Is there salvation without Mary?

[Valletta]

It amazes me how you can blatantly ignore a plain report like this in favour of a doctrine of "perpetual virginity" which has no substance in the New Testament or in the writings of the early Church fathers. It is clear as the nose on your face that Mary had children after Jesus and only people who believe in fairy tales think differently.

I quoted a Church father, Saint Augustine, in the post just before yours!

How about Peter Chrysoslogus? "Where are they who think that the Virgin's conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin's is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin."
Sermon 117,(A.D. 432),in FC,XVII,200

Saint Ambrose said: " Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son."
To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111(A.D. 396),in NPNF2,X:473

Saint John Chrysostom: "And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' "
Gospel of Matthew,V:5(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:33

 

[robycop3]

It seems that the words of St. Augustine apply:

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” Sermons 186:1 A.D. 411

Augie wasn't always right, of course. The only truth there is that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born & her purification period was over.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Scripture calls them bros. & srs. & that makes it so. Matt. 13:55-56 shows that their neighbors the Nazarenes knew they were J&M's children. There's simply no case that Mary was a virgin her whole life.

I don't see how it shows that. If someone had half-siblings the exact same things could be said.

 

[Valletta]

Augie wasn't always right, of course. The only truth there is that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born & her purification period was over.

What applies is: "Why do you wonder at this, O man?”

 

[concretecamper]

You guys are beating a dead horse. If you interpret scripture using modern day and colloquial meanings, you are sure to err, which is what we see. The bible says brothers and sisters, that is all that is seen. All we can do is pray for the eyes and heart to be open.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You guys are beating a dead horse. If you interpret scripture using modern day and colloquial meanings, you are sure to err, which is what we see. The bible says brothers and sisters, that is all that is seen. All we can do is pray for the eyes and heart to be open.

You will probably need to include all of the translators of the New Testament into English from all the centuries since such translations have been made, including those of your own denomination, because they all consistently agree in their translations of these key passages that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters. Interestingly, there are no translators notes in the Catholic renditions indicating any other reasonable or possible renderings of these significant words.

 

[concretecamper]

You will probably need to include all of the translators of the New Testament into English from all the centuries since such translations have been made, including those of your own denomination, because they all consistently agree in their translations of these key passages that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters. Interestingly, there are no translators notes in the Catholic renditions indicating any other reasonable or possible renderings of these significant words.

incorrect

 

[Abaxvahl]

You will probably need to include all of the translators of the New Testament into English from all the centuries since such translations have been made, including those of your own denomination, because they all consistently agree in their translations of these key passages that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters.

Lest it be forgotten: we agree He had brothers and sisters. But as Concrete said this is a dead horse, frankly it's been dead for over 1,000 years.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Lest it be forgotten: we agree He had brothers and sisters. But as Concrete said this is a dead horse, frankly it's been dead for over 1,000 years.

Out of curiosity, why was it alive and kicking for a full millennium before it expired?

 

[Abaxvahl]

Out of curiosity, why was it alive and kicking for a full millennium before it expired?

That was not an accurate date, I just didn't want to look up the ages of the Church Fathers who put it to rest. St. Jerome argued against a guy called Helvidius around 383AD arguing against his opinion that Mary had sex with Joseph and produced other children, the work is here. I'd say it died around there, as many of the same arguments are just being recycled. Other Fathers contributed also and the whole Church. So maybe more like 1,600 years and it has become "dead," which to me means "we are just recycling talking points."

Other "dead" issues = the divinity of Jesus, icons, etc. I have never seen a new argument on any of these things, the Fathers handled it. We are recycling.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That was not an accurate date, I just didn't want to look up the ages of the Church Fathers who put it to rest. St. Jerome argued against a guy called Helvidius around 383AD arguing against his opinion that Mary had sex with Joseph and produced other children, the work is here. I'd say it died around there, as many of the same arguments are just being recycled. Other Fathers contributed also and the whole Church. So maybe more like 1,600 years and it has become "dead," which to me means "we are just recycling talking points."

Other "dead" issues = the divinity of Jesus, icons, etc. I have never seen a new argument on any of these things, the Fathers handled it. We are recycling.

Fair enough. I thought you probably were fuzzy on your dating. That still leaves about four centuries for the witnesses to have been discovered who monitored the bedtime activities of Joseph and Mary. To my own recollection I am not at all aware that any of these snoops have ever been discovered.

 

[Valletta]

You will probably need to include all of the translators of the New Testament into English from all the centuries since such translations have been made, including those of your own denomination, because they all consistently agree in their translations of these key passages that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters. Interestingly, there are no translators notes in the Catholic renditions indicating any other reasonable or possible renderings of these significant words.

My brother, the translations of the words are correct, it is the interpretation that is wrong.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My brother, the translations of the words are correct, it is the interpretation that is wrong.

Got it.

 

[Abaxvahl]

That still leaves about four centuries for the witnesses to have been discovered who monitored the bedtime activities of Joseph and Mary. To my own recollection I am not at all aware that any of these snoops have ever been discovered.

"In the mouths of two or three every word is established" it is said, and I think we have enough witnesses in the Holy Trinity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"In the mouths of two or three every word is established" it is said, and I think we have enough witnesses in the Holy Trinity.

Although it is quite true, there have been innumerable folks who have made all manner of statements in the name of the Holy Trinity of which many are simply absurd. These statements are recorded in numerous documents from the earliest centuries of Christian history to the very present.

I rather think that if perpetual virginity was such an enormously significant matter to the Holy Trinity, then God might have inserted a few words in the New Testament about it in regards to the marital relationship of Joseph and Mary.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Although it is quite true, there have been innumerable folks who have made all manner of statements in the name of the Holy Trinity of which many are simply absurd. These statements are recorded in numerous documents from the earliest centuries of Christian history to the very present.

I rather think that if perpetual virginity was such an enormously significant matter to the Holy Trinity, then God might have inserted a few words in the New Testament about it in regards to the marital relationship of Joseph and Mary.

Many people do make absurd statements, but thankfully the Saints and Ecumenical Councils are divinely inspired, so we know what the God cares for quite well. As St. Gregory the Dialogist said (when there were only four of them) "I venerate the Four Councils like the Four Gospels." I suppose now that we have 21 I'd say "I venerate the 21 Councils like the 21 Epistles."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Many people do make absurd statements, but thankfully the Saints and Ecumenical Councils are divinely inspired, so we know what the God cares for quite well. As St. Gregory the Dialogist said (when there were only four of them) "I venerate the Four Councils like the Four Gospels." I suppose now that we have 21 I'd say "I venerate the 21 Councils like the 21 Epistles."

When do you think the last truly ecumenical council was held?

 

[Abaxvahl]

When do you think the last truly ecumenical council was held?

1962-1965AD. Not sure what you mean by truly, if you mean the absolutely most foundational ones before the Great Schism then 787AD (I am not counting previous schisms from Councils, to my knowledge they admit error but did not change so that's that for 'em). But if you just mean "a real Ecumenical Council" then 1962-1965AD is it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

1962-1965AD. Not sure what you mean by truly, if you mean the absolutely most foundational ones before the Great Schism then 787AD (I am not counting previous schisms from Councils, to my knowledge they admit error but did not change so that's that for 'em). But if you just mean "a real Ecumenical Council" then 1962-1965AD is it.

I expected that would be your answer. Apparently you seem to share a common RCC perception that the RCC is the entirety of the Christian Church and any and all of its denominational councils are ecumenical.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I expected that would be your answer. Apparently you seem to share a common RCC perception that the RCC is the entirety of the Christian Church and any and all of its denominational councils are ecumenical.

We claim to be the fullness, say that the schismatic bodies are "local Churches" (that is not Universal), and deny that anyone else even has a Church properly and in official documents use the terms "ecclesial community" (which while "ecclesial" means "Church/Assembly" it is not used in this sense). Here is the document from us clarifying that this is in fact our view (extremely short).

Personally I do not think it is worth being in a group that does not claim such things. I am currently discerning between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the latter which can be even more exclusive with it's claims. "Go big or go home" is my mentality I suppose. That everyone can be wrong is not an interesting question or observation to me, the real big scary one is "who among us is right?" For Jesus' prayer that the Church be one was not denied to Him, and someone has been "led into all truth" by the Holy Spirit, and contradictory bodies can not both be the fullness, so one of them is right, and I'd very much like to be in them.