Monday, July 9, 2007

Patrists on Sex and Mary

I wanted to point my readers over to a very interesting post on Gojira’s blog.

Could the Early Church Father's views on sex have influenced their Marian doctrine?

(link removed)


Gojira said...

Hi Carrie,

Thanks for the link.Svendsen notes:

"This idea of Mary's ever-virgin status propelled itself into the next century and subsequent patristic thought. However, the rationale for such an idea comes not from Christian sources, but rather Gnostic. Tambasco notes that the perceived need for Mary's perpetual virginity seems to have been based on the antiquated notion that sexuality is somehow associated with sin." (Who Is My Mother? pg 34. Eric D Svendsen)

By the way, excellent new site! And by the way again, excellent job over there at Patton's site.

Carrie said...

Hey! How did you find my site before I actually launched?

Thanks for the Svendsen quote.

And thanks for the other kudos.

Gojira said...

I look forward to when you do launch.

Hey, you done tole it like it is to Perry Robinson.

jswranch said...

Hmm... Seeing how Tertulian (not St. Tertulian) went into Montanism, were those quotes taken before or after his conversion?

Strange, but according to my sources, Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Zwingli all professed her perpetual virginity:

- "Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.... He, 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." (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.” (Letter to a Roman Catholic, published 1749.)

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

Were these reformers also
-based belief on sexuality being sinful


Gojira said...

No, they were not gnostic, as they were not the ones who developed the doctrine. They were breaking free of the Roman religion (with the exception of Wesley) and so still had some baggage to be shed of. However, and I hope you get this, they were not the ones who developed the doctrine. The ones who developed it did so along gnostic lines. Your question concerning Tertulian is irrelevent since the asceticism he held to, the same asceticism that went into the doctrinal formulation, was not abated. Also irrelevant is your "Tertulian (not St. Tertulian)" since nothing in the post states him as such. To sum up, you basically missed the point of the post in the first place.