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

[Rightlydivide]

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?

Matthew does say this.

took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son

He took her as his wife. But he did not have sex until she had her son.

 

[Jesness]

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?

Why do people assume that its meant as an insult to suggest that she had more children?
Mary has a place of honor in ALL Christian denominations, she is the Mother of our LORD and SAVIOR, nothing on earth is going to taint that. Mary is crowned as being the most humble of women, and Jesus- I’m not even gonna go there, there simply isn’t enough time or enough words- why should it be thought that either of them didn’t lead very typical lives before Jesus began his ministry? Heck, Jesus’ life was SO typical before his ministry that no one thought to write anything down about it. Only a few blurbs about his childhood appear in the gospels.

 

[SyCarl]

I have no problem if someone believes that Mary was a perpetual virgin. What does cause me a problem is being told that I must believe it. There are a number of things in Scripture that I think show otherwise. On the other hand Luke 1:34 would imply Mary intended to remain a virgin. To me this is the type of thing churches make dogmatic statements about that are not necessary.

 

[Todd520]

I have no problem if someone believes that Mary was a perpetual virgin. What does cause me a problem is being told that I must believe it. There are a number of things in Scripture that I think show otherwise. On the other hand Luke 1:34 would imply Mary intended to remain a virgin. To me this is the type of thing churches make dogmatic statements about that are not necessary.

Sy, how isLuke 1:34 relevant for defining Mary’s state after the birth of Jesus?
Not trying to argue, I just seem to have completely missed its relevance

 

[Nicea325]

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?

Amen brother! Nicely said!

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Holy Mother Church teaches that Holy Mother Mary was a perpetual virgin, good enough for me.

Ditto and amen.

 

[Nicea325]

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?

Sure not a problem:

www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

 

[SyCarl]

Sy, how isLuke 1:34 relevant for defining Mary’s state after the birth of Jesus?
Not trying to argue, I just seem to have completely missed its relevance

Mary asks how it can be that she will have a child since she is a virgin. Now a woman who was about to be married and have a normal marital life would not really have to ask that since she would not be remaining a virgin. Of course, it may also be said simply to emphasize the fufilment of Isaiah’s prophesy of a virgin giving birth.

On the other hand there are statements about Jesus brothers, Joseph not knowing her until she gave birth and reference to Jesus as her first born son. I don’t think that a dogma should be defined as necessary when so much is based on saying these verses can mean something other than their ordinary meaning.

 

[Todd520]

I don’t think that a dogma should be defined as necessary when so much is based on saying these verses can mean something other than their ordinary meaning.

I agree - something important and critical to a faith shouldn’t depend on a turn of phrase,
I believe Christ’s important teachings are fairly explicit and repeated throughout the bible.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No one is claiming that the Holy Family’s daily life was exciting and spectacular? We’re discussing the sexual nature of Mary and Joseph, their relationship in a carnal lifestyle, not their daily exceptionalism. Joseph was a carpenter as was Our Lord. They lived in a wood shop environment, nothing stellar and exciting to be sure. I think the “Passion of the Christ” showed effectively how most of us picture Mary and Jesus, like a mother and son, laughing together, washing their hands, eating dinner, falling down, crying, living…

While Jesus is like us on the outside with his appearance and his apparently daily ordinary life back in Nazareth, He is NOTHING like us inside. He is without sin, perfect, and 100% obedient and in synch with the will and nature of God. What role did Mary and Joseph play in his upbringing and realizations of who He is? What role did they play in the divine home He was to occupy?

It’s not so much that you’re insulting Mary or the Church by wanting to see a carnal, sexual version of her. You’re just being human in wanting to see her act “so” human. But it denegrates, and this is my opinion (I can’t speak for other Catholics here) only here, the sanctity of the Holy Family reducing them to the sexual status of a typical family. They were anything but typical on the inside and sexuality is a part of our “inside” nature. Catholics, from my observation and evaluation, do not exalt Mary and Joseph for their own sakes or to just add “gods” to a pantheon to spice things up. They don’t view Mary with such a loftiness due to a desire to have a female Jesus. They do so because Mary plays a pivotal role in the Incarnation. She shares the very blood of Jesus Christ coursing through her veins. Her womb was the vessel, the very Ark that held the Saviour of the World. Would Joseph dare try to enter this womb where God Almighty has brought us our salvation? Would he dare to have intercourse with the Handmaiden of the Lord with whom God Himself has shared a special intimacy that is beyond words? I just find it a crass and bizarre notion.

I think Protestants and liberal lefty Catholics try to bring Mary “down” to our level so much for their own comfort and to exalt their own humanity too much.

It’s like when we’re saying the Nicean Creed at Mass. “By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” We bow during this statement. I ALWAYS do. Do I do it for Mary? Partly. But the Church will tell you that the bowing is for the INCARNATION! It is the moment that a divine being full of love becomes flesh. Powerful stuff. Mary is a part of that incarnation, a major part. And the spiritual permission she gives God to use her womb joins her spirit and body in a sublime way. And Joseph is Jesus’s guardian in a special way. Like I said, both Mary and Joseph guide Jesus and only they know how Jesus realized His mission, His nature, His being in this family state. Mary and Joseph were not chosen out of a lottery or by a magic 8 ball. They were set aside and chosen in a special way.

Sexuality and the spirit are unified in a deep and mysterious way. To try and imply that Joseph had intercourse with Mary after this Incarnation using the Handmaiden of God as he would a regular wife, I don’t think it works. It’s not a “regular” marriage by virtue of the Incarnation itself! If ever a couple was ATYPICAL of the usual flow of marriage, it was Mary and Joseph. I fail to see any argument in favor of this belief of a post-Incarnation sexual Mary? I think it’s the modern age talkin’…

Why do people assume that its meant as an insult to suggest that she had more children?
Mary has a place of honor in ALL Christian denominations, she is the Mother of our LORD and SAVIOR, nothing on earth is going to taint that. Mary is crowned as being the most humble of women, and Jesus- I’m not even gonna go there, there simply isn’t enough time or enough words- why should it be thought that either of them didn’t lead very typical lives before Jesus began his ministry? Heck, Jesus’ life was SO typical before his ministry that no one thought to write anything down about it. Only a few blurbs about his childhood appear in the gospels.

 

[Radical]

Post-natal sexuality and giving birth to subsequent children is just a cheapening of the entire blessing given to Mary.

either that, or it could be that subsequent children would be viewed as additional blessings and that sex would be seen an enjoyable gift. Tis so odd that when Mary is under consideration, what would be seen as gifts and blessings for other women are somehow seen as a means of cheapening a previous blessing…go figure.

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!

yep, that has gotta be it…virginophobes

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.

No I think it is more that, wrt Mary, non-venerators believe that they have an obvious example of 1) the early church manufacturing beliefs and 2) the CC compounding that error by making those beliefs mandatory. (The obviousness comes from the initial silence followed by ever more elaborate, imaginative and extravagant claims.)

 

[Radical]

While Jesus is like us on the outside with his appearance and his apparently daily ordinary life back in Nazareth, He is NOTHING like us inside. He is without sin, perfect, and 100% obedient and in synch with the will and nature of God.

right, Jesus was nothing like us spiritually…he was absolutely unique, totally apart from man…and from there it naturally follows that Jesus was nothing like Mary spiritually

It’s not so much that you’re insulting Mary or the Church by wanting to see a carnal, sexual version of her. You’re just being human in wanting to see her act “so” human

no, it is about a package of beliefs that elevate her to a status akin to Christ’s. It is no longer just Jesus who was nothing like us spiritually…now, we also have Mary who was nothing like us spiritually…

They don’t view Mary with such a loftiness due to a desire to have a female Jesus.

Their motives are only secondary…if it is a manufactured belief, then they are devoted to a falsehood.

Would Joseph dare try to enter this womb where God Almighty has brought us our salvation? Would he dare to have intercourse with the Handmaiden of the Lord with whom God Himself has shared a special intimacy that is beyond words? I just find it a crass and bizarre notion.

I can understand your reluctance in this regard, but how far do you take it? Would you suggest that Mary didn’t menstrate b/c that would also be a crass and bizarre notion? IIRC menstration made a woman unclean whereas marital did not.

I think Protestants and liberal lefty Catholics try to bring Mary “down” to our level so much for their own comfort and to exalt their own humanity too much.

I don’t think it has anything to do with bringing Mary down…God gave her a certain honour that all conservative Christians recognize…it is all about not heaping honours upon her that were never given by God.

Sexuality and the spirit are unified in a deep and mysterious way. To try and imply that Joseph had intercourse with Mary after this Incarnation using the Handmaiden of God as he would a regular wife, I don’t think it works.

“using”? That is what sex w/i marriage is about? Spouses using each other? Perhaps you are cheapening sex within the marriage relationship so as to justify your beliefs.

 

[Radical]

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!!?

having children is not a contest designed to see how good a specimen one can crank out

Paul was able to stay celibate. Why couldn’t the Mother of God?

it is possible…but is it probable?

Wouldn’t it be bizarre to have brothers of the Son of God living on earth?

not nearly as bizarre as having God himself living on earth…and about on par with having his mom 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!?

Yah…Paul might have even referred to him uniquely as “the Lord’s brother”

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?

perhaps… perhaps there were undisclosed and extraordinary circumstances involved.

Surely if Jesus had had a brother He would’ve been just as note-worthy if not MORESO than these chaps!

perhaps one would have been selected to lead the church at Jerusalem?

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?

again, it is not about proving her to be a typical josephine…it is about not allowing venerators to turn her into something that she wasn’t…to prevent them from heaping honours on her which were never given to her by God. You think God gave her these honours and we don’t…it is just that simple. Scripture is oddly silent when it comes to these Catholic doctrines. The first Christians are likewise oddly silent when it comes to these Catholic claims. ECFs such as Tertullian weren’t on board with these Marian doctrines…there are plenty of good reasons to question their legitimacy…as long as one isn’t committed to the view that the CC can’t err.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Highly unlikely. I think you’re trying to apply your own standards of sex and family to the Holy Family that lived a life utterly foreign (on the inside) to yours and mine and not looking at the historical 2,000 years of Church teaching on this.

either that, or it could be that subsequent children would be viewed as additional blessings and that sex would be seen an enjoyable gift. Tis so odd that when Mary is under consideration, what would be seen as gifts and blessings for other women are somehow seen as a means of cheapening a previous blessing…go figure.

Sarcasm isn’t a reply at all. You know perfectly well that my statement was perfectly reasonable.
yep, that has gotta be it…virginophobes

You have an exceptionally paranoid and conspiratorial opinion of the unidivided Church in the early days until now. With that lens, you are not going to see the value and depth or wisdom of the Church, just your own conclusions? I don’t see why the claims are imaginative or extravant?
No I think it is more that, wrt Mary, non-venerators believe that they have an obvious example of 1) the early church manufacturing beliefs and 2) the CC compounding that error by making those beliefs mandatory. (The obviousness comes from the initial silence followed by ever more elaborate, imaginative and extravagant claims.)

 

[david_ruiz]

I assure you that I am quite familiar with it.

Sorry ,a bit of a ceap shot.

true enough, the bible is full of evil and disobedient people, but I think we can agree that the situation and outcome was quite different with Mary

.
O.K.Your scenario is unique , a perfect mother , but Joseph ? You still have perfection going astray on it’s own with Eve ,that is , she was treated perfectly by her Father. Still think it is short on human nature and biblical insight to say perfect parents mean good kids. But ,your point is taken, Mary could of had great children.To me ,the bible says they did not believe at this time ,nor were at his crucifixion.

Oh dear, I suppose one can interpret things this way or the other - I agree with the points you’ve made about blood being less important than spirit, etc. But I don’t think that His saying ‘those who do the will of God’,etc was a spiritual slap against His Mother, although it could be taken as such in reference to those that Mary led to where Jesus was. However, scripture can always be wrestled to fit any scenario one would want it to. That being the case, my wrestling with it has led me to believe in her purity and goodness, and God’s holding her close to His heart while she raised and cared for Jesus. I cannot imagine Mary raising cold, disobedient or disbelieving children while in her continual anointed presence and care. Additionally, there were no other ‘children of Mary’ present at the wedding of Cana. Sorry friend. Peace to you in your search for the truth. :heaven

:

Thank -you for some agreement. I agree of many scenarios (Davinci Code etc.) to suit one’s wishes .However ,there are real only several scenarios that have gone down the last 1500 years .I,nor you, are “this way or the other”. Our positions are quite entrenched with many church fathers .I believe , one could still come to my scenario just from a simple reading of the King James bible. I did not have to wrestle to be given insight to “my” scenario. Yours , does need a bit of help from tradition. I hope that is an acceptable premise on my part. As far as Cana,you are right ,no brethren are mentioned , as they ARE the few other times Mary is mentioned in the Gospels. They could have been there. Jesus, being the oldest, would have been the go to guy ( for more wine) of all the brethren. Jesus may have been head of the household at this time (Joseph having passed on ?)

 

[Radical]

…and not looking at the historical 2,000 years of Church teaching on this.

it is not 2000 years. If you copuld trace this teaching back to the start, we wouldn’t be having this discussion…this notion doesn’t show up until the protoevangelium of James at about 170 AD…as I stated before, I think one should note that the Protoevangelium is a spurious and fanciful tale that was rejected by Aquinas, Jerome, popes Damasus, Innocent I and Gelasius (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3 and Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals p 128) Both Jerome and Aquinas viewed the Protoevangelium as being in conflict with scripture…hardly the type of work that should be the launch pad of a dogma.

 

[Roy5]

Repeating what others have said: I don’t see why it’s so important that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. A number of modern translations, claiming to translate accurately from the Greek, say specifically that the verse (Matt 1:35) should read “but they did not have sexual relations until she had given birth to a son…”

 I'm not a Greek scholar so have to pass on that one.

My inclination is to think that Joseph and Mary probably had conjugal relations, and I can't understand why it's so important to insist that they didn't. That is an assumed part of any normal and healthy marriage. To make sex somehow flawed is to put virginity, even in marriage, above normal married life. One of the 'sins' of Christianity in past centuries is that it has too often made sex something bad - necessary to have children, but otherwise somehow naughty - and this has done considerable damage to many lives and marriages. 

 That's one reason the notion of original sin seems a disservice to humankind. The  idea that the sin of Adam and Eve stained us all from birth is unjust, to begin with, and otherwise questionable in my mind. Besides, most Christians I know don't take Adam and Eve literally.

 Which could lead us to the Immaculate Conception, but that's for another thread.

 

[Jesness]

It’s not so much that you’re insulting Mary or the Church by wanting to see a carnal, sexual version of her. You’re just being human in wanting to see her act “so” human.

It has nothing to do with want, I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to the contrary yet.

But it denegrates, and this is my opinion (I can’t speak for other Catholics here) only here, the sanctity of the Holy Family reducing them to the sexual status of a typical family. They were anything but typical on the inside and sexuality is a part of our “inside” nature.

You can make that argument for Jesus and for the sake of this discussion I’ll even give you Mary, but Joseph was exactly like us in every way, a virtuous man to be sure, but only by God’s grace, because he like we was a sinner. As for Mary, no earthly thing is going to taint or degenerate her status as the virgin mother, even if she had more children.

Would Joseph dare try to enter this womb where God Almighty has brought us our salvation? Would he dare to have intercourse with the Handmaiden of the Lord with whom God Himself has shared a special intimacy that is beyond words? I just find it a crass and bizarre notion.

You suppose that Joseph had a profound understanding of what God’s plans were. You’re seeing it from a present-day view with a completed bible and a litany of saints and doctors of the church. Joseph didn’t have any of that. It’s not likely that he saw the ‘Queen of Heaven’ or God’s Holy Ark, or even the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, judging from the scriptures, Joseph seriously looked like he was playing things by ear. He probably saw a sweet gal that he’d been betrothed to, and who’s child God had plans for. However, given that that same God had given Mary to him as his wife laying with her is not an unreasonable prospect.

I think Protestants and liberal lefty Catholics try to bring Mary “down” to our level so much for their own comfort and to exalt their own humanity too much.

God already exalted it by creating us in His own image. I’m not talking about the outside.

Sure not a problem:

www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

Much obliged.

 

[MagsM]

Thank -you for some agreement. I agree of many scenarios (Davinci Code etc.) to suit one’s wishes .However ,there are real only several scenarios that have gone down the last 1500 years .I,nor you, are “this way or the other”. Our positions are quite entrenched with many church fathers .I believe , one could still come to my scenario just from a simple reading of the King James bible. I did not have to wrestle to be given insight to “my” scenario. Yours does need a bit of help from tradition. I hope that is an acceptable premise on my part. As far as Cana, you are right, no brethren are mentioned, as they ARE the few other times Mary is mentioned in the Gospels. They could have been there. Jesus, being the oldest, would have been the go to guy ( for more wine) of all the brethren. Jesus may have been head of the household at this time (Joseph having passed on ?)

You’re welcome David. I appreciate your spirit of charity as well. It makes things so much easier to have a real conversation.

Believe it or not, I can appreciate your viewpoint, and taking the gospels at face value, I, in the past, came to the same conclusions of Mary having additional children as you have. It is not something that I would have concluded without being prompted with a different perspective, and yes, that perspective did come from the Catholic Church. (I knew you’d ask!)

I wish I could say I believed it just because the church says so, but I do not have the blind loyalty and obedience to the church at this time - it still has to make sense to me in my heart, my mind, and my spirit. I fought against it, but through prayer and meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, I came to see things very differently. Her virginity was a revelation in my heart and mind and honestly, I felt deeply ashamed for my lack of humility, and for my arrogant and carnal thinking. (No, that is not name calling or an attempt at shaming anyone, I just truly felt repulsed and sickened by my own self). Furthermore, I feel that I should say that I only prayed the Rosary because my sick sister wanted to - not out of some pious effort on my part - I was (and am still) not a ‘Marian devotee’ (I didn’t even own a rosary!) However, I confess that for some reason I cannot explain, the change in heart, mind and soul regarding her virginity has really softened me as a woman, and has brought me more reverence and awe for God. For that I am grateful

Peace to you, David.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A great strawman argument. Never said it was. You’re gleaning that conclusion from my statements about Jesus, Mary, and the sacred depths of the Incarnation?

having children is not a contest designed to see how good a specimen one can crank out

it is possible…but is it probable?

not nearly as bizarre as having God himself living on earth…and about on par with having his mom living on earth

You’re adept enough in theology and in the culture of the Jewish people in those days to know that “brother” was the word also for extended family and cousins. My wife is filipino. Let’s use her culture as an example. There is a specific word for brother, sister, cousin, you name it. AND YET when they get into a taxi they’ll call the driver “manong,” or “brother.” My wife calls her older cousins “kuya” or “big brother” and I have found they use these terms interchangeably. And that’s in 2010. The Jews didn’t even have a word for “cousin” so imagine it was even more likely that “brother” was cousin. Let me ask you this, to be holistic—have you read any evidence in the early Church at all or for the next 1000 years from any theologian worth a darn any evidence that Christ had brothers? What evidence do we have in Scripture or in the Early Church to tell us he had brothers? Do we hear their names? We hear everyone else? What evidence is there in actual favor of this theory? Yah…Paul might have even referred to him uniquely as “the Lord’s brother”

perhaps… perhaps there were undisclosed and extraordinary circumstances involved.

perhaps one would have been selected to lead the church at Jerusalem?

Scripture is oddly silent about Jesus having brothers as well yet you are willing to accept that as virtual fact? We are told in the Gospel of John that his Gospel couldn’t possibly contain all the truths, details, and moments of Christ’s life. Tertullian is not a great example to use for silence about Mary. The guy ended up being a Montanist heretic so I don’t give him too much credence. What did Tertullian say that gives you the idea he was hostile to Marian devotion?

St. Athanasius is an ECF that helped shape our trinitarian understandings of the Lord. He played a huge role in stopping Arianism. Here’s an interesting quote from Athanasius:
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]). I wonder what he meant when he said, "ever-virgin?’ Ever a virgin for a while?

St. Jerome was a huge ECF and he said:
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” Now you take the word of Hevidius and I’ll take Jerome!

And surely you’ve heard of the great St. Ambrose, right?

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], **nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” **(Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

What does Ambrose say? Mary stopped having children with the Lord and he goes on to say what I’ve said, the Lord is a tough act to follow. Who would try? Who would need more? If the Son of God co-equal with GOD isn’t enough, what would that say of a woman?

St. Augustine, one of my heroes, calls any one who denies Mary’s perpetual virginity a HERETIC! You should take that seriously. Augustine is a great doctor of the Church and even Protestants during the Reformation were big fans thanks to his titanic works not only against heresy, but his discussions and explanations about Christology, salvation, justification, grace, sacraments, the afterlife, and morality in general.

“**Heretics **called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Notice he condemns people who think she had intercourse after Jesus’s birth. I’m going to go with Augustine on this one. Good company to keep!
again, it is not about proving her to be a typical josephine…it is about not allowing venerators to turn her into something that she wasn’t…to prevent them from heaping honours on her which were never given to her by God. You think God gave her these honours and we don’t…it is just that simple. Scripture is oddly silent when it comes to these Catholic doctrines. The first Christians are likewise oddly silent when it comes to these Catholic claims. ECFs such as Tertullian weren’t on board with these Marian doctrines…there are plenty of good reasons to question their legitimacy…as long as one isn’t committed to the view that the CC can’t err.]