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?
Thanks for the links, Salvation. I appreciate them.
And then I went to church and a St. Patrick Dinner! LOL!
- - - -
Nice! I didn’t get corned beef and cabbage today. Cry. LOL
Hey ya. I caught this on he way out the door.
It is only my opinion, but there are certain things within YOU that have given you you.
And granted I haven’t now read all the replies to your ?
It is my OPINION, that to Catholics Mary is the human INCARNATE of the female counterpart to GOD the Father.
I mean this in the sense that GOD created US in his own image.
There IS a Father. There Is a Son. There IS a Mother. (Just who IS the Witness?)
And yeah, the Mormons got you. You can run. But you cannot hide.
And I only mean that in the sense that you ask THIS question.
** (she was not sinless).**
??
I know of several saints who lived totally celibate lives with their spouse more of a friend than a conjugal partner.
- - - -
Most of them or their hagiographies developed after the rise of the idea of “spritual marriage” in the early 4th century.
The Jews never had such a concept.
I believe that the Presentation of Mary at the temple took place when she was three years old.
- - —
But what is the source for that? Judaism didn’t have any of that type of ceremony for women (as opposed to the Nazaritic vow for males).
I hadn’t thought of it in relation to the LDS teaching of Heavenly Mother.
|
You're Joseph. Your wife gave birth to God. Would you have sex with her? |
And I only mean that in the sense that you ask THIS question.
- - - -
I was asking because I understand the academic side but not the experiential side.
Well, I’ll bump this thread at about this point for further reading but it sure looks like your question isn’t really going to be addressed.
The bible takes historical precedence over oral history.
New International Version (©1984)
“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
New Living Translation (©2007)
Then they scoffed, “He’s just the carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers—James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
And that is only about half of the links. Bet you didn’t think this had been discussed so much on FR.
I will have to say, however, that this has been one of the most enjoyable Ecumenical threads that I have every perused. Not too many arguments. Wonderful!
Reaganaut poses an interesting question, and does so in a charitable and Christian fashion, but I think does so exactly backwards. The question could be just as well posed in the complementary manner “why do so many Protestants believe that Christ had a host of siblings”?
I’ll get back to the recast version of that question in a minute, but to reiterate what many have said on this forum, what the vast majority of Christians agree on is that Mary was conceived and born without original sin (the Immaculate Conception), and the Christ was conceived and born of Mary without the conventional requirement of human sexual congress (the Virgin Birth). Those are indicated or explicitly stated in scripture, are long-standing pillars of church tradition, and their denial would be massively consequential - they lead to something other than Christianity.
So if you told the average Catholic you didn’t accept the Virgin Birth as truth, he’d probably shake his head and mumble something like “must be a Unitarian” or the like, since in that case, you’re talking something other than Christianity.
But if you told the average Catholic you’re convinced Christ had true siblings, he’d simply say “we don’t believe that”, but would *not* dismiss your beliefs as corrosive to the mainstream of Christian teaching.
“White out” everything in scripture that supports the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth, and you have a very different belief system; get rid of everything in scripture that suggests Mary raised a thriving household of numerous tikes and, well, it doesn’t really change much of substance as regards religious belief or practice. After all, we don’t know anything about these presumed individuals or their activities as regards our Savior and Redeemer - we’re apparently to suppose they just kinda were there.
Now I believe, as Chesterton did, that small errors in theological matters over the span of historical millenia can lead to serious consequences in practice, so even though the existence or non-existence of those siblings doesn’t impact the *core* of Christianity, getting it wrong could, and probably would, distort the belief system (probably in unpredictable ways) over thousands of years. So the question isn’t unimportant - it’s just less important.
But back to my formulation of the question - why is the existence of true siblings of Christ important to many sincere Protestants? And I’d answer - not for reaganaut, as he is eloquent enough in these matters to deal with that himself - but in my impressions of speaking with many Protestants that it’s because that concept is indicative of the importance of “sola scriptura” to Protestants. If its in the Bible, you can bank on it; if not, forget it.
Of course the problem with that approach is that interpretation can lead to disagreement, ultimately manifest as a multiplication of denominational beliefs that makes loaves and fishes look tame by comparison. As pointed out by others here, heavy hitters in the Protestant line-up like Luther and Calvin had no problem with an ever-virgin Mary - whether it was due to an alternative interpretation of the relevant scripture, or residual Catholic belief or (more probably) a combination of both might be a matter of discussion. But clearly, if one’s approach is “sola scriptura”, one can hardly argue that the answer is unambiguous.
Good Catholics aspire to a true adherence to the truth of scripture (though we seldom know that scripture as well as our Protestant brethren), but we put substantial importance on tradition, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the Magisterium as well.
As others have pointed out on this thread, the perpetual virginity of Mary has been accepted as dogma for almost two millenia (if not officially declared so until recently) - that means little in the context of “sola scriptura”, but it carries a load of weight with us.
But the bottom line - and I don’t mean to imply reaganaut has any problem with this - I think we can disagree on both “sola scriptura” and the number of actual siblngs Christ had with little consequence if we keep a couple of things in mind: 1) the continual secularization of our society is the major domestic challenge to all of us - Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, observant Jews - so much so that I’d much prefer that the Protestant view of Christian belief form the cultural basis of our society, rather than the secular view; and 2) the challenge of militant Mohammadenism is the major non-domestic threat to the well-being of our democratic society and religious freedom.
If we stay focused on those, we can continue to enjoy well-meaning discussions on theological fine points.
But would there have even been a Messiah without a teenaged girl?
Remember how John leapt in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary, barely pregnant, went to see her.
John recognized Jesus too.
There’s also a lot of the Holy Spirit in the story of the Visitation. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed, “How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to see me?”
As for some who have posted here that Catholics take issue with her having any type of relations as inferring that sex is a sin, I don't buy that. I think it gets back to the gulf between Protestants and Catholics regarding what it means to fully consecrate yourself to God. Catholic priests and nuns take vows of celibacy as we believe that this is how they can best serve God (the whole avoid worldly distractions bit). It would be logical to assume that the mother of God would do the same.
You noted that you are a historian and have studied this issue in depth. I have no doubt that you have done more research than I ever will. I do accept these teachings more as a matter of faith than having proven them to myself but here are a few biblical references that convince me that I am not just drinking the kool-aid.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV (see Section IV)
**But what is the source for that? Judaism didn’t have any of that type of ceremony for women (as opposed to the Nazaritic vow for males).**
I’ll check on the source. I think it was a thread about St. Anne and St. Joachim.
You are correct that the schooling was meant for the males. That’s why the presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was so unusual. There she was with all these boys to be school in the Jewish scriptures.
>> “why do so many Protestants believe that Christ had a host of siblings”? <<
.
Mostly because the Bible expressly says so in several places.
.
That is an excellent link. Everyone needs to read it.
But would there have even been a Messiah without a teenaged girl?
Where would a teenaged girl be without the creator?
Who came first? Jesus was God in the flesh.
Mary is not the object of worship. Her last recorded words in the Bible referenced Jesus..."Do what he says."
“Mostly because the Bible expressly says so in several places.”
(Not to be be too much of a wise-acre), but I’m guessing those are the parts that Luther and Calvin missed?
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.