Mary ever virgin

[Livindesert]

What is the earliest source that refers specifically to Mary as the ever Virgin?

 

[Eucharisted]

The Gospels. Mary tells Gabriel she took a vow of virginity ("I have not known a man").

 

[Livindesert]

The Gospels. Mary tells Gabriel she took a vow of virginity ("I have not known a man").

Not what I was looking for because I personaly do not see that in the gospels...but I don't want a debate I am seriously loking for info here.

I am looking for something more specific like a ECF that specifically says Mary was a ever virgin who never had sex her entire life etc...

 

[Eucharisted]

Not what I was looking for because I personaly do not see that in the gospels...but I don't want a debate I am seriously loking for info here.

I am looking for something more specific like a ECF that specifically says Mary was a ever virgin who never had sex her entire life etc...

Hilary of Poitiers​

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary's sons and not those taken from Joseph's former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother" [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

​

Athanasius​

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

​

Epiphanius​

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 (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

​

Jerome​

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. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

​

Didymus the Blind​

It helps us to understand the terms "firstborn" and "only begotten" when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin "until she brought forth her firstborn son" [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

​

Ambrose of Milan​

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])

​

Pope Siricius I​

You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the Flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord's body, chat court of the eternal King (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

​

Augustine​

In being born of a virgin who chose to remain a virgin even before she knew who was to be born other, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

​

Leporius​

We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

​

Cyril of Alexandria​

The Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly He was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).​

StayCatholic.com - Early Church Fathers

 

[ebia]

So nothing before the second half of the fourth century?

 

[Eucharisted]

So nothing before the second half of the fourth century?

If you understand the Gospels in light of the Mosaic Law and in light of the vision of the Temple that Ezekiel had, you'd know the Gospels speak of Mary's perpetual virginity.

 

[Eucharisted]

In the Mosaic Law, a woman could make a vow of perpetual virginity, and, a man could take such a virgin into marriage, though not allowed to have sex with her. If a married woman became a widow and did not marry again, she could receive life support from her relatives.

In the vision of the temple, Ezekiel says he is shown the East Gate, which only the Prince can pass through. Since the temple is the New Temple and the Gate is facing East, the Prince is the Messiah. The East Gate is a symbol for the Prince's mother, who, according to Isaiah, will be a virgin.

Mary was a widow by the time of the Crucifixion, and she had not married again, which is why Jesus had entrusted her to His cousin John. And if only the Prince can pass through her, than it follows she could not have other children pass through her, or else destroy her perpetual virginity and Jesus' Messiahship.

The Old Testament points to the New Testament and the New Testament sheds light on the Old Testament.

 

[Livindesert]

So can you provide anything younger than 300 A.D. ?

 

[Eucharisted]

So can you provide anything younger than 300 A.D. ?

The Gospels were written before 300 AD.

 

[Livindesert]

So is that all you got then? Also I already know about the Proto of James.

 

[Eucharisted]

So is that all you got then? Also I already know about the Proto of James.

Hey, if you won't accept God's Word, I don't know Who else to turn to. I've given you Scriptures and Tradition.

 

[Rhamiel]

ok, we have the Protoevangelion of James, we also have Origen, he was 185-254. also belived in it, also, i do not see anyone who seemed to even question that Mary was ever virgin, we might not have very early writtings about it because it was a non-issue

 

[Rhamiel]

it is very nice to see you asking questions in OBOB, you have been very resepectful, regular posters of OBOB, remember we should be polite to our guests

 

[Rhamiel]

protoevangelium of james was written in AD 150, wow, that is early

 

[Livindesert]

From what I have heard the Proto was 200A.D. and was not written by James.

I would like to see the Origien quote that would be new

 

[Foundthelight]

From: Mary: Ever Virgin


Origen


"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

 

[Livindesert]

O.k. so the furthest back we can trace Marian beliefs seems to be 200 A.D. ish. or do we have archeological proof that the Proto of James was recorded earlier than 150 A.D.?

 

[NewMan99]

As I understand it, the Proto of James is ascribed to the early to mid second century because St. Justin Martyr (who died in the mid second century) apparently refers to it, or at least a parallel tradition possibly written later, but certainly existing in the Church at that time. That is what I have been told, but haven't seen the quotes from Justin myself. Many schoars date the work from anywhere from 120 AD to 150 AD. On what basis? I don't know.

 

[ebia]

Hey, if you won't accept God's Word, I don't know Who else to turn to. I've given you Scriptures and Tradition.

Let's be fair - he isn't accepting your interpretation of Scripture, and is asking what the earliest unambiguous statements you have from tradition are.

 

[ebia]

ok, we have the Protoevangelion of James, we also have Origen, he was 185-254. also belived in it, also,

Could you provide the relevant quotes?

i do not see anyone who seemed to even question that Mary was ever virgin, we might not have very early writtings about it because it was a non-issue

It's fair to assume it wasn't that much of an issue. What's less clear is which way around it was (or whether people simply didn't give much thought to it). Sometimes disagreements are good because they give reasons for people to write about things! (E.g. without some bozos doing stupid things in Corinith we wouldn't have our main New Testament description of how the early church thought about the Eucharist.)