The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin

The Church Fathers ^ | 120AD-450AD

[marshmallow]

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

[bkaycee]

Not my point. My point is That JESUS directed us to PRAY to the Father, not saints or angels.

[Iscool]

It’s all clarified in his tagline

You obviously don't understand my tagline...But just to ease your mind, I'll tell you...

I know the Trinity exhists...Do I completely understand it??? No...But I believe it...I know it...

Therefore, I don't understand all that I know...

I know what Jesus said is true...Do I (or anyone) understand all of it??? No...But I know it's true...

[Mad Dawg]

False. You copied SOME of what I posted.

[Iscool]

You seem to be creating turbulence when there is none. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary mothered God the Father. She mothered the Christ Child, who is God; hence she is referred to as the Mother of God.

Who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, the Father or the Son???

[Iscool]

As one can tell by the formation of the plural, stigma and stigmata are Greek words.

So why use Greek in an English sentence when there is an English translation for it???

Just as Paul said, why use an unknown tongue in the presence of those who don't understand the tongue??? It certainly doesn't edify anyone you're adressing...

And as it turns out, stigma or stigmata are very poor descriptions of the event...

-a mark of shame or discredit : stain

Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Wounds would be a far better translation that Stigmata...

[Mad Dawg]

Theology has a jargon. A conversation of almost 2000 years duration will develop that jargon. People who take part in that conversation as listeners will tend to use and adopt the jargon. Did you really not know what was meant?

Further, some of us do not go to dictionaries of current usage for our words. We think they impoverish the language. Your reference to the modern use of stigma is an example. Thomas uses τυπος to refer to the 'print' of the nails and Paul refers to στιγματα to refer to the same thing. so "wound" would not convey what "stigma" conveys to those who have been discussing theses things for a while. "Mark" would be better.

The need for some acquaintance with the ways of language over time. also shows in your startling interpretation of the wrenched out of context phrase "the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary."

My Greek service book has

...και σαρκωθρντα εκ Πνευματος Αγιου καιΜαριας της Παρτηενου ...
... and was made flesh by/of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin...

The text of the old Mass is
Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine.

Since 'ex' has a sense of "out of" there's a hint here that the Holy Spirit made IHS 'out of' Mary as one might make a desk 'out of' wood. And then one might say, "Whom was that made by and what's it made of?" and get the answer, "By Iscool, of wood."

If you think about all the meanings and uses of "of" and of the genitive case there are plenty of ways to look at the text you excerpted without thinking that the Holy Spirit is "of" the Virgin Mary anymore than God is "of" me, though He is in some sense "my God," as even the Psalmist says.

One reason to develop the linguistic skills of grammar,logic, and rhetoric is precisely to avoid wasting time on silly and improbable interpretations of texts torn from their context.

[Mad Dawg]

So, the first material was there.... why?

We have discussed -- in this thread, I believe -- this matter at length.

[Mad Dawg]

John 14:12 (RSV) Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

Do we agree that Mary believed in Jesus? If so, then the plain meaning of the text is that she will do the works that he did and greater works.

The works that Jesus did include signs and miracles. Signs and miracles are not excplicitly excluded in this passage. Therefore it seems that Jesus said that members of the set of people who believe in him would do miracles. Mary is a member of that set.

Therefore Jesus said Mary would do miracles.

Q.E.D.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your question, dear brother in Christ!

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Corinthians 15:42-45

The tomb was indeed empty. But the resurrected body is not exactly the same as the physical body: it is glorious, powerful, spiritual and not corrupt.

After the Resurrection, Jesus chose when to reveal Himself and appeared inside a locked room. He also showed His wounds and ate so that they would know His body was actually resurrected:

And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. - John 20:14

And it came to pass, that, while they communed [together] and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. - Luke 24:15-16

Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them [his] hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. - John 20:19-20

And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them [his] hands and [his] feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took [it], and did eat before them. - Luke 24:40-43

And Jesus' natural body (before the resurrection) was not always subjected to physical laws:

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. - Matthew 14:25

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. - John 8:59

Which brings me back to the subtext of your question, i.e. Mary's part in Jesus' resurrection body.

In my view, her part, if any, in His resurrection body is unrevealed in Scripture, unsearchable by empirical tests and therefore, irrelevant.

Since Jesus was not conceived like any mere mortal, there is no Scriptural warrant to believe that He did or did not inherit traits from Mary.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. - Luke 1:35

A mere mortal's DNA has something like 99% in common with a chimpanzee and 35% in common with a daffodil. And it contains junk.

In creating a physical body for Himself, especially considering His purpose (Hebrews, Isaiah 53, Psalms 22) - God could have "programmed" it anyway He wanted. He could have planted a specially created fertilized egg. Indeed, His DNA might have been a closer match to Adam, David, etc. Or He could have "programmed" only half of it into one of Mary's eggs.

Either way Mary was His physical mother and nurtured Him, no doubt loved Him, hallowed Him and was crushed by His brutal death on the Cross.

And Jesus made it a point to see to her well being on earth thereafter:

Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home]. - John 19:27

Still we cannot say whether any part of Jesus' physical body on the Cross contained any traits from Mary, i.e. that she had a part in His physical body. Much less can we say that any part of His resurrected body contains inherited physical traits at all.

God's Name is I AM.

[Mad Dawg]

I have to say that I thought calling some of our antagonists (in the non-pejorative sense) "Nestorian" at first struck me as "reaching" a bit.

In the past 24 hours or so I'm getting that the rejection, in fact the suspicion, of the "Fathers" means that a lot of our interlocutors are going over the ground they've already trod and trying to have the arguments they've already settled, -- without the benefit of of the careful and passionate investigation done by our forebears. So maybe "proto-Nestorian" is not unfair.

I wouldn't immediately jump on Quix for being a docetist -- because he, I think wisely, used paradox to express his conceptual balking at the idea of the hypostatic union. "Role playing -- for real" were his words, or something similar.

That kind of thing MAY turn out to be docetism in the last analysis, but I think it's too unformed yet to be judged.

To you, Brother Quix, I'd say that you used the word "logically" Or "logical" about the problem of the godhead being in the Jesus the Christ.

TO which I think anybody who has the least glimpse of the wonder of it all would have to say, "Yeah, BABY!" as he shook his head. It strains the skull sutures, don't it?

My own personal take on much of the Nicene Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition is, "Oh. Definitely. Yes. Right. Sure. And what the heck does that mean?"

But, MY way if 'using' them is as diagnostics. I mean that if I find myself making an argument which can be shown to contradiction one of the 'clauses' of these things, then I'm going to do some adjusting and rethinking on my argument.

And I think I've told you how in some conversation of which I remember only the affection and what I am about to recount, and not the subject at all, I said to my professor, "You're dividing the person!"
And he said back, "No I'm not! You're confounding the natures!"
And then we both laughed.

But the serious point is that we both acknowledged Chalcedon as not only setting limits or blazing trails, but also as giving us a standard vocabulary so that we would stay more or less on the same page and be at least a little clear about what we agreed on, so that we could zero in more efficiently on the matter of disagreement.

"Your side" sometimes seem to think we have sold ourselves into slavery to tradition. We sometimes think we are standing on the shoulders of giants who stand on the shoulders of yet other giants and so on back to guys who knew Jesus or the Apostles or guys who knew the Apostles, AND who were reading the Bible when it was still individual scrolls, and hearing the stories before they were written down.

[Mad Dawg]

Why did you not ping Quix in an post which quoted him and objected to what he said?

[Mr. K]

wow- 2200 posts on whether Mary had sex with her husband...

TGhis is the stupidest thread yet

Does it make any difference?

Would Jesus WANT you to be talking about his mom this way? Isn’t there something important you sould be doing all of you)

[Mad Dawg]

Well, actually, parts of the thread have been useful. I think we're demonstrating that Mariology is related to Christology and Trinitarian thought.

We've also surfaced questions about vocation (as in Mary's Vocation to be Mother of the Lord), the resurrection body, time v. eternity, and maybe more.

The question of whether an experience of God and a relationship with Him could be so intense and satisfying that one no longer thought about coitus has not come up. But it's not an insignificant question.

Yeah there's been only a pennyworth of light to an intolerable deal of heat, but, hey! It's Free Republic. Who expected more?

[papertyger]

Please explain why you would give someone credit for “wisely” employing a paradox when such a one has repeatedly demonstrated little to no recognition of mutual exclusivity in matters most mundane.

[Running On Empty]

Hey, that’s really good, Iscool. :-)

Now I understand all that I didn’t know about your tagline. :-)

God bless.

[Mad Dawg]

Because:

- I am a wonderful human being?
- You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?
- A soft answer turneth away wrath?
- I am a wimp?
- Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, “I will repay.”
- Because I think the use of paradox in expressing the inexpressible is often wise and was in this case?
- Because when people make me crazy, about once a decade I conclude that might just possibly, at least in part, be MY problem — perfect though I almost am, almost?
- Because I want to take a nap and if people got angry that would mess up my plans?

[Mad Dawg]

Faith and Love seem to me to come before understanding. I think this is fine.

[stfassisi]

“”To you, Brother Quix, I’d say that you used the word “logically” Or “logical” about the problem of the godhead being in the Jesus the Christ.””

I think Fulton Sheen might help you understand this ,quix.

From Fulton Sheen’s Love is Triune
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2463497/posts

“God’s thought is not like ours. It is not multiple. God does not think one Thought, or one Word, one minute and another the next. Thoughts are not born to die and do not die to be reborn in the mind of God. All is present to Him at once. In Him there is only one Word. He has no need of another....It is well to remember that God has one Idea, and that Idea is the totality of all Truth. That Thought, or Word, is infinite and equal to Himself, unique and absolute, first-born of the Spirit of God; a Word which tells what God is; a Word from which all human words have been derived, and of which created things are merely the broken syllables or letters; a Word which is the source of all the Science and Art in the world.....The Infinite Thought of God is called not only a Word—to indicate that it is the Wisdom of God—but It is also called a Son, because it has been generated or begotten. The Thought or the Word of God does not come from the outside world; it is born in His Nature in a much more perfect way than the thought of “justice” is generated by my spirit. In the language of Sacred Scripture: What, says the Lord thy God, shall I, that bring children to the birth, want power to bring them forth: Shall I, that give life to the womb, want strength to open it?” (Isaiah 66:9) The ultimate Source of all generation or birth is God, Whose Word is born of Him, and therefore the Word is called a Son. Just as in our own human order, the principle of all generation is called the Father, so, too, in the Trinity the principle of spiritual generation is called the Father, and the one generated is called the Son, because He is the perfect image and Resemblance of the Father. If an earthly father can transmit to his son all the nobility of his character and all the fine traits of his life, how much more so can the Heavenly Father communicate to His own Eternal Son all the nobility, the perfection, and the Eternity of His Being! God the Father is related to God the Son as the Eternal Thinker is related to His Eternal Thought.”

“Divine Life is an endless rhythm of three in oneness: Three Persons in one Nature. If God had no Son, He would not be a Father; if He were an individual Unity, He could not love until He had made something less than Himself. No one is good unless He gives. If He did not give to the highest way by generation, He would not be Good, and if He were not Good, He would be Terror. Before the world began, God was Good in Himself, because He eternally begot a Son. There is no act in God which is not God Himself. Thus, God is the eternal vortex of love, which is ever in blissful activity because He is Three, and yet One because proceeding from one Nature which is God. Here is the White Source of all love whence comes to us all its straggling rays. Here alone is the Source, the Stream, and the Sea of all love. All fatherhood, motherhood, sonship, espousals, friendship, wedded love, patriotism, instinct, attraction, all interaction, and generation, is in some faint measure a picture of God. Father and mother in their unity constitute a complete principle of generation, and the child born of this principle is attached to the parents by a spirit: the spirit of the family. This spirit does not proceed uniquely from the love of parents for their children, but from the reciprocity of their affection. The spirit of love in parents is at once desire, pity, tenderness, bearing all things, suffering all things for the children. In the children, it is an offering such as the birds make to the branches in the springtime. The spirit of the family is as necessary to the family in generation, as the Holy Spirit is to the love in Father and Son.

Three in One, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Three Persons in One God; One in essence with distinction of Persons—such is the Mystery of the Trinity, such is the Inner Life of God. Just as I am, I know, and I love, and yet I am one nature; just as the three angles of a triangle do not make three triangles, but one; just as the power, light, and heat of the sun do not make three suns, but one; as water, air, and steam are all manifestations of the one substance, H[2]O; as the form, color, and perfume of the rose do not make three roses, but one; as our life, our intellect, and our will do not make three substances, but one; as 1 x 1 x 1 does not equal 3, but 1; so, too, in some much more mysterious way, there are Three Persons in God yet only one God.”

[Quix]

Your posts, including this one I’m responding to . . .

merely persist in DEMONSTRATING

that you didn’t understand what I wrote—evidently—AT ALL.

[Quix]

INDEED.

Fer sure.