How do we know that Mary was without sin and forever a virgin

[Jim19]

The Council of Trent, over 450 years ago (1546), affirmed both the Bible and Tradition as divine sources of Christian doctrine. The Second Vatican Council (1963-1965) again affirmed this fact in its document “Dei Verbum,” which reads in part: “It is clear…that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scriptures, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

Tradition has its place, the Lord did not condemn tradition and also i do not either. But what the Lord did do was to condemn tradition when it was at variance with scripture and reprove those who would use tradition to satisfy their own ends, in the words of the Lord, **“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” ** Matt 15.

** “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.
8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions. Mark 7:6-8,**

See also, Matt 15:3,6. Mk 7:9,13. Col 2:8.

The scriptures need not the traditions of men as regards salvation of souls. So you would hold that the words of men are needed beyond the Holy Spirit inspired word and the words of Christ himself?? "Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life”. John 6:68

Shame on you!

 

[aemcpa]

So you would hold that the words of men are needed beyond the Holy Spirit inspired word and the words of Christ himself??

You still haven’t proven from the Scriptures that the Bible’s table of contents is inspired and inerrant, so why should I believe you that these supposed Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are Scripture?

 

[HolyRosaryChild]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. The Annunciation

And when the Angel had come to Her, he said, “Hail Full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou among Women”.

Why would God our Heavenly Father choose Our Lady Mary of Fatima to be the Holy Most Blessed Virgin Mary of Jesus in the first place if Our Lady Mary was full of sin and not a Virgin for the Birth of Jesus? It was God our Heavenly Father’s Most Holy Decision in which it is to be respected regardless of whether Our Holy Mother was a Virgin or not.

Further, have you ever wondered of God’s reason to proclaim and spread to His Apostles and through the Catholic Church, the fact that He chose Our Lady Mary to undertake a ‘Holy Virginal Miraculous Birth’ in the first place? What do you think God’s point is, through Jesus and His Apostles’ Teachings about the Miracle of Our Lady Mary giving birth to Jesus through His Immaculate Conception followed by all of the Miracles Jesus performed here on Earth?

One of the answers by myself are: Belief, Trust and Confidence in God our Heavenly Father’s Scriptures and Teachings He left us through His Apostles in His Bible

“Happy are those, says Jesus, who believe and have not seen”.

Why do you think that Jesus Healed people and thereafter said to His Healed Children: “say not a word to anyone of what I have done”.

God has left all of His Children all of His Teachings and Scriptures, knowing in His Most Holy and Powerful Knowledge that we all have had sufficient Teachings and Options, left by His Most Beloved Son, to make the choice to 'Love, Believe, Trust and have full Confidence in Him and not questioning His Apostles and their Teachings through Him (God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) obtained through His means left to us being Prayer, Fasting, attending Mass/Church and Reconciliation.

Growing closer and closer to God and Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus, you will “know” all of these things without ever needing to question.

(with all love and respect to your question).

1. The Visitation

And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and cried out with a loud voice saying “Blessed art Thou among Women and Blessed is The Fruit of Thy Womb”.

1. The Birth of Jesus

And She brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a Manger, because there was no room for them in the Inn.

1. The Presentation

And when the days of Her purification were fulfilled according to The Law of Moses, they took Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to The Lord

And a great sign appeared in Heaven: a Woman clothed with the Sun, and the Moon was under her feet, and upon Her Head a Crown of twelve Stars.

Thou art the Glory of Jerusalem the Honour of our People…the Hand of The Lord Hath strengthened Thee, and Therefore Thou Shalt be Blessed forever…

 

[HolyRosaryChild]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A question I wish to pose to you Lenny, my Brother in Jesus is the following:

"Why is it important to you whether or not Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus (Our Holy Mother) was Virginal or not?

Why are you querying God’s Teachings in relation to Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus?

Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus’ undertook a ‘Virginal Conception and Birth’; it is irrelevant if Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus gave birth to more Children (Siblings of Jesus) after Jesus was born.

Is it not ‘enough’ that God has left us His Scriptures and Teachings about Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus?

It is our choice, given by God, for us to ‘believe’, ‘question/uncertainty’ or outrightly ‘disbelieve’.

As a Child, Teenager and Adult I ‘believe’ in every Scripture left by Jesus and His Apostles.

 

[Jim19]

My full relevant quote,

When the angel declared to Mary that she would be the mother of the messiah, she asks how this could be, as how can a virgin conceive and give birth? (she was not asking in respect to a supposed vow! she knew of no way, other than the sexual act for conception, she would know of Isaiah 7:14, but how could she envision how this could be accomplished? it would seem an impossibility to a young maiden or any other woman for that matter ) The answer of the angel to her is in full accord and harmonious to this question, (with God nothing is impossible) “35…The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”. 37. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And in submission to the word of God, she does not question anymore nor does she doubt that He is not able, but declares "38…Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. Indeed she was blessed and highly favoured above other women, yet also we see such faith at work again such as was demonstrated by many in Heb 11. which is given as an example to us all. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb 11:6

Where does the angel declare that it is the messiah that Mary will conceive? That isn’t revealed until after her question.

I’m not sure what book you are reading, i’m reading the bible, but then i shouldn’t be surprised!
“31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name** Jesus**
32** He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.** (messianic prophesy,Ps 132:11,Isaiah 9:6,7. 16:5)
And following;
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

It begs the question of why she thought she would be a virgin? She was married.
Why did she assume she would be a virgin while she was married with a husband? This is not harmonious at all it a dissonance sound.

At the time she was a virgin! Isaiah 7:14, was well known and accepted to refer to the messiah! In accordance with her knowledge of messianic prophesy and that He would be virgin born, hence her asking how was it possible for a virgin to conceive, and the angels declaration of the power of God.

 

[Jim19]

Actually, Scripture never once calls Mary the mother of anyone else. So you would have just as much of a burden to show that she did have other children, as we have of showing she didn’t.

I would agree with the first part of the above, but would argue that as Jesus was the focus in Act1:14, when the writer says this (and as far as i can see it is the only place), why would other brothers be named?

The theory up to St. Jerome’s time (early 400s) was that Joseph had children from a previous marriage. Then Jerome popularized the theory that the word ‘brother’ in Aramaic would have been used for cousins, because there is no actual word for ‘cousin’ in Aramaic, or at least in 1st Century Palestine.

This would substantiate my point 100% (thankyou), Theory not fact.

Also, I would like to point out that the original Reformers held to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Only recently has the Blessed Mother’s virginity come under attack, probably because fundamentalist Protestants dislike the idea of celibacy (even though Paul was celibate, and Christ spoke of it as a good thing).

I would like to point out that all the reformers did not hold to the perpetual virginity! I have no problem with the tag “fundamentalist protestant”, being applied to myself and have absolutely no problem with celibacy, and i’m sure i am far from the only one!
As to Paul, many would argue he was a member of the sanhedrin and it was a requirement to be married to be a member, but that cannot be proven, but "And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying, and sick of a fever"Douay-Rheims Bible Matt 8:14, would show Peter had no problem with marriage. But the merits of celibacy do not apply to this thread

In light of the extra-biblical evidence against this fundamentalist position, and the lack of Biblical evidence, why do you persist?

Do you not read the posts on this thread?

catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

 

[Jim19]

I left out an important part.
you said “Many women in history were ever virgin and it in no way points to Jesus”.

What I meant to say was how many women gave birth as virgins?

Only one as far as i am aware! And?

What made you think that my posting was answering your question:shrug:

This quote preceded,
Quote:

1. Why would Jesus say, who is my mother etc to differentiate natural flesh from spiritual if they were only cousins? (as an aside, if Christ held Mary above other women, why was she included in his declaration and why did He never refer to her (directly) as Mother only “woman”)? 3.In Mat 13:55,why would those that knew Joseph and Mary bother to mention His “cousins” in reference to them and not their own parents? 4. Why would the Lord say " a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own HOUSE, did these “cousins” not have their own house? Was it custom for them all to stay in the one abode?

This reply

when Jesus asks, “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus’ comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.

I then see no logical reason why you would give such a reply following my initial questions:shrug:
In deference to “What made you think that my posting was answering your question:shrug:” I will concur that you** didnt** answer me:thumbsup:
Oh, just as a matter of interest, what question were you actually answering

Your claim was that it was not the custom in those days to give advice, so to do so would in essence be disrespectful, Yes? My point was not to somehow show they would not have given advice hence negating it, rather as i have stated before, because it was the “custom” in those days, does not mean that all adhered to “custom”.
So to give advice to an elder brother was disrespectful, but to take advantage of an hungry elder brother in such a way, and to tell your parents and older brothers they will basically abase themselves before you isn’t? Wow, my kids will be glad they don’t have to adhere to such customs!

If you aren’t going to consider the culture, than of course you will come to all sorts of erroneous conclusions. By dismissing cultural norms, you miss the truth.

I do not dismiss cultural norms nor come to erroneous conclusions, i merely quote scripture to substantiate my point. You would imply that all kept to the cultural norm and therefore come to erroneous conclusions! “you miss the truth”,

 

[pocohombre]

Show me one scripture that affirms the principle of sola scriptura. Then, show me one scripture that affirms that you personally, and not the Church founded by Jesus Christ, have the authority to derive explicit doctrine from what is merely implied in the Scriptures.

“Blessed are you Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but the father which is in heaven.” It was not his parents,rabbi, magisterium, Torah, Talmud (tradition),nor Christ himself, but the Father in heaven. Divine revelation.is needed. So no, it is not sola esciptura, nor is it a "church ’ nor tradion that interpret.

 

[aemcpa]

“Blessed are you Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but the father which is in heaven.” It was not his parents,rabbi, magisterium, Torah, Talmud (tradition),nor Christ himself, but the Father in heaven. Divine revelation.is needed. So no, it is not sola esciptura, nor is it a "church ’ nor tradion that interpret.

So you hold that Peter’s position in the Church is not unique, but that every believer is the rock on which Christ builds his Church?

 

[Ion]

Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus’ undertook a ‘Virginal Conception and Birth’; it is irrelevant if Our Lady Mary Mother of Jesus gave birth to more Children (Siblings of Jesus) after Jesus was born.

It is more than relevant. I my opinion someoane imagining a family like potestants do ignore the divine dignity of the child Jesus Christ. They use to think that Jesus grew up on his own, and didn’t learn from Virgin Mary but from his divine nature; thus they also ignore the human nature of Jesus. And also ignore the great merrits of Holy Virgin Mary. The human person that loves God at the most, and is loved by God at the most, they ignore it; but they say that God is love and the first rule is to love God. ???

 

[pocohombre]

So you hold that Peter’s position in the Church is not unique, but that every believer is the rock on which Christ builds his Church?

The question is put to the world , “Whom do you say that I (Jesus) am?”.To the world. Many answered in Christ’s time. Some said John ,some elijah etc etc…All the apostles were asked,and Peter answered. The divine revelation for this, and I dare say anything,is crucial.Peter was to make disciples. We are all called to be disciples,regardless of office (bishop ,husband wiife, deacon)or giftings(teacher.preacher,healer, helper). Please do not confuse being a follower /disciple of Christ with where he places you, and with what He gifts to you. The question and calling are put to all.The same avenue of grace to the proper response is available to all.

 

[aemcpa]

The question is put to the world brother, “Whom do you say that I (Jesus) am?”.To the world. Many answered in Christ’s time. Some said John ,some elijah etc etc…All the apostles were asked,and Peter answered. The divine revelation for this, and I dare say anything,is crucial.Peter was to make disciples. We are all called to be disciples,regardless of office (bishop ,husband wiife, deacon)or giftings(teacher.preacher,healer, helper). Please do not confuse being a follower /disciple of Christ with where he places you ,anf with what he gifts to you. The question and calling are put to all.The same avenue of grace to the proper response is available to all.

You are claiming something different. You are claiming that we can all learn the truth about Christ directly from God, rather than through the Church that He established and to whom He sent the Holy Spirit, admonishing them to make disciples of all nations and to teach all truth.

 

[eamonnroma]

Regarding: “Today a marriage is not a marriage until it is consummated, So technically the deal was not consummated.”

Catholic matrimony is valid from the moment of celebration not from the moment of consummation. Unconsummated matrimony can be dissolved through an appeal to the Roman Rota.

So you are saying that the Roma Rota is able to dissolve, put asunder, a valid marriage?

 

[eamonnroma]

Answer by Bill Bilton on 07-01-2002:
No Christian who takes the Scriptures seriously can doubt Mary’s virginity up to the birth of Jesus since the Gospels are so clear on this point (see Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:34). However, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a virgin not only when she conceived Our Lord in her womb but for the remainder of her life.
Regarding the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus, it is crucial to realize that a deficiency in Hebrew and Aramaic makes it difficult to discern whether the expression carries the connotation of blood brothers and sisters, cousins, or some other relations between the two. One cannot prove that Mary had other children from the Gospel accounts for this reason.

And by the same reasoning one cannot disprove that Mary had other children.

 

[chosen_people]

The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan:

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)**

Genesis 3:15** "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Satan :: Christ
You {Serpent} :: Woman {Eve}
Your offspring :: her offspring
head stricken :: heel stricken

“She” or “the seed”, shall crush (strike).

I can assure you that no Jew ever interpreted this passage in our scriptures as referring to a struggle between the Christian leader and the Christian version of Satan - both figures being antithetical to the Jewish concept and definition of monotheism.

Original text:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב

notice the masculine singular male pronoun

English translation:

and I will put enmity between thee (masc. singular - snake is a masc. gender word) and the woman, and between thy ( masc. singular) and her seed; it (masc. singular for he or it) shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Her seed or offspring refers to all of her offspring (see for example and compare the use of this term in Bereshit (Genesis) 16:9). It is therefore not referring to a single individual but to humanity. The male singular pronoun in the Hebrew is therefore man or mankind. The you or thee is the snake as we learn from reading the previous passage.

 

[aemcpa]

So you are saying that the Roma Rota is able to dissolve, put asunder, a valid marriage?

Yes. In fact, that is precisely what the Petrine Privilege entails.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I can assure you that no Jew ever interpreted this passage in our scriptures as referring to a struggle between the Christian leader and the Christian version of Satan - both figures being antithetical to the Jewish concept and definition of monotheism.

Original text:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב

notice the masculine singular male pronoun

English translation:

and I will put enmity between thee (masc. singular - snake is a masc. gender word) and the woman, and between thy ( masc. singular) and her seed; it (masc. singular for he or it) shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Her seed or offspring refers to all of her offspring (see for example and compare the use of this term in Bereshit (Genesis) 16:9). It is therefore not referring to a single individual but to humanity. The male singular pronoun in the Hebrew is therefore man or mankind. The you or thee is the snake as we learn from reading the previous passage.

If “he” is referring to all mankind, has this prophecy been fulfilled? Can it ever be said to be fulfilled? The sense of the prophecy is that “he” will have dominion over the snake; hence “he will bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” IOW, the snake has little power over “him.” Are there Jews who believe mankind has power over evil to the point of triumph?

In the Christian tradition, the “he” is obviously referring to Jesus Christ, as he has crushed the power of Satan by his Salvation. In fact, in the Christian tradition, as you must well know, many of the prophecies in the Torah and Prophets were referring to the Messiah, The Prophet that was to come, Jesus Christ. Can any Jew speak for ALL Jews, much less Second Temple Jews in interpreting Scripture?

BTW, in case you didn’t get the memo, Christians are monotheists too.

 

[pocohombre]

You are claiming something different. You are claiming that we can all learn the truth about Christ directly from God, rather than through the Church that He established and to whom He sent the Holy Spirit, admonishing them to make disciples of all nations and to teach all truth.

You asked for a scripture that shows “personal” judgement or interpretation of scripture ( and I added for all other platforms of truth also- parents,teachers,magisterium). It is personal in that it is between God and the individual. I would not say it is personal interpretation but God’s interpretation given personally, individually. It is not either or, either it is the church or it is direct divine revelation, no. Rather God must divinely reveal to you the truth in all matters. He must and does reveal the truth in what your parents tell you, and what your priest tells you, and what your church tells you, and what His scripture is telling you, etc., etc., etc. Does one come to believe that a certain church is the one,holy,apostolic,catholic on their own?

 

[pocohombre]

I can assure you that no Jew ever interpreted this passage in our scriptures as referring to a struggle between the Christian leader and the Christian version of Satan - both figures being antithetical to the Jewish concept and definition of monotheism.

Original text:
וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית, בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה, וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ, וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב

notice the masculine singular male pronoun

English translation:

and I will put enmity between thee (masc. singular - snake is a masc. gender word) and the woman, and between thy ( masc. singular) and her seed; it (masc. singular for he or it) shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Her seed or offspring refers to all of her offspring (see for example and compare the use of this term in Bereshit (Genesis) 16:9). It is therefore not referring to a single individual but to humanity. The male singular pronoun in the Hebrew is therefore man or mankind. The you or thee is the snake as we learn from reading the previous passage.

Cool .thank you .The Jewish perspective is priceless.

 

[aemcpa]

You asked for a scripture that shows “personal” judgement or interpretation of scripture ( and I added for all other platforms of truth also- parents,teachers,magisterium). It is personal in that it is between God and the individual. I would not say it is personal interpretation but God’s interpretation given personally, individually. It is not either or, either it is the church or it is direct divine revelation, no. Rather God must divinely reveal to you the truth in all matters. He must and does reveal the truth in what your parents tell you, and what your priest tells you, and what your church tells you, and what His scripture is telling you, etc., etc., etc. Does one come to believe that a certain church is the one,holy,apostolic,catholic on their own?

God revealed THAT truth to THAT individual for the purpose of establishing the Church. Or did you not read the VERY NEXT VERSE?

Every person must accept the truth that is revealed by God; however, that truth is revealed not to each individual by some sort of Gnostic infused knowledge, but through the Church that He founded for that purpose.