K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
And after the birth of Jesus?
- Status
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Part 1:
Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin after her giving birth to Christ, whereas Protestants contend that she obviously had other children. I will present each Protestant argument, with the Catholic counter.
Protestant objection number 1: Mary isn’t ever-virgin because it speaks in the Bible of Jesus’ brethren. Ex: Mark 6:3: “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” Or Matthew 12:46: “Behold His mother and His brethren stood outside, asking to speak to Him.” Or in Luke 2:7, we read that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn.”
Answer: In ancient Hebrew and other semitic languages of the time such as Aramaic, “brother” is a more inclusive term, referring to brothers by blood as well as cousins and other relatives. In fact, in ancient Hebrew there is no word for cousin. One’s cousin was one’s brother. Furthermore, precisely because Jesus was an only child, his cousins would take on the legal status of siblings in Jewish culture, since they were his nearest relatives. The Protestant counter is that Aramaic/ancient Hebrew may not have a word for cousin, but Greek does, and the Greek translation which the gospels were written in clearly uses the word “adelphos.” Etymologically, ADELPHOS is one of a family of words generated by the compound root ADELPH-, wherein A=“same” and DELPH=“womb”. Protestants suppose that ADELPHOI and ADELPHAI, used to describe Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” is “very precise Greek” and means “from the same womb”. This is a half-truth and a serious blunder, fatal to further argumentation.
David Hill (University of Sheffield) writes:
“Etymology is no sure guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage … such value has to be determined from the current usage itself and not from derivation. The etymology of a word … is not a statement about its meaning, but about its history, and the historical past of a word is not a reliable guide to its present meaning.” (“Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings”, University Press, Cambridge, 1967, p. 3. See also James Barr, “The Semantics of Biblical Language”, Oxford University Press, 1961.)
In Mark 6:17, scripture chastises Herod for marrying Herodias, “his brother Philips’s wife.” Yet Herod’s mother was Malthace and Philip’s mother was Mariamne. They had the same father, but not the same mother, and scripture uses the term “adelphos” even though they are not from the same womb. There are also multiple examples available of classical and Hellenistic Greek in which “adelphos” refers to kinsmen other than from the same womb:
Plato (Critias 109c) says that Hephaestus and Athena were brother and sister by birth (PHYSIN ADELPHEN). Mythology buffs will remember that they were both children of one father, Zeus, but by different mothers: Hephaestus’ mother was Hera; Athena’s mother (albeit under strange circumstances) was Metis.
Again, Plato (Laws XI, 924E) speaks of “that brother (ADELPHOS) who is born of the same father OR of the same mother…” (Plato is very precise here because he is laying down the laws of inheritance in a model state.)
Menander, an Attic comic poet of the late 4th-early 3rd centuries B.C., in an extant fragment of his play “The Farmer”, line 12, shows us a young man complaining because his father is forcing him to marry his ADELPHE. She is his half-sister, born of the same father as he, but of a different mother.
In the Oxyrynchian Papyri (P. Oxy. IV, 744), we read a letter from a certain Hilarion to his ADELPHEI, Alis. The names are Greek and the language is Greek, although these papyri were found in Egypt. The letter dates to the late first century B.C. Its editors say that Alis was probably Hilarion’s wife. She is pregnant, and Hilarion tells her to expose the baby, when born, if it is a girl. Egyptians of that time sometimes married their uterine sisters, but it is not known that Greeks did so. It was not a Greek custom.
In the collection, “Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period”, Text 36, pp. 156-163 (C. Bradford Welles, Yale Univ. Press, 1934), there is a letter of the Syrian Seleucid king Antiochus III to the governor of Caria in Asia Minor in which he calls his wife and queen, Laodice, his sister (ADELPHES). Actually, she is known to have been his cousin and the daughter of King Mithridates of Pontus. The letter proclaims Laodice a goddess and decrees temples and priests in her honor.
The use of the word “firstborn” raises no difficulty, since in ancient Israel this was a Mosaic legal term that referred to the child that “opened the womb,” whether or not the mother bore more children afterward. Furthermore, in the Greek, the word for firstborn is “prototokos.” Prototokos can not only refer to the first born child that opens the womb, but also to a child of Honor and privileged status, even if that child is not the firstborn. As such, one can easily see that the term “firstborn” was applied to Jesus to denote his uniqueness and place of honor, not to show that there were other children after him.
Interestingly, the founders of protestantism, Luther and Calvin, both destroyed this notion that Mary had children after Jesus using these same arguments I have given. The idea of Mary having other children is a recent Protestant phenomena, which Calvin attributed to a lack of scholarly familiarity with ancient Hebrew and Jewish customs of the time.
Other arguments for the scriptural support that Mary had no other children:
At the cross in John’s gospel, Jesus gave his mother over to the care of His disciple John. Under Jewish law, this would have been illegal. The mother would be given to the care of the next oldest male sibling. However, there was no other sibling, so Jesus gave her over to John.
Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin after her giving birth to Christ, whereas Protestants contend that she obviously had other children. I will present each Protestant argument, with the Catholic counter.
Protestant objection number 1: Mary isn’t ever-virgin because it speaks in the Bible of Jesus’ brethren. Ex: Mark 6:3: “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” Or Matthew 12:46: “Behold His mother and His brethren stood outside, asking to speak to Him.” Or in Luke 2:7, we read that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn.”
Answer: In ancient Hebrew and other semitic languages of the time such as Aramaic, “brother” is a more inclusive term, referring to brothers by blood as well as cousins and other relatives. In fact, in ancient Hebrew there is no word for cousin. One’s cousin was one’s brother. Furthermore, precisely because Jesus was an only child, his cousins would take on the legal status of siblings in Jewish culture, since they were his nearest relatives. The Protestant counter is that Aramaic/ancient Hebrew may not have a word for cousin, but Greek does, and the Greek translation which the gospels were written in clearly uses the word “adelphos.” Etymologically, ADELPHOS is one of a family of words generated by the compound root ADELPH-, wherein A=“same” and DELPH=“womb”. Protestants suppose that ADELPHOI and ADELPHAI, used to describe Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” is “very precise Greek” and means “from the same womb”. This is a half-truth and a serious blunder, fatal to further argumentation.
David Hill (University of Sheffield) writes:
“Etymology is no sure guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage … such value has to be determined from the current usage itself and not from derivation. The etymology of a word … is not a statement about its meaning, but about its history, and the historical past of a word is not a reliable guide to its present meaning.” (“Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings”, University Press, Cambridge, 1967, p. 3. See also James Barr, “The Semantics of Biblical Language”, Oxford University Press, 1961.)
In Mark 6:17, scripture chastises Herod for marrying Herodias, “his brother Philips’s wife.” Yet Herod’s mother was Malthace and Philip’s mother was Mariamne. They had the same father, but not the same mother, and scripture uses the term “adelphos” even though they are not from the same womb. There are also multiple examples available of classical and Hellenistic Greek in which “adelphos” refers to kinsmen other than from the same womb:
Plato (Critias 109c) says that Hephaestus and Athena were brother and sister by birth (PHYSIN ADELPHEN). Mythology buffs will remember that they were both children of one father, Zeus, but by different mothers: Hephaestus’ mother was Hera; Athena’s mother (albeit under strange circumstances) was Metis.
Again, Plato (Laws XI, 924E) speaks of “that brother (ADELPHOS) who is born of the same father OR of the same mother…” (Plato is very precise here because he is laying down the laws of inheritance in a model state.)
Menander, an Attic comic poet of the late 4th-early 3rd centuries B.C., in an extant fragment of his play “The Farmer”, line 12, shows us a young man complaining because his father is forcing him to marry his ADELPHE. She is his half-sister, born of the same father as he, but of a different mother.
In the Oxyrynchian Papyri (P. Oxy. IV, 744), we read a letter from a certain Hilarion to his ADELPHEI, Alis. The names are Greek and the language is Greek, although these papyri were found in Egypt. The letter dates to the late first century B.C. Its editors say that Alis was probably Hilarion’s wife. She is pregnant, and Hilarion tells her to expose the baby, when born, if it is a girl. Egyptians of that time sometimes married their uterine sisters, but it is not known that Greeks did so. It was not a Greek custom.
In the collection, “Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period”, Text 36, pp. 156-163 (C. Bradford Welles, Yale Univ. Press, 1934), there is a letter of the Syrian Seleucid king Antiochus III to the governor of Caria in Asia Minor in which he calls his wife and queen, Laodice, his sister (ADELPHES). Actually, she is known to have been his cousin and the daughter of King Mithridates of Pontus. The letter proclaims Laodice a goddess and decrees temples and priests in her honor.
The use of the word “firstborn” raises no difficulty, since in ancient Israel this was a Mosaic legal term that referred to the child that “opened the womb,” whether or not the mother bore more children afterward. Furthermore, in the Greek, the word for firstborn is “prototokos.” Prototokos can not only refer to the first born child that opens the womb, but also to a child of Honor and privileged status, even if that child is not the firstborn. As such, one can easily see that the term “firstborn” was applied to Jesus to denote his uniqueness and place of honor, not to show that there were other children after him.
Interestingly, the founders of protestantism, Luther and Calvin, both destroyed this notion that Mary had children after Jesus using these same arguments I have given. The idea of Mary having other children is a recent Protestant phenomena, which Calvin attributed to a lack of scholarly familiarity with ancient Hebrew and Jewish customs of the time.
Other arguments for the scriptural support that Mary had no other children:
At the cross in John’s gospel, Jesus gave his mother over to the care of His disciple John. Under Jewish law, this would have been illegal. The mother would be given to the care of the next oldest male sibling. However, there was no other sibling, so Jesus gave her over to John.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Part 2:
When the gospel of Luke describes Jesus being taken to the temple, Jesus’ siblings are absolutely nowhere mentioned or even implied. In fact, when Mary and Joseph realized he was missing, they looked for him “among relatives and close acquaintances.” This seems to square with the Catholic belief that Jesus’ “brothers” were close relatives. Also, Jesus is twelve years old at this incident. Since his brothers and sisters are not mentioned, they would have to have been born after this event, in which case James would only be 18-20 at the time of Christ’s execution (depending on whether Jesus was crucified in 30-33AD), instead of the fully grown man in charge of the Jerusalem synagogue described in the Bible.
In other passages of the Bible, all other siblings are listed in addition to the firstborn, but this is never done in the gospels. For instance, it never says “Jesus, Mary’s firstborn, and then James the younger, Joses, Simon, and Judas.” Similarly, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are never referred to as the “sons” of Mary, and Jesus supposed “sisters” are never referred to as the “daughters” of Mary or Joseph. In a culture that considered family ties so crucial, this is a glaring absence that strongly supports the idea that these children were not the blood brothers of Christ.
Another point that is a bit harder for westerners to understand, is that in the gospels, Jesus’ “brethren” take on the attitude of elder relatives. In ancient societies, and Eastern societies in particular (remember, Palestine is considered Asia) an older sibling may accost or give advice to a younger sibling, but a younger sibling would never accost or solicit advice to an older sibling. It would be deemed extremely disrespectful and cause the older sibling to lose face, incurring a butt-whooping. Yet the “brethren” in the gospels come to accost Jesus saying he is out of his mind (in Mark when he exorcises demons), or telling him he should go to Judaea so that people could actually see his miracles. Younger brothers would never have acted in such a manner. This also helps clear up a lot of the mystery in one part of Mark, of why Mary would be coming with His “brothers” to get a hold of him if Mary knew He was the Son of God. The Catholic view makes more sense, because in this case his relatives who may not have known this came to get a hold of him, and his worried mother followed.So far, the Catholic view not only fits in with customs of the time, but also makes better sense of the biblical text.
Finally, Mary the mother of Jesus has a relative named Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25). Now interestingly enough, the “brothers” of Jesus, James and Joseph, are said to be the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas in Matthew 27:56. It is unlikely that two sisters of the same parents would have the name Mary, but either way, it would make Jesus’ “brethren” no closer than a cousin relationship, possibly not even close cousins depending on this “other Mary’s” relation to Jesus’ mother.
When the gospel of Luke describes Jesus being taken to the temple, Jesus’ siblings are absolutely nowhere mentioned or even implied. In fact, when Mary and Joseph realized he was missing, they looked for him “among relatives and close acquaintances.” This seems to square with the Catholic belief that Jesus’ “brothers” were close relatives. Also, Jesus is twelve years old at this incident. Since his brothers and sisters are not mentioned, they would have to have been born after this event, in which case James would only be 18-20 at the time of Christ’s execution (depending on whether Jesus was crucified in 30-33AD), instead of the fully grown man in charge of the Jerusalem synagogue described in the Bible.
In other passages of the Bible, all other siblings are listed in addition to the firstborn, but this is never done in the gospels. For instance, it never says “Jesus, Mary’s firstborn, and then James the younger, Joses, Simon, and Judas.” Similarly, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are never referred to as the “sons” of Mary, and Jesus supposed “sisters” are never referred to as the “daughters” of Mary or Joseph. In a culture that considered family ties so crucial, this is a glaring absence that strongly supports the idea that these children were not the blood brothers of Christ.
Another point that is a bit harder for westerners to understand, is that in the gospels, Jesus’ “brethren” take on the attitude of elder relatives. In ancient societies, and Eastern societies in particular (remember, Palestine is considered Asia) an older sibling may accost or give advice to a younger sibling, but a younger sibling would never accost or solicit advice to an older sibling. It would be deemed extremely disrespectful and cause the older sibling to lose face, incurring a butt-whooping. Yet the “brethren” in the gospels come to accost Jesus saying he is out of his mind (in Mark when he exorcises demons), or telling him he should go to Judaea so that people could actually see his miracles. Younger brothers would never have acted in such a manner. This also helps clear up a lot of the mystery in one part of Mark, of why Mary would be coming with His “brothers” to get a hold of him if Mary knew He was the Son of God. The Catholic view makes more sense, because in this case his relatives who may not have known this came to get a hold of him, and his worried mother followed.So far, the Catholic view not only fits in with customs of the time, but also makes better sense of the biblical text.
Finally, Mary the mother of Jesus has a relative named Mary the wife of Clopas (John 19:25). Now interestingly enough, the “brothers” of Jesus, James and Joseph, are said to be the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas in Matthew 27:56. It is unlikely that two sisters of the same parents would have the name Mary, but either way, it would make Jesus’ “brethren” no closer than a cousin relationship, possibly not even close cousins depending on this “other Mary’s” relation to Jesus’ mother.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Part 3
Protestant objection number 2: There are scriptural sources that strongly imply Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ. Examples: Matthew 1:18: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” (italics added) Or Matthew 1:25, where it states that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son.”
In the above verses, the word “before” and the word “until” supposedly imply that Mary had relations after the birth of Christ. This charge was also leveled by an ancient commentator named Helvidius, and was thoroughly leveled by Saint Jerome using many of the arguments I will now present.
Let’s look at the first verse, Matthew 1:18 again, with my own emphasis: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.”
Notice that I put emphasis not on the “before” but on the “came together.” The Greek word for “come together” is “sunerchomai.” It is appears 30 times in the New Testament, and it never refers to sexual relations. This obviously supports the Catholic belief that they maintained celibacy afterwards.
Also, as Saint Jerome pointed out, scripture often uses a fixed time to denote time of infinite duration. For example in Isaiah when God says “even unto old age I am He.” Does that mean that he will cease to Be God when He is old? Of course not. The use of the word “until” in the Greek language simply does not require the protestant understanding of it. In some cases, “until” terminates the action of the main verb, in other cases it continues the action. For instance, the Catholic interpretation based on the traditions of the earliest Christians is that in this case, “until” continues the action of the phrase “knew her not.” If “knew her not” is accepted as referring to sexual relations, then a continuing of the verb’s application would mean that Joseph and Mary refrained from sexual relations indefinitely. Supporting the above “continuing” interpretation of the Greek is the fact that Matthew’s gospel contains several instances where “until” continues the action of the verb, as well as in the Greek Septaguint in the Old Testament (including the passage above used by Saint Jerome).
And finally, one cannot go based off an argument that Mary and Joseph necessarily went against all Jewish cultural norms, since the Essenes were known to practice celibacy and were highly regarded for it by Jewish sources.
Protestant objection number 2: There are scriptural sources that strongly imply Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ. Examples: Matthew 1:18: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” (italics added) Or Matthew 1:25, where it states that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son.”
In the above verses, the word “before” and the word “until” supposedly imply that Mary had relations after the birth of Christ. This charge was also leveled by an ancient commentator named Helvidius, and was thoroughly leveled by Saint Jerome using many of the arguments I will now present.
Let’s look at the first verse, Matthew 1:18 again, with my own emphasis: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.”
Notice that I put emphasis not on the “before” but on the “came together.” The Greek word for “come together” is “sunerchomai.” It is appears 30 times in the New Testament, and it never refers to sexual relations. This obviously supports the Catholic belief that they maintained celibacy afterwards.
Also, as Saint Jerome pointed out, scripture often uses a fixed time to denote time of infinite duration. For example in Isaiah when God says “even unto old age I am He.” Does that mean that he will cease to Be God when He is old? Of course not. The use of the word “until” in the Greek language simply does not require the protestant understanding of it. In some cases, “until” terminates the action of the main verb, in other cases it continues the action. For instance, the Catholic interpretation based on the traditions of the earliest Christians is that in this case, “until” continues the action of the phrase “knew her not.” If “knew her not” is accepted as referring to sexual relations, then a continuing of the verb’s application would mean that Joseph and Mary refrained from sexual relations indefinitely. Supporting the above “continuing” interpretation of the Greek is the fact that Matthew’s gospel contains several instances where “until” continues the action of the verb, as well as in the Greek Septaguint in the Old Testament (including the passage above used by Saint Jerome).
And finally, one cannot go based off an argument that Mary and Joseph necessarily went against all Jewish cultural norms, since the Essenes were known to practice celibacy and were highly regarded for it by Jewish sources.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
There is an interesting story told of Simeon: There is a legend he was one of the 70 who wrote the Septuagint, when he got to the word ‘virgin’ he doubted the ability of God. As a result he was not allowed to die until he saw it with his own eyes, ‘Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; because my eyes have seen thy salvation’ (Lk 2: 29,30).
V
Vico
Guest
Virgin
The physical integrity is meant by the word virgin as can be verified by the statements of the Magisterium, and also scripture, as given in Isaiah 7:14 (Douay), as it would be ordinary, rather than a sign, for a “young girl” vs a virgin to conceive and bear a son.
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”
This is repeated in Matt 1:22-23.
Virgin during birth is supported by the statements of hte Magisterium, as given earlier in this thread. One reason that has been given for this is that the Virgin Mary was preserved from sin from her conception, and was thereby not subject to the suffering of childbirth as declared in Genesis 3.
The physical integrity is meant by the word virgin as can be verified by the statements of the Magisterium, and also scripture, as given in Isaiah 7:14 (Douay), as it would be ordinary, rather than a sign, for a “young girl” vs a virgin to conceive and bear a son.
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”
This is repeated in Matt 1:22-23.
Virgin during birth is supported by the statements of hte Magisterium, as given earlier in this thread. One reason that has been given for this is that the Virgin Mary was preserved from sin from her conception, and was thereby not subject to the suffering of childbirth as declared in Genesis 3.
P
pzona
Guest
This is slightly off topic, but I felt it was better to post in this topic rather than start a whole new thread on it. I’ll put it bluntly: even if Mary was a virgin throughout her life, so what? What’s so special about that? This seems to me (as a non-Christian) that the Bible is saying that there is something “divine” about abstaining from sex, even in marriage. From this, I conclude that there is some type of negativity associated with sex (again, even in marriage).
I haven’t studied Catholicism extensively, so I apologize for my ignorance on the issue, but if someone could clear this up for me, I’d appreciate it.
I haven’t studied Catholicism extensively, so I apologize for my ignorance on the issue, but if someone could clear this up for me, I’d appreciate it.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
I’ll try to give you a succinct answer. It’s for the same reason that priests stay celibate. They are supposed to be earthly foretastes of heavenly realities. Jesus said that there is no marriage in heaven, we will be like the angels. For a person so utterly devoted to the Father’s will (and by extension to her Son), it would make sense that Mary is very much already looking forward to that “heavenly reality.”
Even Paul said that it is better to remain single, because spouses tend to worry about each other in addition to God, and their attentions are divided. Mary, however, declared herself the “handmaiden of the Lord,” and so that’s why, even from a logical standpoint, her total committment to God’s will would manifest itself in celibacy as well.
Even Paul said that it is better to remain single, because spouses tend to worry about each other in addition to God, and their attentions are divided. Mary, however, declared herself the “handmaiden of the Lord,” and so that’s why, even from a logical standpoint, her total committment to God’s will would manifest itself in celibacy as well.
P
panevino
Guest
the bible and the catechism of the CC clearly say that there is nothing wrong with sex (within marriage though). it also says that it is also pleasing ‘for those that can accept it’ to abstain for the kingdom of heaven.
" and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. " (Matt. 19:11–12).KJV
For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." (Matt. 19:11–12).Good news , NIV,
Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. 29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, 30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. Luke 18:28 KJV
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 cor 7:7-KJV
36If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin,[t] and if his passion is so strong that he feels he ought to marry her, let him do what he wants; he isn’t sinning. Let them get married. 37However, if a man stands firm in his resolve, feels no necessity, and has made up his mind to keep her a virgin, he will be acting appropriately. 38So then the man who marries the virgin acts appropriately, but the man who refrains from marriage does even better. 1 Corinthians 7:36 ISV
i can definately see how the teachings and disciplines seem like a negativity to sex to an outsider. but above verses and teachings of the CC are not anti sex.
my little understanding of how the jewish people treated the holy of holies/tabernacle in the OT illustrated to me that it is highly unlikely that Joseph would of considered it okay to impregnate the womb that carried the son of god, and was made pregnant by god himself throught the holy spirit.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide this major post. It was an excellent read - and, answers - yet again! - the questions that Kevin has had answered previously. With any luck, he may just read this!
Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide this major post. It was an excellent read - and, answers - yet again! - the questions that Kevin has had answered previously. With any luck, he may just read this!
Tom
V
Vico
Guest
To pzona,
Well, actually, there is something wrong (sinful) with unrestrained sex. Sex is for reproduction, but that is not always how people are using it, as we have all inherited concupiscence, i.e., the unrestrained lower appetite. We are all called to develop chastity, in fact moderation in all things is required for purity. In (Catholic) marriage sex may be enjoyed without sin, only if it is chaste (ordered to reason). This excludes union strictly for pleasure alone as there must be openness to children on each occassion:
**Catechism of the Catholic Church 2362 **“The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”
So it is very significant that the Blessed Virgin Mary is pure (has no stain of original sin) as she has been blessed to be free of concupiscence from her birth, this is called the Immaculate Conception and is a dogma. Ever-virgin is different, but related, dogma.
Well, actually, there is something wrong (sinful) with unrestrained sex. Sex is for reproduction, but that is not always how people are using it, as we have all inherited concupiscence, i.e., the unrestrained lower appetite. We are all called to develop chastity, in fact moderation in all things is required for purity. In (Catholic) marriage sex may be enjoyed without sin, only if it is chaste (ordered to reason). This excludes union strictly for pleasure alone as there must be openness to children on each occassion:
**Catechism of the Catholic Church 2362 **“The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”
So it is very significant that the Blessed Virgin Mary is pure (has no stain of original sin) as she has been blessed to be free of concupiscence from her birth, this is called the Immaculate Conception and is a dogma. Ever-virgin is different, but related, dogma.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Tom, hey thanks man, I enjoy it, plus I was sick with a fever all weekend so it wasn’t like I was going anywhere. That’s probably why I misspelled “septuagint” like every single time haha.
A
ARiver32
Guest
The cafeteria is closed
The church has spoken!
The Curch is the mother of the bible, not the bible the mother of the church.
Read the church documents. The scriptures you are quoting were written more than 20 years after the formation of the church. Are the writing of St. Ignacio of Antioch in the bible?
Futhermore, to quote the Holy Bible to contradict church’s
teachings (traditions) is like saying that the Holy Spirit was only with the church for the 1st 100 years. I refuse to belive that!
The church has spoken!
The Curch is the mother of the bible, not the bible the mother of the church.
Read the church documents. The scriptures you are quoting were written more than 20 years after the formation of the church. Are the writing of St. Ignacio of Antioch in the bible?
Futhermore, to quote the Holy Bible to contradict church’s
teachings (traditions) is like saying that the Holy Spirit was only with the church for the 1st 100 years. I refuse to belive that!
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
N
njackson88
Guest
Like other posters who have alluded to the face that in ancient Aramic there was only one word for brother or kinsman. Another example that helps shows is that in Matthew 13:55-56 it reads Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?" I used to use this all the time as a protestant to help refute Mary’s ever virginity. Then I was shone that if I flip over about to Matthew 27:56 two of these “brothers” of Jesus are mentioned as having a different mother. Then for me the nail in the coffin was in Johns gospel when he is just about to die Jesus hands over his mother to his youngest disciple John. This is so prominent because if Jesus had other brothers then Mary would have gone to them and it would have been a major offense in the Jewish culture for the next youngest brother not to take the mother in.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, AmbroseSJ,
Nicely said…
)
It has been a while since Kevin has posted, so maybe is taking some time to re-think his position.
God bless
Nicely said…
In my opinion, Kevin has his own agenda. Not only does it involve arguing about establish fact (Mary’s physical virginity IS a matter of faith) but also in developing his own definitions (“spiritual virginity” - never having sinned… like this could apply to so many people!You say you are a Catholic?
Wikipedia:
)It has been a while since Kevin has posted, so maybe is taking some time to re-think his position.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Njackson88,
Welcome to CAF! I think you will find many blessings in these posts.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience in this area.
Welcome to CAF! I think you will find many blessings in these posts.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience in this area.
God bless
V
Vico
Guest
The Assumption Dogma, 1950, His Holiness Pope Pius XII
“…we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
Notice that in the Assumption Dogma, two other terms are used: “ever Virgin” and “Immaculate”. So we see all three are declared dogmas.
His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, Lumen Gentian No. 57, exerpt from Chapter 2:
“who did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it,”
in Latin
“virginalem eius integritatem non minuit sed sacravit”
The Latin worn integritatem comes from integritās: wholeness, integrity, health.
An English translation of some of an address by Blessed Pope John II, in Capua May 24, 1992 is here, published in Actae Apostolicae 85, (1993) 2, p.666.
mariedenazareth.com/4431.0.html?&L=1
“…we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
Notice that in the Assumption Dogma, two other terms are used: “ever Virgin” and “Immaculate”. So we see all three are declared dogmas.
His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, Lumen Gentian No. 57, exerpt from Chapter 2:
“who did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it,”
in Latin
“virginalem eius integritatem non minuit sed sacravit”
The Latin worn integritatem comes from integritās: wholeness, integrity, health.
An English translation of some of an address by Blessed Pope John II, in Capua May 24, 1992 is here, published in Actae Apostolicae 85, (1993) 2, p.666.
mariedenazareth.com/4431.0.html?&L=1
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
‘The Virginity of Mary’ is an argument that goes round and round in circles; more than one *Catholic Answers Forum *has debated it.
Ultimately the question seems to be - “Mary, a Virgin, how does that personally effect me?”
It’s the same sort of question as “How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?” A little unproductive.
Mary, a Virgin, that’s nice dear. What relevance does it have? - I fail to see how it puts clothes on your back, food on the table or a roof over your head.
V
Vico
Guest
It is not a debate when you accept the teaching of the Magisterium. Understanding the issue is for faith building not material benefit.
- Status