WHY is this important?

[Photini]

A thread just arose in GT (Mariology forum) that I am curious about.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7289959

It doesn't have to be proven to me that Mary is Ever-Virgin, but with all the defending of the dogma, I have never seen an argument as to WHY it is dogma. IOW, what about Christ are we defending? and how does it pertain to our salvation?

I wanted to see the answers here, because in GT the teachings from the ECFs are sneered at.

 

[Chesterton]

I’ve wondered the same thing.

Also, I understand a couple of prophecies deal with the idea, in Ezekiel and Psalms I think. I’d also ask if anyone knows, did the dogma arise from an understanding of the prophecies, or did it arise independently of them?

 

[Michael G]

If Mary is not ever virgin and had other children then there are people who would have a legitimate claim to being half-brothers to God.

 

[nutroll]

I’d also ask if anyone knows, did the dogma arise from an understanding of the prophecies, or did it arise independently of them?

to my thinking, this question is like asking "did the belief that Jesus was crucified arise from an understanding of the prophecies, or did it arise independently of them?" The Orthodox Church doesn't just make things up out of prophecy. We don't use the Bible as a starting point for constructing beliefs. We believe things because they are true, and in turn these truths can be seen in the prophecies of the OT and the words of the NT. We would assert that our beliefs are based on historical fact that has been handed down from the Apostles. The prophecies may confirm the truth of the belief, but they aren't the source of it.

A thread just arose in GT (Mariology forum) that I am curious about.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7289959

It doesn't have to be proven to me that Mary is Ever-Virgin, but with all the defending of the dogma, I have never seen an argument as to WHY it is dogma. IOW, what about Christ are we defending? and how does it pertain to our salvation?

I wanted to see the answers here, because in GT the teachings from the ECFs are sneered at.

I think it speaks to the uniqueness of Christ's birth. He is the only Son of the Father, and the only son of His Mother as well. The Theotokos was betrothed to Joseph, but she is the bride of God. I can't imagine her giving birth to Christ and then telling Joseph that now that God's Son had been born, it was Joseph's turn to have some kids. It also speaks to the issue of holiness. We believe that holiness leaves a mark. What is holy ground does not get used as a normal plot of land. A chalice does not get used as a mug for beer. Likewise, the Virgin's womb remained a sacred place even after the Birth of Christ. But while these things might be important lessons that can be learned from her perpetual virginity, I don't think they are cause to create a doctrine. But if it is true that she remained a virgin, why not affirm that as the truth when there is so much that can be learned from it, when it gives Glory to God? The truth precedes the doctrine. The doctrine does not create the truth. This is where the Protestant model has a problem. If it is not already spelled out in the doctrine (Bible) it can't be true. But if something is true, why shouldn't it be acknowledged as proper doctrine?

 

[E.C.]

If Mary is not ever virgin and had other children then there are people who would have a legitimate claim to being half-brothers to God.

Reminds me of the movie "Dogma".



In all seriousness, GT is proof of Protestantism's frivolous argument making. Should Christians celebrate Hannukah because Christ was Jewish and would have celebrated the holiday? Is the sort of thing that is found when we make ourselves our own bishop.

 

[Michael G]

Reminds me of the movie "Dogma".

The only part of that movie that was not semi-sacrilegous and thus funny was the scene in the train car where one of the main characters compared that scene to the cantina scene in "Star Wars."

 

[Photini]

I sent an email to an Orthodox friend of mine asking him the same question. Here is how he responded.

I suppose the fathers of the 5th ecumenical counsel were in the first
place seeking to protect the true history of the person of Mary as it
has been understood universally by the Church. As you know, they wrote
at length against those who claimed Mary had children with Joseph
after Jesus. The dogma also highlights the incarnation of Christ as a
unique and sanctifying event. There is the sense in which since the
time of Adam and Eve, children were born in the hope of giving birth
to the Messiah, and having done so, Mary was purified in the
fulfillment of the hope of Eve. She makes a point, in other words, by
giving birth to Christ. lastly, the fact that she remains ever-virgin
after the birth of Christ, looking forwards and backwards in time,
testifies to the miraculous nature of the incarnation. I always love
that phrase that she held that which was more than all the heavens in
her womb (thereby sanctifying her). What baby could follow that?

I've not heard dogma defined precisely that way before, and have
merely just thought of it as the non-negotiable truths, whether facts
of history or belief about God, that we must believe to be truly
Orthodox. The ever-virginity of Mary may help us in seeing her as our
spiritual mother, however, who intercedes for us in our own pigrimage
for the purity of salvation. She gave birth of the God of heaven and
earth, but had no other children of the flesh so through through her
obedience and intercession she could in fact have several spiritual
children, and as the new Eve, multiply and populate the kingdom of
God.

I'm looking forward to anyone else's input who can offer any.

 

[katherine2001]

Reminds me of the movie "Dogma".



In all seriousness, GT is proof of Protestantism's frivolous argument making. Should Christians celebrate Hannukah because Christ was Jewish and would have celebrated the holiday? Is the sort of thing that is found when we make ourselves our own bishop.

It's interesting how many Evangelicals have started celebrating some of the Jewish services and customs, when if they looked at Orthodoxy, they would see the part of Jewish worship that could be Christianized. I know that was one of the things (among many others) that really attracted Fr. A. James Bernstein. By the way, I highly recommend his book, "Surprised by Christ: My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity".

 

[All4Christ]

I was actually just going to start a thread about this. I think I still will because I don't want to derail the thread...

But in regards to this conversation, wasn't Mary betrothed to Joseph - not in a romantic typical betrothal - but as a safekeeper / guardian to her puity?

We all know that Mary was presented in the Temple, and if I understand correctly, she grew up serving in the Temple. After she grew to be of age (a woman), she had to leave and an elderly man (Joseph) was to marry her to protect her purity.

So - point being - as someone dedicated to be pure - to be a virgin for her life - would she break that covenant she made before God? Maybe that isn't the official reason why - but it makes sense to me :: shrug ::

 

[Photini]

I was actually just going to start a thread about this. I think I still will because I don't want to derail the thread...

But in regards to this conversation, wasn't Mary betrothed to Joseph - not in a romantic typical betrothal - but as a safekeeper / guardian to her puity?

We all know that Mary was presented in the Temple, and if I understand correctly, she grew up serving in the Temple. After she grew to be of age (a woman), she had to leave and an elderly man (Joseph) was to marry her to protect her purity.

So - point being - as someone dedicated to be pure - to be a virgin for her life - would she break that covenant she made before God? Maybe that isn't the official reason why - but it makes sense to me :: shrug ::

That is how I understand it too. And I don't mind at all it being discussed in this thread.

I also found this, which confirmed what I had read about Moses refraining from marital relations after the Lord spoke to him in the Burning Bush. It comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

But it was particularly with the view of fitting the soul for communion with God, or for the purpose of keeping the body sufficiently pure to allow it to come into contact with sacred objects, that many strove to avoid things that either cause intoxication or Levitical impurity, the drinking of wine (Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Amos ii. 12; Judges xiii. 14), or sexual intercourse, which was forbidden to the people of Israel, in preparation for the Sinai Revelation (Ex. xix. 15), and to Moses during the life of communion with God (Deut. ix. 9, 18; I Sam. xxi. 5; Shab. 87a).

Now, if Moses did this...how much MORE would Mary and Joseph have been inclined to hold to this after the Birth of Christ.

 

[MariaRegina]

I also found this, which confirmed what I had read about Moses refraining from marital relations after the Lord spoke to him in the Burning Bush. It comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

But it was particularly with the view of fitting the soul for communion with God, or for the purpose of keeping the body sufficiently pure to allow it to come into contact with sacred objects, that many strove to avoid things that either cause intoxication or Levitical impurity, the drinking of wine (Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Amos ii. 12; Judges xiii. 14), or sexual intercourse, which was forbidden to the people of Israel, in preparation for the Sinai Revelation (Ex. xix. 15), and to Moses during the life of communion with God (Deut. ix. 9, 18; I Sam. xxi. 5; Shab. 87a).

Now, if Moses did this...how much MORE would Mary and Joseph have been inclined to hold to this after the Birth of Christ.

Excellent point, Photini.

Thanks for bringing up this topic.

And that is why many Greek Orthodox Priests say that if we are going to partake of Holy Communion on Sunday morning, then we should abstain from marital relations from Great Vespers on Saturday until Monday. I suppose my comment is really going to derail this thread, but that was not my intention.

I think the idea of dedicating oneself to the Lord is lacking today.

For example, in the Orthodox Church, when a monastic leaves the monastery after becoming a novice, he/she is not to get married but is to remain celibate. My godmother left the convent as a novice to help her mother. She never returned to the monastery but has lived her life in celibacy and become the godmother to many children.

However, when a Roman Catholic leaves the monastery after becoming a novice, he/she is allowed to get married because no vows were taken.
Yet, when they do enter the monastery and do become a novice, they have dedicated themselves to the Lord.

 

[buzuxi02]

Thank-you Photini for that bit of insight. All these answers are good, they range from the historical fact, to the practicality to the metaphysical aspects of the ever virginity of Mary. But i would also like to draw a distinction between the Orthodox understanding of dogma (defined clearly by a council usually as to how it relates to christology and how it does not) with that of doctrine. In the Orthodox church, we recognize only one dogma for the Virgin Mary which is the title of Theotokos. On the other hand, doctrine while being equally part of Holy Tradition differs in dogma in that it allows for some speculation as to how it relates to salvation and Christology since the Church has never needed a reason to define it rigidly, hence this discussion.
Any other thoughts on a distinction between dogma and doctrine would be appreciated.

 

[Photini]

Thank-you Photini for that bit of insight. All these answers are good, they range from the historical fact, to the practicality to the metaphysical aspects of the ever virginity of Mary. But i would also like to draw a distinction between the Orthodox understanding of dogma (defined clearly by a council usually as to how it relates to christology and how it does not) with that of doctrine. In the Orthodox church, we recognize only one dogma for the Virgin Mary which is the title of Theotokos. On the other hand, doctrine while being equally part of Holy Tradition differs in dogma in that it allows for some speculation as to how it relates to salvation and Christology since the Church has never needed a reason to define it rigidly, hence this discussion.
Any other thoughts on a distinction between dogma and doctrine would be appreciated.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about the differences between dogma and doctrine as well. I believe the expression "Ever-Virgin" in relation to Mary was used in more than one Council (am I wrong? I don't know which ones...), but it wasn't put forth as dogma? I thought it was. I confess that I haven't studied the Councils very much at all...except for the false Council of Florence which St Mark of Ephesus took part in.

 

[All4Christ]

I definitely could be wrong (I'm still learning a lot) - but I think that we were told in our catechism that this topic (ever-virgin) was doctrine - and that her being the Theotokos was dogma. Perhaps because of the official outcomes of the councils? As in - the dogma was written down and not just said? I too would like to hear the input of someone who knows a bit more regarding this....

 

[All4Christ]

I think I may have been wrong. Apprently in one of the councils in sixth century, I believe, did officially endorse "ever-virgin"....so I guess it is dogma?

 

[All4Christ]

A short excerpt from the Greek Archdiocese on dogma and doctrine....

III. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH -- ORTHODOX DOGMA AND BELIEF

The beliefs, doctrine and dogma of the Orthodox Church are in direct continuity with the doctrine of the Bible and the uninterrupted tradition of the Church of which the Bible is the authoritative exponent. The Orthodox Church may rightly glory in its history, as being a "historical" Church, of which the history has no innovations to present, but rather an absolute faithfulness to the basic Christian message as preserved in the Bible.

All the dogmas of the Church are "Biblical," i.e. based on the Bible. The dogmas of the Church are nothing else but an authoritative presentation of the revealed doctrine, both for didactic and also apologetical purposes. Heresy was one of the reasons why the Church established and enunciated its doctrine in a very clear and unequivocal way. However, the dogmas decreed by the Councils that opposed heresy are not the only ones promulgated and taught by the Church. The doctrinal system of the Church contains both these dogmas and all the other doctrines that the Church always proclaimed as being part of the message of salvation that she addresses to the world.

The Triune God, the doctrine of creation of angels and man, man's fall, the divine plan of salvation, Christ's person and work, the Church, the Virgin Mary, the Saints, the Sacraments, and Orthodox eschatology (the "last things") are some of the points of doctrine that will be presented here, in a very synoptic manner.

So...my best guess - is that the dogma is what was derived from Biblical sources through the councils to combat heresy - and doctrine consists of the dogma of the church and all other teachings (perhaps that being a reason for the Theotokos being "Ever-virgin" to be doctrine not dogma?)

 

[Yeznik]

Christ took His human nature from Mary (Except for original sin). Any change in the human nature of Mary is an indirect change in the human nature of Christ. Meaning the physical genetic structure of Mary is directly connected to the physical genetic substance of Christ. This is why in Mathew genealogy was important more specifically the "genetic" trail of Christ. So from a biblical perspective why bother providing the genealogy of Christ if we are going to disregard the genealogy of His mother. As many Protestants argue that Mary nature really does not matter then why does Saint Matthew go through the trouble? Additionally, regarding the Theotokos this is what Saint Athanasius said at the first Ecumenical Council:

Here is an excerpt from Saint Athanasius of Alexandria refutation at the council of Nicea.

[FONT=&quot]
"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).

so technically, the ancient Churches can trace the teaching of the Ever Virgin Mary to the origins of the Church.

[/FONT]

 

[buzuxi02]

Ever-Virgin has been used in councils but not in a dogmatic sense as evidence against a particular heresy or in order to give clarity to right belief or to define a christological issue. The dogmas and teachings of the church are both revealed truth, it has nothing to do with optional beliefs but the latter leaves more room for mystery. There is no dogma of the Eucharist, the Church never felt a need to give it a neat little definition or add it into a creed or come up with a special word for the process of transformation. We know that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ, but it has never been deliberated at a council, there was never a need for it.

 

[Kolya]

Just a quick Rhetorical question.

If you had used a certain bottle to bring Holy Water home from Theophany Liturgy, and it was used up. Would you then use it to keep Diet Cola in the Fridge? I think not! For that reason our Blessed Theothokos was used once, and once only, to bring into the world the Lamb that would be slain for our salvation. It would not have been right to "use" her mortal body to bring normal mortals into the world after that.

Just my 2 kopeks worth.

Kolya

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If Mary is not ever virgin and had other children then there are people who would have a legitimate claim to being half-brothers to God.

Wow! Thanks Michael,

Scripture does not explicitly state one way or the other, but tradition (our Lutheran Confessions also) does hold the perpetual virginity of Mary to be true and faithful. Your statement (theoretical though it may be) makes a valid point! There has not, to my knowledge been any one who historically claimed to be 1/2 god by birthright.

On the other hand...
I have always understood that the dual nature of Christ (true God, and true man...) comes from two sources. Christ's human nature comes from the BVM, his Divine nature is "Begotten of his Father". So elaborating on this train of thought, if Jesus had siblings not begotten of the Father, then they would be only and purely human.

I don't want to start a debate, I hold the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as truth. As Mother of our Lord, she has been sanctified in a special way.

Blessings to all (and thanks for putting up with my musings),

Mark