I've often wondered, though, if Mary did have other biological children why they were not present at the foot of the cross to comfort her at such a dire time.
Since the Lord gave his Mother into St. John's care, that also makes me wonder.
Nevertheless, that does not impact the centrality of Christ either way.
Mary was semper virgo. There is no question about this in the fathers and the councils. To simply say "Scripture doesn't say so" is to impute a standard which the Ancient Church NEVER used. And to deny this doctrine is to dispute the centrality of Christ. If we hold Mary to be the doors of the temple which shall remain shut (cf. ezekiel 44) which retained the King of All, the uncontainable, then any "intercourse" after that would make Scripture a lie.
Also, how does the semper virgo exalt virginity? I'm a male. Does my being male exalt masculinity over femininity? And even if it does, so what? Do not the Lutheran confessions regard virgnity as a greater gift than marriage (assuming one can handle it)?
I'll remind everyone that the Holy Orthodox Church dogmatizes only on two points about Mary:
1) She is the "Mother of God" or Theotokos
2) She is semper virgo.
She did die and was taken up to heaven. I don't see how that is unscriptural. DId not Enoch and Elisha go up to heaven? THere's no earthly grave for them and yet I hear no objections from LUtheran theologians on these issues.
It's an issue like this that really gets at the heart of what is going on in contemporary Lutheranism. EIther the confessions are the true exposition of the Christian faith and a quia subscription is required of both clergy and the faithful or they are remnants of a past time and to be discarded. And that espeically goes with the semper virgo. HOw could anyone, now, expect or even want to be a perpetual virgin? This is a classic example of how modern Lutheranism imputes modern standards onto the past.
I think you've misunderstood me, Chris. I was actually musing on the assertion by some Christians, particuarly evangelicals that Mary and Joseph had other biological children and since they outright refuse to accept the idea of Semper Virgo am approaching it from another angle. Mary as Mother of God poses no problems for me.
Evangelicals don't put a whole lot of stock in patristics, as you well know.
The fathers and the councils said a lot of things that aren't binding on Lutherans, so that isn't an argument in toto either. I am not Orthodox, I am a confessional Lutheran and my beliefs are based on that and, as you also well know, Lutherans are not "sola scriptura" in the evangelical and fundamentalist sense.
Nor have you given a good answer for the question I posed.
3 comments:
A very thoughtful post indeed by Pastor McCain.
I've often wondered, though, if Mary did have other biological children why they were not present at the foot of the cross to comfort her at such a dire time.
Since the Lord gave his Mother into St. John's care, that also makes me wonder.
Nevertheless, that does not impact the centrality of Christ either way.
Christine
Same old objections, different day.
Mary was semper virgo. There is no question about this in the fathers and the councils. To simply say "Scripture doesn't say so" is to impute a standard which the Ancient Church NEVER used. And to deny this doctrine is to dispute the centrality of Christ. If we hold Mary to be the doors of the temple which shall remain shut (cf. ezekiel 44) which retained the King of All, the uncontainable, then any "intercourse" after that would make Scripture a lie.
Also, how does the semper virgo exalt virginity? I'm a male. Does my being male exalt masculinity over femininity? And even if it does, so what? Do not the Lutheran confessions regard virgnity as a greater gift than marriage (assuming one can handle it)?
I'll remind everyone that the Holy Orthodox Church dogmatizes only on two points about Mary:
1) She is the "Mother of God" or Theotokos
2) She is semper virgo.
She did die and was taken up to heaven. I don't see how that is unscriptural. DId not Enoch and Elisha go up to heaven? THere's no earthly grave for them and yet I hear no objections from LUtheran theologians on these issues.
It's an issue like this that really gets at the heart of what is going on in contemporary Lutheranism. EIther the confessions are the true exposition of the Christian faith and a quia subscription is required of both clergy and the faithful or they are remnants of a past time and to be discarded. And that espeically goes with the semper virgo. HOw could anyone, now, expect or even want to be a perpetual virgin? This is a classic example of how modern Lutheranism imputes modern standards onto the past.
Sorry for venting.
I think you've misunderstood me, Chris. I was actually musing on the assertion by some Christians, particuarly evangelicals that Mary and Joseph had other biological children and since they outright refuse to accept the idea of Semper Virgo am approaching it from another angle. Mary as Mother of God poses no problems for me.
Evangelicals don't put a whole lot of stock in patristics, as you well know.
The fathers and the councils said a lot of things that aren't binding on Lutherans, so that isn't an argument in toto either. I am not Orthodox, I am a confessional Lutheran and my beliefs are based on that and, as you also well know, Lutherans are not "sola scriptura" in the evangelical and fundamentalist sense.
Nor have you given a good answer for the question I posed.
Christine
Post a Comment