I need help when it comes to learning about the Virgin Mary

[Lik3]

I need help. I mean no disrespect to Catholics, but how do you see the Virgin Mary? According to the Church, did she remain a virgin according to Church teachings? I don't understand since I am not Catholic, but all I know is that she is highly regarded because she gave Birth to our Savior. My other question is, if someone gave birth to a child and other siblings, wouldn't it mean that she would no longer be a virgin?

 

[dreadnought]

I need help. I mean no disrespect to Catholics, but how do you see the Virgin Mary? According to the Church, did she remain a virgin according to Church teachings? I don't understand since I am not Catholic, but all I know is that she is highly regarded because she gave Birth to our Savior. My other question is, if someone gave birth to a child and other siblings, wouldn't it mean that she would no longer be a virgin?

I am not a Catholic so I don't know what he Catholics teach. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 suggest Jesus had siblings, which suggests to me Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus's death. I don't consider it a matter of import.

 

[Basil the Great]

Catholics believe that the references to Jesus having brothers and sisters either refers to cousins or to half-brothers and half-sisters, who would have been Joseph's children from his first marriage. Like dreadnought, I do not view this as a matter of import, either way.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I need help. I mean no disrespect to Catholics, but how do you see the Virgin Mary? According to the Church, did she remain a virgin according to Church teachings? I don't understand since I am not Catholic, but all I know is that she is highly regarded because she gave Birth to our Savior. My other question is, if someone gave birth to a child and other siblings, wouldn't it mean that she would no longer be a virgin?

As to the siblings of Jesus, if you read the pertinent Bible verses in English it is an open and shut case. But then the Bible was not written in English, but in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, in a Semitic culture, a long time ago. Things don't necessarily mean what some Protestant translator translating into modern English thinks they mean. Protestants tend to believe the Bible, or at least their KJV or other English translations as infallible.

The Semitic use for 'brothers' often translated into Greek actually means close kin, and not literal brothers. Cousins fit very nicely into this usage. You can actually see this played out all over the Bible. What it means is that when you see 'adelphoi' in the NT it sometimes means biological brothers, sometimes step-brothers, sometimes cousins, sometimes other relatives. There is a way to say 'biological brothers' but it is convoluted, and that is not the way the New Testament refers to the 'brothers' of Jesus. So what is in English often called the 'brothers' of Jesus might well be cousins, or some other relationship. Going by the Bible ALONE, one cannot say that Jesus had biological brothers. Even if your Bible translation says that.

If someone gave birth to other siblings of Jesus, she would no longer be a virgin. But did she give birth to other siblings of Jesus. Properly understood linguistically and culturally, verses which imply exactly that in English actually prove nothing of the sort. Such verses prove nothing one way or the other about Mary having other children. It's a presumption to say that they do. Catholics (and the Orthodox) are not Biblical ignorami to think Mary remained a virgin.

 

[Albion]

I need help. I mean no disrespect to Catholics, but how do you see the Virgin Mary? According to the Church, did she remain a virgin according to Church teachings? I don't understand since I am not Catholic, but all I know is that she is highly regarded because she gave Birth to our Savior. My other question is, if someone gave birth to a child and other siblings, wouldn't it mean that she would no longer be a virgin?

Yes, they do believe in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary--just because virginity has long been associated with purity, rightly or wrongly.

How this theory can be justified is another matter. In the early days of the church, there was a legend that Mary did not give birth in the usual way but that Jesus miraculously came through her side (!), thus preserving her virginity.

As for the several siblings of Christ Jesus who are referred to in Scripture, they are dismissed as "bros"--in other words, cousins or other distant relatives, not actual brothers or sisters. Or they could have been children of Joseph, Mary's husband, from an earlier marriage, but that's pure speculation and there is nothing in Scripture that hints at it being true.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, they do believe in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary--just because virginity has long been associated with purity, rightly or wrongly.

I don't believe that is the case at all. Certainly not in the Orthodox tradition. We believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary because that is the truth which we have received from our forefathers.

As for the several siblings of Christ Jesus who are referred to in Scripture, they are dismissed as "bros"--in other words, cousins or other distant relatives, not actual brothers or sisters. Or they could have been children of Joseph, Mary's husband, from an earlier marriage, but that's pure speculation and there is nothing in Scripture that hints at it being true.

The way they treat Him is consistent with older siblings with a younger celebrity brother. Jesus trusting His mother's care to the Apostle John also supports a lack of uterine siblings. It is not true that there is nothing in Scripture that hints at it being true.

 

[Albion]

I don't believe that is the case at all. Certainly not in the Orthodox tradition. We believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary because that is the truth which we have received from our forefathers.

Even if it could be shown that the "forefathers" in this case included the Apostles and the first generation of Christians, it is why THEY thought it would be fitting if Mary were to be seen as ever-virgin.

 

[Fidelibus]

I am not a Catholic so I don't know what he Catholics teach. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 suggest Jesus had siblings, which suggests to me Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus's death. I don't consider it a matter of import.

Seeing you are a United Methodist, and that this sect of Protestantism wasen't formed until the mid twentieth century, I'm not sure how much credence you would put into the writings of the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, but he disagreed with you in the following letter to a Roman Catholic, where he wrote:

“I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

After reading this quote, could you show when the belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary within the Methodist church became problematic, and by who's authority in the hierarchy of Methodist church declared it problematic?

Thank you

 

[Fidelibus]

I found this quote from Benjamin Cabe, a Eastern Orthodox Christian kind of intersting.

Ultimately—and this is the real point—if the belief against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is based on the idea of a “plain reading of scripture”, then one must ask if such was the “plain reading of scripture”, why did the first 1500 years of the Christians miss it? And why did even the Reformers quote the exact same passage of scripture (which is used by modern Protestants in an attempt to disprove Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) in order to prove her Perpetual Virginity? And finally, why are most Protestants so against the Perpetual Virginity anyway?

 

[Albion]

You know, saying that the United Methodist Church wasn't formed until the mid-20th century is a lot like saying that the Roman Catholic Church of today wasn't formed until Vatican II occurred at about the same time.

 

[Albion]

I found this quote from Benjamin Cabe, a Eastern Orthodox Christian kind of intersting.

Ultimately—and this is the real point—if the belief against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is based on the idea of a “plain reading of scripture”, then one must ask if such was the “plain reading of scripture”, why did the first 1500 years of the Christians miss it?

Can you "miss" something that isn't there to be read?

The reason that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity was believed although Scripture doesn't support it is simple--it's not based upon Scripture but upon "Tradition." One of the earlier posts in this thread essentially made that very point.

 

[Fidelibus]

You know, saying that the United Methodist Church wasn't formed until the mid-20th century is a lot like saying that the Roman Catholic Church of today wasn't formed until Vatican II occurred at about the same time.

Comparing the combining of two Protestant sects (The Evangelical United Brethren/The Methodist) in 1968 to Vatican II would be quite a stretch to say the least.

 

[Fidelibus]

The reason that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity was believed although Scripture doesn't support it is simple--it's not based upon Scripture but upon "Tradition."

It is rooted in both Sacred Scripture:

Ex.13:2,12; 34:20, Ezk.44:2, Lk.1:31,34; 2:41-51, Jn.7:3-4,19:25-27, Mt.27:61,28:1, 10:3.

And in Tradition/Early Church Fathers:

Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213). Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232). Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362). John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370). Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371). To name a few.

Can you "miss" something that isn't there to be read?

Hmmm... The Father of your Reformation (Martin Luther) didn't seem to miss it.

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."----- Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."-- Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)

"A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . ." ---That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)

"Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom."-----That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."-----(On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works)

Not even mentioning John Calvin, Huldreich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Wesley.

Let me ask you Albion the same thing I asked dreadnought. After reading these quotes from Martin Luther, could you show where in the history of the Anglican Church, where the belief of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary became problematic? As well by who's authority in the hierarchy of Anglican Church declared it problematic? Why is it problematic in the Anglican Church today considering it was not in Martin Luther's day?

Thank you

 

[Albion]

Comparing the combining of two Protestant sects (The Evangelical United Brethren/The Methodist) in 1968 to Vatican II would be quite a stretch to say the least.

It might rather be the other way around. At Vatican II, the RCC changed its beliefs and practices, but the Methodist Church mainly just added one word to its legal name when a much smaller church merged into it.

I see the RCC all the time urging other Christians and churches to "come home" (to the RCC). If some should do so, I would hope that the RCC will not be belittling them for having decided to do that.

 

[Albion]

It is rooted in both Sacred Scripture

No, it is absent from Scripture. The belief is base upon tradition. But other positive things are said of Mary in Scripture, that's true.

 

[Fidelibus]

It might rather be the other way around. At Vatican II, the RCC changed its beliefs and practices

You do realize that the Roman Rite (RCC) of the "Catholic Church" is only one of many Rites within the Catholic Church. Right? (see Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1203.) As a convert to the Catholic Church, my studies on Vatican II don't show what you are saying at all. What I found was that there were three reasons why Pope John XXIII convoked Vat.II. The first and greatest concern being the "sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously." In other words,
Pope John XXIII primary reason for calling the Council was to preserve and promote Church teaching more effectively, in effect, as we say today, to evangelize.

The second reason Pope John XXIII for calling the council was to bring a renewed effort to seek reunion with other Christians.

And the third reason for convoking the Council was to adapt and update the Church’s methods, practices, and discipline (aggiornamento in Italian, “bringing up to date”) in order that Catholics and the Church herself might more effectively meet the challenges of modern times. Bringing up to date is a far cry from "changing ones beliefs and practices." On the contrary, these three reasons for Pope John XXIII convoking Vatican II was to promote Catholic truth, seek Christian unity, and update Catholic practice.

Take note, the key word here Albion is "Catholic", not strickly "Roman Catholic."

I see the RCC all the time urging other Christians and churches to "come home" (to the RCC).

As do I. Do you not beleive the the other Rites do as well?

If some should do so, I would hope that the RCC will not be belittling them for having decided to do that.

As a fairly recent convert to the Catholic Church, I was "welcomed home" with open arms, a lot of love, and without an inkling of belittlement.

Thanks be to God!

 

[Fidelibus]

No, it is absent from Scripture.

As are the words Trinity, and Incarnation. But are rooted in Scripture and you believe in them, right?

The belief is base upon tradition.

But not solely as I showed. (Ex.13:2,12; 34:20, Ezk.44:2, Lk.1:31,34; 2:41-51, Jn.7:3-4,19:25-27, Mt.27:61,28:1, 10:3.) Which once again makes me think of the Father of your Reformation (Martin Luther). Is it your understanding that he believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary solely on Tradition?

Also Albion, I would be greatly appreciative if you would so kindly address the last paragraph on my post #13.

Let me ask you Albion the same thing I asked dreadnought. After reading these quotes from Martin Luther, could you show where in the history of the Anglican Church, where the belief of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary became problematic? As well by who's authority in the hierarchy of Anglican Church declared it problematic? And why is it problematic in the Anglican Church today considering it was not in Martin Luther's day?

Thank you

 

[Albion]

You do realize that the Roman Rite (RCC) of the "Catholic Church" is only one of many Rites within the Catholic Church. Right?

Of course, but that doesn't affect the point made in my previous post.

 

[Albion]

As are the words Trinity, and Incarnation. But are rooted in Scripture and you believe in them, right?

Again, that doesn't change anything. You are speaking hear of the words or terms not being in Scripture, but I said that the doctrine of Mary's supposed Perpetual Virginity is not in Scripture, that it has no support in Scripture.

 

[prodromos]

Again, that doesn't change anything. You are speaking hear of the words or terms not being in Scripture, but I said that the doctrine of Mary's supposed Perpetual Virginity is not in Scripture, that it has no support in Scripture.

I've already shown you where it has.