Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, Elizabeth Mahlou, my fellow blogger from Blest Atheist, asked me one of those “big questions” which necessitate its own blog post. Here is the question:
I am a Catholic who upon occasion attends Orthodox services because of my frequent travels in Eastern European countries. The differences in the masses are obvious, but I wonder what the differences in the theology are. I don't see much. Is that something that you can elucidate?
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.
Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.I think this will do it for now. I invite my Orthodox Christian brethren to agree, disagree, or add your own. Without a doubt, - I am speaking as a Catholic again - what we have in common with the Orthodox Church is immense, but what keeps us apart is important, challenging, and not to be underestimated.
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.
9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.
10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”
11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.
12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.
Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread - particularly in
regards to the Orthodox Church, which I knew far less
about than the Roman Church where I grew up before
becoming a believer.
This thread spurred me to do a bit of reading up
on the Orthodox Church. In doing so, I was asking
myself if I felt comfortable in a Biblical sense
with what I found. In many ways, the answer is
yes. There are a few sticking points.
As an example:
One thing that stood out was the emphasis given
to Mary in the Orthodox service. I found the same
doctrine of perpetual virginity that Rome has.
I’ve searched a bit to try to learn on what
basis both churches teach this concept.
Can either side here comment in particular as
to where in the Bible you find support for
this doctrine - or if it is based on tradition
alone?
I’ll be candid...
I can see some rationale for coming to a different
conclusion on the verses that seem to imply evidence
Mary was not perpetually a virgin.
Even if that is swallowed, without some Biblical
support to affirm the claim of perpetual virginity,
it seems to remain an argument from silence - yet
elevated in practice and belief to a central doctrine
of the Orthodox church.
Sincere question. Any comments from your traditions
will be thoughtfully received.
Thank you.
ampu
“...and who has the true Christlike attitude about us “illegitimate” Protestants...”
We Orthodox don’t have much attitude one way or the other about you Protestants (other than here on FR I suppose), except perhaps when you try to proseltyze in Orthodox Christian lands, then we can be “difficult”. In all honesty, most Orthodox, at least the cradle ones, when we think of you folks at all, think you are a) Rome’s problem, thank God or b) Rome’s just deserts, depending on how we are feeling about Rome at the time! Its a bit like how you feel about the neighbors’ naughty kids. :)
“Can either side here comment in particular as
to where in the Bible you find support for
this doctrine - or if it is based on tradition
alone?
I’ll be candid...
I can see some rationale for coming to a different
conclusion on the verses that seem to imply evidence
Mary was not perpetually a virgin.
Even if that is swallowed, without some Biblical
support to affirm the claim of perpetual virginity,
it seems to remain an argument from silence - yet
elevated in practice and belief to a central doctrine
of the Orthodox church.”
ampu, one of the Latins may be able to give you chapter and verse from the Scriptures about the perpetual virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos. I can’t and frankly it makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever if there is or is not a scriptural basis for our devotion to Panagia. Holy Tradition, as preserved in the Divine Liturgy and other devotions of The Church and in the writings of the consensus patrum says she was. Holy Tradition also says that the scriptures of the Canon have value as the written Word of God. I believe Holy Tradition in both instances. If Holy Tradition did not approve the Canon, I wouldn’t accept the Canon, not the other way around.
Kolokotronis,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Since you do accept the scriptures,
are the written word of God, and I
concur, I add the following reflection
back to you...
If veneration of Mary as a perpetual
virgin was so, so important as a
central practice of the Church, I
would think God might mention it
in His written word.
After all, the Gospel is there.
Instructions for elders and bishops
is there, etc.
Maybe someone else might give some
Biblical teaching for us.
Again, thank you.
best,
ampu
I already know what it means...It means what it says...
Barnabas was a bishop of the Church and he laid hands on Paul to ordain him as bishop.
As you just read, Barnabas was right there getting hands layed on him just as Paul was...Certainly Barnabas didn't need to be consecrated a bishop once again...What'd he do, lose it??? Barnabas never put so much as a finger on Paul...
Ananais baptized Paul with a dry baptism
Of course Paul was baptized with a dry baptism...All Christians are baptized with a dry baptism....
By all means. The bishops also have to be approved by the laity.
In the Catholic Church it is the other way round! This is a notable difference
As we say "pray, pay and obey."
Sorry if I was rude, the thread is open, I simply wanted to avoid a long argument over the apostolic succession.
The argument from the silence of Sacred Scripture is highly significant and is strong proof in itself. If the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children then where were they? Why is there no mention of them by name at any point in Scripture? And in particular why did they not accompany and support their mother and their brother during the Passion and on Calvary at the moment of their supreme agony?
The direct Scriptural passage which substantiates Mary’s perpetual virginity is Luke, 1:34. The consensus of Latin theologians is that this passage indicates that Our Lady took a vow of perpetual virginity. If she had not made such a vow then her response to the angel makes very little sense.
On the excellence of virginity see 1 Corinthians 7:6-8,38 and Apocaplypse 14:4. Scripture, tradition and Our Lord’s own example strongly commends a celibate life and it is of surprise that the Protestant’s have not as a whole made much, if any, space for consecrated celibacy within their communities.
The veneration of the BVM is an imitation on our part of Christ’s own example of his perfect fulfillment of the 4th/5th Commandment. We are called to imitate Our Lord and therefore also to give perfect honour - as he did - to his mother. What could be more scriptural than this?
You can even restrict it to the past 40 years. But the radical individualism was set in motion by the Reformation, it just took a while to get the ball really rolling.
“12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.”
#12 was posted as the teachings of the Catholic Church. They were false teachings. It’s important to correct them as this is how rumors/misunderstandings can occur.
Again, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
460 - The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
Then there’s the Holy Mass, where we live this teaching and, have done since the ancient Church. It’s the Offertory at Mass, in both the old and new Roman rite that contains this prayer:
“By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
If we didn’t share in his divinity, then there would be only actual grace. But from Baptism onwards we receive Supernatural Graces — graces above our human nature.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would be capable of only human faith, hope and charity as a result of our own strength of character. But we receive Supernatural Virtues— Faith, Hope and Charity by the power of God.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would receive only his humanity in Holy Communion. But we receive the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
As the priest adds a few drops of water to the wine in the chalice, he prays, “By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the Divinity of Christ, who humbled Himself to share in our humanity.”
This action thereby symbolizes the hypostatic union of our Lord’s divine and human natures. In the mystery of the incarnation, Jesus Christ, true God, became also true man. Remember at the crucifixion, the Roman soldier thrust his lance to the side of Jesus, piercing His Sacred Heart, and from His wounded side flowed Blood and Water (cf. John 19:34).
Therefore, the saving benefits of our Lord’s incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension touch the lives of the faithful and are especially granted through the Holy Eucharist. And it is through the Holy Eucharist, that faithful share in the divine life and love of Jesus who became man for our salvation.
As the priest places a piece of the Sacred Host into the chalice, he prays, “May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.” This gesture represents the unity of the Sacrament: the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus is truly and fully present in both the Precious Blood in the Chalice and the Sacred Host on the paten.
Another important symbolic explanation for this rite is given in St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, III pars q 74, 6-8:
“Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is offered in this sacrament.
“First of all, on account of its institution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to the custom of that country: hence it is written (Proverbs 9:5): ‘Drink the wine which I have mixed for you.’
“Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of our Lord’s Passion: hence Pope Alexander I says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): ‘In the Lord’s chalice neither wine only nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read that both flowed from His side in the Passion.’
“Thirdly, because this is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): ‘We see that the people are signified by the water, but Christ’s blood by the wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people [are] made one with Christ.’
“Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): ‘The water flows into the chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life.’”
These different explanations form the basis for the Church’s understanding of the importance of this rite. This understanding is at the root of the sentiment expressed by the prayer which the priest recites in a low voice as he pours the water into the chalice:
“By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
Using a Protestant Pastor as a source to explain CC teachings is puzzling especially since there are excellent resources from the CC online.
Catholic theologians have written extensively on Divination/Meditation etc., - there’s lots of information out there along with a few good classics. I can give you some sites if you would like...:)
That said, I agree we haven’t truly begun to understand this great mystery.
***Now if only you could understand what it means.
I already know what it means...It means what it says...***
You have very admirably demonstrated that you have no idea what it says.
***Barnabas was a bishop of the Church and he laid hands on Paul to ordain him as bishop.
As you just read, Barnabas was right there getting hands layed on him just as Paul was...Certainly Barnabas didn’t need to be consecrated a bishop once again...What’d he do, lose it??? Barnabas never put so much as a finger on Paul...***
Does your Bible have inconstant verse? You actually posted the correct verses.
***Ananais baptized Paul with a dry baptism
Of course Paul was baptized with a dry baptism...All Christians are baptized with a dry baptism....***
Most Christians are baptized with a water baptism.
***Instead we should be praying for that happy reunion which will be so pleasing to Our Lord. What form that reunion will take should be of no concern to us as it will be as He wills. Pray mightily that the wounds which have divided Christendom for a millenium be healed.
Actually, on thinking about this, I’m sure there is something good that will come out of the millenium of separation. The Orthodox have much to teach the Catholic and vice-versa. Both of us will reunite and so too with the Orientals and Assyrians and Protestant groups that are orthodox.***
I don’t believe that we will reunite with the various Protestant groups as a whole; rather it will be individuals. The power of theological determination will be the roadblock towards reunification except perhaps with the Anglicans and the conservative Lutherans.
So it is more a disagreement with how the Westerners tend to think about Original Sin, rather than with what the Catohlic Church in fact teaches.
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
Mary is mentioned in the New Testament quite a bit: in the account of Christ’s birth and shildhood, her involvement in the first miracle of Christ, her presence as Jesus taught the multitudes, her presence at the Cross, and in the Upper Room. We also see Mary leading the battle against Satan in the Revelation. She is second only to St. Peter and of course Jesus himself in the frequency of her appearance in the scripture.
So that is an indication that Mary is an important factor of our faith, our spiritual mother and protector.
That several doctrines of the Church do not have a direct scriptural prooftext, indeed, as Kolokotronis explained, is not an obstacle for venerating Mary. The Scripture generally does not inform us of lives of even the early saints, yet we venerate them all.
You are applying the wrong standard, according to both the Orthodox and the Catholic: you think that if the scripture is silent about something then it should not be believed. We do not hold that stadnard, and in fact, for you to be consistent,. that standard should then be spelled in the Bible, and it is not.
“So it is more a disagreement with how the Westerners tend to think about Original Sin, rather than with what the Catohlic Church in fact teaches.”
Teaches NOW, Alex, teaches NOW. What you have posted from sections 404 & 405 of the Catechism flies in the face, or so it would seem, of Ineffabilis Deus. Be that as it may, its probably time to start teaching this more patristic understanding of Ancestral Sin to Latin Rite Catholics.
Maybe. Though the “spinning off of restraints” has also been traced back to the Black Death years.
Though that has been also been cited as a cause of the Reformation.
The Holy Tradition is well documented:
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 of Salamis:”... 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]). ...”And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
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
Didymus the Blind: “It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born 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 material 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, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Origen: ...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]). [A.D. 248], Hilary of Poitiers [A.D. 354],
Augustine: “In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, 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]). ...”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]). ...”Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
“That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother.”
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: “[T]he 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]).
Pope Leo I: “His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).
Council of Constantinople II: “... the Word of God ... came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her,...” (Anathemas Against the “Three Chapters” 2 [A.D. 553]).
All of the early reformers including Martin Luther, Wesley, and Calvin, et al - believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
The idea that Mary had other children first surfaced from a guy named Helvidius around 380 A.D. and it caused quite a stir as no one held that belief at the time. Jerome, responded with a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary.
Jerome had access to much documentation from the early Church and he cited earlier well known Christian writers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply. His theory died and lay dormant for over 1500 years until it recently resurfaced among modern Evangelicals.
Scripture comes from Oral Tradition which is why we use both. Everything that’s in the Holy Bible is true but not everything’s in the Holy Bible. :)
John Calvin on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:
Helvidius (see above) displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3)
Look up what the Protestant reformers had to say.... John Calvin was only one...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.