Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[elvisman]

hosemonkey

For what it’s worth, it’s the attitude that you exhibit that drives me away from Catholicism. I was raised in a mixed Catholic/Protestant family, with fine people on both sides. Most of them were devout church folks, too. What can turn me off about Catholicism (and fundamentalist Protestantism) is the dogmatism that one so frequently confronts. I guess I’ve come to the point, after years of reading and contemplation, that the universe is so magnificent, so mammoth, so mysterious and so miraculous that no particular version of Christianity preaches the entire truth. Why? Because so much of it lies beyond human comprehension. We are floating in space on a tiny speck in a world that likely includes a million or more solar systems. That is awesome, and I believe that mere mortals can only grasp a fraction of ultimate truth.

What disturbs me is the way in which fellow Christians can be so disrespect of others and their faith. I find that Protestants honor Mary, but they differ with Catholicism and often with one another on precisely how to regard her. In general they feel that over the centuries Mary has become too much like a goddess rather than a humble mother who bore Christ. Queen of Heaven? Queen of the Universe? True, she is blessed among women, but a variety of doctrines seem to have sprung up well after the church was founded. St. Paul, for example, wrote many letters to the early churches, focusing on many different doctrines and practices. He doesn’t mention Mary once. So many of the doctrines were defined only in recent centuries - Immaculate Conception in, when was it, maybe 1870? Assumption - 1950! As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, I personally don’t see that as critical. She was married to Joseph, and I am not disappointed if they enjoyed pure, romantic love represented by normal conjugal relations. I see Christianity as blessing such marriages.

The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism seems to be mainly the freedom of Protestants to think freely. In the mainline churches they appear to tolerate a wide range of theological perspectives without animosity toward one another. “Think and let think,” Wesley suggested. And also: “If you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together” - or words to that effect. Protestants do pay a price, of course: so many different denominations. But the mainline churches cooperate closely together, and they are happy to cooperate with Catholic churches also in meeting human need. Catholicism tends to regard ecumenism, as you suggest, as ‘the return of heretics to the true church’. Protestants tends to regard ecumenism as setting aside differences when it comes to theology or liturgy while working together in the spirit of Christ to serve those in need.

May God bless all his children, Catholic, Protestant, etc. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier. I’m sure that Christ would want that.

And therein lies the problem with so many Protestants - the idea that we can all have differing beliefs as long as we believe that Christ died for our sins. That is NOT the Christianity of the Early Church of the Bible - or of the first several centuries. Wesley was wrong because “loving God” means submitting to the authority that he established (Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23).

We’re told over and over again to adhere to the exact teachings of the Apostles and NOT to have differing factions:
2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

The Early christian Church was NOT the smorgasboard of different, splintered beliefs that is entertained by Protestantism today.

 

[elvisman]

Add to that is the refusal to acknowledge the dictionary definition that the word only means up to a point in time.
The fact remains that it doesn’t prove anything either way.

You are 100% correct.

 

[david_ruiz]

James tells us that the prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. This indicates that the prayers of the less righteous might be less powerful and less effective.

Why do you think James made this point?

Do you think you will be more righteous when you are in heaven than you are right now?

Let’s see. my righteousness is in Christ ,right now ,and I suppose tomorrow and forever . So I will not be more righteous in heaven , but I will be more like Him … James wrote that in the context of the suplicator ,the one making the prayer ,not the one to whom you are praying. My book says the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much .Indeed we are all righteous in Christ ,and we pray, but are we earnest as Elias? That is the key -“FERVENT”…I do not believe in using those in heaven as intercessors ,but ,based on your logic (Mary being the next most perfect person -righteous -next to Jesus) ,then I would never pray to anyone ,anywhere ,except to Mary, unless I were not earnest.

 

[hosemonkey]

**And therein lies the problem **

with so many Protestants - the idea that we can all have differing beliefs as long as we believe that Christ died for our sins. That is NOT the Christianity of the Early Church of the Bible - or of the first several centuries. Wesley was wrong because “loving God” means submitting to the authority that he established (Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23).

We’re told over and over again to adhere to the exact teachings of the Apostles and NOT to have differing factions:
2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us"

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

The Early christian Church was NOT the smorgasboard of different, splintered beliefs that is entertained by Protestantism today.

Well said! One Church, One Truth. Satan delights in confusion. Protestantism represents confusion.

 

[Zooey]

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and she remains faithful!

Precisely!!

I never saw why this was ever an issue of contention except that modern protestants thought that since Catholics said it it must be wrong.

Early Church Writings: Virgin
Catholic Church: Virgin
EO: Virgin
Oriental Orthodox: Virgin
Martin Luther: Virgin (Lutherens)
John Calvin: Virgin (Presbyterians)
Henry VII: Virgin (Anglicans)
John Wesly: Virgin (Methodists)

:sad_yes:Thank you!!

And it was very modern Protestants indeed, by the bye.
I was still learning about the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary in the 1950s. In the Free Methodist Church. Which is not exactly a bastion of Catholic thought. (Zooey said, cranky old lady that she is).

(info from Halley’s Bible Handbook)

It may irish1:she said, :nunchuk:crossly) come a shock to hear this,David, but :nerd:Halley was NOT numbered among the apostles, and his opinions are NOT inspired.
Just saying.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I wasn’t trying to be rude - it has simply been the case in the past.
**You and Todd **are actually the very first posters to bring up the coding issue in my 6 years on this forum.
Forgive me if I sounded suspicious.

You have never tried to reply to yourself.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why* did* Matthew say they did not have until Jesus was born?
I believe it is because the previous verse says he took Mary as his wife. The implication is they had sex but not until after he was born. Like I said, that is how I see the purpose of what Matthew wrote.
What reason do you see for Matthew telling us that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born?

 

[First_Thought]

No, I do not believe in the virgin birth. If I did, it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore all of the other virgin births that occurred before Jesus was born.

 

[Zooey]

Why* did* Matthew say they did not have until Jesus was born?
I believe it is because the previous verse says he took Mary as his wife. The implication is they had sex but not until after he was born. Like I said, that is how I see the purpose of what Matthew wrote.
What reason do you see for Matthew telling us that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born?

Because, at the time Matthew was written, there were all ready rumors circulating about Jesus’ paternity. I mean, RD, this was a long, long time ago, but if you think that Mary & Joseph’s neighbors didn’t count on their fingers after the wedding, just like people still do today-- Well! All I can say is, you are living a singularly sheltered life; I heard them from some of the kids I went to middle school with:
“Hah!! Sure Jesus was born of a virgin!! When did you fall off the turnip truck, Zooey? Neener, neener, neener!!”

That was about the first attack on Christian belief: saying that Mary was not a virgin. So, it was placed into Scripture, at the inspiration of God, to assure believers that yes, indeed, Jesus is God the Son, and yes, indeed, His mother was a virgin.

 

[elvisman]

You have never tried to reply to yourself.

As a matter of fact - I HAVE.
**Yesterday, I ran several tests. **
I have a dual platform at work, so I tried Safari on the Mac and IE on the PC. The problem only existed when I used Safari.

 

[Todd520]

That was about the first attack on Christian belief: saying that Mary was not a virgin. So, it was placed into Scripture, at the inspiration of God, to assure believers that yes, indeed, Jesus is God the Son, and yes, indeed, His mother was a virgin.

I agree 100% it was added to scripture at the inspiration of God.
I do question why the inspiration did not include stating she was a **perpetual **virgin

 

[ERose]

Now you are just being abusive in your logic. No one has ever stated how quickly the change of state happens after the ‘until’ moment.

To be blunt with another example : She did not have ‘relations’ with her husband until after the wedding
This does not mean something happened at the alter, or the reception, or even that specific evening.
It only signifies she had relations with her husband sometime after the wedding.

If the meaning was as you imply, it should have been translated as She did not have ‘relations’ with her husband even after the wedding

Todd,

Have you asked yourself what the intent of the sentence is? Read it and tell me your opinion on what was the intent of St. Matthew writing that sentence.

 

[Todd520]

**In short - Heos *wasn’t ***translated incorrectly. You just refuse to accept that it has different applications than it’s English translation.

If Heos means something different in greek than it does in the current english translation of Matt 1:25, the YES IT WAS TRANSLATED INCORRECTLY
You’ve already provided alternate english translations that significantly changed the meaning of the sentence.

If you still feel ‘until’ is the right translation but I don’t unerstand it’s meaning, then provide other usage examples in the same sentence structure, where your meaning is supported.

Original structure: “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son”.
Fill in the (): He/she (action), but did not (action) until (past event)

requiring a ‘past event’ precludes the use of ‘until now’ or until a future event

 

[elvisman]

Why* did*

Matthew say they did not have until Jesus was born?
I believe it is because the previous verse says he took Mary as his wife. The implication is they had sex but not until after he was born. Like I said, that is how I see the purpose of what Matthew wrote.
What reason do you see for Matthew telling us that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born?
The linguistic issues surrounding the Greek "heos" and the English "until" were already addressed in posts 335 & 340.

**Heos doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a subsequent change in circumstance.

’Nuff said.

 

[elvisman]

If Heos means something different in greek than it does in the current english translation of Matt 1:25, the YES IT WAS TRANSLATED INCORRECTLY
You’ve already provided alternate english translations that significantly changed the meaning of the sentence.

If you still feel ‘until’ is the right translation but I don’t unerstand it’s meaning, then provide other usage examples in the same sentence structure, where your meaning is supported.

Original structure: “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son”.
Fill in the (): He/she (action), but did not (action) until (past event)

requiring a ‘past event’ precludes the use of ‘until now’ or until a future event
This is a textbook case of "Don’t tell me - I don’t want to know!!"
**
One LAST** time: “Heos” is the Greek word for “until”. It is the ONLY word for “until”.

In English, “until” is the only word for “heos”. However, the Greek word, “heos” carries more than one or 2 applications. No other word in the English language would have worked better than the word, “until”.

Is THAT clear enough for you?

 

[ERose]

Hi Rose ,we go in circles a bit .Yes ,God expresses interest in us , while we were yet sinners. My point is Mary acted like most people in the bible (who just happen to be sinners) when approached by an angel -troubled.There is no indication by her reaction that she was any holier than anyone else. Being troubled may have nothing to do with humility or it’s opposite ,false pride.

We will have to disagree on this point. One no other saint was approached and saluted as Mary was saluted. Hail, full of Grace, the Lord is with you! Blessed are you among women! Even Moses was not saluted as such. She was troubled because of humility not because of guilt. There is a difference.

Perhaps my wording was bad ,but we are saying the same thing . Almost half of Christendom does not pray to Mary .That is many is it not ? Yes ,more than half do pray to Mary.

35% of all Christians (including Mormons and JW and I also included Anglicans for I am not sure what their position is) are not part of the traditional churches that do believe in Marian devotions. But if it makes you feel better let us say that half of all Christians do not or never has prayed to Mary. Half of over 2 billion is still a good number of people that have. That makes it a popular belief.

That is scary to me , and seems quite cold , freaky ,superstitious , I am sorry ,but that is how I feel .And yes I use to pray to Mary ,until I truly came to know Jesus . I can get mushy too, for I am part of His bride -we are in love. To say I have better access to Him through my "mother -in-law is a bit cold and creepy. Is He not your lover too ? Mothers have their fantastic place , but not in intimate moments with our betrothed.These are the facts I am faced with.

What scares me is that you are part of a church who does not believe in intercessory prayer. Your church doesn’t pray for each other? You do not have anyone in your church that you feel is righteous enough to pray for you effectively? That scares me.

Never said you worshipped Mary.Tabernacle (tent) as per Transfiguration is also a place to fellowship-to feel that spiritual high ,to stay in that mountain top experience,as Peter wanted to do (and not move on). I do feel there are many distractions in many cathedrals with all the separate chapels (tabernacles) to Mary and saints-memorializing past works/lives (good to a degree) but bad to another if not focussing on Christ and his present work in us and our world,His kingdom.

Distractions? These memorials lift your heart up. When I was converting to Catholicism from Pentecostalism one of the biggest impacts to my conversion was the Church. When you go into many protestant or evangelical churches it feels like you are walking into a building. When I walk into a Catholic Church I felt like I was walking into the presence of God. Everything focused your attention to heaven to God. After I experience that there was no other church for me.

 

[adrift]

Because, at the time Matthew was written, there were all ready rumors circulating about Jesus’ paternity. I mean, RD, this was a long, long time ago, but if you think that Mary & Joseph’s neighbors didn’t count on their fingers after the wedding, just like people still do today-- Well! All I can say is, you are living a singularly sheltered life; I heard them from some of the kids I went to middle school with:
“Hah!! Sure Jesus was born of a virgin!! When did you fall off the turnip truck, Zooey? Neener, neener, neener!!”

That was about the first attack on Christian belief: saying that Mary was not a virgin. So, it was placed into Scripture, at the inspiration of God, to assure believers that yes, indeed, Jesus is God the Son, and yes, indeed, His mother was a virgin.

The Talmud a Jewish book claimes Jesus’ father was a Roman Soldier.

 

[dianaiad]

I wasn’t trying to be rude - it has simply been the case in the past.
**You and Todd **are actually the very first posters to bring up the coding issue in my 6 years on this forum.
Forgive me if I sounded suspicious.

elvisman,would you mind straightening out a little confusion for me?

For instance, in post# 393, you write: “Finally – I want to thank you for proving me right by disapproving of my use of color. I have pointed out the fact – on MANY posts that people usually resort to this attack when they have run out of “proofs” for their positions . . .”

Could you reconcile that statement with this one (again,. from you…) “I never declared a debate “win”.” (because declaring that being ‘proven right’ is usually considered claiming a win…)

.and then, could you reconcile both of the above quotes, especially the one where you claim that you have pointed out on ‘many’ posts that 'people usually resort to this attack when they have run out of ‘proof’s’ for their positions, with the claim that nobody has mentioned your use of color on this board in six years?

Just asking.

 

[ERose]

What arguments? My argument consists completely of 'I don’t see sufficient evidence to support the Catholic assertion of 'perpetual virginity."

So you will deny this on the point that you do not have enough info to make an assertion one way or the other? So for you, from the way I understand this point, is that you just don’t know. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with saying you don’t know. I respect that.

Again, it’s not my argument. My claim is simply that I don’t think that your side has proven your claim, sufficiently. I’m not going all out to prove that Mary DID have other children, y’know. I simply am saying that there isnt’ sufficient evidence in the NT to show that she remained virgin after Christ’s birth, and if she didn’t, the odds are pretty high that she had other children.

No your argument has been all along if I understand it. Is that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and that they had children besides Jesus. Or are you arguing that you don’t know one way of the other? If it is the former you are making a claim and you must support it. If it is the latter then I agree with you and I can accept that.

No, actually, that would be you, since culture would come down pretty hard on my side, absent some fairly extraordinary circumstances–and we don’t have any evidence of those.

So you think being the Mother of the Saviour of the World is not an extraordinary circumstance?

In a trial (at least in the USA) nobody is ever 'proven innocent," unless by very chance (and Perry Mason…). the verdict is 'guilty" or “not guilty,” and I think that in England it may be ‘proven’ or “not proven.”

I do not have to prove that she was NOT a virgin all her life, and that she DID have children; that would be the natural and expected course of any Jewish woman married to a Jewish man, especially given that she gave birth once and did pretty well, healthwise, in doing so.

No you are innocent and it is purpose of the prosecution to prove your guilt. But that being said is that you are making a claim. And as such you must support that claim which you have admitted you cannot do. The only verses you have is the verse in Matthew, which you have to take out of context, and the verses speaking of the brethren of the Lord, which I have shown in other posts that these people where at best cousins of the Lord. I find it interesting that in the New Testament we have the names of at least 5 relatives of Jesus besides Mary. Two of the being apostles: James the less and Jude and three others Simon, Joseph, and Salome which are at best cousins of Jesus. Yet we have no names whatsoever of a biological brother or sister of Jesus. Where are they? I would think that these brothers and/or sisters would have at least been mentioned somewhere in all of the NT. Yet nothing. I know 5 cousins from the NT but no true brothers or sisters. That seems extraordinary to me.

The extraordinary claim here is yours: that she remained a virgin–is a Perpetual Virgin, against all law and custom. I don’t have to prove that she DID have children. You must prove her virginity.

Against all law and custom. So Mosaic law states you absolutely must have sex with your husband/wife or you are a sinner? You are definitely stretching it. You are considering that the situation of the birth of Jesus was a normal situation which we know that it wasn’t. So all customs go out of the window when you are discussing something extraordinary.

The reason why you keep asserting that you do not have to prove anything is because you cannot. You know as well as I do that the evidence shows that she never ever lost her virginity. And you cannot supply even a shread of proof otherwise, so you try to switch responsibility.

I understand why you believe in this; you have your Sacred Tradition that teaches you about this. The problem is–you can’t use your Sacred Tradition to prove this to me any more than I can use the Book of Mormon to prove anything to you. WE are both restricted to those things we both share in common…and in this case, that would be the NT.

This I agree and quite honestly I do not think I need it. Not any longer.

…and you cannot prove your case using that. The answer to the OP is this: Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary because they have many years of Sacred Tradition to tell them so. Many Protestants…and Mormons…have problems with the idea because Sacred Tradition isn’t OUR tradition, and we can’t really use it to inform our doctrine. The NT doesn’t really indicate that Mary remained a virgin–the only verses that touch on this seem to mitigate against it.

Those verses mitigate against it by you either taking them out of context or outright misquoting them. But that is something we are used to.

 

[david_ruiz]

Has this been talked about yetsalm 69:8 - " I am become a stranger unto my bretheren,and an alien unto my mother’s children. 9:For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me".Verse 9 is aid to be referring to Jesus according to the gospels .So I gather is verse 8.Pretty specific to me -Mary had children .What has been rhe Cathoilc response thru the ages ?