If Our Lady wasn't perpetually virgin

[Reformed]

Some people do not like the co-redemptrix title, and no, Catholics are not bound to believe it as dogma.

We must believe she was a perpetual virgin (had no relations before or after Christ’s birth). We must believe that while she could have chosen to sin (as we all can) she never did and, as she was presrved from Original Sin at her conception (The Immaculate Conception) she was sinless her entire earthly life.

Therefore… Mary has no need for a savior since she was sinless. So, why would she rejoice in God her savior if she was sinless?

Luke 1

And Mary said,

“My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

 

[Rawb]

Therefore… Mary has no need for a savior since she was sinless. So, why would she rejoice in God her savior if she was sinless?

Not true.

A hiker is walking in the woods and hears a shout. Following the noise he sees a man in a pit of mud, trapped. He throws the man a rope and helps the man climb out.

Just then a woman tumbles out from behind a tree, almost falling in the pit herself. The hiker grabs the woman and keeps her from falling into the pit altogether.

So did the woman not need the hiker to save her from the pit, even though she was never touched by the mud?

Mary was preserved from sin by a retroactive application of the saving power of Christ’s sacrifice. Having been Immaculately Conceived she was born without the stain of Original Sin. She then could have sinned throughout her life, she just didn’t. She chose not to.

Christ was/is still her saviour.

 

[Reformed]

Not true.

A hiker is walking in the woods and hears a shout. Following the noise he sees a man in a pit of mud, trapped. He throws the man a rope and helps the man climb out.

Just then a woman tumbles out from behind a tree, almost falling in the pit herself. The hiker grabs the woman and keeps her from falling into the pit altogether.

So did the woman not need the hiker to save her from the pit, even though she was never touched by the mud?

Mary was preserved from sin by a retroactive application of the saving power of Christ’s sacrifice. Having been Immaculately Conceived she was born without the stain of Original Sin. She then could have sinned throughout her life, she just didn’t. She chose not to.

Christ was/is still her saviour.

So, what makes Mary different than Jesus? Jesus was borne of a woman under the law, but was preserved from original sin. Do you think that Jesus had the ability to sin? Remember, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary is only fully man (woman). You have to admit, the dogmas of Mary are extra-biblical revelations through tradtion only, correct? If you use Mary’s logic, then was Christ His own Savior to Himself as well?

In additon, was Mary ever united to Adam in any way? And is Mary united to the 2nd Adam in any way?

 

[Rawb]

You have to admit, the dogmas of Mary are extra-biblical revelations through tradtion only, correct?

I’ll admit they are found in Sacred Tradition, which in their own right allows for their aucenticity, but I will admit they are supported by Sacred Scripture.

what makes Mary different than Jesus? Jesus was borne of a woman under the law, but was preserved from original sin

Jesus was preserved from Original Sin by His own power. Mary had to be preserved by the power and mercy of God.

It was necessary for Mary to be preserved from Original Sin so that Our Lord could be in her womb. God cannot abide where sin is present, wouldn’t you agree? Christ’s human element must have come, in some part, from Mary. Would he not then, as all humans do, inherit the Original Sin that we all carry from Adam?

Unless Mary herself was first preserved in order to be the perfect Ark of the Covenant for the New Covenant. In this case, in cooperation with her being a virgin, Christ is created as ‘her seed’. Since she herself is pure of sin, then there is no risk of her seed being contaminated by sin.

Mary is the New Eve, as Christ is the New Adam. Eve brought sin into this world, bringing Adam with her. Mary brought salvation into this world, by carrying Christ.

 

[Reformed]

I’ll admit they are found in Sacred Tradition, which in their own right allows for their aucenticity, but I will admit they are supported by Sacred Scripture.

Jesus was preserved from Original Sin by His own power. Mary had to be preserved by the power and mercy of God.

It was necessary for Mary to be preserved from Original Sin so that Our Lord could be in her womb. God cannot abide where sin is present, wouldn’t you agree? Christ’s human element must have come, in some part, from Mary. Would he not then, as all humans do, inherit the Original Sin that we all carry from Adam?

Unless Mary herself was first preserved in order to be the perfect Ark of the Covenant for the New Covenant. In this case, in cooperation with her being a virgin, Christ is created as ‘her seed’. Since she herself is pure of sin, then there is no risk of her seed being contaminated by sin.

Mary is the New Eve, as Christ is the New Adam. Eve brought sin into this world, bringing Adam with her. Mary brought salvation into this world, by carrying Christ.

Please provide a Scriptural case for all of the Marian dogmas. The old Eve was deceived. There is nothing in Scripture speaking of a new Eve. I think Eve came from the rib of Adam.

1 Tim 2

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This passage doesn’t seem to have a very high view of Mary.

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers

46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [1] 48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Are you saying Mary never fell short of the glory of God?

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, - rom 3

I also think Scripture reaveals sin entered this world through a man (Adam).

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

• rom 5

 

[Rawb]

There is nothing in Scripture speaking of a new Eve.

So what?

The Assumption: Revelation of St. John, 12:13-14

And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child. And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Immaculate Conception: Gospel of St. Luke 1:28

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be

As to your passages, Mathew 12 tells us that Mary is all the more blessed because of her obedience to God. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the rabbinical teaching tool of hyperbole that Christ used often? A teacher would emphasize a point’s importance by exaggerating it. Our Lord does this, for another example, when telling us to “call no man Father”

Finally, unless you believe Christ sinned, then you must admit that there are exceptions to that verse in Romans and, once again, hyperbole was being used to present the necessity of Our Lord’s passion.

 

[Reformed]

So what?

The Assumption: Revelation of St. John, 12:13-14

Immaculate Conception: Gospel of St. Luke 1:28

As to your passages, Mathew 12 tells us that Mary is all the more blessed because of her obedience to God. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the rabbinical teaching tool of hyperbole that Christ used often? A teacher would emphasize a point’s importance by exaggerating it. Our Lord does this, for another example, when telling us to “call no man Father”

Finally, unless you believe Christ sinned, then you must admit that there are exceptions to that verse in Romans and, once again, hyperbole was being used to present the necessity of Our Lord’s passion.

Thanks for trying. Try to remember that Jesus is God incarnate and Mary is a created being (Rom 1).

 

[Rawb]

Thanks for trying. Try to remember that Jesus is God incarnate and Mary is a created being

LoL, well obviously.

But I suppose if you can’t come up with a counter argument, you have to reiterate Catholic teachings.

 

[ralphinal]

I hate to ask this, but Reformed, have you ever defended a thought by quoting Jesus at not Paul at all? Or even anyone else and not Paul?

 

[Reformed]

LoL, well obviously.

But I suppose if you can’t come up with a counter argument, you have to reiterate Catholic teachings.

I just don’t get it my friends, why go through Mary to go through Jesus to come before our Heveanly Father? I think all Christians struggle with our affections for our great and awesome Triune God. Why such adoration for Mary and the Catholic Saints when we all struggle with our religious idols?

Ephesians 3

The Mystery of the Gospel Revealed

3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is [1] that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in [2] God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him. 13 So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I was opening your smiling visage would make an appearance.

It is my position that this was known to the Apostles but not recorded in Scripture out of respect for her. Once she left this world, and I hold that she died after Acts was written, the Apostles could teach it to others. Thus, the early Church Fathers would hold to the view as well.

I know, I was messing with you LoL (not that I would ever do such a thing, of course).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Actually, the statement I made was a Ralphism, not a truism of the CHurch.

The Ralphin Catholic Church?

 

[Rawb]

I just don’t get it my friends, why go through Mary to go through Jesus to come before our Heveanly Father? I think all Christians struggle with our affections for our great and awesome Triune God. Why such adoration for Mary and the Catholic Saints when we all struggle with our religious idols?

…and a change of topic.

When you can present me with an argument against the Marian dogmas using Scripture, AND Tradition, then maybe I’ll listen.

As it is, you’re only using a part of Divine Revelation, and thus coming up with some half-baked ideas.

Until then, dust from sandles.

 

[ralphinal]

The Ralphin Catholic Church?

Be glad it is not. Pope Ralph the first would be a real difficult person to deal with.

I just like to put things into terms that I understand. A friend who studied in Rome calls it my “southern Fried theology.”

 

[ralphinal]

I know, I was messing with you LoL (not that I would ever do such a thing, of course).

I figured you were, as Luther would have been VERY harsh if he had heard the baptist preacher down the street from me say that as far as he knew, Mary ended up a whore and is now in Hell. I do think that dear old Martin might have nailed him to the door.

 

[adstrinity]

Please keep this thread on topic: IF you do not think that Our Lady, Our Blessed Mother, The Queen of Heaven, The Woman of the Living is still a virgin, please discuss your theory on HOW that is physically possible. That is all. Thank you.

 

[ralphinal]

Please keep this thread on topic: IF you do not think that Our Lady, Our Blessed Mother, The Queen of Heaven, The Woman of the Living is still a virgin, please discuss your theory on HOW that is physically possible. That is all. Thank you.

Many people who hold to the idea that she had other children see it like this. She had one exposure the Holy Spirit, but once Christ was born, she lived a normal human life. Normal married humans have sex. She would have not had any other exposure to the Holy Spirit until Pentecost.

I think that most people who hold the biew never really think about it at all.

 

[Good_Fella]

If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever-virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was begotten of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.
Pope Martin 1, Lateran Synod, October 649, DS 505

In the Latin text the word “integrity” is used in the physical sense meaning the state of being untouched, unharmed, or physically unaffected. The absence of any pain is implied in Pope Martin’s limited definition of Mary’s virginity in partu (during the birth of Jesus). The modest expression “without loss of integrity” dismisses lessions, blood, and fluids that result in natural childbirths. The Greek text of the papal declaration of the synod has aphthoros meaning “without corruption”.

The Lateran Synod was not a general council, but it was presided over by a pope in response to the Monothelite heresy in the seventh century. Monothelitism was eventually condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 681, but only decades after it had already been condemned by Pope Martin 1 at the Lateran Synod. We have the Vicar of Christ, who was opposed by the Byzantine Monothelites in 649, confirming the brethren in their faith like St.Peter. The anathema which is included in the pope’s declaration lends the synod the authoritative weight of a general council, obliging all Catholics to give their sacred assent to this doctrine.

The Vatican ll Council ratified Pope Martin’s declaration in a given footnote of the Lateran Synod in Lumen Gentium 57:

This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is evident from the time of the virginal conception of Christ even to his death…[and] when the Mother of God brought forth her firstborn, who did not diminish but consecrated her virginal integrity.

Pope St. Leo the Great, in his ‘Tome to Flavian’, DS 291, 13 June 449 (one of seven infallible papal documents in Church history), declared that the birth of Christ was as miraculous as his conception in Mary’s womb.

“She brought Him forth without the loss of virginity even as she conceived Him without its loss.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent further articulates the Church’s dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in partu:

For in a way wonderful beyond expression or conception, he is born of his mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity. As he afterwards went from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which his disciples were assembled, although “the doors were closed” (John 20:19), or, not to depart from natural events which we witness everyday, as the rays from the sun penetrate the substance of glass without breaking or injuring it in the least: so, but in a more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity…To Eve it was said, “In pain you shall bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16). Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate, she brought forth Jesus, the Son of God, without experiencing, as we have already said, pain.

The Council of Trent not only ratified the previous papal declarations regarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ‘in partu’, but made more explicit and definitive the meaning of the expressions “without loss of integrity” and “without loss of virginity”. Lumen Gentium 57 implictly confirms the more articulate article found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent with the expression “did not diminish but consecrated her virginal integrity.” Since we have repeated pronouncements by the Popes and the Magisterium, more or less explicitly, Mary’s physical virginity during the birth of Jesus acquires the status of an infallible and definitive teaching of the Catholic Church.

The mystery of the miraculous birth of Christ was consistently taught by the Church Fathers and Doctors for centuries before the time of the Lateran Synod in 649. We have only to examine the homilies and catecheses of Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, John Chrysostom, and Pope Gregory 1, to name just a few of them, to see that the Church has always believed Mary was spared the physical pain of childbirth. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium teach us that Mary suffered no physical pain and discomfort during the birth of Jesus. She brought her child forth as miraculously as she had conceived him by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain.
Genesis 4, 1

He had no relations with her before she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Matthew 1, 25

PAX :harp:

 

[adstrinity]

I think that most people who hold the biew never really think about it at all.

I know. But I want them to think, really think about it and see if they can come up with a rationally logical conclusion.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, I thought about something earlier today.

Let’s say she had other kids. Now, they were not mentioned when the Magi found them or during the flight to egypt, so they were at least 3 years younger than Jesus.

They were not mentioned at the Finding in the Temple, so they were at least 12 years younger than Jesus.

Jesus was 30 when he started his ministry, 33 when he died. John the Beloved was the youngest apostle, probably 19 at the time of the crucifixion. These brothers of Jesus would have been about that same age.

If they were younger than John, then he would have needed someone to look after them, too after the Crucifixion. If they were older than John, or the same age, why were they unable to care for the Blessed Mother?

The men called his brothers in scripture all seem to be older than John, around Jesus’s age.

Am I missing something?