Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@lancia.att.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why do people think Mary remained a Virgin? Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 89 03:15:50 GMT Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner) Lines: 110 Approved: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu 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]