If Our Lady wasn't perpetually virgin

[Leeann]

Good Fella #38 (Post)

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”.

In all honesty, while looking through and reading other documents relating to other Marian dogmas, I just very recently came across mention of this particular bit of information…about Mary remaining “intact” when Jesus was born.

This is completely new to me and I imagine there are many other non-Catholics who are not aware of this being a part of the “perpetual virginity” question…whereas the more common argument that you usually hear… is that they believe that Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus.

For me personally, that’s never been an issue, whether she had marital relations with Joseph - or had other children - after Jesus’ birth I mean.

I’ve always believed that Mary was a virgin when the HS over shadowed her, but cannot understand what necessitates her to remain in a “perpetual” state of virginity after the fact.

The whole idea of her remaining “intact” during His birth…is based on what?

 

[saieditor]

Then how do you reckon Her hymen broke? Do you think that even though She was still sealed while She became pregnant, it was during delivery that she lost it? Are you of the opinion that it was like a light leaving, letting her remain intact, but later, if you hold to She isn’t still a virgin, it was broken the regular way? Do you think it was cut open before she gave birth?

I

I really don’t think any devotional activity has anything to do with Mary and her hymen. This is causistry and hair splitting. I agree with the first answer to this thread (and not much more could have been said, really) that it is about the divinity of Jesus and the honour that Jesus’s mother merits for us all. We don’t choose our mothers; only God can choose his mother.

 

[Good_Fella]

The whole idea of her remaining “intact” during His birth…is based on what?

To the woman he said, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.”
Genesis 3, 16

Mary was exempt from this universal law, for she was preserved free from the stain of original sin in virtue of her Divine Maternity. Her virginal integrity, both spiritual and physical, was preserved inviolate.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”
Genesis 3, 15

Moreover, Eve had relations with Adam, and she gave birth to Cain. Mary, the New Eve, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and she conceived and bore Jesus.

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

And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
Luke 1, 35

Eve conceived and bore Cain in the bondage of sin. And her offspring was conceived in the state of original sin by the seed of Adam. Mary conceived and bore Jesus free from the stain of original sin. Her offspring was holy and divine by the power of the Holy Spirit. The curse of Eve could not possibly have marred the conception and birth of God’s Only-begotten Son. Jesus was miraculously conceived by a mystical union between the Holy Spirit and Blessed Mary, full of grace. The birth of Jesus was an act of God’s grace.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Song of Songs 4, 12

Besides, virgins can only conceive and bear children through a divine miracle. There can be nothing consequently natural involved in the occurrence of a divine miracle. Thus Elizabeth could declare:

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

Sacred Scripture implicitly affirms Mary’s virginity during the birth of Christ. The prophet Isaiah foretells that a virgin will both conceive and bear a son, miraculously according to Sacred Tradition of the Church:

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel (God with us).”
Isaiah 7, 14

If we question the miraculous birth of Jesus, then in honesty we should question the miraculous conception as well, since both the conception and birth of Jesus were wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by the seed of man. The angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear a holy child. The corruption of sin holds no place alongside holiness. Nor would the holy offspring be the direct cause of this corruption incurred by Eve’s disobedience. Mary conceived and bore Jesus by believing the word of God. She should not be burdened with the penalty of Eve’s transgression notwithstanding her Immaculate Conception. God is just and merciful.

“It is not right that He who came to heal corruption should by His advent violate integrity.”
St. Augustine

“As light passes through glass without harming it, so too did Jesus pass through the womb of Mary without the opening of Mary’s womb and without any harm to the physical virginal seal of the Virgin, who was pure and the perfect tabernacle of the unborn Christ.”
St. Thomas Aquinas

“The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 49

On the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Vatican ll Council teaches:

“This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity; the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation, then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both mediator and the fullness of revelation.”
[Dei Verbum, 2]

PAX :tiphat:

 

[SIA]

Then how do you reckon Her hymen broke? Do you think that even though She was still sealed while She became pregnant, it was during delivery that she lost it? Are you of the opinion that it was like a light leaving, letting her remain intact, but later, if you hold to She isn’t still a virgin, it was broken the regular way? Do you think it was cut open before she gave birth?

I know virgin births today are rare (no joke, things can happen), but, how does a baby get out? Wouldn’t the woman need to be cut first? For those who do not believe the BVM is still a virgin, how have you thought about this?

And what tells you that her hymen wasn’t broken for her entire existence on earth?

 

[Good_Fella]

And what tells you that her hymen wasn’t broken for her entire existence on earth?

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked , and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
John 20, 26

 

[RobHom]

Is it official Roman Catholic dogma that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Yes.

Why is it a problem for you.

Luther, CALVIN, Bullinger, Wesley, and Zwingli didn’t have a problem with it either. So…where is your problem with it?

What is the spiritual significance of this teaching?

I’m not sure you would be able to grasp it…you haven’t grasped much so far.

Tell me… are you or your tribe assigned to take turns doing this as “homework”…?

 

[SIA]

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked , and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”
John 20, 26

Are you serious?? You are equating this with her hymen being unbroken?

 

[Leeann]

Good Fella

Originally Posted by Leeann

The whole idea of her remaining “intact” during His birth…is based on what?

To the woman he said, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.”
Genesis 3, 16

Good Fella: Mary was exempt from this universal law, for she was preserved free from the stain of original sin in virtue of her Divine Maternity. Her virginal integrity, both spiritual and physical, was preserved inviolate.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”
Genesis 3, 15

Good Fella: Moreover, Eve had relations with Adam, and she gave birth to Cain. Mary, the New Eve, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and she conceived and bore Jesus.

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

And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
Luke 1, 35

Good Fella: Eve conceived and bore Cain in the bondage of sin. And her offspring was conceived in the state of original sin by the seed of Adam. Mary conceived and bore Jesus free from the stain of original sin.

Well…that would be tied in of course with the belief of the “Immaculate Conception”, that Mary herself was born “holy”…from ordinary parents?

Good Fella: Besides, virgins can only conceive and bear children through a divine miracle. There can be nothing consequently natural involved in the occurrence of a divine miracle.

I guess it is in relation to what constitutes the “miracle”.
To some it is the continuation of one long “miracle” – (Immaculate Conceptio/conceiving/delivering…right through to Assumption)…to others it is the conceiving and carrying – with the birth being a part of the natural, human process that Mary as a “human” would have to go through.

This is a serious question, one that just came to mind right now….is there anywhere in scripture that Mary is referred too as “the virgin” after the birth of Jesus that you are aware of?

Good Fella:The corruption of sin holds no place alongside holiness. Nor would the holy offspring be the direct cause of this corruption incurred by Eve’s disobedience.

I’m not clear on what you are saying in this statement, could you reword it please?

Good Fella:Mary conceived and bore Jesus by believing the word of God. She should not be burdened with the penalty of Eve’s transgression notwithstanding her Immaculate Conception. God is just and merciful.

Indeed, God is just and merciful, but the humanness of Mary is important here too, or why else even bother going about it this way ….having a woman involved at all for the birth?

On the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Vatican ll Council teaches:
“This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity; the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation, then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both mediator and the fullness of revelation.”
[Dei Verbum, 2]
With all due respect, what else could they say? Seriously?

I guess my question should have been extended to ask “and why is it necessary to believe this? What point does it add to the holiness of Jesus himself and His birth?

 

[Good_Fella]

Are you serious?? You are equating this with her hymen being unbroken?

I am “equating this” with the power of Christ. Mary’s womb is a door our Lord passed through without opening it.

 

[SIA]

I am “equating this” with the power of Christ. Mary’s womb is a door our Lord passed through without opening it.

Now I can see where you get all the outlandish titles of Mary and such. With all due respect, this is the poster boy for reading into the passages.

 

[Leeann]

In Luke we see how Mary and Joseph take Jesus to the temple - the blessings given say much about what His roll will will be and of course how Mary, as His mother is going feel - but there is nothing that extolls any great significance towards what her roll will be from there on in…wouldn’t this be something the prophet Simeon and the prophetess Anna would draw attention too if her part would be so integral to the believers not only back then but in future generations. Especially when Mary herself wasn’t clearly aware of what was being said?

Also see: the whole observance of taking Jesus to the temple to offer sacrifice - part for her “purification” being over and part for every “male that first opens the womb.”

Luke 2:

21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

23(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord)

24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

25And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

26And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

27And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

28Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

32A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

33And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

34And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

35(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

36And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

37And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

38And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

39And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

 

[adstrinity]

Now I have another question: Since it was like a light through glass, Jesus wasn’t covered with blood et al? What became of the umbiblical cord?

 

[RobHom]

Now I can see where you get all the outlandish titles of Mary and such. With all due respect, this is the poster boy for reading into the passages.

And you attempt to criticize me for “tirades”? Do you ever stop?

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella

To the woman he said, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.”
Genesis 3, 16

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”
Genesis 3, 15

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

And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
Luke 1, 35

Well…that would be tied in of course with the belief of the “Immaculate Conception”, that Mary herself was born “holy”…from ordinary parents?

I guess it is in relation to what constitutes the “miracle”.
To some it is the continuation of one long “miracle” – (Immaculate Conceptio/conceiving/delivering…right through to Assumption)…to others it is the conceiving and carrying – with the birth being a part of the natural, human process that Mary as a “human” would have to go through.

This is a serious question, one that just came to mind right now….is there anywhere in scripture that Mary is referred too as “the virgin” after the birth of Jesus that you are aware of?

I’m not clear on what you are saying in this statement, could you reword it please?

Indeed, God is just and merciful, but the humanness of Mary is important here too, or why else even bother going about it this way ….having a woman involved at all for the birth?

On the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Vatican ll Council teaches:
“This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity; the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation, then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both mediator and the fullness of revelation.”
[Dei Verbum, 2]
With all due respect, what else could they say? Seriously?

I guess my question should have been extended to ask “and why is it necessary to believe this? What point does it add to the holiness of Jesus himself and His birth?

Why do you raise the issue of Mary’s humanity? I can answer this question for you: You believe that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity somehow deifies her and impugns the glory of God. On the contrary, Mary’s soul “proclaims the glory of the Lord” and the Almighty “has done great things” for Mary.

In spite of her humanity, not only was Mary preserved free from the stain of original sin, but she was also chosen by the Father to be the mother of his Only-begotten Son. Our Lord would never dismiss one of his own commandments which he regards worthy of our observance.

"For God said, ‘Honour your father and your mother’ and ‘anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ "
Matthew 15, 4

Jesus would never curse his own mother nor be the direct effective cause of this curse. Our Lord in his wisdom and omnipotence can suspend this universal law of original sin with respect to his Blessed Mother if he wills. He did intervene the moment he fashioned his mother’s soul upon her Immaculate Conception. Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Deposit of Faith, reveal this divine mystery to the Church through the activity of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that the Paraclete has personally enlightened you with a revelation that contravenes Sacred Tradition of the one universal Catholic Apostolic Church, established by Christ, you’re as gnostic as I thought.

The Septuagint proper reads “the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son”. In the Greek the definite article signifies an essential state of the person. Mary could not have been “the” virgin if she had had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Meanwhile the gospels do not record that Mary had actually given birth to other children. As the Matriarch of the New Covenant, prefigured by Sarah, who gave birth to only one son of promise free from the bondage of slavery, Mary gave birth to only one son of promise free from the bondage of slavery to sin. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition reveal Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as a “deed wrought by God” in the history of salvation.

According to the visions of Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, Mary’s conception and birth were also miraculous by the power of the Holy Spirit. Even so, it was God who fashioned Mary’s soul, not Mary’s parents. Mary’s mother, Ann, was conceived in a state of original sin, so the universal law of sin could still apply to her unless suspended by God who is wise and omnipotent.The Fourth Commandment must not be confused with the law of sin.

PAX :tiphat:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Then how do you reckon Her hymen broke? Do you think that even though She was still sealed while She became pregnant, it was during delivery that she lost it? Are you of the opinion that it was like a light leaving, letting her remain intact, but later, if you hold to She isn’t still a virgin, it was broken the regular way? Do you think it was cut open before she gave birth?

I know virgin births today are rare (no joke, things can happen), but, how does a baby get out? Wouldn’t the woman need to be cut first? For those who do not believe the BVM is still a virgin, how have you thought about this?

She was a virgin at the Annunciation. Unless child-bearing is possible without breaking the hymen, &*** if*** the integrity of the hymen is essential to what the Church means by virginity, she cannot have been a virgin after the birth of Jesus. That the fathers thought otherwise is explicable by their lack of knowledge about such things, a lack which most later generations have shared, for reasons beyond their control to change. That is not a reason to maintain, now, a belief based on faulty gynaecology then. Ditching it would do no harm to any statement in the Bible.​

If the permanent integrity of the hymen is not being asserted by the Church - then the problem evaporates; but that view is one I heard of only because it had been rejected when raised; there is an account of the controversy in Hilda Graef’s book Mary. Who’s right ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…Again from the Marian Library at the University of Dayton:

**THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MARY’S VIRGINITY **

"The theological significance of Mary’s virginity would seem to lie in her total self- giving to God and in her total fruitfulness as a result of that self-giving.

Cardinal Ratzinger has made some comments on the denial of the virginity of Mary:

The world-view that would force us psychologically to declare the virginal birth an impossibility clearly does not result from knowledge, but from an evaluation… Now we can say that the real reason behind the reasons against the confession of Mary’s virginity lies not in the field of a historical (exegetical) knowledge, but in the presuppositions of a world-view… Contrary to the usual presentation the real dispute occurs not between historical naiveté and historical criticism, but between two preconceptions of God’s relationship to His world…The affirmation of Jesus’ birth from the Virgin Mary intends to affirm these two truths: (1) God really acts - realiter, not just interpretative, and (2) the earth produces its fruit - precisely because He acts. The Natus ex Maria virgine is in its nucleus a strictly theological affirmation that bears witness to the God who has not let creation slip out of His hands. On this are based the hope, the freedom, the assurance, and the responsibility of the Christian.

St. Jerome writes: “For me, virginity is consecrated in the persons of Mary and of Christ.”

With St. Ambrose we see some of the theology of Mary’s virginity:

Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast…What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? …For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing in words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have good will towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue… This is the likeness of virginity, for Mary was such that her example alone is a lesson for all… How many kinds of virtues shine forth in one Virgin! The secret of modesty, the banner of faith, the service of devotion, the Virgin within the house, the companion for the ministry, the mother at the temple."

Sometimes the dogma’s of the Church are mysteries ~ and they need to unfold in our lives…not the type of mysteries we need to solve. Have faith ~ pray to Mary ~ the mystery will begin to unfold.

The Fathers are not addressing the situation of people today though - we know details about human reproduction they did not, so what they say on that is no more helpful than their equally inaccurate ideas about the extent of the human race. No reverence for the Fathers can alter the fact that whether or not Antipodes should exist, they do, & are inhabited; & the same applies to the assumptions & ideas of the Fathers about gynaecology.​

If they were wrong - they were wrong. What point is there in requiring anyone to hold to inaccurate & untruthful ideas ? What ideas will be next to go - gravity maybe ? Will the existence of Australia be denounced as a blasphemy ? Maybe the USA is a delusion of satan Piety is not piety when it requires us to be wilfully blind to facts.

 

[Leeann]

Hi Good Fella

Good Fella:
Why do you raise the issue of Mary’s humanity? I can answer this question for you: You believe that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity somehow deifies her and impugns the glory of God. On the contrary, Mary’s soul “proclaims the glory of the Lord” and the Almighty “has done great things” for Mary.Amazing! You seem to be exhibiting special powers now, being able to state what I believe (or what you think I believe) - are these similar to those “gnostic” abilities that you have incorrectly afforded to me below?
Seriously though -
Why shouldn’t Mary’s humanity be raised?
Was not that a major point in God’s plan – see reposted statement below:
Indeed, God is just and merciful, but the humanness of Mary is important here too, or why else even bother going about it this way ….having a woman involved at all for the birth?

Good Fella:
In spite of her humanity, not only was Mary preserved free from the stain of original sin, but she was also chosen by the Father to be the mother of his Only-begotten Son. Our Lord would never dismiss one of his own commandments which he regards worthy of our observance.
"For God said, ‘Honour your father and your mother’ and ‘anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ "
Matthew 15, 4
Jesus would never curse his own mother nor be the direct effective cause of this curse.
In what way are you referring to Jesus ‘cursing’ his own mother or of ‘being a direct effective cause of this curse’???

Good Fella:
Our Lord in his wisdom and omnipotence can suspend this universal law of original sin with respect to his Blessed Mother if he wills. Of course He can…He can do anything He wants too. He did intervene the moment he fashioned his mother’s soul upon her Immaculate Conception. Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Deposit of Faith, reveal this divine mystery to the Church through the activity of the Holy Spirit. And that is what you have been taught and told and believe…why…… because you also believe that they alone are guided by the Holy Spirit…why……because they have taught and told you to believe this……(trying out your style from your opening comments)If you believe that the Paraclete has personally enlightened you with a revelation that contravenes Sacred Tradition of the one universal Catholic Apostolic Church, established by Christ, you’re as gnostic as I thought. (or as you are??? – see your opening comment)

Good Fella:
The Septuagint proper reads “the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son”. In the Greek the definite article signifies an essential state of the person. Mary could not have been “the” virgin if she had had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Meanwhile the gospels do not record that Mary had actually given birth to other children. As the Matriarch of the New Covenant, prefigured by Sarah, who gave birth to only one son of promise free from the bondage of slavery, Mary gave birth to only one son of promise free from the bondage of slavery to sin. As I stated in previous post – that’s never been an issue for me. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition reveal Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as a “deed wrought by God” in the history of salvation. Yes….that’s already been stated, but that statement in itself does not make it true.

Good Fella:
According to the visions of Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich, Mary’s conception and birth were also miraculous by the power of the Holy Spirit. Even so, it was God who fashioned Mary’s soul, not Mary’s parents. Mary’s mother, Ann, was conceived in a state of original sin, so the universal law of sin could still apply to her unless suspended by God who is wise and omnipotent. The Fourth Commandment must not be confused with the law of sin.
Yes…well the quote below is also attributed to AC Emmerich and on the basis of it,
I wouldn’t put too much stock in her “visions” as being that noteworthy.
"Then I had the sweet assurance that Mary is the Church; the Church, our mother; God, our father; and Jesus, our brother."my.homewithgod.com/israel/acemmerich/
and
olrl.org/

Have you given any thought to the question I asked - is there anywhere in scripture, that you are aware of, that Mary is referred too as “the virgin” after the birth of Jesus?

 

[RobHom]

Leeann you said:

Have you given any thought to the question I asked - is there anywhere in scripture, that you are aware of, that Mary is referred too as “the virgin” after the birth of Jesus?

In all kindness, I am caused to ask: Have you given any thought to the fact that Catholics do not ascribe to sola scriptura and accept the fact that the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. We accept that there are many more things encompassed of tradition, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Constant questions such as those above serve no purpose in our world. We view things differently. It is that which you must accept even if you do not agree.

Here you will find many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. zeitun-eg.org/ecfidx.htm

Peace!

 

[Leeann]

Leeann you said:

In all kindness, I am caused to ask: Have you given any thought to the fact that Catholics do not ascribe to sola scriptura and accept the fact that the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. We accept that there are many more things encompassed of tradition, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

I’m very aware of that…it’s pointed out constantly in these threads… however Good Fella seems pretty knowledgeable about both the traditions and the bible and in all honesty…I was being a bit “lazy”…that question just popped up as I was actually keying in one of my last posts and I added it then quickly.

Constant questions such as those above serve no purpose in our world. We view things differently. It is that which you must accept even if you do not agree.

The answers serve a purpose though - that’s what the threads are all about - questions/answers/more questions/sometimes the same questions by newcomers that have missed the last twenty posts.

Here you will find many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. zeitun-eg.org/ecfidx.htm

Wow! Thanks for that - I’ve saved in my bookmarks list.

 

[RobHom]

Leeann,

Thank you for those two links!! They were great!!! Are you sure you’re not a Catholic Apologist?

This link was especially good, being a sub link to one that you supplied: olrl.org/doctrine/tradition.shtml

Thanks again, and I do mean that sincerely!!

Peace and God Bless you and yours!!