Do I have to affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Racer_X
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
patg:
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 even occassionally eat meat on Friday in Lent and I would never think of anyone as less of a Christian who did likewise.
Pat
Click to expand...
As a Catholic you should be aware that the bible is not the only source of truth. Tradition (capital T) is also a source of Truth. If you only accept biblical Truths, you are a biblical fundamentalist, not a Catholic.

To declare that you eat meat on Fridays in Lent is to say you willfully disobey the Church’s teachings and laws.
Next you could be saying that abortion is a personal choice and by practising abortion, you will not be less of a Christian if you did so.

One cannot be a “Cafeteria Catholic” - choosing what you wish to obey and what you wish to discard.

No one person knows all the truths, biblical or otherwise. Being a Catholic means I accept its teachings and Tradition which it has taught for two thousand years even if I find them mystifying, confusing or disagreeable.

Is perpetual virginity of Mary relevant? Personally, yes, it is. Christ is God and man. Anyone born by Mary is a blood brother/sister of Christ. Therefore he/she is physically related to God and hence a superior human being. Their offsprings will also be superior human beings. Imagine what effect this bloodine will have on our lives today?

God has created us in his image and equals will He then allow some to be “more equal” than others?
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
If you mean that a virgin birth is not important, how could we be sure of his devine nature if he was born of a non-virgin. As far as her perpetual virginity, the old is revealed in the new and the new is concealed in the old. The Blessed Mother is the Arc of the New Covenant, and as such no man could touch her.
 
I do not mean to sound flippant, so please do not take it that way…

What does it hurt to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity? It is not something that we can fully understand until after death anyway, and as you said, it is not an issue central to your faith.

But the Church teaches it, and we are bound to honor Christ’s Church.

So, in issues like this, I pray and ask the Holy Spirit to help me in my unbelief to be faithful to the teachings of the Church.

I did not become a Catholic to pick and choose what I would like to believe. I would have been better off being a Protestant if I did not want to submit to the authority of the Church,

Submitting to authority is difficult. It requires humility. I requires that we admit that we will not have all of the answers this side of heaven and that we will not have perfect understanding.

Once I made the commitment to accept the authority of the Church, these issues have become non-issues. Once I asked the Holy Spirit to help me understand, I can see that the church’s teaching of perpetual virginity makes sense.

Mary bore the Son of God. Joseph knew this. He kept her as a wife and loved her, sacrificing normal marital relations with her. Considering the unique marital situation, I do not find this impossible to believe.

My advice is to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to open your heart to all the teachings of the Church. Pray especially for the gift of humility, that you would have a teachable spirit. And then thank God that He gave you His Church to love you and teach you and guide you in your life.

God Bless,
Iguana
 
Pat,

The Church is the authority which decides what is and is not relevant. And this last Lent it reaffirmed the requirement to abstain from meat on Fridays in Lent as a duty which “will not lightly be cast aside” by the faithful–along with reasons why it is still relevant. No matter how insignificant Church teaching or guidelines may seem to us, we are in the position of children in this relationship, and do not possess the depth of understanding needed to judge every one of the Church’s instructions; our duty is to obey.

A person can be Christian without being Catholic, it is true; but that is in the case of ignorance. Recognizing the Catholic Church as Christ’s own body and yet rebelling against its guidance is a grave error.
 
The Catholic Answers website has pretty good info on the perpetual virginity of Mary, it helped me out a lot.
 
Riddle me this: Would the early Church, and the Fathers especailly, have passed on this dogma if they did not consider it important?

I think concerns about the relevancy of different truths is indicative of what lack of belief in an authoritative Tradition/interpretation can do to Christianity. Just look at the wild tailspin into relativism being suffered in so much of Protestantism. As denominations multiply (I’ve seen numbers claiming 2800 in the US and 20,000 in the world) one is forced with the choice between becoming increasingly relativistic or slowly but surely becoming the one Protestant on the face of the earth who has the total set of correct religious beliefs.

If something is true, it is important to believe by its very nature. The truth will set you free. So I’d be looking to hang on to as much of it as I could. Trying to marginalize some of the Truth doesn’t seem like a very straight path to freedom.
 
Andreas Hofer:
Riddle me this: Would the early Church, and the Fathers especailly, have passed on this dogma if they did not consider it important?

I think concerns about the relevancy of different truths is indicative of what lack of belief in an authoritative Tradition/interpretation can do to Christianity. Just look at the wild tailspin into relativism being suffered in so much of Protestantism. As denominations multiply (I’ve seen numbers claiming 2800 in the US and 20,000 in the world) one is forced with the choice between becoming increasingly relativistic or slowly but surely becoming the one Protestant on the face of the earth who has the total set of correct religious beliefs.

If something is true, it is important to believe by its very nature. The truth will set you free. So I’d be looking to hang on to as much of it as I could. Trying to marginalize some of the Truth doesn’t seem like a very straight path to freedom.
Click to expand...
You are using the term “relativistic” in a different way than usual. Usually people mean by relativism the attitudes that in practice lead to the treatment of two inconsistent principles on an equal footing, implying that either both “true” or neither are “true.” Ultimately, truth itself loses meaning.

However, although no fact is more true than any other true fact, individual truths do have relative value. The attitude you express above is what leads us to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 2 Kings 16 describes the reign of King Ahaz of Israel. His story is a divinely revealed truth, but is it equal in value to the story of the life of Jesus? Of course not.

I firmly hold that we should avoid false beliefs of all kinds (although here, likewise, some are worse than others) but that does not mean we have to know the correct belief about everything in the history of the universe. Some things are not worth it.
 
Racer -

I will return to your original question: Why is it important to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. I think Martino is on the right track. Mary is considered the Ark of the New Covenant. As in the Old Testament’s Ark of the Covenant, the Ark was to be touched only by certain hands (those of the priests, and even then, only at certain times and by a certain priest). As the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary was touched only by the hand of God, and it seems to me appropriate that she remain that way. Again, I hope this helps.
 
40.png
patg:
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
Click to expand...
This is merely the liberal higher criticism of recent decades that has been thoroughly debunked by real Biblical scholars. The very premise undermines the basics of literature. Narratives assume true historical events. This is certainly true of 1st century Hebrew and Roman narratives. While not history books, they are historically accurate. And the first century readers would have understood that. In fact the events of the New Testament are verifiable from numerous non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Pliny. Assuming innacurate history is starting with a non-historical and novel premise. Thus the exegesis will be flawed.

All conservative Biblical scholars, those who use time tested and respected means of interpretation, all agree that much of modern Catholic biblical scholarship has adopted the leftist Protestants erroneous textual criticism of thw late 19th and 20th centuries as fact and adopted it. Both traditional Catholic and Protestant scholars have proven again and again over the last 40+ years that such “scholarship” is not scholarship at all.

Mel
 
The first four are obviously of Christological significance. The sixth is a historical event of which the early Church was aware and, in light of the Book of Revelation, has an explicit scriptural basis–John saw her in heaven with his own eyes. But why #5?
Click to expand...
5 & 6 are also of theological significance. Mary was the NT Ark of the Covenant. God made the OT ark pure, kept it pure, and kept it from corruption. Likewise with the NT ark of the New Covenant, Mary.

Why did God want to keep his OT and NT arks so pure? I dunno. But appearantly it was important to Him. They were the holy vessals which contained the Word of God. The OT ark contained the written word, the NT ark contained the living Word.

Everything revealed by God is important enough to have an opinion about.
 
Bathsheba’s relations with her first husband and David have no theological, soteriological, nor ecclesiological significance. Why does that of our Lord’s Mother?
Click to expand...
When one comes to understand that the Ark of the Covenant is a OT type for Mother Mary, it ought to have theological, soteriological and ecclesiological significance. The history of Marian devotion reflects this significance.

The following discussion is pilfered and adapted from material written by Frank Chacon and Jim Burnam of San Juan Catholic Seminars …
Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant

The Ark was the holiest object in the OT religion. It was sacred because it carried the stone tablets of the Law that God gave Moses on Mount Sinai. In Ex 25, God gave meticulous instructions for constructing the Ark. It had to be made incorruptible from acacia wood, plated inside and outside with pure gold. It must be kept free from all impurity and profanation. In 2 Sam 6:6-7, God struck Uzzah dead because he dared to touch the Ark.

From the earliest centuries, Christians saw the OT Ark as a type of Mary. The connection is clear. That Ark carried the written Word of God; Mary carried the living Word. Mary is the living Ark of the living Word. The Ark helps us to see the biblical basis for doctrines like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, which are not taught explicitly in Sacred Scripture, but which are taught implicitly through typology. Mary, like the OT Ark was made pure (Immaculate Conception), stayed pure (Perpetual Virginity), and kept from corruption (Assumption).

It is also significant that in Rev, after seeing a vision of the OT Ark, John immediately sees a vision of a woman (Mary), thereby further connecting the OT Ark to the NT Ark–Mary.

Far from an invention, the Feast of the Assumption dates back to the 6th century. The liturgy of this feast is filled with OT readings which reference … the OT Ark. This indicates that as early as the 6th century, the Church understood Mary to be the New Ark.

Also, God’s chosen people in the OT used the Ark of the Covenant as a guide in their journey into the promised land (Num 10:33; Josh 3:3,6,11,14). Moses and his people also used the OT Ark of the Covenant in battle against adversity (Josh 3:13-17) and against their enemies (Joshua 6). Likewise, you may find some Catholics who place Mary (the new Ark) in a prominent place in their faith journey, turning to her frequently in their fight against evil.

In the OT, the actions of Moses and God’s people did not prove they worshipped the Ark. Any effects the Ark had in guiding them and battling adversity came only from God. The same is true for Catholics who turn to Mary for her intercession. This practice, while not central to the Gospel message, does not detract from our love of the Lord and is not despised by our Lord. According to Luke’s Gospel, Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord and all generations will call her blessed.
Click to expand...
 
… one of those theological details that don’t really matter.
Click to expand...
Eeeeeek!!

“One does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4)

Notice that EVERY WORD *really matters. *Just because you don’t see the significance of EVERY WORD, that doesn’t mean we can simply assert that it doesn’t really matter.

For example, let’s say I have trouble understanding the significance of St. John’s Book of Revelation. Would it be prudent of me to brush it aside as something that doesn’t really matter? Or perhaps, would it be better for me to continue to prayerfully study the Word of God, knowing that EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God is significant?
 
40.png
ricatholic:
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
Click to expand...
Well I guess to each his own, I have the Catholic Church and you have your own personal interpretation; I do pray that we both make it to heaven one way or the other.

As far as “God abdicated His future decision making ability to the humans on earth with the binding and loosing stuff”, it makes all the sense in the world but only after you consider the promise Jesus makes to the Church in John 16:13 “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

But of course that may some of “all the bad stuff” that is mixed into the Gospels and maybe we should “not focus” on it anyway.
 
40.png
ricatholic:
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).
Click to expand...
no, i really don’t. you said it ‘added nothing’. what could you have meant other than you do think it is insignificant?
As for saying that God could love an ordinary person so much that He would let her carry His son, that is impressive.
Click to expand...
and how would using an un-ordinary person been less impressive, as you seem to suggest.

thanks for listening, love and peace, terry
 
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine of the Church and, therefore, must be believed by faithful Catholics. Jesus did not leave His followers orphans. He founded an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit. As a result, Catholics can believe in all of the Church’s teachings with absolute confidence. All Our Lord requires of us is faith–explicit and implicit–, odedience, and humility. We should pray for these qualities every day. If we do, everything else will fall into place.
 
Jesus turned water into wine!
He cured the sick!
He made the lame walk again!
He gave the sight to the blind!
He raised himself from the dead!
We are able to receive His Body and Blood!
Others performed miracles in His name!

Of all the miracles listed above (and more), I can never understand why some people cannot accept that a faithful Jewish Woman would not be able to remain a virgin throughout her lifetime after giving birth to the Savior of the world.

But to the original question: Why is it important to believe this? Besides all the other wonderful answers given, here is my view:
God made us to know him, love him, and worship him. It is important that we continually try to know as much as we can about him. Knowledge is built upon knowledge. That is why we can live to be 120 and never fully understand all about God but we can certainly grow into greater and greater understanding because He is our Creator and that is why He created us. Therefore, knowing about the circumstances of how his Son came to earth and the most important woman in the world is part of that knowledge.

One more thing about the Blessed Mother. (Sorry if this is off-topic) Feminists howl against the Catholic Church because of their belief of women’s “limited” role in the Church. Yet most feminists don’t see the Mary as full or grace or blessed or holy or the mother of God and her perfect role model for us women. And fundamentalists seem to put Ruth up on a pedistal and Proverbs 31 good wife, yet don’t look to Jesus’ own mother as our perfect role model. But that’s a discussion for another thread.

God Bless,
Denise
 
40.png
Melchior:
This is merely the liberal higher criticism of recent decades that has been thoroughly debunked by real Biblical scholars. The very premise undermines the basics of literature. Narratives assume true historical events. This is certainly true of 1st century Hebrew and Roman narratives. While not history books, they are historically accurate. And the first century readers would have understood that. In fact the events of the New Testament are verifiable from numerous non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Pliny. Assuming innacurate history is starting with a non-historical and novel premise. Thus the exegesis will be flawed.

All conservative Biblical scholars, those who use time tested and respected means of interpretation, all agree that much of modern Catholic biblical scholarship has adopted the leftist Protestants erroneous textual criticism of thw late 19th and 20th centuries as fact and adopted it. Both traditional Catholic and Protestant scholars have proven again and again over the last 40+ years that such “scholarship” is not scholarship at all.

Mel
Click to expand...
All I can say is **Thank God **for modern biblical scholarship, Catholic or not. You are welcome to reside in the dark ages with the earth as the center of the universe but that concept of reality is refreshingly disappearing,

Pat
 
All the Dogmas of the Catholic Church MUST be accepted with consent of mind and will. (Cf Canon Law, V2, Catechism).
NONE of them have to be understoodby the believer! As for those who say that this or that Marian Dogma is 'irrelevant to ME", “not understood by ME”, or "I don’t see the relevance, therefore the Church is "using convoluted arguments to ______ " (fill in the blank), that’s waayy too much emphasis on the “ME” doing the doubting.

**Do Racer or Patq “*understand the relevance of the Trinity”, *which is quite obviously the most mysterious fact revealed by God about Himself??? Since God HAS IN FACT revealed the Marian Dogmas, perhaps those who claim that because they don’t understand them they are unimportant is a symptom of a serious rejection of the ‘Catholic’ Faith. Recall, also, that the Catholic Church has defined theology as “belief seeking understanding”. But first comes belief!
The Catholic Church HAS NEVER claimed that any point of dogma is so because of theology - Dogmas are so because God has revealed them, period! To NOT understand dogmas is part and parcel of the Christian condition, actually. (As an aside, the Catholic Church NEVER theologized about “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. Never. It was first used in the early days of the Reformation by a Protestant who used that phrase as a mere rhetorical device (like we might say, 'they’ve been told a hundred-billion times’).

As to the specific dogmas questioned, the best way to see if God has put the question into your heart in order to draw you closer to Himself is to actually read what the Magisterium has actually said about them! The best place to start on that quest is to read (chronologically) JP II’s encyclicals / sermons on the particular point.

**As to “siblings” of Jesus, please note that the Arabic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, Turkish, etc) DO NOT have a word for “sibling” - their one word covers BOTH siblings AND cousins. It is best translated into American English as “*kin” *(or, “kinfolk”). In fact this word - kin - is still used extensively in the American South in exactly ther same way as the Aramaic / Hebrew / Arabic term. The Arabic term is also used in a wider context to mean ‘one’s people’. (So, for example, Osama Bin Laden used that VERY term in the video tape released showing him revealing the murders in the USA on 9-11-01 to apply to ALL the terrorists DESPITE THE FACT THAT NONE OF THEM WERE SIBLINGS!) **

It is wise to keep in mind that the Bible WAS NOT INSPIRED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
 
I agree that the ark of the convenant line of reasoning could be helpful here.

Just a thought, I think that Mary being a Virgin forever is saying something about just how unique and special Jesus was. Because He was so special, he got a mother specially prepared just for him. I know it will sound off the wall, but you know how when they crown monarchs they often make a special crown just for that occasion and that crown might not ever get used for another crowning or for anything else. It just sits in a museum becuase it is to be admired and precious and not used for some ordinary purpose. What makes those crowns to be preserved is the purpose they were for, you know, the particular historical monarch.

I guess I am trying to say that it is fitting that Mary was the mother for the one child only, because He was so special.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top