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

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lax16 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I do not believe in it but I do understand your view better than I did three or four years ago! I believe the Step brother argument is technically possible. I do not believe the cousin theory.
 
Catholic20064 said:
I sometimes wonder what difference it makes. It doesn’t change the fact that Christ was born of a virgin, died for my sins and rose from the dead either way.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!!!
If this was Facebook, I would “like” this post!
 
Dokimas said:
No.

I’m saying Guano’s logic was flawed as far as it went.

Why doesn’t God make us all without sin and let us make mistakes thus become sinners or not sin and we worthy of salvation on our own?
Click to expand...
Because our first parents chose to disobey and God respects that choice, hence the reason why we have free will.

If you choose to disbelieve Mary’s perpetual virginity, what’s to stop you (or anyone else) from disbelieving that Jesus was born of a virgin at all? Scripture can be twisted via private interpretation to say almost anything. Just look at how the Muslim faith has corrupted Scripture to suit their own ends.
 
JonNC said:
I agree. Hopefully, you’ll agree that that position is a two way street, and those who do not believe in semper virgo ought not condemn those of us, Catholic or otherwise, who do.

Jon
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve said anything that could be misunderstood as condemning anyone for their beliefs.

The condemnation usually seems to come from your side of the isle by a few here.
 
wanner47 said:
Because our first parents chose to disobey and God respects that choice, hence the reason why we have free will.

If you choose to disbelieve Mary’s perpetual virginity, what’s to stop you (or anyone else) from disbelieving that Jesus was born of a virgin at all? Scripture can be twisted via private interpretation to say almost anything. Just look at how the Muslim faith has corrupted Scripture to suit their own ends.
Click to expand...
Seems faulty logic on you part. The Bible says Jesus was born to the virgin called Mary. The Bible does NOT say Mary was a perpetual virgin. There’s a HUGE difference, one is easy to believe the other takes a different type of faith.
 
Dokimas said:
I don’t think I’ve said anything that could be misunderstood as condemning anyone for their beliefs.

The condemnation usually seems to come from your side of the isle by a few here.
Click to expand...
Sorry if you took my comment as an accusation. It didn’t mean it that way, because I haven’t seen a condemnation by you on this point (and you won’t see one from me). I have, however, seen condemnation come from both sides.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Sorry if you took my comment as an accusation. It didn’t mean it that way, because I haven’t seen a condemnation by you on this point (and you won’t see one from me). I have, however, seen condemnation come from both sides.

Jon
Click to expand...
I didn’t think you were necessarily speaking to me. I did want to open it up for you to point out if I did.
 
Dokimas said:
Seems faulty logic on you part. The Bible says Jesus was born to the virgin called Mary. The Bible does NOT say Mary was a perpetual virgin. There’s a HUGE difference, one is easy to believe the other takes a different type of faith.
Click to expand...
IF the Bible clearly taught it, it would be easy to accept. Its not something I think about, until I log on here!
 
Dokimas said:
Seems faulty logic on you part. The Bible says Jesus was born to the virgin called Mary. The Bible does NOT say Mary was a perpetual virgin. There’s a HUGE difference, one is easy to believe the other takes a different type of faith.
Click to expand...
Where does the Bible say that everything in the deposit of faith is found in the Bible?

Some would argue that Scripture explicitly condemns homosexual acts. However, there are many Christians (e.g., a good chunk of the Episcopalian community) who maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts and instead celebrates them. So as I said, it doesn’t really matter what is said in Scripture since it can be twisted to say anything. That’s the importance of having a reliable interpreter of Scripture – and if you call the CC unreliable due to the perpetual virginity of Mary, it goes that it is unreliable in everything else as well.
 
wanner47 said:
Where does the Bible say that everything in the deposit of faith is found in the Bible?
Click to expand...
That’s not the point being made. It was that not to believe Mary was perpetually a virgin might end up not believing Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born.
 
Dokimas said:
That’s not the point being made. It was that not to believe Mary was perpetually a virgin might end up not believing Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born.
Click to expand...
Obviously you missed the second paragraph of my post.
Some would argue that Scripture explicitly condemns homosexual acts. However, there are many Christians (e.g., a good chunk of the Episcopalian community) who maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts and instead celebrates them. So as I said, it doesn’t really matter what is said in Scripture since it can be twisted to say anything. That’s the importance of having a reliable interpreter of Scripture – and if you call the CC unreliable due to the perpetual virginity of Mary, it goes that it is unreliable in everything else as well.
Click to expand...
 
wanner47 said:
Some would argue that Scripture explicitly condemns homosexual acts. However, there are many Christians (e.g., a good chunk of the Episcopalian community) who maintain that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts and instead celebrates them. So as I said, it doesn’t really matter what is said in Scripture since it can be twisted to say anything. That’s the importance of having a reliable interpreter of Scripture – and if you call the CC unreliable due to the perpetual virginity of Mary, it goes that it is unreliable in everything else as well.
Click to expand...
The Bible does say homosexuality is wrong. If the CC maintains this truth then it is not wrong on this issue.

The Bible doesn’t need interpretation on the issue of homosexuality or the virgin birth of Jesus. They are clearly spelled out for us so we would need to re-interpret these subjects to deny them.
 
Dokimas said:
That’s not the point being made. It was that not to believe Mary was perpetually a virgin might end up not believing Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born.
Click to expand...
Why doesn’t that logic make any sense to me at all? I never heard of the doctrine of perpetual virginity until I started studying Catholicism. The thought never even occurred to me that Mary might have remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth, but I always believed in the virginity of Mary at least up until the time Jesus was born. That was an article of my faith based on the testimony of the Bible.
 
Dokimas said:
The Bible does say homosexuality is wrong. If the CC maintains this truth then it is not wrong on this issue.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Episcopalians.
The Bible doesn’t need interpretation on the issue of homosexuality or the virgin birth of Jesus. They are clearly spelled out for us so we would need to re-interpret these subjects to deny them.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Episcopalians (and the ELCA, and several other Christian sects…)
 
Dokimas said:
How long do you think it took for error to spread within the church?
Click to expand...
There has been error present since the first preaching of the Gospel. The Aposltes taught that this should be expected. The church has been battling and defeating these errors by the power of the HS now for 2000 years. The error of Helvidius, about the Virgin having more children was addressed by St. Jerome, the year after the canon of scripture was closed.

If the Church was not right on this point, then the canon cannot be trusted either, because all those who ratified it believed that Mary was Ever Virgin. they would not have allowed any books into the canon that contradicted this article of the faith.
 
Dokimas said:
Were Eve’s parents sinners with a sin nature to pass on to her?
Click to expand...
This is the teaching of the Church, yes. This is why she had to be immaculately conceived. This is why she needed a saviour.
 
Dokimas said:
No.

I’m saying Guano’s logic was flawed as far as it went.

Why doesn’t God make us all without sin and let us make mistakes thus become sinners or not sin and we worthy of salvation on our own?
Click to expand...
I never claimed that God’s plan of salvation is “logical”. If anything, it is the opposite. He chose to do it this way, and I accept that. His wisdom is higher than the foolishness of men.
 
Mary was born immaculate, was perpetually a virgin, was assumed body and soul into heaven, is the Queen of Heaven. That’s my two cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top