Posted on 04/22/2016 12:35:41 PM PDT by ebb tide
My eye it does. Don't confuse what you are willing to believe in with what the Church has always taught.
Because she has certainly always taught it.
She who has always taught what?
She = the Church. The Church has always taught the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady.
It's not mentioned in the New Testament anywhere.
The earliest account is in the Protoevangelium of James with most accounts putting it in the early second century.
It is not considered inspired. Roman catholicism did not think it worthy enough to include in their canon during Trent.
If the perpetual virginity of Mary is so important to roman catholicism they had their chance to make it part of the NT canon.
That they did not speaks volumes.
Because of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, a book could be rejected if one thing and one thing only was wrong with it. Or, it could simply be rejected because, though orthodox and pious, it had no claim to Apostolic authority.
That doesn’t mean everything in the book is automatically disqualified along with it.
If I wrote a purported book of the Bible, nobody would accept it—for good reason. But if I claimed in the book that Christ died on a cross and was raised from the dead, that would still be true wouldn’t it?
If the facts can be verified.
However, the passage in Luke 1:34 where catholicism claims Mary makes a perpetual vow of virginity is not supported by the Greek. There was another thread on this where I posted the breakdown of the Greek in response to the original poster. The thread title is:
A scriptural defense of the Perpetual virginity of Mary
My post is #69 if you want to read it.
The OP also posted another challenge regarding if anyone could find an Early Church Father from the first 300 yrs or so that denied the Perpetual Virginity.
My reply is post 102 in the same thread.
People say then Bible is not relevant to our times. But read, for instance, Jeremiah. The King and his court were blind to their situation and death to his good advise.
Whether she made a vow or not, is secondary to the question of whether she did or not. Protestant interpretations are colored by their hostility to monasticism. They elevated marriage over celibacy but at the same time denied that either had sacramental value.
In 2005 Pope Benedict XVI remarked, "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know". Pope John XXIII once stated it with a humorous twist: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".
Here's what happens (LINK) i f a pope tries to make an erroneous statement "as if" infallibly. Go ahead and click it's just 2 minute,s and you'll laugh.
Christians could easily say roman catholic interpretations are colored by their worship of Mary.
The ECFs and "tradition" are mixed in their opinion on this matter so an appeal to them is not sustained.
This leaves us with the text itself.
The Greek in Luke 1:34 does not indicate a vow of lifelong virginity for Mary. The only thing it indicates is Mary asking Gabriel how she's going to have a baby as she has not had sex with a man. Gabriel provides the means in their conversation.
The passage in Matthew indicates Joseph and Mary waited to consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born. The plain reading of the texts where Jesus' brothers and sisters are noted should be read as that.
If Jesus were Mary's only son, Luke could have used the Greek word monogenes meaning only one, only begotten. It is the word John uses in John 3:16. Instead in Luke 2:7 he used prototokon (we get prototype from this word). It means first born, eldest. It leaves room for other children to be born.
Do we know how many times a pope has spoken “ex cathedra”?
That's not to say that other papal teachings have not been authoritative. Usually a pope's formal teaching is something that is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium rather than by virtue of Papal infallibility.
In other words, if the pope says something that has always been clearly Catholic doctrine ("The One True God is the Creator of heaven and earth") it is infallible, not in virtue of papal infallibility, but because he is repeating something which has been ordinarily and universally taught.
Well, at least you know what it means.
Why, thank you.
But think of the implications. We have had 266 popes, in pontificates stretching back two millennia. It would be hard for any of them to teach anything that had not been taught by their predecessors. That’s why what’s valued in popes is not “creativity” or some sense of “personal genius” -— deliver us, O Lord! -— because nice, clear repetition is, generally speaking, enough.
Possibly. But what we have seen is development of various doctrines over the years by catholicism. A good number of these are not found in the early church.
As an example, there is currently a movement underway for a fifth marian dogma.
The current four:
1) that Mary is the Mother of God (Council of Ephesus, 431);
2. that she is a Perpetual Virgin (Lateran Council, 649);
3) that Mary was conceived without original sin, or her “Immaculate Conception” (Bl. Pius IX, 1854); and
4) that she was assumed body and soul into heaven, or her “Assumption” (Pius XII, 1950).
It took around 1950 years to proclaim what was clearly understood by the church??
That's kinda hard to buy don't you think?
These are not all attested to by all of the ECFs nor are any attested to in the New Testament unless one reads something into the text that isn't there.
The last major doctrine about Mary is her role as Spiritual Mother of all peoples under its three motherly aspects as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate, which is already the official teachings of the popes, or the “Papal Magisterium. http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/
(BTW...there are some interesting readings at this website. It sounds as if they are made to be from "mary".)
In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that
it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.
By 1998 it was doubtful the Vatican was going to consider new Marian dogmas. The papal spokesman stated "This is not under study by the Holy Father nor by any Vatican congregation or commission". A leading Mariologist stated the petition was "theologically inadequate, historically a mistake, pastorally imprudent and ecumenically unacceptable". Pope John Paul II cautioned against "all false exaggeration", his teaching and devotion to Mary has strictly been "exalting Mary as the first among believers but concentrating all faith on the Triune God and giving primacy to Christ." When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that,
the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way.
Pope Benedict XVI further explained his notable opposition of a dogmatisation, concluding that the title is sufficiently included in other better expressions of Catholic Marian teaching.
For example, the Scriptural account is unsatisfactory,
and above all, we are talking most of the time of a merit de congruo which would seem, by the very definition of de congruo, not fit into the exact clearness needed for dogmatic definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#Proposed_dogmatic_definition
Not opportune?
If it's a doctrine that is so well understood in the church why the hesitancy?
It certainly appears the pope was fudging on this as well.
You see, when I read this kind of information, and the hesitancy of the rcc to make this the fifth marian dogma, it calls into question the statement catholics always make in that "these are things always taught in the church".
When in reality we find evidence against this statement.
If you will read Munificentissimus Deus (on the Assumption of Mary, 1950) you will see that this is in a different category from most papal teachings, because Pius XII had to trace back the steps of the development of this doctrine. The review of centuries of observance and commentary shows that this is an ancient belief, not a new one.
Pius ends up saying that one item in the evidence box is practically eyewitness testimony: the fact that nobody ever dared, in 20 centuries of history, to claim that they possessed any scrap of the physical remains of Mary. No story about the hiding or the losing or the finding of relics. No legend about her shin-bones being over here, or her skull over there. No claims, no scams, no speculation as to “Where’s her body?”. It would have been as stupid as Dan Brown claiming he’d found the skeletal remains of Enoch and Elijah.
The fact that, even at periods of huge popular enthusiasm about saints’ remains, nobody even tried to pass off *fake* relics of Mary would be inexplicable unless it was solid common knowledge that there were no relics, and could be no relics, period.
Makes sense, Sherlock.
This was all I found regarding her body in the document (Note: paragraph separation mine)"
33. In the fifteenth century, during a later period of scholastic theology, St. Bernardine of Siena collected and diligently evaluated all that the medieval theologians had said and taught on this question. He was not content with setting down the principal considerations which these writers of an earlier day had already expressed, but he added others of his own. The likeness between God's Mother and her divine Son, in the way of the nobility and dignity of body and of soul - a likeness that forbids us to think of the heavenly Queen as being separated from the heavenly King - makes it entirely imperative that Mary "should be only where Christ is."(35) Moreover, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have obtained heavenly glory.
Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience.(36)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
Pius makes the same argument, though he doesn't realize it, as people who question this.
NOBODY LOOKED FOR HER BODY.
She was so important that nobody looked for her body. Her grave was not marked. Nothing.
I noted also this
8. During the course of time such postulations and petitions did not decrease but rather grew continually in number and in urgency. In this cause there were pious crusades of prayer. Many outstanding theologians eagerly and zealously carried out investigations on this subject either privately or in public ecclesiastical institutions and in other schools where the sacred disciplines are taught. Marian Congresses, both national and international in scope, have been held in many parts of the Catholic world. These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary's Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church. They have resulted in many more petitions, begging and urging the Apostolic See that this truth be solemnly defined. His statement does read like a Dan Brown novel.
You’re implying that nobody looked for Mary’s body because she was regarded as *unimportant*? Do you realize how *ludicrously* historically ignorant that is? C’mon. Caths are supposed to be over-honorers of Mary since Revelation 12! Keep yer story straight!
Just checked it out: every site that exists of the most ancient Christian art, such as the drawings on the walls of the Catacomb of Priscilla (mid-100’s AD) and the panels/murals at the Christian House Church at Dura-Europos, Syria (early 200’s) -— these are the very earliest ones we know of —— have pictures of Mary. There are inscriptions in the catacombs to “Beata Maria” (Blessed Mary) -— because you know, “All generations will call me Blessed.”
And “Beata Maria Semper Virgine”-— Blessed Mary Ever Virgin.
For some reason.
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.