Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Tu Es Petrus]

I put "natural" in quotes there because I was using the word denotatively and not technically. I was not referring to nature per se but to the common usage of the word "natural" to mean fitting or seemly.

Ahhh. Okay. Well, it was certainly unseemly.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

With all due respect to my Catholic friends:

The doctrine of Immaculate Conception, as well as the attendant Christological apologetics, are based in the error of Augustine WRT "ancestral sin."

We are NOT born with the sentence of death, nor is their "ancestral sin" or inherited sin to remove. The Torah clearly teaches that no son shall be put to death for his father's sin. Yes, iniquity, or the propensity toward sin is "visited upon" families for 3-4 generations (think alcoholic family), but this is not inhried sin in the Augustinian sense.

There is no 'ancestral sin' to wash away, but, since we have all sinned and fallen short, there is need for, as the Evangelicals would put it, a 'personal Savior.

Mary was born in a normal human condition to her loving, righteous, and Blessed parents Joachim and Anna. Likewise, Jesus was born with the capacity to sin in His human nature. Indeed, we "have a High Priest who (does) understand our condition, who was tempted (as we are) in all ways- yet sinned not."
His temptation was real, and according to the Councils, His will was neither divided nor mixed. Therefore, He was genuinely tempted (ie, could be), and genuinely overcame- as He calls us to do, as well.


Many of the Righteous- whether Samuel, or Job, or Josiah- demonstrated cleanness of hands from their infancy. Sin is a choice.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

With all due respect to my Catholic friends:

The doctrine of Immaculate Conception, as well as the attendant Christological apologetics, are based in the error of Augustine WRT "ancestral sin."

We are NOT born with the sentence of death, nor is their "ancestral sin" or inherited sin to remove. The Torah clearly teaches that no son shall be put to death for his father's sin. Yes, iniquity, or the propensity toward sin is "visited upon" families for 3-4 generations (think alcoholic family), but this is not inhried sin in the Augustinian sense.

There is no 'ancestral sin' to wash away, but, since we have all sinned and fallen short, there is need for, as the Evangelicals would put it, a 'personal Savior.

Mary was born in a normal human condition to her loving, righteous, and Blessed parents Joachim and Anna. Likewise, Jesus was born with the capacity to sin in His human nature. Indeed, we "have a High Priest who (does) understand our condition, who was tempted (as we are) in all ways- yet sinned not."
His temptation was real, and according to the Councils, His will was neither divided nor mixed. Therefore, He was genuinely tempted (ie, could be), and genuinely overcame- as He calls us to do, as well.


Many of the Righteous- whether Samuel, or Job, or Josiah- demonstrated cleanness of hands from their infancy. Sin is a choice.

As an Orthodox brethren I would think ECFs writings would be more part of your understandings.

The Ascension of Isaiah


"[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’" (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).


The Odes of Solomon


"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).


Justin Martyr


"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).


Irenaeus


"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

"The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian


"And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].


Pseudo-Melito


"If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will’" (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300]).


Ephraim the Syrian


"You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).


Ambrose of Milan


"Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to" (The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).

"The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater [to teach by example] than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with her neighbors? When did she despise the lowly? When did she avoid the needy?" (ibid., 2:2:7).

"Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).


Augustine *ofcourse


"Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both" (Christian Combat 22:24 [A.D. 396]).

"That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head" (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).

...

"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).


Timothy of Jerusalem


"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption" (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).


John the Theologian


"[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’" (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).

"And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise" (ibid.).


Gregory of Tours


"The course of this life having been completed by blessed Mary, when now she would be called from the world, all the apostles came together from their various regions to her house. And when they had heard that she was about to be taken from the world, they kept watch together with her. And behold, the Lord Jesus came with his angels, and, taking her soul, he gave it over to the angel Michael and withdrew. At daybreak, however, the apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb, and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; the holy body having been received, he commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise, where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary’s body] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones and is in the enjoyment of the good of an eternity that will never end" (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 584]).

"But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amid the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her" (ibid., 1:8).

 

[Anoetos]

Is the Immaculate Conception a necessary corollary to the Perpetual Virginity? or v.v.?

Just wondering because this thread is about the latter.

Not to stymie anyone! If there is a necessary connection (or even if there isn't) just want to clear the water a bit...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is the Immaculate Conception a necessary corollary to the Perpetual Virginity? or v.v.?

Just wondering because this thread is about the latter.

Not to stymie anyone! If there is a necessary connection (or even if there isn't) just want to clear the water a bit...

I suspect, from the perspective of some Catholics (but not necessarily the RCC), the corollary is that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin because the loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies is a sin (at least for the wife) but since she was "immaculate" She also must have been a virgin. And vise versa. But I agree with you, I see no relation at all - except that both are now dogmas in the RCC and therefore are infallible/unaccountable/unquestionable and must be accepted with docility as Jesus Himself speaking, both have ALWAYS been taught by Christians and are a part of the Deposit of Faith and Apostolic Tradition, and to knowingly deny them is to be a heretic. In both cases. I'd prefer a discussion of the "Immaculate Conception" being a separate thread and topic, however.


Pax


.

 

[Anoetos]

Ahhh. Okay. Well, it was certainly unseemly.

I am concerned that you may have missed my point which was that Adam, before the fall, was in the same state as Christ wrt sin, and that Our Lord's state wrt His human flesh depended upon this (the whole Second Adam idea which is more than just a type - antitype dynamic) rather than upon His mother's condition wrt to concupiscence. Therefore, before the fall, Adam was without sin, proving thereby that whatever may have changed about human nature after the fall, there is nothing intrinsically inherent in humanness which necessitates sin, making the fall and original sin, though no less part of our nature post lapsus something added to humanity subsequent to its creation.

 

[Anoetos]

I suspect, from the perspective of some Catholics (but not necessarily the RCC), the corollary is that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin because the loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies is a sin (at least for the wife) but since she was "immaculate" She also must have been a virgin. And vise versa. But I agree with you, I see no relation at all - except that both are now dogmas in the RCC and therefore are infallible/unaccountable/unquestionable and must be accepted with docility as Jesus Himself speaking and to knowing deny is to be a heretic. In both cases. I'd prefer a discussion of the "Immaculate Conception" being a separate thread and topic, however.


Pax


.

I am on record elsewhere as expressing the concern that the "new" dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception is ecumenically problematic and therefore unfortunate as well as having serious problems with regard to the very idea of catholicity.

Let me hasten to add, before the CF Inquisition is called out, that I do submit to the church in the matter while reserving this concern.

But I agree, that is another subject and given my state with regard to it, I hope I can be excused from involvement in any discussion on the matter.

 

[Musa80]

With all due respect to my Catholic friends:

The doctrine of Immaculate Conception, as well as the attendant Christological apologetics, are based in the error of Augustine WRT "ancestral sin."

We are NOT born with the sentence of death, nor is their "ancestral sin" or inherited sin to remove. The Torah clearly teaches that no son shall be put to death for his father's sin. Yes, iniquity, or the propensity toward sin is "visited upon" families for 3-4 generations (think alcoholic family), but this is not inhried sin in the Augustinian sense.

There is no 'ancestral sin' to wash away, but, since we have all sinned and fallen short, there is need for, as the Evangelicals would put it, a 'personal Savior.

Mary was born in a normal human condition to her loving, righteous, and Blessed parents Joachim and Anna. Likewise, Jesus was born with the capacity to sin in His human nature. Indeed, we "have a High Priest who (does) understand our condition, who was tempted (as we are) in all ways- yet sinned not."
His temptation was real, and according to the Councils, His will was neither divided nor mixed. Therefore, He was genuinely tempted (ie, could be), and genuinely overcame- as He calls us to do, as well.


Many of the Righteous- whether Samuel, or Job, or Josiah- demonstrated cleanness of hands from their infancy. Sin is a choice.

Maybe I'm missing something here, Iakovos, if you could explain a bit. How exactly does the IC conflict with either the Virgin Mary or Christ's "ability" to commit sin? It is my understanding, and of course I could be wrong, that it puts both at a starting point as it were, of Adam and Eve, pre-apple eating. I don't think anyone argues that Adam and Eve had the ability to commit sin, so why does the IC supposedly enforce some sort of perverse doctrine of Calvinism where the Lord and Lady are robots without said ability?

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Maybe I'm missing something here, Iakovos, if you could explain a bit. How exactly does the IC conflict with either the Virgin Mary or Christ's "ability" to commit sin? It is my understanding, and of course I could be wrong, that it puts both at a starting point as it were, of Adam and Eve, pre-apple eating. I don't think anyone argues that Adam and Eve had the ability to commit sin, so why does the IC supposedly enforce some sort of perverse doctrine of Calvinism where the Lord and Lady are robots without said ability?

Pretty good post. Can I add something?

Consider typology. Adam and Eve were, in a manner, "immaculately conceived", for they were created without sin.

So, the first Adam and Eve were created sinless, but brought sin into the world through their disobedience. The Second Adam and Eve were created sinless, but took away the sin of the world through their obedience.

There is a typological corollary there (assuming one sees Mary as the New Eve, as we do).

 

[Musa80]

Pretty good post. Can I add something?

Feel free. I usually miss some detail or another.

Consider typology. Adam and Eve were, in a manner, "immaculately conceived", for they were created without sin.

So, the first Adam and Even were created sinless, but brought sin into the world through their disobedience. The Second Adam and Eve were created sinless, but took away the sin of the world through their obedience.

There is a typological corollary there (assuming you see Mary as the New Eve, as I do).

Fully agreed.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't think anyone argues that Adam and Eve had the ability to commit sin, so why does the IC supposedly enforce some sort of perverse doctrine of Calvinism where the Lord and Lady are robots without said ability?

Dude, I completely understand the sentiment because I hold the same towards your faith. I have been told to report rather than answer in kind. I'll do neither this time. But if you can't understand how predestination doesn't render us into lifeless atoumatons, at least understand that calling it a perverse doctrine is a reportable offense. I'd just as soon push the report button & accuse of derrogation, flaming, & baiting, or tell you in as derrogatory terms about the perversity of your own doctrines, but the site has predestined all that for problems. lol

 

[Rick Otto]

Is the Immaculate Conception a necessary corollary to the Perpetual Virginity? or v.v.?

Just wondering because this thread is about the latter.

Not to stymie anyone! If there is a necessary connection (or even if there isn't) just want to clear the water a bit...

I think they are co-dependant as virginity has a spiritual component that is apparently unseperate to any degree from the physical correlate in pro-IC/PV positions.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dude, I completely understand the sentiment because I hold the same towards your faith.

ooops.......u-tube not appropriate ehehe.....

 

[Musa80]

Dude, I completely understand the sentiment because I hold the same towards your faith. I have been told to report rather than answer in kind. I'll do neither this time. But if you can't understand how predestination doesn't render us into lifeless atoumatons, at least understand that calling it a perverse doctrine is a reportable offense. I'd just as soon push the report button & accuse of derrogation, flaming, & baiting, or tell you in as derrogatory terms about the perversity of your own doctrines, but the site has predestined all that for problems. lol

Maybe you misread what I posted. S'ok it happens. I did not call Calvinism a perversion, nor did I say predestination renders anyone lifeless robots. My thoughts on Calvinism do not belong in this thread. What I said was the idea being put forth that the IC somehow conflicts with free will is much like a perversion of Calvinism in which the two are viewed as robots without the inability to sin. If you feel the need to hit the report button, you are free to do so. I trust the mods to have better reading comprehension skills.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm glad that's what you meant, but it is not what you said. You must've mis-stated yourself. S'okay.

I don't think anyone argues that Adam and Eve had the ability to commit sin, so why does the IC supposedly enforce some sort of perverse doctrine of Calvinism where the Lord and Lady are robots without said ability?

If you had said what you say you meant to, it would read like this:
"...enforce some sort of perversion of a doctrine of Calvinism..."

 

[Musa80]

I'm glad that's what you meant, but it is not what you said. You must've mis-stated yourself. S'okay.

If you had said what you say you meant to, it would read like this:
"...enforce some sort of perversion of a doctrine of Calvinism..."

Gee thanks. The day I need Rick Otto to make my posts for me be sure I'll invite you over and hand you the keyboard. Til then I think I've heard about enough of you and will just put you on ignore.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Gee thanks. The day I need Rick Otto to make my posts for me be sure I'll invite you over and hand you the keyboard. Til then I think I've heard about enough of you and will just put you on ignore.

Good luck ehehe

 

[Rick Otto]

Gee thanks. The day I need Rick Otto to make my posts for me be sure I'll invite you over and hand you the keyboard. Til then I think I've heard about enough of you and will just put you on ignore.

That's fine (hiding the hurt).
But I will continue to faithfully represent both predestination & what you post, even when you don't. Consider it a 'professional courtesy'.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I am on record elsewhere as expressing the concern that the "new" dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception is ecumenically problematic....

And yet we have had more eccumenical discussions and agreements in the last few decades than ever before.

Be more concerned with truth than eccumenism. If you abide in Truth (i.e, Catholic Doctrine) eccumenism will take care of itself.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Well Rick, thats another fine mess you've gotten yourself into.