Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[abacabb3]

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and especially the dogmas described in this Catechism, such as the dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

as Scripture says, "hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 3:10)

Is the Catechism the oldest copy of these oral traditions written on paper? What is the oldest known compilation?

 

[patricius79]

http://www.tertullian.org/works/de_praescriptione_haereticorum.htm

So the logic is that Christ received the truth from God and transmitted it to his apostles; they in turn handed it on to the churches they founded; outside this chain, no one can possess the truth.(20.1ff)

Tertullian then deals with possible objections. He considers and rejects three objections:

• that the apostles did not know the whole truth,
• that they did not reveal all they knew,
• that the heretics, so far from perverting the truth, are rescuing it from misinterpretation by the churches.(22.1ff)

Then he denounces the heretics for interpolating scripture, for innovations in ecclesiastical discipline, and for involvement in the occult. (36.3)

I'm not sure what you are saying, or how this relates to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

 

[patricius79]

Is the Catechism the oldest copy of these oral traditions written on paper? What is the oldest known compilation?

I have no idea. You've have to ask a smarter Catholic. They are, after all, oral traditions.

As Scripture says, "therefore brethren stand firm, and hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" 2 Thes 2:15

Thus we know that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

 

[abacabb3]

I have no idea. You've have to ask a smarter Catholic. They are, after all, oral traditions.

As Scripture says, "therefore brethren stand firm, and hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" 2 Thes 2:15

Thus we know that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

If they are not written down anywhere, how can I test the claim that the oral tradition is real and not that it is falsely ascribed as an oral tradition?

 

[mmksparbud]

I'm not sure what you are saying, or how this relates to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

This is one of your founding fathers saying that he rejects the idea that the apostles did not know the whole truth, that they did nit reveal the whole truth. The apostles wrote down all that they knew is what he is saying and that there was nothing hidden by them. The ever virgin theory is nit written down in the scriptures.

The Christ child did not magically appear at the side of Mary. Regular birth. Once it was seen how hard to believe this theory was, they went for the normal birth but her virginity kept in tact. So if the not born via the normal birth canal was wrong, why should anything else be considered as correct? The magical appearing at her side was considered correct at one point. So, for that and the other reasons stated I reject the ever virgin theory. And I think I am done with this debate, this time.

 

[Standing Up]

This is one of your founding fathers saying that he rejects the idea that the apostles did not know the whole truth, that they did nit reveal the whole truth. The apostles wrote down all that they knew is what he is saying and that there was nothing hidden by them. The ever virgin theory is nit written down in the scriptures.

Irenaeus says this also. So, the later idea of "developed" or "deepened" doctrine was simply unheard of in the first couple centuries after Christ.

 

[Winepress777]

Some people actually voted "yes" on this question? How bizarre...

 

[patricius79]

If they are not written down anywhere, how can I test the claim that the oral tradition is real and not that it is falsely ascribed as an oral tradition?

we have the Scripture which says,

"hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

We know what these oral traditions today in the same way they knew what they were in the early Catholic Church, by following one's Bishop in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.

We can also look to the teaching of the early Fathers such as Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen, etc, that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

In regard Protestantism, we know that the Protestant oral traditions are not true because Protestantism didn't exist until the 1500s.

 

[patricius79]

Irenaeus says this also. So, the later idea of "developed" or "deepened" doctrine was simply unheard of in the first couple centuries after Christ.

Irenaeus said that the way to know the Truth was to hold to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and the Succession of the Catholic Bishops, and especially the Succession of Roman Bishops.

That is part of why I know that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

 

[Standing Up]

Irenaeus said that the way to know the Truth was to hold to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and the Succession of the Catholic Bishops, and especially the Succession of Roman Bishops.

That is part of why I know that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

Not so. Irenaeus was keen to point out that the bishops must teach exactly what the apostles had taught them. So, if the EV were true, we'd find it in scripture from Paul or Peter or John or in tradition from Polycarp, but we don't. Therefore, the apostles never taught EV, nor did those in the early church.

" For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity."

We do, however, find EV taught in a form by heretics like Valentinus or Marcion.

 

[patricius79]

Not so. Irenaeus was keen to point out that the bishops must teach exactly what the apostles had taught them. So, if the EV were true, we'd find it in scripture from Paul or Peter or John or in tradition from Polycarp, but we don't. Therefore, the apostles never taught EV, nor did those in the early church.

" For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity."

We do, however, find EV taught in a form by heretics like Valentinus or Marcion.

You seem to be assuming the un-Biblical idea of Sola Scriptura and then imposing it on Irenaeus, who said that one must hold to the Bishop's Succession and Tradition of the Catholic Church, and especially the Bishop of Rome.

the Bible says "hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15, cf. Phil 4:9, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Thes 2:13, 1 Pt 1:25, Jn 8:26)

Your idea is that they would have to be written down in Polycarp or by Irenaeus--who sees Mary as the New Eve--but that is just an assumption.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is Ever-Virgin, so I know it is the Word of God.

 

[abacabb3]

we have the Scripture which says,

"hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

That does not answer the question. You are merely substantiating that there is supposedly a set of extra-biblical oral traditions out there somewhere. However, I asked, "If they are not written down anywhere, how can I test the claim that the oral tradition is real and not that it is falsely ascribed as an oral tradition?"

I am going to presume the following is your answer to the question:

We know what these oral traditions today in the same way they knew what they were in the early Catholic Church, by following one's Bishop in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. We can also look to the teaching of the early Fathers such as Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen, etc, that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

So, what you are saying is that if the church fathers agreed with something, then what they agreed about was oral tradition. However, all the Church Fathers taught that milk and honey should be tasted after baptism. Do Catholics still do that today? And if they don't, how can I test that the Catholic Church is really preserving what the church fathers taught was oral tradition when on that one simple point, they do not uphold the teaching anymore?

 

[patricius79]

That does not answer the question. You are merely substantiating that there is supposedly a set of extra-biblical oral traditions out there somewhere. However, I asked, "If they are not written down anywhere, how can I test the claim that the oral tradition is real and not that it is falsely ascribed as an oral tradition?"

I am going to presume the following is your answer to the question:



So, what you are saying is that if the church fathers agreed with something, then what they agreed about was oral tradition. However, all the Church Fathers taught that milk and honey should be tasted after baptism. Do Catholics still do that today? And if they don't, how can I test that the Catholic Church is really preserving what the church fathers taught was oral tradition when on that one simple point, they do not uphold the teaching anymore?

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church illuminates what are the essentials of the oral Tradition, as opposed to dispensable customs, and where some Church fathers were mistaken.

For example, the Catholic Church tells us which books are in the Bible, and that Mary is Ever-Virgin, which is something most of the Fathers testified to, but perhaps some did not.

The basic reality is that we are commanded in Scripture to "hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter" (2 THes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6).

And the early Church was clearly Catholic and not Protestant. Protestantism didn't come until the 1500s.

In summary, as a Catholic I can look to the Fathers (which are sometimes errant), and to the Scripture (which I may misinterpret), and then to the Magisterium (the dogmas of the Pope and councils in union with him) to be sure I've got it right.

Thus--based on Scripture, the Fathers, and ultimately the Magisterium, there's no doubt that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

 

[justinangel]

Hi. justinangel!

Let me stop you right there. To respond by flatly stating that a theory which is not of Apostolic origin and only came about in order to justify a non-Apostolic teaching is a "known truth"... is simply a discussion-killer.

It wasn't until Helvidius objected to this Apostolic tradition that Jerome had to correct him as to who these male relatives were: either cousins whose mother was Mary's elder sister or Joseph's offspring from a previous marriage. By then, the late 4th century, the PVM was never an issue.

and this, which you supplied us with, explains my point very well--

Cyril of Alexandria, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]

Cyril is referring to the Nestorians who objected to the Apostolic Tradition of Mary being the Mother of God, which is the primary reason why Mary remained a virgin.

PAX

 

[Albion]

Cyril is referring to the Nestorians who objected to the Apostolic Tradition of Mary being the Mother of God, which is the primary reason why Mary remained a virgin.

You cannot determine that something is an "Apostolic Tradition" either by simply saying that it is (as you do here) or by quoting something said by a church leader 400 years (!) after the founding of Christ's church. This should be obvious IMO.

 

[justinangel]

Exactly the point. You believe in EV, not because it is true, but because your religion has told you it is necessary to believe it for you to possibly be saved.

Since earliest time, Catholics have given their religious assent to this doctrine because it was fitting that Mary remained a virgin, seeing who her Son is. Let me remind you that there was no such thing as 'your religion vs. my religion' for 1500 years. You just happened to pop out of the blue.

Fact is scripture shows Christ born normally and that He had brothers/sisters after the flesh.

The NT wasn't written for modern day English speaking Protestants. Put on Semitic lenses when you read it.

PAX

 

[Albion]

Since earliest time, Catholics have given their religious assent to this doctrine

What makes you say that?

because it was fitting that Mary remained a virgin

Let's be sure we understand this point. You are saying that it sounded like a good idea, so it was adopted?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Mary remaining a virgin was a standard doctrine until the reformation. I gather this from reading lots of posts from Eastern Orthodox and Catholics on it. As culture changes, so does the understanding of language.

 

[Albion]

Mary remaining a virgin was a standard doctrine until the reformation. I gather this from reading lots of posts from Eastern Orthodox and Catholics on it. As culture changes, so does the understanding of language.

Beginning when?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Beginning when?

(don't know, best guess) Probably after the ephesus council where someone would be accused of preaching another gospel if they did not acknowledge Mary as the mother of God, it would make sense that after that, Mary's centrality in the religion would have ballooned. I understand Mary's centrality was to counter gnostic claims that Jesus was not a human, but perhaps it got a bit out of hand, thus the reformation.