Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[SolomonVII]

Hank77,

Thank you for your comments. There are three points I'd like to make.

The first is that you begin with the supposition that 'all important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'. Perhaps you are right, but why would one be wrong in not believing this?

Nicene Creed ie One, holy, catholic APOSTOLIC, church...

The second is that it is unclear what you mean by 'important'. Perhaps that seems like a silly comment to make, but it is ambiguous as to what you think important doctrine is relevantly important for -- for salvation as a necessity? for salvation as an unnecessary help? for the edification of the pious? etc. And even there, we would have to split hairs. For example, if we took the doctrine of the Trinity and claimed it as necessary for salvation, then we have to further say 'for whom?' Certainly Justin Martyr, who was hailed universally in the early Church as a saint, did not stand up to the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Nicaea a couple centuries after his death. But then he either was not saved, or the the doctrine of the Trinity in its Nicene form was not necessary for his salvation. If the latter, then we go down the rabbit hold of determining 'for whom?' as I said.

Trinity is quite important. Without the Trinity we would have to drop either/and/or the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Disbelief in Trinity would change everything. What has changed in Christianity since certain Protestant sects have dropped belief in Perpetual Virginity?

The third is that you are implicitly saying something like 'we do not have evidence that the Immaculate Conception was taught by the Apostles'. I have never seen explicit reference to the Immaculate Conception in an Apostolic writing, but then again, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Likewise we do not have explicit evidence that Nero did not teach the PVM.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but then again, how credible is it that he would have?
Either way, the further the teaching is removed from the person of Mary, and people who knew her, the less credible it becomes as historic data.

That is, even if the Apostles never penned anything about the Immaculate Conception, we cannot know that they did not, in some inchoate way, teach it.

This becomes blind faith not just in EV, but in a proposition in something that there is no record for.

Now, if the first point holds -- that all important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles -- if that point holds, then I suppose that, if it turns out likely that the Apostles did not explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception, then it turns out likely that the Immaculate Conception is either (a) an unimportant doctrine or (b) not a doctrine at all. But even if such likelihood is the case, there would be no reason to believe (b) rather than (a), or vice versa, without further proof. (And (a) is somewhat vacuous without a relevant definition of 'important'.)

Importance then comes to expalining why and how this doctrine has any importance and/or is fruitful to the develop of the faith and of Christians who believe in it.

Why is the dogma important to you?
How has it improved your faith in so believing?

 

[NeoScholasticism]

This is interesting, can you explain this a little more for me, as I am having a difficult time understanding this?

Your saying Mary was sinless? Would that be because in order to give birth to Christ, she would also need to be without sin?

PrettyboyAndy,

Thank you for your comments.

To your first question, yes: Mary never sinned, on account of the extraordinary graces given to her by God that she might most nobly perform her role in the history of our (and her) salvation. The Immaculate Conception is not a necessity, but a congruity; it was fitting, but not necessary, that the Mother of the sinless Christ should herself be sinless. So, the answer is no to your second question, for she did not 'need' to be without sin.

The arguments for the congruity of the Immaculate Conception was developed by Bl. Duns Scotus (c. 13th century), but it was merely a theological opinion until it was defined as a dogma by Pope Pius XI in the Apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, on Dec. 8, 1854. Scotus' treatment of the issue can be found here, translated into English. And happily, there is something of a presentation of the issue in Ineffabilis Deus, which is available online for free.

The rumor mill seems to generate some idea that, if Mary had not been sinless, she would might in some way 'taint' the Christ-child, say, bodily, or in some other way. This misconception, I think, springs from the analogies used to demonstrate the congruity (but not the necessity) of the Immaculate Conception -- such as that we use clean vessels for clean things, otherwise the clean things necessarily become unclean, etc. But the Christ-child would not have become 'unclean', whatever that might mean.

In Sanguine Agni

 

[NeoScholasticism]

Nicene Creed ie One, holy, catholic APOSTOLIC, church...
...
Why is the dogma important to you?
How has it improved your faith in so believing?

SolomonVII,

I am asking Hank77 what he means by his suppositions, and showing what I perceive are ways of interpreting them.

Given my username, profile picture, and badge that says "Faith: Catholic," one might easily discern what I believe.

In Sanguine Agni

 

[SolomonVII]

SolomonVII,

I am asking Hank77 what he means by his suppositions, and showing what I perceive are ways of interpreting them.

Given my username, profile picture, and badge that says "Faith: Catholic," one might easily discern what I believe.

In Sanguine Agni

I know.

And I was offering some of critiques of those interpretations and some of the logic behind them, and trying to elicit a discussion of why this dogma is important.

 

[rnmomof7]

It's suggested in Old Testament typology that the Virgin Mary was to remain perpetually a virgin.

"Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, 'This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.'" - Ezekiel 44:1-2

Also, see the following:


Source:
Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Jesus said the entire OT was about Him , not His mother ..This scripture is a real stretch.. has the magisterium made an infallible interpretation of that scripture?

 

[SolomonVII]

Jesus said the entire OT was about Him , not His mother ..This scripture is a real stretch.. has the magisterium made an infallible interpretation of that scripture?

Most theological typing is a stretch.
And yet the associations are real enough and valid enough, if someone is capable of stretching their imagination to see it.

Jesus is Moses, so that makes Mary the reed basket delivering Jesus from the genocidal hands of Pharoah/Herod. Jesus is contents of the ark of the covenant, the staff, the Torah, the mannah, and Mary is the ark, the vessel protecting the bread of life as it is delivered to the promised land and the new world for the redeemed slaves.
Jesus is not the the basket and the baby Moses and Pharoah in the OT. The entire OT is about him, but it is not about him in that way.
It is a starker type of theology that robs the story of the richness of all the typologies involved, and leaves only Jesus against a featureless white background, bereft of any content of any kind.

 

[Hank77]

The first is that you begin with the supposition that 'all important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'. Perhaps you are right, but why would one be wrong in not believing this?

I don't judge someone wrong if they do.
I might judge that what they believe is incorrect though.

The second is that it is unclear what you mean by 'important'. Perhaps that seems like a silly comment to make, but it is ambiguous as to what you think important doctrine is relevantly important for -- for salvation as a necessity? for salvation as an unnecessary help? for the edification of the pious? etc. And even there, we would have to split hairs. For example, if we took the doctrine of the Trinity and claimed it as necessary for salvation, then we have to further say 'for whom?' Certainly Justin Martyr, who was hailed universally in the early Church as a saint, did not stand up to the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Nicaea a couple centuries after his death. But then he either was not saved, or the the doctrine of the Trinity in its Nicene form was not necessary for his salvation. If the latter, then we go down the rabbit hole of determining 'for whom?' as I said.

Yes, 'important' how and to whom does make a difference.
Are you pointing out that there is a progressiveness in the building of doctrines? I would agree with you if you are, but would say that men must be careful in the doctrines that they build. In that they are built on the solid foundation of the scriptures, if not they are traditions.

The third is that you are implicitly saying something like 'we do not have evidence that the Immaculate Conception was taught by the Apostles'. I have never seen explicit reference to the Immaculate Conception in an Apostolic writing, but then again, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

I haven't seen any reference to it at all. 'Full of grace' does not lead to the conclusion of sinless, let alone sinless from birth to death.

That is, even if the Apostles never penned anything about the Immaculate Conception, we cannot know that they did not, in some inchoate way, teach it.

This is true.

Now, if the first point holds -- that all important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles -- if that point holds, then I suppose that, if it turns out likely that the Apostles did not explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception, then it turns out likely that the Immaculate Conception is either (a) an unimportant doctrine or (b) not a doctrine at all. But even if such likelihood is the case, there would be no reason to believe (b) rather than (a), or vice versa, without further proof. (And (a) is somewhat vacuous without a relevant definition of 'important'.)

My usage of the word 'important' doctrine...
An important doctrine is established on the written word of God and can be found there. If it is not found within God's written word it is established solely on the word of men, rather like the Jewish Oral Law. Although there may be some truth in it, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Bible does not bear witness to it. I do however see the congruity that you do.

The rumor mill seems to generate some idea that, if Mary had not been sinless, she would might in some way 'taint' the Christ-child, say, bodily, or in some other way. This misconception, I think, springs from the analogies used to demonstrate the congruity (but not the necessity) of the Immaculate Conception -- such as that we use clean vessels for clean things, otherwise the clean things necessarily become unclean, etc. But the Christ-child would not have become 'unclean', whatever that might mean.

Nothing could make the Christ or the His blood unclean, defiled, common.

 

[Hank77]

I don't like discussing Mariology on sites like this since there are so many participants who don't believe that the Virgin's Son is God Incarnate.

Are you saying that if one does not believe in all the Mariology doctrines that you do that means they don't believe that Jesus is God come in the flesh?

 

[NeoScholasticism]

I don't judge someone wrong if they do.
I might judge that what they believe is incorrect though.

Hank77, thank you for your reply.

What I am trying to ask is why you think why the following supposition is correct in the first place: 'All important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'. This seems to be the foundation for your argument.

Yes, 'important' how and to whom does make a difference.
Are you pointing out that there is a progressiveness in the building of doctrines? I would agree with you if you are, but would say that men must be careful in the doctrines that they build. In that they are built on the solid foundation of the scriptures, if not they are traditions.

I mean to say that without a disambiguation of 'important' then it's not possible to directly evaluate your claim 'All important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'.

My usage of the word 'important' doctrine...
An important doctrine is established on the written word of God and can be found there. If it is not found within God's written word it is established solely on the word of men, rather like the Jewish Oral Law. Although there may be some truth in it, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Bible does not bear witness to it. I do however see the congruity that you do.

So a doctrine is important if and only if it is established on Sacred Scripture? What do you mean by established? (I, for example, would say the Immaculate Conception ("IC") is established indirectly on Sacred Scripture, for the authority of the Church is founded on Sacred Scripture, and it is the authority of the Church which clearly defines that the IC is dogmatically binding interpretation of principles following from Scripture. But I don't think you would accept that use of 'established'.)

So far we have: (1) 'All important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'; (2) 'Any doctrine is important if and only if it is established on the written word of God'. But we have an implicit conclusion from this which necessarily follows: (3) 'All doctrine established on the written word of God (i.e. important doctrine) was taught by at least one of the Apostles'. That is an interesting claim. So you would hold, say, that at least one of the Apostles gave an account of the Trinitarian and Christological theology which would developed in the following centuries at the Ecumenical Councils? How would you concurrently hold that with, say, St. Justin Martyr's faulty Trinitarian theology, despite his proximity to Apostolic teaching and general acclamation as a saint? Would he not have rather been branded a heretic? And what about moral theology concerning future bioethical issues with which we now deal -- end of life issues, cloning, etc. etc. Was all that taught too by the Apostles? Or are any answers to those issues contrary to the doctrines found in Sacred Scripture? That is a bold position, if you hold it.

In Sanguine Agni

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think I do understand what you are saying. I must say that when you and I don't sin even when tempted it is only by God's enabling us not to. The Lord sanctifying us.

But I'm still confused as to why she needed a Savior if she was born sinless, lived sinless, and died sinless.
That would make her just like Jesus who was sinless and He didn't need a Savior.
Sorry I'm not making the connection but thanks for trying. Maybe I'm too tired too, I'll read your post again tomorrow.

The sinlessness I mentioned comes ordinarily when a Christian goes to Heaven. We believe in Christ and will someday be redeemed from sin. Our Lady was similarly redeemed by grace through faith. It's a mistake to say she doesn't need a Savior. She does. But the many and varied graces associated with doing so which people in Heaven receive upon arrival she received in her conception. It's the same grace, the same God, the same Savior, the same everything. Literally the only thing that separates her from anyone else is when she received those graces.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.)

I will take the scripture as authority over the traditions of men that fit nicely into their own doctrine any day. I would like to see your examples using chapter and verse, otherwise it is just another "tradition".

Sola Scriptura is your limitation. Don't try making it mine.

As I say, the original languages leave a lot open to interpretation. As I've already successfully demonstrated, it's not an open-and-shut issue if we go only by Sacred Scripture.

 

[Hank77]

What I am trying to ask is why you think why the following supposition is correct in the first place: 'All important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'. This seems to be the foundation for your argument.

Well I should have corrected you the first time you said this.
Please notice I was asking a question, not making a statement. See my quote below.
You responded by saying in effect that it isn't.

If the Immaculate Conception is an important doctrine for the Church wouldn't at least one of the Apostles have taught it?

I mean to say that without a disambiguation of 'important' then it's not possible to directly evaluate your claim 'All important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'.

Now you know that is not what I was claiming. So that is taken out of the equation.

So a doctrine is important if and only if it is established on Sacred Scripture? What do you mean by established?

There must be fairly clear scripture that bears witness to that doctrine. There is scripture that bears witness to the Trinity both in the OT and the NT.

So far we have: (1) 'All important doctrine was taught by at least one of the Apostles'; (2) 'Any doctrine is important if and only if it is established on the written word of God'.

Never said (1), did say (2). Only (2) is my argument.
I have stated it again above in a only in different words.

How would you concurrently hold that with, say, St. Justin Martyr's faulty Trinitarian theology, despite his proximity to Apostolic teaching and general acclamation as a saint? Would he not have rather been branded a heretic?

Are you asking me if I believe that because he didn't get all of his doctrine completely perfect that he should be judged as a heretic? That would be ridiculous, imo. His conversation with Trypho should make it clear, indeed quite the opposite.

And what about moral theology concerning future bioethical issues with which we now deal -- end of life issues, cloning, etc. etc. Was all that taught too by the Apostles? Or are any answers to those issues contrary to the doctrines found in Sacred Scripture?

All moral issues can be resolved or at least mostly resolved by the scriptures, we as mere mortals just don't always see them for various reasons. But none of these type, that you have mentioned, would be considered doctrines, at least not the type of doctrine we have been discussing.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Sola Scriptura is your limitation. Don't try making it mine.

As I say, the original languages leave a lot open to interpretation. As I've already successfully demonstrated, it's not an open-and-shut issue if we go only by Sacred Scripture.

The old defense when your traditions do not line up with the word, pull out the sola scriptura card. This is not my interpretation friend, I pulled that right off of strongs dictionary which in fact is populated by theological and Greek scholars...

That is right, we go off of sacred scriptures and not what men make up to fit into their agenda.

 

[Hank77]

The sinlessness I mentioned comes ordinarily when a Christian goes to Heaven. We believe in Christ and will someday be redeemed from sin. Our Lady was similarly redeemed by grace through faith. It's a mistake to say she doesn't need a Savior. She does. But the many and varied graces associated with doing so which people in Heaven receive upon arrival she received in her conception. It's the same grace, the same God, the same Savior, the same everything. Literally the only thing that separates her from anyone else is when she received those graces.

Thank you for explaining again, I do appreciate it. I hadn't addressed this one and a few others in many, many years. I don't normally get involved in discussion about the Roman Catholic beliefs they often turn into rude and nasty remarks from both sides. It literally pains me to hear those things. Maybe because I have had so many truly Christian and loving Catholics in my life. People that have passed away that I respected and loved deeply.
Thanks again.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

Well I should have corrected you the first time you said this.
Please notice I was asking a question, not making a statement. See my quote below.
You responded by saying in effect that it isn't.

Hank77, thank you for correcting my error. I suppose the appropriate response would be to answer your question as a question then: I would not hold that any important doctrine was held by at least one of the Apostles. I suppose it is possible that such doctrines were held by at least one of the Apostles, but Catholic theology does not say that such a thing is necessary. At most, holding it would be an historical opinion unrelated to any dogmas or doctrines.

In Sanguine Agni

 

[hooverbranch]

Thank you for explaining again, I do appreciate it. I hadn't addressed this one and a few others in many, many years. I don't normally get involved in discussion about the Roman Catholic beliefs they often turn into rude and nasty remarks from both sides. It literally pains me to hear those things. Maybe because I have had so many truly Christian and loving Catholics in my life. People that have passed away that I respected and loved deeply.
Thanks again.

Hank77, thank you for correcting my error. I suppose the appropriate response would be to answer your question as a question then: I would not hold that any important doctrine was held by at least one of the Apostles. I suppose it is possible that such doctrines were held by at least one of the Apostles, but Catholic theology does not say that such a thing is necessary. At most, holding it would be an historical opinion unrelated to any dogmas or doctrines.

In Sanguine Agni

This is a little off topic but I would like to say it is encouraging and refreshing to see Civil debate and conversation on this topic. There have been a few posts I have read that verged on the jerk level but for the most part this has been a educational and encouraging exchange.

The majority of us here seem to be here trying to make sure what is truly Godly. And lets be honest Protestants and Orthodox will 9 times out of 10 not see eye to eye on a topic involving Mary the Mother of Jesus. But what is nice is to be able to see conversation be respectable and cordial.

Thank you for those of you who are on the other side of this topic for being willing to hear us protestants out. And thanks to my fellow Protestants for trying to stay cordial. (This may not include everyone on this thread but in my opinion it does include most)

 

[Sammy-San]

Not between married couples as God intended.

Do you find their other statements on the issue to be equally unbibical?

 

[NeoScholasticism]

Oddly enough, Sacred Scripture gives no direct indication that she ever lost her virginity.

thecolorsblend,
That's actually an interesting point. If one had no prior dealings with our Protestant brethren, one would nearly expect there to be a far greater agnosticism on the issue rather than positive rejection of it. As a matter of fact, one would nearly expect there to be a far greater agnosticism on quite a lot of issues. Perhaps it is just because I am not well-read in Protestant literature, or maybe I am misinterpreting the situation, but my impression is that there is not so much talk about what is theological opinion as there is rigid presentation of 'surely correct' or 'surely incorrect'. Or maybe what is theological opinion is simply not spoken about as much. At any rate, this is not Aquinas and Bonaventure prayerfully sustained in wonder about whether the Incarnation would have happened had Original Sin not occurred.

Maybe the sola scriptura doctrine makes the realm of theological opinion harder to navigate. For something is only possibly a doctrine only if it is in the Scriptures; but if it is in the Scriptures, it is certainly a doctrine. But even then, I'm really not sure how one would decide whether a Scripture passage is sufficiently unambiguous enough to really know whether it implies a particular Scriptural doctrine or not. It does not seem that the ordinary action of grace entirely erases the gash of ignorance on much of anything. To not know is a mark of fallen humanity, and I become suspicious when I don't see enough of it. And I mean that not just in others, but also in myself (as I am often reminded).

Perhaps I am going beyond what you meant, but a good observation from your end nonetheless.

 

[lben]

Those were children of Mary the wife of Clopas, a different Mary than the mother of Jesus.

• No. The bible clearly states that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters. So many, in fact that at one point in time his family had gone several miles before realizing that Jesus was missing. They found him in a temple preaching.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No. The bible clearly states that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters.

Perhaps in King James English but not quite in looking back to Greek and contemplating how it would be in Aramaic and Hebrew. There, in Aramaic and Hebrew, you see that brothers are cousins and cousins are brothers or sisters. So the Bible clearly states that Jesus had some close kin, but does not state, clearly or otherwise, that Jesus had biological brothers and sisters. You cannot get all dogmatic about it without going way out on a skinny branch. From the Bible you cannot make a solid case that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I know you want to, to defend the tradition of the non-virginity of the mother of God, but it isn't tenable.