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.
adrift said:
Until does NOT imply a change. Until only describes a certain period of time. Instead of using examples find the dictionary definition. The definition has no implication or statement that there is a change. The reason for the until is to indicate a period of a specific time. It doesn’t intend to say what happened after that period of time. Matthew was indicating a condition before Jesus’ birth not after. To indicate that until means a change is misusing the word.
Click to expand...
The key to understanding verse 25 is verse 24, it explains why verse 25 occurs.
He took Mary as his wife
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Click to expand...
That has a certain meaning.
  1. He took unto him his wife.
  2. AND/BUT he did not have sex until Jesus was born.
The Catholic view is these two verse actually mean
  1. He took Mary as his wife. Period. That thought is over.
  2. He did not have sex with Mary while Jesus was in the womb. Period. That thought is over and a wasted chance to explain that she was a perpetual virgin.
We see the second part as only necessary as it relates to the previous verse. The Catholic stance would have the second part not related. It would be almost like someone talking randomly with two unrelated comments.

Joseph took Mary as his wife. Period

Joseph and Mary did not have sex while Jesus was in the womb. Period

What we believe Matthew was trying to convey was that they got married but while the Son of God was in here, they never had sex. I am not sure what Catholics thought Matthew was trying to portray.
 
gcnuss
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 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
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with this post:
I* would be in danger should I not believe in the Triune God*. You would not be able to believe in the Triune God were it not for the **authority **of the Catholic Church
I would be in danger should I not believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. You would not be able to believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church. This is what is called the hypostatic union even though you will not find that word anywhere in the Bible. It was by the authority of the Church that the Nestorium heresy was put down
I would be in danger if I denied that our Lord’s suffering and death were necessary for my salvation. You would not be able to believe that the Lord’s suffering and death were necessary for your salvation were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Think about this - The bible did NOT fall from the sky in the 1500’s. The KJV was not authorized by God to be written down. As a matter of fact, there is no scripture verse where Jesus commanded that his words be written down and compiled into a book called the Bible. If so I would like to see book, chapter and verse. (An I’m not talking about the book of Revelation)
Jesus gave all authority to His Church and He said to listen to her. If we refused to listen to her, we refused to listen to Him and to the One who sent Him.

You cant escape the fact that it was by the Authority given to the Church that she compiled the book we now call the Bible. There were hundreds of letters and some 30 gospels and by the authority given by Jesus to His Church, she discerned that there were four gospels that were inspired by God. When men take it upon themselves to believe only on certain things they feel comfortable with, thats where heresies start. Jesus did not give partial authority to His Church and then let everyone read the KJV and come up with their own conclusions.

And correction: The CC is NOT PART of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, it IS the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. All Christians are part of the CC, albeit in a deficient form. Trace the history of your church and it will lead back to the CC somewhere after the Reformation.

So to answer the OP, by virture of the Authority of CC, yes I believe in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and I humbly submit to the authority of the CC, given to her by Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and my God and obey His wcommand to listen to His Church.
 
Rightlydivide said:
The key to understanding verse 25 is verse 24, it explains why verse 25 occurs.
He took Mary as his wife

That has a certain meaning.
  1. He took unto him his wife.
  2. AND/BUT he did not have sex until Jesus was born.
The Catholic view is these two verse actually mean
  1. He took Mary as his wife. Period. That thought is over.
  2. He did not have sex with Mary while Jesus was in the womb. Period. That thought is over and a wasted chance to explain that she was a perpetual virgin.
We see the second part as only necessary as it relates to the previous verse. The Catholic stance would have the second part not related. It would be almost like someone talking randomly with two unrelated comments.

Joseph took Mary as his wife. Period

Joseph and Mary did not have sex while Jesus was in the womb. Period

What we believe Matthew was trying to convey was that they got married but while the Son of God was in here, they never had sex. I am not sure what Catholics thought Matthew was trying to portray.
Click to expand...
And what I cannot understand why non-Catholics are so adamant that Mary HAD TO HAVE marital relations with Joseph after Jesus? Says who? Is the belief of Mary remaining an ever-virgin that much of an impossiblity for non-Catholics today? Is it impossible today for a woman today to remain a virgin or did she have to get married and have kids in order to make it ‘normal’ in the eyes of society? 🤷
 
TobyLue said:
gcnuss
Here is the problem with this post:
I* would be in danger should I not believe in the Triune God*. You would not be able to believe in the Triune God were it not for the **authority **of the Catholic Church
I would be in danger should I not believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. You would not be able to believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church. This is what is called the hypostatic union even though you will not find that word anywhere in the Bible. It was by the authority of the Church that the Nestorium heresy was put down
I would be in danger if I denied that our Lord’s suffering and death were necessary for my salvation. You would not be able to believe that the Lord’s suffering and death were necessary for your salvation were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Think about this - The bible did NOT fall from the sky in the 1500’s. The KJV was not authorized by God to be written down. As a matter of fact, there is no scripture verse where Jesus commanded that his words be written down and compiled into a book called the Bible. If so I would like to see book, chapter and verse. (An I’m not talking about the book of Revelation)
Jesus gave all authority to His Church and He said to listen to her. If we refused to listen to her, we refused to listen to Him and to the One who sent Him.

You cant escape the fact that it was by the Authority given to the Church that she compiled the book we now call the Bible. There were hundreds of letters and some 30 gospels and by the authority given by Jesus to His Church, she discerned that there were four gospels that were inspired by God. When men take it upon themselves to believe only on certain things they feel comfortable with, thats where heresies start. Jesus did not give partial authority to His Church and then let everyone read the KJV and come up with their own conclusions.

And correction: The CC is NOT PART of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, it IS the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. All Christians are part of the CC, albeit in a deficient form. Trace the history of your church and it will lead back to the CC somewhere after the Reformation.

So to answer the OP, by virture of the Authority of CC, yes I believe in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and I humbly submit to the authority of the CC, given to her by Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and my God and obey His wcommand to listen to His Church.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
TobyLue said:
gcnuss
Here is the problem with this post:
I* would be in danger should I not believe in the Triune God*. You would not be able to believe in the Triune God were it not for the **authority **of the Catholic Church
I would be in danger should I not believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. You would not be able to believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church. This is what is called the hypostatic union even though you will not find that word anywhere in the Bible. It was by the authority of the Church that the Nestorium heresy was put down
I would be in danger if I denied that our Lord’s suffering and death were necessary for my salvation. You would not be able to believe that the Lord’s suffering and death were necessary for your salvation were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.

Think about this - The bible did NOT fall from the sky in the 1500’s. The KJV was not authorized by God to be written down. As a matter of fact, there is no scripture verse where Jesus commanded that his words be written down and compiled into a book called the Bible. If so I would like to see book, chapter and verse. (An I’m not talking about the book of Revelation)
Jesus gave all authority to His Church and He said to listen to her. If we refused to listen to her, we refused to listen to Him and to the One who sent Him.

You cant escape the fact that it was by the Authority given to the Church that she compiled the book we now call the Bible. There were hundreds of letters and some 30 gospels and by the authority given by Jesus to His Church, she discerned that there were four gospels that were inspired by God. When men take it upon themselves to believe only on certain things they feel comfortable with, thats where heresies start. Jesus did not give partial authority to His Church and then let everyone read the KJV and come up with their own conclusions.

And correction: The CC is NOT PART of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, it IS the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. All Christians are part of the CC, albeit in a deficient form. Trace the history of your church and it will lead back to the CC somewhere after the Reformation.

So to answer the OP, by virture of the Authority of CC, yes I believe in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and I humbly submit to the authority of the CC, given to her by Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and my God and obey His wcommand to listen to His Church.
Click to expand...
That is the root of the whole problem: AUTHORITY. The belief the Bible is the only authority has been going on for centuries and trying to make others understand a false belief will also take centuries.
 
adrift said:
Until does NOT imply a change. Until only describes a certain period of time. Instead of using examples find the dictionary definition. The definition has no implication or statement that there is a change. The reason for the until is to indicate a period of a specific time. It doesn’t intend to say what happened after that period of time. Matthew was indicating a condition before Jesus’ birth not after. To indicate that until means a change is misusing the word.
Click to expand...
Sorry but as far as the bible goes, that use of UNTIL is pretty specific. Here is another example

The young man and woman were celebate until they got married.

While this sentence does not explicitly say they lost their celibacy after marriage, it is clearly implied (as it was with Mary in the bible).

Now if the author knew something unique and important about the couple, he would have used different sentence structure (and not used until)

The young man and woman remained celebate even after they got married, due to their vows of life-long chastity.
 
Todd520 said:
Sorry but as far as the bible goes, that use of UNTIL is pretty specific. Here is another example

**The young man and woman were celebate until **they got married.

While this sentence does not explicitly say they lost their celibacy after marriage, it is clearly implied (as it was with Mary in the bible).

Now if the author knew something unique and important about the couple, he would have used different sentence structure (and not used until)

**The young man and woman remained celebate even after **they got married, due to their vows of life-long chastity.
Click to expand...
And why are you like so many adamant Mary had to have sexual relations with Joseph?
 
Nicea325 said:
So in other words,Jesus was not really an orthodox Jew who would have left the care of his mother to a blood brother,but chose a non-relative based merely on belief? Sounds more like a commentary and conjecture more than empricial evidence.
Click to expand...
He was a lover of the Father, and His [God’s] Will before he was anything else, even an Orthodox Jew. Also, when dealing with matters of theology and faith, you will rarely find empirical evidence for anything. If you could then there would be no such thing as an atheist. There is a reason we call it faith, because it can’t be empirically proved.
 
Again, being a parent and a mother, Mary would have truly a divided house with one child, God, and the others those in need of redemption and salvation…her attention would be divided.

I know of some married couples who had wonderful and positive marriage, but had atleast one child who was an absolute handful and not going the way the parents directed.
 
Nicea325 said:
And what I cannot understand why non-Catholics are so adamant that Mary HAD TO HAVE marital relations with Joseph after Jesus? Says who? Is the belief of Mary remaining an ever-virgin that much of an impossiblity for non-Catholics today? Is it impossible today for a woman today to remain a virgin or did she have to get married and have kids in order to make it ‘normal’ in the eyes of society? 🤷
Click to expand...
She did not have to. I am just going off what the text says.
 
Jesness said:
He was a lover of the Father, and His [God’s] Will before he was anything else, even an Orthodox Jew. Also, when dealing with matters of theology and faith, you will rarely find empirical evidence for anything. If you could then there would be no such thing as an atheist. There is a reason we call it faith, because it can’t be empirically proved.
Click to expand...
Sorry,but I am not buying it. I need to read the author’s book and his references. The belief Mary had more children is more of a modern belief because even the early reformers shared the same belief as the early Christians.
 
Matthew is the one who drives this; not me.
He took her as a wife. Now, that does not just means sex obviously. But Matthew brings up sex by saying that Joseph did not have sex with her until Jesus was born. The Catholic view is that Joseph said that he took Mary as his wife and then clarifies he is talking about sex but then neglects to mention she remained a virgin her whole life after saying that he took her as his wife.
That would mean in my estimation that Matthew is both confusing and the Holy Spirit missed a chance to clarify what would divide Christians. In our view, the Holy Spirit was very clear but people allowed legends and so forth to take precedence over what He inspired Matthew to write.
Once again, that is our view and I understand it is completely impossible to Catholics to conceive of this. Primarily because it has been infallibly declared. It would mean everything is wrong and certainly I understand that is not going to happen in anyone’s mind because some guy’s internet post!
 
KathleenGee said:
Again, being a parent and a mother, Mary would have truly a divided house with one child, God, and the others those in need of redemption and salvation…her attention would be divided.

I know of some married couples who had wonderful and positive marriage, but had atleast one child who was an absolute handful and not going the way the parents directed.
Click to expand...
That assumes Mary would not have had any responsibility for any children Joseph might have had from a previous marriage.
 
Nicea325 said:
And so am I. Well my friend, apparently the text is the source of confusion or else we would not be discussing the issue.
Click to expand...
We do not believe the text is confusing. Without your churches infallible teaching and a thousand years of teaching, I think people would see it the way we do. Having said that, without those two things, the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church. And I respect that what I am advocating is impossible to believe for Catholics. I submit it is not the text though.
 
Nicea325 said:
And why are you like so many adamant Mary had to have sexual relations with Joseph?
Click to expand...
No Nicea,
I don’t think she had to have relations with Joseph,
I just think it is implied in the text and therefor probable.

Maybe we are all just winding you up with how Holy Scripture contradicts Holy Tradition 😊
 
Todd520 said:
No Nicea,
I don’t think she had to have relations with Joseph,
I just think it is implied in the text and therefor probable.

Maybe we are all just winding you up with how Holy Scripture contradicts Holy Tradition 😊
Click to expand...
No…it is the non-Catholics who are implying what they want scripture to say…big difference. Precisely why there exists thousands of different churches,sects,denominations,etc. And wrong! Sacred Tradition cannot contradict Holy Scipture…that is plain absurd!
 
Rightlydivide said:
We do not believe the text is confusing. Without your churches infallible teaching and a thousand years of teaching, I think people would see it the way we do. Having said that, without those two things, the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church. And I respect that what I am advocating is impossible to believe for Catholics. I submit it is not the text though.
Click to expand...
No offense,but your statement is self-refuting. If the text is not confusing,then why so many different churches? A thousand years? Nope! Nearly 2,000 years of teaching. People would see it the way you do? And how old is your way? More than likely less than 200 years. Even the early reformers rejected your ‘way’ on the issue. The Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church? Come again?

And I too respect that what the RCC teaches is impossible to believe for non-Catholics,especially those whose churches are not even 100 years old.
 
Rightlydivide said:
She did not have to. I am just going off what the text says.
Click to expand...
Not really. You are adding to the text. You give examples instead of a definition. Go back to my post on the definition and it doesn’t agree with your interpretation.
 
Nicea325 said:
Sorry,but I am not buying it. I need to read the author’s book and his references. The belief Mary had more children is more of a modern belief because even the early reformers shared the same belief as the early Christians.
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you to buy anything. I really have no interest in overturning anyone’s beliefs; I just thought it was an interesting theory and it pertained to the topic, so I posted it.

Here is a link to the book in question.
amazon.com/Rosary-Prayer-Comes-Round

Edit: Out of curiosity, why do Catholic’s believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? (And I am not up for another round of ‘till vs until’ :p)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top