Episcopalians and Mary

[gtsecc]

What latitude do we have as Episcopalians on accepting Mary’s perpetual Virginity?

In a bible study, someone proposed a book for us to read over the next month; the blurb for it read something like “James, the other son of Mary and Joseph.” I think that is a problem and I would love to hear what approach folks here would take. I need to email the group and explain why I think that book is inappropriate.

[Fish and Bread]

Historically, Anglicans have tended to consider beliefs not found in scripture to be optional. So, things like Mary's perpetual virginity (i.e. *After* Christ's birth), the Assumption of Mary, Marian aparitions, and so forth are generally thought to be things which can either be believed or not believed by Anglicans without putting them any further from or closer to Anglican orthodoxy. I'd say the book recommended for your group would be fine, so long as whomever is running it makes sure to mention that some Anglicans believe in Mary as a perpetual virgin and that such a belief is optional, but perfectly acceptable in Anglicanism, and that the view of the book in question optional, but also perfectly acceptable in Anglicanism.

John

[gtsecc]

I am not sure that belief is quiet so optional anymore. Haven't we taken a stance on Mary which denies her having other children?

[Fish and Bread]

I am not sure that belief is quiet so optional anymore. Haven't we taken a stance on Mary which denies her having other children?

Though I haven't read the joint agreement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion closely, my impression of the report is that it simply says that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin does not contradict scripture and is believed by many Anglicans. That is probably the closest thing out there to affirming a formal belief by Anglicans in Mary's perpetual virginity and I don't think it actually does so. It's also worth noting that the report has not been officially approved by either church involved and thus is an unofficial document anyhow, having no canonical or doctrinal force in either church except in so far as some things are take from other sources that have such authority (For example, when the report quotes a statement from the Pope believed to be infallible by Roman Cathilics, Roman Catholics are bound to believe that, but not because it was in the report, but because it was already something they were bound to believe).

John

[Father Rick]

One of the early church councils ( I believe the 3rd) proclaimed her a 'perpetual virgin' and pronounced an anathema on anyone who disagreed.

My understanding is that Anglicanism pretty much holds to the pre-schizm councils (I know the OC's do). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[julian the apostate]

no gtsecc anglicans have not come up with any new theories on mary lately
or any theory for that matter, that wouldnt come under the heading of optional

luther and calvin believed in the perpetual virginity

i believe personally in the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity because they seem logical to me, but i could be wrong

i personally dont think they are matters of grave importance

[Fish and Bread]

My understanding is that Anglicanism pretty much holds to the pre-schizm councils (I know the OC's do). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

My understanding is that Anglicanism does not officially affirm the pre-schism councils as authoritative, though many individual Anglican bishops, clergy, and parishioners consider the councils to be authoritative, and most other Anglicans consider them to at least hold great weight, even if they're not necessarily completely free from error. So one can theoretically disent from an affirmation of an ecumenical council and still be considered an orthodox Anglican, so long as it isn't one of the affirmations covered by the Nicene Creed or having to do with established church order formally adopted by Anglicanism.

John

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I accept the Immaculate Conception, her Perpetual Virginity, and her Assumption. No big deal, like another poster said, they seem logical. I don't consider them to be terribly important to the faith though.

[Iron Sun 254]

I fully accept the Immaculate Conception, but I can't understand what the logic would be behind Perpetual Virginity.

[julian the apostate]

immaculate conception,, Mary by virtue of Christ, is preserved from original sin , so that she may be a fit tabernacle for the Word of God

she becomes the unique mediatrix of Grace for the human race by virtue of her conception and birthing of the Son of God,,*

a human ark of the covenant

it stands to reason that she would not have given birth to anyone else other than the one she was uniquely prepared for

* i have problems with the term mediatrix, its just that it fits in this context for some reason,,
or it may be that i am in full catholic mode explaining this ,, i dont know

[gtsecc]

Wouldn't this book be inappropriate?

[Fish and Bread]

Wouldn't this book be inappropriate?

The book seems appropriate to me.

John

[Albion]

I am not sure that belief is quiet so optional anymore. Haven't we taken a stance on Mary which denies her having other children?

Nope.

[gitlance]

She is Immaculate and she is a perpetual Virgin. There is no other historical position that can be taken if we consult the councils and the writings of the ECFs.

[julian the apostate]

in you opinion gitlance
many (orthodox for instance) would disagree with that statement

for the life of me , i cant see why it would make a difference

[gtsecc]

in you opinion gitlance
many (orthodox for instance) would disagree with that statement

for the life of me , i cant see why it would make a difference
The difference is in whether or not a church can pick and choose its beliefs. We were handed these beliefs from the Church fathers, so I am loath to ignore them especially when they have no contradition to Scripture. To hold the position that they were correct about the Bible and wrong about their other teachings seems bizar to me.

[benedictine]

Of the three most contested marian propoerties:

1-Immaculate Conception
2-Purpetual Virginity
3-Assumption,

the third can be directly proven by scripture. The Second is infered, and the first I would like someone else to exc=plain.

[julian the apostate]

gtsecc<****e difference is in whether or not a church can pick and choose its beliefs. We were handed these beliefs from the Church fathers, so I am loath to ignore them especially when they have no contradition to Scripture. To hold the position that they were correct about the Bible and wrong about their other teachings seems bizar to me.


the church fathers argued all over the place about the beliefs you are worried about with virtually little or no consensus beyond the perpetual virginity
so i have no idea what in the world you are talking about

you are going to pick and choose many of your beliefs whether you think you are or not--barring a direct indisputable revelation from the Creator of the Universe Himself

relax

see luke 12:57

[Fish and Bread]

3-Assumption,

the third can be directly proven by scripture.

One can make a scripturally-based *case* for the Assumption, but that's what it is, a case. Saying something can be proven by scripture carries with it the idea that it is impossible for one who believes in scripture and studies it closely not to affirm it. There are many Christian around the world who are very intelligent, love scripture, examine scripture closely, believe in scripture, and still do not feel that the Assumption of Mary happened. It's not something that is clear one way or the other from the biblical record, as there are passages which could be said to point towards the Assumption, but can't be said to definitively do so.

John

[UberLutheran]

no gtsecc anglicans have not come up with any new theories on mary lately
or any theory for that matter, that wouldnt come under the heading of optional

luther and calvin believed in the perpetual virginity

i believe personally in the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity because they seem logical to me, but i could be wrong

i personally dont think they are matters of grave importance

Personally, I think Scripture contradicts the perpetual virginity of Mary; but if belief in the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception of Mary helps faith, then it ought to be used; and if it doesn't help faith, it ought not be used.

And if someone happens to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (even if I don't) -- I'm cool with that. :)

[PaladinValer]

The recent agreement between our church and the Vatican Catholic Church, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, seems to allude to the idea that we do believe in the Perpetual Virginity. Read especially the footnotes.

If you want to find the document, simply go to the official website of the Anglican Communion.

[julian the apostate]

pv<<allude to the idea that we do believe in the Perpetual Virginity.

some anglicans do, some dont,

i believe in the pv the ic and the assumption all as general propostions

but for the life of me i cant see what difference it makes

[Iron Sun 254]

I don't see that PV makes a difference, but I some speak as though it must be so. I want to understand how it can be inferred and for those who believe it must be that way, why must it?

[julian the apostate]

ironsun,personally the idea of sex is not the issue, perpetual virginity inho misses the point

the point is that she was uniquely selected to give birth to God incarnate
she is a human ark of the covenant chosen to carry the Son of God

so i cant imagine her having other children with all that in mind

[SeenAndUnseen]

I tend to hold to the same beliefs as Roman Catholics when it comes to the Blessed Virgin; but I tend to be turned off by "apparitions" and "messages" supposedly spoken by visions of Mary to saints in private revelation. I know that Roman Catholics are not bound to believe in any of those either -- but they still seem to suffocate my image of Mary within the Roman Catholic context. I think they overdo that stuff just a wee bit, or at least allow it to seem overdone.

[Albion]

I tend to hold to the same beliefs as Roman Catholics when it comes to the Blessed Virgin; but I tend to be turned off by "apparitions" and "messages" supposedly spoken by visions of Mary to saints in private revelation. I know that Roman Catholics are not bound to believe in any of those either -- but they still seem to suffocate my image of Mary within the Roman Catholic context. I think they overdo that stuff just a wee bit, or at least allow it to seem overdone.

I feel that when we start in with "it seems logical to me to conclude that Mary..." or "We call her the new ark of the covenant so then we can jump to some analogy of that and make it a doctrine" we are on shaky grounds.

When on shaky grounds, don't make it a doctrine.

If the scriptures are not explicit--which they are not on all of these Marian doctrines except the Virgin Birth and the Theotokos--leave it in the category of a "pious opinion." So long as one is not insisting that this or that Marian idea has to be believed or else the non-believer is somehow a heretic, unorthodox, of little faith, etc. then it is fine to disagree.

(Your post made me think on some of this. By appending my comments to your post, it's not as though I am taking issue with your own statements, please understand.)

[Fish and Bread]

The recent agreement between our church and the Vatican Catholic Church, Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ, seems to allude to the idea that we do believe in the Perpetual Virginity. Read especially the footnotes.

If you look at ecumenical agreements in general, I think you'll find that they're worded so as to mean different things to different people, and very intentionally so. Remember when the Roman Catholics seemed to agree they were saved by faith in an ecumenical agreement with the Lutherans in 1999? If you look at it and twist your eyes just the right way, you realize that they're really still not saying they're not saved partly through works. It's kind of amusing. I think the Anglican Communion did essentially the same thing with MGaAiC, a lot of it sounded like the AC was adopting Roman Catholic teaching, while in actuality the AC was using the same words to mean something different. Personally, I have concerns about the practice of doing that, it feels somehow misleading to me.

John

[gitlance]

in you opinion gitlance
many (orthodox for instance) would disagree with that statement

for the life of me , i cant see why it would make a difference

Unless I have misunderstood the Orthodox, they affirm Our Lady's perpetual virginity and that she was Immaculate at the Annunciation.

[julian the apostate]

gtlance<<Immaculate at the Annunciation

which is different than the immaculate conception , and i dont think it is a matter of doctrine but pious conjecture

albion< don't make it a doctrine.

a,em

[alban]

Personally gtsecc i can't really form an opinion without looking at the text to which you refer. My initial thoughts is that if this book is making claims which it purports to be fact without even a hint of any other option then i would be against it, especially as has already been highlighted the perpetual virginity is a belief which can be found in much of church history. Therefore i believe you are right to be hesitant, though if i'm being honest i doubt you can found a decent study guide which fairly represents traditional Catholic views- if you find one then please, let me know.

Anyway, if we are to side with the thought that Mary did indeed bear additional children (with whom i do not know, as according to church tradition Joseph seems out) then i thought the number was far higher than a single one. ie James. 'James the other son of Mary' to me would seem inaccurate regardless of how you perceived Our Lady's 'virginity'.

[AveMaria]

I'm following this discussion with great interest, although I'd rather keep my opinion to myself for the time being.

Out of curiosity, do you happen to remember the title of the book in question?

[Albion]

Personally gtsecc i can't really form an opinion without looking at the text to which you refer. My initial thoughts is that if this book is making claims which it purports to be fact without even a hint of any other option then i would be against it, especially as has already been highlighted the perpetual virginity is a belief which can be found in much of church history. Therefore i believe you are right to be hesitant, though if i'm being honest i doubt you can found a decent study guide which fairly represents traditional Catholic views- if you find one then please, let me know.

Anyway, if we are to side with the thought that Mary did indeed bear additional children (with whom i do not know, as according to church tradition Joseph seems out) then i thought the number was far higher than a single one. ie James. 'James the other son of Mary' to me would seem inaccurate regardless of how you perceived Our Lady's 'virginity'.

Just keep in mind that what is supposedly "handed down from the Fathers" is often just talk. Legends abound, and not every one of them is Tradition or the conviction of the Fathers, however one chooses to weigh a comment from some bishop or teacher who lived long after the close of the Apostolic Age.

It is just as easy to argue that Jesus was crucified on the date of his conception, that he and Mary lived in some other country for part of his life, or that the Lost Tribes are to be found here or there, etc. Tradition is potentially significant not if some writers have offered a theory at some point in time, but only if there is a universally accepted and continuous belief, harmonious with scripture, that has existed throughout Christian history. Othewise, it's not Tradition.

[Mary of Bethany]

Unless I have misunderstood the Orthodox, they affirm Our Lady's perpetual virginity and that she was Immaculate at the Annunciation.

We definitely believe in her perpetual virginity. But since we do not have the same understanding of Original Sin as the western church, we have no need of a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception. She did not need anything "special" done for her, that would in any way make her different from the rest of the human race. Her perfect response to the Holy Trinity is the only thing that sets her apart - in other words she is the example of what all of us can be in Christ.

Mods - I hope this is not seen as debating. I simply want to clarify the Orthodox belief.

Mary

[julian the apostate]

GOOD JOB MARY

good point i forgot about original sin thing