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

[pocohombre]

I believe that your opinions are inconsistent. Why? I will assume that you trust the bible. Let’s go way back to the question in the OP. We know that Mary remained ever virgin for the same reason that we know the bible (73 books) is inspired by God: The Church that Christ founded to shepherd all Christians has declared it by the power of the Holy Spirit. Those of us who are plagued by doubts about this can dissemble for the rest of our lives, contorting reason beyond recognition, but that has zero impact on God’s revealed truth. And that truth is that the bible is His word, and Mary was ever virgin.

Why do you fear that the Catholic Church might be correct?

Blessings pro18guy .It seems like you are pulling rank to to avoid further discussion of what I feel was a strong point/question about Mary’s question. Was she reminding God of her vow ? I do not mean to be disrespectful. I understand that CC rests upon the Word and Sacred Tradition. I have stated before that, regardless of our basis, it requires faith to accept this rationale or that rationale. I would be inconsistent if I believed other doctrines that say the CC is the only true, apostolic ,one holy church and that she is infallible,and then denied one of her doctrines. As you know I do not. As I do not agree totally with strict Calvinistic once saved always saved, I also do not totally believe once right always right in a particular church, even CC. This all or nothing acceptance paradigm goes against God’s methodology . Does not the Didache say, "Thou shalt not make a schism but thou shalt pacify them that contend’. Do I not believe in Christ,His death burial and resurrection ? Do I not believe in much of what the CC teaches ? Am I not like many others in the CC that question some of her dogma, practice, either presently or who have done so in the past? Did not the Dominicans and Franciscans debate some Marion doctrine for centuries, with full robust, even anathemizing each other form time to time ? … I am not afraid to ask the Lord , as I have, and put myself in CC dogma shoes, imagining the Virgin as you would. But that is as far as it gets… It is as deep affection I have for such light the Lord has given me about the Blessed Mary that I can not be moved.Unfortunately, I suspect it is the same for yourself and others .Unfortunate only in that we are separated on the matter. With the admonition of the Didache, may we hold highly what we do agree on.

 

[Jim19]

Blessings.Good answers. Early church father Barnabus,." It is well,that he who is learned of the judgements of the Lord, as many as are written, should walk in them"

Blessings in return It’s refreshing to receive Christian love when so much vitriol has been my portion of late:thumbsup:

 

[adrift]

How so?? The following quote in no way alludes to Mary being ever virgin!** 1.** I am within the church and understand Mary as shown in the scriptures! **2. **I thought all Christians were true Christians?? 3. A Christian is one who is a follower of Christ. 4. Of course Mary makes sense, its just your allusions to Mary that don’t:shrug: 5. Yes, each and every facet is clearly shown in scripture 6. When is a Christian not truly a Christian? 7. Didn’t realise that a Christian had to somehow apply for membership, always thought we Christians were the Church! 8. Please refer to point number 1.

Go back and reread it had nothing to do with Mary’s virginity. Most of this is unfathonable Why your rant I don’t know:shrug:

Yes anything done by God makes a difference and it all points to Jesus. The virgin birth, prophesied by God and clearly pointing to Jesus. Ever virgin, never mentioned by God and in no way points to Jesus. Many women in history were ever virgin and it in no way points to Jesus. Mary is the only woman in history to have a virgin birth and of course points to Jesus.

That she dedicated herself to God does point to Jesus. Did “many women” in history bear a child? What I would say is that there are “many women” who remained virgins for the honor of God and that in deed points to Jesus.

Mt 4:21, 10:2 James the son of, and John, not a son of, and your point is? ( Jesus **the **son of Mary, to differentiate from anyone else called Jesus, James the son of Zebedee to differentiate him from anyone else called James

Your point is taken.

So scripture shows the named brothers and the sisters as having other mothers? Where?

Matt. 27:56; 27:61, 28:1 Mark 15:47 John 19:25

And all were cousins? Where? If they were not the brothers and sisters of Christ, Why. 1. were they with the mother of Jesus and not their own mother?

You are trying to put there culture in todays.

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?

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.

Was Jesus Dissing His Mother When He Called Her “Woman”?

As already shown, Jacob was the younger, yet did not give his older brother the respect due to him. Was Joseph showing respect to his older brothers (and indeed his parents) when he declared that they would bow themselves down before him? That younger brothers do no show the respect due to an older brother is shown scripturally does not negate them from being brothers!

Nor does it negate that they would not have given advice. What you show as disrespect is not. I think you are reaching and in so doing what truth that you might have is lost.

No, Jesus behaves as one who has the care of his mother at heart, by fulfilling His duty as eldest. The care of Mary is given to one who loves Christ and so loves the brethren, John shows his love by being there, his brethren show their lack of love by not being with Him and not at the side of their grieving mother!

Since she was not their mother, actually this shows that she didn’t have any other children this point is moot.

 

[adrift]

As i said, the weight of scripture implies that Christ had brothers and sisters, there is no scripture to imply He didn’t and that Mary was ever virgin.

There is scripture which you dismiss. Because you close your eyes and say there isn’t doesn’t make it true.

You would claim that Luke 1:26… is testament to the ever virginity of Mary, a claim based on a vow that cannot be scripturally proven, merely on hearsay,(if Mary had made that vow, why could she not continue at the temple)?

Because it wasn’t allowed.

Was it common in that day for maidens to vow and dedicate themselves to the temple? In what capacity did they serve? Was it the custom in those days for people to marry and then deny the purpose of such a “sacrament”?

Sacrament didn’t exist. Was it common for a virgin to give birth?

Previously i gave a credible reason for Mary’s declaration and admittedly not one for the angels declaration. Yet if one was forthcoming it would not lead to a rejection and refutal of the assumed doctrine, as you clearly (as has been shown), hold this teaching to be true because the catholic church has declared it so, and do not appear to come with an open mind and the humbleness to bow to the authority of scripture.

Really, is it because I don’t find you convincing that you accuse me of not having an open mind. Could it actulally be you who is not humble and bow to scripture which says You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. I give you the keys to heave what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loose on heaven. Can you be humbe enough to admit that you have listened to a false prophet?

Wrong! Her (so claimed) sinlessness is contrary to clear scriptural teaching. her sinfulness points to Jesus, for He came to die for sinners!

On the contrary it is in harmony with scripture. The fact is that you have misread and have been mislead.

Here is web site that quotes the"http://www.churchfathers.org/category/mary-and-the-saints/mary-without-sin/"] Church Fathers

on Mary’s sinlessness

Here is a website that quotes Mary (and all) as a sinner, bible.com/

I couldn’t find anything on your web site.

 

[adrift]

Blessings pro18guy .It seems like you are pulling rank to to avoid further discussion of what I feel was a strong point/question about Mary’s question. Was she reminding God of her vow ?.

Not a strong point at all. I guess you didn’t read my previous answer:shrug:

 

[Ion]

This is false. They were married. So the question can’t be explained with an untruth.
"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary **your wife **into your home

My opinion is this:
Joseph decided to divorce but it was not yet declared, “official”. From his point of view the marriage in the initial terms, a regular one for procreation, was not possible because Virgin Mary was with child. He had to change his motivation about the marriage to make it work. Also Virgin Mary, saying “I am the handmaid of the Lord” clearly states that her view about the marriage is different than that of a regular one.

 

[Jim19]

Mary was asking not reminding God if she were to be released from her vow. The answer was no. I have yet to see a plausible answer keeping the circumstances in mind. So yeah so far it is the only answer.

Hi

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

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.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Luke 1:26-38.

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

All in accordance to the revealed word of God and not the fables of man. “A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight”.Prov 11:1
Praise God.

 

[pocohombre]

QUOTE=adrift;10805318]

This is false. They were married. So the question can’t be explained with an untruth.
"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary **your wife **into your home

Yes, as I stated earlier it is incorrect, just as someone saying they were married is incorrect .Sorry.We have gone over this. Today a marriage is not a marriage until it is consummated, So technically the deal was not consummated. Marriage of today is inaccurate to depict Jewish wedding tradition.

You also have ignored the link I gave of the Fathers who supported her virginity in none of them is there a hint that sex was “dirty”

I’ll have to look at them. I believe Ambrose, Tertullian, Augustine may have said some negative things about marriage. Origen, ST. Basil and St. Chrysostom thought she was not sinless and that she had “doubts”.

They worked hard just not outside of the family unit. Again you are ignoring the culture of the time

I believe they did have trade guilds.Did not Mary have family ? Aunts, uncles,brothers sisters? Unwed daughters I thought continued to work for their parents,if parents died with relatives ?

Mary was asking not reminding God if she were to be released from her vow.

Asked if she was reminding God of the vow ,not to be released form .

 

[pocohombre]

Not a strong point at all. I guess you didn’t read my previous answer:shrug:

Sorry, not sure which post you mean.I thought i read any addressed/quoting me and then some but not all.

 

[Vico]

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.

 

[Ion]

My quote: You did not explain this passage “I am the handmaid of the Lord”

I am the handmaid (slave/servant) of the Lord. Slave (a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant). Servant (a person in the service of another).



" A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight". Prov 11;1

You can do better…

 

[Ion]

MARY OFFERS SUBLIME MODEL OF SERVICE
Pope John Paul II

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm32.htm

 

[adrift]

What claim? That the ark was made from acacia wood (covered in and out with gold), or that after Mary gave birth to Jesus He was no longer within the womb?

That there was any “shekina” in the ark? Jesus may not have been in the womb but He had been. For any other to be in the same place is unthinkable. If you weren’t so mered in your bad teachings you would see it.

Granted the noun “shekina” is not found in scripture, but is derived from the verb “shakan”, (shekina coined by rabbis for the Talmud to avoid any anthropomorphic inference) which is used to describe the “abiding,dwelling or habitation” of the physical manifestations of God, (Ex 13:21,22. 24:16-18, 40:34-38, etc. I will retract the word due to its origin, but clearly the concept it embodies can be clearly seen in scripture, (as can the Trinity)!

I agree with you on this but I disagree that once Jesus left the womb there was no more Shekina. For the Angel said “hail full of grace” before she was pregnant.

So to cap, the “presence/glory”, of God had departed from the womb of Mary when she gave birth to Christ etc etc.

see above
And again i reiterate concerning Ex 40:34,35 that you quoted to supposedly support Mary being ever virgin! yes it is true that Moses could not enter the tent of the congregation after the completion of the tabernacle, but are you seriously trying to dispute or portray that thereafter no-one else could? So the priests could not enter the holy place to fulfill their obligations? and neither could the high priest enter the holy of holies?

Do you have scripture that says they did while the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle?

 

[adrift]

QUOTE=adrift;10805318]Yes, as I stated earlier it is incorrect, just as someone saying they were married is incorrect .Sorry.We have gone over this. Today a marriage is not a marriage until it is consummated, So technically the deal was not consummated. Marriage of today is inaccurate to depict Jewish wedding tradition.

Yes we have gone over this and you insist on saying they weren’t married. Marriage exist from the exchange of vows. Mary and Joseph had exchanged vows. They were married. I notice you ignore the angel’s words telling Jospeh to take his wife and the fact that Joseph was going to divorce Mary privately. You are correct Jewish marriage is different than todays.

I believe they did have trade guilds.Did not Mary have family ? Aunts, uncles,brothers sisters? Unwed daughters I thought continued to work for their parents,if parents died with relatives ?

I don’t understand what your point is here since my point was they didn’t work outside the family home. Mary being pregnant would have been a big thing that would have put her life in danger especially if seen as adultery.

Asked if she was reminding God of the vow ,not to be released form .

Interesting that you only quote part of my answer and even that answers your question.

Mary was asking not reminding God if she were to be released from her vow. The answer was no. I have yet to see a plausible answer keeping the circumstances in mind.

So you asked if she was reminding God and I answered and gave a reason why. You saw it as a strong point which it was not.

 

[pocohombre]

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.

Yes, and Mary was up to a year away from such “celebration”. Actually I was going to ask you, and not assume but are you under the impression that Mary was fully married before the annunciation and could have sexual relations(but didn’t) with Joseph legally,morally, that the wedding had taken place, and it’s celebration,just that he take her home? I believe the marriage had been arranged,contracted,legally binding,but the celebration, the wedding, did not take place yet. Also that relations would have been improper at this point, per Jewish custom, irregardless of any virginity vow.

 

[adrift]

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.

However, why does the Church make such an issue over Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity? First of all, because it is a matter of preserving the truth. The Church has always taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin. This information can be gleaned from many sources, but especially from the earliest liturgical prayers in which reference is made to “the Virgin.”

When the teaching that Mary was perpetually a virgin was first questioned, the adverb “ever” was added. Thus do the Creed of Epiphanius (374 A.D.), the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.), and the Lateran Council (649 A.D.) all speak of the “ever-Virgin Mary.” St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Cyril of Alexandria followed the same usage. It is also of interest to note that the Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin maintained the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity; it was never denied by them.

Some Protestants claim that the Church’s doctrine of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity is only traditional, which is not completely accurate. First, the belief is associated with Church Tradition; not just tradition. There is a very distinct difference. To say something is only tradition leaves it open for discussion and further consideration. However, Church Tradition means all of divine revelation–from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age–as passed on from one generation of believers to the next and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ.

After her life on earth ended, Mary was reunited with her Son. She was taken up to Heaven in body as well as soul. There is no explicit reference in Scripture to the Assumption of Mary. However, the doctrine has deep roots in the Scripture’s teaching on the holiness and dignity of Mary, and on the meaning of man, sin, death, and the resurrection of the body.

Because she was the Mother of God she had been kept holy always as a singular gift of God. As the fruits of redemption were anticipated to preserve her from original sin, so they were anticipated to bring her bodily to Heaven before the general resurrection at the end of time. Since she had never been subject to sin, she–like her divine Son–was not to remain in the grave, subject to the empire of death that sin brought into the world. It was fitting, then, that she who gave bodily birth to Jesus should be with Him bodily in Heaven as she adores Him in the glory of His risen body.

Devotion to Mary in the glory of her Assumption is ancient in the Church. As early as around the year 500 A.D., the Eastern Church celebrated on August 15th the feast of Mary’s Dormition–her “falling asleep” in the Lord. By the end of the eighth century, the feast was celebrated throughout the Western Church. Toward the middle of the eighth century, St. John Damascene–in three magnificent homilies on Mary’s Dormition–summed up the traditional faith and teaching of the Eastern and Western Church concerning Mary’s glorious Assumption and meditation of graces in Heaven.

 

[aemcpa]

Yes, and Mary was up to a year away from such “celebration”. Actually I was going to ask you, and not assume but are you under the impression that Mary was fully married before the annunciation and could have sexual relations(but didn’t) with Joseph legally,morally, that the wedding had taken place, and it’s celebration,just that he take her home? I believe the marriage had been arranged,contracted,legally binding,but the celebration, the wedding, did not take place yet. Also that relations would have been improper at this point, per Jewish custom, irregardless of any virginity vow.

If you had read the thread you would know that he is under no such impression.

It is only obstinacy than can turn such a simple point into such a convoluted thread. The point is this. Call it married, call it engaged, call it whatever you want. The fact is that if Mary had been expecting to have sexual relations with Joseph at a point in the foreseeable future, then it makes no sense for her to ask how it’s possible that she “will conceive and bear a son”. The angel didn’t say “you will conceive tonight”, or “you will conceive as soon as I leave”; the reasonable assumption would have been “the angel is telling me that my first born son with Joseph will be a son, whenever that may happen”. (Edited)

 

[adrift]

Continued

Thus, many centuries of belief and devotions were crowned when the doctrine of the Assumption was formally defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950: “…we proclaim, declare, and define it to be a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of Heaven.”

The Second Vatican Council’s document “Sacrosanctum Concilium” (“Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”) states that Mary is “the most excellent fruit of the redemption.” This teaching climaxes a long tradition about her perfect sinlessness. The question of whether or not God’s saving grace preserved Mary from original sin and well as from personal fault perplexed such outstanding saints of the Middle Ages as Bernard of Clairvaus and Thomas Aquinas. The crux of the difficulty was this: How could she be said to be redeemed by Christ, the Redeemer of all, if she was never touched by sin, even original sin?

William of Ware and John Duns Scotus developed the concept of “anticpatory redemption.” Although as a descendant of Adam in a sinful human race Mary naturally would have incurred the guilt of original sin, a special divine decree kept her from it in light of the foreseen or anticipated merits of Jesus Christ. Pope Pius IX solemnly defined the Immaculate Conception as a truth of revelation in 1854: “The Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.”

The Catholic Church has such a love and reference of the Scriptures that many Catholics accept without question the idea that the Bible is the only source of true Christian religion. Many Catholics, without knowing the proofs of their own beliefs, presume that some one or other of the Doctors or Fathers of the Church have furnished proofs from the Bible for every Catholic tenet and teaching. This is not the case, and need not be the case. The totality of Catholic Faith is based on the Scriptures, the use of human reason, historical traditions, Sacred Tradition, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

With persons who insist that the Bible should be the only source of Christian doctrine, it has to be asked where they got that tenet. There are many texts in the Bible which say the Scriptures should be reverenced and studied–as the Catholic Church holds–but no text saying that only the Bible can be used as a test of religious truth.

Beginning with the fact that Our Lord Himself did not write any of the Bible, going on to the fact that the Bible’s books were not collected into a single volume until several centuries after Christ, and to the fact that even casual perusal of the Bible was not possible for more than 99% of the Christian population until the invention of printing in the 15th century, it would seem unlikely that God should judge people on their Christian beliefs on the basis of the Bible alone.

The Catholic Church teaches that in addition to the Scriptures we have Tradition, which literally means “handing over.” Tradition is the teachings and practices handed down–whether in oral or written form–separately but not independently of the Scriptures. Tradition is divided into two areas: (1) the Scriptures, the essential doctrines of the Church, the major writings and teachings of the Fathers of the Church, the liturgical life of the Church, and the living and lived faith of the whole Church down through the centuries; and (2) customs, institutions, and practices which express the Catholic Faith.

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.”

 

[adrift]

If you had read the thread you would know that he is under no such impression.

It is only obstinacy than can turn such a simple point into such a convoluted thread. The point is this. Call it married, call it engaged, call it whatever you want. The fact is that if Mary had been expecting to have sexual relations with Joseph at a point in the foreseeable future, then it makes no sense for her to ask how it’s possible that she “will conceive and bear a son”. The angel didn’t say “you will conceive tonight”, or “you will conceive as soon as I leave”; the reasonable assumption would have been “the angel is telling me that my first born son with Joseph will be a son, whenever that may happen”. (Edited)

:yup:

 

[pocohombre]

:yup:

I guess you win, but at the cost of charity? Was it not the Rev. Fulton Sheen who warned against winning the argument but losing the soul ? I am no better though, saying what about the fruits,or lack thereof, from our Marion doctrine?