Ever Virgin

[mlchance]

Why would Mary not cease to be untouchable once Jesus was born and came out of her? And why exactly would sex between spouses be defiling anyway?

Sexual intercourse between spouses is not a defilement. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. The Blessed Virgin had made a vow of perpetual virginity to God. To break a vow to God: now that’s a defilement.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I already am Catholic, technically, I haven’t left yet, however, this statement really has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

The Spirit lives in a clean vessel and if that vessel is defiled it leaves…

Mortal Sin is a fall from Grace. You need not subscribe to Catholicism to be in a state of Grace but it sure does help.

 

[sinner06]

You should read the ECFs and writings from the first 400 to 500 years of Christianity.

Mary took a vow of chastity or to be a virgin before the Angel ever visited to ask her to bear Jesus. Now Mary was probably about 12 to 14 years old and she had made a vow to God to be a virgin and to devote her life to Him. But she told God that she would do whatever He asked and so she bore Jesus.

The Christians of the Early church wrote how Mary was still a virgin after wards and that her body had no proof of giving birth. She experienced no birth pains and so they believed Mary was without sin as Eve was before her Fall.

The early Christians also wrote how Mary remained a virgin up until her death. They wrote about her death as well and how she was delivered to Heaven.

All of this was written by early Christians and it is as they believed way back then.

Today so many so called Christians question this and even call veneration of Mary a form of idolatry or blasphemy. They are wrong and could learn alot from the early church should probably start with Theotokos.

As to Psalms you have to understand that the OT often refers to the Nation of Israel as a mother and sinful nations as whores. It is a symbolicism used often in scriptures and does not necessarily equate to a woman in the flesh. Besides I do not see any contention with Psalms 69???

The idea that Mary did not experience birth pains is obviously false, since the book of Genesis says that the birth pangs would intensify, and you can’t intensify what isn’t there. Thus, even if she were preserved from original sin, she still would have had *some *birth pains. The idea that she had no birth pains was obviously made up. The theories of the ECF were just that, theories. I’m tired of everyone saying “Mary took a vow of virginity”, and their only proof is that the ECF said so. If their theory birth pains thing, what else could they be wrong about? So why do you quote the ECF view that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity as if it is concrete evidence?

As to the Psalm, right before the verse about zeal for God’s house, which refers to Jesus, the verse before it says, "8 I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. "
This pretty clearly refers to Jesus, after all, His siblings did not believe in Him. Also, this appears directly before a prophecy that we know applies to Jesus. Obviously all of Psalms, or even all of that chapter, cannot apply to Jesus, its proximity to the prophecy about Jesus, combined with the fact that it applies to Him perfectly, certainly seems to imply that it is talking about Him. Put together this verse with the verses about Jesus’ brothers, and you get a pretty impressive argument, especially considering no one but the all too fallible ECF ever say Mary was a perpetual virgin.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The idea that Mary did not experience birth pains is obviously false, since the book of Genesis says that the birth pangs would intensify, and you can’t intensify what isn’t there. Thus, even if she were preserved from original sin, she still would have had *some *birth pains. The idea that she had no birth pains was obviously made up. The theories of the ECF were just that, theories. I’m tired of everyone saying “Mary took a vow of virginity”, and their only proof is that the ECF said so. If their theory birth pains thing, what else could they be wrong about?

You may be tired of hearing it but at least you know it was taught and if you refuse to believe what God did then it is on you and not me.

God has given us this truth and the Church requires we believe it. Do you know what that means for a Catholic?

So why do you quote the ECF view that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity as if it is concrete evidence?

It was the ECFs that transcribe and preserved the 27 books you call the New Testament so they they must have done something right. Not to mention that there were close to 250 writings that were used before the 4th century and we have Tradition in these.

You can either accept the pearls that the Church has given you or not.

 

[YADA]

Mary had no other children. The Scriptures never speak of other children born of Mary.

In fact, if she had had other children then there was no need for Jesus to tnetruct Mary to the care of the John at the Cross. In fact this would have been a sure insult and would have been met with resistance from her other children …

The Book of Numbers make provisions for young girls and women to make vows to the Lord which their fathers [husbands] had to accept unless they repudiated the vow immediately.

Mary may have been a step-mother, scripture does not tell us if Joseph had other children …

Mary did have other relatives … Elizabeth, her kinswoman, Elizabeth’s husband and John the Baptist are known … others - possible.

Joseph’s family is not elaborated on … but even members of a clan, tribe or village [town] are refered to as brothr/sister - kinsman …

The scriptures never even tell us that Mary and Joseph actually moved from "betrothal’ into marriage … they may have remained “Betrothed” … a far more complex relationship then an engagement …

Jesus is referred to as the “carpenter’s son” directly in the scriptures, yet you do not argue for the fatherhood of Joseph - or do you? … Did not the gospel writers know that Joseph was not the Father of Jesus? …

for well over 1600 years, the Christian community maintain the perpetual viginity of Mary … listen to your Christmas hymns … [Virgin Mother … ]. Why do you suppose the modern Christian thinks they have the inside information on this? …

Today many Christians tell us that homosexuality [abortion, sexual relations between any two unmarried persons, pornography and a host of other societal ideas and practices] is acceptable to Jesus and the prohibitions in scripture are mis-undertood, etc … They argue that tike the New Testament did away with the Levitical laws and Old Testament practices - we can now eat pork, where cloth blends and copulate with the same sex or animal of our choice - all are equal and all are acceptable to God [Jesus] … Any quotations found in the NT are just not translated accurately - …

ERGO, because they can’t imagine a life without sex [married or not] Mary and Joseph must have had carnal relations … Joseph would have no compunctions about having intercourse with the woman God choose to bare His son … That Joseph would count the days until he could take what God had claimed in the most initmate of ways in as intimate a way aas humanly possible …

They see no idea of fidelity to God … that Mary was so devoted to serving and doing God’s will that she gave herself [virginally] to God - so full that a child was born … that then she began [as Paul would write] to be concerned more for the “things of this world - how to please her husband” - and less focused upon totally serving the Lord …

I don’t know … I do not understand that thinking … I believe that Both Mary and Joseph would havve lived all of their days - hubly serving God, and trying to figure out what the life of Jesus meant … always ready to immediately respond to God’s call …

 

[CB_Catholic]

I don’t mean to throw this thread off-topic, but why are these posts dated Feb. 11, 2009?

Now to return to the discussion discussion.

 

[sinner06]

You may be tired of hearing it but at least you know it was taught and if you refuse to believe what God did then it is on you and not me.

God has given us this truth and the Church requires we believe it. Do you know what that means for a Catholic?

It was the ECFs that transcribe and preserved the 27 books you call the New Testament so they they must have done something right. Not to mention that there were close to 250 writings that were used before the 4th century and we have Tradition in these.

You can either accept the pearls that the Church has given you or not.

My point is where did the idea that she had no birth pains come from? Since it didn’t happen, it must have been simply made up. And if the ECF just made it up, or if the people they were getting their information about Mary from made it up, what else could they have made up? If “the Church teaches it” is the only argument in favor of it, that’s fine, we can talk about the authority of the Church on a different thread. I’m saying is there anything that proves it outside of just Church teaching?

As to the person(sorry, forgot your screen name) who said “brothers and sisters” could refer to cousins, or half siblings, etc. It could refer to that. However, there is no way the words “brothers and sisters” can be proved to not refer to full brothers and sisters, it can only be proved that it might not refer to full brothers and sisters. I think that in light of the Psalm concerning being a stranger to His mother’s children, and considering his brothers and sisters didn’t believe in Him,(at least at first), it may not prove anything, but it fits together perfectly in the same way the “Mary is the Ark of the Covenant” theology is supposedly implied but not proven. Are non-Catholics not allowed to take the same liberties Catholics do theologically?

Finally, why Jesus told John to take care of Mary is a mystery to me, but again, if at this time Jesus’ siblings still did not believe in Him, maybe Jesus wanted His mother to stay with a believer, the one Jesus loved, in fact.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Psalms 68 (or 69)

From Augustine; newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm

An alien I have become to My brethren, and a stranger to the sons of My mother Psalm 68:8. To the sons of the Synagogue He became a stranger…Why so? Why did they not acknowledge? Why did they call Him an alien? Why did they dare to say, we know not whence He is? Because the zeal of Your House has eaten Me up: that is, because I have persecuted in them their own iniquities, because I have not patiently borne those whom I have rebuked, because I have sought Your glory in Your House, because I have scourged them that in the Temple dealt unseemly: John 2:15 in which place also there is quoted, the zeal of Your House has eaten Me up. Hence an alien, hence a Stranger; hence, we know not whence He is. They would have acknowledged whence I am, if they had acknowledged that which You have commanded. For if I had found them keeping Your commandments, the zeal of Your House would not have eaten Me up. And the reproaches of men reproaching You have fallen upon Me. Of this testimony Paul the Apostle has also made use (there has been read but now the very lesson), and says, Whatsoever things aforetime have been written, have been written that we might be instructed. Romans 15:4 …Why You? Is the Father reproached, and not Christ Himself? Why have the reproaches of men reproaching You fallen upon Me? Because, he that has known Me, has known the Father also: John 14:9 because no one has reviled Christ without reviling God: because no one honours the Father, except he that honours the Son also. John 5:23

newadvent.org/fathers/1801069.htm

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Jerome: newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

Jerome:

I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.

newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

 

[sinner06]

Psalms 68 (or 69)

From Augustine; newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/1801069.htm

I’m afraid I don’t understand, the site you sent me to said, ““An alien I have become to My brethren, and a stranger to the sons of My mother” Psalm 68:8.” It then said, " To the sons of the Synagogue He became a stranger…Why so?" It gave the regular translation, and then changed it? What happend there, I don’t get it…

 

[benedicta00]

My point is where did the idea that she had no birth pains come from? Since it didn’t happen, it must have been simply made up.

No, it’s not “made up”. We conclude she dd not have birth pain becuase she did not have sin. Birthing pain is a result of Original Sin and Mary was born free of original sin.

And if the ECF just made it up, or if the people they were getting their information about Mary from made it up, what else could they have made up?

You are making an argument based on a false premise. **No one **made it up. Mary did not have sin, this is why we believe she dd not experience birthing pains.

If “the Church teaches it” is the only argument in favor of it, that’s fine, we can talk about the authority of the Church on a different thread. I’m saying is there anything that proves it outside of just Church teaching?

She was sinless, this is what it’s based on. The Church did not pull it from the sky.

As to the person(sorry, forgot your screen name) who said “brothers and sisters” could refer to cousins, or half siblings, etc. It could refer to that. However, there is no way the words “brothers and sisters” can be proved to not refer to full brothers and sisters, it can only be proved that it might not refer to full brothers and sisters.

so?

I think that in light of the Psalm concerning being a stranger to His mother’s children, and considering his brothers and sisters didn’t believe in Him,(at least at first), it may not prove anything, but it fits together perfectly in the same way the “Mary is the Ark of the Covenant” theology is supposedly implied but not proven. Are non-Catholics not allowed to take the same liberties Catholics do theologically?

You can interpret scripture how ever you like but at the end of the day, you are not infallible so you must chalk it up to speculation and not ‘truth.’

You are a sola scripturest, this is just what y’all do. Guess at it and ‘pray’ you are right.

Catholics on the other hand, we are not bible only’s… we have the Church’s witness over the ages.

There are reasons to believe we are not to interpret scripture in the way you suggest becuase the early Church, **those who knew those who knew the apostles **interpreted it differently.

And it’s becuase of the speculation and the fact that too many want to interpret it negatively that the Church had to raise it to the level of a dogma, to put all the guessing to rest.

This is exactly why Christ gave us a Church (not just a book) and why His Spirit is with *His *Church guiding it in and to all truth, becuase God is not a God of confusion and speculation. He wants us to KNOW the truth becuase the truth, all of it, not truth mixed with error, sets us free.

Finally, why Jesus told John to take care of Mary is a mystery to me, but again, if at this time Jesus’ siblings still did not believe in Him, maybe Jesus wanted His mother to stay with a believer, the one Jesus loved, in fact.

and if, if was a skiff, we would all go rowing. So what?

Why do you want to guess? Did Jesus *really *give a system where he throws a book at us and says, guess at it?

We believe what the Church teaches us becuase the Church is ***Christ’s ***and He can not deceive us or be deceived by us…

 

[JacktheCatholic]

My point is where did the idea that she had no birth pains come from?

From Christians. The same Christians that preserved and wrote and safeguarded the same scriptures you study. The same Christians that lived and died for Christ when it was illegal to be a Christian and not considered popular. The Christians that tried to preserve all Holy Tradition and keep the church as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If these men were alive today they would be calling all those that reject Catholic Dogma names like AntiChrist or Child of Satan. These Christians for which I am writing placed their lives and everything on the line for God.

So where do you get all these lies you wish to place on us? Do you know what the early Christians would say to you and others that subscribe to these lies that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? Read my previous two links and their writings and you may know.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I’m afraid I don’t understand, the site you sent me to said, ““An alien I have become to My brethren, and a stranger to the sons of My mother” Psalm 68:8.” It then said, " To the sons of the Synagogue He became a stranger…Why so?" It gave the regular translation, and then changed it? What happend there, I don’t get it…

That is my point… you do not get it.

 

[sinner06]

No, it’s not “made up”. We conclude she dd not have birth pain becuase she did not have sin. Birthing pain is a result of Original Sin and Mary was born free of original sin.

You are making an argument based on a false premise. **No one **made it up. Mary did not have sin, this is why we believe she dd not experience birthing pains.

Did you read what I said about the birth pains? How there were already birth pains, they were simply intensified? How you can’t intensify what wasn’t already there? So even if Mary was protected from original sin, she still would have had birth pains? That’s why that idea has to have been made up.

 

[sinner06]

That is my point… you do not get it.

How does that help me?

 

[benedicta00]

Did you read what I said about the birth pains? How there were already birth pains, they were simply intensified? How you can’t intensify what wasn’t already there? So even if Mary was protected from original sin, she still would have had birth pains? That’s why that idea has to have been made up.

Sinner, but you are interpreting this verse in Genesis as if you can not be incorrect, you have set up a premise that all this rests on. But this is just what YOU have concluded and unless you are infallible, you could just be missing the forest through the trees.

 

[sinner06]

Sinner, but you are interpreting this verse in Genesis as if you can not be incorrect, you have set up a premise that all this rests on. But this is just what YOU have concluded and unless you are infallible, you could just be missing the forest through the trees.

Show me my error.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Show me my error.

So you are infallible?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How does that help me?

I was Lost and now I am Found.

Only God can open your eyes and heart if that is what you want. No matter how clear I present the Truth you cannot see it unless God allows it. Pray brother… pray.

 

[sinner06]

So you are infallible?

No, but what I was saying from the beginning was that if the only argument you have is that “it’s an infallible teaching” than fine, we can discuss infallibility in another thread. I was asking if there was anything besides that, but there obviously isn’t so we might as well be done with this thread. I was saying if there was anything logically wrong with my statement, outside of the fact that it isn’t what the Church teaches, and no one has presented me with anything, so I see no reason to continue this discussion.