For those who are not interested in debating Medieval traditions and fears about sex, but only the words of Holy Scripture, here is Luke 8:19-21 in three languages, with "brothers" in bold: 19 Παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον. 20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε. 21 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς: μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες. 19 Venerunt autem ad illum mater et fratres ejus, et non poterant adire eum præ turba. 20 Et nuntiatum est illi : Mater tua et fratres tui stant foris, volentes te videre. 21 Qui respondens, dixit ad eos : Mater mea et fratres mei hi sunt, qui verbum Dei audiunt et faciunt. 19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. Seeing that the original Greek Scripture uses the word for a brother of the same womb, there is no debate on this subject: St. Mary the blessed Virgin had children with St. Joseph, her lawful spouse, after the LORD Christ was born. LOWLY LAYMAN, I'm betting that most or all "patristic" quotes that can be found recording Mary as "ever-virgin" are not properly cited or sourced. Anyone can make up a quote and say "by Church Father X". Even if these sayings of theirs are genuine, they are nothing without the testimony of the holy Scripture.
The Collect for Christmas Day from blessed Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin; Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.
Everyone believes in the virgin conception & birth of Christ. That is not at issue or debate. The Cranmer collect doesn't touch on the future relations of Mary after the birth of the LORD. He also never says "she was pure because she was a virgin", but merely that she was "a pure virgin". Many virgins are impure, as we are all aware in this modern era. I find it interesting that the first recourse any Anglo-Catholic has (in disputes of doctrine) is the Fathers & Councils, but not the Scriptures. Where the Scripture is silent, only then do we look to the Fathers & the Church for an answer. The Scripture is loud & clear on this issue, however, so we have no reason to cite from the Fathers.
The verse in Ezekiel above was reported by one scholar as the source that anglican reformers pointed to in proving the perpetual virginity of Mary
Indeed? I have seen no evidence for your claim. Perhaps after their subjugation at the Synod of Whitby.
All this proves is that these people disagreed with scripture. The fathers were sometimes wrong and contradicted scripture. For instance, Irenaeus claimed that he had received an apostolic tradition that Jesus was forty to fifty years old, contradicting the scriptural record. So, when anyone holds a belief that contradicts scripture, which do you go by? Anglicanism says you go by scripture.
And despite all this, you have already been given the facts about the relevant scriptures that cannot be disputed -- that Mary had other children.
This false doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity comes from two sources: pagan superstition, and, as Consular rightly says, it is tied up with original sin and a fear of sex. It has absolutely no support in scripture and is refuted by scripture, again as Consular has ably shown. He summed up the situation excellently with this: "Seeing that the original Greek Scripture uses the word for a brother of the same womb, there is no debate on this subject: St. Mary the blessed Virgin had children with St. Joseph, her lawful spouse, after the LORD Christ was born." That settles the matter.
Never-the-less, that Mary was Ever Virgin was the doctrine of the Church in England and was taught by the later Reformation Fathers who received it from the Councils. Dear Sectarian Cousin, when I grow up, I most assuredly do not want to mature in to the type of Cynic, that you have developed in to! You reject the Church's teaching on the subject, you rejected Field's suggestion that the matter, not be gone to deep in to as a matter of courtesy, both to Christ and His Lady Mother as he and I think Laud said, A matter of manners! You are not an Anglican, I'm sorry!
According to Bishop Pearson in his magisterial Exposition of the Creed, which I can't find, Christ's brothers & Sisters were part of the wider, or extended family.
English cousin, the Councils suggest & summarize things from Scripture. They are not so infallible as we are perhaps trying to make out? At any rate, where in the universally accepted Councils of 325, 381, 431, and 451 is the Theotokos called "ever-virgin", "forever a virgin", or "always virgin"? If any one teaching of the Church contradicts the holy Scripture, that teaching must be utterly banished from the minds of Christians. Why is it so important to follow the mere opinions of men when the surest teaching of the Holy Ghost has made it plain that the LORD Jesus was humble enough to share the womb with younger brethren to come after Him? He is not jealous, envious, or terrible - but meek, and humble of heart. I begin to wonder if all this isn't connected to Origen, the first person to theorize about Mary's ever-virginity. He also castrated himself, so legend says. We know what he thought about the good gift of marriage & sexuality! According to the Most Holy Spirit of God, in His inspiration of the Divine Word through St. Luke, Christ's brothers & sisters were adelphoi (womb-siblings), not anepsioi (wider, extended family). Why are people so utterly set on Mary's ever-virginity? As one has said, "Even a casual reading of these verses demonstrates that Jesus had literal, physical brothers. The only reason the face-value import of these verses would be questioned is to lend credence to the post facto Catholic Church doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary."
Your snide remark doesn't deserve an answer. However, I stand on the scriptures; they are my primary and final authority. I thought this was true for all Anglicans also. For those who wish to believe as Roman Catholics or Orthodox, why don't you make haste to join?
Since I hold to the Anglican position on the scriptures and you do not, which of us is the true Anglican? It is you who is the sectarian.