Please do not pillar me or think ill of me for this, but in discussions on my own blog the perpetual virginity of Mary arose. It should not shock folks here that I am dubious of this tradition. However, I know many good men are here who hold this tradition dearly, and so I ask this (not with the bombast of my own website) out of a desire to learn.
I will contend that what we teach must be in alignment with the Scriptures - that even if we cannot cite a specific Scriptural reference saying, "Thou shall do this" that our actions fall in line with teaching of Scripture - that what we say and do confesses the teaching of Scripture. What Scriptural truth does the Perpetual Virginity of Mary teach - what truth of Christian doctrine does it align with?
I'm not here seeking an exegetical discussion of whether brother means cousin, or whether or not it is plausible from Scripture, or even of the historical attestation to this theory - but rather, what theological benefit is there from claiming the Semper Virgo?
To me, it's troublesome. It seems to do damage to the Scriptural teachings of marriage (marriage is for procreation, a husband shall become one flesh with his wife, do not withhold yourself from your spouse -- if Mary remains Semper Virgo, does she not contradict all these teachings on marriage?) and also teachings on virginity (which is always exercised outside the estate of marriage).
Those of you who hold to this - what benefit, what clarity about God and His Word does it bring to you? I seek (honestly and sincerely) simply to understand why this is so important to so many.
In fact, to keep this from becoming a huge, blowup discussion, I'm not going to respond - I am not looking for a discussion here - but rather simply to listen. What do we learn about the Christian faith from the Semper Virgo?
++++++++++
Note: If I may be so bold - would others who like me are dubious of the Semper Virgo also remain silent here (if this agitates you, by all means feel free to post elsewhere. . . my own blood pressure may dictate me joining you -- I hope not, but it may).
I would hope the comments simply to be people speaking what they think on the pros of this topic - not necessarily forced to make an passionate defense of them -- that happens all too often, and soon passion becomes the focus of such heated arguments).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Round Table of Lutheran pastors speaking from within their office and vocation to matters of the Christian faith and life. As iron sharpens steel, our mutual engagement of questions and concerns pertaining to the Church and Ministry of Christ serves to refine our theological acumen, clarify our confession, and guide our sacred stewardship of the Mysteries of God.
Facebook Page
The Twenty-Four Elders (and a few living creatures)
Rev. Benjamin Ball
St. Paul, Hamel, Illinois
Rev. Larry Beane
Salem, Gretna, Louisiana
Rev. Paul Beisel
Immanuel, Iowa Falls, Iowa
Rev. Peter Bender
Peace, Sussex, Wisconsin
Rev. Eric Brown
Trinity, Herscher, Illinois
Rev. Heath Curtis
Zion, Carpenter, Illinois
Rev. William Cwirla
Holy Trinity, Hacienda Heights, CA
Rev. Dr. Burnell Eckardt
St. Paul, Kewanee, Illinois
Rev. Erich Fickel
St. Paul, Chesterton, Indiana
Rev. William Foy
Prince of Peace, Valparaiso, Indiana
Rev. John A. Frahm III
Trinity, Boulder Junction, Wisconsin
Rev. Robert Franck
Mount Olive, Duluth, Minnesota
Rev. Dr. Gifford Grobien
CTS, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Rev. Dr. Kent Heimbigner
Charity, Burleson, Texas
Rev. Dr. Steven Hein
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Rev. Rich Heinz
St. Johns, Chicago, Illinois
Rev. David Kind
University Lutheran, Minneapolis
Rev. Brent Kuhlman
Trinity, Murdock, Nebraska
Rev. Alan Ludwig, Professor
Lutheran Theological Seminary
Novosibirsk, Russia
Rev. Todd Peperkorn
Holy Cross, Rocklin, California
Rev. J. Richard Sawyer
Good Shepherd, Brandon, Mississippi
Rev. Robert Schaibley, emeritus
Shepherd of the Springs,
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Rev. Dr. Richard Stuckwisch
Emmaus, South Bend, Indiana
Rev. Jacob Sutton
Immanuel, Terre Haute, Indiana
Rev. Ralph Tausz
Apostles, Melrose Park, Illinois
Rev. David Jay Webber
Redeemer, Scottsdale, Arizona
Rev. William Weedon
Lutheran Public Radio, Collinsville, IL
Rev. Dr. Georg Williams
Zion, Ainsworth, Nebraska
Rev. Kyle Wright II
St. Matthew, Hamlet, Indiana
St. Paul, Hamel, Illinois
Rev. Larry Beane
Salem, Gretna, Louisiana
Rev. Paul Beisel
Immanuel, Iowa Falls, Iowa
Rev. Peter Bender
Peace, Sussex, Wisconsin
Rev. Eric Brown
Trinity, Herscher, Illinois
Rev. Heath Curtis
Zion, Carpenter, Illinois
Rev. William Cwirla
Holy Trinity, Hacienda Heights, CA
Rev. Dr. Burnell Eckardt
St. Paul, Kewanee, Illinois
Rev. Erich Fickel
St. Paul, Chesterton, Indiana
Rev. William Foy
Prince of Peace, Valparaiso, Indiana
Rev. John A. Frahm III
Trinity, Boulder Junction, Wisconsin
Rev. Robert Franck
Mount Olive, Duluth, Minnesota
Rev. Dr. Gifford Grobien
CTS, Fort Wayne, Indiana
Rev. Dr. Kent Heimbigner
Charity, Burleson, Texas
Rev. Dr. Steven Hein
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Rev. Rich Heinz
St. Johns, Chicago, Illinois
Rev. David Kind
University Lutheran, Minneapolis
Rev. Brent Kuhlman
Trinity, Murdock, Nebraska
Rev. Alan Ludwig, Professor
Lutheran Theological Seminary
Novosibirsk, Russia
Rev. Todd Peperkorn
Holy Cross, Rocklin, California
Rev. J. Richard Sawyer
Good Shepherd, Brandon, Mississippi
Rev. Robert Schaibley, emeritus
Shepherd of the Springs,
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Rev. Dr. Richard Stuckwisch
Emmaus, South Bend, Indiana
Rev. Jacob Sutton
Immanuel, Terre Haute, Indiana
Rev. Ralph Tausz
Apostles, Melrose Park, Illinois
Rev. David Jay Webber
Redeemer, Scottsdale, Arizona
Rev. William Weedon
Lutheran Public Radio, Collinsville, IL
Rev. Dr. Georg Williams
Zion, Ainsworth, Nebraska
Rev. Kyle Wright II
St. Matthew, Hamlet, Indiana
The Twenty-Four Topics
- Christology
- The Holy Trinity
- Creation and the Cross
- Law and Gospel
- Justification
- The Holy Scriptures
- Tradition and Authority
- Spiritual Fatherhood
- Preaching and Catechesis
- Holy Baptism
- Holy Absolution
- The Holy Communion
- Ecclesiology
- Calendar and Lectionary
- Rubrics, Rites and Ceremonies
- Hymnody
- Prayer and Devotion
- Charity and Almsgiving
- Evangelical Missions
- Christian Education
- Vocation and Office
- Marriage and Family
- Human Life and Ethics
- Polity and Politics
The Mutual Conversation of the Brethren
- Vocation and Office (41)
- Tradition and Authority (29)
- Rubrics; Rites and Ceremonies (25)
- The Holy Communion (24)
- Polity and Politics (23)
- Marriage and Family (21)
- Ecclesiology (19)
- Spiritual Fatherhood (19)
- Human Life and Ethics (16)
- Preaching and Catechesis (15)
- The Holy Scriptures (11)
- Holy Absolution (10)
- Hymnody (9)
- Law and Gospel (9)
- Prayer and Devotion (9)
- Rites and Ceremonies (7)
- Calendar and Lectionary (6)
- Christian Education (6)
- Christian Faith and Life (6)
- Evangelical Missions (6)
- LCMS (3)
- Rubrics (3)
- Augsburg Confession XIV (2)
- Church Fellowship (2)
- Divine Call (2)
- Divine Service (2)
- LSB (2)
- Liturgy (2)
- Lutheran Confession (2)
- Piety and Reverence (2)
- preaching (2)
- preaching office (2)
- Anthropology (1)
- Ball Family - Oops (1)
- Bible (1)
- Chaplain (1)
- Christ (1)
- Church and Ministry (1)
- Collects (1)
- Commemorations (1)
- Confessional Seal (1)
- Cross and Suffering (1)
- Eucharist (1)
- Fail (1)
- Fathers (1)
- Frese (1)
- Gard (1)
- Good Shepherd (1)
- Holy Baptism (1)
- Holy Scripture (1)
- Jesus Christ (1)
- LCMS History (1)
- Loehe (1)
- Matins (1)
- Pentagon (1)
- Prayer (1)
- Religious Freedom (1)
- Saints (1)
- Scriptures (1)
- Shut-ins (1)
- Sophia (1)
- Sunday School (1)
- Theology (1)
- US Navy (1)
- USS Coronado (1)
- VQ3 (1)
- Wolrabe (1)
- Word of God (1)
- absolution (1)
- comfort (1)
- confession (1)
- coronavirus (1)
- crm (1)
- family (1)
- forgiving sins (1)
- laity (1)
- numbers (1)
- pandemic (1)
- pastors (1)
- peace (1)
- politics (1)
- repentance (1)
- sacraments (1)
- teaching (1)
- the tax man (1)
Friends, Romans, Countrymen, et al.
- Issues, Etc.
- Pastor Alms
- Pastor Asburry
- St. Paul (Brookfield, IL)
- Pastor Beane
- Salem (Gretna, LA)
- Peace (Sussex, WI)
- Pastor Brown
- Zion (Lahoma, OK)
- Pastor Cwirla
- Holy Trinity (Hacienda Heights)
- Pastor Eckardt
- Pastor Esget
- Gloria Christi (Greeley, CO)
- PastorGrobien
- Concordia Institute
- Pastor Heinz
- University Lutheran Chapel (Minneapolis)
- Pastor Koch
- Pastor Kuhlman
- Pastor May
- Pastor Peperkorn
- Pastor Petersen
- Good Shepherd (Brandon, MS)
- Shepherd of the Springs (Colorado)
- Pastor Stuckwisch
- Emmaus (South Bend, IN)
- Faith (Plano, TX)
- Pastor Webber
- Pastor Weedon
- St. Paul (Hamel, IL)
- Gottesdienst Online
- Scholia Website
- The God Whisperers
- Gottesdienst
- Historic Lectionary
- Liturgy Solutions
- Lutheran Theology
- Lutheran Liturgical Congregations
On the Windowsill
Regular Readers
Contact the Administrator
Rubrics and Blogistics for the Blackbirds
Unlike the Ten Commandments, these are not written in stone (though some of them are pretty solid). Those who may be reading over our shoulders might also find these interesting.
1. Be reverent and courteous. Piepkorn's fundamental pair of rubrics for the conduct of the Service are likewise pertinent here. It's simply faith toward God and love toward others. All the other rules and rubrics are an application of those principles to specific questions.
2. Our blog is a public forum, and we are all public servants of the Word. Therefore, what we write and the manner in which we write ought to reflect an appropriate decorum. Though you may sometimes wonder, there are people reading what you have to say. The majority of them will mostly be quiet about it, and many will probably never respond with any comments, but they will benefit, and they will appreciate it.
3. Although this is a public forum, don't be self-conscious about your writing, and don't attempt to play to the crowd. Simply address yourself pastorally to the topics you take up for consideration, as you would respond to members of your own parish who are asking about or need to be told such things as pertain to their Christian faith and life.
4. Don't be intentionally provocative or controversial, but don't shy away from engaging topics in a way that challenges the status quo (from and within the parameters of the Word of God and our common confession of the same). By the same token, let us hold each other accountable to the apostolic doctrine. Do not fear correction, nor fear to question; that is the way in which we learn from one other and sharpen one another for the common good.
5. A helpful rule of thumb is akin to Luther's advice on confession: Don't make blogging into a torture, nor seek to invent things worth saying, as though to impress anyone. Instead, if there are matters weighing on your heart or mind, address them with the Word of God from within your office and station in life, and thereby allow your fathers and brothers in Christ to respond with the Word of the Lord from within their own vocations. (Blogging should not be a kind of virtual confessional; this rubric speaks only to the way in which one ought to approach this sort of writing and discussion.)
6. Our blog lands somewhere between an e-mail discussion list and a published theological journal. Less from-the-hip than e-mail groups, but less formal than a publication. Bear in mind that your posts can be edited (or removed) after the fact; so don't agonize over every jot and tittle up front, as though your posts had to be perfect from the outset. That's not to advocate recklessness, but do not be so scrupulous that you hesitate to say anything.
7. Our blog is something like an online Logia, and your posts may be compared to the "Theological Observer" in the CTQ, or the "Public Square" in First Things. Only this forum is much faster and allows for considerably more give and take, not only amongst ourselves but with others, too.
8. Make an effort to post at least once every other month. The more, the better, but don't try to force it. When things come up in the course of your pastoral vocation, consider the possibility of reflecting upon those matters on the blog (with appropriate discretion).
9. When you post something, "label" it with one or more of the twenty-four topics, whichever of those you are addressing. The blog will tally and catologue those things for us, which will be helpful. The precise list of topics may develop over time, but let's follow those parameters along the way; that will help to keep things on track.
10. Once someone has posted on a particular topic, there would be potentially two ways for the rest of us to respond (and we should be inclined to respond, as we are so minded and able): Either by way of comments under the post, which should be the normal approach; or, if you intend to offer a significant critique or a substantial addition, then you could write a follow-up post of your own. The goal, obviously, is not to compete with one another, but to dialogue with each other, to discuss and even to debate, as the case may be.
11. Don't blog in a spirit of melancholy, despair or bitterness. You don't serve yourself or your neighbor when you succumb to such things. At such times, seek out a father in Christ to lift you up and sustain you with the Gospel. Once you have been brought from trial and tribulation into renewed faith, then you might consider sharing aspects of that burden on the blog, retrospectively, in a way that helps to lead your readers into repentant faith along with you. It is one of the ways in which the cross bears fruit, not only in you and for your benefit, but also for the benefit of your neighbor. The hymns of Paul Gerhardt are such an example. Consider how comforting and helpful they are, because they always confess such faith in the Gospel: precisely in, with and under the Cross. By contrast, imagine the difference if Gerhardt had wallowed in self-pity and despair, instead of confessing the Gospel.
12. Our cooperative blog is not the place for posting sermons or extended quotations or lists of things or personal family adventures (though in some cases such things may provide the context for theological commentary). If you want to quote something, fine, but do so for the sake of providing your own assessment and constructive critique (whether pro or con).
1. Be reverent and courteous. Piepkorn's fundamental pair of rubrics for the conduct of the Service are likewise pertinent here. It's simply faith toward God and love toward others. All the other rules and rubrics are an application of those principles to specific questions.
2. Our blog is a public forum, and we are all public servants of the Word. Therefore, what we write and the manner in which we write ought to reflect an appropriate decorum. Though you may sometimes wonder, there are people reading what you have to say. The majority of them will mostly be quiet about it, and many will probably never respond with any comments, but they will benefit, and they will appreciate it.
3. Although this is a public forum, don't be self-conscious about your writing, and don't attempt to play to the crowd. Simply address yourself pastorally to the topics you take up for consideration, as you would respond to members of your own parish who are asking about or need to be told such things as pertain to their Christian faith and life.
4. Don't be intentionally provocative or controversial, but don't shy away from engaging topics in a way that challenges the status quo (from and within the parameters of the Word of God and our common confession of the same). By the same token, let us hold each other accountable to the apostolic doctrine. Do not fear correction, nor fear to question; that is the way in which we learn from one other and sharpen one another for the common good.
5. A helpful rule of thumb is akin to Luther's advice on confession: Don't make blogging into a torture, nor seek to invent things worth saying, as though to impress anyone. Instead, if there are matters weighing on your heart or mind, address them with the Word of God from within your office and station in life, and thereby allow your fathers and brothers in Christ to respond with the Word of the Lord from within their own vocations. (Blogging should not be a kind of virtual confessional; this rubric speaks only to the way in which one ought to approach this sort of writing and discussion.)
6. Our blog lands somewhere between an e-mail discussion list and a published theological journal. Less from-the-hip than e-mail groups, but less formal than a publication. Bear in mind that your posts can be edited (or removed) after the fact; so don't agonize over every jot and tittle up front, as though your posts had to be perfect from the outset. That's not to advocate recklessness, but do not be so scrupulous that you hesitate to say anything.
7. Our blog is something like an online Logia, and your posts may be compared to the "Theological Observer" in the CTQ, or the "Public Square" in First Things. Only this forum is much faster and allows for considerably more give and take, not only amongst ourselves but with others, too.
8. Make an effort to post at least once every other month. The more, the better, but don't try to force it. When things come up in the course of your pastoral vocation, consider the possibility of reflecting upon those matters on the blog (with appropriate discretion).
9. When you post something, "label" it with one or more of the twenty-four topics, whichever of those you are addressing. The blog will tally and catologue those things for us, which will be helpful. The precise list of topics may develop over time, but let's follow those parameters along the way; that will help to keep things on track.
10. Once someone has posted on a particular topic, there would be potentially two ways for the rest of us to respond (and we should be inclined to respond, as we are so minded and able): Either by way of comments under the post, which should be the normal approach; or, if you intend to offer a significant critique or a substantial addition, then you could write a follow-up post of your own. The goal, obviously, is not to compete with one another, but to dialogue with each other, to discuss and even to debate, as the case may be.
11. Don't blog in a spirit of melancholy, despair or bitterness. You don't serve yourself or your neighbor when you succumb to such things. At such times, seek out a father in Christ to lift you up and sustain you with the Gospel. Once you have been brought from trial and tribulation into renewed faith, then you might consider sharing aspects of that burden on the blog, retrospectively, in a way that helps to lead your readers into repentant faith along with you. It is one of the ways in which the cross bears fruit, not only in you and for your benefit, but also for the benefit of your neighbor. The hymns of Paul Gerhardt are such an example. Consider how comforting and helpful they are, because they always confess such faith in the Gospel: precisely in, with and under the Cross. By contrast, imagine the difference if Gerhardt had wallowed in self-pity and despair, instead of confessing the Gospel.
12. Our cooperative blog is not the place for posting sermons or extended quotations or lists of things or personal family adventures (though in some cases such things may provide the context for theological commentary). If you want to quote something, fine, but do so for the sake of providing your own assessment and constructive critique (whether pro or con).
Posts
18 comments:
Ok, I think I get it: You're looking for a more philosophical "why?" instead of a set of proof texts and (scriptural) evidence, right? It's interesting to me, because that's the easier of the two sides of the coin in convincing someone (usually an Evangelical) that Mary is important in the practice of Christian faith.
So let's assume, for the moment, that you buy the scriptural proofs and are willing, at least temporarily to grant that Mary may have been perpetually virgin.
First of all, Christ says that there is merit for those who will make themselves eunuchs for his cause (Matthew 19:12). Christ even goes so far as to allude that it is a grace received from God ('He that are able to receive it, let Him receive it'). This applies also to Women who vowed virginity.
It was also a common practice in Jesus' time for families to dedicate one or more daughters to the temple and vow virginity. Eventually the temple would marry them off to a man in 'good standing' (a widower, or an older man who is not able to have children, etc). "tradition" (little 't') has it that Mary may have been one of these daughters.
Paul later talks about the benefits of remaining celibate and even cautions the religious leaders from getting married unless they are unable to resist sexual temptations.
The point is that, while Marriage is preferred for the population in general, there are those special individuals who will renounce the married life and children to dedicate themselves to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Now, why is this important? While it makes better logical sense that Mary only had one child (would Jesus' brothers be "half-God"?), it certainly wasn't required that God act out his will that way. "Important but not Required" is how I've heard it described.
It is important because it signals a purity about Mary. That she was created for a singular purpose: To say 'Yes' to God and be a living symbol of his love to us here on Earth.
The special relationship between Mary and Jesus was so special that if she had other children, it might have clouded or detracted somehow from that first special relationship.
Christ gave Mary to US to ALL OF US to be OUR Mother along with his. If Mary had other children, then there would be a pecking order: Her other children would be more important and favored than us.
Mary now has the biggest family any mother could ever hope to have and there is no pecking order other than Christ-first as it should be.
I could go on and on, but I'm probably boring you now.
Keep in mind, I was Lutheran and was more of the mindset that Mary was "God's incubator" and hardly worthy of more reverence than my own Mother or some lady on the street. Reading more about her in Scriptures and hearing more about other people's devotions to her (especially Christ's devision to her) has taught me that it is not an either/or proposition (choose Mary or Christ), it's a both/and proposition: By loving Mary also, I love Christ more fully.
oops: "Christ's devision to her" should be "Christ's devotion to her"
It's funny how our society can't grasp the idea of celibacy. Why would Mary have gone on to have sex after what happened to her? I can't imagine any woman, after having been impregnated in such a supernatural way by God, would go on to have any intimate relations with a man. To do so would demean what God did for you.
Mary was really "married" to the Holy Spirit. Joseph understood this and he and Mary remained chaste.
Here's a good article from an Orthodox priest:
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9174
pillory, not pillar
ACK! Pillory me not over my improper use of "pillar"!!!! >=o)
(I don't count this here as a true comment)
I'm not strongly persuaded by either view, but here's something that might be worth considering with regard to Mary's perpetual virginity.
Our Lord Himself didn't marry and father children. The obvious explanation is that His mission precluded the exercise of fatherly duties. I have thought, though, that He may have forgone these blessings because, had He done so, there would inevitably have been a sacred "caste" in the Church, of His blood-descendants.
His mother may have borne no more children in part for the same reason. I'm aware of James "the brother of the Lord." I accept that James may have been the son of Mary and Joseph. If he was, did /he/ forgo marriage and children for the same reason?
Outside the trashy inventions of popular novelists and so on, it seems clear that the blood-family of our Lord quickly became extinct.
If I'm correct about this, then one theological value of the perpetual virginity of Mary would be that it relates to His resolute declaration that His Kingdom is not of this world. He and His family may have recognized that, human nature being what it is, such self-denial was necessary lest a blood-caste begin.
I would welcome any criticisms that would show me evidence I may well have overlooked. If it isn't appropriate to get into that here, please feel free to email me at extollager2006 AT yahoo.com.
Brother-
I think the comments above show the reason why Pieper, following his discussion of clauso utero (noting that Calvinists reject it because of their faulty Christology) and semper virgo (Vol. II pp 306-309), says "it is best not to spend too much time on it."
At the same time on p. 308 he states, "If the Christology of a theologian is orthodox in all other respects, he is not to be regarded as a heretic for holding that Mary bore other chldren in a natural manner after she had given birth to the Son of God."
So Pieper sees that the issue as Christological and that the default Lutheran position is semper virgo. He also states that "We must emphatically object when those who assume that Jesus had natural brothers pride themselves on their more delicate 'exegetical conscience' and disparage those who hold the opposite view."
Let's be clear though as to what is clear from the Scripture, St. Mary, Theotokos, Mother of God, is not our mother as has been referenced above; that is reserved for the Holy Bride of Christ, the Church, Jerusalem the free.
Galatians 4:21-27 - "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written: “ Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband.”
Blessed Dr. Martin Luther comments on this passage, "Therefore Sarah, or Jerusalem, our free mother, is the church, the bride of Christ, who gives birth to all. She goes on giving birth to children without interruption until the end of the world, as long as she exercises the ministry of the Word, that is, as long as she preaches and propogates the Gospel; for this is what it means for her to give birth. Now she teaches the Gospel in such a way that we are set free from the curse of the Law and works, but through Christ. Therefore the Jerusalem that is above, that is, the church, is not subject to the Law and works; but she is free adn is a mother without Law, sin, or death. And as the mother is, so are the children to whom she gives birth." AE 26:41
Holy Mary, mother of God, is not our mother, that the Word of her Son reserves for His Bride the church; a member of which is His very mother.
Ball
I'll have a run at this, as none of the previous comments have quite expressed my own sentiments as to the Christological significance of semper virgo.
It ultimately has to do with coming to terms with the fact of the Incarnation. Here's what I mean: generally--though not in every case--it seems to obtain that among people who reject semper virgo there is a corresponding view that the BVM was nothing really unique. She is given the nod as the mother of Jesus, even (grudgingly) the mother of God, but these are merely names, and anyone can live with names.
What I find particularly helpful among medieval and early meditations on the Virgin--although there are excesses--is evidence of an eagerness to grapple with the reality of the miracle of Christ's conception in her womb. This eagerness is something I sense has been lost on us.
Luther similarly opines somewhere that there is great gain to be had from meditation on the term "Mother of God."
The fact is that Mary is unique. The miracle that happened within her was a sharp and singular break from the ordinary manner of human reproduction. This miracle was enacted upon her flesh, resulting in the Incarnation of God within her. She became the vessel for Him who holds heaven and earth, and it was of her flesh that He partook. This is something that really cannot be parsed and analyzed as much as it can be wondered at. At such moments we must become more inclined simply to revere and adore than merely to understand.
And this reality means that she is no ordinary vessel any longer. Something has really and verifiably changed: the nativity of our Lord is an incontrovertible verification of the miracle.
Since this is so, it seems to me that the whole Church--including, incidentally, Joseph--must set this vessel apart from all others on earth.
She is the Holy Grail. One does not use the Holy Grail to drink milk or beer.
I would think that of all people struck by this reality, Joseph would have to be first. Remember also doubting Joseph, how it was necessary for the intervention of an angel to correct him on this matter. Would he not become reticent about taking this vessel into his chamber for common use? No law forbade it, but that's not the issue: she has become the theotokos. That changes things, really and physically.
I think I'll cross post this over at my own blog, as I may have more to say about it. Thanks for bringing this up, Eric.
(note: Rev. Eric:, this isn't a directly reply to you, but a reply to a comment -- given the rules you set up for this thread, I won't be offended if you delete this comment. I understand if you consider this 'out of bounds')
@Rev. BT Ball: I'd like you clarify your comments about "[She] is not our Mother."
In John 19:26-27, when Christ, on the cross, said to Mary: "Woman, behold your son." and to "the disciple"(presumably John), "Behold, your mother" -- what is your exegesis here?
. . . and if Christ is my brother, then . . .
First, Christ gave His Mother to us. Second, Christ, by becoming human, made himself our brother. In fact, people talk about the brothers (followers) of Christ and he does not correct them. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm)
Mary is our spiritual Mother, Christ is our spiritual brother.
Chad-
well if we are going to ask questions about exegesis, I quoted the Bible first (Galatians 4)where it clearly states who our mother is. How about your exegesis of that?
Regarding St. John 19:26-27, St. John lets you know what this is about, as you left out the 2nd half of verse 27; "And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." Which means he provided for her. The Son of God, as her first born saw to her provision and her needs through His beloved disciple. More could be said here devotionally or homiletically, but it is quite clear from verse 27 itself what John took Jesus words to mean - take her into your home and care for her as you would your own mother, provide, watch over etc.
The thing about Lutherans is that the source of doctrine is the sacred scripture and the sacred scripture clearly says something about who our mother is - the New Jerusalem, the Holy Church.
Also, Christ is more than our spiritual brother, He IS our Brother, He even says so.
"Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.” But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” St. Mark 3:31-35
Again, my objection is that the Scriptures do not speak of Blessed Mary as our mother, but reserves this term for the Holy Church. We are not to speak such words where the Lord Himself has not spoken them, and particularly He has spoken something else to be fact.
Fr. Eckardt-
another human being in the womb of Blessed Mary cannot be compared to milk nor beer, for a child is a creation of God in His own image. I'm not advocating that she is not semper virgo, but mankind is the glory of creation, much higher than milk, beer or even the angels in heaven. Again, I tend to defer to Dr. Pieper's wisdom in discussing this matter, less words the better.
BB
So it's an either/or, not both/and situation?
And Jesus, after saying many important things on the cross, meant nothing important by "Behold, your son" other than "Hey John, could you look after my Mother when I'm gone? thanks." Non sequitur.
"Behold" is a phrase that usually prefixes a rather dramatic and important statement -- especially when spoken by Christ.
You say scripture 'reserves' this term (Mother). Where does it 'reserve' the term Mother? In fact, it seems that Christ implies that Mary is our Mother and the Church is our Mother also.
Christ says that Mary is our Mother. He says that any one who follows the will of God is his brother, sister, and Mother.
Also, if Mary is the Mother of Christ, and Christ is married to the Church, would that not make Mary Mother of the Church?
And if the Church is our Mother, and we are the Church, doesn't that make Mary our Mother as well?
I'm still not sure why you draw an either/or (seemingly) false dichotomy here instead of a both/and symmetry. This dichotomy is not really attested to in scripture nor has that ever really been the understanding of Christians until the past few centuries.
Fr. Ball, I did not mean to liken other children to milk or beer, i.e. common things, but the other use of the birth canal, if you catch my drift. That is a common thing--not that it's a bad thing--but then again, milk and beer and not bad things either.
And on this: "Christ is more than our spiritual brother, He IS our Brother, He even says so," I think you're providing fuel against your position. Since Christ is our brother, then wouldn't we share the same mother?
Moreover, on the passage you cite, that Jesus' mother and brothers and sisters are those who keep the will of God, it seems to me that by your logic we would have to conclude that Mary is not Jesus' real mother.
This is partly a matter of semantics, or even of poetry, I'll grant. But I would think you could come to the point of granting, conversely, that there is no impropriety in calling the BVM our mother. Traditionally as you know she has been called our Lady as well; I would presume there's no objecting to that.
"Extollager" above is yours truly, Dale Nelson.
(Sorry -- I overlooked the request that commenters post using their names, and used my usual Net handle.)
Eric,
I think you actually state the "official" or "majority" position (at least among protestants and confessionals) so it really is not a difficult thing to reiterate. This is a difficult teaching and either position on this teaching does not negate the Incarnation, the due honor of Mary or the sanctity of marriage.
The logic of connecting the teaching of "semper virgo" to Zionism escapes me. It is hard for me to discern here whether this is a simple characterization or if there is actual theological substance to this connection. I had not heard this brought up in discussions on the topic in past years.
Anyway, although today, in our circles, we can rally the troops on this teaching with little difficulty I still find it interesting that the dead church fathers, including many that we like to quote on our blogs, would hold a different position. There must be some reason why they held the semper virgo even though it was likely and clearly the minority position in their circles.
Oh well, I do appreciate that the issue is still being talked about.
Post a Comment