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?
This is similar to the question of the Pope Infallibility:
Do you believe it?
Well, the question should be: “Do you believe in God?”
If the answer is yes, then there should be no doubt all the other minor miracles are also possible.
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.If I recall correctly, the 19th Century saw the Dogmatic Declaration "Ineffabilis Deus" (December 8, 1854), the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which states "that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin."
The Council of the Lateran, 649, says Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth". That belief, extant from the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, has never - to my knowledge - been exclusively referred to as a separate Dogmatic declaration. It has, instead, been taught for so long that it is embedded in the very fiber of our common Faith.
So this is why, even though we aren’t living in the Middle Ages, we won’t reopen the issue.And of course, until the last few centuries, no one even raised the issue. All of Christendom held the same view. The vast majority (Catholic + Orthodox + many Anglican and Lutheran faith communities) of us still do.
For many of the Catholics I have seen respond, it is because it is a historical teaching and/or a dogma. It is a traditional doctrine of the Catholic church.
And if that is the case that is fine. Like I said, the topic came up the other day on a thread, and I was curious not about the academics or apologetics, but the feelings and the importance in modern Catholic viewpoint.
I’m a historian, and as such I ask ‘why’ a lot. I do really appreciate those who gave me honest, straightforward answers.
This Religion Forum thread is labeled “Ecumenical” meaning no antagonism is allowed on this thread.
I typed the name from memory. But why do you care?
Thank you for answering the question rather than dodging it. You bring up an excellent point.
“It is a traditional doctrine of the Catholic church.”
And the Orthodox and ALL of Christendom until a few hundred years ago.
What is your faith tradition if I may ask?
Of course it is not true; the Bible even says that Jesus had other human brothers, such as James, who at first didnt believe in Him, but later came to faith in Jesus.
Thank you for your response.
Regarding revisiting doctrine/teachings/dogma, many doctrines in Catholicism have been reopend and even modified. Vatican II is an example of that, even if it is only clarification.
Catholics have modified and/or clarified dogma in the past, I would expect to happen again.
But I wasn’t even asking them to rethink it or address it formally, I was just curious.
It doesn’t require Mary to be “pure” which I think you mean sinless (she was not sinless).
That’s the thing God used sinful men and women to achieve His purposes at times, but they were all a foreshodow of the Sinless Messiah.
-JS.
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.
- - - -
There wasn’t a ‘tone’ in it. If you read the thread you will see I have been very cordial. My post was by way of explanation as to why I don’t see the world the same.
I’m not sure why you think that I was implying Catholics are too stupid to think for themselves, I never said that, nor do I believe that. Some of my favorite Biblical Studies professors were professing Catholics and we enjoyed many cordial debates. Whatever your issue, I am not in any way hostile to the Catholic church.
BTW, we do have Apostolic Succession, just not the way you see it. Our authority comes from Christ alone through our faith.
It doesn’t require Mary to be “pure” which I think you mean sinless (she was not sinless).
That’s the thing God used sinful men and women to achieve His purposes at times, but they were all a foreshodow of the Sinless Messiah.
-JS.
You are welcome. For me it isn’t a big issue either way, it doesn’t change who Christ is, or the prophecies, or His deity.
Jesus was born of a virgin, in accordance to the scriptures.
After that, virginity would serve no purpose and therefore be vanity.
Whould God demand vanity?
I’m glad I place my salvation on the Messiah rather than a teenaged girl.
I am an Evangelical (Born Again) Christian. My family comes from Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Charismatic and other Protestant traditions.
I wasn’t asking if it was ‘true’ or not, I have firm beliefs regarding the doctrine.
What I was asking is WHY Catholics believe it and hold it dear.
After that, virginity would serve no purpose and therefore be vanity.
Whould God demand vanity?
- - - -
Now THAT is an interesting viewpoint. I never thought of it being vanity. Not sure I agree, but it is something I hadn’t considered.
I thought Catholics weren't particularly fond of Martin Luther. In fact, I've seen him condemned as antisemetic right here on FR. Tell me, are you standing against the anti Luther rhetoric?
**They didn’t have to have siblings....See Ex. 13:2, Ex. 34:20**
The potential for more is being taken into consideration by those commands, lest the parents would think that they could wait for a second or later child to sanctify unto the Lord.
**2 Sam 6:23** Michal had no children, but probably wasn’t a virgin......??....your reason for connecting that to this issue about Mary??
**1 Tim 4:13** ‘till, as in ‘it is planned on happening’.
**1 Cor 15:25** ‘till’, as in ‘it’s definitely going to happen’.
So, Joseph knew her not till Jesus was born; leaving him free to ‘know’ his wife after Jesus birth. That’s just plain, untarnished by man-made tradition, common sense.
The same greek word is used for ‘brother’, whether it’s Andrew and Simon Peter, John and James (sons of Zebedee), or “the son of Mary, brother of James, and Joses, ..”etc.
It is not good to ‘actually read the bible’ with man-made traditions clinging to ones mind ahead of time.
Lord bless
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.