He's An Only Child -- A response to a Protestant argument against Mary's perpetual virginity

Envoy Magazine ^ | Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Someone has been whispering evil into your ear, I'm sorry to say. You can't be a Christian if you don't think Christ is God made man.

Ya think? Gosh my fate must be the same as those Binatarians that didn't know Yeshua was God until Constantine approved the MINORITY opinion at the counsel of Nicea in 325ad.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Not when I was doing it myself.

God said "Let Us". God is God, the others are "us".

[sitetest]

Dear Hermann,

"Luke 1.34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?"

In my own mind, this is the most persuasive evidence, either way, relating on Mary's perpetual virginity.

Ordinarily, a woman about to be married would not wonder how she would conceive.

Being engaged to be married, to be told that she would be expecting a child, who would be the Messiah, if her expectation were the usual sort of marriage, one can imagine her asking:

"Why is God making me the mother of the Messiah?"

or:

"What will be the effects of this on my life?"

But the question, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?"

doesn't make sense.

Gabriel doesn't say, "You have conceived."

Gabriel says: "You WILL conceive."

If Mary is expecting a usual sort of marriage, then she would know how she would conceive in the near-term - through relations with her new husband.

If she were expecting to have relations with her new husband, one can imagine the answer to, "You WILL conceive," being, "I know that," or "I certainly hope so, I don't want to wind up like my cousin Elizabeth."

But, "How shall that be done?"

That's a question which would run contrary to her expectation, if she had not taken a vow of perpetual virginity.

The question she asks makes no sense if she expected to have relations with Joseph.

If one makes the assumption that these two would marry in the usual way, and have relations, then this verse becomes nonsensical, and sticks out as inexplicable.

Certainly, that the doctrine is confirmed by the unanimous teaching of the early Church, and that the weight of Scripture favors it, one would think that "Bible Christians" would accept it, as they often accept other doctrines not explicitly or completely explicated in Scripture, like the doctrine of the Trinity.


sitetest

[Invincibly Ignorant]

as they often accept other doctrines not explicitly or completely explicated in Scripture, like the doctrine of the Trinity.

We do?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Your interpretation of "us" as angels, and including them as creators of man is brand new. Are you a cult of one?

Nobody included them as creators. Remember? That your hyperliteralist interpretation. The minority ruled at Nicea and now we have truth based on the majority. Go figure.

But since this is off the thread topic, I'll leave it at that.

Ok.

[RobbyS]

You certainly didn't read it, because it has little to do with Helvidius and Jerome.

[sitetest]

Dear Invincibly Ignorant,

Your failure to accept the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and your denial of Trinitarian doctrine places you outside the circle of what the overwhelming number of followers of Jesus in the world would consider "Christian".

I agree with them.

You're free to believe your false opinions (though you aren't entitled to them). You appear, as your screen name suggests, impervious to the truth of the matter. There is little to say to you that hasn't been said by others, a lot more clearly than I could say it.

So, you may conclude that when I refer to non-Catholic Christians, I'm not addressing you.



sitetest

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You certainly didn't read it, because it has little to do with Helvidius and Jerome.

I did too read it.

[SoothingDave]

If she were expecting to have relations with her new husband, one can imagine the answer to, "You WILL conceive," being, "I know that," or "I certainly hope so, I don't want to wind up like my cousin Elizabeth."

But, "How shall that be done?"

Hey, you stole my argument! :-)

This is indeed a "sore thumb" verse, and my many attempts to have NCs contemplate it have gone unfulfilled. The simple fact is that a woman entering a marriage who is told she will conceive a child would not answer "how can this happen?" unless she had no plan of having intercourse.

SD

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Although I don't think faith in a "Triune" God is necessary for the salvation of the invincibly ignorant. Faith in "God" will suffice, since knowledge of the existence of the Trinity requires divine revelation.

Against this view you posit, which I think is the minority view, I point to the Athanasian Creed, The Summa II-II Q 2 Art 8, John 3.36, 6.40, 17.3, Acts 4.12, Catechism of the Catholic Church 161, the common teaching of the Church's Doctors, such as St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Augustine, etc. and her theologians, such as Ludwig Ott, the two responses of the Holy Office in 1703 to the Bishop of Quebec stating that faith in the Trinity is necessary by a necessity of means for salvation, and the reconfirmation of this in 1898, and some condemnations of moral errors in 1679. Regarding those responses of the Holy Office, I reproduce them below:

"QUESTION: Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him. RESPONSE: A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation." (Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703, Dz. 1349a)

"QUESTION: Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if these were given to him only an understanding of God, and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to the remark of the Apostle: "He that comes to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder", from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ. RESPONSE: A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized." (Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Quebec, May 10, 1703, Dz. 1349b)

64. A person is fit for absolution, however much he labors under an ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Various Errors on Moral Subjects, condemned by the Holy Office on March 4, 1679)

So while there is nothing formally defined here, I think it would be quite rash to go against the near universal weight of the opinion on the side of belief in the Trinity being a necessity of means for salvation. This also reinforces the need for divine revelation to have faith, since man might know God by reason, but not the Trinity.

Lastly, it seems difficult to understand the Incarnation correctly without knowing the Trinity. The two doctrines are inextricably linked, and it is very clear from Scripture that salvation is impossible apart from faith in the Person of Christ and His Mission.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So, you may conclude that when I refer to non-Catholic Christians, I'm not addressing you.

I'll reach my conclusions based on what I believe the people who were first called "Christains"in Antioch were like. So far as I can tell, none of them knew they were Trinitarians.

[RobbyS]

The main thrust of the article is that Protestant critics of the perpetual virginity of Mary have interpreted the Greek to mean what it does not necessarily mean.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

what it does not necessarily mean.

Wake me up when you can take the word "necessarily" out of the above.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

God told married people to "be fruitful and multiply", i.e. have sex to have children. Mary was given a child without sex, which should be clue number one about what God wanted from her. After all, God could have incarnated Himself in a child conceived in the normal way, since int he Incarnation, it consisted of Him uniting Himself to a human body produced from a fertilized human egg; but most importantly, He didn't. Why did God need to be born from a Virgin at all? It was to produce a sign of the miraculousness of the Person so conceived (Isaiah 7.14). It would hardly be much of a sign of Blessed Mary and St. Joseph had sexual relations and other children. The common perception would be that Jesus was conceived in the normal way, and was nothing particularly special, His claims to the contrary notwithstanding. This is, in fact, the argument of His Jewish enemies. You do manage to find yourself in good company, don't you?

God also told married people to abstain from sex at times for prayer. If God Almighty was living under your roof and being craddled in your arms and nursed from your breasts, would you not be praying at all times to Him, especially if he had made you "full of grace"?

Its difficult to imagine why St. Joseph and Blessed Mary would feel any need for sexual intercourse, since they were perfectly united with each other through their perfect union with their Divine Son. This is in fact the essence of every Christian Marriage, and they had it most perfectly.

[sitetest]

Dear SD,

"Hey, you stole my argument! :-)"

Sorry, do you want me to give it back??

;-)


sitetest

[Pyro7480]

Matthew 28:19 (RSV)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

The simple words from the Master Himself demonstrate the existence of the Trinity.

[Seraphicaviary]

"As to Joseph not being allowed to "desecrate" Mary, this is akin to believing in evolution vs. the creation. It takes waaaay more faith to believe. If God the Father would allow His very own Son to be "desecrated" by becoming carnal flesh and further, to suffer profanities, spittings, beatings, being nailed to a cross to die and hanging half-naked for all to see .... well, I don't think He would be too upset to see Mary and Joseph have a loving, conjugal relationship during the course of their marriage (post Jesus' birth)."

It is not the flesh of itself, but what we humans choose to do to it that makes it sinful. Christ was not desecrated by becoming flesh, but was desecrated by the soldiers that put him up there. Also, the analogy above would lead one to equate Joseph to the Roman soldiers... and here I thought he was a pious man.

[Seraphicaviary]

"As to Joseph not being allowed to "desecrate" Mary, this is akin to believing in evolution vs. the creation. It takes waaaay more faith to believe. If God the Father would allow His very own Son to be "desecrated" by becoming carnal flesh and further, to suffer profanities, spittings, beatings, being nailed to a cross to die and hanging half-naked for all to see .... well, I don't think He would be too upset to see Mary and Joseph have a loving, conjugal relationship during the course of their marriage (post Jesus' birth)."

It is not the flesh of itself, but what we humans choose to do to it that makes it sinful. Christ was not desecrated by becoming flesh, but was desecrated by the soldiers that put him up there. Also, the analogy above would lead one to equate Joseph to the Roman soldiers... and here I thought he was a pious man.