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

[Rightlydivide]

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.

The churches relied on tradition and that is the lens in which they interpreted scripture. The tradition is that she remained a virgin and thus churches who rely on tradition and scripture view it throught that lens.
I believe my way is the earliest way.
Hegesippus is the earliest church historian. I believe he is writing as the legends are starting to overtake the way the church viewed this (thus his insistence in one part that the brothers are “reputed”. You do not have to believe my view but my research indicates the first 100 years viewed this like we do. I do not concern myselft with how long errors dominated. In scripture, error always follows God’s true revelation, that is the story of the OT and in my estimation the story of the New Testament. All of Paul’s letters, well almost all, Peter’s epistles, Hebrews, and the first part of Revelation deal with problems and false doctrines in the church. I do not think it suddenly improved after scripture and if you read the earliest Christain historian, neither did he. It will not take long, pay special attention to the parts about the family of Jesus.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
I understand your view. I am simply attempting to explain mine; whether you agree or not.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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.

If you wish to expand this discussion to hoes hou and all of the times it is used in the New Testament?

 

[Todd520]

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!

Nicea, It was a Catholic who started this thread to read other perspectives (or was it baiting?).
Since the question can never be solved with certainty based on explicit bible statements, why don’t you just read our interpretation and let it go?

 

[Nicea325]

The churches relied on tradition and that is the lens in which they interpreted scripture. The tradition is that she remained a virgin and thus churches who rely on tradition and scripture view it throught that lens.
I believe my way is the earliest way.
Hegesippus is the earliest church historian. I believe he is writing as the legends are starting to overtake the way the church viewed this (thus his insistence in one part that the brothers are “reputed”. You do not have to believe my view but my research indicates the first 100 years viewed this like we do. I do not concern myselft with how long errors dominated. In scripture, error always follows God’s true revelation, that is the story of the OT and in my estimation the story of the New Testament. All of Paul’s letters, well almost all, Peter’s epistles, Hebrews, and the first part of Revelation deal with problems and false doctrines in the church. I do not think it suddenly improved after scripture and if you read the earliest Christain historian, neither did he. It will not take long, pay special attention to the parts about the family of Jesus.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
I understand your view. I am simply attempting to explain mine; whether you agree or not.

I understand rightlydivide and I have to respect your position and beliefs as well.

You do not have to believe my view but my research indicates the first 100 years viewed this like we do.

Do you have substantiated-empirical evidence for this? I have a 3 set volume on the ECF and I do not recall any of them stating Mary had more children without a doubt?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I personally DO believe in the immaculate nature of Mary, the virgin birth of Christ, the perpetual virginity of the BVM, and her Assumption body and soul into heaven.

What I do question and wonder about in general is why this is required for the Christian’s salvation? Why is anathema attached to it and whyis it necessary to get into Heaven? I get this question a lot from non-Catholics and do agree with it even though I believe in these Marian dogmas personally.

 

[Nicea325]

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’ )

Oh I understand and I am not trying to over turn your beliefs either. Well for us Catholics Mary has a special role and place in Christianity and our beliefs stem from Tradition and Scripture. And no…we do not worship Mary because the CC has always taught only God can save through His Graces and only God is to be worshipped.

BTW: What Christian church do you attend? And no I am not trying to bash your church…only asking.

 

[Jesness]

Oh I understand and I am not trying to over turn your beliefs either. Well for us Catholics Mary has a special role and place in Christianity and our beliefs stem from Tradition and Scripture. And no…we do not worship Mary because the CC has always taught only God can save through His Graces and only God is to be worshipped.

BTW: What Christian church do you attend? And no I am not trying to bash your church…only asking.

I understand that she has a special role in catholicism, she is titled as the ‘Queen of Heaven’ and Co-redeemer, but I don’t understand how catholics came to those conclusions. Especially Queen of heaven. Most of the scriptures that catholics use to support that are found in revelations. I find any scripture taken from revelations suspect- not because I don’t believe they’re true, but because I am highly skeptical of even the smartest person’s ability to decipher it accurately. The woman fleeing into the desert sounds more like a metaphor for the Church itself than an actual human woman.

And I was baptized as a Conservative Baptist. They’re slightly more fundamental than a Southern Baptist; but as the pastor pointed out, ‘you wouldn’t likely be able to tell the difference between the two doctrines side by side.’ However they’re a lot more fundamentalist than I am, so I am between churches right now.

 

[Nicea325]

I understand that she has a special role in catholicism, she is titled as the ‘Queen of Heaven’ and Co-redeemer, but I don’t understand how catholics came to those conclusions. Especially Queen of heaven. Most of the scriptures that catholics use to support that are found in revelations. I find any scripture taken from revelations suspect- not because I don’t believe they’re true, but because I am highly skeptical of even the smartest person’s ability to decipher it accurately. The woman fleeing into the desert sounds more like a metaphor for the Church itself than an actual human woman.

And I was baptized as a Conservative Baptist. They’re slightly more fundamental than a Southern Baptist; but as the pastor pointed out, ‘you wouldn’t likely be able to tell the difference between the two doctrines side by side.’ However they’re a lot more fundamentalist than I am, so I am between churches right now.

Jesness your position is very understandable and especially for many mainline Protestants. Many converts into the RCC also struggle with it or it is a stumbling block,but with time and lots of prayer they come to understand it. The only way an outsider is going to understand Marian beliefs is through a lot of research and time. Now do I expect you and others to believe it? Of course not.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I understand rightlydivide and I have to respect your position and beliefs as well.

Do you have substantiated-empirical evidence for this? I have a 3 set volume on the ECF and I do not recall any of them stating Mary had more children without a doubt?

No.
But for a good reason. People cared about their relationship to Jesus not Mary. In fact, I believe that is the pattern in the NT and why they are described in relation to Christ.
We are on two different parts of the planet but I get your view as well and respect your adherence to conservative Catholic beliefs.

 

[Dokimas]

While on the cross Jesus gives Mary into the care of John because Mary had no other sons to take up the authority of the “first born.” In the absence of the father, the first born was head of the family. At the death of Jesus, had Mary had another son, he would have had the responsibility to care for his mother. But Mary, having no other sons was given by Jesus into the care of the Beloved Apostle John with these words: “Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:27, RSVCE).

From its earliest days, the Church has held fast to the perpetual virginity of Mary. St. Jerome’s famous Treatise Against Helvedius hits this issue with Scripture, facts and sarcasm. He is shocked that anyone would be so impious as to suggest Mary had children subsequent to Jesus. He cites early writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to support his claim that the perpetual virginity of Mary had always been maintained by the Church from its earliest days.

It wasn’t until after the Protestant Reformation that the doctrine of Mary’s ever-virginity was
questioned. Interestingly enough, and a surprise to many Protestants is the fact that many of the notable reformers affirmed the doctrine, men such as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and John Wesley.

Those verses I quoted and the questions I asked were in resonse to those who take ‘until’ verses to prove Mary remained a virgin.

Could you please respond to the questions I posed for the verses I quoted? Thank you, my friend.

 

[Auburn88]

Yes brothers and sisters yet still divided on many issues and growing daily.

Yes, we are growing. Thank you for noticing. As for being “divided”, I can’t think of anything of any consequence that divides us. To the contrary, we affirm the same creeds, confessions, and catechisms, worship with the same hymns and readings, preach the same Gospel, preach and teach in one anothers’ churches, etc. Those aren’t the acts of a divided group of people.

 

[adrift]

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.

Matthew does not say this. What Matthew does say is that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary but this course of action was circumvented by an angel of the Lord in a dream. All that Matthew asserts is that Mary was a virgin before Jesus was born. Matthew does not claim anything after Jesus was born. This is not the only evidence. Mary asks a strange question for a married woman. How can I become pregnant since I do not have sex? Never in scripture is anyone said to be the son of Mary except Jesus. Jesus provides for her care an action unnecessary if there were other children.
The ark could not be touched. That was holy. Mary carried Jesus who is God and man how could any mere man than touch her?

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, you’ve show that “until” CAN mean there was a change after, just as others have put forth verses that show the couldn’t have been a change afterward. It was used in BOTH ways, so the verse can only show us that they didn’t have relations before Jesus’ birth, and cannot definitively prove they did or did not after his birth. But you can agree that it does show us that it is at least POSSIBLE that they continued to refrain from marital relations after His birth?
As Catholics we don’t have to rely on scripture alone to define our beliefs, but are free to look to the writings of other people that were there or directly knew people that were there. Scripture alone seems to paint people into a corner with no clear answers to many questions, Mary’s perpetual virginity being only one of them. I thank God daily that I was blessed to find my way home. Life is much simpler on this side of the Tiber in so many ways…

However, Matthew wrote his book well after the fact. If Mary was perpetually a virgin, if makes sense that he’d have stated the fact much clearer. The way he phrased it, seems best understood, because it’s in the context of marriage, that Mary and Joseph experienced ALL the blessings of a marriage ordained by God?

 

[Dokimas]

We have covered this before. Unitl ONLY refers to a period of time.
Stay home until I call does not mean that you leave after I call.
The only thing that can be inferred is the period of time before something happens. The Holy Family was to stay in Egypt awaiting word from the angel of the word. It implies nothing else. It doesn’t say what they are to do after they recieve word.
It says where they were before the death of Herod. It does not imply nor indicate what they should do after. You have to learn that from the following verses.
You knowing from hindsite understand what happens latter.
If however you only had the sentence and was there until the death of Herod… you would not be able to say what happened. It is only because you have more scripture that you know what happened.
Bring on all your examples they each will be treated in the same way. They only refer to a paticular time without indicating what happens after that period of time. That is why you run into a ridiculous explanation of those untils that obviously do not follow your reasoning.
She had no children until her death. Only refers to the time before the event of her death. Follow the definition and you have no problem. Invent your own invention and your off in never never land

Thanks for your understanding.

What do you think my child would think if I said, ‘you can’t watch TV until your homework is done’?

 

[Jesness]

The only way an outsider is going to understand Marian beliefs is through a lot of research and time. Now do I expect you and others to believe it? Of course not.

I have to wonder how many catholics understand Marian beliefs and how many simply take it on faith based on the fact that the ‘church told them it was true.’ I actually don’t have a problem with the latter if only because when you enter the catholic church, you kinda have to accept their authority in teaching to some degree, even to the point of faith; otherwise, why are you catholic? However, for an ‘outsider’ as it were, there is no reason to accept the church’s word for it without some kind of proof. I would like to know what evidence the church uses to support these beliefs. Are there any resources you can recommend on this subject?

 

[Dokimas]

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?

Are we adamant or are catholics the ones that are adamant? We just see what we see in the Word of God and share it and discuss our reasoning.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

There’s really only two kinds of churches over this issue: those who believe as you do and those that believe as we do. I supposed you could say there are churches that don’t care one way or the other.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nicea and I are often at odds on many things but I definitely agree with him here for sure. I share his perplexed feelings as to why some Protestants are infatuated with proving Mary had kids? Why the need to see her a typical lady like the gal down the street?

First of all, just common sense would tell us that giving birth AS A VIRGIN to the Son of God himself is a tough act to follow!! Even if she weren’t immaculate, imagine the stupid futility of trying to follow up on CHRIST JESUS!!?

Secondly, Jesus Himself speaks of the virtues of virginity all the time in Scripture. Jesus is very much in favor of the chaste life and speaks of it more than once. Paul was able to stay celibate. Why couldn’t the Mother of God?

Wouldn’t it be bizarre to have brothers of the Son of God living on earth? Wouldn’t that have just been strange and wouldn’t the Apostles have cherished anyone who shared blood with the Son of God Himself!? Surely such a one would be mentioned and be note-worthy in the writings of the early Church!?

St. John is given the sublime task of caring for Mother Mary when Jesus is gone. “Woman, behold your son.” Wouldn’t Jesus’s “brother,” his real blood relation brother, if He had one, have taken care of her and not John? It wasn’t customary to give your mom over to a friend to care for when family, especially a brother, was alive?

James and Jude are supposed to have been related to Christ as cousins if memory serves me. We are told they are relatives. Surely if Jesus had had a brother He would’ve been just as note-worthy if not MORESO than these chaps!

Finally, Mary and Joseph were not groomed to be the typical Cleever family on the block. These are extraordinary men and women set apart by God Almighty to nurture, raise, protect, and cherish the absolutely perfect, all-loving, sinless, powerful, and merciful Saviour of the World. This birth would affect Mary in an eternal way, not just a one-time birth event type of way. This was not just “a” birth in a series, it was THE birth of births. The womb that would bear the God-man couldn’t be filled again. It’s just against common sense, tradition, and in my opinion it cheapens the entire incarnation and sacrifice Mary gave to bring us the King of Kings.

So again I say, as Nicea did, why the need to cheapen Mary’s virginity, her sacrifice, and the amazing dignity of the entire Incarnation by trying to prove her a typical josephine?

Are we adamant or are catholics the ones that are adamant? We just see what we see in the Word of God and share it and discuss our reasoning.

 

[Dokimas]

So again I say, as Nicea did, why the need to cheapen Mary’s virginity, her sacrifice, and the amazing dignity of the entire Incarnation by trying to prove her a typical josephine?

It’s your opinion that my understanding cheapens Mary’s place in history. I strongly disagree.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not her place in history, Mary herself and the Incarnation and the serious nature with which she took on this commitment to be the vessel of Christ. Post-natal sexuality and giving birth to subsequent children is just a cheapening of the entire blessing given to Mary. I think, this is just a theory, that some people find it threatening that a woman loved God enough to give up sex after having her womb filled with GOD! Think about this, GOD was in her womb! Who would desire to return to a typical, fleshly, carnal life after being filled with GOD in you? It would elevate your feelings of motherhood and sexuality to a plane that typical shlameels like you and I could never fathom?

Why the need to see her a sexual being? I think some Protestants think if they can prove she was a typical sexual being like us that it can poke holes in Catholic appreciation of Mary and Catholic claims about her intercession and exalted state within the communion of saints. Maybe it makes them feel better that she could be doing what we’re all doing.

Bottom line is there have been plenty of married couples I have read about who went on to be martyrs who actually devoted themselves to a chaste marriage. If they could do it, why not Mary? Is sex so central to a relationship that it’s impossible to abstain?

I personally do not have a sexless marriage nor do I want one. I know I don’t have the discipline or mindset. I’m a fallen, weak human being. And I happen to think sex is a good, healthy, joyful part of marriage. I personally wish Catholic priests could marry. That is just my own opinion. HOWEVER, never do I wish to put my weaknesses or a priori observations of other humans and myself on the Mother of God.

It’s your opinion that my understanding cheapens Mary’s place in history. I strongly disagree.