Catholic Teaching

[Knowledge3]

Does the Catholic Church teach that Mary is a Perpetual Virgin given birth to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

 

[eoe]

Yes. the RC EO and OO all agree on this.
Mary is a Perpetual Virgin given birth to our Lord and Savior - and GOD - Jesus Christ?

 

[QuantaCura]

And so did Martin Luther.

 

[Knowledge3]

We are in agreement concerning the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ?

It would seem so.

 

[eoe]

We are in agreement concerning the Incarnation and Divinity of Christ?

For the most part I think so. K3 HERE is a document that I would love for you to read. It was written by St. Athanasius way back when. It is called On The Incarnation. If you will read the first 5 chapters - I'll give you 1000 blessings.

 

[Knowledge3]

For the most part I think so. K3 HERE is a document that I would love for you to read. It was written by St. Athanasius way back when. It is called On The Incarnation. If you will read the first 5 chapters - I'll give you 1000 blessings.

Sure, no problem.

 

[Knowledge3]

For the most part I think so. K3 HERE is a document that I would love for you to read. It was written by St. Athanasius way back when. It is called On The Incarnation. If you will read the first 5 chapters - I'll give you 1000 blessings.

I finished the 5 main chapters and bookmarked this site as I will read the rest, however, the 5th page is incomplete.

Anasthasius is quite the Theologian.

It improved my understanding of Christ's victory over death.

 

[eoe]

I finished the 5 main chapters and bookmarked this site as I will read the rest, however, the 5th page is incomplete.

Anasthasius is quite the Theologian.

It improved my understanding of Christ's victory over death.

Blessings headed your way. I am glad you enjoyed it. That understanding of Christ's victory over death is very important in the Orthodox view of salvation by the way... new thread tho...

HERE is another source for the document as well as a TON of other early christian writings.

 

[Knowledge3]

One my favorite Saints in particular is St. Cyril of Alexandria.

 

[a_ntv]

I finished the 5 main chapters and bookmarked this site as I will read the rest, however, the 5th page is incomplete.

Anasthasius is quite the Theologian.

It improved my understanding of Christ's victory over death.

He is a base Father not only for the EO, but also for OO and CC.

Unlikly he was almost unknow by Mr Luther, who had a completly different idea of the nature of the man after the fall: completly depraved for Luther, 'simply' ill for EO (we catholic say 'wound' instead of 'ill', but the meaning is the same)

So also the aim of a Christian is different: to became 'divinized' for us (= process of sanctification), simply to obtain salvation from sins for Mr Luther.

 

[Knowledge3]

Luther's ideas do not neccessarily equal my understanding of theology and faith.

 

[Protestante]

Sorry, what is a definition of Mary's perpetual virginity? Is it that she was a virgin her whole life?

 

[Athanasias]

Sorry, what is a definition of Mary's perpetual virginity? Is it that she was a virgin her whole life?

You are in luck! I wrote a paper on this for my theo
logy class that explains this. Here it is:

The Catholic Dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary has been challenged by Protestant Christians of every denomination. They claim that Mary could not be a perpetual virgin because Scripture indicates that Jesus had real brothers. They accuse Catholics of inventing the perpetual virginity of Mary, a doctrine they assume was a late development. However, looking at the context of both Scripture and the ancient apostolic tradition shows this dogma of the Catholic church to be true and consistent from every generation of the early Christian Fathers.

Renowned Patristic Scholar Johannes Quasten said, regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, "the principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ". The apocryphal document referred to, the Protoevangelium of James, is dated as early as the year 120 A.D. and although it is not sacred Scripture it shows that this was a common belief among Christians that dated back to the time of the apostolic fa-thers. The ancient fathers of the Church also taught this doctrine. Consider Origen, an early and well respected Scripture scholar of the 3rd century. He not only taught the vir-ginal conception and birth but also the perpetual virginity in his commentaries on Holy Scripture: “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her.”

Some of most important defenders of the dogma were also the same defenders of orthodox Christology. St. Athanasius, a Bishop of the Catholic Church known for his orthodoxy and defense of the deity of Christ, also proclaims the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary: “Mary who gave birth to God remained a Virgin to the end". St. Epiphanius of Salamis, an early father who often wrote against the heresies of his time, defended the perpetual virginity of Mary in his work The Man Well-Anchored written in A.D. 374:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Cyril of Alexandria, in the year A.D. 430, said that Mary was kept a Virgin even after bearing Jesus. Another well-known bishop and theologian, St. Augustine, also preached the perpetual virginity of Mary in his work Heresies, written in A.D. 428: "Here-tics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband".

The perpetual virginity of Mary was taught consistently by the vast majority of early Christians and only questioned by a very few. Tertullian, a early Christian writer of the 3rd century, was among the tiny minority of those who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is important to realize that while Tertullian had many good things to say ini-tially, he eventually left left Christianity to join the heresy of montanism. Two more peo-ple who denied the truth of this dogma were the heretics Helvidius and Jovinian. The most popular and well-known Scripture scholar of the 4th and 5th century, St. Jerome, debated the heretic Helvidius on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome, as a solid bibli-cal scholar who had mastered the biblical languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, clearly saw implicit biblical evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity in both the old and new testaments . When confronted by quotes from Tertullian, Jerome amply refuted his accuser:

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. “Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are... following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole se-ries of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man".

Jerome listed a litany of old testament passages such as Ezekeil 44:1-12 and Jeremiah 2:32 in reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity . Some Protestants argue that the term “Till” (Heos in greek) in Matthew 1:25 implies that Mary had other children after Jesus. Scripture scholar and convert to the Catholic faith Dr. Scott Hahn destroys that theory by showing the word “until” in the bible does not always imply that action did happen later. He gives examples as evidence, such as 2 Sam 6:23 and 1 Tim 4:13.
Protestants also ague that the term firstborn meant that there would be others. Dr. Hahn demonstrates that the term firstborn does not necessarily entail a second-borne: “Firstborn refers to a legal term linked to a sons social inheritance as found in (Deut 21:15-17)”. New Testament Greek scholar Fr. Mateo demonstrates from both the biblical Greek and Protestant Greek sources how Jesus’ brothers mentioned in Scripture are merely cousins and not uterine brothers. One of the most convincing arguments for Mary’s perpetual virginity is given by Hilary of Poitiers, an early church father writing in the 4th century. Hilary uses Jn 19:26-27 to demonstrate the perpetual virginity. In this passage Jesus hands Mary over to John the apostle to be taken care of. This verse has caused much uproar in modern Protestant communities because in the culture Je-sus lived in, if other uterine siblings existed Mary would have automatically gone to them. There would be no reason for Jesus to give Mary to John unless Jesus had no other siblings.
The Latern council of A.D. 649 reaffirmed the truth about the perpetual virginity of Mary. The perpetual virginity of Mary has been taught by Christian scholars since the birth of Christianity. One interesting and little recognized fact among sola Sciptura Pro-testants is that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli all affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. With all the ancient patristic, biblical and even Protestant evidence for this Dogma it is a wonder why non-Catholics reject it so much.

Works Cited

Catholic Answers. “Mary: Ever Virgin”. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp (accessed December 3, 2007).

Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church. Translated by Thomas Buffer. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1999.

Hahn, Scott, and Curtis Mitch, eds. The Gospel of Luke: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Revised Standard Version. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001.

Hahn, Scott, and Curtis Mitch, eds. The Gospel of Matthew: Ignatius Catholic Study Bi-ble, Revised Standard Version. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000.

Mateo, Father. Refuting the Attack on Mary. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 1999.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are in luck! I wrote a paper on this for my theo
logy class that explains this. Here it is:

The Catholic Dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary has been challenged by Protestant Christians of every denomination.

Really! Now, are you simply saying that there is least ONE person in all of the 34,999 other denominations that Catholics insist exist (other than the RCC one) that "challenge" but not deny it? OR are you saying that all other 34,999 denominations proclaim this DOGMA to be false? I don't doubt the theoretical possiblity of the first, I know the second is wrong.

They

Who, exactly, are "they?"

accuse Catholics of inventing the perpetual virginity of Mary, a doctrine they assume was a late development. However, looking at the context of both Scripture and the ancient apostolic tradition shows this dogma of the Catholic church to be true and consistent from every generation of the early Christian Fathers.

Okay, quote me 5 people (just 5) who write before the year 100 AD who state that Mary never once had sexual union with anyone. (I'm making it a LOT easier on you than I'm SURE your profs did)

Renowned Patristic Scholar Johannes Quasten said, regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, "the principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ".

Have you READ t he Protoevangelium of James? If you have, then you know that your statement is in error. Let's hope the profs that read your paper never read this rejected, noncanonical book and thus know that this statement is in error. Those of us that have read it know that it never once remotely states that Mary never once ever had sexual union.

The apocryphal document referred to, the Protoevangelium of James, is dated as early as the year 120 A.D. and although it is not sacred Scripture it shows that this was a common belief among Christians that dated back to the time of the apostolic fa-thers.

When you read it, you'll be a bit embarrassed that you wrote this, but of course, this rejected book says nothing about how often Mary had sex - if at all - after Jesus was born. Nothing. I hope your profs didn't know that, for your sake.

The ancient fathers of the Church also taught this doctrine. Consider Origen, an early and well respected Scripture scholar of the 3rd century.

Origen is "well respected?" Hum.....

THE THIRD CENTURY (which places him some 200 years after Mary). I thought you said this was ALWAYS taught, in EVERY generation. I think you just skipped over about 10 of them. What about the 200 years you just skipped over? Well, when you give me the 5 verbatim quotes from 5 people who wrote before the year 100 AD, that should help your point.

he not only taught the vir-ginal conception and birth but also the perpetual virginity in his commentaries on Holy Scripture: “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her.”

Of course, that's ENTIRELY MOOT to this dogma and discussion.

As you know, there is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs" Not in ANY denomination. Never has been. You know that. The dogma your paper is suppose to support is the dogma of "Mary Had No Sexual Intercourse Ever." Apples and oranges (unless you prove in your paper that every single act of intercourse of every single person results in the birth of a child). Too bad for this diversion; kinda embarrassing, it makes you look like you don't know much about biology and that you actually think that if Mary even once ever had sex, THEREFORE it is absolutely certain she would have a child result from that act and that child would be named in the Bible.

St. Athanasius, a Bishop of the Catholic Church known for his orthodoxy and defense of the deity of Christ, also proclaims the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary: “Mary who gave birth to God remained a Virgin to the end". St. Epiphanius of Salamis, an early father who often wrote against the heresies of his time, defended the perpetual virginity of Mary in his work[/quotes]


Dates, please.... Your thesis is that this dogma has ALWAYS been taught in EVERY generation; what we need are clear quotes that Mary never once has sexual union from several authors in every generation: 30 - 50 AD, 50-70 AD, etc. I don't know if you want to do that up to 2008 or not. But you might make your point if you did so up until the late 8th century when it is made an official teaching.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was taught consistently by the vast majority of early Christians

Yes, that is your thesis. But you have done NOTHING to support it. NOTHING. I sure hope your profs were extremely easy on you!

Protestants also ague that the term firstborn meant that there would be others.

I think you need to watch these careless, embarrassing, broad sweeps you make in scholarly papers; you can't define what you write. While there might be ONE Protestant who says this, maybe even thousands of them, your generality is indefensibly and frankly embarrassing for you to make in this paper....

And you seem to be working under a false concept: That a view is correct until it is proven incorrect. One could say that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and 100 children. Can you prove that false? Of course not , but does that make all those things substantiated dogmatic facts? Of course not. You paper constantly depends on this false premise that NO PROFESSION ON EARTH will allow. Since the DOGMA is yours, the "burden of proof" is yours: It is NOT the responsibility of others to show you wrong.

And, again, you stated your thesis. You affirmed it in the body. And NOWHERE do you even address it - thus, your paper falls horribly flat. You didn't even ATTEMPT to prove your thesis. You just stated it, gave some examples from CENTURIES later with NOTHING about "every generation" and then shift to "well, my thesis has just gotta be right unless every single Protestant on the planet proves me wrong!" Come on, you KNOW better than that!

One of the most convincing arguments for Mary’s perpetual virginity is given by Hilary of Poitiers, an early church father writing in the 4th century. Hilary uses Jn 19:26-27 to demonstrate the perpetual virginity. In this passage Jesus hands Mary over to John the apostle to be taken care of. This verse has caused much uproar in modern Protestant communities because in the culture Je-sus lived in, if other uterine siblings existed Mary would have automatically gone to them. There would be no reason for Jesus to give Mary to John unless Jesus had no other siblings.

1. You seem to have entirely forgotten and ignored your own thesis.

2. This position is absurd: AT BEST, he is simply stating that it seems odd that Jesus would entrust His Mother to John if He had a brother. Okay. What in the world does that have to do with this Dogma? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And what does this do to support the thesis of your paper. NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. The text doesn't say Jesus had no brothers - only that He entrusts His MOther to John. And even if Jesus had no brothers (and this text nowhere so suggests), WHAT IN THE WORLD does that have to do with Mary having never once ever having sex? Your biological ignorance is coming out again: for this to stand, you now need to PROVE that every single act of sex by every single person results in a child so mentioned in the Bible, otherwise, it's moot to your point.

The Latern council of A.D. 649 reaffirmed the truth about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

1. Circular; you are ASSUMING your position true.

2. You continue to forget your thesis and the purpose of your paper (it's getting embarrassing now)

3. Note the date? Now, how in the world does anyone in 649 AD know how often Mary had sex - if at all? Where is the infallible "link" for the missing 600 years? A little gap there, don't you think? And remember: your purpose of this paper was to close that gap, not show us how BIG it is and remind us that you did NOTHING to close it. Absolutely nothing.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has been taught by Christian scholars since the birth of Christianity.

I think this is the 4th time you've stated your thesis.
And never once even attempted to support it.
Your entire paper falls entirely, absolutely, flat.
Hey, YOU DIDN"T EVEN TRY!

Works Cited

Catholic Answers. “Mary: Ever Virgin”. http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp (accessed December 3, 2007).

Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church. Translated by Thomas Buffer. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1999.

Hahn, Scott, and Curtis Mitch, eds. The Gospel of Luke: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Revised Standard Version. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001.

Hahn, Scott, and Curtis Mitch, eds. The Gospel of Matthew: Ignatius Catholic Study Bi-ble, Revised Standard Version. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000.

Mateo, Father. Refuting the Attack on Mary. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 1999.

Please don't tell me you got a passing grade on this...
And if you DID, I don't want to know what university you attend....






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

... I'm hoping you'll post those quotes and some support for your thesis in your paper. It seems your profs didn't care if you supported your thesis or not (assuming you got a passing grade) but of course, we do.

What's you got?


.

 

[MrPolo]

Okay, quote me 5 people (just 5) who write before the year 100 AD who state that Mary never once had sexual union with anyone. (I'm making it a LOT easier on you than I'm SURE your profs did)

You were quite rude to Athanasius. Asking him not to tell you he got a "passing grade"?

Anyway, as to your above, what is the point of your demand to show 5 people before 100 A.D.? The criteria proves nothing either way. You can't find 5 people who say she did. So what? And Athanasius can certainly quote 5 different Scripture authors among who her perpetual virginity can be revealed. And they all wrote before 100.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You were quite rude to Athanasius. Asking him not to tell you he got a "passing grade"?

Anyway, as to your above, what is the point of your demand to show 5 people before 100 A.D.? The criteria proves nothing either way. You can't find 5 people who say she did. So what? And Athanasius can certainly quote 5 different Scripture authors among who her perpetual virginity can be revealed. And they all wrote before 100.

If, as has been asserted by our Catholic friends, this dogma has been believed and taught since the very foundation of Christianity, then it behooves the Catholic apologist to prove it to be so. The expectation of five sources from the first century is hardly unreasonable. If Athanasius "can certainly quote 5 different Scripture authors among who her perpetual virginity can be revealed" please tell us how he is able to do so in light of the fact that he has been dead countless centuries and none of his writings do so.

The bottom line is that this teaching cannot be verified by anyone as having dated from the very origins of Christianity. Moreover, it does strike this particular Christian as being more than peculiar that every single translation of the English Bible by every denomination and Tradition consistently states in five distinct passage by three distinct gospel writers that Jesus had brothers (even going so far as to name them) and sisters. Very odd, indeed, if Mary and Joseph never had marital relations and even weirder if Joseph was in his dotage when the lovely teenage Mary married him.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

what is the point of your demand to show 5 people before 100 A.D.? The criteria proves nothing either way. You can't find 5 people who say she did. So what? And Athanasius can certainly quote 5 different Scripture authors among who her perpetual virginity can be revealed. And they all wrote before 100.

Here's he's oft noted thesis of his paper:

this dogma of the Catholic church to be true and consistent from every generation

He never once even ATTEMPTS to substantiate the thesis of his paper.
I invited him to do so.


Had the thesis of his paper been: "There is no evidence that this Dogma has been accepted in every generation" then I think your comment would have some validity, but, of course, it's not.





.

 

[MrPolo]

If, as has been asserted by our Catholic friends, this dogma has been believed and taught since the very foundation of Christianity, then it behooves the Catholic apologist to prove it to be so.

To you and Josiah, there seems to be a misunderstanding. First, let me say that any Catholic apologist who is saying Marian doctrines were taught in the 1st century as they are today with no development, those Catholics don't understand development of doctrine. Of course, the Marian teachings are blessed with an abundance of seeds throughout 1st century Scripture, which, like the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, were able to develop from that same deposit of faith. I can't speak for Athanasius, but I did not read him to necessarily include the 1st century when Apostles were still around as an ECF generation but rather still the Apostolic generation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

To you and Josiah, there seems to be a misunderstanding. First, let me say that any Catholic apologist who is saying Marian doctrines were taught in the 1st century as they are today with no development, those Catholics don't understand development of doctrine. Of course, the Marian teachings are blessed with an abundance of seeds throughout 1st century Scripture, which, like the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, were able to develop from that same deposit of faith. I can't speak for Athanasius, but I did not read him to necessarily include the 1st century when Apostles were still around as an ECF generation but rather still the Apostolic generation.

Thank you for your forthright statement. I think we are in agreement that no record survives from the first century of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Moreover, the record that does survive in the form of the New Testament bears solid witness to at least three writers who knew the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ at least well enough to name the brothers. Given this consistent witness one can reasonably conclude that Mary did not remain a virgin following her marriage to Joseph.

Moreover, there is no compelling reason to believe any fables, albeit very old fables, that contradict the forthright testimony of the prior record. In addition, one is even less inclined to believe fables which have received further embellishment and alterations over time, as you have now stated to have been the case here.