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.
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...
“She is second only to St. Peter and of course Jesus himself in the frequency of her appearance in the scripture.”
I’m not so sure about that, but it is a separate issue
from the one I am pursuing now, so I am going to put
it aside.
“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.”
I understand the position of the Roman and Eastern Church
on Tradition. Yet that is not the issue I was searching
to find. I will set that aside for now - and I do not
deny it.
“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.”
Actually, I do not.
“We do not hold that standard, and in fact, for you to be consistent,. that standard should then be spelled in the Bible, and it is not.”
I find that the major teachings are in fact, in holy
Scripture. Major doctrines are there. Major practice,
there. When something that has been major is not there,
it seems peculiar. That is all.
Thanks,
ampu