sysprg@zeus.unl.edu (Craig B. Walter) (06/09/89)
Well, I don't know if the majority of people who post to this group
are catholic or what, but I would like to ask a question? What is
the catholic religions scriptural basis for believing that Mary
remained a virgin her whole life? And I believe that the catholics
also believe she was perfect, am I right or wrong?
But back to the first question, I can and will be willing to show
several verses that prove that Mary had more children than just
Christ, so I am curious as to the supposed proof of her perpetual
virginity. I am not looking for an argument or anything, just a friendly
discussion. Thanks...
cbw
[Your question presupposes that Catholics have to have Scriptural
grounds for everything. As you may know, they have a different
balance between Scripture and tradition than Protestants. They
believe that authentic traditions about Jesus in addition to those in
Scripture were passed on within the Church. I'll leave the actual
justification of the doctrine to those who believe in it. There's no
question that the tradition on this is rather early and that it was
accepted very widely by the "Fathers". If the NT is held to
contradict it, the belief must have started soon after the NT was
written, and spread rapidly. I'll summarize a couple of things from
the last time we had this discussion, just so we can get all the data
out on the table, rather than over the course of a zillion postings.
(The following is based on a discussion in Vincent Taylor's commentary
on Mark.) The Scripture passages referring to Jesus' brothers are
disputed. It is claimed that the term translated brothers can be used
for other types of relationship as well. Jerome argued that it can be
used for a variety of relationships, from blood relations to kinship,
common nationality, and friendship. There are two major theories
about the brothers of Jesus. The earlier one was that they were sons
of Joseph by a previous marriage. This was held by Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Hilary, 'Ambrosiaster', Gregory of
Nyssa, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and Cyril of Alexandria, and is implied in
the Gospel of Peter and the Protoevangelium of James. Some of the
Fathers in this list are about 200. The Protoevangelium seems to be
from about 150. (Note that the Gospel of Peter and the Protoevangelium
are not considered canonical. They are cited because they show
evidence of Marian doctrines already circulating in the Church at that
time. The Protoevangelium already has many of the themes of later
Marian doctrine.) I don't know of any earlier evidence. The other
major theory is that the brothers were cousins of Jesus, the sons of
Mary the wife of Clopas and sister of Mary. This seems to have been
first advanced by Jerome (about 383). That the brothers are actually
brothers was argued by Helvidius, Tertullian, Bonosus, and Jovinianus.
(Tertullian lived around 200. I don't know about the other names.
They are rather minor compared to the constellation of Fathers
associated with the first view. Note that Tertullian himself is of
dubious orthodoxy.) In addition to mention of Jesus' brothers, we
have Luke 2:7 and Mat 1:25, which use expressions that you wouldn't
expect if Jesus were an only child. However the wording of these
passages is certainly not explicit. One thing that was clear from the
previous discussion is that you may think a passage is obvious, but
that doesn't mean others are necessarily going to. My own feeling,
for what it's worth, is that the Scriptural evidence is conclusively
against perpetual virginity, but that if you want to accept the
doctrine, you're better off with the theory that the brothers are from
a previous marriage of Joseph than that they are cousins. --clh]jhpb@lancia.att.com (06/14/89)
Well, I don't know if the majority of people who post to this group
are catholic or what, but I would like to ask a question? What is
the catholic religions scriptural basis for believing that Mary
remained a virgin her whole life? And I believe that the catholics
also believe she was perfect, am I right or wrong?
That last first. The Catholic belief is that she never had the original
sin on her soul, and never committed any personal sins.
We have a difference over the sources of revelation. The Catholic
religion does not limit itself to Scripture as the only source of
revelation. There is also tradition.
Of course, at some level Protestants also admit this, because, after
all, there is nothing else to set the Bible down on.
The idea behind tradition is basically this, that the Church never loses
the thread of what our Lord entrusted to Her at the beginning of the
Christian era. She instinctively clings to the correct doctrines,
because of the influence of the Holy Ghost.
So, when figuring out what is correct doctrine and what is not,
ecclesiastical history becomes very important. The writings, monuments,
liturgies, etc., of the past, being witnesses to the belief of the
Church in the past, help to indicate what its belief should be now.
If a belief is held clearly enough in the past, the Church is bound to
the belief. If there has been hesitation, argument is permissible.
The development of doctrine that is evident with time is merely the
Church pondering the original revelation.
As regards the 'semper virgo' doctrine and Scripture, at least some of
us are approaching this from different viewpoints.
For a Catholic, it is only necessary that Scripture does not demand a
contrary doctrine. For the average Protestant, judging from the
reactions seen in t.r.m, the resulting interpretation is stretched, and
therefore to be rejected as (at least) very improbable.
The Catholic Church is going by Tradition, though, not just Scripture,
and the arguments are conclusive *for* the doctrine.
After some point, which is fairly early, the 'semper virgo' doctrine is
all over the place. The quotes from the Fathers have been posted a
couple times. It's been in the canon of the Roman rite Mass since the
700's.
It even shows up in three doctrinal canons of an early general council
(Constantinople II, 553 AD), where it is mentioned as if incidentally,
as something well-known.
But back to the first question, I can and will be willing to show
several verses that prove that Mary had more children than just
Christ, so I am curious as to the supposed proof of her perpetual
virginity. I am not looking for an argument or anything, just a friendly
discussion. Thanks...
What do you mean by "prove"? What's proof to the Catholic Church is not
necessarily proof to someone else; the axioms may be incompatible. What
do you want for proof? Does it matter at all if everyone calling
themselves Christian prior to the Reformation (Orthodox, Catholic,
Monophysite, Jacobite, Copt, or whatever) believed this doctrine?
Somehow I think not.
This is what you might as well call "the Reformer's Paradox" surfacing
again.
There was a change in the set of axioms at the time of the
Reformation. People sincerely believed that they knew exactly the right
axioms. Then they got changed, and now we're supposed to sincerely
believe that the Reformers taught the correct set.
That's some kind of paradox. It sort of takes the steam out of
doctrinal proofs, once you allow as how men may not have the faintest
idea what they're talking about for centuries. You'll never straighten
things out if that's included in your axiom set.
I guess I have to post the arguments about the "brothers" of our Lord
sooner or later, anyway.
Let the proofs begin...
Joe Buehler
[or let them not... I have already mentioned the classic answers.
To the extent that people are just interested in what the Catholic
position is, rather than in starting an argument, it is possibly
not necessary to go any further.
By the way, from all the reading I've done in the last year about
these issues, I have to say that I do agree with Joe that the
Reformation involved a change of axioms. The concepts of tradition,
and the authority of bishops and the Pope started very quickly. I
think the Reformation "sola scriptura" was genuinely a new thing.
It's not right to say that it was invented by the Reformers in
the 16th Cent, since there had been groups such as the Waldensians
and Hussites that had held it before. But it's hard to find much
suggestion of "sola scriptura" in the "mainstream" church, except
possibly in the NT itself. Does anybody know of counterexamples?
The Reformers implied that Papal claims were relatively recent.
There's no question that the concentration of power in the Pope was
progressive, as were a number of other things that Protestants regard
as abuses. But it's hard to see the Reformation as being simply a
return to, say the 8th Cent.
--clh]