Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary#Catholic Encyclopedia

This material is moved from the article in case it has useful matter in it.

::::::::

Breed|page= 237 |quote= Calvin was likewise less clear-cut than Luther on Mary's perpetual virginity but undoubtedly favored it. Notes in the Geneva Bible (Matt. 1:18, 25; Jesus' 'brothers') defend it, as did Zwingli and the English reformers, often on hazardous grounds (e.g., the established proof text of Ezek. 44:2, to rebut the charge of reliance on tradition instead of Scripture).}} In his commentary of Luke 1:34, he rejected as "unfounded and altogether absurd" the idea that Mary had made a vow of perpetual virginity, saying that "She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God" and adding that there is no evidence of the existence of such vows at the time.Calvin. "Commentary on Luke 1:34". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke vol. 1. Full statement: "The conjecture which some have drawn from these words ['How shall this be, since I know not a man?'], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews." Though celibacy or abstinence within marriage life was not unknown in Jewish tradition in response to God's command and participation in His service.{{citation |url=http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm |title=Perpetual Virginity of Mary |author=Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D. |publisher=Association of Hebrew Catholics (retrieved from CIN)}}{{citation |url=http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1987-2/1987-2-02.pdf |chapter=Celibacy in Judaism at the Time of Christian Beginnings |page=172 |author=Harvey McArthur |publisher=Andrews University Press |title=Andrews University Seminary Studies |year=1987 |others=Vol. 25, No. 2}} In the Commentary on a Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, Calvin rejected the argument that Mary had other children due to the mention in Scripture of brothers of Jesus.Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949: "The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned." ([http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.xxxix.html vol. 2, p. 215]); [On Matt 1:25:] "The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband ... No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words ... as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin ... What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us ... No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." (vol. I, p. 107)

{{reflist talk}}

@IP: Wantonly removing references is totally not done. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

{{re|Paisios2 -1}} It is highly not done what you do. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)