That Mary never had sex with Joseph or anybody else is not doctrine
The Perpetual Virginity is not doctrine?
Correct. As I wrote to Jorge I understand it's mentioned in passing in Chalcedon but not as a definition of doctrine with a 'let him be anathema' if anybody denies it. Somewhere in the document's pious rhetoric Mary is mentioned as 'ever-Virgin' like she is in our liturgical prayers, like it's a given.
As far as I know the perpetual virginity was never doctrine or dogma but simply historical fact, tradition passed down.
The symbolism of the gate in Ezekiel's temple gives it a theological significance, but that doesn't make it dogma.
That's what I was trying to say to Jorge.
More minimalist bunk.
I'm happy to require only what's needed (defined doctrine, usually defined as a last resort to fight some heresy) leaving the rest as adiaphora - 'all can, some should, none must' as my native tradition says - and in so doing stand with the maximalist Catholic liturgics/worship of Orthodox, many Anglicans and some conservative high-church Lutherans (people I think the reigning Pope is serious about ecumenism with) whilst those who mean well and want to dogmatise the slightest legend wave their arms at a guitar Mass in a tent at Steubenville or chase fake apparitions in Bosnia. No, thanks.
I think that the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady is de fide, per Ott. (Though I won't swear to it, not being able to check.)
That said, perhaps we could have recourse to actually looking things up, rather than sniping at each other. I believe that Mr Smith is correct, but I think it's generally better to provide a citation, whenever possible.
Again, thank you for the linkage. You are right in your comment to Mike that Liberation and Liberation Theology is not the same thing. Still, the Exodus and (forgive me if I misuse this) theosis are related salvific movements. God claims us. Mary gives voice to this.
In a Protestant tradition like mine, still reactive after all these years, we have to find some way to talk about Mary. We often argue around the Virginity thing. But the debates begin and end there. As long as she is a Virgin, then what else matters? Who cares what she said? Who cares if she wept. Who cares if she has something to say to parents.
And, this is fun, she was not the first Christian. Oh no! Paul was...or maybe John the Baptist...or something like that. The party line is an interesting beast, brother.
But there you go. That's another argument...for another eon.
That bein said, in this Baptist's pulpit this Sunday there will be an earful of not WWJD, but Know Mary!
She was the first Christian. Sometimes I think we hamstring ourselves trying to be Jesus when we should try to be Mary...and then let God be born in us as well. How's that for theotic hope?
My pleasure, Tripp.
Still, the Exodus and (forgive me if I misuse this) theosis are related salvific movements. God claims us. Mary gives voice to this.
That's a cool way of putting it. Thanks.
Reminds me of Huw Raphael's recent point that Christ took that tribal relationship, that covenant, with God (like American Indian faiths), in Exodus for example, and universalised it... the lasting meaning of liberation in the Mag?
John the Baptist was arguably the second Christian (made so, cleansed in the womb, when Mary visited Elisabeth?). Mary was the first.
Sometimes I think we hamstring ourselves trying to be Jesus when we should try to be Mary... and then let God be born in us as well. How's that for theotic hope?
Brilliant!
"Brilliant!"
May I quote you sir?
Sure.
Ott divides the teaching into three categories (before, during, and after) and provides citations for each.
He cites Pope St. Siricus, the Fifth General Council (Constantinope II, 553), the Lateran Synod (649) and Pope Paul IV (1555) in favor of the title "perpetual virgin."
Here's the Second Council of Constantinople:
Can II:
"If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema."
Can VI:
"If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God . . . let him be anathema."
Can XIV:
"If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man . . . let him be anathema."
Ref: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum05.htm
Here's a short article by Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins with even more references, and another by Fr. Peter Fehlner, FFI.
whilst those who mean well and want to dogmatise the slightest legend wave their arms at a guitar Mass in a tent at Steubenville or chase fake apparitions in Bosnia
I don't think the comparison of belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady to the excesses of Charismatics or apparition-chasers is apt.
Your source says it was mentioned in passing three times at Constantinople II and not Chalcedon. Thank you for the correction on that fact. Again, it's simply affirming the teaching of Ephesus that she is the Mother of God; that's the definition of doctrine here. It's understood in the rhetoric that she's ever-virgin but that's not what's being proclaimed under threat of anathema.
Thank you, Mr Smith.
For an Ecumenical* Council to have used the expression "ever-Virgin" settles the issue for me. True, it did not anathematize the contrary opinion explicitly, but I'm not at all sure that's necessary for doctrinal certainty.
*Apologies; my text editor doesn't have a proper "OE" ligature.
I'm not at all sure that's necessary for doctrinal certainty.
Exactly my point.
Your source says it was mentioned in passing three times at Constantinople II and not Chalcedon.
It's actually mentioned four times as it is mentioned in the Sentence against the "Three Chapters."
Chalcedon accepted the Letter of Pope Leo to Flavian as part of its definition of faith and this Letter teaches that Our Lady gave birth to the Savior without any loss of her virginal integrity. Those who teach contrary doctrines are anathematized.
Um, forgive my ignorance...
But why is the perpetual virginity so important?
The Church has traditionally held that the state of virginity is higher than the married state. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:34, which St. Jerome would later cite against Helvidius in defending Our Lady's perpetual virginity.
Okay. I see. Thanks. It's just not a doctrine we Baptists usually chat about...Meaning, once Jesus shows up, Mary slips to the back of the story. So, whether her virginity is perpetual or not does not effect our theology.
Sacramental what?
Apostolic who?
Ah well. Thank you!
Commenting by HaloScan
