the ever-virginity of the mother of God?

[pjw]

does the following passage from the solid declaration of the formula of concord indicate a belief among the Evangelical Catholic Churches [Lutheran] that the Theotokos was ever-virgin?
24] On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.
http://bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/person.html
thanks in advance!

[LilLamb219]

Some people do think that the specific quote means that Mary was a virgin until death. But others take it to re-state what was stated earlier in the paragraph, that she was a virgin upon conception and at birth of our Lord.

[Melethiel]

There's no official statement on it. Some believe in perpetual virginity, some don't.

I do believe there's another statement somewhere in the Confessions that refers to Mary with the title Ever-Virgin, and the Reformers certainly believed so.

[Jim47]

My church, WELS, has never taught that she remained ever a virgin. We have discussed this before. Some take the verses that Jesus brothers and sisters as meaning that they were just cousins. I remember "Filo" a Pastor that used to frequent here many times explaining in this i detail how the verses we refer to could not have been taken to mean cousins.

The WELS has this to say partial responce)
If Scripture wished to make it clear that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were half brothers and sisters, this could have been done with only a few words. For example, in Matthew 1:25 Scripture could have said that Joseph never had any union with Mary instead of saying "He had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." This verse plus the fact that Scripture speaks matter of factly about Jesus' brothers and sisters certainly indicates that they could have been such.

Link>>>http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?process&procID=1518&cuQA_qaID=1&cuTopic_topicID=7&cuItem_itemID=5893

[Protoevangel]

does the following passage from the solid declaration of the formula of concord indicate a belief among the Evangelical Catholic Churches [Lutheran] that the Theotokos was ever-virgin?
Yes, indeed it does. Some Lutheran synods, leaning towards Calvinism deny what the Reformers truly and obviously meant.


"That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary."
The Smalcald Articles, Part One, God's Sublime Majesty, IV.
(http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.html#firstpart)

[Tetzel]

We teach it, but the individual is not bound to believe it. Basically it boils down to whether "brother" means "cousin". Either it does or doesn't, scripture doesn't make it explicitly clear, evidently God had better things to tell us about than the details of Mary's sex-life after the birth of our Lord.

Hey Dan, who put the bracketed comments in and when?

[RayJGentry]

i'll quote the movie Dogma, and do it actually rather seriously. it isn't exact, but it goes something like:

to believe in the virgin birth, that's an act of faith. but to think that mary and joseph were married all those years and he never got laid, well that's just plain gullibility.

i think there's something to it. there's nothing scripturally that binds us to believing she remained a virgin her whole life. i think it was something that was added to fuel the miracle of it all.

[Qoheleth]

We teach it, but the individual is not bound to believe it.


As if that really makes any sense


So we can say that it is a truth we hold, but you dont have to believe it. LOL, ok.


Q

[ByzantineDixie]

Some take the verses that Jesus brothers and sisters as meaning that they were just cousins. I remember "Filo" a Pastor that used to frequent here many times explaining in this i detail how the verses we refer to could not have been taken to mean cousins.


Just wanted to expand a bit on this. Tradition teaches Joseph was an older man and that where the verses speak of brothers and sisters they are the children of Joseph from a previous marriage as well as the children of Mary's sister...so it isn't only a matter of "cousins"...but also "half" or more accurately since Joseph was not the father of Jesus "step" brothers and sisters.

That Mary was ever-virgin was the teaching of the church catholic. There was one recorded early dissenter, Helvidius, but St. Jerome successfully dealt with him at the time...and Luther took a nice whack at Helvidius' exegesis as well. From Luther's Works:


Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew, where he says, "Before they came together she was found to be with child." They interpret this as though the evangelist meant to say, "Later she came together with Joseph like any other wife and lay with him, but before this occurred she was with child apart from Joseph," etc. Again, when he says, "And Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son" [ Matt. 1:25], they interpret it as though the evangelist meant to say that he knew her, but not before she had brought forth her first-born son. This was the view of Helvidius 22 (http://mail.google.com/mail/?&ik=&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&tf=1&cmid=23&zx=94qamg-xutyhi&init=1&zx=o60e15-ekospm#_ftn1) which was refuted by Jerome. 23 Such carnal interpretations miss the meaning and purpose of the evangelist. As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [ Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man.


The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, "Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea." Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [ 1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [ 1:18] says, "She was found to be with child before they came together," it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him.

Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, "God says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.' " Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], "I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you." Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], "He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, 24 (http://mail.google.com/mail/?&ik=&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&tf=1&cmid=23&zx=94qamg-xutyhi&init=1&zx=o60e15-ekospm#_ftn3) till he has established justice in the earth." There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

22 (http://mail.google.com/mail/?&ik=&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&tf=1&cmid=23&zx=94qamg-xutyhi&init=1&zx=o60e15-ekospm#_ftnref1)Helvidius, disciple of the Arian bishop of Milan, Auxentius, was living in Rome at the time of Jeromes second sojourn there in 382–385. As a laymen he wrote a treatise against the generally accepted view of Mary's perpetual virginity, in which he attacked primarily the practical consequences drawn from the doctrine in terms of monasticism as a higher kind of Christian life. Realencyklopädie, VII, 654–655. His followers are included as No. 84 in Augustine's a.d. 428 list of 88 heresies (De Haeresibus I, lxxxiv). MPL 42, 46.
23 (http://mail.google.com/mail/?&ik=&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&tf=1&cmid=23&zx=94qamg-xutyhi&init=1&zx=o60e15-ekospm#_ftnref2)The treatise of Helvidius is known only through its rebuttal by Jerome, who did not know him personally but who took up the debate at the urging of friends in order to promote and defend monasticism. Realencyklopädie, VII, 655. See the text of Jerome's De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae, adversus Helvidium in MPL 23, 183–206, and references to it by the author himself in Epistola XXII ad Eustochium, 22 ( MPL 22, 409), Epistola XLVIII ad Pammachium, 18 (MPL 22, 508), and Adversus Jovinianum I, 13 (MPL 23, 230).
24 (http://mail.google.com/mail/?&ik=&ik=e45ee50e55&view=cm&tf=1&cmid=23&zx=94qamg-xutyhi&init=1&zx=o60e15-ekospm#_ftnref3)Douay version.
And with regard to proper exegesis on the subject...I think it is very interesting that the Reformers believed that Mary was ever-virgin, that Luther provides exegesis to that effect yet today WELS is not in agreement with that exegesis. I realize that Luther is not considered "perfect" by Lutherans but if Luther's exegesis is suspect whose exegesis is the proper one and why?

[Jim47]

ByzantineDixie
And with regard to proper exegesis on the subject...I think it is very interesting that the Reformers believed that Mary was ever-virgin, that Luther provides exegesis to that effect yet today WELS is not in agreement with that exegesis. I realize that Luther is not considered "perfect" by Lutherans but if Luther's exegesis is suspect whose exegesis is the proper one and why?



Happy Independance Day Rose!

I don't know how to answer your question above as I don't want to cause any hard feelings. I remember a past conversation and I fully respect your beleifs and perhaps you may be right. We will all find out someday heh? :thumbsup:

[ByzantineDixie]

Happy Independance Day Rose!

I don't know how to answer your question above as I don't want to cause any hard feelings. I remember a past conversation and I fully respect your beleifs and perhaps you may be right. We will all find out someday heh? :thumbsup:

Jim...don't ever worry about causing hard feelings with me. I know you would never mean to. I am the one coming into your forum and challenging some things. Sometimes I may deserve to be clobbered--so do not hesitate. You are a very fair moderator...far better than I was.

Actually...what you say is similar to what my former Lutheran pastor told me on the subject as well...someday we will all find out. When we first started discussing the topic he was dead set against Mary as ever-virgin. I consider this latest position of his to be progress! :D

And Happy Independence Day to you...I am home alone today...but the family comes in from Kansas City this evening!

[Jim47]

Jim...don't ever worry about causing hard feelings with me. I know you would never mean to. I am the one coming into your forum and challenging some things. Sometimes I may deserve to be clobbered--so do not hesitate. You are a very fair moderator...far better than I was.

Actually...what you say is similar to what my former Lutheran pastor told me on the subject as well...someday we will all find out. When we first started discussing the topic he was dead set against Mary as ever-virgin. I consider this latest position of his to be progress! :D

And Happy Independence Day to you...I am home alone today...but the family comes in from Kansas City this evening!





Don't blow any fingers off Rose! :thumbsup:

[Chemnitz]

It's an adiaphoron.

We are free to believe it or not as our consciences lead us.

And it's not just a Reformed infection to deny it. Calvin and Zwingli both affirmed it as well.

The majority (I believe) think the reference is to Mary's conception of and giving birth to Christ without loss of virginity which was understood in those days to be, primarily a physiological state. And not necessarily of her remaining a virgin all her life.

Luther certainly believed in the PV as did many of his contemporaries.

We are free to accept or deny it since the acceptance or denial of it does no violence to the Gospel.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesperson for the world's 70,000,000 Lutherans, nor am I officially a spokesperson for the Office of Information for any Lutheran denominaiton, synod or organization. I'm just me - speaking for me.


1. As I understand it, the title "Mother of God" while very seldom used by Lutherans, is generally acceptable to them. It flows from an understanding of the communication of attributes.


2. The "Ever Virgin Mary" is a very ancient and strong Tradition in Christianity, so much so that it became a pious title for her. As such, it's not always abundantly clear if the view (dogma in the RCC, doctrine in the EO) is actually being taught as dogma or doctrine by early Lutherans or if the pious title is simply being used. I suspect a bit of both is likely.


3. It is MY opinion that the teaching is not adequately addressed in Scripture, one way or the other. My grandfather, a Lutheran pastor, simply leaves the issue unaddressed - as does Scripture (one of the reasons I early came to respect Lutheranism). IMO, the more obvious reading of Scripture suggests it is not the case, and knowing a bit of how the Roman world viewed virginity and women, not surprising that the view would arise and become widely embraced. Nonetheless, I can't deny it either. Yet, without Scriptural support, IMO, it should not be declared to be doctrine and certainly not dogma. It may be a "pious opinion" and I suspect there are Lutherans who embrace the view as such. As I understand it, Lutherans are so permitted.


This is just MY perspective on this.
Nothing more.


- Josiah


.

[Qoheleth]

Just thought I would add this as a reference to the doctrine as it was believed and taught by the Reformers, not just Luther.



Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestant Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary


All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

The Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular. For 1700 years the virtual unanimous teaching and belief of all Christians was that Mary was perpetually virgin.
In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}
The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).
Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }
[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands. {J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}
Martin Luther

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds: Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. {G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon titled: 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495} (OLIC)

[ByzantineDixie]

The one thing that would be interesting to know is the evolution of the belief of Mary ever-virgin to the belief that after Jesus was born Mary and Joseph had other children.

Q, per your information, I think it is reasonable to say that this belief of the Church was held intact by the Reformers so things must have shifted after the 17th century...when, where, by whom and most importantly, why? If I were young and in college I'd have to do a paper on this.

[JVAC]

People who wish to follow new inovative trends in theology are free to do so under the guise of adiaphora, but as for me I follow the Saints before me and confess "Semper Virgo".

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just thought I would add this as a reference to the doctrine as it was believed and taught by the Reformers, not just Luther.



Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestant Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary



All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

The Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular. For 1700 years the virtual unanimous teaching and belief of all Christians was that Mary was perpetually virgin.
In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}
The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).
Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }
[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands. {J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}
Martin Luther


Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds: Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
John Calvin


Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli


He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. {G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon titled: 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger


Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)


I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495} (OLIC)



Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesperson for the world's 70,000,000 Lutherans, nor am I officially a spokesperson for the Office of Information for any Lutheran denominaiton, synod or organization. I'm just me - speaking for me.


In MY opinion....

While Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others may have been of the opinion that Mary and Joseph were deprived of a normal sharing of their sexuality after Jesus was born, I'm not sure that implies that it is the official dogmatic teaching of any Lutheran denomination. In Protestantism, the opinions of man are usually not the norma normans for theology.

Martin Luther, whom I respect highly, was not, IMO, inspired by God so that all his words are infallible and the norm for faith and practice and are held above Holy Scripture. IMO, Luther directed us to Holy Scripture, not himself, which, IMO, was wise. Luther said some things (e.g. about Jews and women) that I suspect most Lutherans do not embrace as dogma.


Regarding an earlier post; I agree that sometimes something is commonly taught by various faith communities but not as dogma whereby all in the community must agree. For example, many Catholics teach Limbo but Catholics are free to disagree with this concept. There are pious opinions in all faith communities, it seems to ME.


Just MY personal, individual, unofficial viewpoints.


- Josiah

[Melethiel]

People who wish to follow new inovative trends in theology are free to do so under the guise of adiaphora, but as for me I follow the Saints before me and confess "Semper Virgo".
:thumbsup:

[LilLamb219]

I think it is reasonable to say that this belief of the Church was held intact by the Reformers so things must have shifted after the 17th century...when, where, by whom and most importantly, why?

Doesn't it seem as if the 17th century produced a lot of stray beliefs?

[C.F.W. Walther]

:)

[Protoevangel]

People who wish to follow new inovative trends in theology are free to do so under the guise of adiaphora, but as for me I follow the Saints before me and confess "Semper Virgo".
:amen:

[Protoevangel]

Hey Dan, who put the bracketed comments in and when?
Bente, 1921, to clarify the intent of the writers.

[Protoevangel]

And it's not just a Reformed infection to deny it.
Good point Chemnitz, it's more of an Anabaptist infection.

Thank you for catching me on that.

[Chemnitz]

Again CF gives stage to the amazing power of condescension...

[MORTANIUS]

The earliest teachings of Christianity taught that Mary was a virgin unto death.

Joseph (her husband) did not lay with her while she was pregnant and there is no mention of him laying (intercourse) with her afterwards. He actually just takes care of her while she is carrying Christ, and then there is no mention of him later on.

The actual agreement written into the Book of Concord is that Mary is a virgin in conception and in the birthing of our Lord.

Other fanciful ideas have simply penetrated our misguided heads! For example, that anyone can 100% claim that James was the child of Mary (and therefore direct blood brother of Jesus our Lord) is not based on anything except someones own belief in such a concept because there are no documents or even Church traditions that exist to support such an argument.

Other notions are that Joseph had sex with Mary after the birth of our Lord. Again, such a belief is based on personal interpretations that cannot be supported by anyone.

We Lutherans prefer to adhere to the Wisdom of the Good Book and the Book of Concord is simply the written guidance that agrees and helps to explain the Good Book.

Again, with all things, let us pray to Jesus Christ for guidance in such matters. Sometimes the answer can bring us peace so that we can understand who our Lord truly is (if of course you haven't figured it out yet lol)

[Chemnitz]

So, we should reject what the Bible seems to say for what tradition clearly does say?

[Chemnitz]

Bring on the charges of anabaptist tendencies and crypto-calvinism because, re the PV of the BVM?

I doubt it.

[Tetzel]

As if that really makes any sense


So we can say that it is a truth we hold, but you dont have to believe it. LOL, ok.


Q

It makes perfect sense because it's something that's not really important. Mary could have had sex with millions of men after Christ was born, it would not have changed what Christ is and what He means at all.

[Qoheleth]

It makes perfect sense because it's something that's not really important. Mary could have had sex with millions of men after Christ was born, it would not have changed what Christ is and what He means at all.


have you not read your OT have you?

By the way, what you said, even if it is an example, is repugnant.

You are speaking "of the pure, holy and ever Virgin Mary. (SA P.1 IV)

The Mother of our Lord deserves more respect than this


Q

[Tetzel]

Where in the OT or the NT does it say that Mary was ever virgin?

We know that Mary was a Virgin before the birth of Christ. That's all that matters. Whether she was a virgin later has no consequences (or if it would have consequences, I'd be very interested in knowing)

And speaking of respect, I'm not the one who finds it necessary to establish absolute details on the sex-life of someone who died nearly 2000 years ago.

[Qoheleth]

Where in the OT or the NT does it say that Mary was ever virgin?

Are you familiar with "typology" and "forshadowing"?

We know that Mary was a Virgin before the birth of Christ. That's all that matters.

Tell me why that even matters, to you?


And speaking of respect, I'm not the one who finds it necessary to establish absolute details on the sex-life of someone who died nearly 2000 years ago.

So, do you disagree with the Confessions and all of Christianity up till the 20th century?


Q

[Tetzel]

Are you familiar with answering questions rather than bewailing other peoples' ignorance. If you've got some light to cast on the importance of Mary being perpetually virgin rather than virgin before birth of Christ matters, then spit it out, but if you want to play the "Don't you realize how important it is?" game, then find someone else. Better yet, rather than just explaining why it is important that Mary be regarded as semper virgo, why don't you explain why the writers of the NT decided that it wasn't an important enough issue to clarify.

If only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had realized the importance of explaining that Mary never had sex rather than telling the story of Christ 4 times, there would be no disagreement in the world and all would be good as the perpetual virginity of mary would free us from all misfortune and sorrow.





I have no opinion at all regarding the status of Mary's virginity after the birth of her son. As others have explained in the thread, there is no scriptural proof one way or the other. I don't recall ever having stated an opinion one way or the other on the issue in this thread, but thanks for not letting that stop you from accusing me of contradicting the confessions and engaging in modernist heresies.

[Qoheleth]

Are you familiar with answering questions rather than bewailing other peoples' ignorance. If you've got some light to cast on the importance of Mary being perpetually virgin rather than virgin before birth of Christ matters, then spit it out, but if you want to play the "Don't you realize how important it is?" game, then find someone else.


I was hoping to lay some groundwork for the discussion, but Ive learned when to let it go.

but thanks for not letting that stop you from accusing me of contradicting the confessions and engaging in modernist heresies.

I asked a question, be satisfied.


Q

[RayJGentry]

i think in the context of scripture the only thing important is that mary was a virgin when Christ was concieved. if i'm not mistaken, isn't there also the argument that the word "virgin" is translated from often also meant young girl? just want to know if anyone else has heard that and if it's valid. as we all know, there are plenty of translational discrepencies that people argue.

ultimately though, i still stand that the issue of sole importance is her virginity regarding the conception of Jesus. it may have been tradition for thousands of years, but it may have been wrong. it also may have been right. regardless, i don' think it's fundament to anyone's salvation that they believe one way or the other. besides, on a point as irrelevant to salvation as this, the "it was tradition for thousands of years" brings up many issues that can hurt that arugment. we all can think of several theological traditions that came to a halt at the reformation that we look at now as incorrect ideology. just my $.02

[Protoevangel]

Again CF gives stage to the amazing power of condescension...

---

So, we should reject what the Bible seems to say for what tradition clearly does say?

---

Bring on the charges of anabaptist tendencies and crypto-calvinism because, re the PV of the BVM?

I doubt it.
The denial was not an early Church teaching, nor was it an early Lutheran teaching. Certainly not by the Lutheran whose name you borrow. Stripping away what the Church catholic has always taught, just because said teaching isn't explicitly spelled out in Holy Scripture, is not Lutheran.

If you can prove your denial, fine, otherwise:
"...in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic."
- Augsburg Confession, Conclusion

and:
"Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons..."
- AC, Abuses Corrected

---

"The Book* of Concord refers to Mary as "blessed" (AC III 1), "pure, holy, and ever-virgin" (SA-I 4), who "is most worthy of the most ample honors" (Ap XXI 27) and "is rightly called and truly is the mother of God" (FC Ep VIII 12). "Granted that blessed Mary prays for the church" (Ap XXI 27), yet "Scripture does not teach the invocation of saints" (AC XXI 2). See also Mariolatry; Theotokos.

As a result of Pietism,* rationalism,* and Prot. sectarianism, the esteem in which 16th c. Luths. held Mary nearly disappeared in many areas, though she is commemorated in most Luth. service books on the Feasts of the Annunciation* (March 25), Presentation of Our Lord and Purification of Mary (February 2), and Visitation (July 2). See also Church Year, 13, 16. "
- Christian Cyclopedia, Hosted at lcms.org

Chemnitz, I see you as a generally Confessional Lutheran. I would not call you a heretic for not putting two and two together here. But neither will I concede to a false and unLutheran teaching. Go ahead and follow these novel and innovative trends, born of Pietism, Rationalism, and Protestant Sectarianism. I'd rather stick with the Church catholic, and with those, wiser than I, who for centuries before me, all confessed holy catholic and apostolic faith, thank you very much. The whole, "we're smarter than those primitive screwheads" attitude just doesn't cut it for me.

[Protoevangel]

Mary could have had ...
I can't even bring myself to quote your vile and contemptible statement.

Would you speak of your own mother this way? But you don't have a problem debase and cheapen the Mother of Christ in this way? You should be ashamed of yourself!

By the way, what you said, even if it is an example, is repugnant.

You are speaking "of the pure, holy and ever Virgin Mary.

Find some class and show a little respect
A-Men!

[C.F.W. Walther]

OK guys you are REALLY belabouring a fact that is adiaphora is not necessary for our salvation. This nitpicking is one of the reasons that I don't like getting involved in discussions here because you'll just drag things on ad nauseum.

This "one up-manship" and who can p-ss the farthest really gets boring after awhile.

WHO CARES !!

[Chemnitz]

The denial was not an early Church teaching, nor was it an early Lutheran teaching. Certainly not by the Lutheran whose name you borrow. Stripping away what the Church catholic has always taught, just because said teaching isn't explicitly spelled out in Holy Scripture, is not Lutheran.

If you can prove your denial, fine, otherwise:
"...in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic."
- Augsburg Confession, Conclusion

and:
"Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons..."
- AC, Abuses Corrected

---

"The Book* of Concord refers to Mary as "blessed" (AC III 1), "pure, holy, and ever-virgin" (SA-I 4), who "is most worthy of the most ample honors" (Ap XXI 27) and "is rightly called and truly is the mother of God" (FC Ep VIII 12). "Granted that blessed Mary prays for the church" (Ap XXI 27), yet "Scripture does not teach the invocation of saints" (AC XXI 2). See also Mariolatry; Theotokos.

As a result of Pietism,* rationalism,* and Prot. sectarianism, the esteem in which 16th c. Luths. held Mary nearly disappeared in many areas, though she is commemorated in most Luth. service books on the Feasts of the Annunciation* (March 25), Presentation of Our Lord and Purification of Mary (February 2), and Visitation (July 2). See also Church Year, 13, 16. "
- Christian Cyclopedia, Hosted at lcms.org

Chemnitz, I see you as a generally Confessional Lutheran. I would not call you a heretic for not putting two and two together here. But neither will I concede to a false and unLutheran teaching. Go ahead and follow these novel and innovative trends, born of Pietism, Rationalism, and Protestant Sectarianism. I'd rather stick with the Church catholic, and with those, wiser than I, who for centuries before me, all confessed holy catholic and apostolic faith, thank you very much. The whole, "we're smarter than those primitive screwheads" attitude just doesn't cut it for me.

Stop lawing me.

[Jim47]

Mod hat on!

There are several post in this thread which break forum rules, flaming , baiting and others. I am closing this thread for a cooling off period and for review and editing, maybe I will re-open it, maybe not. Come on folks, can't we try just a little harder to put aside the attacks?

Mod hat off.

[Jim47]

Mod hat on

Edit July 7th
I am reopening this thread, but this a reminder.

. I have restored most of the deleted threads, reason Qoheleth has confirmed that he is Lutheran.
Resume posting.

Mod hat off :)

[Protoevangel]

Calm down, it's fine, dude, No one's "lawing" you, you can relax, and take a deep breath. No one can make you believe anything. All I can do is what I have done, and present the argument... And then you respond by saying "Stop lawing me"! Oh, hehe... Stop it, you're killing me! ^_^

Chemnitz, I see you as a generally Confessional Lutheran. I would not call you a heretic for not putting two and two together here. But neither will I concede to a false and unLutheran teaching. Go ahead and follow these novel and innovative trends, born of Pietism, Rationalism, and Protestant Sectarianism. I'd rather stick with the Church catholic, and with those, wiser than I, who for centuries before me, all confessed holy catholic and apostolic faith, thank you very much. The whole, "we're smarter than those primitive screwheads" attitude just doesn't cut it for me.
So, where am I "lawing" you? When I say "I see you as a generally Confessional Lutheran...", where I say "I would not call you a heretic...", where I say "But neither will I concede...", where I say, "Go ahead and follow these novel and innovative trends..." or how about when I say, "I'd rather stick with the Church catholic..."? I know, maybe it's when I quoted from the Book of Concord. Yea, that must be when I was "Lawing" you.

When did I ever say your Justification was dependant on believing this? Here, let me help you out with that one... I didn't. Yet you falsly accuse me of "Lawing" you anyway. That's ok, when one isn't able to support their position, they often resort to those methods. Ususally, in an effort to draw the conversation away from the main point.

It's alright Chemnitz, come on over to Martin Und Katie's Bierhaus, I'll buy you a bier or three. http://www.stuntlife.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif You deserve it for putting up with my cantankerous and argumentative self!

[Jim47]

It's alright Chemnitz, come on over to Martin Und Katie's Bierhaus, I'll buy you a bier or three. http://www.stuntlife.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif You deserve it for putting up with my cantankerous and argumentative self!


I think I'll join you two if Ya don't mind. :thumbsup:

[Protoevangel]

OK guys you are REALLY belabouring a fact that is adiaphora is not necessary for our salvation. This nitpicking is one of the reasons that I don't like getting involved in discussions here because you'll just drag things on ad nauseum.

This "one up-manship" and who can p-ss the farthest really gets boring after awhile.

WHO CARES !!
Well, I suppose if you don't like it, you don't have to participate. Unless you're just trying to p-ss farther than the people who are invloved in the discussion... :P

Are you meaning to say that every thread or discussion you participate in, or disagree with someone on, relates directly to our salvation? ;)

Hey, come on and join us in the bierhaus, I have a round waithing for you too. http://www.stuntlife.com/forums/images/smilies/prosit.gif

[JVAC]

First, Deffinitions:

Heterodox - Different Teaching
Orthodox - "true" (in building terms meaning "in line with the foundation")teaching

Now, with these deffinitions, the new teaching of "not a perpetual virgin" is factually heterodox from the teaching we have recieved. Also, factually, the dogma of semper virgo is infact orthodox and in keeping with our foundations as a church; surpassing Smalcald, Ephesus and Athanasius.

The point of the thread is, was it believed? Yes it was. The new question, which is just as viable a question as anyone elses, salvific or adiaphorific. The new question is actually not whether or not we believe it or not, but do we submit to our foundations or not. Are we like the herterodox who Martin Luther told, "They are building an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation". This new question is important because it questions our very foundations!

-James

[Protoevangel]

First I would like to say, I am saddened to see that we are now silencing the voices of other christians in this thread, I feel like an old timer, but back in the day, we encouraged inter-denominational dialogue.

Enought of my Lament on to the topic:

First, Deffinitions:

Heterodox - Different Teaching
Orthodox - "true" (in building terms meaning "in line with the foundation")teaching

Now, with these deffinitions, the new teaching of "not a perpetual virgin" is factually heterodox from the teaching we have recieved. Also, factually, the dogma of semper virgo is infact orthodox and in keeping with our foundations as a church; surpassing Smalcald, Ephesus and Athanasius.

The point of the thread is, was it believed? Yes it was. The new question, which is just as viable a question as anyone elses, salvific or adiaphorific. The new question is actually not whether or not we believe it or not, but do we submit to our foundations or not. Are we like the herterodox who Martin Luther told, "They are building an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation". This new question is important because it questions our very foundations!

-James
Leave it to James to cut through the crud, and get to the heart of the matter!

[Chemnitz]

When with condescension and soft ridicule you seek to bind my conscience to what I cannot affirm and which is not required for me to believe you are applying law.

In this thread I have not offered arguments for the cessation of her virginity. Not have I even stated it to be the case in such a way as to suggest that the contrary opinion is "factually heterodox".

All I have said is that I doubt the doctrine of the PV and that I do not find my conscience bound by it.

That's all. I did not call you Romanizing Lutherans or any such thing though I certainly could have if I wanted to pay you back in coin.

Because, in return for our expressions of doubt, I and those like me have been called anabaptistic, crypto-calvinistic and of questionable confessional commitment.

This is not only offensive but it represents the worst kind of legalism since you would bind free consciences on a non-dogmatic matter in exactly the same way the pietists do though perhaps without the pious eyerolling and sighing.

You can deny it but with your haughty expressions and your snorting dismissals, it is exactly what you are doing.

Triumphalism has no more place among Lutherans than among anyone else.

It would be better for you to just state your opinion and leave well enough alone rather than behaving like a pharisee with the consciences of others.

When I read the biblical text, especially Luke, and I see that he, an educated man with an excellent grasp of Koine uses the word ἀδελφὸς instead of ἀνεψιὸς or some other acceptable Greek word for an extended relation I see that this doctrine does not rest upon the plain word of Scripture.

But I see also that it does no violence to that Truth in Jesus which does rest upon it.

So I offer what I hope is a generous and humble opinion that Christians may believe this if they like or not believe it if they like and I will refrain from ridiculing those who do hold it simply because I do not.

As for the Bier, I'll have to decline, I can't drink alcohol due to an allergy, however, I will join you there for a nice iced tea.

[MORTANIUS]

Chemnitz, hello and how are you?

Those Greek words you were using as examples of relation - and in regards to Luke and his command of the Greek sort of don't make sense.

One word means 'brother' which may apply as a term used among Christians or blood-relations of a shared paternal or maternal status, while the other word clearly means 'nephew'. Such words do not even become a matter of semantics.

I only mention this because you used this word to demonstrate a like-minded relationship when clearly their is a precise distiction between these words.

As for everything else you said, well said! No one should be challenging your membership in CHRISTS CHURCH! I don't think anyone should accuse you of being anything but a good Lutheran.

May the Lord Bless and Keep you.

[DaRev]

I am appalled at this whole thread. How a conversation about the Mother of God can turn into such a herald of mud-slinging and condescension is not only shameful but sinful to the highest order.

I would hope and pray that all involved feel the contrition in their hearts, repent of their attitudes, and seek the forgiveness of God.

[MORTANIUS]

I am appalled at this whole thread. How a conversation about the Mother of God can turn into such a herald of mud-slinging and condescension is not only shameful but sinful to the highest order.

I would hope and pray that all involved feel the contrition in their hearts, repent of their attitudes, and seek the forgiveness of God.

I don't really see how this conversation about the Mother of our Lord is descending into mud-slinging.
Although there is some bickering going on, I think people will settle down if they take time to actually read what everyone has to say. Too many assumptions are occuring hence leading to some un-needed replies (much like mine lol ) :D

But you are right that we should always keep in mind the Spirit that must be conducted in such conversations about the Blessed Mother or any person who loves our Lord or commits him/herself to the Lords work.

May the Lord Bless and Keep you. :thumbsup:

[C.F.W. Walther]

Shamefull---yes.
Sinfull---I don't think so.
Adiaphora--yes.
Heterodox--no.

Just because there's been quotes from BOC and other sources doesn't make it gospel. Only Gospel does.

"Questions our very foundation"? Disputes about the virginity of Mary--Oh Please!!

This is a sad commentary on the debts of controversy our esteemed theologians here are willing to stoop to to prove themselves correct.




:scratch:

[Jim47]

Shamefull---yes.
Sinfull---I don't think so.
Adiaphora--yes.
Heterodox--no.

Just because there's been quotes from BOC and other sources doesn't make it gospel. Only Gospel does.

"Questions our very foundation"? Disputes about the virginity of Mary--Oh Please!!

This is a sad commentary on the debts of controversy our esteemed theologians here are willing to stoop to to prove themselves correct.



:scratch:



I'm afraid I agree. The whole discussion can be based on nothing more then personal beliefs, as either possibility exhists. Also I don't think it is necessary to discuss the sex life of Mary. We wouldn't come here to discuss our own, why should we feel we have the right to talk about hers, whether she had one or not. :sigh:

[Chemnitz]

Chemnitz, hello and how are you?

Those Greek words you were using as examples of relation - and in regards to Luke and his command of the Greek sort of don't make sense.

One word means 'brother' which may apply as a term used among Christians or blood-relations of a shared paternal or maternal status, while the other word clearly means 'nephew'. Such words do not even become a matter of semantics.

I only mention this because you used this word to demonstrate a like-minded relationship when clearly their is a precise distiction between these words.

As for everything else you said, well said! No one should be challenging your membership in CHRISTS CHURCH! I don't think anyone should accuse you of being anything but a good Lutheran.

May the Lord Bless and Keep you.

Actually, nepos is "nephew", anepsios is "cousin".

The point is that Luke as a hellene (and possibly a gentile) would very likely have known the word for "cousin" but chose not to use it. The likeliest and simplest reason for this is that the men in question weren't cousins but brothers; i.e. children of Mary and Joseph and younger half-siblings of Jesus.

[Chemnitz]

Here is Tappert's translation of the text in question:

"On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother's womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin."

PJW gave us the venerable Dau and Bente translation.

In either case though, the assumption that the Reformers' point was to conclude that she remained a virgin "ever afterward", never bearing children other than Jesus goes beyond what the document actually says.

The second sentence illuminates the third. When it says that "he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity" the point is rather strikingly gynecological. It follows then that the third sentence is but a reinforcement of this, turning a discussion of the divine nature of Christ as necessitating a virgin birth to Mary's role as Mother of God and her virginity as an essential aspect of it.

The whole point of the paragraph is christological. To make the last sentence a sort of mariological affirmation is to introduce into it a theme that the bare text will not support and that I believe the authors did not intend.

At the very least, there can be no talk of "factual heresy".

[Chemnitz]

As for "discussing the sex life of Mary", well, when we affirm the virgin birth of Our Lord, which we all confess every Sunday, we are making a very intrusive statement about her sexual biology.

I certainly agree that crass statements are out of place in this discussion, but if we are going to discuss it then some reference must be made. It certainly won't do to puritanically reject all such opinion as improper.

How else will we talk about it?

Or are we simply not to talk about it?

[Qoheleth]

Also I don't think it is necessary to discuss the sex life of Mary. We wouldn't come here to discuss our own, why should we feel we have the right to talk about hers, whether she had one or not.

The reason this is discussed is that it is a belief that the Church has always held. It is a part of the Lutheran Confessions, it has everything to do with Christ and the Incarnation.


Q

[Chemnitz]

...It is a part of the Lutheran Confessions...

No, it isn't.

[Qoheleth]

Adiaphora--yes.

It cant be "adiaphora", it is in scripture.

Is any part of scripture "adiaphora"??


Q

[Qoheleth]

No, it isn't.

Sure it is, you just missed it


Q

[Melethiel]

The likeliest and simplest reason for this is that the men in question weren't cousins but brothers; i.e. children of Mary and Joseph and younger half-siblings of Jesus.

Just throwing this out there - the EO tradition is that they were step-brothers, children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

[Chemnitz]

It cant be "adiaphora", it is in scripture.

No, it isn't.

Is any part of scripture "adiaphora"??

Of course not though human interpretation may fail.

[Chemnitz]

Just throwing this out there - the EO tradition is that they were step-brothers, children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

I know that, and it's certainly possible, but it's neither clear from the text nor do the confessions require it.

[Qoheleth]

Of course not though human interpretation may fail.


That is so true, more than you know


Q

[Chemnitz]

Sure it is, you just missed it


Q

I'm (ecclesially) from Missouri.

Show me.

[Chemnitz]

That is so true, more than you know


Q

What is the purpose of this comment? Does it edify in any way? Does it help along the discussion?

How do you know how much I know?

What are you saying here?

[Qoheleth]

What is the purpose of this comment? Does it edify in any way? Does it help along the discussion?

Its an expression and due this limited medium, it may come across other than intended. The intention was not to impugn your knowledge of this or that.

Chemnitz,

You do know that the Lutheran Confessions simply assume it to be true. Martin Luther, Martin Chemnitz and virtually all Lutherans in the 16th century and throughout the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy believed it. The first president of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Dr. C.F.W. Walther firmly and passionately believed it, taught it, and confessed it.

Are you contending that Semper Virgo is not taught by the BoC?


Q

[Qoheleth]

I like what Johann Gerhard, a Lutheran Father taught concerning the Blessed and glorious ever-virgin Mother of our Lord...



He did not teach it as a "pious opinion." Here are excerpts from his sermons and meditations:

(1) Mary, the mother of the Lord, is a virgin and the locked up gate (Ezekiel 44:2); so also Christ is born in virginal hearts which do not cling to the world nor live in sin with it. All believing souls are locked up gates upon the living temple of God, through which only the Lord, and no one else, enters. For true faith opens the door of the heart for no one except for Christ alone, and clings to no one, except to Christ alone.

(2) The mother of this Lord was a virgin, for thus it was proclaimed in advance in Is. 7:14: Look, a virgin is pregnant and she will bear a Son who will be called Immanuel. God also witnessed to this through many a type. In Num. 17:8 it is announced that Aaron's stick greened up and bore almonds; by this is shown that Mary, foreign to every natural and fleshly bloodline, force, or power, as a natural mother yet bore a true Son in a supernatural manner - just as the stick also bore natural almonds and yet remained a natural stick.

(3) Thus, in Judges 6:38-40 God performs a sign before Gideon so that the dew fell on the spread-out fleece, but the entire ground remained dry; the next morning the fleece remained dry and the ground was wet. Thus the pure virgin Mary alone among all the women, through the working of the Holy Spirit, received this heavenly Christ-dew, about which Is. 45:8 states: Drip down you heavens from above. Later this dew came upon the entire earth, that is, the fruits of the birth pertain to all mankind; however, Mary once more became a dry pelt, that is, she remained a pure virgin after the birth, just as (she was) before the birth.

(4) Here also belongs what was announced before about the bush which burned and yet was not damaged, about the rock that was ripped off without hands, and many similar types in the Old Testament, all which that denote Christ was to be born of a virgin.

(5) There is also in this truth, that Christ was born of a virgin, a delicate mystery. For in the same way that Mary is simultaneously a virgin and a mother, so also the Christian church - of which Mary is a likeness - is simultaneously a virgin and a mother; a virgin, for she does not live in sin with the Devil through idolatry; a mother, for she daily conceives children of God the Lord (Gal. 4:27).

(6) Finally, it is proper also to observe that Christ is called the First-born, not that Mary may later have had more children; rather, in keeping with the mode of the holy language, He is called the First-born who is born first, no matter whether He later had other brothers or not.

(7) He is the first and only-begotten of His mother here on earth, who according to His divine nature is the first and only-begotten of His Father in heaven.

(8) The holy Church of God sustains the relations of mother, virgin, bride.
She is as a mother because she daily bears spiritual sons to God. She is as a chaste virgin, because she keeps herself pure from all unholy alliances with the devil and the world. She is a bride, because Christ hath betrothed her to Himself by an eternal covenant, and hath given to her the pledge of the Spirit.






Q

[Chemnitz]

Its an expression and due this limited medium, it may come across other than intended. The intention was not to impugn your knowledge of this or that.

I will take that in the spirit in which I believe it to have been given.

Thank you.

You do know that the Lutheran Confessions simply assume it to be true. Martin Luther, Martin Chemnitz and virtually all Lutherans in the 16th century and throughout the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy believed it. The first president of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, Dr. C.F.W. Walther firmly and passionately believed it, taught it, and confessed it.

I do not know that the confessions "assume it to be true" and will look forward to your support for the claim.

Yes, I know that Chemnitz, and Luther and Pomeranus and a host of others believed it. I was not aware that Walther believed it and would be interested in seeing proof.

But none of this means I have to believe it. All it means is that I have to respect the opinion.

And I do.

Are you contending that Semper Virgo is not taught by the BoC?

I am contending that the German version of the Smalcald Articles, being written in the vernacular, omits the expression "ever virgin" for a reason; Luther clearly did not wish to bind consciences on the matter.

I contend further that the passage from the FC does not affirm the doctrine or even assume it since the intent is christological and makes no reference to Mary's virginity beyond the parturition of Our Lord, except to say that His birth did not violate that virginity.

[Chemnitz]

Re: Gerhard.

And again, it is difficult to discuss this without delving into human anatomy.

His point is:

1. Mary was a virgin before Christ was born.

2. Mary was a virgin after Christ was born.

I have not affirmed otherwise.

It is notable that Gerhard did not see fit to make a clear, explicit claim that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

[Qoheleth]

I do not know that the confessions "assume it to be true" and will look forward to your support for the claim.

I would start here...


5] Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. (AC-Conclusion)


Also, the fact the Confgessors held to Semper Virgo is yet another "proof" of the belief and intent of the AC.

All it means is that I have to respect the opinion.

Thats the issue, I believe it to be a held doctrine of the church and not opinion. The belief is infused with serious Christological, Incarnational, and ecclesiological implications.


Q

[Qoheleth]

I was not aware that Walther believed it and would be interested in seeing proof.


At the Milwaukee Colloquium between representatives of the Missouri and Iowa Synods, the following exchange took place:

>>

Grossmann (Iowa): "When you subscribed to the Confessions, were you aware of the fact that they declared the permanent virginity of Mary?"

Walther (Missouri): "Yes, I can say so in the presence of God."

Grossmann: "Do you still believe this to be true doctrine?"

Walther: "Yes, I can say so in the presence of God."

Grossmann: "What are your reasons for considering this a true presentation?"

Walther: "Pardon me, but you have no right to ask this question."



(quoted from Beyer, Colloquium of Milwaukee, p. 43 sq., in J. L. Neve, A Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America, 1916 edition, p. 289)


I'll look for the other references by Walther.


Q

[Chemnitz]

Q,

Re: the verbal interchange at the colloquium:

That's hardly an impassioned defense.

WRT the rest, suffice to say that we disagree.

An endorsement of the constant testimony of the church does not necessitate swallowing the camel along with the gnat...

The "constant testimony" of the church also held that there was a treasury of merit earned by Christ and the saints which could be drawn upon sacramentally and applied to souls in purgatory, usw.

I believe that those Reformers who held to the PV were clinging to a medieval belief which cannot really be borne out by a clear application of Scripture. In short, they were inconsistent on this point. If Walther agreed then he too was, I believe, inconsistent.

I could be wrong about this. I am not saying that Mary definitely had children after Jesus. I am just saying that neither Scripture nor the Confessions say that she did and that therefore no Lutheran conscience ought to be bound by what is, afterall, only a pious opinion.

[Qoheleth]

I believe that those Reformers who held to the PV were clinging to a medieval belief which cannot really be borne out by a clear application of Scripture.

"Medieval belief"...come on Chemnitz, you must know that is woefully innacurrate. See below those who held to Semper Virgo and the comments made against those who denied the same.




Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315-403); Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345-419); Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444)... St. Irenaeus Origen Tertullian St. John Chrysostom St. Epiphanius St. Basil St. Isidore St. Ildefonsus St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Mary (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

The contrary doctrine is called: "madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),
"madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),
"sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),
"impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2),
"perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),
"full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),
"perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),
"heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).
St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents of Our Lady's virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23).In short, they were inconsistent on this point.

Ok fair enough, and I'll stick with the testimony of the Church up through and including most, if not all, of the Reformers and the Confessions and many many more (Gerhard, Sasse, Walther)...


Q

[MORTANIUS]

Actually, nepos is "nephew", anepsios is "cousin".

Not to press the matter into an argument or anything, I beg to differ.

Its been a long while since I have been tutored in Greek, but I have also asked a Greek friend what this particular word means, and he stated 'Nephew' not cousin.

:scratch:

[Chemnitz]

You can stick with the opinions of the Reformers if you like, but not with the Confessions because they don't support your position.

As for being called names by Papists, who cares?

[Qoheleth]

You can stick with the opinions of the Reformers if you like, but not with the Confessions because they don't support your position.

You mean to say the entire history of the Church including the Reformers and beyond.



It makes good sense that those who wrote the Confessions, who also believed in Semper Virgo, supported this by including the same belief in their Confession.

So yes the Confessions do support Semper Virgo. To see it any other way is really an Academic fallacy and does not consider the source and thought and belief behind the particular article and those who wrote it


Q

[MORTANIUS]

You can stick with the opinions of the Reformers if you like, but not with the Confessions because they don't support your position.

As for being called names by Papists, who cares?

I don't think I called you a Papist or argued between Reformers (a rather loose term) and the Confessions.

:scratch:

[Chemnitz]

You mean to say the entire history of the Church including the Reformers and beyond.



It makes good sense that those who wrote the Confessions, who also believed in Semper Virgo, supported this by including the same belief in their Confession.

So yes the Confessions do support Semper Virgo. To see it any other way is really an Academic fallacy and does not consider the source and thought and belief behind the particular article and those who wrote it


Q

I can see your lips moving but I'm not really hearing anything...

These assertions have already been made, and left unsubstantiated.

This is a pious opinion you have chosen to believe. Fine. I'll leave you to it, but the legalism you betray in your effort to shame me is telling.

Let me warn you against pride.

[Chemnitz]

I don't think I called you a Papist or argued between Reformers (a rather loose term) and the Confessions.

:scratch:

That wasn't meant for you, Mort.

[Protoevangel]

When with condescension and soft ridicule you seek to bind my conscience to what I cannot affirm and which is not required for me to believe you are applying law.
And I have agreed with you that indeed, it is not "required". Ergo, no Law. Ergo nothing you may have felt was me binding anything to anyone's conscience. Ergo, you are accusing me of that which I have not done. But when I expose the origins of the denial of the ever-virgin in the Lutheran Church, then you seek to silence me with these ad hominem attacks devoid of any truth or basis in reality.

Because, in return for our expressions of doubt, I and those like me have been called anabaptistic, crypto-calvinistic and of questionable confessional commitment.
I have called no person anabaptistic, crypto-calvinistic, or questioned anyone's confessional commitment. I have certainly never questioned your commitment, even in my own head. All of your arguments have been generally confessional, although, it is no secret that I see some of those arguments as being somewhat naive and incomplete in their understanding of the Confessions intent and understanding of the authors.

On the other hand, I have declared the non-confessional heritage of the denial of the doctrine of the ever-virgin. It is you who are choosing to take personal offense to what the Confessions and history teaches. If you did not deny or despise the doctrine yourself, in a very personal and intimate way, I can see little reason for you to be so offended by this exposure, and turn my attack on the denial of the doctrine, into personal attacks against me. Exposing and despising the doctrine (or denial of the doctrine), is not the same as exposing or despising the person. I think you already understand this. If so, then perhaps we can simply pick up and move on, and place this little misunderstanding behind us. I mean, we can go on and on like this as long as you want, pointing fingers and pettyness like that, but personally, I think it is beneath both of us. I would prefer to go back to making arguments and poking holes in those arguments, and stop reading personal attacks into matters of doctrinal disagreement.

If you want to go on believing novel and innovative teachings, which have no basis in the church Catholic or the Confessions, be my guest. I will not be silenced by anyone's false and ad hominem attacks or anyones despising of the fact that I stand and argue for and with the Church throughout time on this issue. But neither will I ever claim that anyone's Justification before God is based on or preconditional on the confessional orthodox and and catholic understanding of the perpetual virginity of the Holy Theotokos, or on anything other than the free and undeserved Grace of God.

Now, if the misunderstanding that led to this unfortunate exchange was indeed caused by anything I wrote that I could have been more clear on, I do apologize. Please point out anything I specifically said that is still unclear, and I will try to make my point(s) more understandable.

As for the Bier, I'll have to decline, I can't drink alcohol due to an allergy, however, I will join you there for a nice iced tea.
Anytime bro. It's on me.

[Qoheleth]

As for being called names by Papists, who cares?


If this is directed to me, I dont get it. Please explain


Fine. I'll leave you to it, but the legalism you betray in your effort to shame me is telling.

Let me warn you against pride.

Chemnitz, fine. Be satisfied. No legalism here, just the facts.

I have made no effort to shame you but to add content to the discussion and to disagree when necessary according to my beliefs as a catechized Lutheran.

Do you think that you and I are the first Lutherans to disagree on this...no, we are not and we will not be the last either.

Thanks for the warning.


Q

[Tetzel]

... usw.

German abbreviation? Nice

[Chemnitz]

If this is directed to me, I dont get it. Please explain

I was referring to your list of VIP's ridiculing and condemning those who deny the opinion.

Chemnitz, fine. Be satisfied. No legalism here, just the facts.

I have made no effort to shame you but to add content to the discussion and to disagree when necessary according to my beliefs as a catechized Lutheran.

Do you think that you and I are the first Lutherans to disagree on this...no, we are not and we will not be the last either.

I don't believe you have "added content" though. I think you have repeatedly offered the opinion that the confessions require the belief but you certainly have not established it.

References to the Reformers' unwillingness to alter what needed no alteration, confessionally enshrined, is no argument at all. The fact remains that they did not confessionally enshrine this belief.


As for all those countless names who hold and have held the belief, I also remain unimpressed. But maybe I am the proud one.

Maybe like you I should just accept things on the authority of a great name.

You are certainly right, we won't be the last to disagree on this.

I guess what I resent most of all is the implication that if we disagree with you we are somehow less Lutheran. Whether this inferiority is understood to constitute lack of confessional conformity, or "factual heresy" (that's a whopper, as though there could be such a thing as heresy of "facts" but not of faith), or just general dimwittedness, the implication is clear.

And this is what I meant by pride.

God save us from the Exquisitely Lutheran...

You should get a room with the Truly Reformed...;)

[Protoevangel]

God save us from the Exquisitely Lutheran...
A couple of years ago, the pejorative term was hyper-Lutheran. But hey, since you're the one doing the name calling, use whichever term you prefer. I wouldn't want to "bind your conscience" or anything.

[Chemnitz]

A couple of years ago, the pejorative term was hyper-Lutheran. But hey, since you're the one doing the name calling, use whichever term you prefer. I wouldn't want to "bind your conscience" or anything.

Come now Dan, I've been called worse in this very thread, and seriously.

If you can't take a joke, consider it not to apply to you and move along.

[Melethiel]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/pianogurl310/modhat.jpg

Play nice boys.

[Protoevangel]

Come now Dan, I've been called worse in this very thread, and seriously.

If you can't take a joke, consider it not to apply to you and move along.
Now, who can't take a joke?
RE: "Bind your conscience" to Hyper-Lutheran vs. Exquisitely Lutheran? Come on now! ;) Don't try to tell me that was too subtle for you.

But I don't know, I kinda like "Exquisitely Lutheran", it has a nice ring to it. Acutely perceptive, discriminating, intricate, intense. Who wouldn't love it? Much better than Hyper-Lutheran, which makes it sound as if someone exchanged the normal coffee with espresso.

But seriously, who has called you what? I admit, I only skimmed ofer several of the posts, but I don't recall anyone specifically calling you anything. Now, you aren't still taking my attacks against the denial of the doctrine of the ever-virgin, and it's emergence into Lutheranism through the influx of Pietism, Rationalism, and Protestant Sectarianism, personally, are you?

[LutherNut]

Not to press the matter into an argument or anything, I beg to differ.

Its been a long while since I have been tutored in Greek, but I have also asked a Greek friend what this particular word means, and he stated 'Nephew' not cousin.

:scratch:

Actually, my lexicon says that "anepsios" means "the child of ones uncle or aunt, a first cousin."

[LutherNut]

Chemnitz,

Would you consider your subscription to the Confessions "quia" or "quantenus"?

I'm not picking a fight or anything, I'm just curious.:)

[Qoheleth]

I was referring to your list of VIP's ridiculing and condemning those who deny the opinion.

The list of "VIPs" are mostly Eastern Orthodox. Im surprised though you would use a term such as "papists".


I don't believe you have "added content" though. I think you have repeatedly offered the opinion that the confessions require the belief but you certainly have not established it.

References to the Reformers' unwillingness to alter what needed no alteration, confessionally enshrined, is no argument at all. The fact remains that they did not confessionally enshrine this belief.

As for all those countless names who hold and have held the belief, I also remain unimpressed. But maybe I am the proud one.

Maybe like you I should just accept things on the authority of a great name.


Not at all. I have given context to the Confessional article. You disagree with the beliefs of those who hold to the article. You claim the article (german) does not support Semper Virgo. That of itself is debatable. The Latin article is not, it is clear enough. Luther and all those mentioned held to it. So this leads to your next quote...


I am contending that the German version of the Smalcald Articles, being written in the vernacular, omits the expression "ever virgin" for a reason; Luther clearly did not wish to bind consciences on the matter.


I have only one question to ask...can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Luther "omitted" semper virgo because "Luther clearly did not wish to bind consciences on the matter", as you say??

Please provide the sources and cites that prove this, beyond any doubt.



And this is what I meant by pride.

God save us from the Exquisitely Lutheran...

You should get a room with the Truly Reformed.


Well Chemnitz, you sure do a fair share of your own stone throwing, dont you


Q

[Chemnitz]

Chemnitz,

Would you consider your subscription to the Confessions "quia" or "quantenus"?

I'm not picking a fight or anything, I'm just curious.:)

Quia.

[Chemnitz]

The list of "VIPs" are mostly Eastern Orthodox. Im surprised though you would use a term such as "papists".

Well, funny hats, whatever the variety don't do much for me.

Not at all. I have given context to the Confessional article. You disagree with the beliefs of those who hold to the article. You claim the article (german) does not support Semper Virgo. That of itself is debatable. The Latin article is not, it is clear enough. Luther and all those mentioned held to it. So this leads to your next quote...

You have, I think, contrived a context for the article which fits your belief. There is no reason to conclude that acceptance of forms unnecessary of reform would include "semper virgo".

I have only one question to ask...can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Luther "omitted" semper virgo because "Luther clearly did not wish to bind consciences on the matter", as you say??

No, but I am inclined to think so since the confessions nowhere else recommend it for acceptance. This absence seems rather glaring if it is to be considered part of the faith once delivered to the saints.

Please provide the sources and cites that prove this, beyond any doubt.

No thanks.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine.

Why do I have to provide sources which "prove this, beyond any doubt" when you get to say merely that the doctrine is "implied"?

When you can give me a confessional reference which "proves" that the PV is a required belief, "beyond any doubt", I'll prove that Luther omitted the phrase in the German edition of the Smalcald Articles because he didn't want to bind consciences to what he knew was an adiaphoron.

But not 'til then.

Well Chemnitz, you sure do a fair share of your own stone throwing, dont you.

I was trying to be humorous. I appear to have failed miserably.

I beg your pardon.

[Qoheleth]

When you can give me a confessional reference which "proves" that the PV is a required belief, "beyond any doubt"

What good would it do, its already there if you want to see it. Besides isnt just about everything adiaphora anymore?

Like I said, I know when to let it go, and its time to let go


Q

[LutherNut]

Quia.

So you consider the Confessions thoroughly Scriptural, correct?

[JVAC]

In my last post I was trying to overcome societies use of the terms I used, that is why I included the definitions. Please don't take insult at my statements. I was merely pointing out the fact that Semper virgo is old, and often seen in tradition, while the opposite is new and recent.

"Questions our very foundation"? Disputes about the virginity of Mary--Oh Please!

It is not your exact question that questions the foundations, but rather the reasoning you employ. Rather than seeking the orthodox teaching you are employing your head and heart, this is an individualistic interpretation, Church dogma is not founded on individualistic interpretation.


With respect to the other ideas being thrown out, I have noticed people have been asking "where is it in the confessions?" Well it was penned in the Latin text of the Smalcald Articles (Article 1 That the Son became a human being in this way: he was conceived by the Holy Spirit without male participation and was born of the pure holy always virgin Mary. [pg 300 BoC Kolb/Wengert])

-James

[Chemnitz]

So you consider the Confessions thoroughly Scriptural, correct?

Yes.

[Chemnitz]

It is not your exact question that questions the foundations, but rather the reasoning you employ. Rather than seeking the orthodox teaching you are employing your head and heart, this is an individualistic interpretation, Church dogma is not founded on individualistic interpretation.

Nor is it founded solely on Church usage and tradition. Unless we want to jettison Sola Scriptura entirely.

With respect to the other ideas being thrown out, I have noticed people have been asking "where is it in the confessions?" Well it was penned in the Latin text of the Smalcald Articles (Article 1 That the Son became a human being in this way: he was conceived by the Holy Spirit without male participation and was born of the pure holy always virgin Mary. [pg 300 BoC Kolb/Wengert])

We've already covered this. Surely the fact that it is entirely absent from the far more broadly published German version is significant. It's absence here and in any other confessional account leads me to conclude that Luther and the other fathers did not want it dogmatically enshrined but were content to leave it as a matter of conscience.

[ByzantineDixie]

Surely the fact that it is entirely absent from the far more broadly published German version is significant. It's absence here and in any other confessional account leads me to conclude that Luther and the other fathers did not want it dogmatically enshrined but were content to leave it as a matter of conscience.

You know, you might be right here. Maybe the Lutherans were not more deliberate in discussing this because they didn't want it dogmatically enshrined since there was no clear message from Scripture (although it sure seems like Gerhard would disagree (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25138422&postcount=67)--and incidentally, his citation of Ezekial is the same citation the ancient Church has used in supporting PV). And even though the Lutherans accepted the historical witness of the Church (as evidenced in the Large Catechism on Baptism) for a thing like Infant Baptism, (because if one is truly honest, there is no clear message regarding infant baptism from Scripture either) they didn't further PV because they couldn't link this belief to salvation as they could with Baptism.

Frankly, I see that as a bit of a shift in direction from the Augsburg Confessions...and the quotes DanHead assembled in post 36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25114076&postcount=36), as well as a shift away from the catholic principle.

It's really quite a shame that the Lutherans couldn't have made a distinction between dogma and doctrine here (as the Eastern Church does). That would have eliminated the concern regarding troubled consciences and at the same time protected the position the Lutherans like to take as the "church catholic in the West".

I have to say I have enjoyed this PV discussion better than any of the ones that have played here before. The Lutheran references regarding the historical understanding in the Church, the Lutheran Confessions and the Lutheran fathers have been outstanding. But if CF Chemnitz is right then the voice of the catholic principle is selectively muted in the Lutheran church. Of course, that may not be a problem for Lutherans.

[Chemnitz]

BD

Good thoughts.

As for your final comment though, it's only a problem for some Lutherans.

[LutherNut]

Yes.

Then I am interested in your qualification for the several mentions in the Confessions of the "ever Virgin" Mary.
What do you think that means? How can it be qualified with Scripture?

Thanks,
Jay

[Chemnitz]

Then I am interested in your qualification for the several mentions in the Confessions of the "ever Virgin" Mary.
What do you think that means? How can it be qualified with Scripture?

Thanks,
Jay

Jay,

There is only one use of the expression "semper virgo" and it's in the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles. The German version lacks it.

I assume, perhaps wrongly, that this is because Luther omitted it in the more widely published version because he did not believe it ought to be confessionally required and consciences thereby bound to it.

Mike

[JVAC]

Nor is it founded solely on Church usage and tradition. Unless we want to jettison Sola Scriptura entirely.

Precisely true! However, I prefer to see Sola Scriptura as used in the Augsburg; that is, scripture through the eyes of the Church catholic. The Church rightly interprets her book, for surely she had recieved other things that were not written down, as St John the Apostle writes toward the end of his gospel.

Thus the Scriptures serve as an authoritative witness and our beautiful tradition places us in it's context, and let's us listen to the voice it was intended to have, liturgically.

We've already covered this. Surely the fact that it is entirely absent from the far more broadly published German version is significant. It's absence here and in any other confessional account leads me to conclude that Luther and the other fathers did not want it dogmatically enshrined but were content to leave it as a matter of conscience.

However, it still remains. It remains as a testimony to the belief of the people at that time. It remains as the "confessional" piece that would have been used in Rome had there been a council. It remains a constant reminder to our movement that we did not seek to stray from our roots. It remains.

In another respect, we mustn't presume to know the intent of Luther and why he was silent. We can presume to speculate, and that is what you have done. Though we can't ensure one another that your reason is Luther's reason, nor can I ensure you otherwise. I can merely show you that in that time and place, it was catholic belief, and it was only doubted in these last days.

-James

[LutherNut]

Jay,

There is only one use of the expression "semper virgo" and it's in the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles. The German version lacks it.

I assume, perhaps wrongly, that this is because Luther omitted it in the more widely published version because he did not believe it ought to be confessionally required and consciences thereby bound to it.

Mike


Do you then conclude that the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles is not confessional, and thus does not warrant a quia subscription?

[Chemnitz]

Do you then conclude that the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles is not confessional, and thus does not warrant a quia subscription?

I conclude that a significant difference between the Latin and German versions means that I have liberty on the issue in question.

[Qoheleth]

There is only one use of the expression "semper virgo" and it's in the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles. The German version lacks it.

I believe all of the references in the Confessions should be considered as a whole.

Concerning references in the Book of Concord confessing the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin

♦There is one clear reference
♦There is one strongly implicit reference
♦There is one “clouded” reference
♦There are several references that rely on a particular, conservative reading of the confessions



The clear reference is in FC SD VIII.24 which states that Mary remained “the Mother of God and at the same time a virgin.” (The key word, of course, is “remained.”)

The strongly implicit reference is at the end of FC SD VII.100 which, if translated properly, reads “…and, as it is believed, when he was born in his mother.”

The “clouded” reference is in SA I.4 where Luther seems to be translating a doctrinal formula. In German, he writes “Jungfrau” (which means “virgin”), but the Latin translation done nearly 50 years later has “semper virgine” (which means “ever-virgin”). The argument is that the translator either used the original form of the doctrinal formula, or correctly rendered what everyone knew “Jungfrau” meant at that time. (In other words, there was really no German equivalent to “semper virgine”).

The several references are the articles that state that the Evangelical-Lutherans do not depart from the faith and tradition of the catholic religion (e.g. conclusion to part one of the AC) and that they retain the Mass (e.g, AC XXIV.1-2). The latter is problematic since the four continuous liturgical references to the perpetual virginity of Mary were either not commonly used in the days before Trent (in the Confiteor) or were expressly omitted by Luther (the two references in the Canon, and the one reference in the Offertory prayers).


Q

[LutherNut]

Ok.

[MORTANIUS]

About the 'ever' virgin.

The truth of the matter is that the Holy Bible does not state she is an 'ever virgin' and likewise one can say that because it doesn't say it doesn't mean she isn't an ever virgin.

These issues greatly seem more important to people who need to bare oral transmissions of church traditions that are otherwise

1) Not supported by the Apostles
2) Developed by Patristic writers who were displaced by both time and geography regarding the Mother of our Lord.
3) Doesn't change the fact that Prophecy was fullfilled through a virgin birth!!!

What matters is not Dogmatic principles that define a denomination, but what is truly important is knowing that Mary gave birth as a virgin, as is made known in the Holy Bible.

Holy Traditions (as Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians carry) are often repeated without justification or substantial evidence. Only their faith in such a belief in the ever-virginity is presented, but no records or real purpose to such claims.