Perpetual virginity

[gtsecc]

Has anyone within the church denied it?
I assume a denial outside of the church would not warrant a response.

[gzt]

helvidius. but that was a while ago. i'm sure there may have been other such heretics, but i can't think of anybody even moderately respectable who approached such a thought since then.

[ClementofRome]

So, do we say that agreement with the perpetual virginity of Mary is an Orthodox "essential." Or, might it be as other things are....commonly accepted belief, but not doctrine?

[Dewi Sant]

I can't see any reason why Mary should not be perpetually virginate.

I consider it doctrine, but I know it isn't strictly. I don't know any Orthodox who think otherwise.

[jckstraw72]

i think her ever-virginity was declared at one of the Councils

[ClementofRome]

i think her ever-virginity was declared at one of the Councils

I would like to see that Council mandate. Can you direct me to it?

[OnTheWay]

Considering it's repeated many times in the Liturgy I'd have to say it's pretty standard Orthodox theology. I know of someone that has sent quite a few months as an inquirer because she doesn't accept the ever-virginity, so until she does she's stuck.

[MORTANIUS]

I was wondering why Orthodox Christians insist on the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord.

On what basis is this idea understood?

[RobNJ]

Second Council of Constantinople (5th Ecumenical Council)

"VI.

If anyone says that the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary is called
God-bearer by misuse of language and not truly, or by analogy, believing
that only a mere man was born of her and that God the Word was not
incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only
from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born of her; if
anyone slanders the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the
Virgin to be God-bearer according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if
anyone shall call her manbearer or Christbearer, as if Christ were not
God, and shall not confess that she is truly God-bearer, because God the
Word who before all time was begotten of the Father was in these last days
incarnate of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this pious sense
the holy Synod of Chalcedon confessed her to be God-bearer: let him be
anathema. "

Emphasis added

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/council.2constan.txt

[MORTANIUS]

Second Council of Constantinople (5th Ecumenical Council)

"VI.

If anyone says that the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary is called
God-bearer by misuse of language and not truly, or by analogy, believing
that only a mere man was born of her and that God the Word was not
incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only
from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born of her; if
anyone slanders the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the
Virgin to be God-bearer according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if
anyone shall call her manbearer or Christbearer, as if Christ were not
God, and shall not confess that she is truly God-bearer, because God the
Word who before all time was begotten of the Father was in these last days
incarnate of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this pious sense
the holy Synod of Chalcedon confessed her to be God-bearer: let him be
anathema. "

Emphasis added

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/council.2constan.txt

If I understand correctly, that decree identifies Mary as what in Greek is called the 'theotokos' (God bearer) and insists that the incarnation took place upon a virgin, through a virgin, and then further explicitly decrees that
in such incarnation Christ is fully man and fully Divine (God).

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but this doesn't answer my question about the 'perpetual virginity'.

What basis or ideas presented call for the mother of our Lord to be identified as an ever virgin? I'm still confused.

In the Lutheran section we had a discussion about this issue and couldn't discover a soud basis (not a wrong or right one, just no real post that gave good examples due to people perhaps avoiding the issue).

So the 5th Ecumenical Council decided on recognizing the virgin birth as absolute, but I fail to see how that even implies 'ever virginity'. :scratch:

[OnTheWay]

If I understand correctly, that decree identifies Mary as what in Greek is called the 'theotokos' (God bearer) and insists that the incarnation took place upon a virgin, through a virgin, and then further explicitly decrees that
in such incarnation Christ is fully man and fully Divine (God).

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but this doesn't answer my question about the 'perpetual virginity'.

What basis or ideas presented call for the mother of our Lord to be identified as an ever virgin? I'm still confused.

In the Lutheran section we had a discussion about this issue and couldn't discover a soud basis (not a wrong or right one, just no real post that gave good examples due to people perhaps avoiding the issue).

So the 5th Ecumenical Council decided on recognizing the virgin birth as absolute, but I fail to see how that even implies 'ever virginity'. :scratch:

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Brothers.htm

On the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos (Mother of God)

by Bishop Lazar PuhaloThe Orthodox Church has always proclaimed the Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Mother of our God (Theotokos). The verse referring to Mary's "Firstborn" has been misinterpreted by a countless number of the heterodox.
"...and he knew her not up to [Greek = eos] her having brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7).This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, "eos", indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew" her at all. In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not ! Hence, the Bible does not say that "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus."
The Sacred Tradition concerning these matters is certainly derived from Mary's own testimony and, like all things in the Church, it is guided and guarded by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Mary was, in fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, betrothed to Joseph, an older man who was in fact her own uncle (as the Holy Spirit guided Sacred Tradition tells us). Thus their "marriage" was a marriage which, according to the Mosaic Law did not allow for sexual intercourse between them, because she was the bearer of the inheritance, her Firstborn, the Messiah. The term Firstborn means simply that. It does not imply any further births, but simply describes the first. In the Mosaic law the first born of any female (human or even animal) has religious significance, and this is why Jesus as Firstborn is emphasised.
Finally, you might ask "how is it physically possible for Mary to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ ?" The simple answer, as given in the Scriptures is "With men this is impossible, but with God ALL things are possible." (Matt. 19:26)
The meaning and identity of the "Brothers of Jesus"

Who were the "brethren of the Lord" (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Theotokos "Ever-Virgin" ?
The "brethren" of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon and Jude.
We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56 ; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the "son of Alphaeus", in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these "brethren" (including "sisters") must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is "adelphi" in the original Greek, which can only be translated as "brother" in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham's nephew. The Greek word "adelphos" and "adelphi" are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as "brothers" or "brethren".
There could have been no "first blood" brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His 'brothers' great disrespect and harm if He had done this ! The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ's mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary is "Ever-Virgin".
Further evidence from the Holy Scriptures that in the Hebrew tradition "brothers" and "sisters" are not necessarily siblings. Our Orthodox Tradition teaches us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joakhim and Anna, but at John 19:25 we read, "Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary magdala." If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister? The first clue to our answer is that both women are named Mary. ! No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name! Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of "sister". The second clue to our answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas in KJV), as the mother of Jesus' "brothers". The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. Therefore the so-called brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the "sister" of the Virgin Mary.
Thus the Scriptures show that the "brothers" of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God.
Seeing Him born as an infant in Bethlehem. Let all creation glorify Him!
All Glory be to Jesus Christ our God.
Adapted from
The Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Title Theotokos, and the veneration shown to Her
published by Synaxis Press

[ClementofRome]

Second Council of Constantinople (5th Ecumenical Council)

"VI.

If anyone says that the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary is called
God-bearer by misuse of language and not truly, or by analogy, believing
that only a mere man was born of her and that God the Word was not
incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only
from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born of her; if
anyone slanders the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the
Virgin to be God-bearer according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if
anyone shall call her manbearer or Christbearer, as if Christ were not
God, and shall not confess that she is truly God-bearer, because God the
Word who before all time was begotten of the Father was in these last days
incarnate of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this pious sense
the holy Synod of Chalcedon confessed her to be God-bearer: let him be
anathema. "

Emphasis added

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/council.2constan.txt


THANKS ROB....that is what I wanted.

Clem

[Happy Orthodox]

In Orthodoxy, we preserve the lives of significant Saints and keep them for centuries. The lives of the Apostles, and some of the early Martyrs from the earliest times of Christianity have been preserved and reached our days as a part of the Holy Tradition. The life of the Virgin Mary is also known to us. It's just known as a fact that She remained a virgin after She bore Christ. It is in our hymns, which are very ancient indeed, in our iconography, in our sermons and spiritual writings. She was always called "ever-virgin". Even more so, later in Her life there were girls that were inspired by Her example and stood by Her, remaining virgins forever as She was. So, it is actually not a doctrine but a known historical fact. There simply can be no question about it. :)

[ClementofRome]

...So, it is actually not a doctrine but a known historical fact. There simply can be no question about it. :)

WOW, not a doctrine, but a known historical fact. We take so much on faith that I am having a hard time digesting that statement. We take so much on mystery that, for which I am grateful, that the above statement seems at odds with faith? Help me understand.

Blessings,
Clement

[rusmeister]

I'll confirm (once again) what OntheWay said about brothers/cousins in Slavic languages. That's the way it is in Russian (I'm an American ESL (English) teacher in Russia) and in teaching children the words brother/sister I have to struggle to make sure they understand I don't mean "cousins".

[buzuxi02]

The ever-virginity of Mary certainly is an Orthodox doctrine. Its mentioned in every liturgy the Orthodox church offers. We declare it everytime we assemble in worship. Another words confirmed by the conscience of the church lead by the Holy Spirit.
A council does not need to make a pronouncement to make something "official". There has never been a conciliar decree made by an ecumenical council declaring the Eucharist is the real precense of the Body and Blood of Christ because there never was a need for it. No one ever disputed it, likewise the perpetual Virginity of Mary.

[Oblio]

It is part of Tradition, confirmed in Scriptural prophesy, the Councils (see above), our Liturgy, Hymnnography & Iconography. Simply stated, it is the Truth as manifest by God through His Church and her Holy Tradition.

[Theophorus]

Seeking to know knowledge that cannot be known, the Virgin cried to the ministering one: Tell me, how can a son be born from a chaste womb? Then he spake to Her in fear, only crying aloud thus:

Rejoice, initiate of God's ineffable will:
Rejoice, assurance of those who pray in silence!
Rejoice, beginning of Christ's miracles:
Rejoice, crown of His dogmas!
Rejoice, heavenly ladder by which God came down:
Rejoice, bridge that conveyest us from earth to Heaven!
Rejoice, wonder of angels sounded abroad:
Rejoice, wound of demons bewailed afar!
Rejoice, Thou Who ineffably gavest birth to the Light:
Rejoice, Thou Who didst reveal Thy secret to none!
Rejoice, Thou Who surpassest the knowledge of the wise:
Rejoice, Thou Who givest light to the minds of the faithful!
Rejoice, Thou Bride Unwedded!

[Happy Orthodox]

WOW, not a doctrine, but a known historical fact. We take so much on faith that I am having a hard time digesting that statement. We take so much on mystery that, for which I am grateful, that the above statement seems at odds with faith? Help me understand.

Blessings,
Clement

You mean, some "godly" man made it up one day in the darkness of his basement and everyone baught it? :scratch: We're talking about Orthodoxy here, the ancient faith, in which Orthodox Christians believe what has been believed everywhere, by everyone, and always. If something new comes up, we have no hard time spotting it and casting that out. To me it is much less likely that the Theotokos did not remain a virgin but the rumors stated otherwise just for the sake of a beautiful doctrine, than Her remaining a Virgin and everyone believing it to be so.

It just wouldn't make sense if She was not an Ever-virgin. It's not just blind faith, but it is faith with knowledge. We have Saints and holy Elders who met Her in their earthly life, and no one have ever questioned, or even had a trace of doubt, her ever-virginity. It's a fact.

[MORTANIUS]

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Brothers.htm

On the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos (Mother of God)


by Bishop Lazar PuhaloThe Orthodox Church has always proclaimed the Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Mother of our God (Theotokos). The verse referring to Mary's "Firstborn" has been misinterpreted by a countless number of the heterodox."...and he knew her not up to [Greek = eos] her having brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7).This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, "eos", indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew" her at all. In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not ! Hence, the Bible does not say that "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus."
The Sacred Tradition concerning these matters is certainly derived from Mary's own testimony and, like all things in the Church, it is guided and guarded by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Mary was, in fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, betrothed to Joseph, an older man who was in fact her own uncle (as the Holy Spirit guided Sacred Tradition tells us). Thus their "marriage" was a marriage which, according to the Mosaic Law did not allow for sexual intercourse between them, because she was the bearer of the inheritance, her Firstborn, the Messiah. The term Firstborn means simply that. It does not imply any further births, but simply describes the first. In the Mosaic law the first born of any female (human or even animal) has religious significance, and this is why Jesus as Firstborn is emphasised.
Finally, you might ask "how is it physically possible for Mary to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ ?" The simple answer, as given in the Scriptures is "With men this is impossible, but with God ALL things are possible." (Matt. 19:26)
The meaning and identity of the "Brothers of Jesus"

Who were the "brethren of the Lord" (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Theotokos "Ever-Virgin" ?
The "brethren" of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon and Jude.
We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56 ; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the "son of Alphaeus", in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these "brethren" (including "sisters") must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is "adelphi" in the original Greek, which can only be translated as "brother" in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham's nephew. The Greek word "adelphos" and "adelphi" are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as "brothers" or "brethren".
There could have been no "first blood" brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given the care of His mother to St. John the Theologian (John 19:26) at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, Christ would have done His 'brothers' great disrespect and harm if He had done this ! The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ's mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary is "Ever-Virgin".
Further evidence from the Holy Scriptures that in the Hebrew tradition "brothers" and "sisters" are not necessarily siblings. Our Orthodox Tradition teaches us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joakhim and Anna, but at John 19:25 we read, "Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary of Klopas, and Mary magdala." If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister? The first clue to our answer is that both women are named Mary. ! No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name! Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of "sister". The second clue to our answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas in KJV), as the mother of Jesus' "brothers". The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. Therefore the so-called brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the "sister" of the Virgin Mary.
Thus the Scriptures show that the "brothers" of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God.
Seeing Him born as an infant in Bethlehem. Let all creation glorify Him!
All Glory be to Jesus Christ our God.
Adapted from
The Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Title Theotokos, and the veneration shown to Her

published by Synaxis Press

This is a fair assesment and argument of good points towards those who assert James was Jesus' brother and the son of Mary as well.

However, this is not really what I'm looking for. The stand still argument presented above doesn't state anything except that Joseph did not have sexual relations with her (of which I agree). Therefore my question seems almost fullfilled and yet I can't help but wonder what the early Christians thought? Many recent theologians answer this question making me feel a little uneasy about the ease of their answer since they are required to quote Patristic writers.

Any help in this portion would be greatly appreciated. Once again thank you for the reply, it has helped to some degree, but it only raises other questions.:sigh:

[The Prokeimenon!]

If the perpetual virginity of the most-holy Theotokos is NOT Orthodox doctrine, then somebody needs to seriously rewrite our hymnography. There's not a single service that doesn't mention her ever-virginity. I'm guessing that over half the hymns to the Theotokos mention her ever-virginity. There's a book, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, that states that the "essential" Marian doctrines are: she is Theotokos and she is ever-virgin. I'll look it up (if I can find it) and see why he says this...

Rdr Moses

[The Prokeimenon!]

Never mind. I found the book in question. It explains HOW Mary was ever-virgin, but not WHY it is neccessary (other than the fact that it is fact.)

Rdr Moses

[MORTANIUS]

Never mind. I found the book in question. It explains HOW Mary was ever-virgin, but not WHY it is neccessary (other than the fact that it is fact.)

Rdr Moses

Could you please share the 'How' it is known and understood with me? Previous examples seem very geared toward people who are already Orthodox (if that makes any sense) and as where I am not an Orthodox Christian I wanted something more historically based through the Traditions of the Church and not the Theological thesis' of modern Scholars and Theologians.

[choirfiend]

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/evervirgin.aspx

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9174.asp

http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm#ever_virginity

[The Prokeimenon!]

I'll just post what the book says. I think it's already been said, though, so I'm not so sure it's what you're looking for.

You can read the whole book here. (http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM)

This is the whole chapter regarding the Theotokos:

Dogmas concerning the Holy Virgin Mary

Two dogmas concerning the Mother of God are bound up, in closest fashion, with the dogma of God the Word’s becoming man. They are: a) Her Ever-virginity, and b) Her name of Theotokos. They proceed immediately from the dogma of the unity of the Hypostasis of the Lord from the moment of His Incarnation — the Divine Hypostasis.

A. The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos.

The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Virgin is testified to directly and deliberately by two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke. This dogma was entered into the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council, where we read: Who for the sake of its men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

The Ever-virginity of the Mother of God is testified by Her own words, handed down in the Gospel, where she expressed awareness of the immeasurable majesty and height of Her chosenness: “My soul doth magnify the Lord... For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call meblessed... For He that as mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His Name” (Luke 1:46-49).

The Most Holy Virgin preserved in her memory and in her heart both the announcement of the Archangel Gabriel and the inspired words of righteous Elizabeth when she was visited by Mary: “And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to Me?” (Luke 1:43); both the prophecy of the righteous Symeon on meeting the Infant Jesus in the Temple, and the prophecy of the righteous Anna on the same day (Luke 2:25-38). In connection with the account of the shepherds of Bethlehem concerning the words of the angels to them, and of the singing of the angels, the Evangelist adds: “But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). The same Evangelist, having told of the conversation of the Divine Mother with the twelve year-old Jesus after their visit to Jerusalem on the Feast of Pascha, ends his account with the words: “But His mother kept all these sayings in her heart” (Luke 2:51). The Evangelists speak also of the understanding of the majesty of her service in the world by the righteous Joseph, her espoused husband, whose actions were many times guided by an angel.

When the heretics and simple blasphemers refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the “brothers and sisters of Jesus,” they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:

a) In the Gospels there are named four “brothers” (James, Joses, Simon, and Jude), and there are also mentioned the “sisters” of Jesus — no fewer than three, as is evident in the words: and “His sisters; are they not ALL with us?” (Matt. 13:56)

b) On the other hand, in the account of the journey to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy Jesus, where there is mention of the “kinsfolk and acquaintances” (Luke 2:44) in the midst of whom they were seeking Jesus, and where it is likewise mentioned that Mary and Joseph every year journeyed from faraway Galilee to Jerusalem, no reason is given to think that there were present other younger children with Mary: it was thus that the first twelve years of the Lord’s earthly life proceeded.

c) When, about twenty years after the above-mentioned journey, Mary stood at the cross of the Lord, she was alone, and she was entrusted by her Divine Son to His disciple John; and “From that hour that disciple took her unto his own home” (John 19:27). Evidently, as the ancient Christians also understood it, the Evangelists speak either of “half” brothers and sisters or of cousins (The generally accepted Orthodox tradition is that the “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. See Archbishop John Maximovitch, The Orthodox Veneraton of the Mother of God, St. Herman Brotherhood, Platina, Ca., 1978, p. 24.).

B. The Most Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos.

With the dogma of the Son of God’s becoming man is closely bound up the naming of the Most Holy Virgin Mary as Theotokos (Birth giver of God). By this name the Church confirms its faith that God the Word became Man truly and not merely in appearance; a faith that, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, God was joined to Man from the very instant of His conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and that He, being perfect Man, is also perfect God.

At the same time the name of Theotokos is the highest name that exalts or glorifies the Virgin Mary.

The name “Theotokos” has a direct foundation in Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul writes:

a) “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4). Here is expressed the truth that a woman gave birth to the Son of God b) “God was mani-fest an the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16): the flesh was woven for God the Word by the Most Holy Virgin Mary.

At the meeting of the Virgin Mary, after the Annunciation, with the righteous Elizabeth, “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she spake out with aloud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence as this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? And blessed is she that believed for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord” (Luke 1:41-44). Thus Elizabeth, being filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary the Mother of the Lord, the God of Heaven; it is precisely the God of Heaven that she is here calling “Lord,” as is clear from her further words: “She that believed… those things which were told her from the Lord” — the Lord God.

Concerning the birth of God from a virgin the Old Testament Scriptures speak: The Prophet Ezekiel writes of his vision: “Then said the Lord unto me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered an by it, therefore it shall be shut” (Ezek. 44:2).

The Prophet Isaiah prophesies: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel, which is to say: God is with us ... For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Messenger of great counsel, Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, Potentate, The Prince of Peace, Father of the age to come” (Is. 7:14, and 9:6 Septuagint).

In the first centuries of the Church of Christ the truth of God the Word’s becoming man and His birth of the Virgin Mary was the catholic faith Therefore, the Apostolic Fathers expressed themselves thus: “Our God Jesus Christ was in the womb of Mary;” “God took flesh of the Virgin Mary” (St. Ignatius the God bearer, St. Irenaeus). Exactly the same expressions were used by Sts. Dionysius and Alexander of Alexandria (3rd and 4th centuries). The Fathers of the fourth century, Sts. Athanasius, Ephraim the Syrian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory of Nyssa, called the Most Holy Virgin the Theotokos.

In the fifth century, because of the heresy of Nestorius, the Church triumphantly confessed the Most Holy Virgin Mary to be Mother of God at the Third Ecumenical Council, accepting and confirming the following words of St. Cyril of Alexandria: “If anyone will not confess that Immanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is Theotokos, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh: let him be anathema” (Eerdmans Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 206).

continued...

[The Prokeimenon!]

continued from above

Blessed Theodoret also, who previously had been on friendly terms with Nestorius, when later condemning his stubbornness in heresy wrote: “The first stage in these new teachings of Nestorius was the opinion that the Holy Virgin, from whom God the Word took flesh and was born in the flesh, should not be acknowledged as Theotokos but only as Christotokos; whereas the ancient and most ancient proclaimers of the true Faith, in accordance with the Apostolic Tradition, had taught that the Mother of the Lord should be named and confessed to be Theotokos.”

The Roman-Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed by a Bull of Pope Pius IX in 1854. The definition of this dogma says that the Most Holy Virgin Mary at the moment of her conception was cleansed of ancestral sin. In essence this is a direct deduction from the Roman teaching on original sin. According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arosea theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: “Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women . . . Thou hast found grace with God?” One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the “deprivation of grace” and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians. They called this removal a “privilege” of the Mother of God One must note that the acknowledgement of this dogma was preceded in the West by a long period of theological dispute, which lasted from the 12th century, when this teaching appeared, until the 17th century, when it was spread by Jesuits in the Roman Catholic world (Further on the Immaculate Conception, see Archbishop John, The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God, pp. 35-47).

In 1950, the so-called Jubilee Year, the Roman Pope Pius XII triumphantly proclaimed a second dogma, the dogma of the Assumption of the Mother of God with her body into heaven.

Dogmatically this teaching was deduced in Roman theology from the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception and is a further logical deduction from the Roman teaching on original sin.

If the Mother of God was removed from the general law of original sin, this means that she was given from her very conception supernatural gifts: righteousness and immortality, such as our first ancestors had before their fall into sin, and she should not have been subject to the law of bodily death. Therefore, if the Mother of God died, then, in the view of the Roman theologians, she accepted death voluntarily so as to emulate her Son; but death had no dominion over her.

The declaration of both dogmas corresponds to the Roman theory of the “development of dogmas.” The Orthodox Church does not accept the Latin system of arguments concerning original sin. In particular, the Orthodox Church, confessing the perfect personal immaculateness and perfect sanctity of the Mother of God, whom the Lord Jesus Christ by His birth from her made to be more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim — has not seen and does not see any grounds for the establishment of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the sense of the Roman Catholic interpretation, although it does venerate the conception of the Mother of God, as it does also the conception of the holy Prophet and Forerunner John.

On the one hand, we see that God did not deprive mankind, even after its fall, of His grace-giving gifts, as for example, the words of the 50th Psalm indicate: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me... With Thy governing Spirit establish me;” or the words of Psalm 70: “On Thee have I been made fast from the womb; from my mother’s womb Thou art my protector.”

On the other hand, in accordance with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, in Adam all mankind tasted the forbidden fruit. Only the God-man Christ begins with Himself the new mankind, freed by Him from the sin of Adam. Therefore, He is called the “Firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29), that is: the First in the new human race; He is the “new Adam.” The Most Holy Virgin was born as subject to the sin of Adam together with all mankind, and with him she shared the need for redemption (the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Par. 6). The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of grace that was poured out upon her. “Thou hast found grace with God,” the Archangel said to her in his greeting: “thou hast found,” that is, attained, acquired, earned. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was prepared by the best part of mankind as a worthy vessel for the descent of God theWord to earth The coming down of the Holy Spirit (“the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”) totally sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary for the reception of God the Word.

One must acknowledge that the very principle of a preliminary “privilege” is somehow not in harmony with Christian concepts, for “there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

As for the tradition concerning the assumption of the body of the Mother of God: the belief in the assumption of her body after its burial does exist in the Orthodox Church. It is expressed in the content of the service for the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, and also in the Confession of the Jerusalem Council of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1672. St. John Damascene in his second homily on the Dormition relates that once the Empress Pulcheria (5th century), who had built a church in Constantinople, asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenalius, a participant in the Council of Chalcedon, for relics of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to place in the church. Juvenalius replied that, in accordance with ancient tradition, the body of the Mother of God had been taken to heaven, and he joined to this reply the well-known account of how the Apostles had been assembled in miraculous fashion for the burial of the Mother of God, how after the arrival of the Apostle Thomas her grave had been opened and her body was not there, and how it had been revealed to the Apostles that her body had ascended to heaven. Written church testimonies on this subject date in general to a relatively late period (not earlier than the 6th century), and the Orthodox Church, with all its respect for them, does not ascribe to them the significance of a dogmatic source. The Church, accepting the tradition of the ascension of the body of the Mother of God, has not regarded and does not regard this pious tradition as one of the fundamental truths or dogmas of the Christian faith.

The cult of the “immaculate heart” of the Holy Virgin.

In a way similar to the veneration of the “Sacred Heart” of Jesus, there has been established by the Roman Church the cult of the “immaculate heart of the Most Holy Virgin,” which has received a universal dissemination. In essence one can say of it the same thing that was said above about the veneration of the heart of Jesus

[MORTANIUS]

Mosestheblack, thank you and may the Lord Bless and Keep you.:thumbsup:

[OnTheWay]

This is a fair assesment and argument of good points towards those who assert James was Jesus' brother and the son of Mary as well.

However, this is not really what I'm looking for. The stand still argument presented above doesn't state anything except that Joseph did not have sexual relations with her (of which I agree). Therefore my question seems almost fullfilled and yet I can't help but wonder what the early Christians thought? Many recent theologians answer this question making me feel a little uneasy about the ease of their answer since they are required to quote Patristic writers.

Any help in this portion would be greatly appreciated. Once again thank you for the reply, it has helped to some degree, but it only raises other questions.:sigh:

Even if one doesn't accept the Protoevanglium of James as inspired, it is clearly very early Christian document and clearly states that Mary was considered ever-virgin from the beginning.