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

[elvisman]

I’ll bet you never loose arguments, at least in your mind.

Fancy that.

BTW, pals don’t treat pals the way you treat people.

Admonishing the unruly is a Chief Work of Mercy (1 Thess. 5:14) friend.

 

[jlhargus]

I know there are scriptural passages that can lead one to believe that Mary and Joseph had other childen as husband and wife.
There are references that point to her Perpetual Virginity as well.

1. Numbers 30 shows that a vow of abstinence, even in marriage, was not unheard of in the Old Testament.
2. St. Jerome argued for the well-known and commonly held belief in Mary’s virginity in St. Jerome’s “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary” vs Heluidius (380 A.D.)
3. Church approved apparitions always speak of Mary as the Virgin (for example, the Virgin of Guadalupe).

What do you think?

Mary had no other natural children as this prophecy tells us. Ezek 44:1 Then the man brought me back to THE OUTER GATE OF THE SANCTUARY, the one FACING EAST, and it was shut. 2 THE LORD SAID to me, THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN SHUT. IT MUST NOT BE OPENED; NO ONE MAY ENTER THROUGH IT. It is to remain shut BECAUSE THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED THROUGH IT. The Lord God has entered the world through Mary the gate of heaven and no one else is to enter thru that gate. Just as no one was to enter into the OT Ark of the Covenant, so no one is to enter Mary the Ark of the NT and the Gate of Heaven. The Father’s called Mary the gate of heaven and the ark of the covenant. .

 

[david_ruiz]

Interesting don’t the non catholics think that St. Paul although he does not speak of Mary directly, he gives in Timothy 1 ch.2 v13 -15 the condition of original sin, through Eve for her part was culpable for, and Mary is destined to take away? I think they should read it .

Hello, I am not sure what Protestants do not think about .I can only say that Paul is referring to the prophecy ,that the seed of Eve would crush the head of the serpent,and save Eve and the rest of us.It is not an easy read ,with multiple meanings .I suppose to that her seed had to carry on in faith and childbearing -hence the geneology that leads to Jesus ,in both Joseph’s and Mary’s lineage. That is why Mary is blessed “amongst” women. She is the end of the line of a long chain of faithful women , for salvation is from all of them . Jesus said, “Salvation is of the Jews”.I am not sure what Paul was saying to the women of his time. Perhaps that women (Eve) goofed ,but not to worry or feel guilty for what a woman could only do (child-bearing) relative to man, would redeem her. if they put faith in Mary’s child . Just some thoughts .Thanks

 

[elvisman]

I get your point.The same could be said the other way ,that it was obvious that they had children ,hence no nedd to specify ,other than what WAS important ,our Lord’s virgin birth .To further comment ,I would add the apostles ,the Holy Spirit , was master at writing for the day -context ,context,but simultaneously for the ages.

I don’t think you’re getting it. The opposite can’t be said with the same certainty because of the statement she made. Also - none of those siblings are mentioned in the Gospels.**

All of the so-called “brethren” of Jesus have already been proven to be the children of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and the “other” Mary at the foot of the cross who is called the virgin Mary’s sister (adelphe).**

 

[david_ruiz]

Mary had no other natural children as this prophecy tells us. Ezek 44:1 Then the man brought me back to THE OUTER GATE OF THE SANCTUARY, the one FACING EAST, and it was shut. 2 THE LORD SAID to me, THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN SHUT. IT MUST NOT BE OPENED; NO ONE MAY ENTER THROUGH IT. It is to remain shut BECAUSE THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED THROUGH IT. [The Lord God has entered the world through Mary the gate of heaven and no one else is to enter thru that gate. Just as no one was to enter into the OT Ark of the Covenant, so no one is to enter Mary the Ark of the NT and the Gate of Heaven. The Father’s called Mary the gate of heaven and the ark of the covenant. .

I do like this scripture and your figurative application-fits your scenario like a glove . I am not sure that is the primary meaning of it .Usually when there is a figureative lesson or parable ,there is a literal then figurative. I thought that indeed the gate had people pass thru it and was not shut until the Turks (1600 ?) So the literal has no bearing on the figurative .Another words why could it not have been prophetic where the lord literally passed thru that gate and then was shut,and then the figurative also with Mary’s womb .Could this be futuristic ,some say in the millenium …Anyways ,figuratively it is good for you ,just not sure about it literally during the time of Ezekiel …I still prefer Psalm 69 ,“I am become a stranger to my brethren,and an alien to my mother’s children” and ,"A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country,and among his own kin,and in his own house ".Mark 6:4 It is much more specific and literal…I know it has been said by Catholics that this psalm only means with Israel -it is very poetic “My mothers children” is Israel .That could apply ALSO -both figurative and literal (Mary"s children,and Jesus’s house))-“For neither did His brethren believe in Him” John7:4…If Israel is the mother of Jesus (for salvation is of the Jews), figuratively ,and Mary literally ,why does one have to perfect and the other not ? Israel was faithful and obedient, finally producing Mary. We also know Israel was not perfect ,and it was indeed by God’s grace ( undeserved merit) that she “produced”. Why does Mary have to be any different ? That is, perfect in faith , but not in nature and deed, as Jesus’s figurative mother , Israel. Israel was God’s temple on earth ,as we are today. Again , saying this Psalm relates to Israel and not Mary does fit total Mariology.
[/quote]

 

[dianaiad]

Huh? Why do you think that the Church doesn’t believe that the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God?

…because several Catholics have told me so.

However, I need to know whether that is a misconception of doctrine by them, or by me, or …so, I am asking for clarification.

Rather politely, actually.

There is a difference, you realize, between beleiving that the bible is inerrant in the original (which, by the way, I agree with–as does pretty much everybody else I’ve spoken to…) and whether it STAYED perfect throughout the ages, translatiions and scribal action.

The problem, of course, is that we don’t actually have any of the originals, so …

 

[ChristusDominus]

I may take a slightly different approach…I think Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus…do I think she remained so for life. I’m not sure. I don’t think it impacts her importance or decreases her divinity or that of Jesus in anyway.

Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[dianaiad]

Not good enough. I want some proof – some documentation of the Great Apostasy as claimed by the LDS.

I’m sure you do. Sorry, that’s what I’ve got. If it’s not good enough for you, then I suggest that you remain Catholic—but heres something for you to think about:

It’s good enough for me, just as the evidence you accept for Mary’s perpetual virginity and Assumption is good enough for you.

Please notice that I have never gotten snippy/nasty with you about that, or insisted that you agree with me. All I have done here is to explain why I believe as I do.

…though the irony of your demand is interesting.

---

As far as proving that we did not and could not apostasize I will you to Christ’s guarantees in Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18 and John 16:12-15 as well as Paul’s admonition that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth in 1 Tim. 3:15. These texts show that not only will the Church not err but that it CANNOT err in matters of faith and morals.
For it to have apostasized would render Jesus Christ nothing but a liar.

No, my friend. All it does is show that people did what they were doing even during NT times, when all those epistles were written to people who were already misunderstanding what Christ taught, and had to be pulled back, or taught again…

Here’s what I think: Christ did not abandon us. We abandoned Him–just as God’s people have done over and over again from day one. Our choices; free will.

There is, after all, only one way that God could keep the church on track WITHOUT the very public revelation (that is, specific revelation to authoritative church leaders for the specific purpose of guiding the church, the writing down of which is scripture by definition) is to take our free will from us.

It is that which convinces me. I do understand that you disagree.

 

[david_ruiz]

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.

Agreed on the need or usefulness of Greek etc. Yes Luther said He needed that word to get the right meaning in German .So ,that is one word out of a million.Yes perhaps one too many .I do not blame him ,for indeed ,he was trying to shatter the yolk of church /works salvation that controlled EVERYTHING.in Europe. Context,context.Today ,it would be unnecessary.
What books does the german bible not have .I forgot the elemnts of that debate ,but I remember it being much about nothing-that they have 27 books in N.T. Perhaps you mean his commentaries ,to some of the books .He said nothing different than what other contemporary notable said. It was O.K. to say them if you remained loyal to the pope .that is the only difference .Erasmus said the same stuff in Annotationes to his 1516 N.T.Greek and Cardinal Cajetin doubted the same books canonicity also (goes all the way back to Eusebius (380) .Because of all the confusion within the catholic church, Rome made a decision on the disputed books.with final cannonizing of scripture.(1580 ?)

 

[dianaiad]

I asked this once before which I think got lost in the on slaught.

My research shows that the betrothal was a year before the marriage. That would mean that there would not be a betrothal that young girls were betrothed. I think in other cultures that of which you speak occurred. But can you provide that this occurred in the Jewish culture of the time?
Now you say about a year more or less and than go on to refute that so which is it a year or more? Documentaion please.

Most confusing, your argument.

I got my information from Judaism 101, and this information is gained from the Talmud, and this view of marriage is traditional, and dates back to the earliest times.

Including those times around year 0.

In fact, here we see information that tells us that it could take up to two years for the groom to ‘come for’ the bride–when both are old enough from the beginning.

At no time, though contracts of marriage (generally arranged by the fathers) could be, and often were, arranged for young girls from infancy up, was the groom allowed to ‘come for’ a girl who had not reached puberty.

 

[dianaiad]

Please clear up a confusion I have about this statement. As I understand it, LDS believes that John never died. If this is true, there would be a conflict in your above statement.

Might be, if YOU guys believed that he was around.

 

[david_ruiz]

I don’t think you’re getting it. The opposite* can’t* be said with the same certainty because of the statement she made. Also - none of those siblings are mentioned in the Gospels.

All of the so-called “brethren” of Jesus have already been proven to be the children of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and the* “other”* Mary at the foot of the cross who is called the virgin Mary’s sister (adelphe).

Sorry ,I thought we talking about “until” ,not ,“I am a virgin”. …Where does scripture assign assign Judas and Simon and sisters to Mary of Clopas ? Only see James Joses and Salome. Could not cousins have the same names ,after all, you had two Mary’s as sisters (well Miriam),why not two James ? There is a word for cousins (remember cousin Elizabeth). It is not used .Brethren means siblings .Only metaphorically can it take a secondary meaning (kinsmen), but when it is mentioned with a mother ,i t is siblings (context ,context). If Joseph were not proclaimed to be ever-virgin by the church also ,there could be another explanation but…Mark 6:3, Is not this the carpenter,the son of Mary,the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us.and they were offended at him" .He was too plain, from normal ,typical Nazarite family.They did not say, "Is not this is the son of Mary and Joseph ,who vowed chastity to raise up someone “special “(as they snickered). Jesus said a prophet is without honor in his own country, amongst his own kin, and in his own house-Mark 6:4.” For neither did his brethren believe in him” -John7:5 and my favorite “I am become an alien unto my mother’s children”-Psalm 69 "8

 

[david_ruiz]

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/sniper_kitten.jpg

No, laddie; its an honest one.

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?

Different callings, laddie. Different callings.

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.

[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”.

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.

I am sorry ,but your stuff is very funny ,i am mentally derailed -didn’t take much did it ?

Chaste is being celibate ,obstaining from sex ,being pure ,right ? See ,I know that is what it means but you make me doubt myself with you humor ,pictures and no offense quirkiness( now that i better look up ).Some say the ever -virgin debate erupted in 2-3 rd century when it was deemed a better calling to be celibate ,virgin ,chaste than to be married . Were not some of the church fathers ,in favor of ever-virgin status , themselves skewed by their own celibacy ?. Did Mary have to be ever-virgin to raise a carpenter/Messiah ? Is there anyone else in the bible who married and yet remained virgin? I have been told this was “not uncommon” in Israel. To be humorous and modern ,and heavily influenced by the movie ,“Home Alone” (Where a large family leaves a young one behind by mistake as they fly off to Paris on vacation). Mary had to have a James and Simon and a Judas and daughters, else she would have no excuse for leaving Jesus behind when he was only twelve, in the big city no less.

 

[adrift]

Most confusing, your argument.

I got my information from Judaism 101, and this information is gained from the Talmud, and this view of marriage is traditional, and dates back to the earliest times.

Including those times around year 0.

In fact, here we see information that tells us that it could take up to two years for the groom to ‘come for’ the bride–when both are old enough from the beginning.

At no time, though contracts of marriage (generally arranged by the fathers) could be, and often were, arranged for young girls from infancy up, was the groom allowed to ‘come for’ a girl who had not reached puberty.

Let me see if I can make myself clearer. You are claiming that we don’t know how long Mary had to wait since she might have been betrothed at any time from infancy on.
Am I correct?

What I am saying is that there is no evidence that this was true that betrothal was normally a year but it might be two.

Now you substantiate your claim from a website however the website says this

The Torah provides very little guidance with regard to the procedures of a marriage

In all cases, the Talmud specifies that a woman can be acquired only with her consent, and not without it

That would indicate that a infant could be betrothed.
Also the article says

The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls; however, the kiddushin can take place before that, and often did in medieval times. The Talmud recommends that a man marry at age 18, or somewhere between 16 and 24.

Note it says this took place in the middle ages not at the time of Jesus. At the time of Jesus than the age would have been 12 for a girl. Speculating now, traditionally Mary’s age was 14, that would fit into her being betrothed for the normal period of time and close to the second part of the marriage.
We know that Mary went to see Elizabeth for three months and that when she returned Joseph took her into his home thus fulfilling the requirement of marriage.

 

[adrift]

Might be, if YOU guys believed that he was around.

It is an LDS belief so what does it matter if we believe it?

 

[lax16]

Thank-you for being nice enough to say some scriptures can lead one to believe Mary had children. I just quickly read Numbers 30, and I see an entire chapter on swearing an oath before God and the rules thereof. It does not mention any vow specifically, nothing about a vow of abstinence. Indeed , it does say if a wife takes any vow it must be with the husbands approval. I could not find any vows of abstinence in a marriage in the old testament. If they are there , I am sure someone will kindly point it out. As far as Jerome and Helvidius , they debated this same issue and I believe dealt mostly with scripture. To me it indicates that there was freedom of conviction still in the early church , and that there was no consensus , universality , on this issue. Indeed Jerome carried the day (won).but not neccesarily because he had the better argument .It seemed Jerome may have based his convictions on an error with the Greek .I am not sure( it is possible some catholic historians have said this) , I studied it briefly a long time ago .I just recall saying it was like VHS tapes beating out Beta tapes, even though Beta was a much better tape. As far as apparitions,I do not believe them to the genuine Mary .If anything ,it prejudices me to see it as a bad fruit of Mariology in general.Please .her ever-virgin issue has the respectability of the ages as far as it being debated by many good saints.

Hi david ruiz - I really appreciate your commentary on this topic. You have provided some interesting points to discuss.
As far as Numbers 30, I will provide the following link as I feel it provides a good explanation: thesacredpage.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html

Also, I found it interesting in the book St. Patrick of Ireland by Philip Freeman that the author explains the role of virgins in the early Church in Ireland (sometime around the late fourth century or after):
"When Patrick began to convert the daughters of Ireland, especially those of the nobility, to Christianity, he ran headlong into Irish customs and tradition. An Irish maiden- and she had to be virgin for a proper marriage-was a most valuable asset to any father wishing to improve his lot in life. The strategic marriage of a king’s daughter could even settle border disputes, increase a tribe’s land, or end years of bloody hostility.
One of the most engaging passages in Patrick’s letters tells of such a daughter:

*One of these Irish women was of noble birth-full grown and quite beautiful really-whom I had baptized. A few days after this, she came to me with something important on her mind. She said that an angel from God had appeared to her and told her she should become a virgin of Christ if she wanted to be closer to God. Thanks be to God-six days later she joyfully and wholehearedly chose that path which all virgins of God take. *

This is interesting because it was considered a normal decision for a religious woman to take a vow of celibacy. Obviously in the case of Mary she was married, however, it appears women were consecrating themselves to God as requested by Him.

I feel that the ECF make a good case for the perpetual virginity of Mary and that they were offended by those who taught otherwise.

As far as apparitions go - I know they can seem pretty hard to believe. I am currently reading about the Blessed Mother’s apparitions in Kibeho in Africa. It is hard to imagine the events as they are being described! However, one must wonder how the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was made and how it has survived this long. Also, the pictures and the testimony of the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, who saw Mary in Zeitoun, Egypt (and in other locations as well). How can this be? We cannot discount the many, many people of all religions who have seen her!

 

[adrift]

I am sorry ,but your stuff is very funny ,i am mentally derailed -didn’t take much did it ?

Chaste is being celibate ,obstaining from sex ,being pure ,right ? See ,I know that is what it means but you make me doubt myself with you humor ,pictures and no offense quirkiness( now that i better look up ).Some say the ever -virgin debate erupted in 2-3 rd century when it was deemed a better calling to be celibate ,virgin ,chaste than to be married . Were not some of the church fathers ,in favor of ever-virgin status , themselves skewed by their own celibacy ?. Did Mary have to be ever-virgin to raise a carpenter/Messiah ? Is there anyone else in the bible who married and yet remained virgin? I have been told this was “not uncommon” in Israel. To be humorous and modern ,and heavily influenced by the movie ,“Home Alone” (Where a large family leaves a young one behind by mistake as they fly off to Paris on vacation). Mary had to have a James and Simon and a Judas and daughters, else she would have no excuse for leaving Jesus behind when he was only twelve, in the big city no less.

 

[adrift]

Sorry ,I thought we talking about “until” ,not ,“I am a virgin”. …Where does scripture assign assign Judas and Simon and sisters to Mary of Clopas ? Only see James Joses and Salome. Could not cousins have the same names ,after all, you had two Mary’s as sisters (well Miriam),why not two James ?

They were sister-in-laws. You don’t really believe that parents named their children with the same name

There is a word for cousins (remember cousin Elizabeth). It is not used .Brethren means siblings

.
No brethren does not mean sibiling. As for Elizabeth, although it has been transalated as cousin the word use is not the word cousin. The Greek word used

suggenes {soong-ghen-ace’} adj 1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood 2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

So you see the word used did not mean cousin.

Only metaphorically can it take a secondary meaning (kinsmen),

Not true

The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

but when it is mentioned with a mother ,i t is siblings (context ,context).

Pay attention to the context. No where are they said to be Mary’s sons.

If Joseph were not proclaimed to be ever-virgin by the church also ,there could be another explanation but…Mark 6:3, Is not this the carpenter,the son of Mary,the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us.and they were offended at him"

You are full of misinformation. The Church has NOT proclaimed Joseph to be ever virgin.

.He was too plain, from normal ,typical Nazarite family.They did not say, "Is not this is the son of Mary and Joseph ,who vowed chastity to raise up someone "special "(as they snickered).

More importantaly they did not say here are Mary’s children.

Jesus said a prophet is without honor in his own country, amongst his own kin, and in his own house-Mark 6:4." For neither did his brethren believe in him" -John7:5 and my favorite “I am become an alien unto my mother’s children”-Psalm 69 "8

Bretheren here means not only his cousins, but his uncles and aunts.

What we can learn from the Bible:
Mary asks a strange question for a married woman when she delcares she knows not man.
It points to a vow of virginity.

In the telling of the trip to the temple, there is no mention of any children of Mary’s.

Jesus is refered as the son of Mary not a Son of Mary.

John 7

Quote:
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest.

In the culture, the elders gave advise so this indicates that “His Brethern” are older and Jesus is younger
Mark 3:21 also demonstrates elders addressing a younger person.
That Jesus provided for Mary also indicates He was an only child.

All of this points to Jesus being an only child but not that Mary was a prepetual Virgin.

What we have is Mary’s own words “I know not man” . What was she asking the angel? She was asking exactly what others contend here. She was asking if she was being released from her vow. The angel answered in the negative in telling her that it would be the Holy Spirit that would over shadow her. Thereby upholding “I know not man”

We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Joseph and his lifelong consecration to God. Is a belief of St Jerome and some of the followers of the faith.

It not manditory Church belief.

But not many have reached an understanding of scripture that St Jerome managed to.

I believe St Joseph maintained this chasity in consecration to God. But your welcome to believe otherwise.

traditioninaction.org/SOD/j065sdStJoseph3-19.htm

God Bless, GT

 

[elvisman]

…because several Catholics have told me so.

However, I need to know whether that is a misconception of doctrine by them, or by me, or …so, I am asking for clarification.

Rather politely, actually.

There is a difference, you realize, between beleiving that the bible is inerrant in the original (which, by the way, I agree with–as does pretty much everybody else I’ve spoken to…) and whether it STAYED perfect throughout the ages, translatiions and scribal action.

The problem, of course, is that we don’t actually have any of the originals, so …

**If any Catholic - or anybody else, for that matter - told you that the Bible is *not *the inerrant word of God - they are WRONG. That being said, **saying that different translations don’t have mistakes would be wrong, too.

The Bible is the inerrant written word of God and was written (the NT at least), compiled and declared canon by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15). She is the custodian of the Holy Deposit of Faith (1 Tim, 3:15, 6:20, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim. 12:14, 1 Cor. 11:2). This means that any other entity** who interprets the scriptures differently from the Church is wrong. **

---

**The guarantee that the Holy Spirit would guide her to all truth was given only to her - NOBODY else (John 16:12-15). The Holy Spirit doesn’t reveal “differing truths”. There is only ONE truth - and ALL differing “versions” of that truth are wrong.
**