Do I have to affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary?

[patg]

The brothers and sisters mentioned as Jesus’ brothers and sisters were children of close relations of Mary’s and Joseph’s but they were not the children of Mary and Joseph.

That’s exactly the kind of questionable reasoning I am referring to. Especially in regards to the use of the phrase “his brother James”. This appears several times and is quite clear and specific. We don’t read “his brother Peter”, etc. Neither the Church nor you can make an absolute statement on this. In any other context in any other literature we would never question that “brother” referred to a blood relationship. But here, where it would mess up the theory of “perpetual virginity”, we have to stretch things a bit.

This has obviously been argued for centuries and we aren’t going to come to agreement here. To get back to the original question - why does it matter? I still declare that it doesn’t.

Pat

 

[RNRobert]

A couple things…

If Mary had other sons and daughters beside Jesus, why did the apostle John take Mary home to live with him (John 19:27)?

My second question I pose to all women reading this thread, whether Catholic or non-Catholic:

Imagine that you are a devout young woman and one day while you are in prayer, an Angel from Heaven appears and tells you that you are going to be the Mother of the Messiah. The Holy Spirit himself is going to overshadow you and you will carry in your womb the Son of God himself, who will redeem the world. Now, I ask you, after doing this, could you really consider having normal sexual relations?
Speaking as a man, I really doubt that I would feel comfortable engaging in normal sexual relations with a woman who had been so used by God.

 

[patg]

martino:

Pat if nothing matters except for “Love your God, Love your neighbor” why is the bible so thick? Based on this logic the sacracments dont matter, same sex marriage doesnt matter, contraception doesnt matter, Christ’s divinity doesnt matter, Christ’s humanity doesnt matter, Christianity in general doesnt matter because other faiths teach love God and neighbor. What is it that keeps you a Christian to begin with?

So tell me how the “perpetual virginity” does matter…

It has nothing to do with any of the items you mention (and I agree, a couple of the items you mention don’t matter but that’s another topic).

Pat

 

[martino]

patg:

So tell me how the “perpetual virginity” does matter…

It has nothing to do with any of the items you mention (and I agree, a couple of the items you mention don’t matter but that’s another topic).

Pat

Pat, my earlier post explains why I think it matters but that is not what I asked you about. I am curious how you can throw out so much Christian teaching and still call yourself a good Christian. You like to choose what is important and what is not, its all up to you of course. Tell me how you decide which doctrines to do away with and which ones to keep? And is your decision based on any kind of “revelation” from God?

 

[John_Henry]

patg:

We don’t read “his brother Peter”, etc.

That’s because he was unrelated to Peter.

patg:

Neither the Church nor you can make an absolute statement on this.

Seems to me like they can, seen as they did.

patg:

In any other context in any other literature we would never question that “brother” referred to a blood relationship.

If the prime movers and shakers spoke Aramaic, we would.

patg:

This has obviously been argued for centuries and we aren’t going to come to agreement here. To get back to the original question - why does it matter? I still declare that it doesn’t.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that it hadn’t been argued for centuries. At least for the centuries up to St. Jerome and between St. Jerome and the Reformation. As I recall, it was pretty much universally acknowledged from the start. Again, I could be wrong.

As to whether it matters, it means that it was only Jesus to whom her sinless human nature was given.

 

[patg]

martino:

Pat, my earlier post explains why I think it matters but that is not what I asked you about. I am curious how you can throw out so much Christian teaching and still call yourself a good Christian. You like to choose what is important and what is not, its all up to you of course. Tell me how you decide which doctrines to do away with and which ones to keep? And is your decision based on any kind of “revelation” from God?

Along with the originator of this thread, I’m not “doing away with them”, I just think they are irrelevant. Christ taught us how to live and gave us the sacraments you mentioned to enhance our spiritual life. Following his teachings makes one a Christian. Believing things that aren’t relevant to this does not enhance your status as a Christian just as thinking they are irrelevant does not negate your life as a Christian.

I don’t agree with numerous laws and activities of the United States but I am still a full American. I even occassionally eat meat on Friday in Lent and I would never think of anyone as less of a Christian who did likewise.

I believe one could be a perfect Christian and never have considered “perpetual virginity”. Again, I’m not saying there is anything wrong with making it a part of your beliefs; I just don’t see any reason to and its certainly not biblical.

Pat

 

[Racer_X]

patg:

That’s exactly the kind of questionable reasoning I am referring to. Especially in regards to the use of the phrase “his brother James”. This appears several times and is quite clear and specific.

James the “brother” of Jesus is also known as James the Younger. (to distinguish him from James the Elder one of the the Twelve Apostles). Whatever “brother of Jesus” may mean, we know for a fact that James was the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus, because the Bible says so. See catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp for more.

 

[martino]

patg:

Along with the originator of this thread, I’m not “doing away with them”, I just think they are irrelevant. Christ taught us how to live and gave us the sacraments you mentioned to enhance our spiritual life. Following his teachings makes one a Christian. Believing things that aren’t relevant to this does not enhance your status as a Christian just as thinking they are irrelevant does not negate your life as a Christian.

I don’t agree with numerous laws and activities of the United States but I am still a full American. I even occassionally eat meat on Friday in Lent and I would never think of anyone as less of a Christian who did likewise.

I believe one could be a perfect Christian and never have considered “perpetual virginity”. Again, I’m not saying there is anything wrong with making it a part of your beliefs; I just don’t see any reason to and its certainly not biblical.

Pat

Ok Pat, let me appologize for my tone in my last post, I realize that is no way to have a discussion. I would like to talk some more and possibly challenge you a little, but it that is taking us way off this thread that is dealing with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. I will either start another thread that would be more suitable to our discussion or send you a private message, either way I hope you wont mind continuing our discussion; I will nothing less than civil.

 

[RNRobert]

As far as I know, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have always taught that Mary remained a virgin. Even Reformers like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli believed in her perpetual virginity. I think it’s only been in the last couple hundred years that anyone has said otherwise. Of course, considering that many Protestant denominations even question his divinity and resurrection, I’m not suprised…

 

[Della]

I believe one could be a perfect Christian and never have considered “perpetual virginity”.

Not if you are a Catholic. Catholics are to believe what the Church teaches, and not in mere ignorance, either, but with consent of their will.

Again, I’m not saying there is anything wrong with making it a part of your beliefs; I just don’t see any reason to and its certainly not biblical.

What Catholic material have you read on it? And why do you think your opinions on this issue make any difference as to its validity?

As to its not being “biblical”, I can cite verses that are witnesses to this teaching. The Bible is not a “proof text” with every doctrine of the Catholic (that is Christian) faith clearly set out in it. That was and is not its purpose. The Church was given the authority to decide matters of faith and morals, not a book. Besides, the Bible is only one part of Tradition and Living Magisterium not an end in itself.

 

[ricatholic]

Funky Cedars:

…i’m certain the reason Daddy, without offending Mom, has given us this understanding is to further highlight just how significant the Incarnation is. everything about it, everything, is extraordinary.
if it didn’t lead us to a greater appreciation of how completely Jesus loves us, it likely would have been kept a private issue. since it enhances our relationship with Him, however, it has been given to us as a precious gift. as such, we ought to cherish it, not avoid it.
anywho, thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

A converse view could also be taken, that being that God in wanting to show is love for humans and wanting to show it in a human manner chose an ordinary woman to carry Jesus. The virginity in any case has nothing to do with the message or adds value to Jesus.

 

[patg]

One of the reasons I find this whole subject so difficult is that it is mostly composed of non-historical arguments. I completely understand the non-biblical traditions, etc. but the following are also very relevant:

The first is the well-documented mistranslation in the Septuagint of the word for “young woman” to “virgin” which appears in the Gospel of Matthew.

The second is that most of the information on Mary comes from the early chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. These chapters are a recognized literary form known as an “Infancy Narrative”. Readers of the time would have been familiar with this literary composition as it was used in writing about many of the famous persons of that era. They would have clearly understood that the composition did not and did not intend to convey any historical or factual data. Rather, it followed a well known formula for associating extraordinary events with the early life of a famous person.

Anyway, because of the above knowledge and the belief that doctrines such as the “perpetual virginity” are not essential to my relationship with God, I tend to push them off to the side of my spiritual life.

Pat

 

[RNRobert]

patg:

The first is the well-documented mistranslation in the Septuagint of the word for “young woman” to “virgin” which appears in the Gospel of Matthew.

The second is that most of the information on Mary comes from the early chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. These chapters are a recognized literary form known as an “Infancy Narrative”. Readers of the time would have been familiar with this literary composition as it was used in writing about many of the famous persons of that era. They would have clearly understood that the composition did not and did not intend to convey any historical or factual data. Rather, it followed a well known formula for associating extraordinary events with the early life of a famous person.

Pat

Pat, you seem to be sawing off the branch you are sitting on. If the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke “did not intend to convey any historical or factual data,” then how can we trust them with regard to the life of Jesus? Christians believe Christ was born of a virgin. If the events described in Matthew and Luke are merely historical fiction, then the claims of Christ go out the window.

 

[ricatholic]

RNRobert:

… If the events described in Matthew and Luke are merely historical fiction, then the claims of Christ go out the window.

That makes the church sort of suseptable to being a house of cards. The church doesn’t believe in a literal intpretation of the bible, yet we hold that it is all true. (like sort of pregnant, I guess).

But the claims of Christ going out the window is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. For instance, Luke and Matt had different versions of the temptation, does that mean that the sermon on the mount is also not really true?

What I believe is critical is that we don’t focus on the parts of the gospels that try to explain what happened, but on what Jesus taught.

Because if we really focus on how the writers tried to explain things, we must go in all different directions because their writings take us off in different directions. But focus on what was taught by Jesus and we are left with loving our neighbors and treating the least like they might be Him. And we don’t really need much more than that do we?

Peace

 

[Funky_Cedars]

ricatholic:

A converse view could also be taken, that being that God in wanting to show is love for humans and wanting to show it in a human manner chose an ordinary woman to carry Jesus. The virginity in any case has nothing to do with the message or adds value to Jesus.

1a) how does using an ordinary woman as opposed to an unordinary woman say anything about His love? 1b) if her ordinariness was so significant, why doesn’t Isaiah say ‘born of an ordinary woman’ and 2) are you truely unimpressed by J’s virgin birth? (if so, i’d hate to have to play against you on ‘make me say, ’wow!'’.)
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

 

[ricatholic]

1a) how does using an ordinary woman as opposed to an unordinary woman say anything about His love? 1b) if her ordinariness was so significant, why doesn’t Isaiah say ‘born of an ordinary woman’ and 2) are you truely unimpressed by J’s virgin birth? (if so, i’d hate to have to play against you on ‘make me say, ’wow!'’.)
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

Am I suppossed to be impressed with a mere virgin birth from the creator of the universe? (just jokin’, but I hope you see my point).

As for saying that God could love an ordinary person so much that He would let her carry His son, that is impressive. How many other God’s could love us so much as that?

Peace

 

[Melchior]

ricatholic:

What I believe is critical is that we don’t focus on the parts of the gospels that try to explain what happened, but on what Jesus taught.

This seems pretty dangerous to me. If we can just ignore aspects of God’s word then why did he bother to have it written in the first place. The details of scripture are very important. The Gospels don’t contradict each other. They are merely written (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) from four different peoples perspectives. If we should only focus on what Jesus taught then why not throw out Acts and the Epistles since you won’t find Jesus direct teaching in them.

If God wanted us to have a book of sayings that what the Bible would be. But it is so much more- -narrative, poetry, didactic teaching, prophetic etc. God intended it all just they way it came out.

BTW, where in RI are you from?

Mel

 

[martino]

ricatholic:

That makes the church sort of suseptable to being a house of cards. The church doesn’t believe in a literal intpretation of the bible, yet we hold that it is all true. (like sort of pregnant, I guess).

But the claims of Christ going out the window is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. For instance, Luke and Matt had different versions of the temptation, does that mean that the sermon on the mount is also not really true?

What I believe is critical is that we don’t focus on the parts of the gospels that try to explain what happened, but on what Jesus taught.

Because if we really focus on how the writers tried to explain things, we must go in all different directions because their writings take us off in different directions. But focus on what was taught by Jesus and we are left with loving our neighbors and treating the least like they might be Him. And we don’t really need much more than that do we?

Peace

ricatholic, could you please list the parts of the Gospels that we should not try to focus on, I seem to be at a disadvantage and was under the impression that all 4 of the Gospels were given to us for our edification, not only on parts but in their entirety.

 

[patg]

RNRobert:

Pat, you seem to be sawing off the branch you are sitting on. If the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke “did not intend to convey any historical or factual data,” then how can we trust them with regard to the life of Jesus? Christians believe Christ was born of a virgin. If the events described in Matthew and Luke are merely historical fiction, then the claims of Christ go out the window.

These aren’t my ideas alone - they are from the writings and teachings of contemporary Catholic scholars. The infancy narratives are not meant to teach history. You are confusing the teaching of truths with the teaching of historical facts - there is a big difference and fiction is very frequently used in the stories of Jesus to teach truths. The infancy narratives teach the truth of Jesus being a truly great person IN THE PRIMARY MANNER USED BY WRITERS OF THAT TIME. Christ’s words and actions formed Christianity, not his birth stories. Even Dei Verbum teaches that it is essential to consider the literary form of the writing when interpreting it.

Pat

 

[ricatholic]

martino:

ricatholic, could you please list the parts of the Gospels that we should not try to focus on, I seem to be at a disadvantage and was under the impression that all 4 of the Gospels were given to us for our edification, not only on parts but in their entirety.

For starters I spend little time focussed on all the administrative doctrines derived from Matt 16:18 etc. and the writings of Paul regarding authority, they give little benefit to any member of the congregation and as such seem to contradict other parts of the gospels from exaltation through the sermon on the mount.

A little background might help you understand where my position derives from. To me it is not critical that everything in the bible be true. I am assuming that the influence that the HS had on the writers is similar to the influence that the HS has had on the vatican for the last few centuries .

So do I jetison all the good that Jesus taught in Matt because Matt had a tendancy to exagerate or add flourishes to his writings? It doesn’t matter to me that Matt had Jesus following satan all around on the tempatation trip. That was a story. If it is true then Luke was wrong or vis versa.

Do I believe that God abdicated His future decision making ability to the humans on earth with the binding and loosing stuff? Of course not. God has more foresight than that. And as humans we are foolish to believe that we could even approach the level of comprehension of God, nevermind truely comprend Him.

Did Hilter’s authority come from God as it logically would flow from Romans. Certainly not from my Jesus.

So instead of trying to sort out all the bad stuff, I just focus on the parables and the treating the least like they might be Jesus. There is a congruency in those sources that is simple yet truely catholic in the universal sense.

Peace