The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin

“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.).

“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]).

“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]).

“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]).

“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]).

“[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).

“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]).

“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]).

“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]).

“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]).

“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]).

“[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]).

“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]).

Matthew 28:19

[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

We Christians all see this as a clear definition of the Trinity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit

How can you dispute this explicitly states the doctrine of the Trinity -- three hypostases but one substance/essence(homoousios)?

Remember, the three hypostases are distinct. Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. He was not talking to Himself. This was not one mode talking to another.

When Jesus said to the Apostles that He was going to go to the Father and send the Holy Spirit, this was not one hypostasis playing 3 roles/modes

If this was one hypostasis, why would Jesus have to go to be with Himself and then leave to send Himself?

No, I'm sorry, but your philosophy contradicts all that we Christians believe, is unscriptural and illogical.

As for me, I only read English and see through the 20th/21st century lens. Therefore, I need to trust scholars who make it their business to understand the orignal language and culture.

don't we all see things through the 20th century lens?! we all do!

I was lucky that I got the opportunity to learn a few languages by living in those countries. And it does give you a great perspective.

i would encourage you to pick up a second language, the sheer differences in grammar and how one expresses oneself can make you think in ways you don't if you are just monolingual

The easiest would be Spanish, but I would encourage French or German as the starting point -- they have declinations and cases, but not so strong in French and stronger in German

When you figure out how these are used (QUITE difficult for me a native english speaker), it opens a new world

Learning another script can have it's own challenges -- I could read basic arabic signs (but forgot after nearly a decade away from Bahrain) and picked up basic Devanagari on visits to parts of India. I can't read Cyrillic though which is a shame

But for me the most challenging is now learning Polish. It's got all 7 cases and is highly inflexed. just speaking it can open your minds in multiple ways! It's even more inflexed than Latin and far more than Russian (so the wife says who knows both!)

Oh, and never mind about that -- it's a minor sideline topic. The more pressing and in fact basic point is in my posts above where I'm endeavouring to explain to Iscool our Trinitarian belief.

I can understand a person rejecting the concept of the Trinity as messy and preferring the simplicity of just one, but that opens up too many rooms for error

For instance, God The Father is a Spirit, yet if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same substance, will and hypostases, then the logic of modalism states that Jesus Christ was just a spirit, a phantom.

This naturally then denies the Incarnation and the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross (a spirit/phantom can't feel physical pain) so leads to serious errors

This basic discussion is far, far more important, imho

Maybe the reason we all argue so much (as I see some in this thread) is that we are family. Families argue more with each other than they do with perfect strangers

True, but we must remember our common points -- I listed the Nicene creed in post 479. This is our common refrain and though we may argue on major or minor issues, we at least have THIS common belief and should remember this -- even if we cannot agree on the others, at least we can shake hands and agree to disagree.

btw, the Latin there is a great starting point to learn Latin. That and the commentaries by Caesar (gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres) -- powerful stuff.

It is not heresy. In fact even most Non Catholic sects regard it as a matter of adiaphora a belief not central to one’s salvation so you are free to believe it or not.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is supported by sound Biblical scholarship and by the consistent teaching of the Eastern and Western Churches.

That my boy, trumps your little self made sect’s innovative doctrine born out of hostility to Catholicism and ignorance of Biblical exegesis. We regard conclusions that are born out of these things to be bugs not features.

You hold the Mother of Our Lord in complete contempt because through the Grace of God her bearing the Son of Man made flesh shows that God does not view us as being totally depraved. That we are meant for holiness. That indeed “For the Son of God became man so that man could become gods”

Grace does not just cover our sins. We are not just legally justified. Christ makes us truly clean and worthy to be with Him for all eternity.

Mary is holy through the merits of Jesus Christ. She shows us the promises of God are not vanity. These same promises were made to all believers. I’ll take evidence of the fullness of Grace and the truth of God’s promise over your ramblings.

Checked your homepate. You are quite the scholar.

I have studied Spanish in high school (forgotten much) - so I know just a little of the Latin roots.

In a Bible study, we got a sample of texts from Greek and Hebrew, and a lexicon and challenge to translate it to English. It was very difficult - especially when Hebrew has no vowels and the text is all run togther.

And easy to see in English translations different shades of meaning - which we argue about so much.

You flatter me -- a scholar I'm not -- I can name you any number of people I know who seem to just absorb languages.

There's a Swiss girl I know who speaks French, German, English and Italian fluently and Polish, Russian and Yiddish somewhat fluently too. NOw she's learning Georgian -- scarily brilliant.

I just love the way how languages interact with everything from religion to culture to even economics -- sometimes you only think in one way because the language allows you to.

So I know something about history, languages, religions and culture, but ask me to appreciate art or food or fashion and I'm like "ok" ;-P

A little comprehension would be a good thing for you. I was not sneering at the Holy Ghost I was sneering at the presumption you have regarding the Holy Ghost giving you superior knowledge in matters of Scripture over the faithful Fathers of the Church.

You are not the Church. I am not the Church. Jesus promised the Church would be protected from all error by the Holy Spirit. Individuals can and do make mistakes regarding Biblical meanings. You are not safe from such error. I am not safe from such error.

The Bible is meant to be read and studied and understood and taught within the community of faith. I am not just speaking of Catholicism now but include Protestantism as well. It is not an “every man for himself” task but is a way of building up the Body of Christ.

I do believe that the separated sects are in some part protected from error as God’s grace and the Holy Spirit are certainly not absent from them.

The Holy Spirit certainly gives you an understanding of the Bible in its plain meaning. But yours is not the charism of infallibility. Nor was it the charism of the Fathers. They however had a great advantage over you. They either knew the Apostles or learned from those who got their teachings from the students of the Apostles. So you’ll forgive me if I take their opinion over yours.

The cry of the heretic is Eureka!!! They all believe they have discovered a previously unknown revelation from God to be made binding upon the faithful for the sake of their salvation.

You are in good company as ever heretic comes to this Eureka from his own private understanding of Scripture. The Church Eastern and Western stands against this. I will stand with her.

English is horribly imprecise

For instance, in Polish one would say "Byłem w biurze" (I was in the office) which instantly tells you that I am a guy and I'm not even using "I" which would be "JA byłem w biurze"

And ditto with a number of other languages that are very precise. In English one is stuck with normally just one word which has multiple shades of meaning while in Greek and Latin (neither of which I know well enough) these things are highly precise.

Of course Spanish too is very simple -- both global languages that get simplified as more variations appear.

With the argument about the Trinity -- there is no good English word for "Hypostasis" -- "person" fails miserably and "persona" may be more precise but is still too vague.

The Greek word is supposed to be even better than the Latin.

How can you dispute this explicitly states the doctrine of the Trinity -- three hypostases but one substance/essence(homoousios)?

Now you are getting funny...You guys for years have been telling us that no one can find the Trinity in the Scriptures...It was up to your religion to determine that there was a Trinity, 400 years after Matthew wrote about it...

Of course the verse states the existence of the Trinity...Glad to see you are learning some Bible...

I think that assumes the thing to be proved.

Further, I don’t see how this could be assessed by an outside observer. What is the desired outcome of a little old lady praying the Rosary, and how do you know it? How do you know it is not achieved?

What is the ‘substance’ of prayer and how does the rosary lack it? What is prayer “worth”?

I don’t see how extract anything from this statement either to assent to or to dissent from. It seems nugatory.

No you have that wrong. Man is bad. God is good.

The wars of religion brought out the worst in both Catholic and Protestant. We are not better than they were and are just as prone to sin. But we do not have the world view that they had. Which was that heresy (Catholic or Protestant) was a crime against the State and therefore threason. The punishment for treason has always been severe and traitors held in the most supreme contempt. They were a danger to social order and as such their influence was very much feared by whomever had authority.

We truly can not appreciate the undercurrents in 16th century Europe and England. The plots and counter plots. The claims to the thrones. The squabbling princes. The lying diplomats. The grumblings amongst the peasant class. The rise of the merchant class. The abuses of the aristocracy. The ever present wars.

A stable kingdom was not just an abstract idea it was essential to the peace and survival of many people. So when treason reared its head other heads rolled.

Are you REALLY TRYING TO CLAIM
THAT WAY BACK WHEN
THE PRODDYS MURDERED MORE RC'S
THAN THE RC'S MURDERED PRODDYS?
HAS Y'ALL'S RUBBERIZED HISTORY NONSENSE
REACHED SUCH LOWS OF HIDEOUSNESS?

AND LET US NOT FORGET THE NATIVES OF SOUTH AMERICA!

Wellllll,
As always, The Lord
will be the righteous judge.

HOWEVER, NOT JUST IN THIS CENTURY,
VS WAY BACK WHEN IN EUROPE, SOUTH AMERICA ETC.
BUT IN THE LAST 12 YEARS
ON THIS FORUM,
MURDEROUS LEVELS OF HATRED
HAVE ROUTINELY, CHRONICALLY, PERSISTENTLY,
99.9% FLOWED ONE DIRECTION:
RC'S TOWARD PRODDYS.

AND, SHOCKINGLY, SOME RC'S ON FR
HAVE ASSERTED, MOST BRAZENLY,
THAT THEY THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT
FOR THE VATICAN CULT TO WAGE
A NEW INQUISITION.

YET AGAIN WE SEE THE VATICAN CULT'S HABITUAL STAMP:

1. It's OK to mangle Scripture and history. The Magicsterical made us do it--for their self-serving power-mongering & lording it over the sheeple. And--it's for Ishtar-Mary.

2. It's OK to impoverish the poor further--of course to pray their sniveling relatives out of Purgatory. The Magicsterical made us do it--for their self-serving power mongering and lording it over the sheeple. And--it's for Ishtar-Mary.

3. It's OK to murder thousands of more righteous, more Christian, more Biblical believers. The Magicsterical made us do it--for their self-serving power mongering and lording it over the sheeple. And--it's for Ishtar-Mary.

4. It's OK to train many hundreds of altar boys in the dark pleasures of homosexuality over the centuries. The Magicsterical were often doing it themselves--for their self-serving power mongering and lording it over the sheeple. And--Ishtar-Mary has historically been quite an example in heralding the benefits of similar athletic exercises.

5. It's OK to be chronically, outrageously hypocritical and duplicitous in DAFFYNITIONARIES as well as in the Catechism and other public writings and discourses AND in dastardly behaviors, decisions and actions. The Magicsterical seem to delight in such--for their self-serving power-mongering and lording it over the sheeple. And--it's for Ishtar-Mary.

6. It's OK to rebel against God's Word and DEIFY Ishtar-Mary and claim it's God-pleasing. The Magicsterical has been doing it for a lot of our 1600 years--for their self-serving power-mongering.

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.