Comon sense will tell you why Virgin Mary had no other Child but Jesus

[TriuneUnity]

One might think it odd that a “Catholic” (like myself) might use the writings of the “Reformers” to bolster the Catholic position… But here is a reality check…They all agree with the Catholic position regarding The Blessed Virgin Mary!! This not only where Mary is considered “Ever Virgin”, but Luther states that she was free of Original Sin…(Immaculate Conception), and he further states that Mary did not have any “other” children after Christ.

Question, though, for Catholics, aside from Church teaching; why does it matter whether she did or not? From a theological perspective.

Calvin pretty much labels “Helvidius” a “fool”…

He was. Of course, so was Calvin, but that’s beside the point

Some interesting reading on that link…and on this subject, I am in agreement with the “Reformers”…

Now you’re done for. That will be 400 Hail Mary’s, mister.

I hardly think that some “modern-day” “Johnnie come lately” who needs a bone to pick with the Catholic Church… has any better grasp on Holy Scriptures than the Church and the Reformers…at least on these points!

Or any other point!

 

[Rocky]

Question, though, for Catholics, aside from Church teaching; why does it matter whether she did or not? From a theological perspective.

He was. Of course, so was Calvin, but that’s beside the point

Now you’re done for. That will be 400 Hail Mary’s, mister.

Or any other point!

If right from the beginning the Church has been wrong on this point, why should we believe anything that the Church has definitely taught, including the theological belief in the Trinity?

 

[marietta]

Where does all this leave James, son of Alphaeus, or James the Just?

Would it have been such a despicable thing for Mary to have conceived and given birth to a child of Joseph?

marietta

 

[yellowbird]

He was. Of course, so was Calvin, but that’s beside the point

This made me laugh out loud.

 

[RobHom]

Question, though, for Catholics, aside from Church teaching; why does it matter whether she did or not? From a theological perspective.

Good question… From a theological perspective…it matters because it is a core belief, and from a personal standpoint, to not believe it would be to deny Holy Scripture. I realize that nowhere in Scripture does it clearly state: MARY had no children other than Christ, but then neither does it clearly state that she did. However, Scriptures in the whole, given the meanings of certain words as applied to the times and people have many meanings, which can leave much to personal interpretations, as is evidenced in this thread. However, I dare say…my personal take on the matter is that the Church is right, as were the Reformers.

He was. Of course, so was Calvin, but that’s beside the point

Ouch…and I was trying to be “charitable”…

Now you’re done for. That will be 400 Hail Mary’s, mister.

Wow…and I thought my cousin the Nun was a tough one!! You’re “brutal”…

Or any other point!

Well, maybe “some”…

 

[RobHom]

Where does all this leave James, son of Alphaeus, or James the Just?

As who they are.

Would it have been such a despicable thing for Mary to have conceived and given birth to a child of Joseph?

marietta

Despicable…no, hardly. However…if we consider or even try to consider God for what He is and is capable of…it is not conceivable that He chose to create Mary for anything other than what He did. He created her for the express purpose of bringing His Son, Jesus Christ into the world as man. She fulfilled His wishes and continued to do so all of her life.

God did not just look down one day from Heaven…and say, I think I’ll make a common everyday Jewish girl pregnant with my Son…and then she can just go on doing whatever Jewish girls do the rest of her life…

God created a sinless woman to bear His child and raise His Son, something that only God Himself could do. He did it, and to deny that is to deny “that all things are possible with God”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Good question… From a theological perspective…it matters because it is a core belief, and from a personal standpoint, to not believe it would be to deny Holy Scripture. I realize that nowhere in Scripture does it clearly state: MARY had no children other than Christ, but then neither does it clearly state that she did. However, Scriptures in the whole, given the meanings of certain words as applied to the times and people have many meanings, which can leave much to personal interpretations, as is evidenced in this thread. However, I dare say…my personal take on the matter is that the Church is right, as were the Reformers.

Okay…but you realize it’s an argument from silence, right? At least on the Scriptural end of things. I don’t dispute the doctrine at all. It may very well be true. I think it’s a nice, pious belief. On the other hand, it’s also an equally pious belief to believe she was a devoted mother regardless of how many children she had and trained them up in righteousness before the Lord. Personally, I think physical intimacy is intrinsic to the marriage relationship and would be abnormal in a negative sense. I think it may be the case that the teaching rose up during that period of time where sex was seen as “dirty.”

I guess my question would be, removing the Church from the equation (i.e., regardless of what it says is doctrine), why would it be “wrong” for her to have had other children or engaged in normal marital relations? Either way, how does it relate to the plan of redemption?

Ouch…and I was trying to be “charitable”…

Leave it to us Lutherans to do the dirty work for Rome against the Calvinists. I see how it is.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If right from the beginning the Church has been wrong on this point, why should we believe anything that the Church has definitely taught, including the theological belief in the Trinity?

Because the Trinity is attested to in Scripture. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not.

 

[RobHom]

Okay…but you realize it’s an argument from silence, right? At least on the Scriptural end of things. I don’t dispute the doctrine at all. It may very well be true. I think it’s a nice, pious belief. On the other hand, it’s also an equally pious belief to believe she was a devoted mother regardless of how many children she had and trained them up in righteousness before the Lord. Personally, I think physical intimacy is intrinsic to the marriage relationship and would be abnormal in a negative sense. I think it may be the case that the teaching rose up during that period of time where sex was seen as “dirty.”

I do, however…there’s that word again… I agree that it could be a pious belief that she was in fact the epitome of Motherhood… But it wasn’t to be. Physical intimacy is most certainly intrinsic, and to be otherwise constitutes a “brother/sister” relationship or something along those lines… “friends” coexisting in the same home. But, the belief is hardly borne of the age of “Victorian” outlook… it goes back into the 4th century:

From here: cin.org/mateo/m931003e.html

*Frank Sheed’s insight is in accord with a letter of Pope St. Siricius to the Bishop of Thessalonica in A.D. 392: “the statement is justly censured … that from the same virginal womb, from which Christ was born, other offspring was brought forth. The Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin he had judged she would be so incontinent that with the seed of human intercourse she would pollute that generative chamber of the Lord’s body, that palace of the eternal King.”

Neither Mary’s vow nor Sheed’s insight is a defined dogma of our faith. The dogma is: “If anyone does not confess, in conformity with our the Holy Fathers, that Mary Immaculate, actually and truthfully is the holy Mother of God and ever virgin, inasmuch as she conceived Him, who is uniquely and truly God … and bore Him without any corruption, her virginity remaining also intact after His birth, let him be condemned” (Lateran Council, canon 3, A.D. 649)*

I guess my question would be, removing the Church from the equation (i.e., regardless of what it says is doctrine), why would it be “wrong” for her to have had other children or engaged in normal marital relations? Either way, how does it relate to the plan of redemption?

I can’t say that it would have been wrong…not my place, however, I do believe, the Church’s position not withstanding, that Mary was created by God for a specific purpose, and that in freely accepting that purpose she fulfilled God’s desires and Prophecies. In the aspect of her relation to the plan of redemption I am not well versed in that… but I will offer this for your consideration…something I do agree with, but Father Mateo puts it in far better terms than I could:

From here: cin.org/mateo/9107071.html

*Among all us disciples of Christ, members of the Church, Mary holds a preeminent place because she was the first disciple and holiest of us all, most like her Son. She is the Mother of our Head, and so spiritually she is the Mother of all the members of Christ. She is our model in her splendid faith, total obedience, and utter sinlessness and purity. Her vocation is to pray for us, to bring us to her Son, and to bring Him to life, growth, and perfection in each one of us. She is the Universal Intercessor and the Universal Cooperator with Christ, for the REDEMPTION of His members, her children. Hence we call her Co-redeemer par excellence, remembering that we are all mutually Co-redeemers. She is Mediatrix to us all, as we are all mutually mediators. She is Christ’s Helper in our salvation, as we are all mutually His helpers. All comes from Christ. We are sharers, with Mary the greatest sharer of all. It is well to pause here, and to invite you to meditation, only repeating that Mary is a creature, a woman, redeemed by Christ. But she is so exceptional by reason of her Motherhood of Christ and her perfect fullness of grace, that she rightly holds the first place in every way among all Christ’s disciples.

She is neither Pope nor bishop. She is Mother. Therefore, because of her, Catholics find it easy to remember that we do not belong primarily to an ORGANIZATION, but to a FAMILY, a living BODY, a life-filled and life-giving VINE. *

Leave it to us Lutherans to do the dirty work for Rome against the Calvinists. I see how it is.

And you do it soooooo well!!! But lets be fair…someone has to do it…

 

[TriuneUnity]

I do, however…there’s that word again… I agree that it could be a pious belief that she was in fact the epitome of Motherhood… But it wasn’t to be. Physical intimacy is most certainly intrinsic, and to be otherwise constitutes a “brother/sister” relationship or something along those lines… “friends” coexisting in the same home. But, the belief is hardly borne of the age of “Victorian” outlook… it goes back into the 4th century:

It doesn’t have to do with Victorian morality. Victorian morality came from medieval morality; which came from Dark Ages morality. As always, society and moral views change in response to previous excesses. The dark and middle ages over reacted to the excesses of Roman practice (kind of like the Baptists LoL).

If it wasn’t to be, then it was, in no sense, a true marriage.

Frank Sheed’s insight is in accord with a letter of Pope St. Siricius to the Bishop of Thessalonica in A.D. 392: “the statement is justly censured … that from the same virginal womb, from which Christ was born, other offspring was brought forth. The Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin he had judged she would be so incontinent that with the seed of human intercourse she would pollute that generative chamber of the Lord’s body, that palace of the eternal King.”

This is true, as it relates to Mary’s sexual status prior to the Incarnation. It would not be necessary that her womb remain so after Christ’s birth.

Neither Mary’s vow nor Sheed’s insight is a defined dogma of our faith. The dogma is: “If anyone does not confess, in conformity with our the Holy Fathers, that Mary Immaculate, actually and truthfully is the holy Mother of God and ever virgin, inasmuch as she conceived Him, who is uniquely and truly God … and bore Him without any corruption, her virginity remaining also intact after His birth, let him be condemned” (Lateran Council, canon 3, A.D. 649)

I can agree with the Council’s statement (as a matter of de fide dogma) up to and including the birth of Christ. Not in perpetuity.

I can’t say that it would have been wrong…not my place, however, I do believe, the Church’s position not withstanding, that Mary was created by God for a specific purpose, and that in freely accepting that purpose she fulfilled God’s desires and Prophecies. In the aspect of her relation to the plan of redemption I am not well versed in that… but I will offer this for your consideration…something I do agree with, but Father Mateo puts it in far better terms than I could:

And nothing about that plan for Mary necessitate that she remain always a virgin and never a mother again. Of course, we all realize that it’s also possible that she did not remain a virgin but never had another child, too.

Among all us disciples of Christ, members of the Church, Mary holds a preeminent place because she was the first disciple and holiest of us all, most like her Son. She is the Mother of our Head, and so spiritually she is the Mother of all the members of Christ. She is our model in her splendid faith, total obedience, and utter sinlessness and purity. Her vocation is to pray for us, to bring us to her Son, and to bring Him to life, growth, and perfection in each one of us.

He did okay up to here lol

And you do it soooooo well!!!

But lets be fair…someone has to do it…

True. To quote the grapes of wrath…wherever there is a sacramentarian Calvinist, I’ll be there…

 

[marietta]

**Originally Posted by marietta: **

*“Where does all this leave James, son of Alphaeus, or James the Just?” *

RobHorn’s response:

“As who they are.”

James, son of Alphaeus, or James the Just, or James the Less, are one and the same historical figure. He ain’t a “they”.

marietta

 

[RobHom]

It doesn’t have to do with Victorian morality. Victorian morality came from medieval morality; which came from Dark Ages morality. As always, society and moral views change in response to previous excesses. The dark and middle ages over reacted to the excesses of Roman practice (kind of like the Baptists LoL).

If it wasn’t to be, then it was, in no sense, a true marriage.

To prior comment…

True enough. I’m not a preeminent historian by any means, but in light of Mary’s mission in life…it may have been that it was never intended to be a “classic” marriage in the normal sense.

This is true, as it relates to Mary’s sexual status prior to the Incarnation. It would not be necessary that her womb remain so after Christ’s birth.
I can agree with the Council’s statement (as a matter of de fide dogma) up to and including the birth of Christ. Not in perpetuity.

And again my friend, we agree to disagree…in the friendliest of manners!

And nothing about that plan for Mary necessitate that she remain always a virgin and never a mother again. Of course, we all realize that it’s also possible that she did not remain a virgin but never had another child, too.

Kind of makes you wish there was a lot more spelled out more succinctly in the Bible, no?

He did okay up to here lol

I guess that’s a “point of separation”? But in any event I understand where there are questions…or at least I think I do.

True. To quote the grapes of wrath…wherever there is a sacramentarian Calvinist, I’ll be there…

And there are those of us who will sleep better at night knowing you are on guard!!

 

[RobHom]

**Originally Posted by marietta: **

*“Where does all this leave James, son of Alphaeus, or James the Just?” *

RobHorn’s response:

“As who they are.”

James, son of Alphaeus, or James the Just, or James the Less, are one and the same historical figure. He ain’t a “they”.

marietta

Oooops, my bad…sorry.

 

[ufamtobie]

Please read Matthew 1:24-25.

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

What does UNTIL mean to you?

God Bless!

Emerald, I will explain Emerald Clear what “Until” meant in the Bible.

And he knew her not **UNTIL **she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

Matthew Note 1:25 UNTILL she brought forth her firstborn son. . .From these words Helvidius and other heretics,and you too Emerald most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ;

**but St. Jerome SHOWS, BY DIVERS EXAMPLES that this expression of the evangelist/Mathew was a MANNER of **SPEAKING USUAL among the Hebrews, to denote by the word “UNTIL”, only what is done, WITHOUT any regard to the FUTURE.

Emerald, Thus it is said, (Genesis 8: 6 - 7,)that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return TILL the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more.

**Also Isaias 46: 4, God says: I am UNTILL you grow old. **Emerald, Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Emerald,In other words this would mean in your definition of “UNTIL” that GOD WOULD CEASE TO BE BECAUSE GOD USED THE WORD "UNTILL"

Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain UNTILL they had returned in peace. THAT IS, NOT ONE WAS SLAIN **BEFORE **OR AFTER THEY HAD RETURNED.

God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand UNTIL** I make thy enemies thy footstool. **…Emerald, Shall Jesus Christ sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Emerald,Of course Jesus Christ will sit at God Right Hand for all eternity.

Emerald, St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

Emerald your definition of “Until” is not the same definition of Gods “UNTIL”

God Bless you on your Journey Home

Ufamtobie

 

[TriuneUnity]

To prior comment…

True enough. I’m not a preeminent historian by any means, but in light of Mary’s mission in life…it may have been that it was never intended to be a “classic” marriage in the normal sense.

Well, nothing was normal about the situation lol. Honestly, the best argument, I feel, for her not having any other children is the Christ-child being taken to the temple. Doesn’t mention any other family.

And again my friend, we agree to disagree…in the friendliest of manners!

You’re free to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Scripture doesn’t bind your conscience here! I just wish the Church didn’t

Kind of makes you wish there was a lot more spelled out more succinctly in the Bible, no?

On certain things, yeah (Paul setting fire to those who denied the Real Presence would’ve been helpful). I can’t say Mary’s virginity is one of them

And there are those of us who will sleep better at night knowing you are on guard!!

Haha!

“Huzzah, good people, never shall thee fear. I am predestined to protect the followers of Christ from Calvinists!” - Ubermensch

 

[emeraldcoast]

Emerald, I will explain Emerald Clear what “Until” meant in the Bible.

And he knew her not **UNTIL **she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

Matthew Note 1:25 UNTILL she brought forth her firstborn son. . .From these words Helvidius and other heretics,and you too Emerald most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ;

but St. Jerome SHOWS, BY DIVERS EXAMPLES that this expression of the evangelist/Mathew was a MANNER of **SPEAKING USUAL **among the Hebrews, to denote by the word “UNTIL”, only what is done, WITHOUT any regard to the FUTURE.

Emerald, Thus it is said, (Genesis 8: 6 - 7,)that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return TILL the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more.

Also Isaias 46: 4, God says: I am UNTILL you grow old. Emerald, Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Emerald,In other words this would mean in your definition of “UNTIL” that GOD WOULD CEASE TO BE BECAUSE GOD USED THE WORD "UNTILL"

Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain UNTILL they had returned in peace. THAT IS, NOT ONE WAS SLAIN **BEFORE **OR AFTER THEY HAD RETURNED.

God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand UNTIL**** I make thy enemies thy footstool. …Emerald, Shall Jesus Christ sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Emerald,Of course Jesus Christ will sit at God Right Hand for all eternity.

Emerald, St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

Emerald your definition of “Until” is not the same definition of Gods “UNTIL”

God Bless you on your Journey Home

Ufamtobie

(Fourth rewrite trying not to respond in anger but in love) How do YOU know that my definition of until is not the same as the Lord’s? Pretty presumptious to put words in His mouth. Other passages in Scripture mention Jesus’ brothers - do you just ignore verses that don’t subscribe to your own views? I guess in your views I and all who don’t subscribe to your opinions (not facts or truths) are heretics. So be it - I’ll take my chances on the mercy of the Lord. See you in Heaven.

God Bless!

 

[JonNC]

Both positions would actually be a tradition of men since Scripture says nothing about the issue. Both sides have to use human, historical, and theological reasoning without an affirmation or denial from the apostolic writings.

This is, or course, true. I guess it depends on which men you want to agree with. Without a definitive statement from scripture, the ECF’s are probably the better source.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

One might think it odd that a “Catholic” (like myself) might use the writings of the “Reformers” to bolster the Catholic position… But here is a reality check…They all agree with the Catholic position regarding The Blessed Virgin Mary!! This not only where Mary is considered “Ever Virgin”, but Luther states that she was free of Original Sin…(Immaculate Conception), and he further states that Mary did not have any “other” children after Christ.

He also, in general terms, agreed with the assumption. The point of departure is intercession, and binding the conscience of the believer in this matter.

As for a Catholic using the early reformers to support a position, I say where we agree, we agree. Nothing wrong with that. Wish there were more instances.

Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

This is, or course, true. I guess it depends on which men you want to agree with. Without a definitive statement from scripture, the ECF’s are probably the better source.

Jon

A better source in what regard?

 

[JonNC]

A better source in what regard?

In making a judgement about what to believe in matters not clearly stated in scripture, such as this.
The ECF’s? or Jim Bakker? Hmmm.