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]).

You are devaluing the Incarnation just like Nestorious did

AND NOW, FOR THE REST OF THE STORY...PAGE 2...

Oddly, you guys always forget to mention that the Nestorians would not accept the authority that your popes gave themselves...And as the article states,

At the time, Theotokos ("bearer/mother of God") was a popular term in the Western Church (including Constantinople) used to refer to the Virgin Mary, but it was not used in Antioch.

The Nestorians would not bow down to your pope and they knew a fable when they saw one, ie, Mother of God...

And let us note; the Nestorians lived where the Apostles hung out...Antioch, in what at the time was inside the borders of Syria, just up the road from Jerusalem...

They didn't fall for the Mother of God stuff that came up from Egypt...

Nestor has far more credibility than anything that came up from Rome/Egypt...

HD, do you believe in the Rapture? Is it unBiblical?

No, I don't believe in the Rapture. And if I'm correct, then yes, it is unBiblical for someone to hold this view. And if I'm wrong then I'm a heretic-at least on this matter.

There is only one scriptural truth. Every heretical doctrine leads you AWAY from God. The degree of the heresy and how many heretical doctrines you believe will lead you farther away from God. I have always believed this. Consequently I don't accept doctrine lightly and I do not accept things that I'm not 100% sure of. It was no small effort that I became a Reformer. As far as embracing an eschatology viewpoint, I have not fully made up my mind.

Oddly, you guys always forget to mention that the Nestorians would not accept the authority ...

Nobody forgot, it's no different than what the Mormons and the Calvinists and others do

they knew a fable when they saw one, ie, Mother of God...

They knew how to be heretics in denying the Trinity.

As Saint Thomas Aquinas rightfully points out Nestorius error...

Furthermore, by saying made of a woman two errors are destroyed, namely, that of Nestorious saying that Christ did not take His body of the Virgin but of the heavens and that He passed through the Blessed Virgin as through a corridor or channel. But this is false, for if it were true, He would not, as the Apostle says, have been made of a woman. By the preposition “of” [ex] the material cause is denoted. Likewise, the error of Nestorious saying that the Blessed Virgin is not the mother of the Son of God but of the son of a man. But this is shown to be false by the words of the Apostle here, that God sent his Son made of a woman. Now one who is made of a woman is her son. Therefore, if the Son of God was made of a woman, namely, of the Blessed Virgin, it is obvious that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of the Son of God.

Moreover, although he might have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, and not “born.”[1] Indeed, for something to be born it must not only be produced of a principle conjoined to it but be made from a principle separate from it. Thus a wooden chest is made by an artisan, but fruit is born from a tree. Now the principle of human generation is twofold, namely, material—and as to this, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin; and it is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom [Mary] was born Jesus Who is called Christ” (Matthew 1:16). The other is the active principle, which in the case of Christ, so far as He had a principle, i.e., as to the forming of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And with respect to this He is not said to have been born of a woman, but made, as it were, from an extrinsic principle. From this it is obvious that the saying, of a woman, does not denote a defloration; otherwise he would have said “born” and not “made.”- Saint Thomas Aquinas

And let us note; the Nestorians lived where the Apostles hung out...Antioch, in what at the time was inside the borders of Syria, just up the road from Jerusalem...

Gack!Are you really suggesting that hanging out in Antioch guarantees they knew truth? This is like say because I live in NY I must know the complete list of laws of the state of NY

Show us Nestorian writings that links them to the Apostles like writings of Saint Ignatius, Justyn Martyr and others?

You wrote:

“As a Presbyterian (like many other Protestants), we say the Apostles Creed - “I believe in one catholic and apostolic church ...” (I understand catholic has the broader meaning of universal.)”

Alright, let’s start there. Where was the Presbyterian church in the first century? Where was Presbyterian doctrine in the first century? If it wasn’t there, then can it be universal? If it isn’t universal, should you as a Christian believe in it?

“Ephesians 4:4 - says there is one body.”

Yes. And when was that one body established? Can those who disagree on the most basic of Christian doctrines - such as how we are saved - be in the same body when that body is freely chosen by its members?

“Christ only has one church - believers He has called out to Himsef. The labels we all give ourselves are man-made.”

Maybe the labels we give are man-made, but is the Church then man-made? No. It is Christ-made. Are all so-called churches Christ-made? Wouldn’t that mean all had been established in the first century? Is that the reality?

You left off the following verses:

Eze 33:19 And when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he shall live by this.

Eze 33:20 Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways."

Now do you believe that the wicked can turn away from their wickedness without God's help? If you believe so then you are contradicting Church teaching and have fallen into the Pelagius error.

God judges everyone according to their ways. And it's interesting that people CONTINUOUSLY say that this is unjust of God (just as He states). How many times do I hear that God isn't "fair" if someone doesn't hear the message and is cast into hell. We invent all sorts of goofy doctrine to find an excuse to make God "fair".

God is perfectly right to judge each of us for what we are. People are wicked and evil (yes, even kindly Aunt Murdle) and God would be unjust if He didn't give us the wages due-just what we ask for. We cannot overcome our wickedness even though God commands it. Heck, He told Cain that sin was "crouching" at the door and he had to overcome it. Cain couldn't and he murdered Able his brother. That is the nature of man. We're corrupt. And each one of us deep down knows that we would do something just as vile to become successful, popular, or for some other lascivious reason.

What you are missing in Ezekiel is the other part of the story. God tells the people that He will put a new spirit in us and cause us to walk in His statures and obey His ordinances (Eze 36:26). People can't do it-but God can. This is the grace of God. God purposely overcomes this nature of our by ripping out our rebellious heart and spirit, giving us a new one instead. God being so rich in His mercy that He takes it upon Himself to show mercy and grace when we deserve the torments of hell. Why He selects one and not another is His perogative, just as He calls some to be apostles and some teachers. It is according to HIS MERCY-not our "turning" from something.

Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

But you might say this isn't "fair" of God if He doesn't do it for everyone. If so reread this again.

I'm afraid you mean something different by prayer from what I mean by it. You say:
Notice He spoke with them, He NEVER prayed to them.

I say that's a distinction without a difference. I tried to suggest that with my example of Jesus praying to Mary, but I guess you didn't get it.

Also you speak a different kind of English from that which I speak, while it appears some judge by outward appearances, a practice against which there is Biblical advice.

Using the RSV, Matt 6:7: I find "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their empty words. Leaving aside the peculiar word βατταλογησητε, of which we seem to have little attestation, I would just go to the adjective "empty" and to the attribution of motive.

The words we say are not empty. SO we do not see ourselves as disregarding the first part of the advice. I find the words full of meaning.

Further, as I said, while we repeat these prayers, we are meditating on various periods of our Lord's life, or that of his mother. So the Rosary is very rich.

And, I do not think I will be heard for my many words. That's the bad part.

Many-ness and repetition are offered to us in Psalm 136 -- "for his steadfast love endures forever" 26 times! If we thought that the may repetitions were the problem, we couldn't pray that psalm. And anybody who thinks that multiplying words will make God hear them isn't paying attention.

So the problems are emptiness and a kind of prayerful works righteousness, not many-ness or repetition. The outward appearance is repetition, But the emptiness and the other is not to be seen. It is something somebody brings with him to the observation.

"Isn't it odd ...?"

No it isn't, not to me. Knotted and beaded strings have been used a long time to keep track of things. The cheap little rosary I have with me is handy.

If other people use malas and whatnot, that's not my problem. I worship the Lord who conquered death. He's not afraid of a bit of string and some beads.

I don’t know of a single Christian who sees the Anti-Christ’s rule for 3.5-7 years as

“an advantage.”

Scripture calls it the worst time that ever was or ever will be again.

However, I trust that God has His reasons.

And certainly, HE knows best.

FREE WILL . . . is a tricky subject Biblically.

There’s Scriptures on both sides. And there’s no, imho, definitive Biblical solution to that tension. So, I accept BOTH parts of Scripture and wait for God to resolve them in eternity.

Thank you for at least noticing the quote.

My point, and I do have one, is that the word "prayer" means more than making petitions. It's an imprecise word which is used to convey many things. We speak of silent prayer, prayer of adoration, even wordless prayer.

While the word and the words it translates seem to have started out with a sense of petition, they now mean far more.

In fact, it's hard to make a clear distinction between "pray" and "communicate", when we think of prayer in the broadest sense. But even with petitionery prayer, it seems to me entirely plausible that Jesus asked Mary to help him with his sandals when he was a toddler just learning to speak.

You see, the arguments against the intercession of the saints just don't make sense to me. It seems they are always based on an unspecified but firmly held meaning of prayer, a denial of the oneness of the body of Christ and of the Spirit which makes us one, and a careless reading of our Lord's teaching on prayer.

The usual way to proceed in such a case would be to identify the differences on which the disagreement is built and to discuss the meanings of the passages and the words used in them.

But so many are so interested in winning or in showing the other side up, that this exercise, which could be done in fellowship and charity is ignored for accusations of idolatry and the dangerous fun of thinking oneself more righteous and more blessed that others. ( I did not say"wrong"; I said "dangerous".)

Jesus communicated with Mary. That, to me, is equivalent to prayer except that neither party has died yet. And Jesus probably asked Mary for something. So we have petitionery prayer. All we ask her for are her prayers, while at other times (scattered lightly in the daily prayers of Catholics) we ask God to hear Mary's prayers.

If that's "brainwashed", then I'm brainwashed. I think the idea that, even after the Transfiguration and the Resurrection, communication with those who have 'gone before' is impossible is itself unBiblical, for surely Moses and Elias went before, and sure we are one in the Spirit.

* Where was the Presbyterian church in the first century? ...*

There were no denominational labels, Catholic, Prebyterian, Baptist, .... that I know of in the first century.

As for the other questions of doctrine - etc.

In the first century, we did have the Old Testament, and the New Testament in the form of Gospels, the letters, the history by Luke, and the Revelation of John. From that, Christians derive our doctrine. And I thank the Catholics for putting the New Testament together and preserving it.

The crux is to believe Jesus is the Son of God and trust Him as our Savior. Why do we make it so complicated? That is totally universal - totally catholic.

And believing God for salvation goes way, way, back before the first century to the Garden of Eden - the seed of the woman (Jesus born of a virgin) will crush the head of the serpent (the devil). Abraham believed God and it counted to him as righteousness. The nasty Ninevites that Jonah preached to - all believed God and He showed them mercy. (That’s all God has asked any sinner to do - believe Him.)

You are absolutely right that the Church is Christ-made.

cronos: Why exactly did Jesse Duplantis believe that he zoomed to heaven, met Abraham and David and comforted Jesus?

What was that you were saying about believeing in unbiblical stuff straight from hell?

Quix: Because he was awake when the trip began and awake when it ended and that’s what his senses etc. told him he experienced.

Rot -- Jesse Duplantis was/is a liar and a con-man through and through.

What is worse is the utterly unbiblical stuff he spouts --

Jesse Duplantis, the guy who preached that You, not God, Decides When to Die

“I’m going to say something that will knock your lights off. Go has the power to take life, but He can’t. He’s got the power to do it, but He won’t. He’s bound; He can’t. He says, “Death and life is in the power of” who’s tongue? Yours. You ready for this? You want something that’ll knock your lights off? You choose when you live; you choose when you die. Death and life is in the power of your tongue, not God’s.

As you said "wholesale gross UNBiblical deceptions from hell" -- what do you think of Herr Duplantis now?

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.