Posted on 11/03/2009 9:42:30 AM PST by GonzoII
There is absolutely ho historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity (which necessarily includes her virginity after the birth of Christ) has been so deeply rooted in Catholic Tradition from the very beginning, that the Fathers of the Church instinctively and vigorously rose to its defense every time early heretics questioned it. Among the many witnesses that could be mentioned in this connection are: Origen, St. Epheaem, St. Hilary, St. Zeno, St. John Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and many others. The Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin also accepted the Catholic doctrine of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.
Mt.13:55, and Mk. 6:3 name the following as brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph (Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), Simon and Judas. But Mt. 27:56, says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark 15:40 says Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses was there. So, although the proof is not conclusive, it seems that – unless we suppose these were others with the same names, that the first two, James and Joseph (Joses) had a mother other than the Mother of Jesus.
Therefore the term brother was used for those who were not sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus. So the same easily could be the case with the other two, Simon and Judas.
Further if Mary had other natural sons and daughters too at the time of the cross, it would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of her.
The words “brother” or “sister” were defined by their use.
The Hebrew and Aramaic ah was used for various types of relations. Hebrew had no word for cousin. They could say ben-dod, which means son of a paternal uncle, but for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as “the son of the brother of his mother” or, “the son of the sister of his mother”.
Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen. 11:27-31) is called his brother in Gen. 13:8 and 14:14-16. Certainly, the Greek language does have words for cousins and other relatives, but the Septuagint (the old Greek translation of the Hebrew OT -- abbreviated LXX) uses Greek adelphos, brother, for Lot - who as mentioned above, was really a nephew, so that objection doesn’t prove the case.
Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels and Epistles often had Hebrew words in mind when they wrote Greek words. This is especially true with St. Paul. And there is strong evidence that St. Luke at some points was translating Hebrew documents.
Mt. 1:25 – “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus”. Non-Catholics like to point to two words here, “until” and “firstborn”.
Most ancient words have a broad span of possible meanings. Sometimes the word for until leaves room for a change after the time point indicated. However this was not always the case. In Dt. 34:6, Moses was buried, “and to this day no one knows where the grave is”. That was true in the day of the writer of Dt.; it is still true even today. In Psalm 110:1, as interpreted by Jesus Himself (Mt.22; 42-46), “The Lord said to my [David's] Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” Of course, Jesus was not to stop being at the right hand of the Father at any point. So the word until here does not mean a change of status. Psalm 72:7, a messianic Psalm, says that in his days “peace will abound until the moon is no more.” Again, the power of the Messiah is not to stop when the moon no longer gives its light (Mt.24:29). In 2 Samuel 6:23 that David's wife Michal had no son until the day of her death. Of course, she did not have one after that either! In Mt.11:23, our Lord says that if the miracles done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, “it would have lasted until the present day.” Had it lasted, Jesus did not intend to destroy it in His time. In Mt 28:20, Jesus promised to be with His Church, His followers until the end of the world, does that mean He will desert us in eternity. In Romans 8:22, St. Paul says that all creation groans, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God until Paul’s day. Nor did it stop then, that will continue until the restoration at the end. In 1 Timothy 4:13, the Apostle tells Timothy to devote himself to reading, exhortation and teaching “until I come.” He did not mean Timothy should stop such things when Paul did come. There are more, but these should be more than enough to show that not always does until in OT and NT, mean a change of things is to come at the point referred to.
Jesus is called firstborn in Luke 2:7 (and also in Mt 1:25, if we take the Vulgate addition to the Greek). This reflects Hebrew bekor, which chiefly expressed the privileged position of the firstborn among other children. It need not imply there were actually others. We can see this from a Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (cf. Biblica 11, 1930, 369-90) for a mother who died in childbirth: “In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life.
There are no solid evidences in Scripture that Our Lady had other children. The decisive reason is the teaching of the Church. The most ancient creeds all call her aei-parthenos = “Ever-virgin.”
According to Papias [AD second century] – “Mary, the mother of the Lord; Mary, the wife of Cleophas or Alpheus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, mother of James the less and Joseph, wife of Alpheus, was the sister of Mary, the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands” (The Fragments of Papias).
Rather than using the word “brothers” it would be more accurate to use the word “brethren.” Any way you look at it, Mary, the mother of Jesus, had only one child natural child. The rest of us are her children by adoption.
© 2004 – Victor R. Claveau
Part or all of this article may be reproduced without obtaining permission as long as the author is cited.
"For as a virgin she conceived,
as a virgin she gave birth,
a virgin she remained."
-St. Augustine: Sermons, 52. (5th cent.)
|
|
|
In terms of history and of adherents, Mary’s perpetual viginity is far and away the mainstream view.
“Radical fringe” was the characterization of the poster who I replied to. If it is to be applied, it was applied wrong.
I sympathize with your wife as I have been to quite a few CINO churches in my time (break out the guitar...ugh). Still, we all must "Strive to enter through the narrow gate...". I wish that narrow gate was the Catholic Church for your wife. I also agree on the not bickering. Why do we do that? LOL.
Tertullian held that Mary was no longer virgin after Jesus’s birth - due to Jesus’s birth. Tertullian’s views on Mary and virginity were strongly rejected. I don’t think even Protestants would agree with them.
Why do we do it? The answer is obvious. And I offer it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
“I also agree on the not bickering. Why do we do that? LOL.”
IMHO, it would not be an issue, but for the fact that -— wrongly and against RCC doctrine, I know -— in many RC sub-groups (Hisanic, in my experience) Mary has replaced Christ as pseudo goddess.
Yes, I know that is not RC official doctrine.
But as a practical matter, if you ask the average Southwest USA Roman Catholic who they worship, they’ll tell you “Maria.”
There is a fine line between exhaltation and worship, and it’s being crossed.
That heresy has brought attention to issues like this, which would otherwise be a mere intellectual disagreement, akin to whether one should call Mary “Mother of God” or “Mother of Christ.”
I am not holding up Tertullian as some model, just to show the ideas are not new.
He ended up somewhere between a sedvectuis hard ass and a Pentacostal.
This issue was discussed many times in the past, again I think being more discussed recently because of the increasing over-veneration of Mary by certain sub-groups in the RCC.
But this only confirms the problem of the innovative views. That it was not a surprise that someone could come up with them somehow by discovering them in scripture. Considered and overwhelmingly rejected.
“Over veneration” is an odd term. If it means that Mary is God it’s latria and no longer veneration. This would be a grave error of Catholic theology and practice.
The problem from the Protestant view often arises IMHO from a form of dualism almost gnostic, all flesh is evil, total depravity, etc. In their eyes *any* veneration is wrong. It would be hard to please this view with any *less* veneration.
““Over veneration” is an odd term.”
I concur. I made it up because I lack the vocabulary to express the sliding scale from “blessed” to “worshipped”
“This would be a grave error of Catholic theology and practice.”
I agree. It is also a fact that this error is a widespread, if not dominant theme in certain parts of the RCC. Go watch the parade of the Virgin of Guadelupe on TV one day. Jesus is a bit player in pagan Virgin goddess worship.
I advise, from the outside, the correct RC response is to not be defensive about this error, but to admit heretical groups are doing it and stamp them out.
“all flesh is evil, total depravity”
Not any Protestant Church I know about. Well, maybe the Episcopals a/k/a the Frozen Chosen.
I lack the vocabulary to express the sliding scale from “blessed” to “worshipped”
Dulia, hyperdulia and latria. Dulia is the honour paid to Saints, hyperdulia the veneration offered only to the Blessed Virgin Mary, latria pertains to the worship of God. Dulia and hyperdulia are different in degree; dulia and latria are different in kind.
It is also a fact that this error is a widespread, if not dominant theme in certain parts of the RCC.
I disagree. Not that it doesn't exist, but it's not dominant in my experience and in my study. Many come to Jesus through His Mother. Non-catholics cannot conceive of this, for Catholics it is all part of the Communion of Saints - another important loss in Protestantism.
Again, non-Catholics can look at dulia and see it as something they can only conceive of as "worship" since they have no corollary.
parade of the Virgin of Guadelupe..
It needs to be remembered that the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe was an historical event of immense significance for the people of Mexico. The event is the reason for the celebration and the event was the appearance of the icon. It also symbolizes the Mexican nation since its independence. The celebration celebrates the appearance and their independence. This is primarily what it is about as opposed to, say, Easter.
the correct RC response is to not be defensive about this error, but to admit heretical groups are doing it and stamp them out.
Heresy, in this regard, is mistaking the Lord's Mother for the Lord, latria for dulia, the finite for the infinite. This heresy cannot often be seen from the outside - and can easily be mistaken, particularly by those who have little or no knowledge of the distinctions of worship.
For example, due to my own ignorance I may watch a fraternal rite of initiation and see all sorts of symbols and evidence of religious heresy where none exists. :)
Should heresy be corrected? Of course, as should magical thinking, which occurs in children and Christians of all stripes and ages.
For many non-Catholics a shrine to Mary is heresy. So again, there is a line to cross between dulia and latria, but one I find non-Catholics ill-equipped to distinguish. I agree with your basic point while I may disagree with where you see heresy. I tend to be defensive because others judge my spiritual practice and call it heresy apparently professing to know what is in my heart and mind.
Nothing personal at all intended, but we see Protestantism as heresy, so me telling you to "stamp out heresy"… well, in some key areas we disagree on what should be stamped out.
In summary of all this: Mary can be an object of idolatry, it is much less prevalent than what Protestants can and do see, idolatry is not a Catholic monopoly, but the Church should certainly be quick to point it out and stop it. [“all flesh is evil, total depravity” ] Not any Protestant Church I know about.
Calvinism, certain Reformed Churches and many Baptist Churches.
There isn't a single book of the Word that isn't intertwined with the Prophecy. It is for that reason that the Protestant Bible stands on it's own, agreed to as inspired by everyone, both in the Old and in the New Covenants.
The Prophecy proclaims the Word, and visa-versa.
It is also why I personally lend credence to several books of the Apocrypha, the Ethiopian book of Enoch, and the book of Jasher... While I will not support them as canon, as the available works are obviously not original, there is enough prophetic content to admit what once was...
Think about the Muslims and the Koran.
Anyone who has read the Koran and associated hadiths in the light (or rather, darkness) of their prophecies would not mistake them as being associated with the God of Israel. Their prophet and prophecies are directly and diametrically opposed to the God of Israel, and His Christ.
I admit the records of fulfilled prophecy are contained in Scripture, but that does not prove that the Scripture itself is divinely inspired but only a history book, although an accurate one. I need external proof to convince me that what has been written is from God himself, this proof Hatholics get from the Church.
Regards.
"And when He came into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man his wisdom, and these mighty works?
Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, And Simon, And Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
And they were offended in Him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house."
Matthew 13:54 - 57
These were Jesus' hometown folk, these were His next door neighbors...they knew Him, or more accurately they knew of Him, (they didn't realize that He was God in the flesh) and they knew His family, personally.
The historical record of scripture bears witness that Joseph and Mary had children. These were the half siblings of Christ.
Not to say that Mary wasn't blessed, scripture speaks plainly that she was, not to say that Mary wasn't a virtuous woman and a vessel used by God, again scripture indicates that she was.
But the idea of her perpetual virginity is flatly contradicted by scripture.
Even so, even though she knew Joseph, she was still virtuous even though she was born with a sin nature, which makes her life more amazing: Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled...Hebrews 13:4
Intercourse between husband and wife has been declared to be holy by God, just as holy as a lifetime of chastity.
Correct, FWIW. It is the unfulfilled, the recently fulfilled, and that which has been actively fulfilled all the way along that makes it much more than "a history book, although an accurate one". That is what proves it to be divinely inspired.
The Prophecy stands as proof to all generations that God is in fact, God. It wouldn't be proof if it were all historical, would it? Is it your contention that the Prophecy is done, and over with?
As each of the books contain the Prophecy, they declare themselves to be divinely inspired, and a part of the whole of Scripture.
The Bible stands alone. It needs no witness.
I understand what you are saying, but I’ve been among SW Hispanics my entire life in New Mexico.
On an oil rig, there was an accident, and I prayed for safety of the man (who was electricuted).
The rig hands (hispanic) were discussing it later, and told me (this is a near quote) “Oh, we don’t need to pray to Jesus, we have Mary. You have Jesus. We have Mary, and don’t need Jesus.”
It was shocking to me, and I’ve heard the near same dicussion with others.
Regarding heresy: technically, I am not a heretic to the RCC, as I’ve never been a member of a Protestant (break off) church. I’ve always just gone to informal churches that were “2 or more believers gathered in his name” (that’s all it takes), which formed from men who came to accept Christ as their savior. More of the great, unwashed, variety of Christian, than protestant.
I’ve been exposed a fair amount to hispanic culture, and haven’t seen quite such an extreme case, but I can believe it and I *think* it is a more prevalent error among Mexicans. It may even be somewhat a result of the impact and importance of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Of course, thinking like this is evidence of really bad catechesis which should be corrected by their bishop, priest or confessor. If it happened in my presence I would correct it as it would be my duty to - this is harmful to the Church and to the person and others exposed to his error. If I saw it on FR, I would correct it here, because this is a public forum.
Cases like yours are always the responsibility of the bishop who is responsible for the priest who should teach the faith correctly and correct errors in private. It becomes the responsibility of other Catholics in the parish if it happens in public, but if possible they should deal with it again through their bishop.
This pope is quite firm on correct doctrine, it could take a wise choice of an Archbishop to get an understanding of all this and how to properly deal with it.
On your “hereticness”: I believe the Catholic view would be that while your beliefs are heresy (you don’t believe in the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for example), your culpability is limited because they are due to ignorance and it’s undetermined whether this is vincible or invincible.
Catholics have categories and definitions for *everything.* :)
Which reminds me of a favorite story: A priest travels to furtherest reaches of the Arctic to convert a tiny tribe of Eskimos. He teaches them about sin and grace and heaven and hell.
As he is leaving the chief thanks him and then asks: “Father, if we had died before you came, not knowing about Jesus and salvation, would we all have gone to hell?”
“No, because you didn’t know,” said the priest.
The chief replies, “Then why in hell did you tell us?”
thanks very much for your reply...
“you don’t believe in the necessity of the sacraments “
I don’t necesarilly agree about the “necessity” (as in, “salvational necessity”) of baptism, for example, but I certainly agree Jesus told us to do it, and He is the boss, so I do it.
I would think that would be the position of most, if not all, non-Roman Catholic Christians.
You have not proven this with your post nor by the scripture you quote. Jesus himself said being celibate is better than being married and Paul concurred with this, but only few have this grace. God has done great things for Mary by her own words and I don't know why she wouldn't be graced with this charism.
You are making a huge assumption, no pun intended, by stating that Mary was an ordinary wife which is not based in scripture nor the circumstances surrounding the Incarnation, life, death, Resurrection, etc... of Christ.
Also, the Mother of God was not born with a sinful nature but that is a lengthy discussion for another time.
And I owe you a thank you for the cordial discussion.
I am a Fundamentalist, but I fear that in some Fundamentalist circles they've become Mary bashers in their effort to refute Catholic Church doctrine.
I'll tell you, I would hate to stand before the Lord Jesus being guilty of dishonoring His mother.
Also, the Mother of God was not born with a sinful nature...
Mary was the mother of Jesus, the man, not the mother of God. God has no mother, nor a beginning or end, He is from everlasting to everlasting. Christ is the God man. He was God and man, never being one more than the other.
Jesus, the Lamb of God, died, God cannot die.
Jesus himself said that being celibate is better than being married and Paul concurred with this, but only few have this grace.
"I wish that all men were as I am. But each has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Now to the unmarried and widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9
It is good for them to stay unmarried,...
If I'm enjoying an orange and I say that it's good, am I declaring that oranges are better than apples?
Paul was saying that it was good in a sense that there is nothing wrong with it if that is your gift, not that it is better.
I return the gratitude for a civil discussion.
Markos33
Here is a brief explanation of why your argument, what Catholics call the Nestorian heresy, is incorrect.
CHURCH PROCLAIMS MARY MOTHER OF GOD
Council of Ephesus proclaimed Mary as the Mother of God
2. By the fourth century, the term Theotókos was frequently used in the East and West. Devotion and theology refer more and more to this term, which had by now become part of the Church's patrimony of faith.
One can therefore understand the great protest movement that arose in the fifth century when Nestorius cast doubt on the correctness of the title "Mother of God". In fact, being inclined to hold that Mary was only the mother of the man Jesus, he maintained that "Mother of Christ" was the only doctrinally correct expression. Nestorius was led to make this error by his difficulty in admitting the unity of Christ's person and by his erroneous interpretation of the distinction between the two natures—divine and human—present in him.
In 431 the Council of Ephesus condemned his theses and, in affirming the subsistence of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Son, proclaimed Mary the Mother of God.
3. Now, the difficulties and objections raised by Nestorius offer us the opportunity to make several useful reflections for correctly understanding and interpreting this title. The expression Theotókos, which literally means, "she who has begotten God", can at first sight seem surprising; in fact it raises the question as to how it is possible for a human creature to give birth to God. The answer of the Church's faith is clear: Mary's divine motherhood refers only to the human begetting of the Son of God but not, however, to his divine birth. The Son of God was eternally begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with him. Mary, of course, has no part in this eternal birth. However, the Son of God assumed our human nature 2,000 years ago and was conceived by and born of Mary.
In proclaiming Mary "Mother of God", the Church thus intends to affirm that she is the "Mother of the Incarnate Word, who is God". Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, who, in becoming incarnate, took his human nature from her.
Motherhood is a relationship of person to person: a mother is not only mother of the body or of the physical creature born of her womb, but of the person she begets. Thus having given birth, according to his human nature, to the person of Jesus, who is a divine person, Mary is the Mother of God.
Blessed Virgin's consent precedes Incarnation
4. In proclaiming Mary "Mother of God", the Church in a single phrase professes her belief regarding the Son and the Mother. This union was already seen at the Council of Ephesus; in defining Mary's divine motherhood, the Fathers intended to emphasize their belief in the divinity of Christ. Despite ancient and recent objections about the appropriateness of recognizing Mary by this title, Christians of all times, by correctly interpreting the meaning of this motherhood, have made it a privileged expression of their faith in the divinity of Christ and their love for the Blessed Virgin.
On the one hand, the Church recognizes the Theotókos as guaranteeing the reality of the Incarnation because—as St Augustine says—"if the Mother were fictitious, the flesh would also be fictitious ... and the scars of the Resurrection" (Tract. in Ev. Ioannis, 8, 6-7). On the other hand, she also contemplates with wonder and celebrates with veneration the immense greatness conferred on Mary by the One who wanted to be her Son. The expression "Mother of God" refers to the Word of God, who in the Incarnation assumed the lowliness of the human condition in order to raise man to divine sonship. But in the light of the sublime dignity conferred on the Virgin of Nazareth, this title also proclaims the nobility of woman and her loftiest vocation. God in fact treats Mary as a free and responsible person and does not bring about the Incarnation of his Son until after he has obtained her consent.
Following the example of the ancient Christians of Egypt, let the faithful entrust themselves to her who, being the Mother of God, can obtain from her divine Son the grace of deliverance from evil and of eternal salvation.
How does this contradict what I said in my previous post?
However, I'm unsure what is meant by, and was conceived by and born of Mary, in this statement.
What is meant by, conceived by, here?
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.