Posted on 03/17/2012 2:30:01 PM PDT by reaganaut
I understand the history of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (ἀειπαρθένος). I know it was taught as early as the 4th century, and I understand the development of "Spritual Marriages" in the Early Middle ages. That isn't what I am asking.
I have a good grasp of the history, doctrine and Biblical texts. I have done a lot of research on the topic. I grew up in Catholic school and Matthew 1:25 always got me in trouble during Catechism class.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25).
"Know" is a very common idiom for sex in Judaism of the period of writing. Again, I don't want to debate the text or history.
Protestants have no issue with Joseph and Mary having a normal marriage and having sexual relations AFTER the birth of Jesus (not before for obvious reasons) and having other children.
What I am curious about is the WHY the doctrine is important to MODERN Catholics (Medieval Catholics I get). Why does matter if Mary was ever-virgin (after the birth of Christ) or not?
Because it’s the truth.
Did Paul not tell unmarried Christians that they were best off remaining celebate for the desire of the kingdom, allowing sex and marriage only because people couldn’t control their desires? Well, Catholics believe Mary was sinless, so if anyone should be chaste, should it not be Mary?
Some ancients, particularly in the East supposed that Jesus’ “brothers” were half-brothers, children of Joseph from before he married Mary. But no-where in antiquity had anyone ever challenged the claim that Mary was “ever-virgin.” Because those who knew Greek understood that “until” such and such did not mean necessarily that any status changed after such and such. And they understood that “firstborn” was a title that did not imply subsequent births. (How could it? The law refers to what must be done to firstborns; If “firstborn” necessarily meant that there were later births, how could one ever know that someone was firstborn, and not only born?)
They understood the wording, “Here is THE son of you” which Jesus told Mary about John.
But it’s also important because it establishes that nearness to God is a more glorious joy than sexual gratification, that such gratification is merely an earthly metaphor for closeness to God, an echo of the spiritual realm translated into the physical realm.
Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son.
St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2: “This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.” Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it.
This was to emphasize that Jesus Christ was uniquely the Word Incarnate/Son of God.
Catholics refer to the Blessed Virgin as "Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son and Permanent Bride of the Holy Spirit." If Mary is the "permanent Bride of the Holy Spirit," it doesn't seem likely that she would also have been a bride in the merely carnal sense.
You wrote:
“all I’m saying is that just because Mary and he asked basically the same question...”
Read the text over again. Before you decide that Mary and Zachariah asked the same question, look at the answers they were given. The same question should get the same answer. Basically the same question - as you put it - should get basically the same answer. Did they get the same answer?
“For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” - Mark 3:35 Amen Brother!
>> Use of the word “cult” was not meant to imply “worship” of Mary, but prayer to Her or any Saints for intercession with God.<<
Well, I am glad I gave you the opportunity to clarify so you can explain to any “silent seethers” out there (as well as I).
Thanks for providing that.
Well, Catholics believe Mary was sinless, so if anyone should be chaste, should it not be Mary?
- - - -
But sex is not a sin, so it wouldn’t apply.
While I disagree with your interpretation, thank you for responding where you are coming from. I do appreciate it.
You wrote:
“Mary and Zacharia didn’t ask the same questions, and one showed faith, the other doubt.”
Is that all that happened? I think you need to think about the responses given by Gabriel.
“That still doesn’t support your claim.”
The text does.
“However, again, this is not a debate thread and you still did not answer my question but that is ok.”
Yes, it is okay.
This is a Dogmatic belief of all of the Catholic faith, the Orthodox faith, many of the Lutheran and Anglican communities and has roots documented back to at least the second century Anno Domini.
Saint John Chrysostom defended perpetual virginity on a number of grounds, one of which was Jesus’ commands to his mother in Calvary: “Woman, behold your son!” and to his disciple “Behold, thy mother!” in John 19:26-27.
Since the second century these two statements of Jesus from the cross had been the basis of reasonings that Mary had no other children and “from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home” because after the deaths of Joseph and Jesus there was no one else to look after Mary, and she had to be entrusted to the disciple.
Luther, Zwingli and Bullinger all taught this as well as did John Wesley.
But to me I don’t have to know aboutt Mary’s life. The Church tells me she was Virgin, we celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception, and I believe.
The Church tells me that Jesus suffered and died on the Cross , and rose on the third day.
I didn’t see it, I do not expect to know how he arose, I do not question if he was in a coma for three days, I accept that he was dead and arose.
I don’t ask questions I believe.
If it has to be explained to you , Your faith is weak IMO.
- - - - -
Perhaps I should clarify, I am not, nor have I ever been Catholic in any way. I attended Catholic school as a child and study it academically, but have never been a member of the Catholic church.
My faith is not weak in the least. I am asking becuase the topic came up on another thread and I am interested in the Catholic mindset of the belief in the doctrine.
As an Evangelical Christian, I do not believe something because my pastor or church tells me to, however, I was a point in my life Mormon, and DID believe things because the Mormon church told me to so I do understand the concept even if I no longer do that.
Now, you seem to be saying you believe it simply because the Catholic church tells you to. Ok, that is an acceptable answer. I understand that in light of my studies in Catholic doctrine and that is what I was looking for in posting this thread.
Actually, in the Greek it DOES mean sibling exclusively. However, it is used, like in the verse you cited, as a ‘spiritual sibling’ which makes sense since believers are adopted sons and daughters of God through Christ.
I’ve read their defenses of the doctrine and it still doesn’t answer the question why.
Ok, I can understand that reasoning. Thank you for your response.
I guess that is why there are 40,000+ different Protestant denominations. Hard for Protestants to agree on much when the ONE source they have is a book which each person can interpret his own way.
- - - - -
First, there aren’t that many, second you don’t seem to get that Catholics and Protestants we agree on the basics. For me this is not a doctrine of Salvation, however it does appear to be one for you, but you still haven’t told me why it is.
Protestants agree on much more than we disagree on and some things in the Bible are not clear and open to interpretation, which is also true of Catholic history and doctrine which has contradicted itself and changed many many times over the centuries. That is historical fact.
Yes, my source is strictly the Bible and that will not change. I’ve already done the ‘one true church on the face of the earth with continuing revelation’ bit (Mormonism) and found out they were lying to me. The “church” of Christ is the body of all believers, back to the Greek, the word for Church actually means ‘an assembly’ and was a political term. It is not limited to one organization, although I do know many Catholics believe that.
Sorry but text does not support your claim and I did review the responses of Gabriel. You are comparing apples and oranges here.
Why won’t you answer why it is important? Do you consider it a doctrine of salvation or merely dogma?
As I said above, I know the history of the teaching quite well and have done a lot of reading on it. I want to know why it is important theologically.
So you believe it simply because it is dogma? If so that is fine. That is what I am asking.
Thank you for the responses. I think I may have gotten the answer to my question. I appreciate those who gave me some insight as to why.
“I know the history of the doctrine probably better than most Catholics (Historian)...”
Hey reaganaut, as an aside from if it was right or wrong, who was the first guy to stop believing it?
I have tried to google this before, my google fu is weak. I recall that most of the original Reformers believed it, so when did it start and who did it? Who wrote about it not being true first?
Freegards
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.