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

[adrift]

Please do question, that is what this is all about.The Gospel is John 2:17. This is where Jesus gets mad at the vendors, overturning tables in the temple, and said “make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written , the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (from psalms 69:8,9- " I am become a stranger unto my bretheren ,and an alien unto my MOTHER’S children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me “”

It is verse 10 not 8 or nine. What you wrote made me think that verse 8 and 9 was referred to which is not the case.
Elvis is correct in the way he interprets the verse. Someone else said it had nothing to do with Mary and I agree. It is IMHO not a reference to Mary having other children. Have you read the thread. There is much that shows that Mary did not have other children.

…Yes, there are false accusations but also reproach .verse 21 -“In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink ,and “I wept and fasted " (verse10) There are many things here that were real ,not just symbolic .Yes, the sackcloth is a real and figurative in the bible . While He figuratively made sackcloth His garment (verse11,) He literally wept at Gethsemane (verse10) .Thank-you for reading “my” interpretation of this Psalm 69 ,that Mary is the mother of Jesus , who had other children , who reproached Jesus , The verse is simple, yet profoundly deep , and precise ,and double-edged.John 7:5-” For neither did His bretheren believe in Him”

My point is that it is not literal that is giving a point by point reference of Jesus. That it refers to Jesus is true but that does not mean that everything is literal. You say that sack clothe is real in the bible that statement is true but my reference was did Jesus wear sack cloth? He did not therefore everything in the verse is not literally true for Jesus. Just like the reverence to mother’s children does not refer to Jesus as His mother having other children.

 

[dianaiad]

Betrothal was the first part of marriage. Remember Joseph was going to divorce Mary when the angel told him to take his WIFE into his home. You ignore that she didn’t say that Joseph and I don’t have sex but that she didn’t have sex with anyone.

I believe I just said that…about there being two parts of the marriage…and what, you think that if she were not having sex with Joseph, that anybody would assume that she was having sex with someone else? Sheesh…that assumption is what got her into trouble later, and why an angel had to appear to JOSEPH, for heaven’s sake.

You have talked about what can be assumed. If a woman is told before she is married, that she will have a child. A normal reaction is NOT to say I don’t have sex but of course I will have children I am getting married.

Would she? Here’s an angel standing right in front of her, telling her that she’s going to have a baby. Why do you think she would think far enough ahead to say well, of course…I’m getting married so I probably will?

There’s not enough there to exegete your meaning.

It is a normal response of a married woman. Especially of that time period and that culture. Mary’s response is strange. You say it is not but you have not put forth a plausible reason why.

It’s a normal response of a child (and Mary was a child…13 or 14, barely out of puberty) to see everything as being in the present, as well. She was not all the way married; she was living with her family, not with Joseph. There is no reason to assume that she would simply dismiss the visit of the angel Gabriel with a 'well, of course I will, I’m getting married…" She was speaking in the present tense…I 'know no man." of course she doesn’t. She didn’t know Joseph, and the world would fall in on her if she ‘knew’ someone else!

 

[adrift]

Thank you elvis for proving two points

• my challenge cannot be, well ‘challenged’ using UNTIL
• you’ve convinced me that heos was incorrectly translated for Matt 1:25. While your four examples still leave her PV in doubt, much less is implied vs ‘until’

Our you serious. You create a strawman asking us to knock it down and we do but you say it still stands.

You ignore the standard definition and make up your own. You ignore what the definition is and insist that we follow your strawman.

You write on without acknowledging what is written to you.

Your Challenge is based on a lie.

You have ignored other post. Mary says that she knows not man. She is the only person who would know.

 

[dianaiad]

This really jumped out at me, because I think this is the crux of why the Marian doctrines are such a point of contention. Those who have rejected the Apostolic Tradition wish to force those of us who have retained it into debate according to the truncated rules created by those who departed from the faith.

On the contrary, Catholics MUST NOT do this. If we do, then we are basically accepting the premise of what is for us “a different gospel”. The standard of Sola Scriptura constitutes a significant departure from that which was handed on to us from our Apostles, and therefore, we must reject it, or find ourselves accursed.

You misunderstand the sense in which I used ‘must…’

But here’s the thing, quanophore: what earthly use is it to debate anybody when that other person doesn’t accept the premise for the subject? When Catholics use Sacred Tradition to prove something to someone else–when that someone else doesn’t accept Holy Tradition as being a valid source, it’s like…in fact, it’s exactly like…, me telling you that you have to believe in a city called Zarahemla because the Book of Mormon mentions it.

You do not accept the Book of Mormon as a reason for YOU to believe anything. Why should you? If you did, you’d have to get a baptism date very quickly. By the same token, you can’t expect me to accept Sacred Tradition as a reason I must believe something.

That said, of course Catholics should use all the sources at their disposal to explain why they believe this doctrine or that dogma; how else can their beliefs be explained, after all?

…and Mormons have to use all the scriptures they accept as they explain why they believe what they do.

However, if you are going to try to prove one of your beliefs to the other guy, the only sources either of you can use as prooftexts are sources you both believe; things you hold in common. If, along the line, you both come to accept the validity of other sources, then those may be used as well.

 

[dianaiad]

Todd - it’s no small wonder that you *cannot *cpomprehend the explanations I have given you about the word heos (until).

You haver totally misrepresented my position, in that I NEVER told you that heos was not translated correctly.

Do you even READ the posts or do you make things up as you go along?

Is it possible for you to write a post without getting personally insulting?

 

[david_ruiz]

What scares me is that you are part of a church who does not believe in intercessory prayer. Your church doesn’t pray for each other? You do not have anyone in your church that you feel is righteous enough to pray for you effectively? That scares me.

I understand .Religion is very powerful ,it covers the world.It is impossible to escape that good"feeling you can get from it. So I believe you when you say you “feel” like God is in your beautiful churches…It is funny but just this Sunday our pastor showed us a video clip for a commercial of our “church” .It showed clips of preaching , praying for one another ,praising and raised hands .etc.Then he asked what was missing , what did we not see ? It was our building , cause church is not a building, it is “us”, and God in our midst , as He graces us, with Himself .Hey , God knows beauty , and had a beautiful temple for his children . So he knows beauty and symbolism and ceremony etc .But He also said it could be for nought, as Stephen said .We are His temple ,and where two or more are gathered, "there am I ".

 

[adrift]

I believe I just said that…about there being two parts of the marriage…and what, you think that if she were not having sex with Joseph, that anybody would assume that she was having sex with someone else? Sheesh…that assumption is what got her into trouble later, and why an angel had to appear to JOSEPH, for heaven’s sake. !

No you said they were not married just betrothed. You lost me on what you are saying it doesn’t seem to answer my point which was that she doesn’t just say that she wasn’t having sex with Joseph, her husband, but that she didn’t have sex at all. She says I know not man. Not that she is not having sex with Joseph who was her husband even at the time that angel was speaking to her.

Would she? Here’s an angel standing right in front of her, telling her that she’s going to have a baby. Why do you think she would think far enough ahead to say well, of course…I’m getting married so I probably will?

On the contrary, it is a strange question. She is married yet she says I don’t have sex. Why wouldn’t she assume the natural course of things.

There’s not enough there to exegete your meaning.

Let me clarify

You have talked about what can be assumed.
If a woman is told before she is married, that she will have a child. A normal reaction is NOT to say “I don’t have sex.” But to say " of course I will have children I am getting married." That would be what would be assumed to be a normal response of a married woman. Especially true of women of that time period and that culture. Mary’s response is strange. You say it is not but you have not put forth a plausible reason why.

It’s a normal response of a child (and Mary was a child…13 or 14, barely out of puberty) to see everything as being in the present, as well. She was not all the way married; she was living with her family, not with Joseph. There is no reason to assume that she would simply dismiss the visit of the angel Gabriel with a 'well, of course I will, I’m getting married…" She was speaking in the present tense…I 'know no man." of course she doesn’t. She didn’t know Joseph, and the world would fall in on her if she ‘knew’ someone else

You are stating your unsubstantiated opinion. Do you have children? If your children are like this, don’t assume all children are. It would not be a normal response for mine nor those of my friends children. Even so Mary was not a child. She was a teenager. Remember she rushed to Elizabeth not an action of a child. Especially in that time she would have been considered an adult. She was not about to get married she was married. Joseph was thinking of divorcing her. The angel tells him to take his wife into his home. She was married to Joseph at the time she was speaking to the angel. Her question does not make sense. Especially the way she said it. Not that she isn’t living with Joseph yet which would have been the natural response but that she doesn’t have sex with “man”.

 

[david_ruiz]

My point is that it is not literal that is giving a point by point reference of Jesus. That it refers to Jesus is true but that does not mean that everything is literal. You say that sack clothe is real in the bible that statement is true but my reference was did Jesus wear sack cloth? He did not therefore everything in the verse is not literally true for Jesus. Just like the reverence to mother’s children does not refer to Jesus as His mother having other children.

Psalm69 has 36 verses ,and indeed some are figurative and more are literal .how do you pick and chose ? You used other scriptures. So did I .I understand and feel you are forced into interpreting “my (Jesus) mother’s children” as figurative.I am forced to see it as both ,for “salvation is of the Jews”,she brought forth (birthed -mothered) the Messiah .This is figurative .Jesus had bretheren, who did not believe (Mary’s children , born after the first-born, virgin-born Jesus).This is literal…The beauty of scripture .It goes just so far , else some may read and believe (without really changing)

 

[adrift]

I understand .Religion is very powerful ,it covers the world.It is impossible to escape that good"feeling you can get from it. So I believe you when you say you “feel” like God is in your beautiful churches…It is funny but just this Sunday our pastor showed us a video clip for a commercial of our “church” .It showed clips of preaching , praying for one another ,praising and raised hands .etc.Then he asked what was missing , what did we not see ? It was our building , cause church is not a building, it is “us”, and God in our midst , as He graces us, with Himself .Hey , God knows beauty , and had a beautiful temple for his children . So he knows beauty and symbolism and ceremony etc .But He also said it could be for nought, as Stephen said .We are His temple ,and where two or more are gathered, "there am I ".

I don’t feel God is in my Church. I know that He is. I believe Jesus when He said I will be with you always and the gates of hell will not prevail. But you are not on topic so please start your own thread or stick to the topic of this thread.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t really believe that Mary would have been less the “New Eve” or the “Ark of the New Covenant” if she had had a normal sexual life within marriage with Joseph. She may have been a perpetual virgin, but there is no necessity that she be one for us to be saved through Jesus’ atonement and resurrection.

No, it was not “necessary” for God to do things the way He did, but this is what He chose.

What is “necessary” is that we preserve the Gospel as it was handed down to us, and not add and subtract according to our modern disconnected notions of what seems right to us. That makes us the god of Truth, rather than He who revealed His Truth to us.

 

[adrift]

No, it was not “necessary” for God to do things the way He did, but this is what He chose.

What is “necessary” is that we preserve the Gospel as it was handed down to us, and not add and subtract according to our modern disconnected notions of what seems right to us. That makes us the god of Truth, rather than He who revealed His Truth to us.

 

[dianaiad]

No you said they were not married just betrothed.

Nope. I described the two parts of the marrage; the first part, which is the formal betrothal, requires ONE of the following things: a gift of money, a contract, or sexual intercourse. Often all three were part of it, but not when the woman is very young. Only one of the three is required. The woman lives with her parents, and the man is off getting home ready. The completed marriage is done when the bride moves into the groom’s home.

I have described this several times now, and the post to which you replied was very clear on th is. It was often described as a betrothal, but it was considered to be as permanent as marriage…and was, indeed, more a pre-marriage than what we call an engagement today.

 

[adrift]

Nope. I described the two parts of the marriage; the first part, which is the formal betrothal, requires ONE of the following things: a gift of money, a contract, or sexual intercourse. Often all three were part of it, but not when the woman is very young. Only one of the three is required. The woman lives with her parents, and the man is off getting home ready. The completed marriage is done when the bride moves into the groom’s home.

I have described this several times now, and the post to which you replied was very clear on th is. It was often described as a betrothal, but it was considered to be as permanent as marriage…and was, indeed, more a pre-marriage than what we call an engagement today.

And yet you make statement like

She was not ‘married’ yet…

Where did you get the information

Often all three were part of it, but not when the woman is very young. Only one of the three is required

You did have a link but I could not find it there. BTW your link did not really have to do with customs in New Testament Times at least I wouldn’t consider that to be medieval times. You see one of the reasons that it is mentioned that it was the part of marriage of the betrothal is because they would not have had sex despite your above statement.
All in all it does not answer why Mary would ask such a strange question.

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, Catholicism has great value for the practice of celibacy and virginity.

St. John the Baptist was celibate. St. John the Evangelist was celibate and considered closest to Jesus…the Apostle Jesus loved…albeit in John’s words. st. Joseph could very well had been arranged as her guardian as was the local custom in Judaism at that time…the temple virgins protected by older Jewish men.

But again, we do not know the specifics…yet our tradition has from the beginning supported her perpetual virginity among many believers, Mary’s single focus of mission, and the relationship she had with her son…I do not think people understand what I am saying either that if she had other children, who were mortals vs Jesus Who is God…that alone, that environment is a contradiction.

Consider Sarah who was barren, Elizabeth who had no children until St. John the Baptist. These women had very particular missions…and no other children.

How much more the mission of the Blessed Mother!!!

 

[KathleenGee]

David,

You inferred that even though we have beautiful churches, the real church is in the believer as you have in your denomination.

The Catholic diocese is the local church. The local church is the fellowship and community of believers, not church buildings.

We wish to give the Lord the best fruits as our churches contain the physical presence of God, denoted by the tabernacle and the sanctuary light. God’s presence among us fulfills the Old Jewish temple…and Christ’s words that He would always remain with us. It is a sign for the love of God that the interior of our churches are made beautiful for Him… Consider Abel’s gifts vs Cain’s…

I am always taken back when attending non-denominational services where they have their memorial of the breaking of the bread. The memorial bread that is not eaten is afterwards thrown in the garbage.

I was doing a hospice case with a Protestant Christian man. The son came with bread and wine. They prayed and asked Christ’s presence and blessing in this breaking of bread. I felt Christ’s presence between them in the other room. After the son left, I saw the glass that had the wine in the sink. To me it was sacred even if it was not consecrated by a priest. I treated it with respect…but really did not know how to clean it…this is my Catholic sensitivity. I ended up personally wiping it with prayer …

So our faith in God in our Mass and elements is something we venerate and hold most dear.

 

[Stephen168]

Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel would have been quite bizarre if you were to take the Protestant position that she knew she was going to enter a "normal" marriage, having relations with her husband.

Not it wasn’t. She was speaking in present tense…and the event in question was happening ‘present tense.’

Luke1:31-35:

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, **The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, **and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

present tense?

 

[ERose]

Diana & Todd,

I think I have discovered our confusion. You keep talking about Jewish custom in your arguments and I think is where the miscommunication is coming from is that you don’t necessarily understand Jewish marriage custom, especially during this time period.
Jewish marriage occurs in two stages. They are kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). As is discussed in the Holy Word, Joseph and Mary were betrothed. What does that mean? Marriages were usually arranged marriages by a third party or matchmaker. To enter into kiddushin a man would have to provide a dowry, contract and/or sexual intercourse. The woman must accept and marriage could never be forced on the woman. A ring was supplied at this time to the woman only and she showed her acceptance by closing her fist. At this point, they were officially husband and wife with full sexual privileges and marital rights . The difference between the Kiddushin and nisuin was that kiddushin would last about one year (30 days for a widower) and the wife would stay with her parents while the husband would go and build a house for her and get everything situation for a smooth transition for the woman. During this time, the husband was allowed to visit his wife whenever he wished and sexual intercourse was allowed, accepted and many times the wife would become pregnant during this time. Once the man got everything situated, he, along with a routine, would go to his father-in-law’s and take his wife to her new home. This was nisuin.

So the fact is, Mary and Joseph were already married as we understand it today, when Jesus was conceived. But for some reason that is not in Holy Scripture (but in our traditions), there was a decision to remain celibate after the marriage as shown in the Gospel of Luke were she says, “How can this be since I know not man”. This verse contradicts custom, as we know it. If they were having a normal Jewish marriage, the marriage would have already been consummated. Yet this verse shows that was not the case. So why did they not consummate their marriage? Also why did they not have sex during her pregnancy either? There is no answer for you, except that we know at this point that this marriage was celibate marriage.

Now you say that scripture informs us in Matthew that they consummated their marriage after the birth of Jesus. Well let us look at that verse. Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary until after the birth of Jesus. What was the intent of Matthew saying this? There can be only two reasons why he would say this. Your response is that Matthew was telling us something about the sex life of Mary and Joseph. Our response is that Matthew was emphasizing that Jesus was born of a Virgin that knew not a man. I would think that most who read Matthew with a Christian heart would accept the last response. Matthew wants his readers to understand one thing from this verse and that was Joseph was not the true father of Jesus and could not possibly have been because he did not have sexual intercourse with Mary. Therefore, the birth of Jesus was a miraculous birth not a normal one. Reading it in any other way separates the interpretation of this verse from what Matthew was actually trying to convey.

You will make the statement that this doesn’t mean they did not have intercourse after the birth of Jesus. My response to this is what would have changed? They already were living a celibate life together before and during Mary’s pregnancy, when they did not have to and it would have been expected of them to have a normal marriage right? So there is something in the story you do not know, that wasn’t spoken of in the scriptures. So my question to you using your logic, what would have changed in their marriage to allow them to have sexual intercourse after Jesus’ birth when they obviously abstaining from sex when they legally should have been have sex to produce children.

 

[ERose]

Continued…

Concerning Mary having other children, which would be the true proof that you are looking for because that would be conclusive. There is one passage in the Bible that definitely shows there are no brothers of Jesus. That is John 19: 26-27: When Jesus seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold thy son. After that, he said to the disciple, Behold they mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. In Jewish custom, this is completely inconceivable if there were other siblings. Why? After the death of the father, the first-born son would inherit his father’s property. He would also become responsible for his mother’s welfare. If the first-born dies without an heir then the next son in line would inherit the family’s property and the responsibility of the welfare of the mother and his brother’s wife if he had one. If Jesus did violate this he would have been, violating Mosaic law and I believe that you and I can agree that this is something He would not do. So your customs show that he did not have siblings.

Concerning the other verses that supposedly show siblings of Jesus I have dealt with thoroughly in other posts and I do not think they are necessary to deal with here again. However, if you want me to I will.

If you need a link concerning Jewish marriage tradition here you go:

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/marriage.html

So here are the facts from scripture and Jewish custom.

1. Joseph and Mary were officially married at the time of the annunciation albeit in the first stages of marriage.
2. From Mary’s response to the angel, Joseph and Mary were not having a sexual relationship for some reason.
3. During Mary’s pregnancy they did not have sexual relations as per Scripture.
4. Matthews intent in the verse “He did not know her until the birth of Jesus” was to emphasize the virgin birth of Jesus and not to tell us about Joseph and Mary’s sex life.
5. We know of five relatives of Jesus from Holy Writ, Jame the Less, Jude, Simon, Joseph, Salome, yet not one name for a biological sibling.
6. Through custom on the cross, Jesus transferred the rights of his first born status to John, which would not have occurred unless Jesus not no brothers.

Here is what we know from historical evidence is that it was always believed from the beginning that Mary was always ever a virgin and never lost her virginity. All Churches that can lay claim to Apostolic succession believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Only the Christians who have no history believe otherwise.

 

[brumano]

One point and only the following point to be considered: The Lord Jesus states: “There be eunuchs made eunuchs by the will of the flesh, there be eunuchs made eunuchs by the will of man, but there be also eunuchs made eunuchs not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but for The Kingdom of Heaven’s (or God’s?) Sake”… He said this at that time, so we know that there were Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake at that time, and this was before His institution of His (fullfiled) priesthood. St Joseph the holy man, although he was not a priest, was “a eunuch made a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven"s sake.” Our lord is the prince of this brotherhood of eunuchs. (this passage of course is also one of the main Scriptural proofs for the celibate priesthood).

 

[elvisman]

Is it possible for you to write a post without getting personally insulting?

**Read his replies and you’ll see my frustration towards his almost total lack of staying in the conversation. **

Point after point is being made about the translation of the text and he has remained totally oblivious to that proof. There’s nothing insulting about it.