Look, I’m studying for a degree that doesn’t earn a lot of money in my future job, you could give me some light and hope and… sobsWith the Obama presidency the borrowing from China plus the deficit we’re running up and the “stimulus” will actually make my two cents into about $350 by my estimation so I’m going to just shut up, it’s cheaper!
There are plenty of Truths of the faith that are not “showcased” in scripture. The purpose of the Gospels was to show Jesus to the world. It was not until heresies arose over His identity that the Church had to step up and clarify who she was, and her role in salvation.
I think she was a virgin at Jesus’ birth. I think that, after that, she was fully a wife to Joseph, fully a mother to Jesus, and probably had more children.
I think you hit this nail on the head, Doki. The Marian doctrines are such a constellating force because accepting them requires “a different type of faith”. It requires that one be able to trust God to preserve His Word in the Church, just as He has in the Scriptures. Trust of this level was lost during the Reformation, and for most of our separated brethren, has never been regained.
I think the reason that it is so important is that the rejection of the Marian doctrines represents an attack and erosion on the Gospel of Truth that has been preserved in the Church. People think they are wiser than God, and can decide for themselves what is “essential to salvation”. This is not the case. The Divine Deposit of Faith was given “once for all” to the Church. It is not within our purview to begin to excise parts of it.
I think this is also a good point. The lack of awareness of Mary’s role abbreviates the gospel message.
On your comment that she “probably had more children”, there is no evidence of this in the Bible or in History or from the Early Church Fathers.
I misspoke, divinity was not the proper word…I should say I don’t think her engaging in a normal married relationship with her husband would make anything she did lesser in importance, meaning, etc.
Abandoning the teaching that Mary was celibate might also undermine the case for a celibate priesthood. From what I’ve learned while being a Catholic the celibate state is considered a much more holy state than married life.
This is what I believe.
Sure. But that all holds if and only if one is Catholic. You can persuade other Catholics with it, but not us “separated brethren.”
There is even less evidence that she did not…that is, while the term ‘brothers’ WAS used in relation to Jesus, there isn’t anything in the bible that says she stayed celibate.
Apparently, there is a consequence. If you don’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary is important you don’t believe in the authority of the Catholic Church. That puts you in danger of hell.
This is where we disagree. I would be in danger should I not believe in the Triune God. I would be in danger should I not believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. I would be in danger if I denied that our Lord’s suffering and death were necessary for my salvation. But, despite my respect for the Catholic Church as part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, I do not believe that my acceptance of its authority is necessary to my salvation.
I don’t see anything in the Bible to indicate that she did not have normal marital relations with her husband after Jesus was born, so I vote “no”.
You make a very interesting point. The OP refers to writings of early church fathers that are not found in the bible to make the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and goes on to describe purely Catholic experiences; visions and apparitions. Holy Tradition.
The idea of 'Holy Tradition" doesn’t bug us at all. It’s just that we believe that much if it is, well…apostate. We don’t disagree. My fellow Catholics are the ones saying the Church imposes this doctrine as a test of faith. I don’t happen to think the Church’s authority rests on whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin, but many Catholics (and perhaps even the Catholic Church itself) seem to think it does. Why the Church would put itself out on a limb to defend what I consider an unnecessary doctrine is something I can’t grasp. It feeds into the misperception that even within married life the Catholic Church sees sex as more of a necessary evil than an uplifting union of a married man and woman.
Not to mention that you both believe we’re apostates.Catholics have a bigger row to hoe here with Protestants than they do with Mormons. At least we accept the idea that doctrine and beliefs CAN be found in extra-biblical sources.
**I was not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was hoping posters would provide what they considered to be proof of either side of the argument. Not just opinions. Frankly, I grow weary of those who need to be spoon-fed every little bit of information on a topic and don’t give it much research and thought. Just knee-jerk, stuck-in-my-ways, reactions. I don’t learn from that. By the way, I started this post because a Catholic said s/he did not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I thought I would open it up to non-Catholics too to get their (name removed by moderator)ut as well.You make a very interesting point. The OP refers to writings of early church fathers that are not found in the bible to make the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and goes on to describe purely Catholic experiences; visions and apparitions. Holy Tradition.
1. First of all, we know St. Jerome lived and we know he wrote on the topic of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. So, we know that the early Church believed in this.
2. Actually, I tried not to use “purely Catholic experiences” for this post. Most Protestants do not totally discount the writings of the ECF and to my knowledge, Martin Luther believed in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother as well.
3. Because there is much to prove the apparitions of the Blessed Mother, I really don’t feel these are “purely Catholic.” Which is why I used the example of Our Lady of Guadalupe which has received some popular attention, even on television. Just google apparitions of Mary, in Zeitoun, Egypt. There are pictures! She was seen by millions - Jews, Muslims, Orthodox, Catholics, Atheists…Really, this stuff is out there for all to see. Not just Catholics. (Unless we choose not to then we can stick our head in the sand and call it “purely Catholic”).
That’s not a problem at all—if one is Catholic. However, Protestants generally had major problems with Holy Tradition; they accepted some of it, rejected a lot, if not most, of it…and refused to use any of it as prooftext material for doctrine. In fact, for a Catholic to attempt to prove the truth of a doctrine to a non-Catholic by using Holy Tradition is very much like a Mormon attempting to prove the truth of a belief by quoting from the Book of Mormon.
**No, because there is very little that the Mormons do today that is in the BoM. **
Both extra biblical sources of doctrine are great for proving WHAT beliefs are, but neither are any good for proving to non-believers that those beliefs are ‘true.’ First…get everyone to agree that those extra-biblical sources are appropriate sources, and then use them.
I disagree. Look up the pictures of the apparitions in Egypt and read the stories of the millions who saw her. Read about the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, then tell me it is only for Catholics!
Catholics have a bigger row to hoe here with Protestants than they do with Mormons. At least we accept the idea that doctrine and beliefs CAN be found in extra-biblical sources.
What Catholics must do, in speaking to Protestants about the virginity of Mary,(that is, in trying to prove it) is to use only those sources that all participants in the discussion accept. Using quotes from Holy Tradition is fine–to show why Catholics believe. It’s not so good for convincing those who dismiss Holy Tradition that they must believe, too.
**.