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

[pocohombre]

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.

Partly agree, in that one can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there are contextual evidences that can help according to some language scholars.

 

[pocohombre]

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.

You still place it as either or. It is both God and church. I am saying that the second hand knowledge of truth, that is the outside of us secondary source be it church, scripture,parents etc. must be first hand experienced,understood with /thru God himself. Otherwise some could say I can become a car by being in a garage,or that one can be a Christian by being in a church. Jesus said, " my sheep know my church" or did he say they know my voice thru my church" or they know my voice period? I humbly but strongly believe it is quite first hand this encounter with Christ who quickens what the church says, Christ who quickens what the bible says ,who quickens what tradiion says, who quickens what our parents hopefully taught us etc… Again notice Peter. God discerned,revealed to him the truth about what the Torah, the Talmud,rabbis,parents or anyone else ever said about just what and whom the Messiah would be. The Father made sense of it all. No one goes to the Son except he be drawn by the Father. Does the Father use parents,scripture, a church ? Absolutely. To draw all men to Himself.

 

[pocohombre]

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.

I think He revealed THAT truth so THAT person could have life and life more abundantly, so THAT individual (Peter) could be saved, have eternal life. THATmethod is how the church is built, for by the foolishness of preaching God chose men to be saved,preaching (hearing) by the Word (that Christ is the Messiah) and divinely revealed to the needy soul.

 

[Vico]

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

Yes when it is unconsummated."Article 126 of the Apostolic Constitution ‘Pastor Bonus’ is modified to read as follows:

"1. The Tribunal of the Roman Rota is a court of higher instance at the Apostolic See, usually at the appellate stage, with the purpose of safeguarding rights within the Church; it fosters unity of jurisprudence,
and, by virtue of its own decisions, provides assistance to lower tribunals.

"2. An office shall be established in this Tribunal with the task of examining the fact of non-consummation in a marriage and the existence of a just cause for granting a dispensation. It receives all the acts together with the ‘votum’ of the bishop and the remarks of the defender of the bond, weighs them according to its own special procedure, and, if the case warrants it, submits a petition to the Supreme Pontiff requesting the
dispensation.

“3. The same office is also competent to examine cases concerning the nullity of sacred ordination, in accordance with universal and specific law, ‘congrua congruis referendo’”.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/motu-proprio-quaerit-semper.html

Canon 1123
Whenever a marriage is validated for the external forum, or declared invalid, or lawfully dissolved other than by death, the parish priest of the place of the celebration of the marriage must be informed, so that an entry may be duly made in the registers of marriage and of baptism.

Canon 1142
A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

Canon 1061
1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
2 If the spouses have lived together after the celebration of their marriage, consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

 

[beehumble]

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

Because the Church says so. In the end, that’s all you need to know.

God bless you.

 

[Vico]

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.

I can understand that. However early Christians were also Jews, and there is a belief of a foreshadowning in certain Old Testaments passages. I will give the source for my post: Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).II. The Role of the Blessed Mother in the Economy of Salvation

 55. The Sacred Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament, as well as ancient     Tradition show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the economy of salvation in an     ever clearer light and draw attention to it. The books of the Old Testament describe the     history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared.     These earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light     of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of the woman, Mother of the Redeemer,     into a gradually clearer light. When it is looked at in this way, she is already     prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to     our first parents after their fall into sin.(284) Likewise she is the Virgin who shall     conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel.(285) She stands out among the     poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With     her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times     are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature     from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin.

ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm

 

[Ion]

I think Holy Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph became “one flesh” through Jesus, and they were the first brought in the Holy Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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

Because the Church says so. In the end, that’s all you need to know.

God bless you.

You’re correct, but for those unfamilar with Catholic shorthand, the sentence ‘in between’ which we understand (as Catholics) is this:

God established His one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church in order to proclaim His message, guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit. . .the Church does not ‘make up’ new teachings but continues, as it has done for 2000 years, to proclaim not ‘its’ word, but GOD’s word.

So:

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

God established His one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church in order to proclaim His message, guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit. . .the Church does not ‘make up’ new teachings but continues, as it has done for 2000 years, to proclaim not ‘its’ word, but GOD’s word.

and so:
Because the Church says so. In the end, that’s all you need to know.

 

[adrift]

I think Holy Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph became “one flesh” through Jesus, and they were the first brought in the Holy Church.

I think you need to explain a little more about what you mean.

 

[Ion]

I think you need to explain a little more about what you mean.

In marriage, the man and the woman become one flesh, and this is materialized in procreation, and procreation is essential to this.
Holy Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph were married and through Jesus they become one flesh; first is Holy Virgin who gave flesh to Jesus, then is Joseph because he believed in Jesus, then is the whole Church. The Church is Jesus body.
Would Virgin Mary and Joseph have had other children, then they would have become “other flesh” on their own; this is how I understand it is impossible that Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph had other children; but I believe it because is Church teaching.

 

[adrift]

In marriage, the man and the woman become one flesh, and this is materialized in procreation, and procreation is essential to this.
Holy Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph were married and through Jesus they become one flesh; first is Holy Virgin who gave flesh to Jesus, then is Joseph because he believed in Jesus, then is the whole Church. The Church is Jesus body.
Would Virgin Mary and Joseph have had other children, then they would have become “other flesh” on their own; this is how I understand it is impossible that Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph had other children; but I believe it because is Church teaching.

Thank you for the explanation I was taking it a different way.

 

[pocohombre]

I can understand that. However early Christians were also Jews, and there is a belief of a foreshadowning in certain Old Testaments passages. I will give the source for my post: Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).II. The Role of the Blessed Mother in the Economy of Salvation

 55. The Sacred Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament, as well as ancient     Tradition show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the economy of salvation in an     ever clearer light and draw attention to it. The books of the Old Testament describe the     history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared.     These earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light     of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of the woman, Mother of the Redeemer,     into a gradually clearer light. When it is looked at in this way, she is already     prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to     our first parents after their fall into sin.(284) Likewise she is the Virgin who shall     conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel.(285) She stands out among the     poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With     her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times     are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature     from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin.

ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm

I would ad that after the Lord prophesied an eternal kingdom after or in the line of David ,David says ," And is this the manner of man, O Lord God ?". To me it is an indication of the future God-man Redeemer King.

 

[davidmlamb]

I would ad that after the Lord prophesied an eternal kingdom after or in the line of David ,David says ," And is this the manner of man, O Lord God ?". To me it is an indication of the future God-man Redeemer King.

The Queen of the Davidic Throne was the Mother who sat at the right hand side of her son and spoke to the King on behalf of another. 1 Kings 2:13-20. We see the Davidic throne and the Queen in Revelation 12. The Queen is the Mother who gave birth to the one whose throne was caught up to God’s!

Peace,

David

 

[pocohombre]

The Queen of the Davidic Throne was the Mother who sat at the right hand side of her son and spoke to the King on behalf of another. 1 Kings 2:13-20. We see the Davidic throne and the Queen in Revelation 12. The Queen is the Mother who gave birth to the one whose throne was caught up to God’s!

Peace,

David

I know, it seems all well put together, Marion doctrine, both for catholics and protestants although different. I reread your Kings scripture (thank you-anytime you can get somebody to read Holy Scripture that is good).I get a different take on it though .Would not the Spirit remind us there is no marriage in heaven. We become “One” in better ways I presume. The marriage between male and female is not necessary, hence the need for King to have a Queen.There will be heirarchy but not defined that way.King Queen is an earthly way, “the manner of man” as David said . Secondly in your example it turned out quite bad for the petitioner.It did him no good to go thru the queen, may have even infuriated the King more.I think in our economy, and in heaven it will be best to go straight to King, for we are all His bride, including Mary. Beside him there is no other. Yes, down here I love mothers and princesses and queens, and we can intercede for one another. Up there Christ will be are all in all and we shall be like Him.

 

[adrift]

I know, it seems all well put together, Marion doctrine, both for catholics and protestants although different. I reread your Kings scripture (thank you-anytime you can get somebody to read Holy Scripture that is good).I get a different take on it though .Would not the Spirit remind us there is no marriage in heaven. We become “One” in better ways I presume. The marriage between male and female is not necessary, hence the need for King to have a Queen.

I am not following your line of reasoning. As the queen was not a wife but the mother of a king, your reasoning is confusing to me.

There will be heirarchy but not defined that way.King Queen is an earthly way, “the manner of man” as David said . Secondly in your example it turned out quite bad for the petitioner.It did him no good to go thru the queen, may have even infuriated the King more.I think in our economy, and in heaven it will be best to go straight to King, for we are all His bride, including Mary. Beside him there is no other. Yes, down here I love mothers and princesses and queens, and we can intercede for one another. Up there Christ will be are all in all and we shall be like Him.

Your right his petition didn’t turn out well because he asked for something that he knew was trouble. What you are missing is that her son listened to her but understood the message behind the asking knowing his mother had not considered the motive. He treated her with deference

Luke 1 31-32 says Jesus will be given the throne of David. Matthew 2:2 says that the wise men came looking for the king of the Jews. Luke 19:38 the crowd blesses Jesus as king.

I disagree that it is only an earthly thing. Jesus is King. Mary was told He would have the throne of David, the queen was the mother of the King. Jesus King his mother queen.

 

[pocohombre]

I am not following your line of reasoning. As the queen was not a wife but the mother of a king, your reasoning is confusing to me.

Your right his petition didn’t turn out well because he asked for something that he knew was trouble. What you are missing is that her son listened to her but understood the message behind the asking knowing his mother had not considered the motive. He treated her with deference

Luke 1 31-32 says Jesus will be given the throne of David. Matthew 2:2 says that the wise men came looking for the king of the Jews. Luke 19:38 the crowd blesses Jesus as king.

I disagree that it is only an earthly thing. Jesus is King. Mary was told He would have the throne of David, the queen was the mother of the King. Jesus King his mother queen.

I know, thought about it later(mother /son vs wife husband),but the queen is usually married to a king. Bathsheba was married to king David. Again, don’t see the need for it in a spiritual kingdom where Jesus says whoever does the will of my Father is my mother. Again ,not after the manner of man.

 

[adrift]

I know, thought about it later(mother /son vs wife husband),but the queen is usually married to a king. Bathsheba was married to king David. Again, don’t see the need for it in a spiritual kingdom where Jesus says whoever does the will of my Father is my mother. Again ,not after the manner of man.

But Bathsheba wasn’t queen when she was married to the king. She became queen because her son was king.
Are you saying that Mary didn’t’ do the will of the Father? I know you are not. She said I am the slave to the Father meaning that what ever the Father wanted she would do. Jesus was making a point but it wasn’t Mary is no longer my mother. Remember that the first miracle Jesus performed was at the request of Mary despite that fact it was not Jesus’ time.

 

[pocohombre]

But Bathsheba wasn’t queen when she was married to the king. She became queen because her son was king.
Are you saying that Mary didn’t’ do the will of the Father? I know you are not. She said I am the slave to the Father meaning that what ever the Father wanted she would do. Jesus was making a point but it wasn’t Mary is no longer my mother. Remember that the first miracle Jesus performed was at the request of Mary despite that fact it was not Jesus’ time.

Ok thanks for the clarification on how she was queen ,which would fit Mary. So in earthly terms .the times of David ,a queen could be the mother of a king.In other areas the wife of King was queen,but we’ll stick to David and biblical reference.The analogy is there.However ,it is not like she is seated next to the king,or with any authority,relative to the king’s.It is not like in the movies where you see two chairs ,one for the King and one for the queen.It seemed to be quite a matriarchal setup .Yes, deference was given to the queen, ,a listening ear, a respectful ,even loving attitude towards her .But it looks like it is an unusual thing to approach the king (think Esther). So, I see your anaology just would not make much of it because the other things I have stated. Do not think it applies to the heavenly kingdom,that is the term “queen of heaven”.

 

[adrift]

Ok thanks for the clarification on how she was queen ,which would fit Mary. So in earthly terms .the times of David ,a queen could be the mother of a king…

I could say more on this topic but it is off topic so back to the topic.

The priest in his homily spoke of the reality of how women were treated. He said that they were totally reliant on men. If a woman did not have a son to take care of her, she had to rely on another. She might ask a son-in-law as we see with Peter. He also stated that if they could not find someone than they starved to death. This goes to the crux of why Mary would need Joseph even with a vow of virginity.

 

[adrift]

I could say more on this topic but it is off topic so back to the topic.

The priest in his homily spoke of the reality of how women were treated. He said that they were totally reliant on men. If a woman did not have a son to take care of her, she had to rely on another. She might ask a son-in-law as we see with Peter. He also stated that if they could not find someone than they starved to death. This goes to the crux of why Mary would need Joseph even with a vow of virginity.

To clarify yesterday at mass, the priest spoke of the conditions that women lived at the time of Jesus.