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

[guanophore]

But Matthew brings up sex by saying that Joseph did not have sex with her until Jesus was born. The Catholic view is that Joseph said that he took Mary as his wife and then clarifies he is talking about sex but then neglects to mention she remained a virgin her whole life after saying that he took her as his wife.
That would mean in my estimation that Matthew is both confusing and the Holy Spirit missed a chance to clarify what would divide Christians. In our view, the Holy Spirit was very clear but people allowed legends and so forth to take precedence over what He inspired Matthew to write.
Once again, that is our view and I understand it is completely impossible to Catholics to conceive of this. Primarily because it has been infallibly declared. It would mean everything is wrong and certainly I understand that is not going to happen in anyone’s mind because some guy’s internet post!

No, it is not completely impossible for Catholics to conceive of this. On the contrary, it is one of the early heresies that was battled by the Church before the canon was closed. The Apostles knew that Mary had only one child, and they passed this knowledge on to their disciples.

A dogma had to be proclaimed because the heresy was running rampant, and it is the duty of the Church to correct the faithful, and to condemn heresies.

Dont’ you find it somewhat strange that all the communities founded by Apostles have this belief about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and it is only those of our separated brethren that have lost the Apostolic Succession that think otherwise?

 

[GaryTaylor]

1 thru 8 of the Ecumenical Councils could be read. Theres nothing here that hasn’t been gone over in detail for decade after decade, of scholar after scholar.

The only real news is the Othodox and Catholic church are meeting monthly to resolve the 8th dispute. And the Othodox Church is paying particular attention because of the 7-year period we are in now. The churchs are going to combine soon. They are sister churchs and always have been. Just so you know, the Orhodox church is in complete line with reverence to Mary.

All other denominations fall somewhere between the 4th and 8th council.

 

[Zooey]

OOOhhhh.You are a sniper -I did enjoy reading your stuff though .

You brought something up I have seen before .The idea of sex-craved people not believing,really, that chastity is better than normality.That is a snippity judgement .

No, laddie; its an honest one.

We are warned in scripture that there will be those forbidding to marry ,cause it is more “spiritual” <in fact the Corinthians were zealous but wrong when they started putting each other away (divorce -not murder ,though i am sure some spouses wished it-just kidding)-to be more spiritual .It is funny but just around the time this became more prevalent, 2-3rd century, is when this ever -virgin thing stated taking off- remember Helvidius ,Tertullian -Jerome debates ?

It would behttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif interesting to hear how in the name of all that’s holy & Nixon (as a fellow poster likes to say), that you have managed to confuse the Corinthians, the debates amongst the ECFs (w/the occasional heretic thrown in to flavor the http://bestsmileys.com/drinks/4.gif, and the Unique Calling of the Mother of Jesus Christ…http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/6.gif
It won’t do, yean. It simply won’t do at all.
And, by the bye, those murderous spouses you joke about? Could it just be that they were never called to be married? That maybe, just maybe, they were intended by the Creator to be celibate?

I am sorry but Mother Theresa did great things being chaste ,.but so did Billy Graham being married (or how about St. Peter).

Different callings, laddie. Different callings.

I do not see Mary’s sanctification dependent on being chaste within her marriage or not.

I’m going to assume that you don’t mean what you just said here. That you’ve muddled your English.
Benefit of the doubt: am assigning positive intent.

Look at some early fathers writings and almost ,I said almost put down marriage .It just so happens the same writers were chaste.

[SIGN1]
Piffle!
Pshaw!!
Pfui!!!
[/SIGN1]
I’m assuming, again, that you mean something other than “chaste”, laddie. Otherwise, we must needs have a long, **long **talk on the subject of “antinomianism”.

Anyways ,all I wanted to say is that my belief in scriptures over Mary has NOTHING to do with my thoughts or desires or dislikes of human sexuality .How about you ?

My belief in the Scriptures is based on what they say, and what has been taught about them since the beginning of the Church.
And so should yours be, yean.
As opposed to, say, what somehttp://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gif self-published as the Collected Works ofhttp://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gif. And sold over the airwaves to the unwary.

---

That is a very biblical inerrantist position, Steve.

Please see below:

CC136…God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good News is theres a shot you can flip your life around.

As we can all attest its not an easy road. But it is THE ROAD. Most that have been lost are God Thankfull to have found sanity.

Instead of keeping the whores, and the end seat at the Gin Mill company.Or being a doormat for every guy in town? How about keeping Our Blessed Lady company daily? I assure you, from her you will go directly to the Holy Spirit. And while you may not be magically hit over the head with a wand. You will move closer spiritually as Mary and God will you to. And when the Holy Spirit finally does hit you? You’ll never be able to tell yourself those lies again.

The Rosary is a sure shot wake up and protection of evil. If you add it to your liife like air, it just may get your Soul to Heaven and God. And if you take a flashing moment of your busy schedule and talk to those who have rubbed shoulders with death? I think you’ll find they have a extremely large amout of Graditude to God and never do anything but respect Mary.

Marys Virginity is not the facination. Marys devotion to God, humility and loss of self, an willingness to forgive us is. Matter of fact, its jaw dropping. Because she remained a Virgin is the result of her Devotion. And the reward for her devotion is Queen of Heaven.

Is it really a wonder that a woman could have achieved this with God? If you think about the Bible rationally. The success of Christ and Mary is the predicted outcome. The book of Genesis starts the prediction. And Revelations brings us to date. The only thing not known, is where you fit in?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

It is a Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit wrote the bible, and the men holding the pen were simply taking dictation?

The Catholic Church teaches what SteveVH stated. We believe that God is the author of scripture, and that the men were employed by God and wrote only what He wanted.

 

[david_ruiz]

:extrahappy:Yes!! Yes, yes, yes!!!:extrahappy:
Oh, I love it !!
The Bible was NOT dropped on silly old King James’:whacky: head as he was meandering about the palace gardens of an evening in1611!
It did not come, therefore, in Elizabethan [Jacobean] English, bound in leather with gold stamping.
Greek. Greek and Hebrew.
And yes: Matthew was, indeed, originally in Aramaic.



PS: Please note that some of us (even doddering old cranky Methodists) know how to quote, regardless of colour or bolding, etc, etc.
Just saying…shaw:

What? What? What?-are you all going around with your greek and hebrew bibles .I guess i gota get with it .Good-bye Vulgate ,KJV,NIV,ASN,RASV . From now on I am not reading any thread that does not qoute scripture accurately,that is must be in original Greek/Hebrew…NOT.

 

[elvisman]

huh? first you argue that she was fully aware of ‘the facts of life,’ and now you are claiming that she did not?
NO – you’re NOT comprehending what I am saying. Your position (and that of Todd and Doki) is that Mary simply asked the question because she had never been** with a man. In context – that is NOT** what she said. She was befuddles by the Angel’s announcement because she had no intention of being with a man (sexually).
**
dianaiad;7070244:
Weeelll…the fact that she was actually PREGNANT would seem that she had completed that process, would it not? Either naturally or through God’s action? Remember also that Joseph also got an angelic visit telling him to marry her.
Get this straight, because I think you’re very confused: MARY WASN’T PREGNANT WHEN THE ANGEL CAME. She did not become pregnant until she said, *“*Let it be done unto me according to your word.”

Sure. in fact, I have already posted this link on a previous post; go look at it; it’s found on Judaism 101, a sort of encyclopedia of Jewish beliefs and culture through the ages (written and maintained by Jews.) . . . or it COULD have been the fact that she indeed chose to remain celibate - as the 2000 year-old tradition asserts. The Traditional teaching is that Luke interviewed Mary when he wrote his Gospel.
That’s fine…but memories change, and the specific wording of her answer seems to be of such intense importance that making absolutely certain that the words she remembered (or that Matthew was inspired to write) were literally the words she used.

Bad** answer.
Luke was under the** inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God does NOT mince words.

---

Oh, I do indeed believe that they were WRITTEN that way. Whether they were always translated that way…

Take a look at all these; of the 22 different renditions of this verse in English, 14 of them have Mary asking her question of the angel…and proclaiming her virginal state in the presnt and past tense only. Of the eight remaining, all have her speaking in the present tense–and it is only meaning brought to it from somewhere else that can possibly make it seem as if she were projecting in to the future. There is absolutely no hint of it being a permanent state. In fact, the translation that is meant to be a word for word translation, the Young’s Literal Translation, has Mary asking "how shall this be, seeing a husband

I do not know?

When you examine that one, you find problems. By using ‘husband’ rather than ‘man,’ you leave meaning wide open to having her ‘know’ someone who is NOT a husband. As well, you can’t figure that she was refering to a permanent state, since of course she was betrothed to, and fully intended to marry, Joseph. Therefore it may certainly be seen that while she doesn’t ‘know’ a husband now, she certainly intended to in the future.

Do you see the problem I have with working with specific words here? This isn’t exactly like "until,’ after all (though the irony is pretty good…) since ‘until’ is a specific concept to concept translation, while what Mary said to the angel seems to be rather variously translated.

…and now you know why I asked who wrote the script.
Then go back to the** GREEK****. I don’t know HOW** many times I have to say this before it sinks in.
There are bad translations and others that are far superior – far closer to the original Greek and Hebrew.

---

The HOLY SPIRIT wrote the original - you and Todd are playing *semantic *games . . …

 

[elvisman]

Hi Trying to follow your thoughts.I have KJV-"How shall this be seeing I know not a man ? " NIV-“how will this be,since I am a virgin ?“Both imply virginity .Both imply no sex,that could produce a child .Even your text says, “I have no relations with a man”. It does not say, " I will have no relations with a man”.I do not see intent of chastity or not.I believe she was saying the facts of life ,like “Me a baby.I have not been with a man,not even my betrothed-like it is not up to me only-hint-i need a man and don’t have one yet ,maybe in a year ? It seems a matter of timing ,of the betrothal,anouncement ,conception wedding.As it turned out apparently she conceived immediately so her question was pertinent,if even in hindsight Right? She became pregnant immediately? .Anyways , the timing was perfect , her statement was perfect for it told us bluntly yet delicately that prophecy was fulfilled for” a virgin shall conceive”. Anyways ,we have been over this .not totally sure of the different translations affecting anything.

I’ll ask you the same question that I asked somebody else earlier – worded differently:
Suppose you are an engaged girl and somebody tells you – “You will have a child.”

---

Would you be confused and ask, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?”
OR** would you think – “I’m sure I will have a child, God willing. After all – I’m getting married.”**

---

Mary’s reply was one of confusion. Either she was an idiot who didn’t know what she was getting into with Joseph – or she had NO intention of having children.
Mary was NO idiot.

 

[elvisman]

What? What? What?-are you all going around with your greek and hebrew bibles .I guess i gota get with it .Good-bye Vulgate ,KJV,NIV,ASN,RASV . From now on I am not reading any thread that does not qoute scripture accurately,that is must be in original Greek/Hebrew…NOT.

We MUST appeal to the original Greek and Hebrew when checking different translations. there have been bad translations before. Remember that Luther changes the Scriptures to include the word ALONE to “prove” Sola Fide. then he removed several Books thgat didn’t meet his approval - HIS approval!

He perverted the Scriptures, yet his Protestant movement has lured millions away from God’s Church.

 

[Todd520]

We MUST appeal to the original Greek and Hebrew when checking different translations. there have been bad translations before. Remember that Luther changes the Scriptures to include the word ALONE to “prove” Sola Fide. then he removed several Books thgat didn’t meet his approval - HIS approval!

He perverted the Scriptures, yet his Protestant movement has lured millions away from God’s Church.

And now you understand why the LDS article of faith says: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”

 

[dianaiad]

No, it is not completely impossible for Catholics to conceive of this. On the contrary, it is one of the early heresies that was battled by the Church before the canon was closed. The Apostles knew that Mary had only one child, and they passed this knowledge on to their disciples.

A dogma had to be proclaimed because the heresy was running rampant, and it is the duty of the Church to correct the faithful, and to condemn heresies.

Dont’ you find it somewhat strange that all the communities founded by Apostles have this belief about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and it is only those of our separated brethren that have lost the Apostolic Succession that think otherwise?

No.

We do claim that the entire church went off the doctrinal rails, after all. I would be rather strange for someone who believes this to find it strange that it actually–went off the doctrinal rails.

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic Church teaches what SteveVH stated. We believe that God is the author of scripture, and that the men were employed by God and wrote only what He wanted.

That would make you very strict biblical inerrantists, wouldn’t it?

 

[elvisman]

And now you understand why the LDS article of faith says: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”

**The word of God is what it is - inerrant. **
Men have perverted the Scriptures by not submitting to the Authority left by Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church. The CHURCH is the Authority and the pillar and foundation of truth - not Protestantism, not Mormonism, not Jehovah’s Witnesses

The more factions and splinter groups that arise - the more you can guarantee further perversions of Scripture to rise to the surface.

 

[elvisman]

No.

We do claim that the entire church went off the doctrinal rails, after all. I would be rather strange for someone who believes this to find it strange that it actually–went off the doctrinal rails.

And I asked you several pages back to provide me with proof of this great apostasy.

All you could reply with was your dislike for my use of colors in my posts.
So, I ask you again - please provide PROOF of the Great Apostasy.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

That would make you very strict biblical inerrantists, wouldn’t it?

And what is your point? Catholics have already explained our view of the Bible.

 

[KathleenGee]

You can’t prove the Bible in itself as the Word of God…because of the different translations and disagreements … even taking out one adverb or preposition changes the context.

But God is the Author and He works through men…but what men have God working through them and which ones say they do, but are not. What is the criteria then.

 

[KathleenGee]

Both Judaic and Catholic cultures uphold virgnity and celibacy but I don’t see that much in the Protestant cultures.

What I can perceive of Mormonism is its great focus on marriage and the family and all the Church activities surrounding their faith…even including having a family night…could hinder people from seeing the value and spirituality for that matter of lifelong celibacy and virginity…

Christ said there were those made for the Kingdom…and I see Mary part of that same mission. I don’t see her attitude at the Annunciation and her great Fiat as she turning away from God and giving up her virginity…if she won’t then, she wouldn’t later because she was especially consecrated to God.

 

[brumano]

We can see how the SAME Greek word is used in other verses, can’t we? Maybe that could and would shed light on this topic.

Well, I don’t have the expertise to do that, but I would point out one or two things which are related. The original thread mentions St. Jerome, he lived around 300AD if I’m not mistaken, and he did have the expertise; in linguistics and in Scriptural studies. As you know he believed in “Mary Ever Virgin”.
Also, among the earliest of the early churches are the Greeks, Greek Orthodox Catholics have alwalys, and to this day of course, hold Mary up as" Ever Virgin."
What we alwalys in any case come to is a point where what can be known with certitude ends, and the questions of faith and love begin. The Scriptures in no way dissuade us from
Mary Ever Virgin, or St.Joseph her most chaste spouse.

 

[david_ruiz]

That’s

your problem. You think that this was written in English - it wasn’t. It was written in Greek. As a matter of fact, many scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and translated into Greek. The english translations didn’t come for well over a thousand years later.
O.K. So you admit that in english “until” can be construed both ways on this discussion ?.Then are you saying the English translation is “weak”,possibly in error ? Do you mean the Greeks had no way of saying something did not happen ever without employing their word for “until” ? Why did they not just say Joseph NEVER knew her ? Why did they put a time or reference point ((until Jesus was born) ? I do not know .We have that word in the English language for a reason ,and I think the Greeks may have also .Anyways ,I do believe in going back to the greek to study ,especiallly a disputed matter. My final point always has been to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and not use the "until "argument to prove siblings.It only proves virgin -birth.But I would also not fight against someone saying a general insinuation is there that things changed after the birth…Get back to your neat scripture of Ezekial.later.thanks

 

[Magdalena09]

O.K. So you admit that in english “until” can be construed both ways on this discussion ?.Then are you saying the English translation is “weak”,possibly in error ?