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

[david_ruiz]

The major flaw in your theory is that the angel never told her WHEN she was to have this baby.

That makes ALL of the difference in the world . . .

These are just theories , fun suppositions. But Dokimas has a point .The angel said you will conceive. Knowing Mary’s humility and an angel’s authority , in "theory , it could happen immediately, or the next day, week or month etc… So right there are 60-90-365 possibilities (days) of conception when the theory is plausible , and oh, oh, she is pregnant before the wedding. Beyond that , yes it is flawed, for it could have been years (think Sarah ).
It is just as plausible (or flawed) as saying that "I have not known any man " to mean, “I took a vow of chastity. Please absolve me”.

 

[dianaiad]

Traditional Christianity would claim that Matthew wrote that script under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Questioning the inspiration of the Bible is truly a slippery slope that leaves you with nothing and would ultimately lead to the rejection of Christianity altogether. Do you really want to go there? It’s the place where many Mormons have gone before and ended up atheists – I see it over at Recovery from Mormonism all the time.

That’s quite a slippery slope, there. Trust me, I do not question the inspiration of the bible–but given the level of intense examination of this phrase of Mary’s, with everything hanging upon a specific word said in a specific way, I have to back up a bit and ask–what did Mary actually say? If Matthew wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, fine–but inspiration is not dictation. What he thought he was writing may not have been what was actually said. A tense change; an added word–and everything changes.

 

[elvisman]

These are just theories , fun suppositions. But Dokimas has a point .The angel said you will conceive. Knowing Mary’s humility and an angel’s authority , in "theory , it could happen immediately, or the next day, week or month etc… So right there are 60-90-365 possibilities (days) of conception when the theory is plausible , and oh, oh, she is pregnant before the wedding. Beyond that , yes it is flawed, for it could have been years (think Sarah ).
It is just as plausible (or flawed) as saying that "I have not known any man " to mean, “I took a vow of chastity. Please absolve me”.

No - Doki’s point is moot from the beginning because of Mary’s response.

**Mary didn’t say, "How can this be since I have not known a man?" **
This would mean that she hadn’t slept with anybody, thus validating Doki’s position. It would have been a reasonable response - IF that were the scenario, which it wasn’t.

She said, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?"
**This is an important phrasing of the words because it means she does not have sex. **
She is telling the angel - "How can this be? This can NEVER happen because I don’t do that."

 

[Zooey]

Psalm69 has 36 verses ,and indeed some are figurative and more are literal .how do you pick and chose ? You used other scriptures. So did I .I understand and feel you are forced into interpreting “my (Jesus) mother’s children” as figurative.I am forced to see it as both ,for “salvation is of the Jews”,she brought forth (birthed -mothered) the Messiah .This is figurative .Jesus had bretheren, who did not believe (Mary’s children , born after the first-born, virgin-born Jesus).This is literal…The beauty of scripture .It goes just so far , else some may read and believe (without really changing)

I’m not “forced” into anything, David.
You know why? Because I read the Bible as it is written. Not as Halley & Co choose to misinterpret it, in order to have yet another stone to throw at anybody & everybody they disagree with. (But especially Catholics. God knows why; I’m the:nunchuk: Methodist in this :slapfight.

It’s very clear that Matthew did not want to express Perpetual Virginity.

No; what is clear is that you are willing to declare it clear, because that’s the way you want it. Regardless of what the text says, regardless of how Christendom has read it from the day it was put on paper to the day that Smith, Young, & Associates started trying to re-invent it.

from wiki
’Until’ used in its full contemporary English sense signifies that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth.
I have repeatedly asked for usage examples of until a past event, that support your interpreations, none have been provided.

:dts:
Nope; you’ve had a zillion of them. You don’t like them,laddie, because they don’t suit your wee notions.

Todd520:

So I’m arguing for a future change in translation to reflect contemporary english usage of until.

Ah, there’s a thought! Let’s rewrite the Bible to make Todd happy. Never mind what the Holy Spirit led the authors to write; its Todd we are supposed to please.:nope: NOT.

Sure, all kinds of things could have happened but in those example, it’s silly to think a change did NOT happen. That’s precisely our point. The only thing that can change for a husband and wife who ‘knew not each other’ until her 1st born came into this world is to have sex.
.

Now there’s a truly interesting way to interpret Scripture:

1. 
   *]Say “That’s silly! That’s my point”!
   *]Admit that the reason you think its silly because you can’t imagine anyone [gasp, sob:bigyikes:] living without sex for more than, say,oh, a quarter of an hour.
   *]Demand that the whole bluidy world bow to your wee opinion.
   
   This has got to be the most ridiculous lot of arguments I have heard yet…All they add up to is “But I don’t want to believe what you do!! That would mean that [gasp, sob, keel over in a dead faint] that I would have to agree with Catholics”. Well, it won’t do. It won’t do at all. You don’t get to pick & choose your doctrine because you dislike those who would become your fellows. The truth is the truth. It is not going to change, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you all.
   
   And the truth is: The perpetual virginity of Mary is the historic teaching of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant, & Eastern Orthodox; until a bunch of modernist doubters decided to reject the PV, every Christian everywhere knew & accepted it as the truth.
   You doubters are kicking like crazy because you know you’re on the wrong side of the argument. And, as ever, “it is hard to kick against the goads”.

 

[david_ruiz]

**Sorry, pal - but you’ve been out Scriptured, out-evidenced, out-reasoned and just plain proven wrong **. . .

**The fact that you cannot pigeonhole the word *“until” ***into yours and Todd’s tight little parameters is ONE thing.
It is QUITE another that many of us have crushed you argument with the linguistic facts . . .

Are we so wise in our own eyes ? A child could read that scripture,that "he knew her not until…"and come away with the right idea .They may be wrong to explain why ,but they would get that they "knew each other " afterwords.That is just how English is , more often with that word “until”, and in the “general” context of the story.Nowhere do we read of ANY prophecy of Mary being ever-virgin.It is not pertinent to the story (whose story?-yes Jesus’s,not Mary’s). … Now I would NOT use that scripture of proof of relations afterwards. It does directly prove that Jesus was virgin born.That is prophesied. Alleluia! We all agree to that. However , it does “fit” other scriptures that are directly related and show her having children.AND , I suppose you have presented a few instances that shut the door on making too much of “until”. Just remember ,sometimes God makes foolishness out of our supposed wisdom and “exactness”.Again ,a child could get it.

 

[david_ruiz]

I’m not “forced” into anything, David.
You know why? Because I read the Bible as it is written. Not as Halley & Co choose to misinterpret it, in order to have yet another stone to throw at anybody & everybody they disagree with. (But especially Catholics. God knows why; I’m the:nunchuk: Methodist in this :slapfight.

No; what is clear is that you are willing to declare it clear, because that’s the way you want it. Regardless of what the text says, regardless of how Christendom has read it from the day it was put on paper to the day that Smith, Young, & Associates started trying to re-invent it.
:dts:
Nope; you’ve had a zillion of them. You don’t like them,laddie, because they don’t suit your wee notions.

Ah, there’s a thought! Let’s rewrite the Bible to make Todd happy. Never mind what the Holy Spirit led the authors to write; its Todd we are supposed to please.:nope: NOT.

Now there’s a truly interesting way to interpret Scripture:

1. 
   *]Say “That’s silly! That’s my point”!
   *]Admit that the reason you think its silly because you can’t imagine anyone [gasp, sob:bigyikes:] living without sex for more than, say,oh, a quarter of an hour.
   *]Demand that the whole bluidy world bow to your wee opinion.
   
   This has got to be the most ridiculous lot of arguments I have heard yet…All they add up to is “But I don’t want to believe what you do!! That would mean that [gasp, sob, keel over in a dead faint] that I would have to agree with Catholics”. Well, it won’t do. It won’t do at all. You don’t get to pick & choose your doctrine because you dislike those who would become your fellows. The truth is the truth. It is not going to change, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you all.
   
   And the truth is: The perpetual virginity of Mary is the historic teaching of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant, & Eastern Orthodox; until a bunch of modernist doubters decided to reject the PV, every Christian everywhere knew & accepted it as the truth.
   You doubters are kicking like crazy because you know you’re on the wrong side of the argument. And, as ever, “it is hard to kick against the goads”.

1. 
   OOOhhhh.You are a sniper -I did enjoy reading your stuff though .You brought something up I have seen before .The idea of sex-craved people not believing,really, that chastity is better than normality.That is a snippity judgement .We are warned in scripture that there will be those forbidding to marry ,cause it is more “spiritual” <in fact the Corinthians were zealous but wrong when they started putting each other away (divorce -not murder ,though i am sure some spouses wished it-just kidding)-to be more spiritual .It is funny but just around the time this became more prevalent, 2-3rd century, is when this ever -virgin thing stated taking off- remember Helvidius ,Tertullian -Jerome debates ? I am sorry but Mother Theresa did great things being chaste ,.but so did Billy Graham being married (or how about St. Peter).I do not see Mary’s sanctification dependent on being chaste within her marriage or not.Look at some early fathers writings and almost ,I said almost put down marriage .It just so happens the same writers were chaste. Anyways ,all I wanted to say is that my belief in scriptures over Mary has NOTHING to do with my thoughts or desires or dislikes of human sexuality .How about you ?

 

[elvisman]

Are we so wise in our own eyes ? A child could read that scripture,that "he knew her not until…"and come away with the right idea .They may be wrong to explain why ,but they would get that they "knew each other " afterwords.That is just how English is , more often with that word “until”, and in the “general” context of the story.Nowhere do we read of ANY prophecy of Mary being ever-virgin.It is not pertinent to the story (whose story?-yes Jesus’s,not Mary’s). … Now I would NOT use that scripture of proof of relations afterwards. It does directly prove that Jesus was virgin born.That is prophesied. Alleluia! We all agree to that. However , it does “fit” other scriptures that are directly related and show her having children.AND , I suppose you have presented a few instances that shut the door on making too much of “until”. Just remember ,sometimes God makes foolishness out of our supposed wisdom and “exactness”.Again ,a child could get it.

That’s your problem. You think that this was written in English - it wasn’t. It was written in Greek. As a matter of fact, many scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek. The english translations didn’t come for well over a thousand years later.

Secondly - you claim that there are no prophecies about Mary’s perpetual virginity - and you are wrong about that:

Ezekiel 44:1-4
***Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. ***
**He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed. **
**Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the LORD. He must enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and leave by the same way. Then he brought me by way of the north gate to the facade of the temple, and when I looked I saw the glory of the LORD filling the LORD’S temple, and I fell prone.

If you’re looking for a direct correlation betwen Jesus and the actual Eastern gate of Jesrusalem - forget it. Millions passed through that gate after Christ from the 1st century to the time it was walled up by the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century.

This prophecy relates directly to Mary’s perpetual virginity.

As for Mary’s other children in Scripture - show me the passage that says she had other children and I’ll leave the Catholic Church today and join your church.

 

[dianaiad]

Regardless of how long it took - Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel is one of befuddlment. This would]not have been the case for a girl/woman who knew the facts of life.

huh? first you argue that she was fully aware of ‘the facts of life,’ and now you are claiming that she did not?

]Also - the fact that Joseph marry her at the time he did doesn’t jive very well with your theory that Mary may have been going through puberty

Weeelll…the fact that she was actually PREGNANT would seem that she had completed that process, would it not? Either naturally or through God’s action?

Remember also that Joseph also got an angelic visit telling him to marry her.

Lastly - I want you to provide me with documentation of these “facts” about Jewish marriage contracts - as far as they relate to these time-constraints you mentioned.

Sure. in fact, I have already posted this link on a previous post; go look at it; it’s found on Judaism 101, a sort of encyclopedia of Jewish beliefs and culture through the ages (written and maintained by Jews.)

. . . or it COULD have been the fact that she indeed chose to remain celibate - as the 2000 year-old tradition asserts.

The Traditional teaching is that Luke interviewed Mary when he wrote his Gospel.

That’s fine…but memories change, and the specific wording of her answer seems to be of such intense importance that making absolutely certain that the words she remembered (or that Matthew was inspired to write) were literally the words she used.

Besides, if youdon’t believe that the Scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - then you have a real problem.

Oh, I do indeed believe that they were WRITTEN that way. Whether they were always translated that way…

For instance:
Luke 1:34 reads very differently according to the translation:
New international VErsion: How will this be," Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
New American Standard: Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
The Message: Mary said to the angel, “But how? I’ve never slept with a man.”
Amplified Bible: And Mary said to the angel, How can this be, since I have no [intimacy with any man as a] husband?
New Living Translation: Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”
KJV: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
English Standard Version: And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
Contemporary English Version: Mary asked the angel, “How can this happen? I am not married!”
New KJV: Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
New Century Version:Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen since I am a virgin?”
GOD’S WORD Translation: Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? I’ve never had sexual intercourse.”
*21st Century KJV:*Then said Mary unto the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
American Standard Version:And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Young’s Literal Translation: And Mary said unto the messenger, How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?' *Darby Tranlsation: *But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man? *Holman Christian Standard Bible*: Mary asked the angel, "How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?" *New International Reader's Version:* "How can this happen?" Mary asked the angel. "I am a virgin." *Wycliffe New Testament*:And Mary said to the angel, On what manner shall this thing be done, for I know not man? *Worldwide English (New Testament): *Then Mary said to the angel, How can this happen? I have no husband.’
New International Version - UK: How will this be, Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin?
*Today’s New International Version: *“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
Douay-Rheims: And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Take a look at all these; of the 22 different renditions of this verse in English, 14 of them have Mary asking her question of the angel…and proclaiming her virginal state in the presnt and past tense only. Of the eight remaining, all have her speaking in the present tense–and it is only meaning brought to it from somewhere else that can possibly make it seem as if she were projecting in to the future. There is absolutely no hint of it being a permanent state. In fact, the translation that is meant to be a word for word translation, the Young’s Literal Translation, has Mary asking "how shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?

When you examine that one, you find problems. By using ‘husband’ rather than ‘man,’ you leave meaning wide open to having her ‘know’ someone who is NOT a husband. As well, you can’t figure that she was refering to a permanent state, since of course she was betrothed to, and fully intended to marry, Joseph. Therefore it may certainly be seen that while she doesn’t ‘know’ a husband now, she certainly intended to in the future.

Do you see the problem I have with working with specific words here? This isn’t exactly like "until,’ after all (though the irony is pretty good…) since ‘until’ is a specific concept to concept translation, while what Mary said to the angel seems to be rather variously translated.

…and now you know why I asked who wrote the script.

 

[guanophore]

The strict definition, however, does not. After all, someone who leaves the Catholic church and joins the CoJCoLDS is apostate to Catholicism. I personally don’t think it would be an erronious decision, though.

Not necessarily. Most persons who wander away from the Catholic faith do so in ignorance. They never studied the faith into which they were baptized, and are led astray because they have no foundation in their faith, or it is a childhood faith that never matured due to poor catechesis. Most of these people have no clue what the Church teaches,a nd even if they do, they “disagree” and don’t know WHY these teachings are upheld by the Church. For that reason, they do not qualify for “apostate” either, since they never held the Truth Faith in the first place.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiad:

Probably because it generally took a long time. Couples who were betrothed after the woman reached puberty could live that way for a year or two–sometimes longer. The man had to get, and provide, a home first. Girls betrothed before puberty waited even longer than that.

Incorrect the betrothal last about a year.

"about a year…’ more or less. Actually, very young girls could be betrothed (first half of the marriage) almost from birth–they could not complete the marriage until they were old enough, and mature enough (past puberty) to have children. The length of time the betrothal took depended upon the situation per couple; what the families could do, what the contracts stipulated, what the young men did for a living–how soon he could have a home for them.

…and, oh, whether the young woman was past puberty or not.

dianaiad:

…or it could have been the natural response of a girl overwhelmed by a visit from an angel. The thing is, we ARE talking about the reactions of a 13/14 year old, no matter how special. I don’t think she was thinking about posterity at the time

.Have you been around 13/14 year olds?

Oh, gee, let me think: I have three daughters and teach High School Freshman English. Do you think the answer might be, erhm, yeah? …and would you care to tell me what sort of question that was?

dianaiad:

Come to think of it, we don’t really know the exact words she actually used, do we? Nobody witnessed this except the angel and Mary. Who DID write that script?

She must have told Luke and we do know her exact words.

Well, if you look at the very different ways her words have been translated just into English, perhaps—not so much, no.

 

[ERose]

Not so fast there sister (just trying to be funny). Your scenario at the cross is understandable .I get it .However ,there is another scenario,and a catholic brother at least said it was plausible or at least he understood the argument.If there were siblings ,the bible says they did not believe Mark 6;4 “a prophet is without honor in his country ,amongst his relatives and in his own house” and John7:5, “for neither did his brethren believe in Him”.Furthermore ,spirit is thicker than blood -“He who does the will of my father is my mother ,brother…” So tell me ,if you had an older relative needing care ,would you commit them to an non-believing relative or a family in the church ,who knows and loves your older relative ,and WHO HAVE GONE THRU TOGETHER THE MOST TRAUMATIC,HEARTBREAKING EVENT THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN ? Jesus would not fulfill His responsibility and put Mary in disbelieving, forsaking household but in the hands of a beloved John-no one in the world could have done better .No one in the world could empathize more with Mary than John -they both stood at His cross. Anyways , both scenarios are at best circumstantial evidence and should not be used as scriptural proof for or against…Alleluia that we agree to the main thing ,#1,2,and #4-mainly a virgin birth. Your point #3 is debateable ,and has been now for 1800 years. The simplest of readings lend to believing in siblings.It was not until celibacy began to be viewed as superior did Mary"s ever-virgin status emerge.

I’m a brother not a sister (but I get that alot so no biggy) and the facts are this your assertion is not possible. The establishment of laws for property and responsibility are very specific in Mosaic Law. The next son in line would become responsible for the mother by law. This is not dictated by the wishes of the current holder, but by law. Remember family and tribe were very important to the Jews. The only way this would have occurred is if Jesus had no direct family members to commit Mary to their care. We also have to assume that John was part of the tribe of Jesus and that he was the closes relative to Jesus.

But on a side note we know from Scripture that Jesus had cousins: James the less, Jude, Simon, Joseph and Salome. You also had Mary of Clopas that is called Mary’s sister, but is most probably her cousin since they both possessed the same name. Mary of Clopas was married to Alpheaus and was the Mother of James, Jude, Joseph and Salome for sure and most probably Simon as well.

Now name me one sibling of Jesus. I can name you six cousins, but can you name me one sibling? Don’t you think that these persons would be called out somewhere in Scripture? Even if they hated Jesus and their mother I believe that even that would have been pointed out somewhere. I mean one of you protestants keeps using Psalm 69. So if this was correct I think that it would have been pointed out to confirm a prophecy.

But see the problem you have is you can’t. You guess. You have no proof for your assertions except for speculation. Also I think that one thing is clear Jewish custom and law is not your strong point. Granted I am not saying I am an expert, but when I am not sure about something I do research. I suggest you do the same.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Dianaid,

Thanks for offering us all the Bible quotes regarding that response by Mary to the angel.

Roman Catholicism basically is the only denomination that does uphold celibacy and virginity as a vocation…so from my faith background…I see Mary in all the different translations saying essentially “How?”…because “I am”…in the virgin state…and the fact the Angel appeared to her of all women with her responding with the Magnificat…

Says to me she intended to stay in her special consecration to God, a unique place in fulfilling God’s plan for the salvation of men.

So if people cannot see her uniqueness and her great stature with God to bring into the world, Christ,…then it is making me ask, then…and not here…but on another post…

What does it truly entail to be messiah and savior of the world…?

Some how, seeing Mary not be perpetual virgin, having sex and other kids…is now making her common…she gave her body and blood to Christ Who became the Eucharist…and there is some saying I read awhile back…and I think it pertains to all that we consider sacred…is that we do not treat things of God commonly…

 

[dianaiad]

Yes we do know who wrote it. It was the Holy Spirit. The one holding the pen is only an instrument. God is the author.

That is a very biblical inerrantist position, Steve.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

That is a very biblical inerrantist position, Steve.

What he stated is Catholic teaching.

 

[david_ruiz]

No - Doki’s point is moot from the beginning because of Mary’s response.

Mary didn’t say, "How can this be since I have not known a man?"
**This would mean that she hadn’t **slept with anybody, thus validating Doki’s position. It would have been a reasonable response - IF that were the scenario, which it wasn’t.

She said, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?"
This is an important phrasing of the words because it means she does not have sex.
She is telling the angel - "How can this be? This can NEVER happen because I don’t do that."

Hi Trying to follow your thoughts.I have KJV-"How shall this be seeing I know not a man ? " NIV-“how will this be,since I am a virgin ?“Both imply virginity .Both imply no sex,that could produce a child .Even your text says, “I have no relations with a man”. It does not say, " I will have no relations with a man”.I do not see intent of chastity or not.I believe she was saying the facts of life ,like “Me a baby.I have not been with a man,not even my betrothed-like it is not up to me only-hint-i need a man and don’t have one yet ,maybe in a year ? It seems a matter of timing ,of the betrothal,anouncement ,conception wedding.As it turned out apparently she conceived immediately so her question was pertinent,if even in hindsight Right? She became pregnant immediately? .Anyways , the timing was perfect , her statement was perfect for it told us bluntly yet delicately that prophecy was fulfilled for” a virgin shall conceive”. Anyways ,we have been over this .not totally sure of the different translations affecting anything.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Dianaid,

Thanks for offering us all the Bible quotes regarding that response by Mary to the angel.

Roman Catholicism basically is the only denomination that does uphold celibacy and virginity as a vocation…so from my faith background…I see Mary in all the different translations saying essentially “How?”…because “I am”…in the virgin state…and the fact the Angel appeared to her of all women with her responding with the Magnificat…

Says to me she intended to stay in her special consecration to God, a unique place in fulfilling God’s plan for the salvation of men.

So if people cannot see her uniqueness and her great stature with God to bring into the world, Christ,…then it is making me ask, then…and not here…but on another post…

What does it truly entail to be messiah and savior of the world…?

Some how, seeing Mary not be perpetual virgin, having sex and other kids…is now making her common…she gave her body and blood to Christ Who became the Eucharist…and there is some saying I read awhile back…and I think it pertains to all that we consider sacred…is that we do not treat things of God commonly…

Nor do those of us who do not necessarily believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity treat her ‘commonly,’ Kathleen. There is this thing about Jesus being ‘fully human’ that rather requires that he BE fully human: born of a fully human mother–since of course His Father is divine, His mother had to be the source of His humanity. If she is somehow unique and above all humans–if she didn’t partake in any of the human suffering, temptations–if she was some superwoman imposed upon us to just make it LOOK as if she were part of humanity–but was really not, isn’t that cheating?

If Jesus is born of a divine Father–and a mother who didn’t share anything of what makes us human and in need of Jesus’ sacrifice–how can He be 'fully human?"

So, while I understand why you show such great reverence for Mary–she deserves all the respect we can give her–in a way I feel that, by assigning her all those unique and God imposed virtues (I’m still a little flurmuggled by the idea that she was never TEMPTED to sin…), I can’t help but feel that we are actually taking from her.

Consider: if God fixes her so that she doesn’t have any of the spiritual problems that the rest of us have; if she didn’t suffer under original sin, and was never tempted to sin; if she never suffered pain in labor, or the pain of death–where is any virtue in her in that? It seems to me that the glory of our relationship with Jesus is best found in what we overcome to become like Him; not whether we are tempted, but whether we over come sin. Not whether we have no desire to have a spouse and children, but whether we can serve God IN our role as wives and mothers. Not whether we have pain or suffer death, but whether we can keep our hearts and eyes on God in spite of them.

In other words, I would rather see Mary as a human woman, like me, with all the temptations and troubles I have found–who yet was worthy to be the mother of Jesus. That gives me hope that, through faith, I can be worthy of Him, too. If Mary was made, by God, as far different from us as I have seen her described here, what hope have any of us?

 

[KathleenGee]

Certainly Dianaid, you wish to see Mary have had all the trials and temptations we have.

She did…Christ was tempted in all things but sin. We can think the same for Mary. St. Therese of Lisieux, the Little Flower, imagined the life of the Holy Family and they were no strangers to suffering…poor, dealing with the heat and cold, St. Joseph providing for other people, but they not paying him for work done…

Mary suffered greatly during the life of her son…a sword pierced her heart…Miriam meaning bitter…the suffering of a human soul hurts the most, is the most painful…she knew her son would be the rising of many and the fall of many…great upheaval and suffering just as we are now doing with our own country…not knowing how we will go on or survive or what will be the future for our children…

I would be in adoration of the Christ Child, the Man God…she embraced Him and looked into his eyes…but her heart was already pierced…Isaiah said this Man would be a man of sorrows…and she knew his prophecy of her son…who would be hung on a tree…knowing that her little baby would grow up to be hung up…rejected by many of His own people…makes me think how Christ said every idle word we speak we will be made accountable…

Mothers never forget the time they had with their babies…as they grew into toddlers, children with eyes of wonder in awe of God’s creation, their innocence…Jesus was totally innocent…I mean to say, I think Mary in one sense rejoiced in the Lord at all times, but on the other hand, at the same time…her soul was constantly suffering for the Lord and the trials and rejection he would undergo…I see her having grey (sad) blue eyes…

I think of the picture of St. Bernadette who reflected on Mary all the time…she began to appear as Mary…St. Ambrose speaking of Mary, somber in expression…that would be how I would describe Bernadette’s picture when she was 20…I think Mary was very serious, very kind…very deep…

Yesterday was the feastday of Mary Mother of Sorrows…

The other thing to recall in ancient Christian times is how many wanted to be virgins for Christ once they had experienced Him…St. Barbara, St. Cecilia…do you know about her? She refused to marry someone…her executioner tried to kill her…cut her neck…she was found in this posture…bleeding for 3 days and she had 3 fingers extended out from her representing the Holy Trinity…SS Perpetua was virgin…I can’t think of more saints…

But so many virgin saints and women religious who wanted to give their all for Jesus…again, we are having now the witness of the Holy Spirit active in the believers…the consecrated virgin for Jesus found in every generation…single hearted…it is their lives that I am sure helped form Mary’s title as in the Immaculate Conception, conceived without sin…and her state of perpetual virginity…if these saints and sisters sought the single consecrated life for God…to think Mary would want less and seek a more carnal life…doesn’t ring true to me. I think I am fortunate to be in my church that does treasure this…and I am not denigrating either other churches that do not think the same.

But the women religious witness is a great testimony to Mary and the consecrated life.

 

[dianaiad]

What he stated is Catholic teaching.

It is a Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit wrote the bible, and the men holding the pen were simply taking dictation?

 

[KathleenGee]

CC136…God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth.

 

[Zooey]

elvisman:

That’s your problem. You think that this was written in English - it wasn’t. It was written in Greek. As a matter of fact, many scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek. The english translations didn’t come for well over a thousand years later.
Secondly - you claim that there are no prophecies about Mary’s perpetual virginity - and you are wrong about that:

Ezekiel 44:1-4
*Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. *
He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.
*Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the LORD. He must enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and leave by the same way. *Then he brought me by way of the north gate to the facade of the temple, and when I looked I saw the glory of the LORD filling the LORD’S temple, and I fell prone.

If you’re looking for a direct correlation betwen Jesus and the actual Eastern gate of Jesrusalem - forget it. Millions passed through that gate after Christ from the 1st century to the time it was walled up by the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century.

This prophecy relates directly to Mary’s perpetual virginity.

:extrahappy:Yes!! Yes, yes, yes!!!:extrahappy:
Oh, I love it !!
The Bible was NOT dropped on silly old King James’:whacky: head as he was meandering about the palace gardens of an evening in1611!
It did not come, therefore, in Elizabethan [Jacobean] English, bound in leather with gold stamping.
Greek. Greek and Hebrew.
And yes: Matthew was, indeed, originally in Aramaic.

elvisman:

As for Mary’s other children in Scripture - show me the passage that says she had other children and I’ll leave the Catholic Church today and join your church.

PS: Please note that some of us (even doddering old cranky Methodists) know how to quote, regardless of colour or bolding, etc, etc.
Just saying…shaw: