You've caught a mistake of mine. It was the second Council of Nicea that decreed the perpetual virginity of Mary, not the first Council of Nicea.
Thanks for the clarification. I still can't find any documentation for the claim though. I can't find anything before the 7th century. Help me out?
To Orthodoxy, Mary's perpetual virginity is simply accepted by the Church. Why should it not be? I mentioned earlier in this thread, or maybe in a similar thread, the protoevangellion of James. It is a non canonical work rejected by the Church long ago, but it does establish that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus was the belief of the early Church. The writer would first have to get that idea from somewhere before creating a narrative, fictional as that narrative is. There is certainly no reason to believe that a person could not be set aside to remain celibate after being chosen by God for some task.
Most of the gnostic gospels are from that time as well and it is putting it mildly to say that they have issues. The Protoangelion was, as you note, tossed out. Therefore it can't established anything, even for those who give church tradition more weight than scripture. A hundred years is not too soon for bad ideas to be in circulation; indeed, this was happening at the time of the apostles!
I am not disputing that last sentence in the paragraph: What could or could not happen is a vast collection of possibilities. I'm not even taking issue in principle. If that's the way it happened, that's the way it happened. But Jesus and the Biblical authors don't make it an issue AT ALL, certainly not anything near a dogmatic statement. Anyone reading the gospels and epistles would never even have the thought enter their minds. In order for the linguistic gymnastics to begin ("brother" could be "male relatives", etc.) you have to assume the permanent virginity
a priori. Therefore it can't be a big deal and certainly not a reason to anathematize someone for non-agreement.
But for the incessant and needless attacks against the Roman Church by some protestants, Mary's perpetual virginity would be accepted without controversy. But then those attacks are not merely against Mary, but continue into attacks against the foundations of Christianity itself.
if you examine the above paragraph, you might see that this is not really an argument in favor of your point. Let's replace some of the words with alternates and see if it make sense:
"But for the incessant and needless attacks agains the Flat Earth movement by some astronomers, the non-spheroid shape of earth would be accepted without controversy."
Right. Without disagreeing points of view, we would all be in agreement.
But even were that the case that would not guarantee that we would all be correct. It would only mean we're not disagreeing. If you are Roman Catholic, you CANNOT disagree without fear of excommunication…along with the immaculate conception and the ascension of Mary.
And I guess that's my main issue, not that some, or even many people, hold these views. But that a canonically supported "idea" has become a salvation issue rather than the standard presented in 1 John 5:11.
I appreciate the dialogue. If you can get me any references regarding the first paragraph that would be helpful. I recognize that this is one of those issues that are hot button topics. Whenever I encounter this topic, part of me laughs at the ridiculousness of the situation, the other part is weighed down because it is so divisive. I pray for unity in the Body of Christ and for a diverse Christianity noted for active love rather than theological pinwheeling.
