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

[Stephen168]

I agree your alternate translations clearly provide a different meaning.
If you are correct on the error, CASE CLOSED is right

Yes, the one meaning of the word in modern English changed the meanings from the ancient Greek. I think you understand why religions started in 19th century English have also changed the ancient understand of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Also religions that started in 19th century English speaking countries may have changed it as a pointless anti-Catholic reaction.

 

[dianaiad]

Huh??
What are you talking about?

** I’m not saying that ANYBODY** is contending that:
- Catholic tradition is false for Catholics
- anybody has used non-catholic scripture to refute this topic
(what is "non-Catholic Scripture)??

Well, I think that might include things that others consider to be scripture that you don’t, elvis. :ehh:

 

[david_ruiz]

What do you mean forgot to write it down. It was not the point they were wanting to make. Remember that when the Gospels were being written, Mary was still most probably with them. So there was no one at that time that challenged her life because they all knew it first hand or worse case 2nd hand.

 

[hosemonkey]

I never saw why this was ever an issue of contention except that modern protestants thought that since Catholics said it it must be wrong.

Early Church Writings: Virgin
Catholic Church: Virgin
EO: Virgin
Oriental Orthodox: Virgin
Martin Luther: Virgin (Lutherens)
John Calvin: Virgin (Presbyterians)
Henry VII: Virgin (Anglicans)
John Wesly: Virgin (Methodists)

The Catholic Church(the True Church) believes and teaches the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother. Catholics believe this, protestants do not. Protestantism believes and teaches error. Protestants deny Catholic teaching simply because it is Catholic. The fact that protestants believe and teach error has no impact on the truth of Catholic teaching. What is true is true, what is false is false, they are in error and all the argument in the world will not change invincible ignorance. Who cares what protestants believe? One can only hope that God will forgive protestant disrespect and disregard for the Mother of God, we know who she is and are proud to render to her the respect and veneration that she deserves. Remember, true ecumenism is the effort to point out the falsity of protestantism and the truth of the Catholic Church and to bring lost protestants into the True Church.

 

[dianaiad]

I never declared a debate “win”.

PS - Are you using MAC Safari? Sometimes the code shows up when using that browser. If you use Internet Explorer, you don’t get all the code.

(sorry for the off topic post…taking care of a technical matter… )

I use IE…and I don’t really like it. I prefer Firefox–but unfortunately I have to use proprietary software that gives Firefox ulcers, so I’m stuck.

…and yes, the code shows up. Not on the forum itself, but it shows up in the reply window. Once you decide to reply to a post, the original view (with all the color and emphasis that make it look good) goes away, and only the code shows up; word after code after bracket after slash…and when you choose to change your font, AND the color, AND decide to italicize, AND bold…and you do it for individual words and letters within a sentence, it really can result in more code than text. Unfortunately, that’s all one has to work with in a reply box; the code.

Emphasis is great…and the use of bolding, italics and color can be extremely effective–when used, like pepper, sparingly. Sort of like swear words, I guess—when a man never uses profanity, the day he loses it and says 'damn!" Everybody will be shocked enough to pay very close attention. On the other hand, the kid who uses the ‘f’ word as an adjective for every noun he speaks has left himself no place at all to go when HE needs to express extreme meaning.

I"m drawing from all sorts of background here: writing, art, design…you name it. I promise you: if you cut your use of color and emphasis back to about, oh…one per post, maybe—people will pay a lot more attention when you DO use it! Try it. See if it works.

Hey…that’s not me being a pain in the behind, either. It really is a matter of design and emphasis, not an admission that I don’t have a response–and by the way, elvis,claiming that proves that you don’t know me very well AT all.

I always have a response.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, and again you are not following the thread.

• I was responding to two specific questions from ERose
• In my responses to ERose, I did offer the position that ‘poor translation’ was a viable alternative
• I replied to Stephen by agreeing 100% that your alternative translations completely change the meaning of Matthew 1:25

My responses to the debate are justified in being limited to the official published English translations. I will not debate whether Heos was translated correctly since I don’t have the background.

NET, net, the strongest Catholic position in this Matthew 1:25 argument is yours - HEOS was translated incorrectly.
Why haven’t the bible experts agreed with your translation?

It’s not a matter of Heos being translated incorrectly. It’s the fact that Heos has different applications.

You are speaking as somebody who is fairly ignorant of language differences. For instance, to you and me, "Brother" means a guy who is your sibling. In Aramaic, "Ach" (brother) has more far-reaching applications such as brother, cousin, uncle, neighbor, fellow countryman, etc. The same is true for "Adelphos", in Greek.

The English form of "Brother" is more specific. We have different words to describe cousins, uncles, neighbors, etc.

**In short - Heos wasn’t translated incorrectly. You just refuse to accept that it has different applications than it’s English translation.

 

[dianaiad]

Sionce it only appears in the REPLY window - don’t do a point-to-point reply. Just reply at the bottom.

PS - if you use Internet Explorer, you *won’t *get this code. My guess is that you’re probably using Safari.

elvis, in order to do ANY reply, it is necessary to be able to read the post to which you are replying.

 

[elvisman]

(sorry for the off topic post…taking care of a technical matter… )

I use IE…and I don’t really like it. I prefer Firefox–but unfortunately I have to use proprietary software that gives Firefox ulcers, so I’m stuck.

…and yes, the code shows up. Not on the forum itself, but it shows up in the reply window. Once you decide to reply to a post, the original view (with all the color and emphasis that make it look good) goes away, and only the code shows up; word after code after bracket after slash…and when you choose to change your font, AND the color, AND decide to italicize, AND bold…and you do it for individual words and letters within a sentence, it really can result in more code than text. Unfortunately, that’s all one has to work with in a reply box; the code.

Emphasis is great…and the use of bolding, italics and color can be extremely effective–when used, like pepper, sparingly. Sort of like swear words, I guess—when a man never uses profanity, the day he loses it and says 'damn!" Everybody will be shocked enough to pay very close attention. On the other hand, the kid who uses the ‘f’ word as an adjective for every noun he speaks has left himself no place at all to go when HE needs to express extreme meaning.

I"m drawing from all sorts of background here: writing, art, design…you name it. I promise you: if you cut your use of color and emphasis back to about, oh…one per post, maybe—people will pay a lot more attention when you DO use it! Try it. See if it works.

Hey…that’s not me being a pain in the behind, either. It really is a matter of design and emphasis, not an admission that I don’t have a response–and by the way, elvis,claiming that proves that you don’t know me very well AT all.

I always have a response.

I wasn’t trying to be rude - it has simply been the case in the past.
You and Todd are actually the very first posters to bring up the coding issue in my 6 years on this forum.
Forgive me if I sounded suspicious.

 

[dianaiad]

Ummmm . . . colors aside - were you going to respond to any of the other points?

Proof for the Great Apostasy?

The fact that you - a non-sola Scripturist demand Scriptural proof of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

My challenge that you show me a tradition or historical reference stating that Mary had other children?

Well, there are those NT references to Jesus’ brothers…they have been given by others here. The fact that they have to be explained away in some (in my view, anyway) rather twisty logic tells me that there is a problem; what’s wrong with simply reading what they say?

The point is, though, that I’m not making an absolute claim that He DID have siblings, though I think it possible–even probable. The point is, I see absolutely nothing in the NT that declares that Mary remained a virgin, and did not have more children.

Therefore–I do not assume that she did.

 

[elvisman]

Well, there are those NT references to Jesus’ brothers…they have been given by others here. The fact that they have to be explained away in some (in my view, anyway) rather twisty logic tells me that there is a problem; what’s wrong with simply reading what they say?

The point is, though, that I’m not making an absolute claim that He DID have siblings, though I think it possible–even probable. The point is, I see absolutely nothing in the NT that declares that Mary remained a virgin, and did not have more children.

Therefore–I do not assume that she did.

**They’re not being “explained away” with *“twisty logic”. *It is pretty clear and straightforward. **The “brethren” are from the other Mary who was at the foot of the cross with Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Jesus.

In fact, the Bible calls her Mary’s “sister” (adelphe) - which I explained in my last post can be rendered aas cousin, kinswoman, aunt, neighbor, etc.

Possible? - Maybe, but highly unlikely given the Traditions, OT types, prophecies and complete lack of Scriptural evidence that she DID.

Probable? Not at all.

 

[campeador]

The fact that they have to be explained away in some (in my view, anyway) rather twisty logic tells me that there is a problem;

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, it would. It would nullify the perpetual vow of total consecration she had made to Him. This vow is why she asked the angel “how can this be, since I know not man”? She had no intention of ever having relations. Young Jewish girls of marriagable age were educated by the older women about the facts of life, and how to please their husbands. She would not have been engaged without knowing these things. A young woman who is about to be married doesn’t need to wonder where a baby may come from either.

 

[dianaiad]

So you saying you cannot support your arguments.

What arguments? My argument consists completely of 'I don’t see sufficient evidence to support the Catholic assertion of 'perpetual virginity."

Fine then just concede the argument and we can move on.

Again, it’s not my argument. My claim is simply that I don’t think that your side has proven your claim, sufficiently. I’m not going all out to prove that Mary DID have other children, y’know. I simply am saying that there isnt’ sufficient evidence in the NT to show that she remained virgin after Christ’s birth, and if she didn’t, the odds are pretty high that she had other children.

You want to argue from culture? That is the only argument you have then you have nothing.

No, actually, that would be you, since culture would come down pretty hard on my side, absent some fairly extraordinary circumstances–and we don’t have any evidence of those.

As I have said you have no proof to support your side of the argument except for trying to punch holes into the positive arguments for which quite honestly you have failed to do. So conceed the point and we can move on.

In a trial (at least in the USA) nobody is ever 'proven innocent," unless by very chance (and Perry Mason…). the verdict is 'guilty" or “not guilty,” and I think that in England it may be ‘proven’ or “not proven.”

I do not have to prove that she was NOT a virgin all her life, and that she DID have children; that would be the natural and expected course of any Jewish woman married to a Jewish man, especially given that she gave birth once and did pretty well, healthwise, in doing so.

The extraordinary claim here is yours: that she remained a virgin–is a Perpetual Virgin, against all law and custom. I don’t have to prove that she DID have children. You must prove her virginity.

I understand why you believe in this; you have your Sacred Tradition that teaches you about this. The problem is–you can’t use your Sacred Tradition to prove this to me any more than I can use the Book of Mormon to prove anything to you. WE are both restricted to those things we both share in common…and in this case, that would be the NT.

…and you cannot prove your case using that. The answer to the OP is this: Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary because they have many years of Sacred Tradition to tell them so. Many Protestants…and Mormons…have problems with the idea because Sacred Tradition isn’t OUR tradition, and we can’t really use it to inform our doctrine. The NT doesn’t really indicate that Mary remained a virgin–the only verses that touch on this seem to mitigate against it.

(shrug)

It is what it is, and this is why you are Catholic, others are Protestant, and I am…LDS.

 

[guanophore]

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.”

No, it is a doctrine of the faith that has been held inviolable by all those Churches started by the Apostles. This doctrine was lost through the Reformation, when your spiritual ancestors jettisoned the Apostolic Succession, which has not been lost in the Orthodox and Oriental churches, though they are not Catholic.

All that said, I do believe Mary is worthy of the honor the Catholic Church gives her. But I don’t see that being a consecrated virgin is any more holy a status than being a normal married woman.

Paul taught that we are all to become holy in whatsoever state we are in. He did promote celibacy as preferable, because a person can serve the Kingdom of God without being concerned with pleasing a spouse.

God wants us all to become saints, the single, the married, the consecrated celibate, etc.

 

[Roy5]

hosemonkey

** For what it’s worth, it’s the attitude that you exhibit that drives me away from Catholicism.** I was raised in a mixed Catholic/Protestant family, with fine people on both sides. Most of them were devout church folks, too. What can turn me off about Catholicism (and fundamentalist Protestantism) is the dogmatism that one so frequently confronts. I guess I’ve come to the point, after years of reading and contemplation, that the universe is so magnificent, so mammoth, so mysterious and so miraculous that no particular version of Christianity preaches the entire truth. Why? Because so much of it lies beyond human comprehension. We are floating in space on a tiny speck in a world that likely includes a million or more solar systems. That is awesome, and I believe that mere mortals can only grasp a fraction of ultimate truth.

** What disturbs me is the way in which fellow Christians can be so disrespect of others and their faith**. I find that Protestants honor Mary, but they differ with Catholicism and often with one another on precisely how to regard her. In general they feel that over the centuries Mary has become too much like a goddess rather than a humble mother who bore Christ. Queen of Heaven? Queen of the Universe? True, she is blessed among women, but a variety of doctrines seem to have sprung up well after the church was founded. St. Paul, for example, wrote many letters to the early churches, focusing on many different doctrines and practices. He doesn’t mention Mary once. So many of the doctrines were defined only in recent centuries - Immaculate Conception in, when was it, maybe 1870? Assumption - 1950! As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, I personally don’t see that as critical. She was married to Joseph, and I am not disappointed if they enjoyed pure, romantic love represented by normal conjugal relations. I see Christianity as blessing such marriages.

** The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism seems to be mainly the freedom of Protestants to think freely.** In the mainline churches they appear to tolerate a wide range of theological perspectives without animosity toward one another. “Think and let think,” Wesley suggested. And also: “If you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together” - or words to that effect. Protestants do pay a price, of course: so many different denominations. But the mainline churches cooperate closely together, and they are happy to cooperate with Catholic churches also in meeting human need. Catholicism tends to regard ecumenism, as you suggest, as ‘the return of heretics to the true church’. Protestants tends to regard ecumenism as setting aside differences when it comes to theology or liturgy while working together in the spirit of Christ to serve those in need.

** May God bless all his children**, Catholic, Protestant, etc. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier. I’m sure that Christ would want that.

 

[guanophore]

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”.

I find the notion that the Apostolic faith, the doctrines deposited “once for all” to the Church are a matter of “vote” to be a very apt commentary on the present state of the fractured Church.

The faith of the Apostles is not extrapolated from the pages of the book, nor is it “voted” into acceptance. It is handed down (paradosis) from those to whom it was committed, and who were authorized to preserve it.

 

[adrift]

ERose, every example you provided was erroneous.
You only provided examples where the author is speaking up to present moment (until now), or to a future moment.
You are correct this usage does not indicate a change of state, only the possibility of one for the future.

The use of UNTIL in question is describing a past event that has come and gone at the time of writing the verse
You must see the difference in usage

Past event: The boy did not drink alcohol until his 21st birthday (implies he now over 21 and has tried alcohol)
Future: The boy was not tried alcohol until now (clearly says he has not tried alcohol)

Past event: The girl was a virgin until her wedding night (implies she is no longer a virgin)
Future: The girl has remained a virgin until this present day (implies she is still a virgin)

ERose, YOU CANNOT FIND an example of until used to describe a past event without also signifying a change of state. You would be smarter to argue the verse was incorrectly translated than dispute the english meaning

You CANNOT find a dictionary that supports your definition. The definition of until has nothing to do with a change. Until only means a period of time up to the event. It does not say anything about after the event. That is the meaning of until. That is the definition of until.

 

[hosemonkey]

hosemonkey

** For what it’s worth, it’s the attitude that you exhibit that drives me away from Catholicism.** I was raised in a mixed Catholic/Protestant family, with fine people on both sides. Most of them were devout church folks, too. What can turn me off about Catholicism (and fundamentalist Protestantism) is the dogmatism that one so frequently confronts. I guess I’ve come to the point, after years of reading and contemplation, that the universe is so magnificent, so mammoth, so mysterious and so miraculous that no particular version of Christianity preaches the entire truth. Why? Because so much of it lies beyond human comprehension. We are floating in space on a tiny speck in a world that likely includes a million or more solar systems. That is awesome, and I believe that mere mortals can only grasp a fraction of ultimate truth.

** What disturbs me is the way in which fellow Christians can be so disrespect of others and their faith**. I find that Protestants honor Mary, but they differ with Catholicism and often with one another on precisely how to regard her. In general they feel that over the centuries Mary has become too much like a goddess rather than a humble mother who bore Christ. Queen of Heaven? Queen of the Universe? True, she is blessed among women, but a variety of doctrines seem to have sprung up well after the church was founded. St. Paul, for example, wrote many letters to the early churches, focusing on many different doctrines and practices. He doesn’t mention Mary once. So many of the doctrines were defined only in recent centuries - Immaculate Conception in, when was it, maybe 1870? Assumption - 1950! As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, I personally don’t see that as critical. She was married to Joseph, and I am not disappointed if they enjoyed pure, romantic love represented by normal conjugal relations. I see Christianity as blessing such marriages.

** The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism seems to be mainly the freedom of Protestants to think freely.** In the mainline churches they appear to tolerate a wide range of theological perspectives without animosity toward one another. “Think and let think,” Wesley suggested. And also: “If you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together” - or words to that effect. Protestants do pay a price, of course: so many different denominations. But the mainline churches cooperate closely together, and they are happy to cooperate with Catholic churches also in meeting human need. Catholicism tends to regard ecumenism, as you suggest, as ‘the return of heretics to the true church’. Protestants tends to regard ecumenism as setting aside differences when it comes to theology or liturgy while working together in the spirit of Christ to serve those in need.

** May God bless all his children**, Catholic, Protestant, etc. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier. I’m sure that Christ would want that.

For what it is worth, I am compelled to witness to the truth of the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ instituted one True Church, He gave custody of that Church to St. Peter and to his successors and pledged to be with that Church until the end of days. Only sinful man, in the spirit of rebellion and disobedience, has attempted to thwart that divine plan. The Holy Spirit is sent to guide ONE Church, not 30,000 dissenting “churches.”

 

[david_ruiz]

/

You are wrong here which shows that you do not have enough knowledge about the Fathers to correctly use them. Tertullian is still considered a Father up to the point that he become a heretic. So his writings are still used that were written before his departure.

Yes , am weak with knowledge of fathers .So what about this Helvidius ? How do you disclaim his views that Mary was not ever -virgin? Others on this thread have done a good job showing that Tertullian views should stand as going against Mary being ever -virgin. Again , if you become a montanist (heretic) ,does that disqualify EVERYTHING you say ? I hold all things suspect (to scripture). So to me ,as soon as one view of Mary is put forth in early history ,you have the opposing view put forth also.(Hey ,it’s been going on since the Garden of Eden). Point being there is no evidence for catholic tradition on Mary dogma-that is universally accepted in the 1st -4th century(and onward ?)

Do you have proof of this? I think that oral tradition lasted much longer than you think because not everyone had access to all of the writings that are now in the NT. You should do a little bit more study in this history instead of assuming.

How much longer ? St. Ignatius(110) quotes 15 N.T.books. The Didache(80-120)-speaks of gospel as written document,Tatian(160) wrote “Harmony of the Four gospels” and showed were accepted by the churches. Justin Martyr(140)-mentions 15 books ,says the gospels are read in the churches ,along with O.T. Irenaeus (130-200)-quotes from most of N.T. as scripture. Tertullian (169-220) speaks of “the New Testament”.Says if you are curious about salvation , go to any apostolic church where “their very authentic epistles are read, sounding forth the voice and representing the countenance of each of them”.Origen (185-254) Accepted the twenty seven books -quotes almost 2/3 's of N.T…Anyways ,for most of church history ,she has been guided (or should have) by Sacred Scripture .Yes , it began with oral apostolic transmission , and their blood. From there God gave us their written word.The church ,from the beginning read scripture “in the assemblies” ,as we do today -the old and the new testaments. I see no record of them going much beyond that, to this day. .Do we not both still do the same ? I do not see us expounding on extra-biblical tradition on Sundays .I do not read of tradition or church teaching being any different from the “epistles and gospels” or that they did not have supreme authority .(info from Halley’s Bible Handbook)

 

[adrift]

**In short - Heos *wasn’t ***translated incorrectly. You just refuse to accept that it has different applications than it’s English translation.

Add to that is the refusal to acknowledge the dictionary definition that the word only means up to a point in time.
The fact remains that it doesn’t prove anything either way.