Posted on 03/17/2012 2:30:01 PM PDT by reaganaut
I understand the history of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (ἀειπαρθένος). I know it was taught as early as the 4th century, and I understand the development of "Spritual Marriages" in the Early Middle ages. That isn't what I am asking.
I have a good grasp of the history, doctrine and Biblical texts. I have done a lot of research on the topic. I grew up in Catholic school and Matthew 1:25 always got me in trouble during Catechism class.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25).
"Know" is a very common idiom for sex in Judaism of the period of writing. Again, I don't want to debate the text or history.
Protestants have no issue with Joseph and Mary having a normal marriage and having sexual relations AFTER the birth of Jesus (not before for obvious reasons) and having other children.
What I am curious about is the WHY the doctrine is important to MODERN Catholics (Medieval Catholics I get). Why does matter if Mary was ever-virgin (after the birth of Christ) or not?
Both were asking “how can such a thing happen?” The difference was in how did they say it, what did they mean. We know that Mary submitted herself to God’s will, but we don’t know about Zachariah. Was he telling the angel it could not happen? Was he demanding proof? I don’t know. All I’m saying is that whatever was in Zachariah’s heart can probably explain Gabriel’s reaction!
“All I’m saying is that whatever was in Zachariah’s heart can probably explain Gabriel’s reaction!”
Exactly!
I think I may have gotten the answer to my question.Good, can you share with us what you think that answer may be?
What is the difference to a catholic?
“firstborn son”. Exactly.
Also, “And he knew her not till”.
Since both Mary and Joseph knew that she was a virgin, why would that phrase even be there in the scriptures? KNEW HER NOT.......TILL?
And the ‘Mary born sinless’ invention; and her mother too?
Mary passed none of her blood into her child. The mother and child’s circulatory systems are completely separate, from conception through childbirth.
“What is the difference to a catholic?”
First, it’s Catholic, not “catholic”. Second, did you check the catechism or any other reputable published source?
IIRC, it was Johann Danhauer an early 17th century theologian. I would have to check some of my books to be sure though.
Sigh, I know the difference between doctrines of salvation and mere dogma. I also know the text and what it does and does not say.
You seem to think I want apologetic, I don’t. I don’t believe the doctrine and never will. But I DO care about the answer because I am interested in the mindset of modern Catholics regarding the doctrine. I know the Catholic teachings on it, I know the Catholic apologetics of it. That isn’t what I am asking.
But since you are being hostile and not answering the question, are not giving straight answers and this is an ECUMENICAL thread, please leave the thread.
You wrote:
“Exactly.”
“Firstborn” did not imply later children. All solitary sons were called the firstborn if they were the firstborn. They didn’t have to have siblings. Anyone who has ever actually read the Bible would know this. See Ex. 13:2, Ex. 34:20
“KNEW HER NOT.......TILL?”
Again, anyone who has actually read the Bible would know...2 Sam 6:23, 1 Cor 15:25 and 1 Tim 4:13
“And the ‘Mary born sinless’ invention; and her mother too?”
No, not her mother, and it’s no invention.
You wrote:
“Sigh, I know the difference between doctrines of salvation and mere dogma.”
I don’t think you do.
“I also know the text and what it does and does not say.”
Again, I don’t think you do.
“You seem to think I want apologetic, I don’t. I don’t believe the doctrine and never will. But I DO care about the answer because I am interested in the mindset of modern Catholics regarding the doctrine.”
And now you’re back to “doctrine” and not “dogma”? See what I mean? I don’t think you know the difference.
“I know the Catholic teachings on it, I know the Catholic apologetics of it. That isn’t what I am asking.”
If you know the “Catholic teachings on it”, then you would have to know what it is your asking about, right?
“But since you are being hostile and not answering the question, are not giving straight answers and this is an ECUMENICAL thread, please leave the thread.”
I am not being hostile. I am asking questions just as you are. Who is really the hostile one here then?
“IIRC, it was Johann Danhauer an early 17th century theologian. I would have to check some of my books to be sure though.”
If you mean Johann Conrad Dannhauer (please note correct spelling), I’m not positive about that. He said it didn’t really matter as an issue. I don’t know if he ever said it wasn’t true.
The angel tells Mary “you will conceive and bear a son” in the future tense. Mary is oddly puzzled about how this will happen—but she is betrothed though. Why wouldn’t she expect a future conception to happen in the normal way?
Unless there’s something to the tradition behind the mid-2nd century Protoevangelion, that Mary was a Temple virgin:
Thanks for your thoughtful question and also your desire for cordiality.
I wasnt going to respond after reading narses post to you. It was what I was going to say. I’d like to make it clear though, speaking for myself: This isn’t the “only” reason I believe Mary was a virgin for her entire life, but narses’ answer directly and I believe accurately answers your original question, that is, Why don’t Catholics change their mind on the issue? Why don’t we revisit it today? I would simply like to speak a bit more about that question, again to be sure the point I wanted to make would be clear.
Again, it’s Dogma, as narses said. For Catholics this is the equivalent of saying its a law of nature like gravity, or the spherical nature of the earth. So to ask, why don’t Catholics today at least look at the issue again, is the same as asking, why do t we reconsider whether or not the earth is round.
Just as the earth’s spherical nature is established fact (except for a few nitjobs of course) and thus it’s foolish to “reopen” that debate, it is equally foolish for a Catholic to reopen the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity, because that too is established fact. A dogma is established fact, a settled debate in the Church. So this is why, even though we aren’t living in the Middle Ages, we won’t reopen the issue. Besides, as a side note, her perpetual virginity wasn’t made dogmatic until the 19th century, I believe. I could be wrong about that though.
The point I wanted to make though is in answer to your question as to why we dont revisit the issue today. The most basic response to that is, “We can’t”.
Very simple. See Luke 1:20, "And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, BECAUSE thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season." Elizabeth prophetically said to Mary in Luke 1:45 "And blessed is she that BELIEVED: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord."
Faith is released through words as shown in 2 Cor 4:13, Rom 10:8-10, etc. Had Zachariah not been struck mute, his unbelief would have hindered the miracle of John's birth, just as the unbelief of those in Jesus' own country hindered his ability to perform miracles in Mark 6:6 and Mat 13:58.
“As an Evangelical Christian, I do not believe something because my pastor or church tells me to...”
That’s because your pastor dosen’t have apostolic succession. I resent the snide tone in your post; insinuating that Catholics are too stupid to think for themselves.
Thanks, I googled that name and found a few interesting discussions among Lutherans about the subject, heh it looks just like Catholics/Orthodox vs. most other sorts of Christians on FR. I had no idea that there were so many Lutherans who still believe it.
Freegards
Well, there was that little trip to Egypt.
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.