Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Mary, woman, the physical and sex.

Thread: Purgatory: Mary, woman, the physical and sex. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000889

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Something for the feast of the Assumption!

I was with a group of people recently at worship and the 'litany of our lady' was said.

Here are some of the biddings we said;

Mother most pure
Mother most chaste
Mother inviolate
Mother unstained

I do wonder about all this in relation toMary. I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.

I also feel it suggests being physical, and sex itself is rather dirty.

I hope we can 're-vision' (if such a word exists) Mary so that she may inspire women and men. Is such re-visioning going on?

[ 02. November 2012, 20:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

This has been referred to very recently on the thread "When is truth not truth." The perpetual virginity of Mary was one of the Catholic doctrines the OP mentioned...it was discussed a little.

It's one of the consequences of virginity's being considered a holier state than matrimony at a certain period in Church history...or perhaps a historian would qualify it as being the attitude for most of church history...I am not sure...

cara

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Something for the feast of the Assumption!

I was with a group of people recently at worship and the 'litany of our lady' was said.

Here are some of the biddings we said;

Mother most pure
Mother most chaste
Mother inviolate
Mother unstained

I do wonder about all this in relation toMary. I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.

I also feel it suggests being physical, and sex itself is rather dirty.

I hope we can 're-vision' (if such a word exists) Mary so that she may inspire women and men. Is such re-visioning going on?

Well, speaking as an Anglican who sometimes attends churches that venerate Mary, I know we don't pay so much attention extolling her complete unsluttiness.

Statements like the one you list raise two questions:

1) Mary was engaged to be married to Joseph when she conceived Jesus. Presumably she married Joseph at some point. Why does the Catholic tradition hold that she was celibate after the birth of Christ? Why would such a fact be important?

2) The whole sex-negative thing with the Catholic Church... it's been overplayed by secular critics, but it's definitely there. Why? There was certainly nothing I'm aware of in the Jewish tradition which suggested that married sex somehow tainted or defiled women. In fact, women are expected to get married, be fruitful and multiply. It's considered a divine command to all Jews.

There's Paul's discussion about the merits of marriage vs. celibacy, but Paul's argument for celibacy focuses on the fact that if you don't have to worry about marriage or children, you've got more time to serve Jesus out in the field. He doesn't argue that sex makes you gross or unclean or dirty.

The whole fixation on Mary's hymen is bizarre to my eyes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"

When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Yes indeed! It does seem to me to be men worried about women's sexuality, at times.

So then the men hold as virtuous the pure virgin.

I also feel some more 'modern' terms for litanies such as the one I quoted could help rehabilitate Mary and even women in the church.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"

When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.

Care to elaborate? The perpetual virginity of Mary is not part of the dogma of Anglicanism, as far as I know, and I don't know where the idea that she never had sex with her husband comes from. I'm asking in earnest and I'm open to education. Is there biblical authority for that or is it part of the tradition of the Church?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

As a gay man, I find it rather liberating that Christianity doesn't think everyone has to be married, have an active sex life and have children to be fulfilled.

Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination - the virgin birth can be interpreted as saying in the clearest possible way that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"

When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.
Care to elaborate? The perpetual virginity of Mary is not part of the dogma of Anglicanism, as far as I know, and I don't know where the idea that she never had sex with her husband comes from. I'm asking in earnest and I'm open to education. Is there biblical authority for that or is it part of the tradition of the Church?

I made no claim about either the truth of the claim or the origin. That wasn't the point of my post. I might get into that later or I might leave it to more capable hands.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination

Whoa, time out. This is a fucked-up sick idea of sex. I've had sex multiple times, and not once was it ever connected with violence or domination (intimately or otherwise). I imagine there are many, many other people for whom this is true. Violence and domination can be coupled (excuse pun) with sex, but violence and domination can be coupled with child rearing too, and we wouldn't say that child rearing is "intimately connected" with violence and domination.

*************

Back to the "assuming it's false" theme: What I'm cautioning against of course is Bulverism. Here's how the Source of All Wisdom and Knowledge defines Bulverism. First word links to full article.

quote:
Bulverism is a logical fallacy in which, rather than proving that an argument in favour of an opinion is wrong, a person instead assumes that the opinion is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held it. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument. The term "Bulverism" was coined by C. S. Lewis.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I guess that many of those who are happy to apply terms like
Mother inviolate
Mother all pure.... May well dislike the idea of Mary being sexually aroused, or of her having sexual touch with or from another, even if it did affect her virginity.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know that it does any good to make general assertions about the psychology of those who use such phrases. I feel rather uncomfortable with them myself; but not being able to climb into the skulls of those who wrote it, it's hard to judge.

Maybe you could get on with the positive side of things (writing something better) instead of worrying about the possible mindset of those who find the other stuff helpful?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I'm a good Anglican, so I don't have that instinct to disbelieve and hate anything not in the Bible. I just can't see why the Christian Gospel should stand or fall on Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus was born.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess that many of those who are happy to apply terms like
Mother inviolate
Mother all pure.... May well dislike the idea of Mary being sexually aroused, or of her having sexual touch with or from another, even if it did affect her virginity.

Did Mousethief just pay you so perfectly to illustrate his Bulverism point?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Zach, are you concerned with being contrarian that you don't actually read the posts?

Mockingale said

quote:
The perpetual virginity of Mary is not part of the dogma of Anglicanism, as far as I know, and I don't know where the idea that she never had sex with her husband comes from.

Or are you convinced that Anglicans are just closet RCs?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Zach, are you concerned with being contrarian that you don't actually read the posts...Or are you convinced that Anglicans are just closet RCs?

Uh, is this thread only for Anglicans or something? I missed that part. Could you point that out for me?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

There's Paul's discussion about the merits of marriage vs. celibacy, but Paul's argument for celibacy focuses on the fact that if you don't have to worry about marriage or children, you've got more time to serve Jesus out in the field. He doesn't argue that sex makes you gross or unclean or dirty.

Paul goes even further and says that it's wrong for a person to deny the spouse's conjugal rights.

I grew up protestant, believing that Mary had born other children. I have no trouble venerating her. I was taught that she was chosen to be Jesus' mother because of her perfect holiness and her unquestioning obedience to God. Anybody can be a virgin but how many people would have accepted the angel's message with such absolute faith?

I agree with Lamb Chopped that we can't be sure what the thinking was of the "Mary was all pure," writers. "Pure," means without sin more often than it means virginal.

[ 15. August 2012, 00:39: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

harlot in earth, virgin in heaven - read yr mythopoeia, dude

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
...

I hope we can 're-vision' (if such a word exists) Mary so that she may inspire women and men. Is such re-visioning going on?

Sounds as if this 're-visioning' comes contingent on accepting the suppositions you have already made? [Devil]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination
Whoa, time out. This is a fucked-up sick idea of sex. <snip>

TANGENT: This theory may have been advanced by others prior to her writing about it, but Elaine Morgan, in [I]The Descent of Woman[I], theorizes that changes in the human anatomy during the evolutionary processes leading from proto- to present-form humanity made the frontal heterosexual approach more common in humans, a departure from the majoritarian sexual habits of other primates. Since frontal approaches also characterize combat, attack, etc. among primates and the supine position often assumed by the female in frontal sex can also be characteristic of defeat and domination, sex and violence have, alas, become conjoined somewhere in the depths of the human psyche.

Morgan explains it much more persuasively than I can (and it is a theory few anthropologists subscribe to). I am not an anthropologist either, and stake no bets either way. But the theory exists.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Back to the "assuming it's false" theme

Protestants don't "assume" that the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is false because it is promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church.

They believe it to be false because there is no evidence for it.

Bulverism doesn't come into it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination
Whoa, time out. This is a fucked-up sick idea of sex. <snip>
TANGENT: This theory may have been advanced by others prior to her writing about it, but Elaine Morgan, in [I]The Descent of Woman[I], theorizes that changes in the human anatomy during the evolutionary processes leading from proto- to present-form humanity made the frontal heterosexual approach more common in humans, a departure from the majoritarian sexual habits of other primates. Since frontal approaches also characterize combat, attack, etc. among primates and the supine position often assumed by the female in frontal sex can also be characteristic of defeat and domination, sex and violence have, alas, become conjoined somewhere in the depths of the human psyche.

Morgan explains it much more persuasively than I can (and it is a theory few anthropologists subscribe to). I am not an anthropologist either, and stake no bets either way. But the theory exists.

It exists, and it's fucked up.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Back to the "assuming it's false" theme
Protestants don't "assume" that the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is false because it is promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church.

They believe it to be false because there is no evidence for it.

Bulverism doesn't come into it.

You clearly don't understand Bulverism. The point is not WHY you believe it false. The assumption it's false is the starting point, and how you got there is irrelevant to whether or not it's Bulverism.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I actually agree with you, MT. I simply take Mary's perpetual virginity as true because the Church has generally believed it to be true. I can't understand why it is so reviled in some circles.

But to me it just seems to float apart from the other dogmas of the Church. I would like my assent to be more than "Sure, I guess."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the doctrine of perpetual virginity, the veneration of a woman depicted as particularly 'pure' certainly has its impact. As Percy B said in the OP, there's this hint of sex, and women's sexuality in particular, being a bit 'dirty'.

I'm a massive fan of the singer Tori Amos, and she has a BIG bee in her bonnet about this. She is the daughter of a Protestant minister, and had an extremely strict Puritan-like grandmother, so it's not simply a Catholic Church issue. A recurring theme in Amos' work is the contrast between Mary, mother of Jesus, depicted as pure and chaste and sexless, and Mary Magdalene, one of the women closest to Jesus but traditionally depicted as a prostitute despite there being no real textual basis for this. Amos sees the traditional patriarchy as basically dividing women into two roles/categories, mothers and whores.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

We know Jesus had brothers who tried to stop him at the beginning of his ministry. We also the names of four of his brothers: James, Joseph (or Jose), Simon and Judas. Some would argue that these brothers were actually cousins, but the Greek word for brother is adelphios comes from the Greek word adelphys which literally means "of the same womb."

While we know the name of the four brothers, that does not exclude the probability he also had sisters.

Most Lutherans do not believe in the assumption of Mary.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The principal stance that I have heard about Marian dogmas in Anglicanism is that they don't touch the essential matters of salvation. It does not impact Christ's saving work if Mary and Joseph had sexual relations or if Mary indeed refrained from sex all her life.

So people are free to believe in Marian dogmas if they find it edifying. However, at the same time, people can't impose Marian dogmas on others. Nor can disagreement over a Marian dogma be grounds for excommunication of anyone.

For me, Mary lived a life of complete obedience to God. She freely consented to this life of grace and is an integral part of salvation history. She rightly deserves the titles of Mother, Queen, and Virgin. The Church is right to magnify her for she has done something that no one on earth has ever done.

She gave birth, nurtured and raised the Word made flesh.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Is this one of those things that matters to people who know some fine details that are irrelevant to the most of us? Like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation? Frankly, I hope that if Mary had sex that she enjoyed it, at any point in her life she so chose. It appeals that she had other children. They could have been before and after Jesus for all that that matters.

And it matters not at all whether she did and what we think. I did not ask my mother nor father about their sex life, suspect that Jesus didn't ask Mary, Joseph nor God about their's. I don't know that anyone else interviewed her to find out, and I certainly hope they didn't. Some things are personal, this is right up there with bowel habits.

We might consider that a good measure of those who hold out chastity and virginity for Mary appear themselves to promote something they do not practice very well despite their vows. Both in history and currently.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

The terms describing Our Lady with which I expressed personal discomfort are of course accepted by a great number of Christians. They are in the tradition.

I feel, personally, they do not sit well in the 21st century.

I guess some terms once used are later dropped. Seeing Our Lady as a priest was, I believe, later discouraged.

I am sure it is right to draw in more positive terms, and from the wealth of the tradition. I guess there are also new treasures of Marian liturgies as well as the old which can be drawn upon.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
And it matters not at all whether she did and what we think. I did not ask my mother nor father about their sex life, suspect that Jesus didn't ask Mary, Joseph nor God about their's. I don't know that anyone else interviewed her to find out, and I certainly hope they didn't. Some things are personal, this is right up there with bowel habits.

Some things, including the two examples you have just cited, can be more personal or less so from one culture to another, and even from one social group to another, and even from one group of family and friends to another.

Just listen to conversations among groups of pregnant women to hear examples of what I mean about open discussions of the most intimate of bodily functions. The same is often true of groups of friends who are making a joint effort to lose weight or who otherwise just have the level of comfort with each other that they feel able freely to discuss health issues and physical processes.

There is a whole host of different social attitudes to discussing these matters, and that is just now, in the present day. To take the assumptions of just one of these attitudes and transpose it onto a different culture, 2000 years ago, seems like very poor reasoning to me.

It just doesn't hold together.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is this one of those things that matters to people who know some fine details that are irrelevant to the most of us? Like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation? Frankly, I hope that if Mary had sex that she enjoyed it, at any point in her life she so chose. It appeals that she had other children. They could have been before and after Jesus for all that that matters.

Agreed.

A more interesting question is 'Why do some people need Mary to have been a virgin?'

We'll never know. Just as I'm the only one who knows how long I was a virgin. It should be nobody's business but her own - as it should be for everyone else.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Percy B: I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.

This is how I like to think about her too.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Something for the feast of the Assumption!

I was with a group of people recently at worship and the 'litany of our lady' was said.

Here are some of the biddings we said;

Mother most pure
Mother most chaste
Mother inviolate
Mother unstained

I do wonder about all this in relation toMary. I think it removes her from being the everyday woman who said YES to God, in whom I believe.

I also feel it suggests being physical, and sex itself is rather dirty.

I think that this issue of viewing sex negatively, while related, is perhaps a different issue from the matter of Perpetual Virginity.

Of course I believe in the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, not because anything else would be nasty or disgusting, but for the secondary reason that it makes sense within the wider context of the Incarnation, and primarily for the reason that it is what has been handed down as part of the Christian Tradition and I have never seen any reason to doubt the truth of it. As with anything, if it's true, then it's true - it doesn't need a reason to be true.

However, I do see how people could potentially struggle with the implications of language such as "thou who without defilement (some translations say "without corruption") gavest birth to God the Word". It is actually saying something positive about the Mother of God and her perpetual virginity but I can see how it could be perceived as indirectly saying something negative about sex and the usual way of human procreation.

Terms like "chaste", "pure", "inviolate", "undefiled", and so forth, pose no problem for me. There is nothing about affirming chastity that suggests that anything is wrong with sex. Likewise for purity, (which needn't be seen as any sort of reference to sex at all, as has already been pointed out). Similarly, for somebody who has a lived understanding of the theology of consecration, then a purpose that disregards that consecrated purpose is a violation - a defilement - even if that purpose is otherwise morally neutral or good.

I know a lady who bakes bread for the Eucharist. All of the utensils, baking trays, and so forth, that she uses for that purpose are used only for that purpose. They are set apart and special, for a holy purpose. If her husband were to use one of her eucharistic baking trays to make some bread pudding, she would see that as a violation of its holy purpose. That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with bread pudding (it's actually very nice, if perhaps a little fattening) but once something is set apart for holy use - once it is consecrated - then it isn't returned to common use.

It shouldn't take a big leap to see that Christians have traditionally understood the role of the Mother of God within the Incarnation in similar terms.

I think that this sense of consecration is somehow a very real part of the human way of thinking and feeling, and needn't necessarily be attached to any religious beliefs. An Anglican priest in a part of Greater Manchester known for its nuisance crime by people of a certain age once told me of the vandalism to which his church fell victim on an almost weekly basis: graffiti, broken windows, bonfires in the churchyard, and so forth. Then the church hosted the funeral of a local teenager who, fleeing the police (with whom he was well acquainted), had come off his motorcycle and died instantly. The church was packed for the occasion. It was some months later that he was recounting this story, and he said that, while the whole business was very sad, he couldn't help but notice that this funeral coincided with the end to the vandalism. There had been no more of these incidents at the church after that. I know that this isn't a direct analogy because vandalism is morally negative but the point is that, even without doctrines or theology, these people seemed to understand that building as having taken on a special significance that had to be honoured and respected. It seems a basic part of the human psyche.

[ 15. August 2012, 07:39: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Sex is intimately connected with violence and domination

I'd argue that by definition sex is consensual. If non consensual violence and domination are added then we stop talking about sex and start talking about rape.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You clearly don't understand Bulverism. The point is not WHY you believe it false. The assumption it's false is the starting point, and how you got there is irrelevant to whether or not it's Bulverism.

Let me walk you through this.

In Lewis's essay "Bulverism", "..its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver...heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - "Oh you say that because you are a man". At that moment... there flashed across my opening mind...assume your opponent is wrong and then explain his error".

If Protestants began with the assumption that the perpetual virginity of Mary was not true, and then asserted, "You are only claiming that dogma is true because you are a Roman Catholic", we would have a classic case of Bulverism.

But they don't.

They believe it to be untrue because of the lack of any evidence that it is true, and some evidence that it isn't.

The fact that other traditions do believe the dogma is irrelevant and does not require citation.

This is not Bulverism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

When you start gassing about "why would they believe this given that it's not true" and start coming up with bullshit about sex being icky, then you're Bulverizing. Maybe you haven't done that on this thread (yet). But it's done and it's being done right here right now. Perhaps you haven't noticed it? Go back and read the thread again.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
I'm a massive fan of the singer Tori Amos, and she has a BIG bee in her bonnet about this. She is the daughter of a Protestant minister, and had an extremely strict Puritan-like grandmother, so it's not simply a Catholic Church issue. A recurring theme in Amos' work is the contrast between Mary, mother of Jesus, depicted as pure and chaste and sexless, and Mary Magdalene, one of the women closest to Jesus but traditionally depicted as a prostitute despite there being no real textual basis for this. Amos sees the traditional patriarchy as basically dividing women into two roles/categories, mothers and whores.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

It seems a classic case of arriving at a doctrine and not being able to abandon it when presented by contradictory evidence.

I dont seen any reason to assume from the Greek that the 'brothers' mentioned were anything other than biological brothers and the references to them later in the New Testament dont suggest anything else either. Occam's Razor folks.

It seems a case where a Tradition is established which is considered more important than fact.
Might have been a hard one for the Church to retcon without having to devalue celibacy, and afirm healthy sex. Might have been a good move in hindsight.

Still happens. We have Climate Change deniers alive and well despite overwhelming evidence from the Science, largely because folk dont like where it leads. Human nature is forever the same on this one.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is this one of those things that matters to people who know some fine details that are irrelevant to the most of us? Like transubstantiation versus consubstantiation? Frankly, I hope that if Mary had sex that she enjoyed it, at any point in her life she so chose. It appeals that she had other children. They could have been before and after Jesus for all that that matters.

Agreed.

A more interesting question is 'Why do some people need Mary to have been a virgin?'

We'll never know. Just as I'm the only one who knows how long I was a virgin. It should be nobody's business but her own - as it should be for everyone else.

I went to Tesco yesterday and bought, among other things, a tin of chicken in white sauce. What is on my grocery list is nobody's business but mine. Granted, it isn't as private a matter as anything to do with sex but it's still my personal business. That doesn't mean it's a secret or that sexual matters are kept secret from one's intimates.

Now, I've just told you that I went to Tesco yesterday and bought a tin of chicken in white sauce. You are free to believe me or you can find some reason not to believe me - perhaps I have given you the impression of being untrustworthy, or whatever other reason. Yet, even if you decide not to accept what I've said, it doesn't mean that the people who do believe me must have some deep-seated reason why they need to believe that I bought a tin of chicken in white sauce.

The idea that people who believe something is true only do so because they need to believe that it is true just doesn't make sense to me. Among the things passed down through Christian Tradition is the knowledge of the virginity of the Mother of God. St Joseph knew her. The Myrrh-bearing Women knew her. The Apostles knew her. These people were counted among her intimates. It doesn't seem strange to me at all that at least some of them might know things about her that have come down to us.

I believe that the Mother of God was and remained a virgin, not because I have any sort of need to believe it but because it seems to be true, and it makes sense. I have never seen any compelling reason to doubt it.

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

Reading all this, it strikes me that those who have hangups about sex read any reference to 'purity' and so on as related to sex, and are really just projecting their own attitudes onto a doctrine which says everything about consecration and nothing about sex.

Catholics, who have a very positive set of teachings about the value and holiness of sex (but which recognise that it's not actually obligatory for everyone and that celibacy also has a value and a holiness), should not fall into that trap; those looking at it from outside Catholicism and unaware of the context are probably more vulnerable to it.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
...
I dont seen any reason to assume from the Greek that the 'brothers' mentioned were anything other than biological brothers and the references to them later in the New Testament dont suggest anything else either. Occam's Razor folks.
...

This debate has been going on a long time and I do not believe you are able to make a definitive statement here, however satisfying that may be to you and those who support this position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you start gassing about "why would they believe this given that it's not true" and start coming up with bullshit about sex being icky, then you're Bulverizing. Maybe you haven't done that on this thread (yet). But it's done and it's being done right here right now. Perhaps you haven't noticed it? Go back and read the thread again.

Is it not permitted to critique the motives and thought processes of people we disagree with?

Why do white racists think as they do? Can I not ask about the role fear, low self-esteem and a sense of victimhood play in their thinking?

Why do creationists think as they do? Can I not ask about their misconceived ideas of authority and suggest a lack of faith?

Why has the church, since long before my Baptist tradition separated, venerated Mary for her exceptional womanhood?

Why did the RC church, in precisely the era when prejudices about gender roles became increasingly rigid, speak definitively about Mary and sexuality?

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

It has - yes and i dont think we will resolve it here. The Wiki link is interesting , but i think supports an 'obvious' reading.

Looking at this, the Church arrived at this convoluted reasoning around the 3rd Century when the perpetual Virgin doctrine was getting some traction. Suggests to me a bit of a Retcon.

As an aside, The Eastern Orthodox view that the Brother's were from Josephs first wife (of whom no-one has ever heard) seems a bit like strawclutching to me. Anyone know of ANY evidence for this.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"

When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.

How about if we say "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin (see Luke 8:19-21)"?

That's actually the part you missed out. The REASON for saying "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin" is because the Bible appears to say that Jesus had brothers. And in fact implies very strongly that they're biological brothers because Jesus then explicitly distinguishes them from his spiritual brothers.

The assertion that she wasn't virgin doesn't randomly materialise out of thin air.

As Zach said, Occam's Razor applies. It's actually the alternative proposition, that she was indeed ever-virgin, that requires some extremely fancy footwork to get around the likely plain meaning of the Biblical text.

[ 15. August 2012, 09:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I simply take Mary's perpetual virginity as true because the Church has generally believed it to be true. I can't understand why it is so reviled in some circles.

Because it implies that one can only be completely holy if one never has sex.

Mary is the one single holiest human (excepting those who were also God [Razz]

) to have ever lived. She is, therefore, the standard to which we should all aspire - the template for a perfectly holy life. Everything that is taught about her life is therefore being held forth as what we should do to be holy - including, according to this dogma, being a perpetual virgin. Even if you're married.

Is it any wonder that such a teaching is reviled?

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:

The medieval and totally unproven nonsense about Mary Magdalene has, over the centuries, caused all sorts of problems, including the false dichotomy which sees women as either "pure" or "fallen".

To me, Mary is a far more complex character than we will ever understand. Whilst I have no problems with accepting Traditional beliefs on Mary I can understand why people of the modern age find the traditional language of the litany Percy B mentioned a bit hard to take. However, I think going to what seems to be the exact opposite point of view and attempting to "ascertain" the supposed physical facts about Mary from no or contentious "evidence" (given the way Middle Easterners have tended to refer to members of their extended family, which is a topic in itself) is not much help.

To me, if you take the Traditional Christian beliefs as "myths" in the Joseph Campbell sense, which does not concentrate on ascertaining "facts", which we are basically unable to ascertain, but trying to understand what the story means, we might have a chance of glimpsing the point of the Immaculate Conception, which I contend is a truth on many levels. [/QUOTE]

Sir Pellinore, I'm interested in why you consider the Immaculate Conception, the belief that Mary from the moment of her conception within her mother Anne was free from original sin, as "a truth on many levels."

Do you think this whole question of her being free from original sin is part of the "consecrated" idea--Mary as something special from the very beginning of her existence in her mother's womb, set aside, fully sanctified and blessed from that moment....

I like the idea of seeing these beliefs as myths in the Campbell sense, not as "facts" to be proven or not, but as ideas with deep meaning that can perhaps teach us something......hmm.

Cara

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

Strange to be debating this on the date of that other (1950) accretion. I think the reformed catholic view of the three non-biblical Marian dogmas is that they are quaint, not necessary to be believed by all Christians, and need to be scrutinised as to whether they are helpful to the faith of the individual believer or the Church as a whole.

In so far as there is evidence that the "perpetual virginity" undermines a healthy view of humanity and of a human being, fully alive and open to the will of God dedicating herself to the service of God, I have misgivings about the dogma.

Just as I have misgivings about the "immaculate conception" and the "assumption", in that also seem to mark out the place of the BVM in the economy of salvation as being less (or too much more than) human. If she is to make sense in being an example to which Christians can aspire and to point us to Jesus, I'm afraid that all three dogmas (and more particularly their outworking in popular catholic devotion) undermine that approach. A truly human flesh and blood Mary, redeemed sinner, fully married and sexually active, with other children, who died in the hope of salvation through her Son makes much more sense as a person to be admired (nay, venerated) than the sanitised version that the dogmas point us to.

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
...
I dont seen any reason to assume from the Greek that the 'brothers' mentioned were anything other than biological brothers and the references to them later in the New Testament dont suggest anything else either. Occam's Razor folks.
...

Your shaving cuts away too much of the evidence. Your conclusion may be the simplest explanation of the biblical text, but the biblical text is not the only evidence: you have entirely neglected the evidence of the history of the tradition that has itself preserved the biblical text.

The simplest explanation for the fact that the ancient tradition has persisted alongside apparently contradictory passages in scripture is that the Church really believed it because it is really true.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I am a protestant non-believer in Mary's perpetual virginity, but if we are going to play the game of discerning motives it seems to me one could ask what does it say about our view of sex that we find it so necessary to believe that Mary was not a virgin.

It seems quite non-biblical to find sex such a necessary part of human life that we can't consider the existence of a healthy person who did not have sex.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
It seems a classic case of arriving at a doctrine and not being able to abandon it when presented by contradictory evidence.

Do you think you have NEW evidence? Evidence that post-dates the adoption of the doctrine? Let's have it, then.

[ 15. August 2012, 09:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

quote:
It seems quite non-biblical to find sex such a necessary part of human life that we can't consider the existence of a healthy person who did not have sex.

Me thinks you are finding something there that we are not arguing.

This is an entirely different discussion to the benefits or not of a celibate life. Its about a specific belief which is of the status of Dogma which has no real evidence to support it apart from 'the Church of the day said so', and reason to believe the opposite.

Now i take the point that the Tradition may have been already around but is there any evidence for THAT being widely held before the 3rd Century, Sir P's Wiki post seems to suggest that the other view was taught (although who knows how widely) in the 2nd Century.

A genuine question, as my knowledge of the Church Fathers etc is quite limited, and i would welcolme the views of someone more expert!

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

And it tells us in eg Matthew and Luke about the angels telling both Mary and Joseph about her having the baby, and that sounds to me about her virginism at that time, letting Joseph know that he and she could have sex afterwards, and could get married quickly to make sure she didn't get into trouble having the baby before marriage.

It must have been more uncomfortable to have the baby, not having had sex which makes the area to get the baby out a bit more "wide-ish". So having quite a lot of other babies (we never have heard the names of her baby girls [Frown]

) Joseph must have felt even better, and the boys had lots to go around with Mary.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
It must have been more uncomfortable to have the baby, not having had sex which makes the area to get the baby out a bit more "wide-ish".

Speaking for myself, I think sex probably afforded my wife a rather marginal preparation for accommodating a baby's head.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

The best explanation of Mary's perpetual virginity I have found is at http://art-of-attack.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/why-embryo-rescue-is-not-ethically.html (scroll down to get to the bit pertinent to this thread).

I should add that I still don't personally believe in it, but this page helped me understand why those who do, do. It also helped me see that my starting point and the author's are so far apart that there's no real hope of coming to any kind of agreement, so agree to disagree and see who's right when we stand before the Throne, assuming such things are then judged actually still to matter.

Take-home snippet: "The Sanctuary of Mary's Body was consecrated to God and to his Christ. It could not be entered by any other man without sacrilege."

Also be warned that the author is a quite unapologetic Catholic apologist and may not be to everyone's taste ...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by me:
It seems quite non-biblical to find sex such a necessary part of human life that we can't consider the existence of a healthy person who did not have sex.

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Me thinks you are finding something there that we are not arguing.

Perhaps, but then neither is the RC or Orthodox church arguing that because they see sex as something negative therefore Mary must have been ever virgin, but that is the motive being ascribed to them on this thread.

I would be very interested in the answers to your other questions about the historical development of the doctrine. I don't know enough to answer though.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

If Protestants began with the assumption that the perpetual virginity of Mary was not true, and then asserted, "You are only claiming that dogma is true because you are a Roman Catholic", we would have a classic case of Bulverism.

But they don't.

They believe it to be untrue because of the lack of any evidence that it is true, and some evidence that it isn't.

The fact that other traditions do believe the dogma is irrelevant and does not require citation.

Well, there is extra-canonical evidence here. And here is the full text.

From the first link, this brief comment on the dating of the document (140AD to 170AD) is interesting.

quote:
The terminus a quo is set by the use of Matthew and Luke. The terminus ad quem is set by a reference from Origen and by the Bodmer papyrus. Within this range, a dating in the middle of the second century is most likely. This dating is suggested by the prevalence of harmonies of Matthew and Luke at this time, as shown from Justin Martyr. The Infancy Gospel of James itself may have been dependent on a harmony of Matthew and Luke, but in any case it stands in the harmonizing spirit of the era before the four canonical gospels were considered to be sacred scripture.

Of course it is not regarded by Protestants as authoritative scripture, and there are good reasons for that. But it is powerful evidence of a some early church beliefs (prior the middle of the second century) about how special Mary was, about Joseph as an old man before they were betrothed, etc.

Belief in Mary as "Theotokos", not just "Christotokos" was certainly a strand in the DNA of the early church.

Most Protestants have never read the Infancy Gospel of James and it is hard to set aside the generally "Christotokian" beliefs of Protestantism. The initial reaction on reading it (mine certainly) is very likely to be "Oh Yeah! Clearly legendary, probably some kind of pious forgery no doubt. No wonder it's not in the Canon". Most of that is a reading back of "our" dogma.

As evidence goes, incredulity may be a reasonable reaction after looking at it seriously. But it is hard to escape the implications of the early dating. It seems clear that many first and second century Christians really did venerate Mary as special. In ways that are foreign to us brought up in the Protestant traditions.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you start gassing about "why would they believe this given that it's not true" and start coming up with bullshit about sex being icky, then you're Bulverizing. Maybe you haven't done that on this thread (yet). But it's done and it's being done right here right now. Perhaps you haven't noticed it? Go back and read the thread again.

So let's get this straight:

Because I corrected your misunderstanding of Lewis, I must think that sex (which I haven't so much as mentioned) is "icky", because you happen to know that that is what I am going to say, even though I haven't said it "yet".

I'm tempted to describe this as surreal, but I think that would be dignifying it.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Not quite. Leaping to discussing someone's misguided motives for believing something rather than engaging with the evidence for and against their belief is Bulverism.

Having your own justification for your opposing belief isn't enough to get out of the charge.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It exists, and it's fucked up.

In any sexual encounter, consensual or not, there are at least two points of view. Tender intentions on one party's part do not preclude unpleasant experience on the other party's part.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

Barnabus - thats a very interesting document. I'd not heard of it before. I had managed to trace a strong Marian tradition back to Iranaeus (2nd C) who argued by analogy that Mary was a type of Eve in the same way that Jesus is a type of Adam, but yours seems even earlier.

However neither your doc or Iranaeus seem to argue for perpetual virginty after Jesus's birth. (I bet the Ship has an Iranaeus scholar who will beat me up if i'm wrong), but it doesnt convince me that the Church did anything but ignore the evidence from the Gospels when coming up with the dogma of perpetual virginity -

Iranaeus was the first, incidently, to decide there were only four authoritive Gospels, (in reaction to Marcion who thought there was only one). He would have known the gospels well and didnt derive perpetual virginty from them (as far as i know - i stand to be corrected on this), or as far as i can tell from an existing tradition.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Has anyone mentioned yet that both Calvin and John Wesley believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Weren't they Protestants?

[Razz]

I would suggest that the scriptural evidence itself would seem to point away from such a view - but I find it very hard to believe that people would either overlook that or deliberately turn a blind-eye to it for so many centuries.

I don't really have any explanation for that. I'm in a cleft stick. On the one hand I'm sceptical and reluctant to accept that the simple explanation of, 'Oh, well it shows that this is what they believed all along ...' is on the money. It seems too neat.

But at the same time, I find myself repulsed to some extent by the kind of knee-jerk Protestant response one comes across - just as, I have to say, I am repulsed by certain popular RC devotional practices in relation to Mary.

All that said, I am a closet 'Marian' to some extent and have no big problem engaging in the Marian aspects when I visit Orthodox churches ... I wouldn't say that was easy at first, though.

I know that's a very mealy-mouthed Anglican approach but there it is. Part of me thinks, 'Well, there might be something in it if people believed it for so long, they weren't stupid ... and if these same people came up with the doctrines of the Trinity and deity of Christ etc then we should cut them some slack ...'

Perhaps I'm cursed with seeing both sides of the argument ...

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but on the whole, from what I've seen of them they don't seem to have imbibed the kind of 'oh no, sex is dirty, dirty, dirty ...' that has been the hall-mark of some aspects of the Western tradition. I might be wrong, I don't know.

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to hold a healthy attitude towards sex and reproduction alongside a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary - although I can see what Pete173 is getting at, most certainly. I would suggest that on a popular level - among the RCs at least - this has been the result of the teaching - at least until recently. I can't speak for the Orthodox on that one, though. Can MT enlighten us?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am a protestant non-believer in Mary's perpetual virginity, but if we are going to play the game of discerning motives it seems to me one could ask what does it say about our view of sex that we find it so necessary to believe that Mary was not a virgin.

I don't find it necessary to believe because of my view of sex. I find it more plausible to believe because my Bible appears to think that Mary had quite a few children.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

We're mostly talking about perpetual virginity rather than immaculate conception, but something struck me a few weeks ago and this thread is the first decent chance I've had to raise it.

So, Mary was immaculately conceived, without original sin, and so a suitable mother for the sinless Jesus. Right?

Who was a suitable mother for MARY, then?

The whole idea that it was somehow necessary for Jesus' mother to be 'special' in this particular way just pushes the whole problem back a generation. If you can't have a perfect child inside an imperfect mother, then you end up requiring the perfect mother to herself have had a perfect mother, to infinity.

It simply doesn't make sense. It makes far more sense that God chose an ordinary human being, on whom his favour rested, just as his favour rested with quite a few people recorded in the Old Testament.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

beatmenace

I think your comment is fair. However, you will probably see that the ingredients for "ever-virgin" (Mary as special, Joseph as old etc) are there in this early document, if one takes the Infancy Gospel of James as serious supporting evidence of the nature of early apostolic beliefs. The "ever-virgin" doctrine is a development and a reflection on those beliefs.

The "Holy Tradition" mindset is different to the classic Protestant "Holy Scripture" mindset in this respect. The church, not the words of scripture, is the authoritative and authorised guardian of "the faith once given". In the end, it is a matter of which authority is authoritative.

I had a relatively modest aim in introducing this early document. The "ever-virgin" doctrine is not a Catholic invention for purposes of control, it is a development of beliefs which were clearly there, to some extent, from early times.

I don't want to widen the debate too far, but it is possible to trace a similar development in the first four centuries which led to the classic doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ. Doctrines, for which the evidence in the Canon of Scripture alone is not definitive. Just as "Theotokos" is a reflection on traditional apostolic beliefs, so are "Trinity" and Jesus as "fully God, fully Man". The latter two are taken by most protestants as sound doctrine, the former is not. How has that happened? It's a good question!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, a good question and one capable of multiple answers ...

There does seem to be a certain selectivity in the Protestant approach, however you cut it.

That said, the same might be argued in reverse against the collective, collegial 'catholic' interpretations of certain passages - such as the one about Christ's brothers etc.

I've read RC and Orthodox explanations online, both of which seem examples of special pleading to me. But hey, I would say the same about certain Protestant interpretations about certain other verses and passages too.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am a protestant non-believer in Mary's perpetual virginity, but if we are going to play the game of discerning motives it seems to me one could ask what does it say about our view of sex that we find it so necessary to believe that Mary was not a virgin.

I don't find it necessary to believe because of my view of sex. I find it more plausible to believe because my Bible appears to think that Mary had quite a few children.

Which bible says that?

It's been gone over innumerable times in the past, but once again...

The NT was written in Koine Greek, and the words concerned are adelphos/adelphoi (translated as brother/s). The translation is fine, but you need to understand what "brother" meant in first-century Greek. And any Koine Greek lexicon will tell you the word was used for far more than blood brothers. Mine points out that it is also the word used for "near kinsman or relative, one of the same nation or nature, one of equal rank or dignity, an associate", as well as literal brother of course. It was also used subsequently to refer to a member of the Christian community. So your task is to decide which of these meanings is in view. You can't just chuck them all but one out without some external evidence - as B62 points out, that is just reading later POV's back into the original text.

And incidentally, though I am no scholar of semitic languages, I understand that Aramaic - presumably the underlying language of the original exchanges - has no words for close kin such as half-brothers, nephews, cousins... They were all brothers, unless you wanted to refer to one specifically, in which case you would need to use some circumlocution.

So what about other biblical evidence, if evidence from tradition is unconvincing to you? Well, what about John 19: 26-27?

quote:
26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

It was the eldest son's responsibility in Jewish custom and practice to take care of their widowed mother. In the event of them being unable to do this the task fell to the next most senior brother and so on. So where are they? Why is Jesus handing over his mother to the care of an unrelated disciple? And this requirement is on you as a person by virtue of your relationship to your parent.

The fact is that the evidence of the scriptures is that Jesus' ministry was conducted amongst a number of close associates, to some of whom he was related. But that he had no direct brothers. To assert that he did requires an understanding based on a strict 21st century usage of the term "brother*", unlike that used in either 1st century Koine Greek or Aramaic, and moreover ignoring the internal import of scripture itself.

None of this is going to help in the quest for meaning and significance of Mary's perpetual virginity of course, but it does mean that the perceived knock-down argument about his brothers and sisters is no such thing.

(* I have flagged up the use of strict English, because of course English, like most modern languages, doesn't observe the strict usage convention either. "Brothers" is used for relationships where there is no consanguinity at all, such as fellow Christians, fellow trade-unionists, etc.)

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Why does the bible say Joseph did not know Mary until after Jesus was born, if he in actual fact never knew Mary in the Biblical sense? Surely the shorter "But knew her not" would have sufficed.

Jengie

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

I am glad Honest Ron has quoted John 19:26-27 because this has always seemed to me to be evidence against Jesus having siblings.

Like Gamaliel I tend to see both sides of the argument, but I have not seen anyone give an explanation for these gospel verses if Jesus indeed had siblings. Is there any evidence anywhere that a 1st-century Jewish son (such as James 'the brother of the Lord' is presumed to be) would ever *not* take care of his parent?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not quite. Leaping to discussing someone's misguided motives for believing something rather than engaging with the evidence for and against their belief is Bulverism.

Having your own justification for your opposing belief isn't enough to get out of the charge.

Hang on a mo. The OP was a response to a litany which is supposed to provoke an emotional response in the participant. If the emotional response is along the lines of "good grief, whoever wrote this must think sex is extremely icky" then said response is at the very least worth unpacking. Furthermore, it's a reasonably well known historical fact that the doctrine was promulgated at a time when eminent Christian theologicans, Doctors of the Church and Popes did think that sex was a bit icky. And that's probably worth unpacking as well.

It doesn't, of course, follow from that that the doctrine is false or that everybody who holds it does so because they think that sex is icky. My own view (for the purposes of full disclosure) is one of tactful agnosticism - I no more want to know what our Lady did or didn't do in bed than I want to know what my own parents did or didn't get up to. But I don't think that it's any more dishonest to ask the question as to what extent "sex is icky" is a factor than it is to assume that those asking whether "sex is icky" is a factor are engaged in some sort of intellectual sleight of hand.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've wondered that too, Jengie Jon. I once read an Orthodox explanation online which suggested that 'until' didn't mean 'until' in the sense that we might understand it ie. 'he didn't have sexual relations with her until after Jesus was born.'

I can't remember the gist of the argument, but the sense was to suggest that he hadn't had relations with her prior to Christ's birth ... with the corollary that it doesn't say anything about afterwards, by which point Tradition takes over ...

I thought it was a case of special pleading but don't know the original Greek nor the semitic languages so can't really comment on whether the verses bear the weight or slant he was putting on them or not.

Presumably it is something that RC and Orthodox exegetes and scholars have had to confront? What have they said?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The NT was written in Koine Greek, and the words concerned are adelphos/adelphoi (translated as brother/s). The translation is fine, but you need to understand what "brother" meant in first-century Greek. And any Koine Greek lexicon will tell you the word was used for far more than blood brothers.

Yes, but this is PRECISELY why I pointed at the passage in Luke that I did, and not at one of the passages that lists the names of Jesus' brothers. I pointed at a passage that has Jesus quite deliberately distinguish between the 'brothers' that came with his mother and his spiritual 'brothers'.

If the first set of 'brothers' are not his biological brothers then there is absolutely nothing to contrast them with the second, contrasted set.

I suppose you could argue they were perhaps just his 'kinsman' if you like, but they are most definitely not his 'brothers' in the sense of peers or associates!!

(And whether or not they are full-on brothers or some other kind of near relative, the answer to your rhetorical question from the Gospel of John is: I don't know where they were THEN, but I certainly know where they were a couple of years earlier.)

[ 15. August 2012, 13:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Those of us who hold that Mary was ever-virgin generally do so because of the idea that having Jesus in her womb for 9 months consecrated her in the same way that having the Body and Blood of our Lord on the paten and in the chalice consecrate them. Her womb having been set aside for God's own use, it was no longer free to be used for any other purpose.

That doesn't mean that sex was icky. (The icon of Joachim and Anna, Mary's parents, shows them standing and embracing in front of their marriage bed. You'd hardly have that icon in the church if you thought that sex was icky.)

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Oh, and most of us believe (based on the protoevangelion of James) that Mary chose to be a virgin her entire life while she was still a child, and Joseph was chosen by her guardians to be betrothed to her because he (being an elderly widower) was willing to respect that choice and to be betrothed to her without insisting on a full marriage.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Her womb having been set aside for God's own use, it was no longer free to be used for any other purpose.

Okay, I can understand the concept, in that the notion of things being 'set aside' for God certainly occurs elsewhere in Scripture. It's one of the most common ways that the word 'holiness' is explained.

But why does 'set aside' actually have to mean set aside forever, if God's need for the thing is clearly temporary?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've wondered that too, Jengie Jon. I once read an Orthodox explanation online which suggested that 'until' didn't mean 'until' in the sense that we might understand it ie. 'he didn't have sexual relations with her until after Jesus was born.'

I can't remember the gist of the argument, but the sense was to suggest that he hadn't had relations with her prior to Christ's birth ... with the corollary that it doesn't say anything about afterwards, by which point Tradition takes over ...

I thought it was a case of special pleading but don't know the original Greek nor the semitic languages so can't really comment on whether the verses bear the weight or slant he was putting on them or not.

Presumably it is something that RC and Orthodox exegetes and scholars have had to confront? What have they said?

It certainly isn't special pleading. There are other examples of the use of "until" in Scripture, in which the understanding that it implies that there was a change after the referenced point in time doesn't tally with common understanding.

I seem to recall a reference to the raven send out by Noah in Genesis, which was said not to return to him until the waters had dried up. I don't know what the common understanding of that is as it is something that I haven't discussed with anybody in adulthood but in Sunday school, we were simply taught that the raven did not return. The reading was that, from Noah's sending it out and the drying up of the waters, there was no more sign of the raven but that this implied nothing about the movements of the raven afterwards.

A quick google reveals other examples where the word translated in some places as "until", in others as "while", and in others as "before", does seem to indicate a focus on the time before the cited event without saying anything about afterwards. These include the noteworthy case of Michal, the daughter of Saul who, in 2nd Kingdoms (Samuel), verse 23, is said not to have had any children until the day of her death. Following the logic that the use of "until" means that a change occurred after the specific event would mean that Michal had children after her death, which would be ludicrous. That is clearly not the intended use of the word.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Her womb having been set aside for God's own use, it was no longer free to be used for any other purpose.
Okay, I can understand the concept, in that the notion of things being 'set aside' for God certainly occurs elsewhere in Scripture. It's one of the most common ways that the word 'holiness' is explained.

But why does 'set aside' actually have to mean set aside forever, if God's need for the thing is clearly temporary?

I don't know whether you saw my earlier post in which I touch on this. It might be helpful as well as not but I tried to answer this point.

That's how we understand consecration. That is why Orthodox churches, when they are no longer used as churches, are eiher preserved as they are or razed to the ground, but are generally not put to other uses. There may be exceptions to this because of practical circumstances but I imagine that this would be a concession to necessity rather than something done willingly.

[ 15. August 2012, 14:01: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This argument is always bass-ackwards. "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin. Yet the Catholic Church says she was. Why did they do that?"

When Protestants discuss this, the first sentence is never brought into question.
How about if we say "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin (see Luke 8:19-21)"?

That's actually the part you missed out. The REASON for saying "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin" is because the Bible appears to say that Jesus had brothers. And in fact implies very strongly that they're biological brothers because Jesus then explicitly distinguishes them from his spiritual brothers.

The assertion that she wasn't virgin doesn't randomly materialise out of thin air.

As Zach said, Occam's Razor applies. It's actually the alternative proposition, that she was indeed ever-virgin, that requires some extremely fancy footwork to get around the likely plain meaning of the Biblical text.

But "biological brother" doesn't mean "same mother". it can, and quite often does, mean "same father, different mother". In fact there is some reason to belive that Mary had no other children (why else would Jesus "hand her over" to John, instead of one of her other children?) There is no reason I can think of not to accept that when Mary wed Joseph, he already had children from a previous marriage. Happens all the time.

Of course, that doesn't mean that IS what happened. We don't know, really, what happened. I personally don't care. To me, as someone else here has stated, it's really completely tangential and irrelevant. "yeah, I guess so" becuase that's what the Chruch has taught, rather than "it MUST be so". I just don't understand why this is a major issue on either side of the debate.

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. just because the bible doesn't explicitly state that Mary was ever-virgin, doesn't PROVE she wasn't. certainly doesn't prove she was, either. One has to conclude either way from extra-biblical sources.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:

quote:
It seems quite non-biblical to find sex such a necessary part of human life that we can't consider the existence of a healthy person who did not have sex.

Me thinks you are finding something there that we are not arguing.

I rather think that was the point.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

To pick up an earlier point about Jesus commending His mother to the care of His disciple John rather than to one of her sons (or stepsons for that matter), I think it's possible that that might have been because Mary, like John and the other disciples, was a follower of Jesus, while His brothers, from what we can gather in the gospels, were not (James obviously was a believer in Jesus AFTER the resurrection, since he became a leader in the church, but all the references to Jesus' brothers in the Gospels suggest they were not sympathetic to His cause during His lifetime). Jesus had elsewhere established (Mark 3) that the "family" of believers was more important to Him than the literal family of blood relatives, so that He would think it more appropriate to commend Mary to the care of one of His spiritual brothers, John, rather than to one of his physical brothers who were not part of the family of believers.

All this to say that I don't think Jesus' asking John to look after His mother sheds much light one way or the other on whether Jesus had literal, full brothers and thus whether Mary was perpetually virgin or not (FWIW, I don't think she was and I do think they were full brothers, but my point is just that this text doesn't prove much either way).

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I think one danger is to emphasize Mary's virginity as to exclude her other important characteristics that the church honors. Mary is the first disciple of the Christian church, prophesying God's plan of salvation in the Magnificat. According to John, it was her intercession that precipitated the first miracle of Jesus at Cana. She also was present at the crucifixion, a witness to her Son's death and she was there with the other disciples awaiting the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Disciple, prophet, witness, virgin and Mother..All of these describe Our Lady's ministry on earth and, as we celebrate today, her continual ministry in heaven.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If the emotional response is along the lines of "good grief, whoever wrote this must think sex is extremely icky" then said response is at the very least worth unpacking. Furthermore, it's a reasonably well known historical fact that the doctrine was promulgated at a time when eminent Christian theologicans, Doctors of the Church and Popes did think that sex was a bit icky. And that's probably worth unpacking as well.

These are all arguments worth making and unpacking. I think they are worth unpacking as arguments, to consider for and against, rather than as spring-boards to canter through all the possible emotional failings of those who think that Mary was ever virgin.

Long time no read, by the way.

[ 15. August 2012, 15:07: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Regarding "until" -- our Lord also says, using the same word (eos), he will be with us until the end of the world. After which, presumably, he won't be?

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
The terms describing Our Lady with which I expressed personal discomfort are of course accepted by a great number of Christians. They are in the tradition.

I feel, personally, they do not sit well in the 21st century.

The Trinity doesn't sit will in the 21st Century. Shall we scrap that? All those miracles. Pfft. Out they go. And all that brotherly love stuff? That's so 20th century. Truth doesn't come with a date stamp. If something's true it's true and if it's not it's not, regardless of trends and fashions of thought.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
We know Jesus had brothers who tried to stop him at the beginning of his ministry. We also the names of four of his brothers: James, Joseph (or Jose), Simon and Judas. Some would argue that these brothers were actually cousins, but the Greek word for brother is adelphios comes from the Greek word adelphys which literally means "of the same womb."

Etymology is not meaning. Abraham says he and Lot are "brothers" in Genesis 13:8, and it is translated into the LXX as ἀδελφοὶ. It is clear they didn't have as many ways to shade the fine distinctions between step brothers, half-brothers, and so on that we have.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How about if we say "Mary wasn't really ever-virgin (see Luke 8:19-21)"?

Then we can have a discussion about that verse, and others, and whether they demonstrate that Mary had other children than Jesus. Because you're not attempting to psychoanalyze me/us or attribute my belief to some motive or prejudice.

Re William of Ockham and his famous shaving implement: It cuts both ways. One could say that the default is the historic position of the church, and the razor's slash would leave that intact and cut out the new interpretation.

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:

quote:
It seems quite non-biblical to find sex such a necessary part of human life that we can't consider the existence of a healthy person who did not have sex.

Me thinks you are finding something there that we are not arguing.

Bing bing bing! That's exactly how we feel every time somebody trots out the canard about sex being dirty.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It exists, and it's fucked up.
In any sexual encounter, consensual or not, there are at least two points of view. Tender intentions on one party's part do not preclude unpleasant experience on the other party's part.

You're equating having an "unpleasant experience" with violence and domination. Are you sure you want to go there?

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the one hand I'm sceptical and reluctant to accept that the simple explanation of, 'Oh, well it shows that this is what they believed all along ...' is on the money. It seems too neat.

Too neat for what?

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to hold a healthy attitude towards sex and reproduction alongside a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary - although I can see what Pete173 is getting at, most certainly. I would suggest that on a popular level - among the RCs at least - this has been the result of the teaching - at least until recently. I can't speak for the Orthodox on that one, though. Can MT enlighten us?

Not sure what you're asking.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The NT was written in Koine Greek, and the words concerned are adelphos/adelphoi (translated as brother/s). The translation is fine, but you need to understand what "brother" meant in first-century Greek. And any Koine Greek lexicon will tell you the word was used for far more than blood brothers. Mine points out that it is also the word used for "near kinsman or relative, one of the same nation or nature, one of equal rank or dignity, an associate", as well as literal brother of course. It was also used subsequently to refer to a member of the Christian community. So your task is to decide which of these meanings is in view. You can't just chuck them all but one out without some external evidence - as B62 points out, that is just reading later POV's back into the original text.

Serious question: does your lexicon actually provide proof of its assertion of the wider meaning of adelphoi? That is, does it quote texts where the wider meaning is clear and undisputed? Or does it merely assume the wider meaning because that's the meaning some Christians would like it to have?

My question is quite sincere because in my admittedly limited experience of Koine, I have never seen textual evidence given for the wider meaning.

I could ask the same of the wider meaning of the word translated "until" - quote me the texts where "until" clearly means "not before, and also not after".

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

"Until" doesn't need to mean that. It just needs to say nothing about what happens after. One reading is that "until" implies afterwards she wasn't a virgin, the other reading implies that she was a virgin up to a certain point, and may or may not have been after.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmm ... interesting points.

@MT, what was I asking? Whether there is any evidence of squeamishness about sex in popular Orthodoxy as they is often said to be in popular Roman Catholicism (and certain forms of Protestantism I would add).

I think Josephine has already answered the question to some extent in relation to the icons of Joachim and Anna having a cuddle - but feel free to enlighten us further.

What I was driving at, badly, it appears, was that it doesn't seem to me that believing that Mary was perpetually a virgin necessarily leads to a squeamishness about sex in general.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
It must have been more uncomfortable to have the baby, not having had sex which makes the area to get the baby out a bit more "wide-ish".
Speaking for myself, I think sex probably afforded my wife a rather marginal preparation for accommodating a baby's head.

It is big of you to admit it.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
To pick up an earlier point about Jesus commending His mother to the care of His disciple John rather than to one of her sons (or stepsons for that matter), I think it's possible that that might have been because Mary, like John and the other disciples, was a follower of Jesus, while His brothers, from what we can gather in the gospels, were not (James obviously was a believer in Jesus AFTER the resurrection, since he became a leader in the church, but all the references to Jesus' brothers in the Gospels suggest they were not sympathetic to His cause during His lifetime). Jesus had elsewhere established (Mark 3) that the "family" of believers was more important to Him than the literal family of blood relatives, so that He would think it more appropriate to commend Mary to the care of one of His spiritual brothers, John, rather than to one of his physical brothers who were not part of the family of believers.

All this to say that I don't think Jesus' asking John to look after His mother sheds much light one way or the other on whether Jesus had literal, full brothers and thus whether Mary was perpetually virgin or not (FWIW, I don't think she was and I do think they were full brothers, but my point is just that this text doesn't prove much either way).

Trudy - first century Judaism was very varied in what they did or didn't believe, as evidenced in the radically different stances of the pharisees, the sadducess, the essenes... The requirement to care for your widowed mother is irrespective of what you believe.

The point about the "family of believers" is an important one, though, and Orfeo touched on it earlier. The gospels report Jesus stressing the importance of what N.T. Wright refers to as the "fictive kinship group" of all believers. No doubt it is part of the "here and not yet fully here" picture that is more explicit elsewhere. But the passage in Luke that Orfeo refers to is effectively saying something like "Your family are outside" to which Jesus replies "Who is my family? You are my family!" I am paraphrasing of course. I agree that it isn't referring to any of the associate type meanings of "brothers", but it isn't a passage where the type of kinship involved in "brothers" is of importance in the context. It's the fact that his audience is brothers despite their lack of blood kinship.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am not bothered about Mary's perpetual virginity but if it is argued that this doctrine is anti-sex, then does that mean that Jesus, as perpetually virginal, is a bad role model too?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

QUOTE]Originally posted by daisymay:
It must have been more uncomfortable to have the baby, not having had sex which makes the area to get the baby out a bit more "wide-ish".[/QUOTE]

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[Speaking for myself, I think sex probably afforded my wife a rather marginal preparation for accommodating a baby's head.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

It is big of you to admit it.

Heh heh. I see what you're doing there.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

My opening post was one of personal thought and feeling rather than doctrine.

I believe some of the words and images which have come to the church often from the medieval church, about Our Lady - itself a late term, I think- are anachronistic. Note I say some.

I believe we could bring new ones forward, and some exist in popular devotion - mother of the homeless ...

I also feel there is a danger that some areas of the church, especially the male led sections, are shy of talking about sex as something positive. Mary comes across sometimes as a pale wan figure, untouchable, not sexy...

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Adeodatus wrote

quote:
Serious question: does your lexicon actually provide proof of its assertion of the wider meaning of adelphoi? That is, does it quote texts where the wider meaning is clear and undisputed? Or does it merely assume the wider meaning because that's the meaning some Christians would like it to have?

Unfortunately not - I'd love to own one of the etymological ones, but I've never seen one under £100 and I'm too mean. If it's any help, there are several examples of adelphoi in the LXX Greek (and that's Koine) that are clearly not blood brothers but some other relationship. MT just posted one of them. The other affiliative ones look fairly obvious to me and I guess you're not enquiring after them (?)

[ 15. August 2012, 19:23: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Originally posted by Percy B:

quote:
I believe we could bring new ones forward, and some exist in popular devotion - mother of the homeless ...

As one of the "great bemused", I'm wondering why (given that Mary is not a goddess (according, as I understand it, to all parties)) this matters?

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
As one of the "great bemused", I'm wondering why (given that Mary is not a goddess (according, as I understand it, to all parties)) this matters?

In one sense, it doesn't. The salvation of nobody depends on this. It's really a small matter of belief and shouldn't be of much significance beyond the truth of it. Yet, (and I genuinely mean no disrespect when I say this but I'm being honest), for reasons I don't think I'm capable of understanding, it is among a number of things, both little and large, that are challenged by some Protestants and which those of us who subscribe to it are regularly asked to justify, often amid distortions of what we actually believe.

So we end up with conversations like this which, while friendly and generally courteous, still sees more of the same. Speaking generally, these objections don't make sense to me and I just don't understand the motivation behind them.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Adeodatus

The answer is yes, the verse in question is Romans 9:3, where I am pretty sure St Paul is not saying literally "Brothers".

My source is a A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament by G Abbot-Smith which is one of the more technical manuals I happen to have on my shelf. I should really return it to its owner.

Jengie

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Percy B:
quote:
I believe we could bring new ones forward, and some exist in popular devotion - mother of the homeless ...
As one of the "great bemused", I'm wondering why (given that Mary is not a goddess (according, as I understand it, to all parties)) this matters?

It matters, I feel, if the church uses language about Mary, and so by implication, about women which are inappropriate, or rather which. Old do with being balanced.

So, for example the Romanian mother of eight, who struggles with motherhood in a situation of poverty may receive comfort from addressing Our Lady as, say, mother in poverty, rather than immaculate unstained Mary ...

Today, the Assumption, is more helpful to me if I see Mary as an everyday woman who said Yes to God and who is now taken body and soul into heaven. That I pray is the destiny for us. But if we keep harping on about immaculate ever virgin sinless Mary then the Assumption of such a made distant Mary begins to wane in its relationship to women and men today.

Not expressed well, I know, but I hope you get the gist.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Frankly, I just wonder why you bother with Mary?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The Scrumpmeister - please don't feel you have to justify ANYTHING and Percy B - NICE, emergent thinking ... respect, my brothers.

Not that you'll have me [Smile]

I like the way C.S. Lewis spoke about the issue - do NOT dis a chap's mother.

And I'm as sola scriptura / invincibly ignorant on this as you can get. I just can't see it, Greco-Roman [neo]platonist tradition beyond straight corollaries is truly meaningless to me.

Yet.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Frankly, I just wonder why you bother with Mary?

We're Christians and she's the Mother of God. As she has received what we hope to receive, and is praying for us, and as God has honoured her, we see it as proper that we, too should honour her and ask her prayers.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

OK... I'm realising this is a completely different mindset, but: so you honour her. What in the seven hells has her virginity got to do with the price of fish?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I tend to see Mary as the Christian ideal- as the prime example of one who has absolute faith in Jesus Christ. So perhaps her virginity, and Christian celibacy in general, can be seen in light of Matthew 22:30,

quote:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
OK... I'm realising this is a completely different mindset, but: so you honour her. What in the seven hells has her virginity got to do with the price of fish?

Well he answered your first question. This is a different question. I think the answer our RC and Orthodox shipmates often give is simply that it is what the church teaches. It isn't a line of reasoning a) need to honour Mary b) therefore virgin.

Do you mind me asking why the astounded and slightly abrasive line of questioning? Personally I don't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I have no strong feelings either way.

[ 15. August 2012, 20:59: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Sorry... don't mean it to be abrasive... I just really don't get it...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I tend to see Mary as the Christian ideal- as the prime example of one who has absolute faith in Jesus Christ. So perhaps her virginity, and Christian celibacy in general, can be seen in light of Matthew 22:30,

quote:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

That is exactly right.

Though i wish we catholic Christians wouldn't make it so difficult. i have just been to a very prissy high mass, celebrated by three male priests who oppose the ordination of women and probably put Our Lady on some sort of pedestal.

If Mary is a sign to all of us, is a foretaste of what lays ahead of all of us, then she does not belong on a pedestal. She belongs in our hearts and in our lives as she prays for us.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Serious question: does your lexicon actually provide proof of its assertion of the wider meaning of adelphoi? That is, does it quote texts where the wider meaning is clear and undisputed? Or does it merely assume the wider meaning because that's the meaning some Christians would like it to have?

Well neither of mine do, at least not extra-biblical ones, which are the only type that would be valid for such an assertion. The fact the later Christian Community used 'αδελφοι' in such a way might just be indicative of the fact the church changing the use of words. Certainly according to my (somewhat limited) understanding of koine greek, a lot of the way we translate is bound up in 'well that's how it's always been understood'. My Biblical Studies lecturer used to tell us that in her view, the church was only just starting to get over the view that koine was a special biblical language, we're still about 20-30 years off properly analysing it against other contemporary writings in koine to the level she would consider useful. YMMV.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
OK... I'm realising this is a completely different mindset, but: so you honour her. What in the seven hells has her virginity got to do with the price of fish?

This has been answered in a number of posts earlier in this thread, including my first.

If there's something in there that was based on assumed knowledge or was otherwise poorly explained, I'm happy to try again but I would need for you to let me know which part is unclear so I know how to answer.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
OK... I'm realising this is a completely different mindset, but: so you honour her. What in the seven hells has her virginity got to do with the price of fish?
This has been answered in a number of posts earlier in this thread, including my first.

My second, actually.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...

Sir Pellinore, I'm interested in why you consider the Immaculate Conception, the belief that Mary from the moment of her conception within her mother Anne was free from original sin, as "a truth on many levels."

Do you think this whole question of her being free from original sin is part of the "consecrated" idea--Mary as something special from the very beginning of her existence in her mother's womb, set aside, fully sanctified and blessed from that moment...

To take the full Christian story, Cara, Mary's role was to bear Jesus. Being the vehicle through which the Son of God enters the world, she needed to be pure in the fullest sense: someone totally clean and without the normal human blemishes.

Seen in in a Christian sense, Mary's role was not a passive, but an extremely active one, possibly the most important "Yes" in human history.

There is a mutuality in these beliefs: if the Son of God came into the world could his Father not do something special for the woman who bore his Son?

Religion, Christianity is about raising us up and restoring us to our full relationship with God.

That's where I think those who focus on the minutiae of what may, or may not, have been Mary's actual physical condition go wildly wrong. I think they are psychologically, whether consciously or unconsciously, trying to drag the Christian story/myth down to the level of the Sun so that "ordinary people" can "understand" it. Many articles in the Sun, or other similar publications, seem to me to degrade human life rather than raise it up. I think this is what they may be, unconsciously, doing.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, Mary was immaculately conceived, without original sin, and so a suitable mother for the sinless Jesus. Right?

Who was a suitable mother for MARY, then?

The whole idea that it was somehow necessary for Jesus' mother to be 'special' in this particular way just pushes the whole problem back a generation. If you can't have a perfect child inside an imperfect mother, then you end up requiring the perfect mother to herself have had a perfect mother, to infinity.

It simply doesn't make sense.

Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?

I think that this line of reasoning is meant to lead you to the parallel question: Why would it be necessary for Mary to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Jesus from it?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I tend to see Mary as the Christian ideal- as the prime example of one who has absolute faith in Jesus Christ. So perhaps her virginity, and Christian celibacy in general, can be seen in light of Matthew 22:30,

quote:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

But it's actually the notion of her being the 'ideal' that causes some of the problems we've been adverting to. The reasoning seems to go that Mary is the 'ideal', so Mary should be emulated as much as possible. Mary was ever-virgin, so therefore part of emulating her is being ever-virgin. Avoid sex.

Everybody please note, I am NOT saying that this is the official reasoning process of the Catholic or Orthodox church. I'm saying that it's quite possible for a couple of different ideas about Mary to be linked in this way and produce this chain of reasoning. And there are definitely periods of church history/pockets of churches where the "sex is icky" line has emerged, and it isn't hard to imagine that those period/pockets have been particularly keen to promote Mary as some kind of role model.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?
I think that this line of reasoning is meant to lead you to the parallel question: Why would it be necessary for Mary to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Jesus from it?

Exactly. As perceptive as always.

It's an honest question. Perhaps I'm not simply understanding the 'purpose' of Mary being immaculately conceived, but it seems to me there's an implicit assumption that it was actually necessary in order for her to bear Jesus. That it would have all gone wrong otherwise.

And that proposition just seems faulty to me. If God could keep Mary from being 'contaminated' in Anna's womb, then God could just as easily keep Jesus from being 'contaminated' in Mary's womb.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Attempts to justify a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary by scholastic arguments over whether his brothers were really his brothers, and the meaning of “until”, are just clutching at straws.

At least we’ve been spared the old chestnut about whether her hymen was broken when Jesus emerged, which is just about on a par with angels dancing on the point of a needle (apocryphal, I know, but hinted at in Aquinas).

The overwhelmingly intransigent objection to the dogma - that there is not the remotest suggestion of it anywhere in the NT, implicitly or explicitly, let alone any discussion of its implications - survives all such sophistry.

Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife (John 6:42), and in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that they had anything other than a normal marital relationship, including sex.

The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.

Even theological arguments along the lines of Mary’s having to be an appropriate receptacle in her role as theotokos degenerates, as we have seen, into an absurd infinite regress, involving not only her mother but all her female ancestors.

Supporters of Mary’s perpetual virginity, before and since old Pio Nono one and a half centuries ago, have just made an assumption devoid of evidence, and then in effect stonewalled against those who disagree with them: “Oh, you’re just saying that because you’re a Protestant!”.

Didn’t C.S. Lewis identified and dissected just such a strategy, labelling it as something, I seem to recall, beginning with B……?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and do believe that she had children after Jesus. However, why then did Jesus entrust Mary's care (presumably Joseph was older than Mary and was dead by then) to John and not one of Jesus' siblings?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Attempts to justify a belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary by scholastic arguments over whether his brothers were really his brothers, and the meaning of “until”, are just clutching at straws.

You misunderstand. We are not attempting to justify our belief. I don't need to justify my belief, and if I were to justify it, it wouldn't be on those terms. The purpose of talking about "brothers" and "until" is to counter objections, not justify belief.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The overwhelmingly intransigent objection to the dogma - that there is not the remotest suggestion of it anywhere in the NT, implicitly or explicitly, let alone any discussion of its implications - survives all such sophistry. [snip] The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.

A thoroughly Protestant objection, and as such quite irrelevant to the RCC or EOC. I have no need to produce a "biblical" argument, because the whole idea that I should only believe things that are "biblical" is not part of my religious worldview. And before you complain that if I want to convince you to believe in it, I need to give a biblical argument: I don't give a flying rat's fuck whether you believe in it.

quote:
Supporters of Mary’s perpetual virginity, before and since old Pio Nono one and a half centuries ago, have just made an assumption devoid of evidence,

That has already been decisively disproven in this very thread. There is evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical. What you mean is an assumption devoid of biblical evidence THAT YOU ACCEPT AS SUCH. And since you ONLY accept Biblical evidence, then yes, it is a very Protestant thing you are doing. I wouldn't equate this flaccid line of argumentation with Protestantism, however, since there are many Protestants who do not advance it, and indeed many (I might mention John Calvin and Martin Luther) who accept the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Even theological arguments along the lines of Mary’s having to be an appropriate receptacle in her role as theotokos degenerates, as we have seen, into an absurd infinite regress, involving not only her mother but all her female ancestors.

Just to pick you up on this, that argument related to her immaculate conception, and NOT to her perpetual virginity. I don't think the status of her ancestors comes into it on the virginity question.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

I did a bit of hunting and I should point out that though Aramaic/Hebrew/Arabic don't have a single word for cousins it is partly because what we English speakers see as cousins (or at least first cousins) they divided into up to 8 groups (sons/daughters of mother's/father's sisters/brothers). They didn't have a single word for each of these groups but would use a combo (e.g., paternal uncle's son, maternal aunt's daughter, 'bar dod' [son-uncle] is one example [in English we use combos for things like grandfather, mother-in-law, half-brother]); they apparently did have separate words for paternal aunts and uncles and maternal aunts and uncles. It is what modern Arabic does and there is evidence Biblical Hebrew and languages close to 1st century Aramaic did (though paucity of documentation may mean not all forms in a given Semitic language are known).

English on the other hand mingles all these different cousins together (not to mention that uncle can mean maternal uncle, paternal uncle, maternal aunt's husband, paternal aunt's husband, or even close male family friend).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Many languages (cultures) have a special word for a man's sister's sons. These have a special relationship with the man, because he KNOWS his family's DNA is in them. He can't be sure of "his" own kids for obvious reasons. </tangent>

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife (John 6:42), and in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that they had anything other than a normal marital relationship, including sex.

What do you mean "in the absence of any teaching to the contrary?" That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? The teaching that Mary was ever virgin? The existence of that teaching in antiquity, among Christians in all places and times, and in the consensus of the saints, is a particularly strong reason to accept it as true.

quote:
The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.

It's not impossible. It's not even difficult. But you've already rejected it, so there's no reason to make it.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife (John 6:42), and in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that they had anything other than a normal marital relationship, including sex.

What do you mean "in the absence of any teaching to the contrary?" That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? The teaching that Mary was ever virgin? The existence of that teaching in antiquity, among Christians in all places and times, and in the consensus of the saints, is a particularly strong reason to accept it as true.

quote:
The onus is on those who think otherwise to produce a biblical argument for their case, which is impossible.

It's not impossible. It's not even difficult. But you've already rejected it, so there's no reason to make it.

So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...

Sir Pellinore, I'm interested in why you consider the Immaculate Conception, the belief that Mary from the moment of her conception within her mother Anne was free from original sin, as "a truth on many levels."

Do you think this whole question of her being free from original sin is part of the "consecrated" idea--Mary as something special from the very beginning of her existence in her mother's womb, set aside, fully sanctified and blessed from that moment...

To take the full Christian story, Cara, Mary's role was to bear Jesus. Being the vehicle through which the Son of God enters the world, she needed to be pure in the fullest sense: someone totally clean and without the normal human blemishes.

Seen in in a Christian sense, Mary's role was not a passive, but an extremely active one, possibly the most important "Yes" in human history.

There is a mutuality in these beliefs: if the Son of God came into the world could his Father not do something special for the woman who bore his Son?

Religion, Christianity is about raising us up and restoring us to our full relationship with God.

That's where I think those who focus on the minutiae of what may, or may not, have been Mary's actual physical condition go wildly wrong. I think they are psychologically, whether consciously or unconsciously, trying to drag the Christian story/myth down to the level of the Sun so that "ordinary people" can "understand" it. Many articles in the Sun, or other similar publications, seem to me to degrade human life rather than raise it up. I think this is what they may be, unconsciously, doing.

Yes, I can see this point of view absolutely, that she would be someone special, set apart, free of the normal human blemishes....as in the consecrated bakeware analogy!

One can see why the traditions evolved of the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity....but I think enshrining them in doctrine, making a whole detailed doctrinal argument about the freedom from original sin and the perpetual virginity, and exactly how they happened, and over-defining this and that, is going into a whole lot of unnecessary detail, going too far. But I suppose that is the heritage of a certain type of theology in the past--what's known as Scholasticism? (Showing my ignorance.)

And I think that the very detailed theology does lead to this prurient Sun-newspaper-type dwelling on her physical condition.

I can also sympathise with those who say her "yes" would be even more wonderful if she were a normal, non-immaculate woman....I know the immaculate conception doesn't mean that she was sinless, just that she didn't have "the stain of original sin" from the start, but still. Makes her seem so "special" that her incredible history-shattering "yes" was easier for her than it would be for anyone else....

As usual, I can sympathise with several sides to the argument! In the end, it's fascinating to discuss, and the underlying theme--respect for Mary because of the colossal significance of the Incarnation--is important; but the details should surely not divide Christians.

Alas, again, by enshrining them in doctrine, and doctrine faithful Catholics must accept, the Catholic Church has made them into something that divides Christians....

cara

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.

Forgive me, I don't have time to build the whole argument tonight, but I don't want to ignore you, either.

You could start with this explanation of Ezekiel 44.

And this discussion by the same author explains the way the New Testament supports the doctrine implicitly, if not explicitly.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical.

No there isn't.

What?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical.
No there isn't.

What?

Are you shit stirring for fun? How's that feel, then?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.

There is evidence from canonical scripture, and there is other evidence. The real issue for the sola scriptura mindset is whether that other evidence gives pause for thought, is easy to dismiss as inconsequential.

The Infancy Gospel of James, which I referenced earlier and which Josephine has also cited, gives pause for thought. As do other aspects of Tradition. Tradition is not just about stories; it incorporates records, decisions of ecumenical councils, long running debates eventually resolved. You may wish not to give it priority but you cannot dismiss it as "not evidence". Of course it is evidence; the issue is on what grounds you see it as conclusive, or disregardable.

Before there was a Canon of Scripture, there were Christians in this world who venerated Mary, believed she was seen as set apart, married to an old man as a part of that "set apartness". That is pretty conclusively demonstrated by the text and probable age of the Infancy Gospel. By all means argue that the early Christians who believed that were deluded. But have a care. There are other considerations.

Those who ratified the Canon were seeking to set boundaries for orthodoxy in Christian faith in other ways. In resolving certain disputes, the terms "Theotokos" and "ever-virgin" were ratified as orthodox for Christian faith by the early ecumenical councils.

In short those who defined the Canon (without which no sola scriptura) also provided the boundaries for beliefs about Mary. As they did re Trinity and the Person of Christ.

Now I'm a nonconformist protestant. I am heterodox about Mary from the POV of those Christians who adhere to the full range of orthodox ratifications by the ecumenical councils. I am orthodox about the Trinity and the Person of Christ, out of conviction. But I'm agnostic about "ever-virgin" because I think the evidence of scripture and tradition cannot be completely resolved one way or another. In short, I don't know.

IMO, it is foolish for us, as Protestants, to argue that we know for sure that the Orthodox and Catholics must have it wrong, must have taken reflection too far in the development of doctrine. The evidence points in different directions and does not allow us to do that.

So I take a view. Because I genuinely don't know, I make a point of not rubbishing the opinions of others who are convinced as an article of faith. One way or another. That is a result of both looking at the evidence - all of it, not just the bits which suited me - and reflecting on it.

[ 16. August 2012, 08:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So what's the Biblical evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity? Tradition is full of it of course, but for those of us who are sola scriptura, that doesn't count as evidence.
There is evidence from canonical scripture, and there is other evidence. The real issue for the sola scriptura mindset is whether that other evidence gives pause for thought, is easy to dismiss as inconsequential.

The Infancy Gospel of James, which I referenced earlier and which Josephine has also cited, gives pause for thought. As do other aspects of Tradition. Tradition is not just about stories; it incorporates records, decisions of ecumenical councils, long running debates eventually resolved. You may wish not to give it priority but you cannot dismiss it as "not evidence". Of course it is evidence; the issue is on what grounds you see it as conclusive, or disregardable.

Before there was a Canon of Scripture, there were Christians in this world who venerated Mary, believed she was seen as set apart, married to an old man as a part of that "set apartness". That is pretty conclusively demonstrated by the text and probable age of the Infancy Gospel. By all means argue that the early Christians who believed that were deluded. But have a care. There are other considerations.

Those who ratified the Canon were seeking to set boundaries for orthodoxy in Christian faith in other ways. In resolving certain disputes, the terms "Theotokos" and "ever-virgin" were ratified as orthodox for Christian faith by the early ecumenical councils.

In short those who defined the Canon (without which no sola scriptura) also provided the boundaries for beliefs about Mary. As they did re Trinity and the Person of Christ.

Now I'm a nonconformist protestant. I am heterodox about Mary from the POV of those Christians who adhere to the full range of orthodox ratifications by the ecumenical councils. I am orthodox about the Trinity and the Person of Christ, out of conviction. But I'm agnostic about "ever-virgin" because I think the evidence of scripture and tradition cannot be completely resolved one way or another. In short, I don't know.

IMO, it is foolish for us, as Protestants, to argue that we know for sure that the Orthodox and Catholics must have it wrong, must have taken reflection too far in the development of doctrine. The evidence points in different directions and does not allow us to do that.

So I take a view. Because I genuinely don't know, I make a point of not rubbishing the opinions of others who are convinced as an article of faith. One way or another. That is a result of both looking at the evidence - all of it, not just the bits which suited me - and reflecting on it.

Thank you for this post, Barnabas; I admire very much the temperate tone and the well-thought-out-ness of it.

I absolutely agree we cannot know for sure the Orthodox and Catholics have it wrong....

we cannot know anything for sure, in fact, and that's why dogmatism in any camp distresses me, and why I long for even more ecumenical understanding and dialogue....we have come so far since 19th century, but there is far to go.

cara

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I tend to see Mary as the Christian ideal- as the prime example of one who has absolute faith in Jesus Christ. So perhaps her virginity, and Christian celibacy in general, can be seen in light of Matthew 22:30,

quote:
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
But it's actually the notion of her being the 'ideal' that causes some of the problems we've been adverting to. The reasoning seems to go that Mary is the 'ideal', so Mary should be emulated as much as possible. Mary was ever-virgin, so therefore part of emulating her is being ever-virgin. Avoid sex.

Exactly my problem with the whole thing. It all adds up to make sex a nasty, dirty, less-than-ideal thing that is tolerated in as much as it enables us to continue to produce babies, but certainly shouldn't be something that truly holy people should ever lower themselves to thinking about.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Barnabas62, you would make a good Anglican ... heck, you already make a better Anglican than most Anglicans I know ...

Incidentally, I'm with you on this one.

On the thread about the Unforgiveable Sin I've expressed some surprise at Kaplan's apparent view that God would make scripture as clear cut as possible - as if it were some kind of tick-box check-list of proof-texts.

Now, I'm not saying that Kaplan's view is as naive as that. Of course it isn't. And his sola scriptura approach has some weight if ... well, if you take that approach.

[Biased]

I'm not sure that sola scriptura is as tenable a position as its proponents insist - at least, not on the populist level.

It would be interesting to consider whether there are any extant Patristic or early writings that query or question the perpetual virginity thing. I'm not sufficiently up on the corpus of literature to know whether they do one way or another.

Of course, all we have are the scriptures and the non-canonical texts and the testimony of the Christian community/ies down the years. We pays our money and we makes our choice ...

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and do believe that she had children after Jesus. However, why then did Jesus entrust Mary's care (presumably Joseph was older than Mary and was dead by then) to John and not one of Jesus' siblings?

I did suggest one possible answer to this on the previous page of this thread.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Barnabas62, you would make a good Anglican

You're not the first person to have said that to me recently. A friend of ours with similar outlook and background to me is with the Anglicans now. She observes wistfully that it's confirmed her nonconformism. She says the liberals make her conservative and the conservatives make her liberal. Stroppy but in a nice way, that's what we try to be.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and do believe that she had children after Jesus. However, why then did Jesus entrust Mary's care (presumably Joseph was older than Mary and was dead by then) to John and not one of Jesus' siblings?
I did suggest one possible answer to this on the previous page of this thread.

Sorry, I had missed it - thank you, I think that's close to my own views on the subject.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the thread about the Unforgiveable Sin I've expressed some surprise at Kaplan's apparent view that God would make scripture as clear cut as possible - as if it were some kind of tick-box check-list of proof-texts.

Now, I'm not saying that Kaplan's view is as naive as that. Of course it isn't. And his sola scriptura approach has some weight if ... well, if you take that approach.

Of course we have to live with the fact that the Bible is not presented as a catechism, or a textbook of systematic theology.

However occasionally, when reading or hearing poignant accounts such as Bunyan's of their sufferings as a result of believing that they are guilty of this sin, it is difficult - for me, anyway - to withold a certain wistful longing that the passages dealing with it had been a little less ambiguous.

As regards Mary's perpetual virginity, the problem is not that there are indications of it in the NT which might with some legitimacy have been developed by patristic and subsequent writers, but that it was invented ex nihilo, and then explanations developed to meet scriptural objections to it, which is an arse-about method of doing exegesis.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As regards Mary's perpetual virginity, the problem is not that there are indications of it in the NT which might with some legitimacy have been developed by patristic and subsequent writers, but that it was invented ex nihilo...

How can anybody make such a statement? Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?

If a person adopts as a default position that anything not written down is to be greeted with distrust, then it would certainly explain the sort of dismissal of such things as the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God as something invented, and ascribing to its adherents questionable motives, as has been witnessed on this very thread. However, I would have to ask: What is the basis for such a position?

It comes back to my chicken in white sauce from earlier in the thread. As it happens, there is now an electronic, written record, in the form of my post, of my having bought this item from Tesco but if I had not posted that, and simply mentioned to somebody that I had bought it, it would seem very strange to me for that person to deny that it happened, refuse to believe me, and ascribe some ulterior motive to my having said it, all because it was not written down somewhere.

That approach just doesn't make sense to me at all.

The perpetual virginity makes sense doctrinally, it seems to have been the understanding since very early times, and there seems to be nothing that plausibly contradicts it. The only things posited against it have been misused words read out of context and implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective. With all of that borne in mind, personally, I don't see any reason to doubt it.

[ 16. August 2012, 12:35: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What Barnabas et al said, although I am not in the "don't know" camp. Just as RC's and Orthodox know, I don't [Smile]

In that Jungian sense.

Furthermore just as the apostles were not Trinitarian or creedal in any regard, they would not have been doctrinaire, dogmatic about Mary's perpetual virginity, if it had occured to any of them.

If it did, how ? Why ? When ? They're rhetorical of course !

It has more than a whiff of neoplatonism about it to me.

It all looks like emergence setting in stone to this neopomo!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.

They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?

[ 16. August 2012, 13:36: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable.

Not inevitable, if you look at the whole of Catholic teaching.

The same Church that insists that Mary is ever-virgin and holy also insists that when married couples make love (in a way that expresses their marriage fully) that is also holy.

Of course, if you want a pic'n'mix theology and want one teaching without the other, then you may draw the 'inevitable' conclusion that sex is bad; or alternatively that Mary couldn't possibly be ever-virgin because she'd be missing out on sex. That's a silly result of the pic'n'mix theology, though, not of the authentic teaching!

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?

Yes, Mary is the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can. But it doesn't follow that any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a lessening of holiness. That's just crazy. If we really thought that way, we wouldn't be using computers, driving automobiles, or eating chocolate. And I can assure you that my lifestyle includes all those things, and many others that would have been entirely unfathomable to the Theotokos.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

As regards Mary's perpetual virginity, the problem is not that there are indications of it in the NT which might with some legitimacy have been developed by patristic and subsequent writers, but that it was invented ex nihilo, and then explanations developed to meet scriptural objections to it, which is an arse-about method of doing exegesis.

Ex nihilo? Hardly. To use your own metaphor, I think you have an arse-about-face view of early church history.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?

That just illustrates my point, though. It only naturally flows from the doctrine if you approach it from the position you have described, specifically that "the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness".

This is something that I have never heard, read, or otherwise encountered in any Orthodox prayer, hymn, sermon, podcast, writing, or anything else pertaining to the Mother of God. I cannot speak with certainty about the Catholic position but I would imagine that this would also be something with which they, too, would be uncomfortable.

Yes, we honour her as Mother of God, and we hail her as more honourable then the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim, but that is only because of the unique place of honour that we believe God has granted her in the economy of our salvation. We believe that through her voluntary co-operation with the will of God in her life, she has reached a state of holiness that each and every one of us can reach by similarly willingly and obediently embracing God's will and seeking to model our own lives and being on that.

None of that in any way suggests that the will of God in the life of the Mother of God is the same as the will of God in your life, or in my life, or in Josephine's, or Kaplan Corday's, or anybody else's life, and that we must therefore do exactly as she did. Yes, we seek to emulate her humility, her obedience to God, and those good qualities that all Christians should seek to incorporate into their lives. However, none of us is called to give birth to the Saviour of the world as she was. None of us have our reproductive organs dedicated to that purpose as she was. That doesn't make our lives dirty, or anything like that, touching on our sexuality or anything else. This is not an Orthodox understanding of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God.

Not all of us are called to a life of monasticism, or of marriage, or of parenthood, or of priesthood, or of taking the Gospel to lands that have not been evangelised, or any of the other ways in which God's will is worked out in the lives of different people, and yet the deifying grace of God is open to all of us, despite the fact that our lives, in all of their variety, are not the same as that of the Mother of God.

I can only repeat that this idea that we must be in every single way like her and that if our expression of our sexuality is not, then it is dirty, is not a natural implication of belief in the perpetual virginity. It is something that people can and do read into it but for those of us who subscribe to it, it is just not there.

[ 16. August 2012, 14:16: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think that any Christian traditions - even those I might personally disagree with, developed ex-nihilo, Kaplan. Sure, there's certainly an element with the Mary thing of reading things back into the text - or, more charitably, extrapolating things in a way that might appear to some of us to be putting 2 and 2 together and making 6 or 8 ...

There is a 'logic' about the RC and the Orthodox position that derives from the general thrust of the tradition - a trajectory that continues from scripture and the earliest traditions if you like - which explains the development of the later doctrines. You can see the same thing happening with the Trinity.

The RC and Orthodox positions weren't simply dreamed up one day, they developed over time of course. As Barnabas62 has said, there were people around with a highly developed Marian view before the canon of scripture was agreed. That's not to say they are right or wrong, just to acknowledge that this is how these things work.

It's how canonicity works too. To use an OT example, various Egyptian proverbs have found their way into the canonical Hebrew Book of Proverbs. They weren't written or developed by Jews, but by Egyptians. The Israelites used them, realised their wisdom and then incorporated them into their own scriptures. Does this mean they are any less inspired than the rest of the canon? No, of course not. It was the community who discerned and judged whether to include them or not.

By the same sort of process the NT scriptures and subsequent doctrines were developed and discerned.

It may sound a very Catholic thing to say, and I shock myself sometimes how 'catholic' I'm sounding these days, but I can't see how it happened any other way. The thing is, we can't prove it either way. We pays our money, we makes our choice.

Personally, I must admit, I don't find the scriptural evidence conclusive one way or the other - we have to interpret what's there. We all interpret the scriptures through the lens of our respective traditions. Thee and me are conditioned to interpreting it in a Protestant way - hence we'll say, 'Nah, this perpetual virginity thing, it's completely daft, it's not there in the scriptures at all ...'

Which, from an RC or Orthodox perspective is the wrong kind of question to ask.

Ultimately, I'm not sure it makes any difference - although I would say that it is axiomatic that a high emphasis on virginity is going, at some times and some places, to lead to a distorted view of sexuality.

Equally, using the Bunyan example you've given, I'd also say that a very strong Calvinistic emphasis and concern about one's own personal salvation will ultimately lead - with some individuals - to morbidity and a heart-rending concern about whether they've committed the Unforgiveable Sin. All these things come with our respective territories.

The trick is to hold them all together in a balanced way.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The only things posited against it have been ... implications of sex being dirty that people have read into it but that are shown to be just not there unless one is intent on reading it from that perspective.
They may not be part of the doctrine itself, but that they flow naturally from it is surely inevitable. Unless Mary is not being held up as the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can, and from whom any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a de facto lessening of holiness?
Yes, Mary is the ideal human whom we should all seek to emulate as closely as we can. But it doesn't follow that any difference in lifestyle or attitude is a lessening of holiness. That's just crazy. If we really thought that way, we wouldn't be using computers, driving automobiles, or eating chocolate. And I can assure you that my lifestyle includes all those things, and many others that would have been entirely unfathomable to the Theotokos.

You are Philip Larkin and I claim my five pounds!

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I can't help but think that the complexity of the argument here rather indicates that some of the terms we use in relation to Mary do need revisiting, if we are to help everyday people in their devotions and prayers.

While I am aware of the teaching by some Christians about the perpetual virginity I cannot see what it has to say to women today, why is it of relevance. I guess the question, which I honestly ask, and do not mean to offend is - so what?

Mother of those imprisoned unjustly
Mother of the marginalised
Mother before marriage

All seem more helpful terms than 'ever virgin' or 'inviolate'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Kaplan Corday, I will take your non-answer to my question to be admission of guilt.

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
While I am aware of the teaching by some Christians about the perpetual virginity I cannot see what it has to say to women today, why is it of relevance. I guess the question, which I honestly ask, and do not mean to offend is - so what?

Well, if something is true, it needn't have a "so what." As the Scrumpster above said, he bought chicken in white sauce yesterday. So what? What happened, happened.

But one lesson here is that, pace the shrill screaming of every media outlet in our society, you don't have to have sex to be a fulfilled person.

quote:
Mother of those imprisoned unjustly
Mother of the marginalised
Mother before marriage

All seem more helpful terms than 'ever virgin' or 'inviolate'.

Then call her that. You don't need our permission.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It has more than a whiff of neoplatonism about it to me.

With all due respect, and I do respect your opinions (when I understand them), virtually anything you disagree with smells of neoplatonism to you.

Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:

Mother of those imprisoned unjustly
Mother of the marginalised
Mother before marriage

Actually, that brings something into rather clear focus - which I'm quietly kicking myself for not raising before.

People are objecting to calling Mary 'virgin' on the grounds that it in some way makes sex unclean. Yet we call Mary mother, and with just as much fervour (and in the Hail Mary, almost certainly the most common invocation of Mary, we don't actually mention her virginity).

So we make every bit as much of Mary's motherhood as of her virginity, and indeed her virginity is dependent on her motherhood. If (as some have claimed) the implication of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is that to be 'properly holy' a woman has to stay a virgin, then this gives a contradictory statement: to be properly holy, you can be a mother. [1]

And for women who have not been consecrated to be Theotokos, the mother of God - that is for every other woman - being a mother involves sex. And the Church teaches that sex (used properly, of course, like any other gift) is good, and holy.

So understanding and knowing Mary as Virgin and Mother is actually pretty radically opposed to any concept that sex is 'dirty'.

[1] And, of course, given Mary's life, you also can be widowed, bereaved of a child, adopted mother, and many other womanly things; and still be holy, still revered.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I suppose my main problem with Mary's holiness translating as perpetual virginity and the idea of her carrying Jesus meaning any further children would defile her holiness, is that this is apparently not done with anything else in Jesus' earthly life. It was by God's grace that Mary conceived Jesus, and it was by God's grace that Jesus was born in a stable, yet the stable was presumably used again to keep animals - why could Mary not have further children? It also goes against the whole theme of humility and unimpressive outward appearance concealing God's grace within the NT. After all, a couple with only one child in those times would be a lot more remarkable and gaining of attention than the large family I believe the Gospels say Jesus had. I see no reason to doubt the face value of the text saying Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus. It supports the sheer surprise everyone had that Jesus was the Lord and Messiah - he must have come from an outwardly very ordinary family, which for 1st Century Jews would have been a large one.

Whilst, of course, it is not impossible that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I see no reason why from the Scriptures that would be the automatic assumption. Tradition is certainly valuable, and I do believe Mary should have more honour in Protestant circles, but I don't believe her having children after Jesus dishonours her or God in any way or is supported by Scripture.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kaplan Corday, I will take your non-answer to my question to be admission of guilt.

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
While I am aware of the teaching by some Christians about the perpetual virginity I cannot see what it has to say to women today, why is it of relevance. I guess the question, which I honestly ask, and do not mean to offend is - so what?
Well, if something is true, it needn't have a "so what." As the Scrumpster above said, he bought chicken in white sauce yesterday. So what? What happened, happened.

But one lesson here is that, pace the shrill screaming of every media outlet in our society, you don't have to have sex to be a fulfilled person.

Surely that would be pace Genesis 2:24? Or Genesis 9:7? Our society is certainly damaged in the way it communicates about sex, but God makes it rather clear that marriage, sex and children is what he wants for his people. There are of course a few exceptions, but within the whole of Scripture they are very very few indeed. While I'm not saying that this is a reason why Mary definitely was not a virgin her whole life, Scripture makes it clear that most people are called by God to reproduce and therefore have sex.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

True, mousethief, true. The mandatory RC and Big O distinctives on Mary seem to echo Plato's ideal forms to me is all.

And may I ask for examples of where I disagree that are not shadows on the wall ?

Martin

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I suppose my main problem with Mary's holiness translating as perpetual virginity

Once again you have it the wrong way around. There is no historical evidence of her holiness being translated into perpetual virginity. This is a subtle form of Bulverism -- "you only think she's a perpetual virgin because you want to safeguard her holiness."

quote:
and the idea of her carrying Jesus meaning any further children would defile her holiness, is that this is apparently not done with anything else in Jesus' earthly life. It was by God's grace that Mary conceived Jesus, and it was by God's grace that Jesus was born in a stable, yet the stable was presumably used again to keep animals - why could Mary not have further children?

A fair question, as far as it goes. But it is a question of scale. He wasn't in the barn for terribly long (they were living in a house by the time the Wise Men showed up). He was in her womb for 9 months. She had the most intimate contact possible between two humans -- and she had that contact with the Man who is God -- for 40 weeks. A coal touching Isaiah's lips for seconds made him holy. She touched -- she surrounded, she exchanged fluids with, she nourished, she gave the human nature to -- the live coal that was God.

quote:
It also goes against the whole theme of humility and unimpressive outward appearance concealing God's grace within the NT.

This makes no sense to me at all. That God should choose something lowly to set apart, I understand. But that this should mean that the lowly thing is only temporarily set apart? I don't see the reasoning.

quote:
Whilst, of course, it is not impossible that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I see no reason why from the Scriptures that would be the automatic assumption.

It isn't the automatic assumption. This is looking at, again, as if people looked at the Scriptures and said, "Well, was she a virgin or not?" That's not what happened, as has been discussed here at length.

quote:
Tradition is certainly valuable, and I do believe Mary should have more honour in Protestant circles, but I don't believe her having children after Jesus dishonours her or God in any way or is supported by Scripture.

It's not a matter of honour, it's of being set apart for one special purpose.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
True, mousethief, true. The mandatory RC and Big O distinctives on Mary seem to echo Plato's ideal forms to me is all.

But how? Is anything held up as an example perforce an echo of Plato's forms? Did nobody ever say "emulate me" or "emulate this person over here" before Plato wrote the Republic?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?

The dangers of pontificating on the basis of alleged "knowledge" of Christ's teaching which was not written down is demonstrated by the emergence of Gnosticism.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kaplan Corday, I will take your non-answer to my question to be admission of guilt.

Take it as my response to both the puerility of your question and your faux-judicial sense of self-importance and entitlement as demonstrated in this latest post.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?

The dangers of pontificating on the basis of alleged "knowledge" of Christ's teaching which was not written down is demonstrated by the emergence of Gnosticism.

So?

The fact that a good thing has the possibility of being corrupted by people who wish to do so does not mean we should do away with it.

By that argument, youth groups and ministries in churches should be shut down because some people have been known to use them as an opportunity for child abuse.

Instead of throwing red herrings into the conversation, perhaps you might respond to the actual point of my reply to you, in which I pointed out how incomprehensible some people might find your line of reasoning.

[ 16. August 2012, 20:12: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Do you mean to say that it is not possible that there are things that were passed on from the Apostles and other early disciples of Christ that were not written down?

The dangers of pontificating on the basis of alleged "knowledge" of Christ's teaching which was not written down is demonstrated by the emergence of Gnosticism.

True - apart from the detail that we are not talking about Christ's teaching here.

But can I also point out that the internet is awash with people who believe crackpot conspiracy theories precisely because something is written somewhere.

The approach gets us nowhere. Written or oral are both subject to scrutiny, which is what people are trying to do here.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your thought is hardly original - but, yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. Which is why the Chuch has never taught it. Why would it be necessary for Mary's mother to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Mary from it?
I think that this line of reasoning is meant to lead you to the parallel question: Why would it be necessary for Mary to have been free from original sin for God to preserve Jesus from it?

Yes, perhaps. And of course my answer would be the same: it wasn't. That's not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is about either: instead, it's about interpreting "full of grace".

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

I asked 'so what' about the suggestion Mary was perpetually a virgin.

I think that there should usually be a reason which leads doctrine to be defined. Didn't Newman say this in relation to the Immaculate Conception. He was hesitant about it being defined, although allowed it may be so.

And yes if I like the terms to described the Mother of God incarnate then I will use them. However, the point I am trying to make in the opening post is tht the church is in danger of focussing too much on arcane terms to describe Mary, I feel, and that isn't helping feed spiritually the current generation.

I repeat I am not speaking strongly against old descriptors, but rather asking that more new interpretations be introduced into litanies, liturgy etc.

Mother,of our liberation
Mary, model,of courage... Pray for us

'....may we, in the company of The blessed Virgin Mary, Model of perseverance....'

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I think that there should usually be a reason which leads doctrine to be defined.

Historically, it has usually been the denial of elements of Christian doctrine by certain factions that has led to them being codified. Prior to that, they were so commonly accepted that it simply wouldn't have occurred to anybody that they might need to be explicitly defined.

Most, if not all, of the conciliar definitions of doctrine arose as a result of this - almost every line of the Creed is a result of this - and I think that, in a sense, we are seeing something of that here in this thread. It is not that the adherents to the Perpetual Virginity are making a big deal of it, but that we are stating and explaining what we believe in the face of denial or outright opposition to it - something that we otherwise wouldn't usually do, instead just simply getting with the business of our lives of faith - and the result is that some people, observing this, have rightly asked, 'Why is this such a big issue?' It is only being made so by its opponents.

quote:
And yes if I like the terms to described the Mother of God incarnate then I will use them. However, the point I am trying to make in the opening post is tht the church is in danger of focussing too much on arcane terms to describe Mary, I feel, and that isn't helping feed spiritually the current generation.

I think that this raises a question of its own that might form the basis of a Purgatory/Ecclesiantics thread, and it is the relationship between the dutiful worship of God offered by the Church and the evangelical mission of the Church, and whether the one should be viewed as a tool for the other. As an "insider" of this generation and participant in the mystical life in Christ, I find that I am very well nourished and fed by the Church's liturgy. of the concern is outreach to "outsiders", then the above question needs to be raised, and I have quite firmly-held views on this point with some basis in experience.

[ 16. August 2012, 22:39: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...
One can see why the traditions evolved of the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity....but I think enshrining them in doctrine, making a whole detailed doctrinal argument about the freedom from original sin and the perpetual virginity, and exactly how they happened, and over-defining this and that, is going into a whole lot of unnecessary detail, going too far. But I suppose that is the heritage of a certain type of theology in the past--what's known as Scholasticism? (Showing my ignorance.)

And I think that the very detailed theology does lead to this prurient Sun-newspaper-type dwelling on her physical condition.

I can also sympathise with those who say her "yes" would be even more wonderful if she were a normal, non-immaculate woman....I know the immaculate conception doesn't mean that she was sinless, just that she didn't have "the stain of original sin" from the start, but still. Makes her seem so "special" that her incredible history-shattering "yes" was easier for her than it would be for anyone else...

I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.

The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.

My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.

To me the biblical story of the Annunciation is enough and encapsulates everything necessary for belief. I find it quite interesting that the Quran supports the traditional Christian belief on the Virgin Birth. Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.

There is a big gulf in the West among Christians on this matter. I think it comes to a stage where you agree that others have different beliefs to you and bless them on their way.

One thing which should be remembered about Mary: she would have been extremely young at the time of the Annunciation: a teenager and one far, far more innocent than her peers today who are exposed to all sorts of pornography. So to wish to talk of Mary's possible "sexual desire" really tells me more about the people who write about it than her.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is about either: instead, it's about interpreting "full of grace".

Ah. More information, please.

(if everyone will allow me to continue my immaculate conception tangent in a perpetual virginity thread! [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.

Perhaps you did not notice, or disregarded, the post above in which Percy B specifically said, and I quote:

quote:
I repeat I am not speaking strongly against old descriptors, but rather asking that more new interpretations be introduced into litanies, liturgy etc.

Why, in your mind, is "asking that new interpretations be introduced" the same as "ditch"? It does not seem to be a proposal of subtraction but of addition.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
we are not talking about Christ's teaching here.

We are talking about what is canonical, and there is no canonical foundation on which to build a doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The fact that a good thing has the possibility of being corrupted by people who wish to do so does not mean we should do away with it.

If by a “good thing” you mean Mary’s perpetual virginity, then you are begging the question.

If by “good thing” you are referring to alleged dominical and apostolic teaching which did not make it into the canon, then we judge it by what is in the canon.

This applies to patristic writing in general, which is why the church has rejected some of the teachings of someone of the brilliance and stature of Origen.

Neither the veneration of Mary nor her perpetual virginity are to be found in the canonical writings.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The fact that a good thing has the possibility of being corrupted by people who wish to do so does not mean we should do away with it.

If by a “good thing” you mean Mary’s perpetual virginity, then you are begging the question.

No, I'm not referring to that. Though thank you for using the expression "begging the question" properly. It is seldom seen these days, at least among my regular correspondents. [Smile]

quote:
If by “good thing” you are referring to alleged dominical and apostolic teaching which did not make it into the canon, then we judge it by what is in the canon.

This applies to patristic writing in general, which is why the church has rejected some of the teachings of someone of the brilliance and stature of Origen.

Neither the veneration of Mary nor her perpetual virginity are to be found in the canonical writings.

Yet, although they may not be explicitly found in canonical Scripture, they are perfectly consonant with it, for they and canonical Scripture are part of the same Holy Tradition. It is this consonancy that some of Origen's teachings lacked. Among the things not explicitly found in Holy Scripture, we must - and do - distinguish between those things that are still in keeping with it and those things that outright contradict it. Of course things that fall into the latter category must be viewed with suspicion and likely ultimately discarded but the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God seems to fall into the former category. Certainly, nobody thus far has been able to show anything reasonable to the contrary.

The most that anybody can say with absolute certainty is that we don't have conclusive written proof either way. As I don't rest my faith on conclusive proof, this isn't all that problematic for me.

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
As an aside, The Eastern Orthodox view that the Brother's were from Josephs first wife (of whom no-one has ever heard) seems a bit like strawclutching to me. Anyone know of ANY evidence for this.

Forgive me if I have missed it but I'm not sure whether anybody has responded to this yet.

If what you're looking for is proof, then no, to my knowledge, nobody is able to produce a marriage certificate for St Joseph or birth certificates for his children, but there is certainly evidence of his previous marriage and children in the fact that there is an early oral tradition saying that he was an old man, previously married with children. The existence of this from early times may not be proof but it certainly counts as evidence.

I just don't see how anybody can see that and claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife. Engaging in discussions such as this may be the first time that many Protestants encounter such things* because they come from texts and traditions that were many years ago removed from the regular experience of Protestants. That's fair enough: Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike disregard those things that seem contrary to the Faith as we understand it to be. That's how we preserve what we understand to be the truth. However, to then claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife of St Joseph, just because she isn't a common part of present-day Protestant consciousness, doesn't seem a logical approach to me. For many of us, this is not new information that somebody on a website has just come up with but has been a part of the awareness of Christians for a very long time. That doesn't make it demonstrably true, of course, but it does render spurious the claim that nobody has ever heard of it.

*(I was shocked, for instance, to learn in this thread that there were Christians who had never heard of the Protoevangelium of St James. I had known that various approaches were taken to it and its authority in different traditions but as the apocryphal gospels were a fascination of mine in my teenage Anglican days and have always been part of my consciousness, even before anybody would have suggested to me that I might one day be Orthodox, it just didn't occur to me that they may be entirely unknown to some seasoned Christians of the reasoning and net-savvy variety).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ The Scrumpmeister

The issue re non-canonical material is quite a subtle one. Non-canonical material is of course very variable in content, ranging from unexceptional to controversial to downright deceptive. I think within Protestantism the problem is that all of it is regarded with caution, even suspicion, as a source of information re Christian beliefs. The key word is authorised.

Many Protestants are not aware that there are differences between the Protestant Canon and the Canon. The lower you go down the candle the likelier you are to find this.

So far as my own personal experience is concerned, I knew about the Infancy Gospel of James long before I actually read it; I heard it was "fanciful", never saw the need, really, to look at it. It was below my horizon of interest. Even through the 1980's when I was involved a lot in local ecumenism, the major focus in conversations with Catholics was on the Eucharist, not Mary.

So it was a "blind spot" until Father Gregory opened a thread in Kerygmania several years ago. An eye-opening discussion followed. The significance of the probable date of the Infancy Gospel struck me during the discussion, and helped me a lot in understanding things. In a later discussion, I looked at some of the Ecumenical Council documents re Theotokos and learned a lot more.

The truth is that it is not easy if one has lived within Protestantism to evoke much sympathy for veneration of Mary. It often seems idolatrous, almost as though the Godhead had a fourth person. I now see that much of this is misunderstanding, but it is easy to pick up wrong signals.

And there is an underlying issue which the OP brings out about the curious relationship between holiness, set-apartness, and human sexuality. The celibacy of Jesus, the need for Mary to be a virgin and therefore a "pure vessel" give out obvious and pretty negative messages to folks outside the church. Purity is associated with sexual continence. Whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, we need to recognise that, come to terms with underlying attitudes and messages.

But when it comes to understanding one another's beliefs in the different Christian families, I think we do well to look closely at what they are and why they are, before pointing fingers of suspicion or even scorn. I think that's part of putting our own house in order.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I've skimmed through Percy B's posts, Leaf, and am a little concerned about who the "we" are who are going to add these "new descriptors" to these litanies.

The traditional litanies could be said to encapsulate traditional belief.

I am unsure some of Percy B's suggestions are within what I would consider the tradition.

It is interesting, in the modern world, that there is quite a movement among young people to the Latin Mass and other forms that are supposedly unable to speak to them.

There was, in the last century, a French Roman Catholic priest called Michel Quoist who wrote a number of books, including one called "Prayers of Life" which brought Christianity into a more everyday context than prayer was often seen to be. They were excellent but never became part of any service I am aware of.

I am not surprised many in the modern world find Mary hard to understand. In many ways she would seem counter-cultural. I would see that as a thoroughly good thing and a challenge. Perhaps she should remain that way.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

Thank you for that insightful post, Barnabas62, and for sharing something of your personal background and development of understanding. It is helpful.

I suppose it is similarly difficult for me to see where many Protestants are coming from, not in terms of pointing out the lack of historical certainty for many things, which is perfectly understandable, but basing on that a suspicion or outright opposition to what are in my experience unremarkable elements of the Christian Faith. This difficulty is perhaps to do with my own background.

Our last public exchange began with you commenting on a post of mine in which I mentioned the degree to which Anglo-Catholicism, at least in England, potentially lends itself to a persecution complex. It is very different from Roman Catholicism in a number of ways. Protestants were not people in another church with different beliefs with which we disagreed. Rather they were people within our own church whose beliefs impinged on what we were and were not allowed to do in our parishes. That makes for a very particular relationship.

I've mentioned before on these boards that I went to a Roman Catholic college. In a liturgical discussion with the priest chaplain, we started talking about the epiklesis. He was surprised that a 17-yr-old would even know what that was. For him, as a Roman Catholic, it was just another given part of how his church believed and worshipped and went without question or discussion. For me, as an Anglo-Catholic, it was a part of Catholic practice that had to be fought for when the then new services of the Church of England were being debated because there were Evangelicals who were arguing for the exclusion of the epiklesis over the gifts. There were other elements that were open to Catholic interpretation but had to be worded in particularly weak ways in order to be acceptable to the Protestant-minded within our own church. Similarly, when a Methodist friend accompanied me to an Anglican mass for the Assumption of the Mother of God, the priest, embarrassed by the low turn-out, jested at the end that he thought putting the major feast of the Mother of God in the middle of summer, when everyone would be on holiday, must be a Protestant plot. My friend pointed out that this joke would never have been made in a Roman Catholic church, and she was right, although I don't think she really understood why.

The point is that there is a culture in some places within Anglo-Catholic circles of viewing anything associated with Protestantism as "the enemy", and I spent a significant chunk of my Christian life in that atmosphere. Whether that attitude is right or wrong, it is understanble. However, I have moved beyond this in many ways. In fact, that part was almost instantaneous the moment I left the Church of England. I still disagree with much of Protestantism but it no longer affects me and I am quite happy for people to believe whatever they wanted to believe and to practise that faith because it no longer comes tied up with restrictions on me doing the same for my faith.

However, I'll admit that there is still some residual feeling when the same objections are raised. I have simply never held to Protestantism, or had it instilled in me, so I don't understand it from the inside. I remember a thread here a few years ago about Calvinism versus Arminianism. Never having heard of Arminianism, I embarrassed myself by responding with something about the Armenian church. Arminianism was completely outside of my experience, and when I later understood what it and Calvinism were about, it just seemed like a completely different religion. The subjects being debated seemed to be two sides of the same coin that belonged to a foreign currency.

In many ways, while my understanding has been much expanded, much of Protestantism still represents for me an opposition to what for me have always been basic elements of the Christian Faith. Honour of the Mother of God and the saints has always been there for me. The reasoning behind it has always been there. The use of incense and ceremonial in worship has always been there and is demonstrably part of the Christian heritage. The belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Saviour has always been there and is shown to have been the ancient and continuous belief of Christians. Opposition to these things seems to be a comparatively recent innovation, especially when some of the reformers themselves affirmed the perpetual virginity. So it is very difficult to understand the reasons behind objections to these things, and it is perhaps far too easy, when I see things like some of the posts on this thread, to be tempted to roll my eyes, and think, 'Oh, look! More of the same from the usual quarters'. That likely says more about me than anybody else. I try to approach discussion of these matters with an open mind as to people's motives, but when their arguments are tied up with implications about what Catholics and Orthodox believe that we know for a fact to be untrue, it is very difficult to take it seriously.

We have seen it numerous times on these boards. Our subscription to the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God must mean that sex is dirty. Our calling her the Mother of God must mean that we believe she exists in eternity and actually brought the Godhead into being (an interpretation that I had not heard and which had never even occurred to me before it was posited in Purgatory as an argument against the title "Mother of God" some years ago). That we venerate the holy icons must mean that we have no regard for Scripture. There are many more.

When what might be very sensible and reasoned positions are presented bound up with the sort of thing in the previous paragraph that I know for a fact not to be true, then it becomes very difficult to engage with it in a way that isn't dismissive or to see it as based on a genuine quest for truth and not reinforcing the idea that it is just opposition for opposition's sake.

This is quite different from the reasoned and thoughtful contributions from Protestants and others who do not hold to this firm opposition but are questioning and clearly seeking to understand why we believe what we believe.

Your post here has given me a little more insight into why some people might genuinely have a difficulty with some things, and I shall perhaps go away and think about that a little more.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thanks, Michael. It's difficult sometimes, but it always seems worthwhile to me to try and lessen differences. We'll end up having to agree to differ, but it nearly always helps to understand the how and the why.

It helps me to remember that I live with the consequences of earlier schisms I had no part in creating, and have no wish to perpetuate. Friendship is better.

[ 17. August 2012, 12:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

quote:
I just don't see how anybody can see that and claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife.

Fair point - it was new to me and i have been in a few different denominations, from the Liturgical to the Fantastical and i would have expected something this to have been mentioned SOMEWHERE if it was a strong tradition as it would indeed be a valid way of squaring the circle.

Since Joseph disappears quickly from the narrative its possible to speculate that he may have been older, died , have a previous family etc.

This idea explains why Jesus leaves Mary to John's care i think.
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).

It would also explain why Jesus used the opportunity to teach who was and wasn't his brother. He would have had a great example to use.

Disadvantage is that it still seems like a bit of an arguement from silence, since Joseph's full story isn't told in the Gospels but it would explain some of the tricky bits.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:

quote:
I just don't see how anybody can see that and claim that nobody has ever heard of this wife.
Fair point - it was new to me and i have been in a few different denominations, from the Liturgical to the Fantastical and i would have expected something this to have been mentioned SOMEWHERE if it was a strong tradition as it would indeed be a valid way of squaring the circle.

Since Joseph disappears quickly from the narrative its possible to speculate that he may have been older, died , have a previous family etc.

This idea explains why Jesus leaves Mary to John's care i think.
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).

It would also explain why Jesus used the opportunity to teach who was and wasn't his brother. He would have had a great example to use.

Disadvantage is that it still seems like a bit of an arguement from silence, since Joseph's full story isn't told in the Gospels but it would explain some of the tricky bits.

Thank you for this, beatmenace. As you point out, it is difficult to know one way or another, and an argument from silence is nothing definitive. The Protoevangengelium of James and Origen are writings that mention St Joseph's children, although these are 2nd and 3rd century, respectively.

If we were starting out today, coming to all of this for the first time, and having before us the bare account of the Gospel, then the explanation of St Joseph being an older man - a widower with children of his own - while a plausible explanation for a number of things, would be mere conjecture. We might adopt it as an explanation, we might acknowledge it as a possibility and move on, or we might dismiss it in the absence of conclusive proof.

However, this is not the Orthodox view. We are not starting out today as ones coming to the events surrounding the life of Christ for the first time, and looking back at evidence from 2000 years ago with a view to working out what might have happened. This might be an interesting and worthwhile activity from an academic perspective, but it is not the way of faith. Rather, we are inheritors of Holy Tradition - "tradition" literally meaning "that which is passed on". We do not need to rely solely on what we, in the present day, can construct from what hard evidence survives from two millennia ago because we have the inherited Tradition that has been continuously passed on from generation to generation since then. As I mentioned further upthread, the Apostles knew each other, the Saviour, and the Mother of God. They, the Myrrh-bearing women, and other disciples from the early Church knew the characters involved, and would not have relied solely on writings for what they knew and passed on to those after them, who in turn passed them on, who in turn...

St Veronica is a good example of this. She is mentioned in Scripture, (though not by name) as she had an issue of blood and was healed with faith and a touch of the Saviour's hem. Yet she re-appears in the event mentioned nowhere in the Gospel, as the woman who wipes the face of Christ. Every year I go to a pan-Orthodox pilgrimage to St Winefride's well. People from across the country go and there are people I only ever see there, once each year. There are many of them whose names I don't even know. Having been part of such a regular crowd, I have memories of thinking, 'Oh look! There's that lady who always falls over/brings that lovely cake to share/sings beautifully when she comes every year', and it is very easy for me to imagine, in a crowd, a woman wiping the bloody and sweaty face of the Saviour in an act of mercy, and people thinking, 'Oh look! There's that lady who caused all that fuss that day when Jesus said someone touched him'. The lady without a name has clearly been given a name based on the events of the account, but it has nonetheless come down to us.

An example that I, personally, find interesting, is the various accounts of the events surrounding the death and assumption of the Mother of God. By the time these got written down in the 5th-6th centuries, there were a few discrepancies between them. This is to be expected as different people recount the same story and some people mention particular events that others do not. Yet what is interesting is that these written accounts, from different times and different parts of the world, are almost identical to each other on the main sequence and events of the story. One or two things can be put down to fancy, such as the element in one version in which St Thomas arrives late and refuses to believe until he has seen evidence for himself, (and that is why no part of Tradition is viewed in isolation from the rest - sola any single part of Tradition is always misleading), but for the most part we have a good example of non-Scriptural Tradition at work.

All of this is to say that Tradition is not a dead corpus of information from the past but is a living thing - nothing less than the life of the Church. Some of it is written down and codified (Holy Scripture); other parts of it are enshrined in the prayers, actions, hymnody, and even the structure of our worship (the Church's Liturgy); yet others are found in both written and oral traditions and found in writings of various people (the apocryphal books, the writings of the Church Fathers and Mothers); and yet others are to be found in the manner in which we resolve the difficulties raised when parts of this (the Creed, the Councils of the Church, and so forth). The Orthodox way is to view all of it against itself and particularly against Holy Scripture as an inheritance of which we are part.

The non-Scriptural traditions may not have the same standing as canonical Scripture, but they are nonetheless part of what has been handed down to us, and we must not disregard them just because they are not on an ancient piece of paper (or papyrus).

[ 17. August 2012, 13:57: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That's not what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is about either: instead, it's about interpreting "full of grace".
Ah. More information, please.

(if everyone will allow me to continue my immaculate conception tangent in a perpetual virginity thread! )

I thought 'full of grace' came from the Latin Vulgate whereas the Greek is better translated 'you hat are highly favoured', i.e. it isn't that Mary is tanked up with some substance called 'grace' but it chosen by God (though, of course, the act of choice can involve her immaculate conception).

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
... and yet others are to be found in the manner in which we resolve the difficulties raised when parts of this

Er...

"...when parts of this are denied from within the communion of the Church."

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

Thank you both, Michael and Barnabas, for these gracious and illuminating posts.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Thank you both, Michael and Barnabas, for these gracious and illuminating posts.

Thank you for this, Pine Marten.

As I read back, I realise the potentially misleading account I gave. While my feelings of being threatened within the church to which I belonged may have melted away immediately, my reaction against what I had previously felt threatened by continued for some time, and manifested itself here.

We lives and learns.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).

Sorry for the tangent, but I believe this definition (the matrilineal descent of Jewishness) postdates the New Testament era. Certainly people's names at the time indicate their father, and not mother -- bar Kochba, for example)

[ 17. August 2012, 15:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I was told by a learned Jewish person once that the descent through mothers was adopted after the Romans crushed the Jewish revolts because so many Jewish women were raped that no one could be sure who had a Jewish father.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.

The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.

My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.

I want to make two comments about scholasticism here. Cara may or may not understand Scholasticism pretty well but she doesn't understand the history of these doctrines regarding Our Lady. Scholasticism is widely agreed to have developed from the twelfth century onwards. The doctrines of the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption/dormitory were all hundreds of years old by then. They were not developed in response to some Scholastic desire to over-define.

Secondly, give scholasticism a break. I know it gives many on these boards the creeps because it has a tendency to make precise distinctions in response to questions when you'd prefer less precision but if people ask questions you can either answer or not. The great achievement of scholasticism in this area (aside from its great achievements elsewhere) was to reveal just how many of these questions can be answered from the faith of the Church and the use of human reason. Oh, and btw, remember St Thomas was unsure about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - as, of course, he was free to be.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Where does he do that Trisagion ?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

For example, here.

But this should not be taken to be his only thoughts on the matter. I haven't researched it in detail but Trisagion's "unsure" seems a reasonable summary of the matter.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I suppose my main problem with Mary's holiness translating as perpetual virginity
Once again you have it the wrong way around. There is no historical evidence of her holiness being translated into perpetual virginity. This is a subtle form of Bulverism -- "you only think she's a perpetual virgin because you want to safeguard her holiness."

quote:
and the idea of her carrying Jesus meaning any further children would defile her holiness, is that this is apparently not done with anything else in Jesus' earthly life. It was by God's grace that Mary conceived Jesus, and it was by God's grace that Jesus was born in a stable, yet the stable was presumably used again to keep animals - why could Mary not have further children?
A fair question, as far as it goes. But it is a question of scale. He wasn't in the barn for terribly long (they were living in a house by the time the Wise Men showed up). He was in her womb for 9 months. She had the most intimate contact possible between two humans -- and she had that contact with the Man who is God -- for 40 weeks. A coal touching Isaiah's lips for seconds made him holy. She touched -- she surrounded, she exchanged fluids with, she nourished, she gave the human nature to -- the live coal that was God.

quote:
It also goes against the whole theme of humility and unimpressive outward appearance concealing God's grace within the NT.
This makes no sense to me at all. That God should choose something lowly to set apart, I understand. But that this should mean that the lowly thing is only temporarily set apart? I don't see the reasoning.

quote:
Whilst, of course, it is not impossible that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I see no reason why from the Scriptures that would be the automatic assumption.
It isn't the automatic assumption. This is looking at, again, as if people looked at the Scriptures and said, "Well, was she a virgin or not?" That's not what happened, as has been discussed here at length.

quote:
Tradition is certainly valuable, and I do believe Mary should have more honour in Protestant circles, but I don't believe her having children after Jesus dishonours her or God in any way or is supported by Scripture.
It's not a matter of honour, it's of being set apart for one special purpose.

Sorry for my very unclear post! What I meant by holiness in humble clothing is that as I understand it, the New Testament era heralds the end of the Israelite law and therefore the difference between the set-apart and the unclean (as in, Acts 10). Therefore there is no need to set Mary apart as holier than the rest of the Body - she's a jar of clay just like the rest of us. A really wonderful jar of clay, but I don't regard her 'yes' as any more holy than the innkeeper's 'yes'. I view Mary as having a sinful nature like all other humans though.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
...
One can see why the traditions evolved of the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity....but I think enshrining them in doctrine, making a whole detailed doctrinal argument about the freedom from original sin and the perpetual virginity, and exactly how they happened, and over-defining this and that, is going into a whole lot of unnecessary detail, going too far. But I suppose that is the heritage of a certain type of theology in the past--what's known as Scholasticism? (Showing my ignorance.)

And I think that the very detailed theology does lead to this prurient Sun-newspaper-type dwelling on her physical condition.

I can also sympathise with those who say her "yes" would be even more wonderful if she were a normal, non-immaculate woman....I know the immaculate conception doesn't mean that she was sinless, just that she didn't have "the stain of original sin" from the start, but still. Makes her seem so "special" that her incredible history-shattering "yes" was easier for her than it would be for anyone else...

I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.

The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.

My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.

To me the biblical story of the Annunciation is enough and encapsulates everything necessary for belief. I find it quite interesting that the Quran supports the traditional Christian belief on the Virgin Birth. Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.

There is a big gulf in the West among Christians on this matter. I think it comes to a stage where you agree that others have different beliefs to you and bless them on their way.

One thing which should be remembered about Mary: she would have been extremely young at the time of the Annunciation: a teenager and one far, far more innocent than her peers today who are exposed to all sorts of pornography. So to wish to talk of Mary's possible "sexual desire" really tells me more about the people who write about it than her.

Mary had presumably entered puberty by the time of the Annunciation and therefore would have had some kind of sex drive - the fact that she was a hormonal teenager makes it more likely, not less! Sexual desire is based on body chemistry, particularly in the brain, not access to pornography. It's not exactly a new phenomenon, God created Adam and Eve to sexually desire one another. It's a good thing.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think you're conflating the clean/unclean and for-common-use/set-apart dichotomies.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For example, here.

But this should not be taken to be his only thoughts on the matter. I haven't researched it in detail but Trisagion's "unsure" seems a reasonable summary of the matter.

Good hunting, Barnabas.

As far as I can see, however, this is not Thomas denying that Mary was preserved from the tendency to sin, but merely saying that she can only have been preserved (sanctified) from this after the infusion of her rational soul with her body (i.e., no one is susceptible to sin before this stage - which occurs a few months into pregnancy, as St Thomas hypothesised it - so, necessarily, Mary was thus sanctified from that point only).

But - I admit - I read it very quickly and could have got that wrong.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Look at replies to Objections 3 and 4. To these protestant eyes, Thomas seems to be arguing that the conception was not immaculate.

But I stand to be corrected! And, as I say, such research that I have done suggests that Thomas' views on this issue wandered around a bit! "Unsure" does seem fair.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Look at replies to Objections 3 and 4. To these protestant eyes, Thomas seems to be arguing that the conception was not immaculate.

But I stand to be corrected! And, as I say, such research that I have done suggests that Thomas' views on this issue wandered around a bit! "Unsure" does seem fair.

You are correct: he comes down, on balance, against the doctrine. His near contemporary, Bl. John Duns Scotus took the opposing view, strongly supporting the teaching.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Gentlemen, I stand corrected.

I suppose what I was getting was that, although Thomas is not supporting a teaching of the immaculate conception, he seems to lean to an immediate post-animation sanctification for Our Lady - her being sanctified (and thus kept thenceforward from all actual sin) whilst still in the womb. Mary, therefore, needed no baptism, as she received in the womb what we receive only at the font. But Thomas here (if not later) presumes her to have contracted original sin, only immediately to have been cleansed from it. It's a pretty nice point.

What he makes abundantly clear, and which is worth keeping in mind when considering this doctrine, is that Our Lady still needed Our lord as her saviour and redeemer. But she was redeemed in a uniquely special way - in this, she was "most highly favoured".

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

P.S. Incidentally, I notice that there is some reason to think St. Thomas may have ended his theological speculation by embracing the doctrine after all.

It all depends on the actual dating of a late work, Devotissima expositio super salutatione angelica. It was written some time around or just after he finished the Summa Theologica and (in the large majority of extant manuscript versions) contains the following:

quote:
For [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault and incurred neither original nor mental nor venial sin.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I understand in Jewish communities descent is measured down the Maternal line ( I'm reminded of the recent embarrasment of some Far-Right guy who discovered he was Jewish ).
So as Mary's only 'biological' son Jesus would have been within his rights to leave her care to John (who may well have been related).
Sorry for the tangent, but I believe this definition (the matrilineal descent of Jewishness) postdates the New Testament era. Certainly people's names at the time indicate their father, and not mother -- bar Kochba, for example)

Matrilineal descent is only for Jewishness but not for other bits that are inherited. One is a Cohen, a priest, only if one's father in legitimate marriage is a Cohen (and the same for Levites or those classified of the house of David).

This is independent of duties to honor and care for parents but those duties are for one's own mother and father and not necessarily for a stepmother. Jewish understanding from at least a short time later on to the current day seems to be that you are obligated to honor and care for a stepmother while your father is alive and that it is good but not an obligation to do so after your father is dead.

Even if Jesus had full brothers as apparently her eldest son he had the primary duty of taking care of their mother. One way he could do that knowing that he would be dead soon is by adding someone to the list of those responsible (perhaps someone in a better position to do so given that it is unlikely Jesus or his kin had much if anything in the way of money, house, or land). But John is the only gospel with this discussion. Mark and Matthew has the women watching from a distance (no mention of the male disciples) and none of the other three have a conversation of Jesus on the cross with John or Mary.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Chesterbelloc

I thought this was fair.

For me as a protestant, what is truly impressive in the Summa Theologica argument I linked earlier is St Thomas's extraordinary care to defend the need for all to be redeemed. Including Mary. That seems to have been predominant in his mind at the time of writing, and I applaud that.

There does seem to me to be an inescapable tension between that doctrine, common to Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

On the other hand, I have no problems at all with "most highly favoured Lady" as the old carol puts it. Protestants too easily forget that, overlook its significance in the gospel record.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

Jade Constable: I think you are possibly putting a modern sensibility on Mary and making her sound like one of the girls in "Puberty Blues". I doubt she would have the artificially hyped sexuality of a modern teenager.

Her purity and the Virgin Birth take nothing away from the normal sexual attraction you describe.

It seems to me quite interesting that some of the most active women working to assist battered, sexually exploited and trafficked women are Roman Catholic nuns who aspire to the same sort of purity as Mary.

Perhaps, in Mary, we see something above the normal course of life? Something that might raise it up? The traditional Christian belief was it did.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There does seem to me to be an inescapable tension between that doctrine, common to Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

There's no tension at all. Indeed the form of the dogma as defined by Bl Pope Pius IX makes clear Mary's absolute dependence on salvation through the merits of Christ. In translation it reads:

quote:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

[ 18. August 2012, 06:42: Message edited by: Trisagion ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think you understand Scholasticism pretty well, Cara.

The Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholics ( As totally "Catholic" as their Latin Rite siblings) have never accepted Scholasticism and what they would see as its rigid overdefinition to the nth degree.

My personal feeling is that there may well be a modern way of explaining traditional Catholic belief without going down the Scholastic avenue. It would be a major task, as Scholasticism is fairly deeply embedded.
I want to make two comments about scholasticism here. Cara may or may not understand Scholasticism pretty well but she doesn't understand the history of these doctrines regarding Our Lady. Scholasticism is widely agreed to have developed from the twelfth century onwards. The doctrines of the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception and assumption/dormitory were all hundreds of years old by then. They were not developed in response to some Scholastic desire to over-define.

Secondly, give scholasticism a break. I know it gives many on these boards the creeps because it has a tendency to make precise distinctions in response to questions when you'd prefer less precision but if people ask questions you can either answer or not. The great achievement of scholasticism in this area (aside from its great achievements elsewhere) was to reveal just how many of these questions can be answered from the faith of the Church and the use of human reason. Oh, and btw, remember St Thomas was unsure about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - as, of course, he was free to be.

Thank you, Sir Pellinore. And your idea of a modern way of explaining traditional belief is an interesting one....

Trisagion, it must be admitted that I know very little about Scholasticism. I did know that the doctrines in question were indeed hundreds of years old by the time of medieval Scholasticism --as part of the ancient inherited tradition which Scrumpmeister/Michael has so beautifully described and which I respect and cherish as well. I just had the idea that the doctrines were less clearly defined church-wide in previous times, and were more vague and varied and so on. This may well be a mistaken idea.

I can also see that Scholasticism was a response to questions. As Scrumpmeister has also clarified, the creeds and many other doctrines were defined so precisely only in defence against opposition and dissension. Otherwise they wouldn't necessarily have been defined down to the nth degree. So I'll try to be more careful when I bandy words like Scholasticism about!

I too want to say how much I have appreciated so many of the posts on this thread, too many to mention, but including Josephine's comments from the perspective of (if I understand correctly) an Orthodox woman, and the illuminating posts by Barnabas and Scrumpmeister.

Cara

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There does seem to me to be an inescapable tension between that doctrine, common to Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
There's no tension at all. Indeed the form of the dogma as defined by Bl Pope Pius IX makes clear Mary's absolute dependence on salvation through the merits of Christ. In translation it reads:

quote:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.

Its a personal view of this, Trisagion. So it's likely to be unorthodox in some respects, but you know me.

The tension for me is in that pregnant (no disrespect intended) word "singular". I read this as saying that consistency between the two doctrines can be preserved if Mary has been granted a singular i.e. unique exemption from the general order. It works of course, as a means of preserving both; no question of that. But it strikes me as a somewhat forced argument, hence the tension. For me at least.

My instincts for forced harmonisation have of course been honed in the very different arena of the forced harmonisations used to preserve the inerrancy of scripture within nonconformist protestantism. An issue I struggled with 30 years ago but I still carry the scars. So maybe I'm just a bit sensitive over such matters?

Anyhow, for better or for worse, that's how it strikes me.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Jade Constable: I think you are possibly putting a modern sensibility on Mary and making her sound like one of the girls in "Puberty Blues". I doubt she would have the artificially hyped sexuality of a modern teenager.

Her purity and the Virgin Birth take nothing away from the normal sexual attraction you describe.

It seems to me quite interesting that some of the most active women working to assist battered, sexually exploited and trafficked women are Roman Catholic nuns who aspire to the same sort of purity as Mary.

Perhaps, in Mary, we see something above the normal course of life? Something that might raise it up? The traditional Christian belief was it did.

By 'modern sensibility' do you mean one of biology? We do not know how old Mary was at the point of the Annunciation, but women of childbearing age are biologically built to have some kind of sex drive. I'm not sure why this is considered to be so radical. Do a little research and you'll see that adolescent sexuality is definitely not a modern phenomenon, even only going as far into history as Classical times (which were of course when Mary lived).

After all the comments on how Mary's purity does not indicate that sex is bad and impure, how then can you say that Mary's 'purity' (inverted commas added because I believe Mary to have had a sinful nature like any human), by which I presume you mean her virginity, is something that would raise the standard of human experience and that nuns should be role models in this area? If Mary was not a perpetual virgin, would this make her less of a role model in this respect? God's commandment to the vast majority of His people is to marry, have sex and bear children via sex - Mary is therefore MORE of a role model if she had children after Jesus, because she is obeying this commandment.

What precisely do you mean by purity?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ohhhhhhhh. THAT Saint Thomas. The one who realised that his eight and a half million C13th words were superfluous. That makes him truly great to me. Thanks Barnabas.

And Jade.

Nice. Keep up the deconstruction!

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
After all the comments on how Mary's purity does not indicate that sex is bad and impure, how then can you say that Mary's 'purity' (inverted commas added because I believe Mary to have had a sinful nature like any human), by which I presume you mean her virginity, is something that would raise the standard of human experience and that nuns should be role models in this area?

Addressing the part that I put in italics first, in the Orthodox church, we do not believe that anyone has "a sinful nature." We have a human nature, and that nature has been damaged by sin. But the nature itself is not sinful. God created it in his own image, and declared it good. The Son of God took it on himself in the Incarnation, and took it up to heaven at the Ascension.

There is no "sinful nature." There is our human nature, and there is sin, which is acting in ways that are contrary to our nature.

In the Orthodox Church, we do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, because we reject the idea of original sin. We believe that human nature, although damaged, is still good. Infants are baptized, not to free them from the guilt of original sin, but to transfer their citizenship from this world to the Kingdom, to join them to the Body of Christ, to begin the process of their salvation. Salvation is not the forgiveness of sins. If you have sinned, then salvation includes the forgiveness of sins. But forgiveness is just a part of the whole.

If you ever attend an Orthodox funeral for an adult, you will hear prayers asking for their forgiveness. If you ever attend an Orthodox funeral for an infant or young child, the prayers are entirely different. We don't ask God to forgive the child, because a young child hasn't yet learned how to sin.

We reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not because we disagree that Mary was born without inherited guilt, but because we think that we are all free of inherited guilt. Most of us have plenty of our own guilt. Mary, and perhaps a few others, by the grace of God and by their own efforts, managed to live a life without sinning. Since she did it, we know that it is possible for any of us. The goal, "be perfect," is difficult, but not impossible. And if we've failed to reach it so far, we can receive forgiveness and healing, and try again.

Oh, and as for the question of Mary's purity -- we say that she was "all-pure." That is, she was pure in every respect, in her thoughts, in her words, in the things she did and in the things she refrained from doing. Of course, she was sexually pure. (And "sexually pure" doesn't mean "virgin." Virgins can be impure, and married folks can be pure.) But her sexual purity is really a very small part of what we're talking about when we talk of her purity.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

99% with you and the Big O then Josephine.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Thanks to those of you who responded to my questions about Koine vocabulary upthread. I remain unconvinced about widening the uses of "brothers" and "until". I still have a hunch that this is done in order to accommodate the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, rather than being a standard usage unconnected with the development of the doctrine.

I also dislike any argument that uses the Protevangelium. The passage in the book where the Jewish midwife finds Mary's hymen intact after the birth of Jesus reeks of docetism and, for me, is a "miracle" too far.

I constantly come back to a question I often ask in relation to points of Christian doctrine: when we argue so passionately, it begins to look like we want our doctrine to be true. Why do we want this particular doctrine to be true?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I also dislike any argument that uses the Protevangelium. The passage in the book where the Jewish midwife finds Mary's hymen intact after the birth of Jesus reeks of docetism and, for me, is a "miracle" too far.

The Church knew all this - that is why the Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew and other infancy gospels have never been part of the canon of Holy Scripture. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a shread of truth somewhere in the books, handed down through Tradition.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Shreds of possible truth that are turned in to excluding dogmata are not and are all too Christian.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

What a lot of difficulties we would avoid were it not for the doctrine of Original Sin!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, what's stopping us from ditching it, Eirenist? I often ask myself that question ... but it keeps coming back to haunt me ...

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Interesting, Christians like Percy B wish to ditch what the majority of Christians still believe which is supported by Islam.
Perhaps you did not notice, or disregarded, the post above in which Percy B specifically said, and I quote:
quote:
I repeat I am not speaking strongly against old descriptors, but rather asking that more new interpretations be introduced into litanies, liturgy etc.

Why, in your mind, is "asking that new interpretations be introduced" the same as "ditch"? It does not seem to be a proposal of subtraction but of addition.

Thank you Leaf for speaking up for me on that one. That is right. I am certainly not wanting to ditch what the majority believe. I do feel that truths and faith often have to be proclaimed afresh in new generations and that may mean bringing on board new images and similes.

It is like the wise householder bringing from his store good things, old and new...

Thanks too to those who are contributing I have been enriched by the differing views and thoughts. Most interesting.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

On this thread, at least, the Protoevangelium has only been invoked to demonstrate the age of these beliefs, not their veracity.

And once again with this "why do you need it to be true" steerfeces we descend into Bulverism.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On this thread, at least, the Protoevangelium has only been invoked to demonstrate the age of these beliefs, not their veracity.

Spot on. Veneration of Mary preceded the fourth century by (at least) two centuries. The notion that veneration of Mary was a later imposition by the Ecumenical Councils (or anyone else) does not hold water.

None of which requires anyone to believe in the historical or theological accuracy of the Infancy Gospel. PeJ demonstrates very clearly what ideas and beliefs were knocking around centuries prior to the Councils.

[ 20. August 2012, 08:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I constantly come back to a question I often ask in relation to points of Christian doctrine: when we argue so passionately, it begins to look like we want our doctrine to be true. Why do we want this particular doctrine to be true?

Accusations of Bulverism aside, I suspect that the answer to that question is closer to "because the Church has said it is" than "because it says something about Mary/sex/sin/purity".

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I think the accusations of Bulverism are being laid on a little too liberally. Surely it's not out of bounds in any discussion to enquire as to someone's motives in holding the beliefs that they hold?

Take myself, for example. I'm gay. I believe that God is okay with that. Of course I do - and I have a vested interest in believing that. It's my very personal motivation that has caused me to study the issue very carefully for more than 30 years now. I think it would be perfectly legitimate for someone, in a discussion on that subject, to ask why I believe - and why I want to believe - what I do.

Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone who believes in Mary's perpetual virginity has a personal hangup about sex. Perhaps I'm suggesting that their Church might have an institutional hangup about sex. Perhaps, on the other hand, they just like singing lovely sentimental hymns about Mary and virginity. I don't know. I'd like to know. And if C.S.Lewis thought that that was out of bounds in a debate, then I'd like to know why he wanted to believe that, too!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Accusations of Bulverism aside, I suspect that the answer to that question is closer to "because the Church has said it is" than "because it says something about Mary/sex/sin/purity".

As far as it goes, this is correct. Those of us in big-T Traditional churches take the big-T Tradition as a default position, which we must be argued out of rather than into. Sometimes it's not terribly hard to argue any given one of us out of a Traditional position; I've been argued out of a few myself. Nothing on this thread has even come close to arguing me out of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Just the same old canards, and a bunch of insulting innuendos about my psychology.

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the accusations of Bulverism are being laid on a little too liberally. Surely it's not out of bounds in any discussion to enquire as to someone's motives in holding the beliefs that they hold?

Why? What business is it of yours or anybody else what my motives are?

[ 20. August 2012, 09:48: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the accusations of Bulverism are being laid on a little too liberally. Surely it's not out of bounds in any discussion to enquire as to someone's motives in holding the beliefs that they hold?
Why? What business is it of yours or anybody else what my motives are?

And that's a perfectly valid answer. More than valid, it's rather fun, because it leaves me free to infer whatever I like (which, in turn, would be none of your business).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
because it leaves me free to infer whatever I like (which, in turn, would be none of your business).

Indeed it would be, provided it remains in your head and not posted on the internet.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mousethief, nobody is trying to argue you in to anything. Your Tradition - which I admire more and more thanks to you, despite the great harm being done in Russia - excludes me. OK. You will answer for that, if need be, to another Man. And I will say Father forgive. That I might be forgiven.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

[Overused]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...

After all the comments on how Mary's purity does not indicate that sex is bad and impure, how then can you say that Mary's 'purity' (inverted commas added because I believe Mary to have had a sinful nature like any human), by which I presume you mean her virginity, is something that would raise the standard of human experience and that nuns should be role models in this area? If Mary was not a perpetual virgin, would this make her less of a role model in this respect? God's commandment to the vast majority of His people is to marry, have sex and bear children via sex - Mary is therefore MORE of a role model if she had children after Jesus, because she is obeying this commandment.

...

I would hesitate to put my construction of what a decent life according to what "God's commandment" interpreted by me should be on Mary, or indeed anyone.

It seems fascinating to me that some people are so obsessed with whether Mary remained a virgin sometime after the Immaculate Conception or not.

The core fact was the Birth of Jesus. I think Mary was far more than a "role model".

Purity to me means a completely pure vessel in which Christ was incarnated.

I am afraid we are coming from very different angles and taking completely different tacks. Taking this argument - which it has become - further would serve no useful purpose whatever.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Jade Constable

My ecumenical instincts come to the fore. It may be that the more important question is what difference do the different views over Mary make to the way we relate to one another. I think we are agreed that the central meaning is 'God with us'. Personally, I can live in peace with the differences. Also with those who think I'd be wise to change my view. There are worse things in life than being considered unwise.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Dash it ALL mousethief. You are MOST gracious. Because, in truth, I could have been more.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
What a lot of difficulties we would avoid were it not for the doctrine of Original Sin!

I agree. It has occurred to me, reading through this lengthy thread, that no one seems to have made much of the connection between Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin (more correctly called Original Guilt) and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Augustine’s view (City of God Book 13 ch.3 “And what he [Adam] himself had become by sin and punishment, such he generated those whom he begot; that is to say, subject to sin and death.”) is that all human beings are born guilty of sin, which is passed on from generation to generation by the means of human reproduction. But that would not apply to Jesus, who was in all points tempted like as we are [and so capable of sinning, or the temptation would have been meaningless], yet without sin.

If Augustine is right, Jesus would prima facie have inherited Original Guilt from his mother; but since this is not an acceptable conclusion, there is a certain logic in holding that Mary was conceived immaculately, i.e. without Original Guilt, so that she would not have passed it on to her son in the normal way.

I don’t in fact believe that Augustine was right, but the Roman Catholic Church has accepted that he was, and all good RCs are required to believe it. He was clearly wrong in assuming that Adam and Eve, whom he took to be real people, would have lived for ever if they had not sinned, if indeed they were human as he assumed. Paul believed the same: Romans 5.12: “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned –“ (mistranslated by Jerome in the Vulgate, “in quo omnes peccaverunt”, which is where Augustine was led astray into believing that Paul said all men were sinful, whereas he merely stated as a fact that all men had sinned, his point being that sin led to death and that was why all men died).

As to the perpetual virginity of Mary, I do not see anything in the Protevangelium of James that so states, and I should be grateful for a reference if it does; and I would not regard it as of much authority anyway, It is of about the same date (140-170 AD) as the infancy gospel of Thomas, which, in addition to including the charming story of Jesus making clay sparrows on the Sabbath, which Muhammad (peace be upon him) found so delightful that he included it in the Qur’an (sura 5.110), also includes some stories about the boy Jesus which make him out to be a rather vicious and unpleasant five-year old. Neither of them is worth anything as a contribution to the history of events.

This does not mean that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not true. That is a matter of faith, not I think based on evidence of any kind, not particularly admirable in a married woman, and contrary to the natural meaning of passages in the Gospels and to normal human nature. I dislike it since it makes Mary out to have been a bad Jewish wife to Joseph, a much underrated father to Jesus from whom he must have gained much of his conception of a good and loving father. The Protevangelium of James indicates that Joseph was not an old man, as is suggested elsewhere, but active in his business, since he only discovered Mary’s pregnancy about her sixth month when “he came back from his building” – I would suggest he was employed in the rebuilding of Sepphoris, about 4 miles from Nazareth, which had been sacked by Varus’ soldiers after it rebelled on the death of Herod in 4 BC. Teknon is generally translated carpenter, but in fact means something more like master builder; and it is notable that Jesus’ sayings are more concerned with stone buildings than with woodwork. I have a mental image of Joseph setting off from Nazareth for Sepphoris, which incidentally was Mary’s home town, accompanied over the years by one, two, three, four, five sons as they in turn grew old enough to help him with his work, while Mary stayed in Nazareth with her daughters and looked after the home as a good Jewish wife might be expected to do. As is mentioned upthread, John’s gospel includes the passage (6.42) in which the Jews said “Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph; we know his father and mother.” There is, I think, nothing in the synoptic gospels to suggest that Jesus knew during his earthly life that he was God, or that Mary differed from other mothers who loved their eldest son.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by egg:
It has occurred to me, reading through this lengthy thread, that no one seems to have made much of the connection between Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin (more correctly called Original Guilt) and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Josephine did so here.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

egg, apart from your dislike if Mary were a perpetual virgin, you're ... conspicuously wrong about Jesus not knowing His divinity from at least 12 years of age from the gospels. And why would His Mum and Dad not have told Him the circumstances of His conception prior to that ?

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

By chance I was reading Jeremiah 18 and came across this:

quote:
Jer 18:13
Therefore, the Lord says,
“Ask the people of other nations
whether they have heard of anything like this.
Israel should have been like a virgin.
But she has done something utterly revolting!

I recall that other prophets such as Ezekiel and Hosea also compare Israel to a prostitute.

So the idea comes to me that the virginity of Mary in some way represents/is a symbol of Israels turning back to God. (Matthew does appear to have been written for a Jewish Christian church.) She is also the fifth in Matthew's genealogy, that he goes at great pains to include, of women that the Law would be doubtful of from their life or ancestry. Perhaps it is part of Jesus redeeming the not always illustrious line of David.

I can see holes in this idea, but I think it could do with refinement rather than immediate rejection.

Does anyone know if any theologians have written about this.
Lamb Chopped?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

I'm just skeptical that we need "re-vision" Mary and turn away from language about her chastity, purity and virginity.

The people who believe in "Mother most chaste, Mother inviolate, Mother unstained" give us Machaut's Messe de Notre Dame, Alfonso the Wise's Cantigas de Santa Maria, Michelangelo's Pietà, Raphael's Madonna, Byrd's Assumpta est Maria, and the cathedral of Chartres.

The people who try to revision Mary have given us papier-mâché puppets, felt banners, and the infamous "bendy poles".

[ 23. August 2012, 03:23: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I have loved Ave Maria since Disney's Fantasia in childhood, but never had the "vision" of that other stuff. For many it would not be a "re-vision". YMMV.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.

Oh this idolatry of "relevance "!! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.

Oh this idolatry of "relevance "!! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.
Oh this idolatry of "relevance "!!

Huh!

That's why we've got four Gospel accounts. Some, especially this, of what was relevant to Matthew's church was not relevant enough to Mark, Luke & John's for them to mention it.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm just skeptical that we need "re-vision" Mary and turn away from language about her chastity, purity and virginity.

The people who believe in "Mother most chaste, Mother inviolate, Mother unstained" give us Machaut's Messe de Notre Dame, Alfonso the Wise's Cantigas de Santa Maria, Michelangelo's Pietà, Raphael's Madonna, Byrd's Assumpta est Maria, and the cathedral of Chartres.

The people who try to revision Mary have given us papier-mâché puppets, felt banners, and the infamous "bendy poles".

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.
Oh this idolatry of "relevance "!!
Huh!
That's why we've got four Gospel accounts. Some, especially this, of what was relevant to Matthew's church was not relevant enough to Mark, Luke & John's for them to mention it.

No, that's your interpretation of why we have 4 Gospels [Smile]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.
Oh this idolatry of "relevance "!!

Huh!

That's why we've got four Gospel accounts. Some, especially this, of what was relevant to Matthew's church was not relevant enough to Mark, Luke & John's for them to mention it.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I guess my comments could also raise a wider issue about the use of image, metaphor or description in the official forms of the church. Some, while appropriate centuries ago, I would argue are less appropriate than they were.
Oh this idolatry of "relevance "!!
Huh!
That's why we've got four Gospel accounts. Some, especially this, of what was relevant to Matthew's church was not relevant enough to Mark, Luke & John's for them to mention it.

No, that's your interpretation of why we have 4 Gospels [Smile]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

You mean that you don't think it is relevant!

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

And why is your interpretation of relevance being a sin any better than the interpretation of there being a sin in not being relevant?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I'm just skeptical that we need "re-vision" Mary and turn away from language about her chastity, purity and virginity.

The people who believe in "Mother most chaste, Mother inviolate, Mother unstained" give us Machaut's Messe de Notre Dame, Alfonso the Wise's Cantigas de Santa Maria, Michelangelo's Pietà, Raphael's Madonna, Byrd's Assumpta est Maria, and the cathedral of Chartres.

The people who try to revision Mary have given us papier-mâché puppets, felt banners, and the infamous "bendy poles".

QED, Pancho.

You have cut straight through the Gordian Knot.

Why stuff around with scholarship and evidence and truth when the issue can be settled by citing some nice sculpture and music and architecture?

Incidentally, what are infamous bendy poles?

Hope they're not like the Asherah poles in the OT, because they were really bad.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Incidentally, what are infamous bendy poles?

You've ventured into Ecclesiantics often enough to know what they are

quote:
QED, Pancho.

You have cut straight through the Gordian Knot.

Why stuff around with scholarship and evidence and truth when the issue can be settled by citing some nice sculpture and music and architecture?

Except that's not what I said.*

Other people have offered the scholarship and evidence. I questioned one of the premises of the OP, that the language of the Litany of Loreto creates a distance.

*ETA:that is, what I wrote is not what you imply.

[ 23. August 2012, 05:06: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Incidentally, what are infamous bendy poles?
You've ventured into Ecclesiantics often enough to know what they are

Au contraire, I very rarely visit Ecclesiantics, because I have little patience with, or interest in, the issues discussed there.

I only became embroiled in this discussion because of what I considered to be mousethief's misrepresentation of Bulverism, because I am interested in C.S. Lewis.

OK, I've looked up bendy poles on Google and discovered that they are long flexible sticks on which people stand and oscillate.

Oddly enough, they have yet to feature in our worship, fun though it looks, and incorrigible disbelievers in Mary's perpetual virginity though we be.

Must be a specifically American Protestant liturgical idiosyncrasy.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

Perhaps a tangent but since professing my ignorance of early Christian writings i dug out this website which lists most of the known ones.

Very interesting stuff.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Yes the Infancy Narrative of James is among them.

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
qb]

Josephine did so here [/QB][/QUOTE]

It's true that Josephine pointed out that the Orthodox Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception, but she does not mention Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin or Original Guilt. I assume the Orthodox church does not accept that either.

I was merely pointing out, which I have not seen pointed out before, that if one takes Augustine's doctrine of Original Guilt as part of one's faith, there is at least a theoretical but quite logical reason for believing that Mary must have been born free from Original Guilt, i.e Immaculately Conceived, so that she could not pass it on to Jesus as every other mother passes it on to her children (according to Augustine); so that Jesus, unlike all ordinary human beings, was born free from Original Guilt.

It's all a bit theoretical, though the Roman Catholic Church has made it a dogma to be believed [i]de fide[i].

I distinguish what I think many Anglicans believe, which is that all human beings are born with a tendency to sin (call it Original Sin if you like). Whether Jesus was born with such a tendency or not, he did not (unlike every other human being) succumb to it; though he was tempted just as we are, and this necessarily implies that he could have sinned if he had not withstood the temptation. I think this is what the writer of Heb.4.15 means; and it is not compatible with the idea that Jesus could not have sinned.

[ 23. August 2012, 12:03: Message edited by: egg ]

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by egg:

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

Josephine did so here
It's true that Josephine pointed out that the Orthodox Church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception, but she does not mention Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin or Original Guilt. I assume the Orthodox church does not accept that either.

I was merely pointing out, which I have not seen pointed out before, that if one takes Augustine's doctrine of Original Guilt as part of one's faith, there is at least a theoretical but quite logical reason for believing that Mary must have been born free from Original Guilt, i.e Immaculately Conceived, so that she could not pass it on to Jesus as every other mother passes it on to her children (according to Augustine); so that Jesus, unlike all ordinary human beings, was born free from Original Guilt.

It's all a bit theoretical, though the Roman Catholic Church has made it a dogma to be believed de fide.

I distinguish what I think many Anglicans believe, which is that all human beings are born with a tendency to sin (call it Original Sin if you like). Whether Jesus was born with such a tendency or not, he did not (unlike every other human being) succumb to it; though he was tempted just as we are, and this necessarily implies that he could have sinned if he had not withstood the temptation. I think this is what the writer of Heb.4.15 means; and it is not compatible with the idea that Jesus could not have sinned. [/QB]

[ 23. August 2012, 12:07: Message edited by: egg ]

Posted by egg (# 3982) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
egg, apart from your dislike if Mary were a perpetual virgin, you're ... conspicuously wrong about Jesus not knowing His divinity from at least 12 years of age from the gospels. And why would His Mum and Dad not have told Him the circumstances of His conception prior to that ?

Jesus was certainly remarkably and precociously well vesred in the Jewish culture and traditions at the age of 12, and I would like to think one of the people that he was arguing with was the great Hillel, who in some respects shared his thinking, but the dates don't quite fit. But there were others in the temple who were not far behind Hillel in their thinking.

As to your question, I find it difficult to believe that Jesus would have conducted his life, his teaching and example as he did, if he had known the circumstances of his conception and the fact that he was therefore different from all other human beings, and there is no evidence in the synoptic gospels that he did - but I suppose that is possible. Of course he called God his Father; but he taught all his disciples to pray to Our Father, and Christians have done so ever since.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

ego eimi Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh ?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0