If Our Lady wasn't perpetually virgin

[adstrinity]

While I accept the perpetual virginity of Mary as a matter of faith, I don’t see why it is necessary. Sexual activity within a marriage is not sinful so it doesn’t make any difference if Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual relations. It would not destroy my faith to find out that Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect. It simply is not an essential teaching which has any bearing on my faith in the divinity of Christ. Who cares what Mary and Joseph might have done together after the birth of Christ?

I’d like to interject here, not to disagree with you but to answer this. It is not sinful to have sex within a marriage, but, Mary was married to the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. If She were to have conjugal relations with St. Joseph, she would be committing adultery by cheating on the Holy Spirit and She would then be sinning.

 

[Good_Fella]

po18guy;4306359:

Sorry, you can’t blame the Protestants for that.
I cannot speak for all

of them, as **none of us **should ever attempt to do that, however I think I would be correct in stating that most of them believe that “the Mary” that the Catholic church presents, is not the same Mary that was Jesus’ mother.
They haven’t ‘dragged her name through the mud’ – they’re trying to salvage any vestige of truth in relation to her.

As with regards to the bible – that is something wonderful isn’t it, how God used those wonderfully, faithful, skilled and inspired Christian people to make sure His word would be available to all His children. I for one am forever grateful and admire their love and dedication and obedience in doing HIS WILL, by HIS authority.

The Jews are “trying to salvage any vestige of truth” in relation to the Messiah. To them Jesus was just the son of a carpenter who died and was buried. The Messiah is yet to come in Judaism. And he will be of paternal lineage. The apostolic church drew her belief in the divine Messiah from the preaching of the apostles, who in their religious experience with Jesus interpreted the Old Testament in light of the church’s Tradition. Our Christological and Marian doctrines must likewise be confirmed by a reading of the Old and New Testaments in light of Tradition by the teaching authority of the same Apostolic Catholic Church.

Protestants have not received their understanding of Christ’s divinity or the Trinity by just reading the Bible for themselves. The concepts of a “son of God” and “spirit of God” are originally Judaic and understood differently. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews, so we don’t know what they meant to say unless we appeal to the Church’s Sacred Tradition. The ontological deity of the Son and the Spirit is not affirmed by the Jews; nor do they see any confirmation of these Christian beliefs in the written word. To contend that they haven’t been enlightened by the Spirit requires an appeal to our Tradition. The scriptures are not explicit enough for anyone to come to conclusions in accord with the definitions given by the Popes and Councils of the one universal Catholic Church established by Christ.

This is obvious, since Protestants cannot even agree with each other on the significance of baptism or the true meaning of predestination or dispensationalism, or whether divorce. abortion, artificial birth control, and homosexual marriages are permissible according to the Word of God. They are even divided over the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Your conflicting “traditions” and practices mark a chaos of faith and morals because you rely strictly on your private interpretations of Scripture outside the Church and apart from her Sacred Tradition. Meanwhile, the early reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The assault against Mary in Protestantism arose in post-modern time among the reformed evangelical communities (“roving tribes”) in America - the land of religious free enterprise and neo-gnosticism. Ironically, the Church grappled with the same Marian heresies in the early centuries. Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. The deposit of faith consists of both Scripture and Tradition. The “church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” says St. Paul. Not the Bible! :hypno:

I expect another pert and inerudite comment from you, Leeann. :yawn:

PAX :coffeeread:

 

[Leeann]

No, no they are not. They are trying to portray her as a sinful woman who was basically Kane to Jesus’ Alien.

Could you explain this more clearly for me please?
Thanks.

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by BartBurk
While I accept the perpetual virginity of Mary as a matter of faith, I don’t see why it is necessary. Sexual activity within a marriage is not sinful so it doesn’t make any difference if Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual relations. It would not destroy my faith to find out that Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect. It simply is not an essential teaching which has any bearing on my faith in the divinity of Christ. Who cares what Mary and Joseph might have done together after the birth of Christ?

I’d like to interject here, not to disagree with you but to answer this. It is not sinful to have sex within a marriage, but, Mary was married to the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. If She were to have conjugal relations with St. Joseph, she would be committing adultery by cheating on the Holy Spirit and She would then be sinning.

But doesn’t Gabriel tell Joseph that “it’s okay to take Mary as his wife” - clearly explaining to him that this is a “special” situation - so that what was written in scripture would be fulfilled? And after the fact - after the fulfillment of the prophecy - being the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary are referred to being Jesus’ “parents” (Luke 2:41) and Mary *herself *refers to Joseph as being Jesus’ “father” (Luke2: 48) This implies that Mary and Joseph considered themselves indeed, “husband and wife.”

Whether they had conjugal relations or not… doesn’t concern me one way or the other, but it’s the “necessity” of having to believe in the perpetual virginity that makes me ask, as BartBark does,* why *is it necessary.

And the claim that Mary was married to the Holy Spirit…where does that come from?

 

[Nickkname]

I find this fascinating. If Protestants will not believe us, maybe they will believe you!

Planten is a troll. Just ignore him.

 

[planten]

While I accept the perpetual virginity of Mary as a matter of faith, I don’t see why it is necessary. Sexual activity within a marriage is not sinful so it doesn’t make any difference if Mary and Joseph engaged in sexual relations. It would not destroy my faith to find out that Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary is incorrect. It simply is not an essential teaching which has any bearing on my faith in the divinity of Christ. Who cares what Mary and Joseph might have done together after the birth of Christ?

**Good post. Please add to that some passage in the bible NT which states that Mary and Joseph used to close their doors at night on the world like a husband and wife for fourteen (14) years.

Absolutely no harm. I have come on the call of Nickname…

**

 

[Good_Fella]

The dogma reads as follows: “Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity”. As Catholics we are bound to believe only that statement. Dr. Ludwin Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma says that “the dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained” (The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pg. 205 But while many of the Church Fathers (few exceptions) did hold to the belief that “Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently experienced no pain” (Ibid, pg. 205), that is not part of the dogma and, thus, there is no obligation to believe it.

According to Catholic theologian Father Peter Damien Felhner:

“Pious belief may connote a personal opinion in accord with faith and expressed devotionally, but not part of, or at least not explicitly proclaimed by the Magisterium of the Church as part of the deposit of faith, and so whose acceptance in faith is not binding on all believers. Among theologians this is known as ‘theologoumenon’, a plausible opinion deduced from revealed truth, but itself not directly revealed and part of the deposit of faith. But pious belief may also denote some truth which the ‘sensus fidelium’ (sense of the faithful), or faith of Catholics, over a long period of time unanimously and spontaneously perceives as part of the deposit of faith. Thus before the solemn definition of the Assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pope Pius Xll that truth was one of those so recognized by virtually all the faithful. As such it was not permissible, despite some objections by scholars, to doubt it (religious assent as opposed to sacred assent: my emphasis), but only to seek a fuller explication of its content. That spontaneous perception of our Lady’s Assumption into heaven was a reliable key to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church preceding a solemn definition of some truth.”

It is not true that only solemn definitions of a pope or ecumenical council are binding on the faith. Pope John Paul ll made this clear in the clarification of the concept of heresy introduced into the Code of Canon Law:

*it is a heresy against the Catholic Church to believe that obedience or religious assent to the teachings of the Church is based strictly on authority and not also on truth. *

The Church has consistently taught since apostolic time that Christ is really and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist. The New Testament, the writings of the Church Fathers - notably Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John the Evangelist), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, and Augustine - bear witness to this infallible Catholic truth. Yet it was not until the 13th century, following four centuries of theological controversy, that the Fourth Lateran Council formally defined the doctrine of the Real Presence, making it obligatory for Catholics to give their full sacred assent. Until the council’s declaration, Catholics were obligated to give their religious or moral assent to this infallible truth. Hence, Catholics must not only believe what the Sacred Universal Magisterium formally defines as dogma. We are required to believe all that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition reveal as infallible truths notwithstanding a formal and clarified definition.

Concerning our belief in the miraculous virginal birth of Jesus, the ‘sensus fidelium’ practically gives witness since early time. Most of the Church Fathers and Doctors explicitly taught this truth. Even several popes have written encyclicals containing teachings of the miraculous birth of Jesus exercising their official capacity in the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. The consistent teachings of these popes, especially, grant this doctrine the status of an infallible teaching pending a solemn definition. We are dealing with something more than a ‘theologoumen’: a theological opinion. All the same, the infallible papal document ‘Tome to Flavian’, of Pope Leo the Great, (A.D. 449) states:

“She gave birth to Him preserving her virginity, just as she preserved her virginity in conceiving Him without seed.”

Pope Leo 1 infallibly declared that the birth of Jesus was as miraculous as his conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. There was no need for him to give a definition, since the Church would have understood what he meant in accord with the consistent teachings of the early Church Fathers. What is considered a solemn definition by many theologians, however implicit it is out of reverence for Mary with respect to her ‘virginitas in partu’, is the declaration of the Lateran Synod of 649 under Pope Martin 1. Here is the text of Canon 3:

“If anyone does not confess that the holy and ever-Virgin and immaculate Mary did not conceive without seed by the power of the Holy Spirit the very Word of God, give birth to him without corruption, thereafter that very virginity remaining ever integral, let him be anathema.”

The anathema carries dogmatic weight. Besides, Catholics must give their sacred assent to the doctrine of Mary’s ‘virginitas in partu’ to be consistent in their obligation to assent to the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. She was spared the twofold curse of Eve: pain in childbirth and the corruption of death.

PAX :heaven:

 

[po18guy]

This was Leeann’s post, not mine.

Originally Posted by -]po18guy/-] Leeann
Sorry, you can’t blame the Protestants for that.
I cannot speak for all of them, as none of us should ever attempt to do that, however I think I would be correct in stating that most of them believe that “the Mary” that the Catholic church presents, is not the same Mary that was Jesus’ mother.
They haven’t ‘dragged her name through the mud’ – they’re trying to salvage any vestige of truth in relation to her.

As with regards to the bible – that is something wonderful isn’t it, how God used those wonderfully, faithful, skilled and inspired Christian people to make sure His word would be available to all His children. I for one am forever grateful and admire their love and dedication and obedience in doing HIS WILL, by HIS authority.

 

[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.

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 Blessed Virgin Mary said to St. Bridget of Sweden:

“And when I gave birth to Him, I brought Him forth without pain, just as I had also conceived Him with such great joy of soul and body that in my rapture my feet did not feel the ground on which they were standing. And as He had filled my soul with happiness on entering my body, so did He again come forth in such a way that my whole body and soul exulted with indescribable joy and in such a way that my virginity was not impaired.”

Deus tibi benedicas

 

[adstrinity]

Could you explain this more clearly for me please?
Thanks.

youtube.com/watch?v=JehjqlzXwIQ

Sure! The way I see it, Protestants see Jesus as a divine parasite, leeching off a host body, then discarding Her when He is born. This is not what a mother is, but, this is how Protestants explain Mary.

But doesn’t Gabriel tell Joseph that “it’s okay to take Mary as his wife” - clearly explaining to him that this is a “special” situation - so that what was written in scripture would be fulfilled? And after the fact - after the fulfillment of the prophecy - being the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary are referred to being Jesus’ “parents” (Luke 2:41) and Mary *herself *refers to Joseph as being Jesus’ “father” (Luke2: 48) This implies that Mary and Joseph considered themselves indeed, “husband and wife.”

Whether they had conjugal relations or not… doesn’t concern me one way or the other, but it’s the “necessity” of having to believe in the perpetual virginity that makes me ask, as BartBark does,* why *is it necessary.

And the claim that Mary was married to the Holy Spirit…where does that come from?

The term “Baby Daddy,” does not imply a relationship between the Mother and Father of a child. Mary and Joseph were there to teach Jesus and develop Him, but, just because Mary is His Mother and She referred to St. Joseph as His Father, doesn’t mean that it implies that The BVM and St. Joseph considered themselves husband and wife in a conjugal sense. The BVM was the wife of the Holy Spirit, truly. She was the wife of St. Joseph legally.

It is necessary to believe because it is an old concept. It hadn’t been challenged by any non-heretical person…ever. For well over 1500 years, WELL OVER, it was accepted by all, no matter if one believed the Pope was the leader of the Church or not. It is necessary to believe because it is true and to NOT believe it, is to believe a lie, and to believe a lie is to believe the source of the lie, and Jesus is not the source of lies.

God entered Mary and opened Her womb. We know that from Old Testament Laws (I’m thinking both conjugal and rape, though help me, because conjugal may get stoned) that if a man enters a woman, and she does not protest, they are to be married. God entered Mary. It was when She said, “Yes,” to God’s proposal, She became married to God. We know that God is not a God of the dead but of the living. We know that a marriage is only binding as long as both spouses live. Seeing as how God is alive, for as long as He is alive, He is the Spouse of The BVM.

The claim is not new. Mary was Daughter of the Father, Mother to the Son, and Wife to the Holy Spirit. For further reading: frtommylane.com/homilies/year_c/advent4.htm

 

[Leeann]

Good Fella:
Protestants have not received their understanding of Christ’s divinity or the Trinity by just reading the Bible for themselves.

You have no way of knowing this for certain, if you claim that you do, you are limiting God’s omnipotence, He can do anything, at anytime, in anyway that He wants too…and on His own authority.

GoodFella:
The concepts of a “son of God” and “spirit of God” are originally Judaic and understood differently. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews, so we don’t know what they meant to say unless we appeal to the Church’s Sacred Tradition.

Poppycock! Is that pert enough for you? – or perhaps I should have said…how sad for you…if you truly believe that last sentence in the above quote of yours.

Good Fella:
The ontological deity of the Son and the Spirit is not affirmed by the Jews; nor do they see any confirmation of these Christian beliefs in the written word. To contend that they haven’t been enlightened by the Spirit requires an appeal to our Tradition.

Why would it require an appeal to your tradition…again…is God not able (or allowed too) operate outside of the Catholic church to accomplish HIS WILL…was a new dogma passed and He wasn’t informed???

Good Fella:
The scriptures are not explicit enough for anyone to come to conclusions in accord with the definitions given by the Popes and Councils of the one universal Catholic Church established by Christ.

Hebrews 4:11-13

12] For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
[13] Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
[14] Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
[16] Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Good Fella:
This is obvious, since Protestants cannot even agree with each other on the significance of baptism or the true meaning of predestination or dispensationalism, or whether divorce. abortion, artificial birth control, and homosexual marriages are permissible according to the Word of God. They are even divided over the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. *Note: as are some Catholics that have posted on here! Your conflicting “traditions” and practices mark a chaos of faith and morals because you rely strictly on your private interpretations of Scripture outside the Church and apart from her Sacred Tradition.

Thank you for giving the Protestants a clearly defined reason for what you claim to be true, and what you believe to be true in regards to their “chaos of faith and morals”.
What would be the Catholic church’s excuse then for their “chaos of faith and morals?”

Good Fella:
Meanwhile, the early reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

That’s okay. Their salvation wasn’t dependent upon whether they believed it or not…neither is yours…is it?

Good Fella:
The assault against Mary in Protestantism arose in post-modern time among the reformed evangelical communities (“roving tribes”) in America - the land of religious free enterprise and neo-gnosticism.

“The assault against Mary in Protestantism” – is yet another Catholic church myth, that has been perpetuated (no pun intended) over the years.
As stated before, Protestants aren’t “against” Mary…….it’s what the Catholic church has done/is doing to her.

Good Fella:
Ironically, the Church grappled with the same Marian heresies in the early centuries. Scripture must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. The deposit of faith consists of both Scripture and Tradition. The “church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” says St. Paul. Not the Bible! :hypno:

Yes Paul did say that …but that in no way applies to the Catholic church “as we know it today”.

As your little “smiley” indicates…they’ve really got you hypnotized!

I expect another pert and inerudite comment from you, Leeann
. :yawn:

Can’t disappoint you - see next post!

 

[adstrinity]

That’s okay. Their salvation wasn’t dependent upon whether they believed it or not…neither is yours…is it?

Well, it pretty much is. I’ve noticed that many who outright deny the perpetual virginity of Mary don’t really know Jesus. Our salvation is dependant on knowing who Jesus is, doing His will, following His teachings. How did Jesus begin to be Jesus – with His Mother. Belief in Mary’s Virginity, that She is still a virgin, chaste, and concecrated to God TO THIS DAY is necessary to believe.

 

[Leeann]

Especially for Good Fella

Orginally posted by Good Fella:
I expect another pert and inerudite comment from you, Leeann :yawn:

I had to look it up….most likely due to my ignorant pertiness. (I just made up that word)

**Inerudite:

a.1. unlearned, ignorant

**unlearned:/**U]  *not learned;not scholarly or
                                         erudite, uneducated; untaught; 
                                         unschooled, ignorant
                                         not acquired 
                                         by instruction, study,etc.

              **ignorant:***

apprenticed, benighted, birdbrained, blind to,cretinous, dense, green, illiterate, imbecilic, inexperienced, innocent, insensible, in the dark, mindless, misinformed, moronic, naive, nescient, oblivious, obtuse, shallow, thick, unconscious, unconversant, uncultivated, uncultured, uneducated, unenlightened, uninformed, uninitiated, unintellectual, unknowledgeable, unlearned, unlettered, unmindful, unread, unschooled, unsuspecting, untaught, untrained, unwitting, witless

Good Fella, it’s obvious that I’ve pushed you to the edge of the precipice of evil – what other reason could there be for such a comment as you gave above…therefore….since I am assuming my rightful responsibility in having done this to you:blush: …I’ve posted some scripture that **both of us **will benefit from.

2 Peter Ch.1: V5-9 (NASB)

5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control,
6 and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful **in the true knowledge **of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
10 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you

Note:
If you need any assistance in “interpreting” it……I want you to know I’m here for you.

**Oops! :doh2:…….I know…… I knowwww……some habits are hard to break……I will work at it! ****

 

[emeraldcoast]

I’d like to interject here, not to disagree with you but to answer this. It is not sinful to have sex within a marriage, but, Mary was married to the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. If She were to have conjugal relations with St. Joseph, she would be committing adultery by cheating on the Holy Spirit and She would then be sinning.

I always believed that the Feast of the Holy Family referred to Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I must of missed the part about Mary being married to the Holy Spirit.:ehh: Where in the world did this idea come from??

God Bless!

 

[adstrinity]

I always believed that the Feast of the Holy Family referred to Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I must of missed the part about Mary being married to the Holy Spirit.:ehh: Where in the world did this idea come from??

God Bless!

It came from the account of Mary being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Please see the second link on post 170 as well as the following.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3013

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4270&CFID=7937761&CFTOKEN=36590021

catholictradition.org/Tradition/holy-ghost4.htm
According to this site, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit is in the Bible (with two citations).

catholicexchange.com/2007/05/16/97553/

And might I add, THIS is what happens when Mary is viewed as an afterthought and not Blessed Ever Virgin: the rest of the faith suffers! emeraldcoast, I know you are not the only person who has just heard of this, but, thank you for being the brave one to ask! God bless you. This line of thinking is not new. The Early Church recognized this fact but this line of thinking of course HAD to be removed with the new theology of Mary wasn’t ever Virgin. She was married to The Holy Spirit before Her marriage to Joseph (notice She didn’t ask anybody else’s permission to say yes to God, that is, She didn’t ask St. Joachim nor talk it over with St. Joseph…it was Her and Her alone, which, I cannot be sure, but, must have been…not protocol for a teenage Jewish girl back in the day), and since Her first Husband never died, She was and is still married to Him. Since She was married to Him, She couldn’t go through all the marriage consecrations to St. Joseph. Emerald Coast, I implore you and all the others who may wonder to truly look this up. You asked where did this come from; this is NOT new.

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
Could you explain this more clearly for me please?
Thanks.

youtube.com/watch?v=JehjqlzXwIQ

Not THAT clearly!

adstrinity:

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
That’s okay. Their salvation wasn’t dependent upon whether they believed it or not…neither is yours…is it?

Well, it pretty much is. I’ve noticed that many who outright deny the perpetual virginity of Mary don’t really know Jesus. Our salvation is dependant on knowing who Jesus is, doing His will, following His teachings. How did Jesus begin to be Jesus – with His Mother. -OR-how did Mary begin to be Mary --with God - Jesus Belief in Mary’s Virginity, that She is still a virgin, chaste, and concecrated to God TO THIS DAY is necessary to believe.

Belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, that she is still a virgin, chaste, and consecrated to God, TO THIS DAY is necessary to believe – ONLY IF- you only want to remain a member in good standing with the Catholic church…and nothing more.:sad_yes:

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Jesus established his Church only on Peter to whom were given the keys. I don’t recall reading Martin Luther’s name anywhere in the gospels. Further, Jesus established one universal Catholic Church. He didn’t establish various roving churches to independently form their own conflicting doctrines. Luther created that dilemma in the 16th century. Fifteen hundred years earlier Jesus promised that he would send the Paraclete to guide his Church in all truth until the end of the age, and that he would not leave his bride spiritually orphaned; so this squirrel ain’t blind.

After the Diaspora, what happened to “formal” or “right and proper” Jewish worship? And today in the absence of the Catholic Church or any other denominations where there are believers, what happens in that case?

There are a LOT of people out there who hack it on their own without a single piece of either the Old Testament or the New Testament who are more spiritually alive and more God-focused and dedicated than you or I could ever imagine.

Talk all you want about Martin Luther. It doesn’t affect me one iota. I ascribe to no denomination at all, I don’t belong to a church, and until the Spirit guides me in the opposite direction, I will not. I have family that was brutally oppressed under the USSR and their resident goons in eastern Europe that had to rely on nothing but prayer and worship to maintain a Spiritual relationship. Do you honestly believe they gave a dang about whether they were “Catholic”, “Lutheran”, “Calvinist”, or anything else?

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

You test everything and retain what is good. Inspired writings are not mandates, but provide illumination.

I love this answer, I truly do. Thanks.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

I’d like to interject here, not to disagree with you but to answer this. It is not sinful to have sex within a marriage, but, Mary was married to the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. If She were to have conjugal relations with St. Joseph, she would be committing adultery by cheating on the Holy Spirit and She would then be sinning.

I received the Spirit before I was married, in fact before I even started dating my wife. Would I thus be committing adultery by having “conjugal relations” with her?