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

[dianaiad]

dianaiad;7070244:

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

B]COLOR=black]FONT=Arial]NO – you’re

B]NOTB] comprehending what I am saying.

Perhaps not, elvisman. Unfortunately, you aren’t saying anything. You are writing it, and you specifically wrote this. Please read your own post.

Your position (and that of Todd and Doki) is that Mary simply asked the question because she had* never been* with a man.

Yep.

In context – that is

NOTB] what she said. She was befuddles by the Angel’s announcement because she had no intention of being with a man (sexually).

sez who? What context? I do not see any context in which this would be true…and did you bother to read the 22 translations of that quote of hers, in Luke? NONE of them, in context or not, have her referring to this in the future tense, and MOST of them have her dealing with the issue in the present and past tense. “How shall this be, since I am a virgin?” “how can this happen since I’ve never known a man?”

Even Young’s literal translation doesn’t support your point.

Get this straight, because I think you’re very confused: MARY WASN’T PREGNANT WHEN THE ANGEL CAME. She did not become pregnant until she said, *“*Let it be done unto me according to your word.”

OK, so? Nobody is arguing that she was pregnant when the angel came. Nobody here is arguing against Mary being a virgin at this time, or at Jesus’ birth. Given this, your rather rude ‘get this’ is a royal red herring… as in, yes, and…???

elvisman:

COLOR=red]FONT=Arial]U]BBad/B]/U]/FONT]/COLOR[BCOLOR=black]FONT=Arial] answer.
Luke was under the/FONT]/COLOR]COLOR=blueFONT=Arialof the U]Holy Spirit

/FONT]/COLOR]COLOR=black mince words./FONT]COLOR=black]FONT=Arial]/FONT]/COLOR]/B]
B]FONT=Arial]Then go back to the/FONT]FONT=Arial U]GREEKB]. I don’t know U]I]HOW many times I have to say this before it sinks in./FONT]

At least one more time, elvisman. Preferably in a format that is actually decipherable.

B]FONT=ArialThere are COLOR=red]bad

translations and[ICOLOR=blue]others that are far superior – far closer to the COLOR=blue]original Greek and Hebrew./FONT]B]FONT=Arial]/FONT] B]FONT=Arial]The U]HOLY SPIRIT wrote the original - you and Todd are playing COLOR=blue*semantic *games . . …/FONT]

 

[dianaiad]

The word of God is what it is - inerrant.
Men have perverted the Scriptures by not submitting to the Authority left by Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church. The CHURCH is the Authority and the pillar and foundation of truth - not Protestantism, not Mormonism, not Jehovah’s Witnesses

The more factions and splinter groups that arise - the more you can guarantee further perversions of Scripture to rise to the surface.

Ok, evidently you are a biblical inerrentist. Does that fly with Catholic doctrine?

 

[dianaiad]

And I asked you several pages back to provide me with proof of this great apostasy.

**All you could reply with was your dislike for my use of colors **in my posts.
So, I ask you again - please provide PROOF of the Great Apostasy.

I could reply with the standard response I’ve been getting here–when I am asked to ‘prove’ that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, or that she is NOT a perpetual virgin–and say you prove it didn’t.

However, the evidence I have for this, which I accept completely, is this: Catholics claim that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Without that, how could you NOT apostasize?

 

[dianaiad]

And what is your point? Catholics have already explained our view of the Bible.

I want to be very clear about this, is all—because I have also been told many times that Catholics are not biblical inerrentists. Before I make assumptions, I need clarification.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I want to be very clear about this, is all—because I have also been told many times that Catholics are not biblical inerrentists. Before I make assumptions, I need clarification.

Okay, here is what the Church teaches:

***105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

136 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 (cf. DV 11).

---

 

[elvisman]

Ok, evidently you are a biblical inerrentist. Does that fly with Catholic doctrine?

Huh? Why do you think that the Church doesn’t believe that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God?

 

[elvisman]

I could reply with the standard response I’ve been getting here–when I am asked to ‘prove’ that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, or that she is NOT a perpetual virgin–and say you prove it didn’t.

However, the evidence I have for this, which I accept completely, is this: Catholics claim that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Without that, how could you NOT apostasize?

Not good enough. I want some proof – some documentation of the Great Apostasy as claimed by the LDS.

---

As far as proving that we did not and could not apostasize I will you to Christ’s guarantees in Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18 and John 16:12-15 as well as Paul’s admonition that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth in 1 Tim. 3:15. These texts show that not only will the Church not err but that it CANNOT err in matters of faith and morals.
For it to have apostasized would render Jesus Christ nothing but a liar.

 

[Tomster]

Not good enough. I want some proof – some documentation of the Great Apostasy as claimed by the LDS.

---

As far as proving that we did not and could not apostasize I will you to Christ’s guarantees in Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18 and John 16:12-15 as well as Paul’s admonition that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth in 1 Tim. 3:15. These texts show that not only will the Church not err but that it CANNOT err in matters of faith and morals.
For it to have apostasized would render Jesus Christ nothing but a liar.

Exactly!

 

[elvisman]

O.K. So you admit that in english “until” can be construed both ways on this discussion ?.Then are you saying the English translation is “weak”,possibly in error ? Do you mean the Greeks had no way of saying something did not happen ever without employing their word for “until” ? Why did they not just say Joseph NEVER knew her ? Why did they put a time or reference point ((until Jesus was born) ? I do not know .We have that word in the English language for a reason ,and I think the Greeks may have also .Anyways ,I do believe in going back to the greek to study ,especiallly a disputed matter. My final point always has been to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and not use the "until "argument to prove siblings.It only proves virgin -birth.But I would also not fight against someone saying a general insinuation is there that things changed after the birth…Get back to your neat scripture of Ezekial.later.thanks

Here a good reason why they may not have been more specific:
Maybe because it was common knowledge that she had no other children.
It would have been silly to tell people at the time Mary was alive – many who KNEW her – that she only had one child.

The Gospels weren’t written for me and you in the 21st century – they were written for people 2000 years ago.

Context, my friend . . . CONTEXT.

 

[brumano]

Interesting don’t the non catholics think that St. Paul although he does not speak of Mary directly, he gives in Timothy 1 ch.2 v13 -15 the condition of original sin, through Eve for her part was culpable for, and Mary is destined to take away? I think they should read it .

 

[Todd520]

**Here a good **reason why they may not have been more specific:
Maybe because it was common knowledge that she had no other children.
It would have been silly to tell people at the time Mary was alive – many who KNEW her – that she only had one child.

The Gospels weren’t written for me and you in the 21st century – they were written for people 2000 years ago.

Context, my friend . . . CONTEXT.

Elvis, I appreciate your comments but this one was particularly WEAK!

In short order they were preaching to people who had no direct knowledge of Mary or Christ, to people of different communities and cultures across the Med. down to Rome.

I think they specifically emphasized the virgin birth because it was important.
And they did not mention PV explicitly because it was NOT important to the faith (at the time).

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, I appreciate your comments but this one was particularly WEAK!

In short order they were preaching to people who had no direct knowledge of Mary or Christ, to people of different communities and cultures across the Med. down to Rome.

I think they specifically emphasized the virgin birth because it was important.
And they did not mention PV explicitly because it was NOT important to the faith (at the time).

And that’s why I phrased the sentence as such:
Maybe because it was common knowledge that she had no other children.

I’m not claiming that it is absolutely true that it was common knowledge that Jesus had no siblings but that it MAY have been.

As for WHO the gospels were written to - Luke was written to Theophilus - a man who had ALREADY received instruction in the Christian faith. In short, Luke was writing to a contemporary Christian.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s the weakest argument yet. In fact - it’s a cop-out.

You could use that excuse for everything that has ever been said or done in the history of the world. OR - you could use, logic, reason, Scriptural prophecy and tradition . . . like WE have.

Okay, you were there.

 

[Dokimas]

**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 . . .

I’ll bet you never loose arguments, at least in your mind.

Fancy that.

BTW, pals don’t treat pals the way you treat people.

 

[Dokimas]

Well, I don’t have the expertise to do that, but I would point out one or two things which are related.

If you had a good Bible program you could do it. It’s quite easy.

 

[Nicea325]

Elvis, I appreciate your comments but this one was particularly WEAK!

In short order they were preaching to people who had no direct knowledge of Mary or Christ, to people of different communities and cultures across the Med. down to Rome.

I think they specifically emphasized the virgin birth because it was important.
And they did not mention PV explicitly because it was NOT important to the faith (at the time).

And they did not mention PV explicitly because it was NOT important to the faith (at the time)

Key words: At the time. Just like the fixed canon of the Bible was not important to the faith for many years, however, does not equate into a falsehood.

 

[adrift]

"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.

I asked this once before which I think got lost in the on slaught.

My research shows that the betrothal was a year before the marriage. That would mean that there would not be a betrothal that young girls were betrothed. I think in other cultures that of which you speak occurred. But can you provide that this occurred in the Jewish culture of the time?
Now you say about a year more or less and than go on to refute that so which is it a year or more? Documentaion please.

 

[adrift]

.
You are a Catholic; of course you don’t. Using the same logic, given our claims and beliefs, you need to understand that we do not accept, as authoritative proof texts for us, those writings by Catholic church fathers that show up much after the death of the last apostles. We are both, then, pretty much stuck with the bible if we want to convince one another of the accuracy of one doctrine or the other.

Please clear up a confusion I have about this statement. As I understand it, LDS believes that John never died. If this is true, there would be a conflict in your above statement.

 

[david_ruiz]

I know there are scriptural passages that can lead one to believe that Mary and Joseph had other childen as husband and wife.
There are references that point to her Perpetual Virginity as well.

1. Numbers 30 shows that a vow of abstinence, even in marriage, was not unheard of in the Old Testament.
2. St. Jerome argued for the well-known and commonly held belief in Mary’s virginity in St. Jerome’s “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary” vs Heluidius (380 A.D.)
3. Church approved apparitions always speak of Mary as the Virgin (for example, the Virgin of Guadalupe).

What do you think?

Thank-you for being nice enough to say some scriptures can lead one to believe Mary had children. I just quickly read Numbers 30, and I see an entire chapter on swearing an oath before God and the rules thereof. It does not mention any vow specifically, nothing about a vow of abstinence. Indeed , it does say if a wife takes any vow it must be with the husbands approval. I could not find any vows of abstinence in a marriage in the old testament. If they are there , I am sure someone will kindly point it out. As far as Jerome and Helvidius , they debated this same issue and I believe dealt mostly with scripture. To me it indicates that there was freedom of conviction still in the early church , and that there was no consensus , universality , on this issue. Indeed Jerome carried the day (won).but not neccesarily because he had the better argument .It seemed Jerome may have based his convictions on an error with the Greek .I am not sure( it is possible some catholic historians have said this) , I studied it briefly a long time ago .I just recall saying it was like VHS tapes beating out Beta tapes, even though Beta was a much better tape. As far as apparitions,I do not believe them to the genuine Mary .If anything ,it prejudices me to see it as a bad fruit of Mariology in general.Please .her ever-virgin issue has the respectability of the ages as far as it being debated by many good saints.

 

[david_ruiz]

**Here a good **reason why they may not have been more specific:
Maybe because it was common knowledge that she had no other children.
It would have been silly to tell people at the time Mary was alive – many who KNEW her – that she only had one child.

The Gospels weren’t written for me and you in the 21st century – they were written for people 2000 years ago.

Context, my friend . . . CONTEXT.

I get your point.The same could be said the other way ,that it was obvious that they had children ,hence no nedd to specify ,other than what WAS important ,our Lord’s virgin birth .To further comment ,I would add the apostles ,the Holy Spirit , was master at writing for the day -context ,context,but simultaneously for the ages.