Replies

Re: "1. Despite recent pronouncements of concilitory nature, Anglicans reject the continuing virginity of Mary as contrary to scripture (and pretty much everything else added around Mary ---- she was blessed above all woman, all right, mother of Jesus, but just a woman. Also, per black letter scriputre, only Jesus was sinless"

As a kid I rarely went to Sunday school (Mother was too ill) but I remember only two classes from the rare times I did go and one was the Immaculate birth of the Virgin Mary. The Church of England came out with this shortly after the RCC declared the Dogma in the mid 19th century. Martin Luther, Calvin and Knox all Protestant founders of Protestant sects all believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary until her death. This notion of Mary having children is a 20th century fashion. Alas too many receive a very poor Christian education, also a 20th century fashion.

As said, we will never agree on this issue, but consider the following:

There are a number of passages in the New Testament that argue against the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Note the following:

Matthew affirms that Mary was found to be with child “before [she and Joseph] came together” (Mt. 1:18). The term “came together” (from sunerchomai) includes the idea of sexual intimacy (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; see Danker, 970). The implication clearly is that ultimately, they “came together.” H.L. Ellison comments that the construction is “incompatible with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1188).

Matthew declares that Joseph “knew not” (i.e., was not sexually intimate with; cf. Gen. 4:1) Mary “until [heos hou] she had given birth to a son” (1:25). While the expression heos hou does not absolutely demand that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Jesus’ birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contextual considerations indicated otherwise (cf. 2 Sam. 6:23). In fact, “elsewhere in the New Testament (17:9 24:39; cf. John 9:18) the phrase (heos hou) followed by a negative always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1.42). There is no valid reason why Matthew 1:25 should be the exception.

In Luke 2:7, Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn” child. While the term prototokon does not demand unequivocally that Mary had other children, this term “most naturally suggests” that she did (Geldenhuys, 103). If the sustained virginity of Mary is such a crucial theological point, why did not Luke simply say that she brought forth her “only” son? That certainly would have settled the issue.

There are several passages that mention the siblings of Jesus (Mt. 12:46ff; 13:55-56). Catholic apologists appeal to the fact that the term “brother” (adelphos) is sometimes used in a broader, kindred sense, e.g., “cousins.” While adelphos (which literally means, “out of the same womb”) is employed loosely on occasion in some literature, in the New Testament adelphos is never used for a “cousin.” The word anepsioi signifies that relationship (cf. Col. 4:10).
Moreover, Jesus is said to have had “sisters” (Mt. 13:56 - adelphe). Why should it be assumed that Matthew’s use of “mother” was literal, but that the terms “brothers” and “sisters” were used figuratively? If “sister” is literal in Acts 23:16 (Paul’s sister), what would compel one to view the same term in a different sense in Matthew 13:56? Terry notes: “It is an old and oft-repeated hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their literal sense unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or absurdity” (159).

The alleged perpetual celibate state of Joseph and Mary’s relationship is contrary to the divine ideal. Marriage, as designed by God, was intended to bring a man and woman together as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; cf. Mt. 19:5-6). Subsequent to the initial physical bonding is the responsibility to “render” to one another what is “due” – these terms expressing a sacred obligation (1 Cor. 7:3). If there is to be abstinence, it is to be by mutual concession, and that only temporarily (v. 5).

Moreover, many scholars have opioned that the "perpetual virginity" theory had its roots in the pagan environment of the post-apostolic age when there was a strong emphasis upon celibacy within certain heathen religions. In that day, sexual intercourse, even within marriage, sometimes carried the suspicion of sin.

In fact, Alexander Hislop has shown a remarkable concurrence between the Vestal Virgins of pagan Rome, and the propensity for virginity that evolved in the digressive church of the post-apostolic period (Hislop, 223, 236-238, 250).

Most suspect, that the Roman Church was attempting to accommodate “Christianity” to paganism, in order to provide a “comfort zone” that would attract the heathen to the religion of Christ. This is an historical reality that not even Catholic scholars deny (see Attwater, 363). For an historical survey of this phenomenon, see Edward Gibbon’s famous work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter XXVIII). Gibbon concludes this chapter with these words:

“The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity” (II.70).

As a former Roman Catholic, I have yet to hear from the Anglican Catholic church that Mary is anything less than honored and special in her relationship to God's plan. What I find particularly offensive about the RCC position on Mary is the ever-aggressive position that praying to her is necessary for salvation. This is completely wrong, and goes against all that we learn from Christ himself. I think the Protestants have a valid argument against the RCC in this respect.

When I hear the RCC tone down its assertion that prayers to Mary are required of their followers in order to obtain absolution (as if the Eucharist were not enough!), then I might be willing to hear what the RCC has to say about Anglicans and their view of Mary.