

Probably the most ridiculous thread I read today. "church" and "congregation" are not the same thing. If you didn't err on the side of vocabulary i can assure you that the terminiology that was used was correct seeing that Jesus did himself “John to the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev. Rev. 1:4+, Rev. 1:11+).

There is only 1 church and its not a human institution, Roman, Pro, EO are human institutions and are apart of the "visible" church but everyone in the visible church is not apart of the true church (obviously). So don't get too hung up on vocabulary.

2ndly all churches known to date practice the euchrist. Just because your religion does not recognize metaphors doesn't mean you define truth.

Considering your last statement you don't even know what sola scriptura means.

 

[truefiction1]

Well Paul is likely quoting the Corinthian position here and then responding to it. But even if he is not, Paul says that "it is good" for a person to be celibate. He does not say "it is superior." Both celibacy and marriage are good. That's the point of 1 Cor 7.

Well, it's good to be celibate for a reason, and that reason is that it is more likely for virgins to be made more perfect in Faith.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Orthodox Church tradition sees James as a son of Joseph, which makes James an older brother of Jesus, by the marriage between Joseph and the Theotokos. So I did indeed mean that James is the Lord's stepbrother.

James the brother of the Lord figures in a variety of early church texts, presumably in Greek. Is the word kinsman used there? Also, was kinsman used to mean a full brother. On this question I see no reason to not consult other sources.