Putting Mary Away

To me, that looks like evidence that many Protestant churches don’t really believe that those who have fallen asleep in Christ are truly alive and ever with us as a great cloud of witnesses.

Some do that explicitly; the heretical dogma of “soul sleep” is one good illustration. But many, many more express that perspective implicitly in their actions.

Great question! I asked this myself before entering the Church. I’m copying an answer I found:

“The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.

Even we are mediators, in a lesser sense. The word mediator means someone who is a go-between. In 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus as the “one mediator,” the Greek word for “one” is heis, which means “first” or “primary” and does not denote something exclusive. In fact, we are all mediators when we pray for one another. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we all share in Christ’s role as mediator, but our efforts at being go-betweens “work” only because of what he has done.

Our mediating in no way diminishes the role of Christ as mediator; in fact, it glorifies the Father, because it is through Jesus that we can approach with confidence the throne of grace (Heb 4:14-16). How much more does Jesus give his mother Mary the privilege to be a participant in the distribution of grace!”

You can find more here: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/isnt-calling-mary-the-mediatrix-of-all-graces-contrary-to-the-doctrine-that-jesus-is-

Remember that regarding kings having harems and later people allowed to have only one wife, notice that Hebrew society evolved as situations continued changing throughout the years.  Everyone who studies scripture thoroughly arrives to this conclusion.  In fact, the Christian position since very early Christianity is that God gradually revealed Himself until its culmination with Jesus Christ (who is God incarnate).

However, David having a harem had little to do with sexual pleasures.  The reason why David (or any king at the time) had many wives and concubines relies on the fact that it was one of the best ways of establishing a lasting bond with other kingdoms and chiefdoms in the area.    David was a very ambitious king, and if you read his story, you realize that almost all of his behavior was directed at increasing the geographic and political grandeur of Israel, as well as its unity.  This is the reason why he had a harem.

Regarding the Apostles being married and Mary being a Virgin, that depends greatly on what God is calling you to do.  Remember, in Matthew 19, Jesus talked about the eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for God’s kingdom (eunuch, in this case, should be understood metaphorically.  It means people who have given up all sexual contact for God).  Also, St. Paul reveals that he chose to be celibate himself as a way of offering himself to God, and recommended it to other Christians who wanted to dedicate their lives to God (1 Cor. 7:1-7).  This is also Mary’s case.

This might be hard to appreciate if you think belonging to God is blech, but the joys and pleasures in our earthly life are merely shadows or the true reality of heavenly joys and pleasures for which we were made. Mary enjoyed the singular privilege of experiencing such heavenly joys. She was not giving up anything by not having the shadows.

in the original language of the New Testament, the word now translated as “brothers” is actually more closely translated as “cousins.” So, the “brothers of Jesus” were his cousins or other relatives. i had a friend who once visited the oldest Christian church still standing and on mural was written: “Holy Mary, ever-Virgin.” she said she was surprised to realize that the belief in Mary’s perpetual Virginity was accepted and acknowledged by even the earliest Christians. just some thoughts…..

As far as I can tell, the older tradition is that Joseph was a widower and an older man who already had children. So the brothers were Joseph’s and were older than Jesus. That makes the most sense to me on multiple levels. First, while not impossible, it seems to less likely for a young man to have already gained the reputation in the community as a member of the Tsadiqim or “righteous”. That seems more likely for an older, established man.

Second, the bits we have from Scripture, especially the encounter in Mark feels to me more like older brothers trying to correct a younger brother.

Third, we know that Joseph died sometime before Jesus began his ministry. While people could die young for all sorts of reasons in the ancient world (and today for that matter), it fits with Joseph being an older man when he married Mary.

However, there is another tradition, that seems to have developed later and primarily in the West that has Joseph a young man and the ‘brothers’ as cousins. That’s certainly plausible in the context of households in the ancient world, especially if they were raised together. But I tend to think this tradition is less likely than the other one.

One point I neglected to mention earlier is that John 19:26-27 makes no sense in its context if Mary had other living sons. Widows were cared for by they sons (or left in dire straits if they had no living sons). If the brothers of Jesus were Mary’s sons, then it would have been there responsibility to care for her. However, if Jesus were her only son, it makes perfect sense for him to entrust her into the care of his close and present disciple. And tradition holds that John did indeed take Mary into his home and cared for her as if she were his own widowed mother.

James is known for his strong opinions upholding traditional practices. In fact, that became a matter of some contention later culminating in the apostolic decree of Acts 15. If Mary were his mother, it’s hard to imagine that there wouldn’t have been some conflict over such an untraditional arrangement.

Of course, everything in John is multi-layered in theological meaning and I don’t want to detract from any of that. But underneath it all, relatively few have questioned the event itself. And it’s the sort of thing that makes perfect sense if Jesus was, in fact, Mary’s only son.

I totally agree, and I’d love to see this as a post, perhaps even fleshed out further! I’ve never, ever thought of Mary’s virginity in this, and it resonates with me (as I am also a convert, in a large part thanks to Mary after a lifelong struggle with understanding her). 

And EE, yours is a beautiful post. Have you read _Reed of God_?

I meant universal because it is the universal tradition of the Church. I’ve read Tertullian because he has an interesting place in Church history as the first (that I know of) who wrote in Latin. But I’m always aware that he died a schismatic and is not considered a Father of the Church. It most certainly is not a tradition that began in the 4th century as it was already embedded in the liturgy by then — which demonstrates a long-standing tradition. In the ancient world liturgical practices did not develop or change on a whim like they do today.

I assume you mean St. Ignatius of Antioch. I’ve read the letters we have of his multiple times over the years, but can’t immediately recall your reference, so can’t really comment on it.

However, to the best of my knowledge, the perpetual virginity of Mary, while universal in tradition until recent years, was never afforded the same sort of dogmatic treatment as with many other matters, for instance the virginal conception of Christ. So yes, there were some individuals over the centuries who disagreed, but they had no noticeable impact on either the tradition or the liturgical practice of the church until the last few hundred years.

And Matt. 13:55, Mark 3:31 and Mark 6:3 where Jesus’ siblings are mentioned?

Consider the use of the word “until” in  Matthew 22:43-44, 2 Peter 1:9, and Genesis 8:5.

Hmmm. I find “complete marriage” an intriguing way to describe a marriage with sex versus one without. You are aware that even today people wed when one is incapable of sex or that over the course of time, one partner may become incapable of sex? Your implication is that such marriages are somehow … less than complete. I believe I would dispute such an assertion.

As far as why it matters, I would say it clearly still does to people even today. I’m not entirely sure why, but it does.

I will say that to the extent I understand ancient cultures, had Mary and Joseph had sex and more children, it would have caused an already incredible tale to be dismissed by everyone. It’s not just about how their culture shaped Mary and Joseph and their behavior, but how that culture shaped the expectations of all who heard the story.

So at least to that extent it matters.

I would also say it matters because if the Church has not been able to accurately preserve something as important, if not necessarily central, to the narrative as this, it throws into doubt not only our understanding of Scripture, but the authenticity of Scripture itself. For the same Church that preserved, canonized (eventually), and passed on to us the New Testament is the same Church that passed on to us this particular understanding of Mary. This is no less a product of the tradition of the Church than the NT Scriptures themselves.

But that’s probably just me…

Tammy, right. There are three aspects in play here. It is a tenant of Christianity that Jesus is the Son of God and that Mary was His only human parent (He had no human parent). That’s the first aspect.
The third aspect is whether or not Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life. The prominence of that view arose with monasticism and the striving for celibate examples in Scripture, hence the desire to transform Mary from a housewife and mother into a dedicated virgin.
The second aspect is the belief that even in delivering a child Mary did not lose the token of her virginity (that she had an intact hymen after delivery).
All Christians believe the first aspect, many the third aspect and (IMO) only the most devout to Mary sort of people believe the second aspect.

Exactly.