A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[bbbbbbb]

Don't get caught in playing the RC allegory game. The passage in Ezekiel is not about Mary. Scripture does not establish gates as a symbol for birth or birthing. To apply this prophecy to Mary is pure unfounded speculation. It's not worth debating. It has nothing to do with Mary! This is what they resort to when Scripture does not teach their doctrine. They look for something obscure to twist and strain and claim it means something it does not. The gate is not Mary or her womb.

I agree entirely with you. The first time I encountered this interpretation I could not imagine how anyone had managed to twist the passage to make it fit their theology.

 

[JoeT]

I agree entirely with you. The first time I encountered this interpretation I could not imagine how anyone had managed to twist the passage to make it fit their theology.

The Church Fathers speak of this interpretation in antiquity. I'm not sure of the source but it has been a widely held concept in Catholicism. The idea is not a novel one, St. John Damascene (676 – 754)

For the Anointer and the Anointed were one and the same, anointing in the capacity of God Himself as man. Must there not therefore be a Mother of God who bore God incarnate? Assuredly she who played the part of the Creator's servant and mother is in all strictness and truth in reality God's Mother and Lady and Queen over all created things. But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. [Ezekiel 44:2] The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, although some tell tales of His birth through the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in anyway.​

​

The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son [Matthew 1:25], yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. [John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith]​

​

Source. Translated by E.W. Watson and L. Pullan. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV (John of Damascus)>.​

And then there was John Cassian (360 - 435):

Jerome, the Teacher of the Catholics, whose writings shine like divine lamps throughout the whole world, says in his book to Eustochium: "The Son of God for our salvation was made the Son of man. He waits ten months in the womb to be born: and He, in whose hand the world is held, is contained in a narrow manger." Again in his commentary on Isaiah: "For the Lord of hosts, who is the King of glory, Himself descended into the Virgin's womb, and entered in and went forth from the East Gate which is ever shut." [Ezekiel 44:2] Of whom Gabriel says to the Virgin: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. Wherefore that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." And in Proverbs: "Wisdom has built herself a house." Compare this if you please with your doctrine or rather your blasphemy, in which you assert that God is the Creator of the months, and was not an offspring of months. For lo, Jerome, a man of the greatest knowledge and also of the most pure and approved doctrine testifies almost in the very words in which you deny that the Son of God was an offspring of months, that He was an offspring of months. For he says that He waits ten months in the womb to be born. But perhaps the authority of this man seems a mere nothing to you. You may take it that every one says the same and in the same words, for whoever does not deny that the Son of God is the offspring of the Virgin, admits that He is the offspring of months. [John Cassian, On the Incarnation]​

Source. Translated by C.S. Gibson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <CHURCH FATHERS: On the Incarnation, Book VII (John Cassian)>.​

​

Saint Thomas Aquinas gives a complete explanation as to "Whether Christ's Mother remained a virgin after His birth" at this site

I would say stand in the company of saintly teachers.

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church Fathers speak of this interpretation in antiquity. I'm not sure of the source but it has been a widely held concept in Catholicism. The idea is not a novel one, St. John Damascene (676 – 754)

For the Anointer and the Anointed were one and the same, anointing in the capacity of God Himself as man. Must there not therefore be a Mother of God who bore God incarnate? Assuredly she who played the part of the Creator's servant and mother is in all strictness and truth in reality God's Mother and Lady and Queen over all created things. But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. [Ezekiel 44:2] The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, although some tell tales of His birth through the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in anyway.​

​

The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son [Matthew 1:25], yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. [John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith]​

​

Source. Translated by E.W. Watson and L. Pullan. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1899.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV (John of Damascus)>.​

And then there was John Cassian (360 - 435):

Jerome, the Teacher of the Catholics, whose writings shine like divine lamps throughout the whole world, says in his book to Eustochium: "The Son of God for our salvation was made the Son of man. He waits ten months in the womb to be born: and He, in whose hand the world is held, is contained in a narrow manger." Again in his commentary on Isaiah: "For the Lord of hosts, who is the King of glory, Himself descended into the Virgin's womb, and entered in and went forth from the East Gate which is ever shut." [Ezekiel 44:2] Of whom Gabriel says to the Virgin: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. Wherefore that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." And in Proverbs: "Wisdom has built herself a house." Compare this if you please with your doctrine or rather your blasphemy, in which you assert that God is the Creator of the months, and was not an offspring of months. For lo, Jerome, a man of the greatest knowledge and also of the most pure and approved doctrine testifies almost in the very words in which you deny that the Son of God was an offspring of months, that He was an offspring of months. For he says that He waits ten months in the womb to be born. But perhaps the authority of this man seems a mere nothing to you. You may take it that every one says the same and in the same words, for whoever does not deny that the Son of God is the offspring of the Virgin, admits that He is the offspring of months. [John Cassian, On the Incarnation]​

Source. Translated by C.S. Gibson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <CHURCH FATHERS: On the Incarnation, Book VII (John Cassian)>.​

​

Saint Thomas Aquinas gives a complete explanation as to "Whether Christ's Mother remained a virgin after His birth" at this site

I would say stand in the company of saintly teachers.

JoeT

As we all know, there have been, and always will be, various heresies and doubtful teachings. If you choose to believe that Jesus Christ did not enter this world through natural human birth, then that is your choice.

 

[JoeT]

As we all know, there have been, and always will be, various heresies and doubtful teachings. If you choose to believe that Jesus Christ did not enter this world through natural human birth, then that is your choice.

But, we really should hear from St. Thomas Aquinas answer, "Whether Christ's Mother remained a virgin after His birth?". before you go out on a broken limb;

"I answer", says St. Thomas, "that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children."​

​

1. "For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
2. Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
3. Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.
4. Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost."

"We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."​

​

Me thinks the heresy are from the lies that fall on Satan's hears like sweat nothings.

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

But, we really should hear from St. Thomas Aquinas answer, "Whether Christ's Mother remained a virgin after His birth?". before you go out on a broken limb;

"I answer", says St. Thomas, "that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children."​

​

1. "For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
2. Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
3. Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.
4. Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost."

"We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."​

​

Me thinks the heresy are from the lies that fall on Satan's hears like sweat nothings.

JoeT

Without a shadow of a doubt, if Jesus Christ entered this world through natural, vaginal birth then Mary lost her virginity at that point. It was not when she conceived his next sibling that she lost her virginity. However, as you have been claiming, in order for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, Jesus Christ could not have entered this world as all other people do. He would have had to be miraculously delivered by some other means. Methinks that God could have made the advent of Jesus Christ into the world much simpler and have kept Mary's virginity perpetual if Jesus Christ merely popped on the scene as a full-grown adult and if Mary had not married her husband, Joseph, and went on to have several boys and girls with him.

 

[prodromos]

Without a shadow of a doubt, if Jesus Christ entered this world through natural, vaginal birth then Mary lost her virginity at that point.

Giving birth may cause a woman to lose the appearance of being a virgin, but that can happen riding a horse as well. I always considered someone who has not engaged in sexual intercouse as being a virgin. A torn hymen is not necessarily evidence of that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Giving birth may cause a woman to lose the appearance of being a virgin, but that can happen riding a horse as well. I always considered someone who has not engaged in sexual intercouse as being a virgin. A torn hymen is not necessarily evidence of that.

You, as well as a large number of people living today, may well believe that. However, that does not appear to have been the case with many of the ECFs who maintained that in order for Mary's virginity to have been preserved, Jesus Christ could not have entered this world through natural birth. Even as His conception was miraculous, so His birth was considered to be equally miraculous.

 

[JoeT]

You, as well as a large number of people living today, may well believe that. However, that does not appear to have been the case with many of the ECFs who maintained that in order for Mary's virginity to have been preserved, Jesus Christ could not have entered this world through natural birth. Even as His conception was miraculous, so His birth was considered to be equally miraculous.

I just posted 3 who believed in a "normal" human birth as as far back as 300 AD, you can add St. Augustine to that list. If Jesus Christ did not enter through the birth canal like any other "normal" human then He wasn't human. His birth is considered miraculous because God took on human flesh - and not by some voodoo magic. He is just "like as we are, without sin." [Hebrews 4:15]

So, you think the Divine baby just popped out and said, "Hallelujah, what's for dinner, pass the mashed potatoes and gemmy the peas"?

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

I just posted 3 who believed in a "normal" human birth as as far back as 300 AD, you can add St. Augustine to that list. If Jesus Christ did not enter through the birth canal like any other "normal" human then He wasn't human. His birth is considered miraculous because God took on human flesh - and not by some voodoo magic. He is just "like as we are, without sin." [Hebrews 4:15]

So, you think the Divine baby just popped out and said, "Hallelujah, what's for dinner, pass the mashed potatoes and gemmy the peas"?

JoeT

Actually, I believe the Bible. I have no doubt that Mary gave birth to her firstborn (although hardly her last) in a stable of an inn in Bethlehem where she and Joseph were staying in order to comply with the Roman census.

 

[JoeT]

Actually, I believe the Bible.

So do I, I'm glad to here you believe everything in the Bible.

I have no doubt that Mary gave birth to her firstborn (although hardly her last) in a stable of an inn in Bethlehem where she and Joseph were staying in order to comply with the Roman census.

I find it to be a lack of faith to believe that God would chose for Jesus Christ an adopted father that would desecrate His immaculate shrine, Mary.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

If Jesus Christ did not enter through the birth canal like any other "normal" human then He wasn't human.

So babies born by Caesarian Section are not human?

 

[JoeT]

So babies born by Caesarian Section are not human?

Was a cesarean section available in antiquity? I don't think so. Nevertheless, caesarean birth is not a normal birth. But, it is a modern miracle of medicine.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

Was a cesarean section available in antiquity? I don't think so. Nevertheless, caesarean birth is not a normal birth. But, it is a modern miracle of medicine.

JoeT

You didn't answer my question. Are you claiming my three children are not human because they were not born normally?

 

[JoeT]

You didn't answer my question. Are you claiming my three children are not human because they were not born normally?

No, I am not claiming your three children are not human. I said normal birth, that's something opposed to not normal.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

No

Then why do you suggest Christ would not have been human if He was not born the "normal" way. Is it not possible that children might have been born differently pre-fall. Pain in childbearing was a result of the fall, yet I can't see how pushing a basketball through a golfball sized hole could have ever been painless.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So do I, I'm glad to here you believe everything in the Bible.


I find it to be a lack of faith to believe that God would chose for Jesus Christ an adopted father that would desecrate His immaculate shrine, Mary.

JoeT

I suppose you will have to ask Mary why she chose to marry a man who would wish to engage in normal marital relations with her own consent being given. As you know, it requires two individuals' consent to marry each other. It is not at all as if Mary was being raped against her will by Joseph.

By the way, where do you come up with the notion that Mary's vagina was an "immaculate shrine"?

 

[JoeT]

I suppose you will have to ask Mary why she chose to marry a man who would wish to engage in normal marital relations with her own consent being given. As you know, it requires two individuals' consent to marry each other. It is not at all as if Mary was being raped against her will by Joseph.

That's right, two individuals consent to form a marriage. When told of her coming fate she said, "be it done to me according to thy word." [Luke 1:38] Mary consented as God's most perfect creation, Mary, the Mother of God. Hence the Holy Spirit, God, became her spouse. The man she married in this physical world was loving ersatz relationship, caring for each others earthly needs. Both Joseph and Mary were righteous ascetics. Had Joseph took Mary to his marriage bed he would have desecrated a most holy shrine, exceeding the sanctity of the Ark of the covenant. Mary's womb didn't contain the chiseled words of God, rather in her womb was the Personification of that word.

By the way, where do you come up with the notion that Mary's vagina was an "immaculate shrine"?

Actually there are two reasons, it is the place were the Holy Spirit provided the 'spark' of life to begin our eternal life in the most holy ovaries. Secondly, it was the dwelling place of God, the Personification of your salvation. (See post 144)

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Sorry to be sporadic in responding. I have been, and still am, out of the country was terrible Internet. I will get caught up when I return soon. I do have this:

Those early church fathers who see Mary in this pass of Ezekiel, are guilting of spiritualizing the text. There is absolutely nothing in the text that relates it to Mary. While some OT prophecies had both a near and long-term application, we are not free to pick any long-term application we think might fit the bill. We know there were many such dual-fullment prophecies in the OT that applied to the Messiah. We mostly know because NT writers or Jesus himself made the connection. We didn't just dream that stuff up. No NT writer made any such connection between the passage in Ezekiel and Mary. None.

Keep this in mind as a long-term fulfillment. The East Gate was closed by the Muslims in 810 AD but was briefly reopened by the Crusaders in 1102 AD. The Ottoman ruler Suleiman had the gate walled up when he rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem in 1541. The Muslimes later put a cemetery right outside the gate. It has been walled up ever since. Jewish Rabbis spoke of the Messiah as a great military leader sent by God from the east. He would enter the city from the east and drive the invaders out. The Muslims sealed the gate and built a cemetery reasoning a holy man such as the Messiah would not defile himself by walking through a Muslim cemetery.

Ezekiel 43:2 tells us:

"And, behold the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory...And the glory of the Lord came into the house by way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east."
The Mount of Olives faces the east and Zechariah 14:3-4 prophesies:

"Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east."

From the context, it is far more likely Ezekiel has in mind the physical East Gate of the wall of the city, not Mary.
This is typical RC spiritualizing. Concluded a doctrine based on what you want and makes sense to you then go to Scripture and try and find some obscure verses or obscure interpretations of verses and claim those support your doctrine. The two early fathers cited are but two men. Learned perhaps. Godly perhaps but still fallible men. They were wrong on this and the fact that they lived closer to the time of Christ than we does not make them right. There is simply no hermeneutics that would support finding Mary in that passage.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

But, we really should hear from St. Thomas Aquinas answer, "Whether Christ's Mother remained a virgin after His birth?". before you go out on a broken limb;

"I answer", says St. Thomas, "that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children."​

​

1. "For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
2. Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
3. Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.
4. Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost."

"We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."​

​

Me thinks the heresy are from the lies that fall on Satan's hears like sweat nothings.

JoeT

How dare Thomas abhor that which God created and ordained? Nowhere in Scripture is virginity held up as some holy state. That came from pagan religions. God created man and woman to procreate through sexual relations and to enjoy them providing they are married. A woman is no less honorable or chaste for having sexual relations with her husband! God created sex! Why do you demean that which God made holy and sacred in the marriage covenant?

Scripture nowhere teaches that Mary's womb was turned into a shrine. This is the teaching of men, not God. To say her womb would be desecrated by having relations with her husband is non-Biblical. We have no record of Gabriel instructing Mary or Joseph to not have relations after the Messiah was born. God told Moses to take off his sandals, at the burning bush, because he was standing on sacred ground. Where was Joseph told his wife's womb was sacred?

According to Proverbs, children are a blessing and "blessed is he whose quiver is full." Wanting to have more children is not a sign of ungratefulness for the children you already have! We don't keep having children because we are hoping for something better or one is not enough. It is normal, natural, and Biblical for a married couple to want to have children. Would God, who created the family, not want His son to have brothers and sisters?

This worship of virginity comes from pagan religions. Christianity does not teach virginity is a higher state. There is nothing carnal or degrading about sexual relations in marriage. That kind of thinking has messed up a lot of Catholic women. Even after they get married there are some who find sex dirty or degrading. They feel guilty to enjoy it and see it more as a duty. If God did not want it to be pleasurable, He would not have given us nerves in those areas. There is simply NOTHING in Scripture that teaches virginity is a higher good.

Mary is not the Queen of Heaven, the New Eve, or ever-virgin. She had kids. Get over it! Motherhood is sacred and children are a blessing. God blessed Mary and Joseph in many ways.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

So do I, I'm glad to here you believe everything in the Bible.


I find it to be a lack of faith to believe that God would chose for Jesus Christ an adopted father that would desecrate His immaculate shrine, Mary.

JoeT

Where in Scripture is it taught that Mary is immaculate? That Mary is a shrine? Tell me all the verses Paul and Peter wrote instructing the churches to teach these essential doctrines? When did Jesus talk about his mother remaining a virgin? In what verse did he title her the Queen of Heaven? I can't find these things in my Bible but perhaps they have been added to the Catholic Bible?