Ever Virgin, Ever Sinless?

[Della]

Since your husband likes evidence, in your prayers for him you should ask for the intercession of St. Thomas More, the patron of lawyers, and St. Raymond of Penyafort, also a lawyer.

Also, there were several lawyers who became saints and St. Thomas Aquinas was all about providing evidence for the truths of the Catholic faith. And, give him the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There are references to Scripture all through it.

He might also enjoy reading Orthodoxy or The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton, the sharpest mind of the 20th century.

 

[MamaSusie]

Thanks. I have found him thumbing through my Catechism or Latin Missal at times, with the loving gaze of a con law or civ pro text. hehe!

 

[Kristina_P]

MamaSusie:

Thanks so much, guys. I don’t know if this is really answering HIS question, but I’m certainly enjoying it.

Kristina P., generally, when I approach things with him, I tend to dwell a lot on Jewish history. A lot of what we do comprises of historical Jewish practices combined with the new covenant. For example, in explaining Mary to my husband, I illustrated that in the line of David, the “kings”, for example solomon, had their mothers sitting to the right of them at the throne. When someone really wanted/needed something form the king, they went to his mother and asked for her help in getting their needs met. This was unique to this line, and to these kings, and is the same as our Christ the King in this line. Even family asked the mother of the king for intercession with the king…in no other culture or blood line do we see this. I think that’s terribly interesting, but probably not what moves my husband.

My husband is a very Biblically based, sola scriptura, Christian. If it’s not in the Bible it doesn’t count. I was raised Catholic, then fell away to attend protestant churches with my husband, while taking religion and literature courses with Jews, then ultimately returned to the Faith. So I have defended the protestant perspective in detail, and understand where he’s coming from. The problem really lies in what qualifies as “evidence.” Being an attorney, he has the potential to be VERY skeptical about law. However, he also has the potential to be VERY faithful to what he believes to be the Truth.

I used to be very sola scriptura myself. Have you discussed why he views the Bible as the only authority and discounts the Tradition of the Church that was handed down by the apostles? After all, what was Paul talking about when he admonished Christians to hold fast to the tradition that was given them by the apostles? (This is usually translated by Protestants as “teaching,” but it is exactly the same word that they translate elsewhere in the scripture as “tradition.”) Before the New Testament was written down, there were Christians. Before the Councils of the Church decided upon the official canon, there were Christians. I’m sure you’ve heard all this before, but how does your husband answer it? A lawyer should be open-minded to all the available evidence, and in my mind, the available evidence says that sola scriptura is bunk.

 

[MamaSusie]

You know, I have asked that before, and I don’t recall his answer off the top of my head. I did ask it in this particular case, and in others in the past where I referenced Jewish historians, such as Josephus, and usually it comes to the same question it did this time…even if it IS tradition, and IS true, who cares? To him it does not impact his beliefs because he doesn’t have the same beliefs. In order to believe what I believe, he would have to take it more seriously. His levels of understanding doesn’t require those resources to be true. (shrugs) I’ll ask him again, just out of curiosity. He’s very patient about my interogations, as I am with his:

Now at what point in time did you last see the last glug of milk consumed? And did you, at that time ,choose to place said milk on the shopping list? And where, currently, is that shoppping list…

This lawyer’s wife thing should come with a manual.

 

[Kristina_P]

MamaSusie:

You know, I have asked that before, and I don’t recall his answer off the top of my head. I did ask it in this particular case, and in others in the past where I referenced Jewish historians, such as Josephus, and usually it comes to the same question it did this time…even if it IS tradition, and IS true, who cares? To him it does not impact his beliefs because he doesn’t have the same beliefs. In order to believe what I believe, he would have to take it more seriously. His levels of understanding doesn’t require those resources to be true. (shrugs) I’ll ask him again, just out of curiosity. He’s very patient about my interogations, as I am with his:

Now at what point in time did you last see the last glug of milk consumed? And did you, at that time ,choose to place said milk on the shopping list? And where, currently, is that shoppping list…

This lawyer’s wife thing should come with a manual.

Heh. I can identify with the difficulties of talking to someone with an opposite approach to life. I’m analytical, but my boyfriend of two years doesn’t analyze anything! Where he bases a lot of decisions on feelings, I sometimes have trouble even knowing that I have feelings on a particular subject. Needless to say, this makes talk of theology difficult. He can listen to all my Biblical and theological arguments, acknowledge that they sound valid, but the concept of making a decision based on that is foreign to him.
I’ll bet that your husband is just having difficulty letting go of his sola scriptura mindset. He might not consciously be holding onto it, but it’s very difficult to actually step outside a framework you’ve lived in for years and years. I’m relatively young, but it took a great effort to stop saying, “But it’s not in the Bible!”

 

[awfulthings9]

Hey guys,

Everyone is doing a great job of showing MamaSusie proof that Mary was ever-virgin and without sin … but I’m not sure that’s what she’s asking for. Her concern isn’t that her husband wants to debate the issue, but rather that he just doesn’t care. She’s wanting help in guiding him to see why he should care, even if he isn’t Catholic. Here’s my take on it:

1. My wife and I don’t always agree on disciplining our child, but for the child’s sake, we cooperate. You are are facing a minor crisis in that your son is being exposed to propaganda that attacks the faith foundation you are trying to lay. As a husband, the main reason he should care has nothing to do with theology, but with showing the son a partnership in his parents, which will far outweigh the pamphlet he found.
2. That Mary would be sinless and ever-virgin is really a controversy because NOBODY is conceived that way or conceives a child that way. So, if it is true, then God must have done so for a reason. If it is important to God, then it should be important to us. Your husband, no matter what his religion, should be on a search to find those things which are important to God.
3. This is an important teaching moment. If your son learns that his foundational beliefs can be shaken with a silly pamphlet, then he won’t have the intellectual confidence to stand firm in much of anything. It is one thing to be open-minded, but only when one has developed a critical mind. Even if your husband doesn’t want to “care” for religious reasons, he should care about using this opportunity to teach your son critical thinking skills, the ability to discern logical fallacies, and the integrity to always stand up to a challenge against his core beliefs. After all, perhaps the next “pamphlet” will actually be a movie like The Da Vinci Code. Suddenly, like so many Christians, he will be doubting even Christianity.
4. These beliefs about Mary, especially her ever-virginity, have been passed down through history. Fundamentalists, by using the shell-game of sola-Scriptura, are re-envisioning history. This isn’t just a matter of “religion”, but a matter of standing up for historical integrity.
5. Apathy and indifference should never be our guiding force in theology. “So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16).
6. Last reason, because it is distressing you. He needs to stand up to all bullies who sneer at his wife (and her faith), even when they come in the form of glossy paper.

I don’t mean to sound harsh - your husband is a great guy or you wouldn’t have married him, but I’m just laying it out the way I see it. I’ll pray for both of you.

 

[Kristina_P]

awfulthings9:

Hey guys,

Everyone is doing a great job of showing MamaSusie proof that Mary was ever-virgin and without sin … but I’m not sure that’s what she’s asking for. Her concern isn’t that her husband wants to debate the issue, but rather that he just doesn’t care. She’s wanting help in guiding him to see why he should care, even if he isn’t Catholic. Here’s my take on it:

1. My wife and I don’t always agree on disciplining our child, but for the child’s sake, we cooperate. You are are facing a minor crisis in that your son is being exposed to propaganda that attacks the faith foundation you are trying to lay. As a husband, the main reason he should care has nothing to do with theology, but with showing the son a partnership in his parents, which will far outweigh the pamphlet he found.
2. That Mary would be sinless and ever-virgin is really a controversy because NOBODY is conceived that way or conceives a child that way. So, if it is true, then God must have done so for a reason. If it is important to God, then it should be important to us. Your husband, no matter what his religion, should be on a search to find those things which are important to God.
3. This is an important teaching moment. If your son learns that his foundational beliefs can be shaken with a silly pamphlet, then he won’t have the intellectual confidence to stand firm in much of anything. It is one thing to be open-minded, but only when one has developed a critical mind. Even if your husband doesn’t want to “care” for religious reasons, he should care about using this opportunity to teach your son critical thinking skills, the ability to discern logical fallacies, and the integrity to always stand up to a challenge against his core beliefs. After all, perhaps the next “pamphlet” will actually be a movie like The Da Vinci Code. Suddenly, like so many Christians, he will be doubting even Christianity.
4. These beliefs about Mary, especially her ever-virginity, have been passed down through history. Fundamentalists, by using the shell-game of sola-Scriptura, are re-envisioning history. This isn’t just a matter of “religion”, but a matter of standing up for historical integrity.
5. Apathy and indifference should never be our guiding force in theology. “So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:16).
6. Last reason, because it is distressing you. He needs to stand up to all bullies who sneer at his wife (and her faith), even when they come in the form of glossy paper.

I don’t mean to sound harsh - your husband is a great guy or you wouldn’t have married him, but I’m just laying it out the way I see it. I’ll pray for both of you.

AMEN, especially to number 6.

 

[MamaSusie]

Oh, dear! That was vinegar and honey, wasn’t it? lol Well done!

Pamphlet…if it were that easy. He has been a Bible thumping Christian for 33 years (“saved at age 5”) and I can assure you he “walks the walk” stronger than anyone I have ever known, Catholic or otherwise. That makes it harder for me to ask him to alter his beliefs. Based on how he lives his life, I have no right, on the surface, to challenge him.

The real issue for him is, once again, this:

I think his big hang up is “Why do you believe she REMAINED sinless, especially when Christ said all have sinned…none is sinless, not one.”

If it takes me THIS long to get a concise answer in a Catholic forum, imagine how confused HE is.

 

[awfulthings9]

MamaSusie:

Oh, dear! That was vinegar and honey, wasn’t it? lol Well done!

Pamphlet…if it were that easy. He has been a Bible thumping Christian for 33 years (“saved at age 5”) and I can assure you he “walks the walk” stronger than anyone I have ever known, Catholic or otherwise. That makes it harder for me to ask him to alter his beliefs. Based on how he lives his life, I have no right, on the surface, to challenge him.

The real issue for him is, once again, this:

I think his big hang up is “Why do you believe she REMAINED sinless, especially when Christ said all have sinned…none is sinless, not one.”

If it takes me THIS long to get a concise answer in a Catholic forum, imagine how confused HE is.

Oh sorry, by pamphlet, I was referring to the literature your son brought home from the Baptist church (why was he there?). I have no doubt your husband is a sincere man. Why did she remain sinless? Because “all have sinned” meant “all groups have sinned” since it was in the context of whether Jews and Gentiles both needed the salvation of Christ. Taken literally, it would mean that all babies have sinned, all severely mentally handicapped had sinned, and all incarnate Words (Jesus) had sinned. Have him read the context and see if this is really a lecture about how each and every person has committed sin. The reason you believe it is the same reason he believes the Bible - you have it from an authority that you trust - the Church - that it is truth. It isn’t any more fair to question the foundation of your belief than for you to question why he believes that Paul really did say “all have sinned”. His answer would be, because “it’s in the Bible”. Yours would be because “it’s in the teaching of the Church.”

 

[TamaraS]

Here are a few thoughts I have about Mary being ever virgin. I know different bible translations may vary a bit on wording, but I am going by the New American Bible. When reading Luke 1:36-48 a couple of things always strike me.

First of all, I personally think that there is a bigger reason for Mary being called a virgin. I realize that there have been people forever that have had sex before being married, but I doubt that would be the case here and I think that it was a pretty big deal back then to not be a virgin when married (or betrothed). So to me, her being a virgin would probably be a given for me, so why feel the need to tell it in the story unless the writer had a certain reason for telling the reader. (I realize that that all by itself isn’t proof)
Second, in verse 31, Gabriel says, “Behold, you will concieve in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.” And Mary says, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?”
Well, even though she says how can this be, obviously Mary knows how a baby is made.
Two things here make me think this is a strange reply. First of all, she didn’t say "I have not had relations with a man, or “I have not had relations with a man yet”. She said “I HAVE NO relations with a man”. To me that sounds like something she just doesn’t do, whether or not a person wants to speculate why that would be is up to them, but I think she was “set aside” for something “great”- maybe to carry, give birth to, and raise God in the flesh!

The part that I think about the most though, is that when Gabriel visited her and told her this, he didn’t say anything at all like “you have already concieved a child in your womb”, he said “you Will concieve in your womb”.
We already know that she was betrothed and I’m sure Gabriel was aware of that, too. So if Mary was betrothed to Joseph, if she planning on having relations with him, then why would she even ask how? If she was planning on having relations with him, then that would not seem so strange for Gabriel to say that she would concieve and bear a child.
Actually, when you read verses 32 and 33 “He will be great and he will be called son of the most high, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end”, after he told her all these things about this child, her response seems so weird to me. You would think she would be saying “WOW! Why me?”, but she seems more confused by what he told her in verse 31, about her concieving a child, which we already know what she said, I’ve rambled on long enough so I won’t repeat.
I hope I didn’t sound like a bumbling idiot. I hope this helps a little, but if he doesn’t care no one can make him care. Good luck.

Tamara

 

[awfulthings9]

MamaSusie:

Oh, dear! That was vinegar and honey, wasn’t it? lol Well done!

Pamphlet…if it were that easy. He has been a Bible thumping Christian for 33 years (“saved at age 5”) and I can assure you he “walks the walk” stronger than anyone I have ever known, Catholic or otherwise. That makes it harder for me to ask him to alter his beliefs. Based on how he lives his life, I have no right, on the surface, to challenge him.

The real issue for him is, once again, this:

I think his big hang up is “Why do you believe she REMAINED sinless, especially when Christ said all have sinned…none is sinless, not one.”

If it takes me THIS long to get a concise answer in a Catholic forum, imagine how confused HE is.

I need to point out that the “None is sinless, not one” isn’t actually in there. The verse is, “There is no one just, not one,” meaning that even Mary, of her own merits, isn’t just without Christ. That’s only important because to say “None is sinless, not one” seems to make your husband’s point, which is unfair since that isn’t the text. I could be wrong about the verse; someone correct me if I am. Anyway, God bless you MamaSuzie.

 

[MamaSusie]

Well hey, that’s an answer he can live with! Thank you! I’ll let you know if I convert him. hehe

As for my son, he went to church with his grandparents that day. I didn’t really see much harm in it (I swear I’m a stronger Catholic for having questioned EVERYTHING, and even falling away for a while). Then when he came home with this lesson, I was really floored. He won’t be going THERE again. If I can find it, I’ll scan it for you. It’s absurd.

 

[MamaSusie]

Ah, yes…I was quotting HIM not the Bible. I suppose for him it would “All have sinned,” give or take the rest.

Tamara, thanks. I think he’s ok on the virgin aspect. It’s the perpetual virgin aspect, and the sinless aspect that get him hung up.

 

[Jennifer_J]

For me, Mary’s perpetual virginity is important because she was made especially for Jesus. She carried the word of God made flesh. She had to be something truly special (like the arc of the covenant that carried the written word of God) and set apart. I also think about Joseph, a special man who must have had some clue as to what was going on. I wonder, knowing that Mary carried the Word of God made flesh, would he have wanted to have relations with her? After all he would have known what happened to anyone who touched the arc of the covenant, right?

Here’s a link to an article from ewtn, kinda technical about Mary’s perptual virginity and betrothal and Jewish law and custom
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

also here’s a link to a discussion on the forums
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86732&highlight=virgin+mary

I hope this helps! God bless
Jennifer

 

[Kristina_P]

MamaSusie:

Ah, yes…I was quotting HIM not the Bible. I suppose for him it would “All have sinned,” give or take the rest.

Tamara, thanks. I think he’s ok on the virgin aspect. It’s the perpetual virgin aspect, and the sinless aspect that get him hung up.

Romans 3:23: “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

Old argument, and I’m sure you’ve heard it, but if we take Romans 3:23 out of context as Protestants usually do, we encounter a problem. How have infants sinned? They have the taint of original sin, so they are predisposed to sin, but they have not actually sinned.

I think it makes a lot more sense to look at this verse in the context. Paul is in the middle of a long argument why there should be no distinction between Jew and Gentile within the Body of Christ. All (meaning both Jews and Gentiles) have sinned and are in need of God’s grace. Mary was in need of God’s grace, and it was God’s grace that kept her sinless. Romans 3:23 is not a valid argument against Mary’s sinlessness.

 

[hurst]

MamaSusie:

I think his big hang up is “Why do you believe she REMAINED sinless, especially when Christ said all have sinned…none is sinless, not one.”

There are several places where this is referenced:

DRV Psalm 52:4 All have gone aside, they are become unprofitable together, there is none that doth good, no not one.

Ecclesiastes 7:21 For there is no just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not.

Romans 3:10 As it is written:There is not any man just. 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. … 23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

etc.

However, it would be wrong to use this to accuse any one person of having sinned or of not being just. Or would you like to be counted among Job’s friends who wrongly concluded Job must have sinned?

Furthermore, there is the obvious logical problem that if indeed “all have sinned”, then Christ must have also. But we know this is false. Yet perhaps the pharisees used this reasoning to disbelieve Him.

It should rather be seen as the general situation before Christ came into the world. The notion is that by virtue of the mosaic law or natural law, no one is just (Rom 3:9,19). And all that sinned, sinned in Adam:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

For it is only by virtue of faith and grace that anyone is just. And although the general situation was that all have sinned, yet there were exceptions due to such faith and grace:

Genesis 5:22 And Henoch walked with God: … and was seen no more: because God took him.

Genesis 6:9 … Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God.

Ezechiel 14:14 And if these three men, Noe, Daniel, and Job, shall be in it: they shall deliver their own souls by their justice, saith the Lord of hosts.

Genesis 15:6 Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.

2 Kings 2:11 And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Matthew 1:19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man,

Luke 2:25 And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout,

Mark 6:20 For Herod feared John, knowing him to be a just and holy man:

Acts 10:22 Who said: Cornelius, a centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God …

So much for the idea that “no one” is just! The fact is that it must be understood properly.

Galatians 3:11 But that in the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest: because the just man liveth by faith.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that **the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, … **

Hebrews 10:38 But my just man liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul.

So what we have now is that Henoch and Elias were taken by God; Noe, Job, Daniel, and Abram are reputed by God to be just; and Joseph, John the Baptist, Cornelius, and others are also called just. How is it that “no one is just”? Scripture is inerrant, so it is true regarding whatever is meant. But we need to understand what was meant. I have shown that what was meant is that no one following the law, whether the mosaic law or the natural law, is just, because it requires faith and grace. And the law was made for the unjust.

If then God is pleased with those who walked with Him, what then of Mary, who carried and nourished Him? If then God took Henoch and Elias to heaven, what then of Mary, who was full of grace? And if John the baptist, who only announced the Messiah was sanctified in the womb, what then of Mary? At a minimum, any protestant should accept that the faithful, humble mother of Jesus and God was given the same or better than all these prior just men. Thus they should at least accept that Mary was sanctified in her womb also.

But the Church defines that she was immaculate from the moment of her very conception, such that she was not bornin the sin of Adam. So even before she could have conscious “faith”, she was sinless. And like Elias, she was taken up to heaven, but in a better way, for the true heaven is now open, and Christ had already entered into His glory.

As you can see, it just takes a bit more reasoning with faith of the various relevant scriptures.

Conclusion: The verses referring to the fact that all have sinned have no bearing on the fact that Mary remained sinless, or that Christ was sinless, or that there were any just persons to be found.

hurst

 

[Kristina_P]

\And if John the baptist, who only announced the Messiah was sanctified in the womb, what then of Mary?

hurst

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, but I don’t understand why you believe John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb.

 

[hurst]

Kristina P.:

…I don’t understand why you believe John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb.

It is based on scripture, among other things.

Luke 1:13 But the angel said to him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John: 14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice in his nativity. 15 For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

This occurred at the time of the visitation, in this passage:

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

hurst

 

[Kristina_P]

hurst:

It is based on scripture, among other things.

Luke 1:13 But the angel said to him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John: 14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice in his nativity. 15 For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

This occurred at the time of the visitation, in this passage:

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

hurst

I was under the impression that in Catholicism, the word “sanctified” referred to the end result of the process of sanctification, i.e., spiritual perfection. But those who have only begun this process of sanctification and not yet finished it have the Holy Spirit. So John’s having the Holy Spirit in the womb does not necessarily mean that he was fully sanctified in the womb. Do you believe that he was conceived without sin, as Mary was? I don’t mean to be contentious. It’s just that I have never heard this before. Is it a Catholic dogma? If so, can you point me to some information on it?

 

[TamaraS]

*–Tamara, thanks. I think he’s ok on the virgin aspect. It’s the perpetual virgin aspect, and the sinless aspect that get him hung up.- *

Actually, I think in that passage of Luke it does imply that she was not only already a virgin, but that she was not going to have relations in the future. Sorry if I wasn’t clear in my thoughts. But here is another passage that I’ve read that has been used to point to her perpetual virginity- Ezekiel 44: 1-3- “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east;** but it was closed**. He said to me: This gate is to remain closed. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord. He must enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and leave the same way.”
Actually, I think it could be helpful to read the first 5 verses in chapter 43 before reading the one above I just quoted.

Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. Why would Joseph have relations with someone who already had conceived a child with someone else. And look who that someone else was!
Even in the old testament, after Absalam slept with all of David’s wives, I believe when David came back he would never sleep with any of those wives again.

I don’t think you’ll find anything in scripture that explicitly says this or that about Mary, they are implicit. Apparently, non-catholics take a different approach to scripture than Catholics. For non-catholics, if it doesn’t explicily spell it all out, then they think it’s not true (except for the trinity, of course- I think even most Christians accept that even though it doesn’t explain the concept of the trinity in scripture).