Mary ever-virgin

[Ewes]

Hello
On Sunday the first reading from the book of Rev 11:19; 12:1-6.10 it talks about Mary…“She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.”
What does this mean? Wasn’t Mary sparred the pains of childbirth, after all she is the ever-virgin correct. My son asked me after Mass on Sunday, because I told my children that she did not give birth to Jesus like we would give birth, am I correct in that ? I did check out the catechism # 499 but its a little vague for me to understand. A good catholic friend told me once that Mary did not give birth to Jesus the way we would hence the title ever-virgin. Jesus just appeared in her arms at the appointed time.
If I understand that correctly than the line ( labour, crying aloud in pangs of childbirth) has another meaning…I would like that answered too.
Please clarify this for me thank you
Just for the record I believe in the ever-virgin no matter what I’m told.

 

[bengal_fan]

Jesus did not appear magically in mary’s arms. she gave birth to him (for lack of a better term) vaginally. this would not take away her virginity as that has to do with sexual penetration not childbirth. mary (as a theory goes) was spared the pain of childbirth. this means she did not suffer the pain that all other human women suffer as being under the curse of eve. other animals (mammals) who give birth do not experience it as painfully as human women do. mary would have experienced it the way God intended for women to experience it originally. i have also hear the explanation for the passage that you bring up, that the pain she experiences is empathetic for the pain the church experiences bringing Jesus into this world. it is also the pain of “birthing” new Christians.

 

[Xenon-135]

I have found myself having to address this very issue quite often it seems. The Book of Revelation (The Apocolypse of St. John) is truly a text that cannot be taken absolutely literally.

In REV 11:19 - 12:6
19. Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. 1. A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
2. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
3. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.
4. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
5. She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
6. The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Obviously this vision was a representation of the events that took place, but not the actual events themselves. He didn’t see a scene of the Nativity in the sky, but he did see someting that included facets of the Nativity.

Mary is in the pain of childbirth, not as a contradiction to her Immaculate Conception, but to illustrate how she shared in the pain that her son, our Lord endured. It is in these verses, that St. John relates her as the “Ark of the New Covenant”. He specifically mentions this in such a fashion as it is not to be missed. The parallels (Type and Anti-Type) would necessatate that for her to be “incorruptable” as was the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, that she would need to be free of sin. It is sin that corrupts.

One of the most fascinating manuscripts on the matter is the Protoevangelion of James. It provides many details that are helpful in understanding Mary and the Nativity.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I heartily endorse people discussing these sorts of issues, because they are fascinating and satisfy our hunger to ascertain the truth. That said, I have to wonder why the Church herself and many Catholics I know are so adamant about these issues that they become angry, defensive, and judgemental about people who express other points of view.

Realistically, what difference does it make? I have six children in Catholic schools, and it seems rather odd that Church authorities rail on and on about how our culture is obsessed over sex, but then regularly preach to congregations including my first grader on the details on Mary’s sex life or nitpick over details about NFP. Who is it that is obsessed with sex?

If Jesus came to visit us, I’m not sure I would have to nerve to ask Him about his mother’s sex life, and frankly I don’t see how it is relevant in any way to help us understand or follow Jesus’s teachings, to receive the sacraments, to find salvation, or really anything else practical. Do we really think Jesus wants us to spend a good deal of our time and credibility dogmatically arguing about these things?

Again, I have no problem with intellectual discussion and speculation. When it gets to the point where people will commit the sin of anger and judgement against other Christians because they don’t share their purely speculative views about whether Mary did or did not “know” her husband, and where they feel their very faith is threatened by people having contrary opinions, then I wonder whether they have any faith at all, or if their beliefs are more like idolatry.

Alan

 

[Dr.Colossus]

AlanFromWichita:

I heartily endorse people discussing these sorts of issues, because they are fascinating and satisfy our hunger to ascertain the truth. That said, I have to wonder why the Church herself and many Catholics I know are so adamant about these issues that they become angry, defensive, and judgemental about people who express other points of view.

Realistically, what difference does it make? I have six children in Catholic schools, and it seems rather odd that Church authorities rail on and on about how our culture is obsessed over sex, but then regularly preach to congregations including my first grader on the details on Mary’s sex life or nitpick over details about NFP. Who is it that is obsessed with sex?

If Jesus came to visit us, I’m not sure I would have to nerve to ask Him about his mother’s sex life, and frankly I don’t see how it is relevant in any way to help us understand or follow Jesus’s teachings, to receive the sacraments, to find salvation, or really anything else practical. Do we really think Jesus wants us to spend a good deal of our time and credibility dogmatically arguing about these things?

Again, I have no problem with intellectual discussion and speculation. When it gets to the point where people will commit the sin of anger and judgement against other Christians because they don’t share their purely speculative views about whether Mary did or did not “know” her husband, and where they feel their very faith is threatened by people having contrary opinions, then I wonder whether they have any faith at all, or if their beliefs are more like idolatry.

Alan

The fact is, the Church is obsessed with sex – it’s obsessed with keeping it sacred, and safeguarding it against a culture bent on destroying its beauty. The reason that many Catholics can get so bent out of shape regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is that it is a doctrine of the Church. In other words, anyone who calls themselves Catholic is bound to full assent of mind and will to believing this infallible truth. That does not excuse reactions of anger or judgment, but it does explain the high level of emotion that occurs.

Regarding why any of this matters, it is because Mary is the model Christian. The more we understand about how she lived her life, the better we can understand how to live ours.

 

[aridite]

Xenon-135:

Mary is in the pain of childbirth, not as a contradiction to her Immaculate Conception, but to illustrate how she shared in the pain that her son, our Lord endured. It is in these verses, that St. John relates her as the “Ark of the New Covenant”. He specifically mentions this in such a fashion as it is not to be missed. The parallels (Type and Anti-Type) would necessatate that for her to be “incorruptable” as was the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, that she would need to be free of sin. It is sin that corrupts.

This is how Scott Hahn understands the text in his Catholic Scripture Study on the Revelation. Mary was certainly not spared all pain since Scripture says a sword would pierce her heart. I thought the Passion of the Christ depicted well Mary’s pain at seeing her Son tortured to death.

 

[aridite]

I seem to remember one (or more) Fathers of the Church arguing for Mary’s virginity before, during and after the nativity of our Lord. I think this is where the idea of Jesus miraculously appearing in Mary’s arms comes from. I think it is kind of silly to worry about Mary being a virgin “during” the nativity. I agree with bengal_fan that regular childbirth does not compromise her virginity. The Fathers could be a bit extreme sometimes.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dr. Colossus:

In other words, anyone who calls themselves Catholic is bound to full assent of mind and will to believing this infallible truth. That does not excuse reactions of anger or judgment, but it does explain the high level of emotion that occurs.

Regarding why any of this matters, it is because Mary is the model Christian. The more we understand about how she lived her life, the better we can understand how to live ours.

Dear Dr.,

Thank you for the reply. I have stuggled with the business of being bound to full assent of mind and will to believe an “infallible” truth.

There are several “truths” of the Church that don’t make sense to me because there doesn’t seem to be a logical connection between a teaching and its roots, or they seem to contradict itself or another teaching, or seem to have been come upon rather arbitrarily as far as anyone has explained them to me. For years I tried to tell myself that I “just don’t understand – yet” on these sorts of things, but at this point I am finally confident enough to admit that I am a “cafeteria Catholic.” Some say that is impossible, but I suspect the vast majority of Catholics are, and my suspicions are well-supported by a survey in a recent Catholic Digest. If only Catholics who fully believed what we are ostensibly required to believe, we would save a whole lot of money on Communion wafers.

That said, I honestly don’t know how we can be commanded to do something which only has value if we do it willingly. I can’t “will” myself to believe something, although I can choose to pretend and act as if I do. I guess I am just coming out of the closet a little bit. I’m sorry but if someone tells me things that don’t make sense, and then can’t explain it any better than telling me to “quit trying to figure it out and just believe” then I will always have doubts. In the words of Paul Tillich, a theologian recently quoted in Catholic Digest, “Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith.”

About Mary being a model Christian, one can look toward her obedience and faith without having to know about her sex life or lack thereof. After all, the virgin birth is a symbol and example of obedience, but it hardly serves as a role model for any of us who were born with original sin and have no chance at imitating her behavior in that regard. Dare I say that my faith in God and my honor of and obedience to Jesus and His Spirit do not depend on whether I even believe in the virgin birth? I’m not denying the virgin birth; I’m just saying that my faith is strong enough that it doesn’t have to (blindly or otherwise) be convinced in a lot of teachings and traditions of human being no matter what their position is in the church. I used to try to believe it all and feel guilty about my doubts, until I realized that clinging to other humans’ image of God and theological dogma as a condition of faith and obedience was idolatry. Please don’t take that as an insult; I can explain but I won’t just yet because I’m trying to cut down the size of my posts.

That all said, I agree with you that Mary has a lot to offer us as an example of faith. I watched a really wonderful video on that topic, based on a contemplative view by a Cistercian monk, Father Thomas Keating. There are several references to the prayer method of “centering prayer” but I imagine it would still be valuable to someone not familiar with centering prayer. You can find it at:
contemplativeoutreach.org/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=COB&Product_Code=V-212&Category_Code=IVTBFTK

Alan

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Alan,

I understand your point of view. Although I believe everything the Church teaches, I will admit that it is difficult to understand how and why the Church came to the conclusions it did. I think the attitude of “I just don’t understand – yet” is the healthiest way to go about being Catholic. Don’t give up on it. The Church does not condone blind faith, but faith and reason. Although there are some things that the Church considers mysteries beyond our comprehension, it still encourages the faithful to attempt to understand them as best they can.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has been constant Tradition since the Apostles. Even in Luke, Mary expresses bewilderment when the angel Gabriel announces that she will bear a child. If she were not planning on remaining a virgin after her marriage to Joseph, why would this surprise her?

You quoted Paul Tillich as saying “Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith.” Though I don’t agree with his use of the word “doubt”, he is expressing the same idea that St. Paul did when he said “test everything. Hold fast to what is good.” We are called to use our full capacity (heart, soul *and *mind) to understand our faith.

You said:

That said, I honestly don’t know how we can be commanded to do something which only has value if we do it willingly. I can’t “will” myself to believe something, although I can choose to pretend and act as if I do. I guess I am just coming out of the closet a little bit. I’m sorry but if someone tells me things that don’t make sense, and then can’t explain it any better than telling me to “quit trying to figure it out and just believe” then I will always have doubts.

The Church never commands anyone to believe anything. However, if you call yourself a Catholic, should it not mean that you believe the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded? And if it is the one, true Church, should we not believe that it can be infallible, since Christ stated that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”? If we have faith in the words of Christ, we can have faith in the proclamations of His Church. Thus, when the Church declares that Mary was perpetually a virgin, we can accept on faith (even if we do not understand the direct reasoning – yet ) that the Church does not speak in error. If we understand why we believe in the Church, that is enough of a foundation to believe what the Church says.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dr.,

Thank you for a respectful and thoughtful post. I think I like this forum so far because these are things I just can’t discuss with most Catholics or even priests without feeling judged and condemned.

You wrote:
Dr. Colossus:

The Church never commands anyone to believe anything. However, if you call yourself a Catholic, should it not mean that you believe the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded? And if it is the one, true Church, should we not believe that it can be infallible, since Christ stated that “the gates of Hades will not prevail against it”? If we have faith in the words of Christ, we can have faith in the proclamations of His Church. Thus, when the Church declares that Mary was perpetually a virgin, we can accept on faith (even if we do not understand the direct reasoning – yet ) that the Church does not speak in error. If we understand why we believe in the Church, that is enough of a foundation to believe what the Church says.

I don’t see how the Church being founded by Christ or even that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, implies that it is infallible. The Church has been wrong in the past, and from time to time changes teachings and practices. To his credit, John Paul II even apologized on behalf of the Church for past atrocities committed. When we can objectively say the Church has taught or done wrong things in the past, are we not obliged to follow our own hearts and minds and test even the teachings of the Church? After all, if the Church was objectively wrong in the past about some things, are we not foolish to believe it cannot be wrong in the present about other things?

The church gives us a method of worship, a dispensary for the sacraments, an institution to carry on teachings, etc. but it is entirely run by imperfect, fallible human beings. I see no harm in believing teachings that are based on the opinions of men who are hopefully inspired by the Spirit, but I still think that if I regard those teachings as infallible and God-given, then I have elevate the Church to the position of God. Following the Church should lead me to God, but if I think the Church is infallible then I have elevated her to the position of God which is idolatry. That is dangerous because then I become a lemming. Further, why do we have the Spirit within us if we are not supposed to have any opinion that contradicts the Church?

Alan

 

[joegrabowski]

Scott Hahn’s recent book, The Lamb’s Supper, talks about “the woman clothed with the sun” and explains that the imagery portrayed doesn’t necessarily have to be taken as a refutation of Mary’s painless labor. He points out that the images in Revelation are multifoliate in their applicability. While Mary IS the woman and the child certainly Jesus, the symbol can also have implication as Daughter Zion personified. Also, Dr. Hahn points out that the pains the woman is seen experiencing might not pertain exactly to the historical birth of Christ, but to Mary’s sorrows in her perpetual Motherhood of the Church. I recommend the book, highly. I’ve only coursely summarized what he had to say, and far less eloquently.

 

[Ewes]

Thank ewe all who answered this for me, but for the record I in no way believed and took what Rev says about Mary’s birthpangs to mean giving birth to our Lord, i knew it meant something else and you have confirmed it and explained it nicely.

On the matter of Mary being spared the the pains of childbirth, it’s only fitting for this feeble mind of mine to understand that Mary would not be Ever Virgin if Jesus passed through the birth canal unless God intervened. It’s truly a mystery that we don’t know for sure how but I think we can all safely agree that just as Mary conceived miraculously that Jesus was given birth miraculously.

 

[Lorarose]

In the same reading we are told Mary escaped the dragon by ging to a place in the desert that had been prepared for her by God.

What’s that all about?

 

[jimmy]

AlanFromWichita:

I don’t see how the Church being founded by Christ or even that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, implies that it is infallible. The Church has been wrong in the past, and from time to time changes teachings and practices. To his credit, John Paul II even apologized on behalf of the Church for past atrocities committed. When we can objectively say the Church has taught or done wrong things in the past, are we not obliged to follow our own hearts and minds and test even the teachings of the Church? After all, if the Church was objectively wrong in the past about some things, are we not foolish to believe it cannot be wrong in the present about other things?

The church gives us a method of worship, a dispensary for the sacraments, an institution to carry on teachings, etc. but it is entirely run by imperfect, fallible human beings. I see no harm in believing teachings that are based on the opinions of men who are hopefully inspired by the Spirit, but I still think that if I regard those teachings as infallible and God-given, then I have elevate the Church to the position of God. Following the Church should lead me to God, but if I think the Church is infallible then I have elevated her to the position of God which is idolatry. That is dangerous because then I become a lemming. Further, why do we have the Spirit within us if we are not supposed to have any opinion that contradicts the Church?

Alan

Welcome to the boards Alan. The church has never taught a doctrine and then changed there teaching and it is then false. The church does not contradict it self. They may have changes a practice like the celibacy of the priesthood but that is not a teaching, it is a discipline. The church leaders fealt that the church would be better off if its priests were fully dedicated to God.

The fact that people of the church have done terrible things does not mean that the church is not infallible. it only means that they are sinners and that does not contradict infallability. The church only claims to be infallable on faith and morals. They have never changed an article of faith or any moral teachings.

If the church teaches a false doctrine the gates of Hell have already prevailed because anything that is not of God is of the devil. Since Jesus promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against the church we can firmly say that the doctrines of the church are the truth.

Essentially what you are saying is that all sects of christianity are equal because if the Catholic church is wrong then it is no better than any other sect.

If you don’t understand a teaching of the church then you should read about it and try to learn as much as you can.

Here is a tract written by Jerome on the virginity of Mary.
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume29/jerome2919.cfm%between%

 

[AlanFromWichita]

jimmy:

Welcome to the boards Alan. The church has never taught a doctrine and then changed there teaching and it is then false. The church does not contradict it self. They may have changes a practice like the celibacy of the priesthood but that is not a teaching, it is a discipline. The church leaders fealt that the church would be better off if its priests were fully dedicated to God.

The fact that people of the church have done terrible things does not mean that the church is not infallible. it only means that they are sinners and that does not contradict infallability. The church only claims to be infallable on faith and morals. They have never changed an article of faith or any moral teachings.

If the church teaches a false doctrine the gates of Hell have already prevailed because anything that is not of God is of the devil. Since Jesus promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against the church we can firmly say that the doctrines of the church are the truth.

Essentially what you are saying is that all sects of christianity are equal because if the Catholic church is wrong then it is no better than any other sect.

If you don’t understand a teaching of the church then you should read about it and try to learn as much as you can.

Here is a tract written by Jerome on the virginity of Mary.
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume29/jerome2919.cfm

Dear jimmy,

Thank you for your thoughtful response, and for welcoming me. I’ll take your word for the stuff about doctrine vs. practice, etc. because they get blurred to me. For example, when I read articles written and/or endorsed by our bishop and local theologians, watch shows on EWTN by people with doctorates in something related to the Church, and even documents from the Pope, I really don’t understand the details of to what degree I am supposed to believe any given part of it. Either way, if they are teaching something (even though it may not have the official stamp of infallibility) that contradicts itself or the Bible, whether it’s dogma, practice or whatever, it has the same effect of injecting confusion into the flock.

I’m not sure I understand how you arrived at your conclusion that I was comparing sects of Christianity as to whether one is “better” than another. I do think it is at least risky, if not arrogant and presumptious, for any individual human or group of human beings to claim to have an “infallible” interpretation of God’s spirit, at the risk of misleading a billion souls if they are wrong – particularly when their ruling are purely speculative. For example, the other day our pastor said the last time a Pope spoke infallibly had to do with the teaching that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven. Why does the Church would expend her supreme authority on a teaching that as far as I can see makes no difference as to what God’s expectations are for us as Christians or whether we are pleasing to God? How does my agreement with this belief improve my ability to follow Christ, hear and heed the Holy Spirit, love God or my neighbor, or any other practical matter? It is very interesting, but it is also rather academic and based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, asserting it as infallibly true as a matter of faith actually lays a potential obstacle before the faithful and becomes a matter of testing the sheep rather than feeding them.

Thank you for the article by Jerome. I read through it briefly, but didn’t study it thoroughly because of its length and my impatience. I found it interesting, but again I didn’t see that he even attempted to prove that Mary was forever a virgin. The only think I thought he really was arguing is that we have insufficient evidence to assert that she is NOT a virgin.

Alan

 

[Scott_Waddell]

While the Fathers genrally believed Mary’s labor was without pain, it is not a dogmatic article. And even if she did have pain, it would not mess anything up:

Freedom from original sin does not necessarily involve freedom from all defects which came into the world as a punishment for sin. Mary, like Christ Himself, was subject to the general human defects, in so far as these involve no moral imperfection. (Ott. p. 202)

Scott

 

[cindyanne]

Ewes:

…

On the matter of Mary being spared the the pains of childbirth, it’s only fitting for this feeble mind of mine to understand that Mary would not be Ever Virgin if Jesus passed through the birth canal unless God intervened. It’s truly a mystery that we don’t know for sure how but I think we can all safely agree that just as Mary conceived miraculously that Jesus was given birth miraculously.

I find this topic very interesting as well as the views expressed.
I have always been under the understanding that Jesus was indeed ‘Born’ of the Virgin Mary and she had in fact given birth to him. I searched the Vatican site and the Cathecism and this what I found
Mary - “ever-virgin”

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156

‘The act of giving birth’ to me clearly means that the Church’s view is the Virgin Mary did give birth and is still ‘Ever Virgin’.

I also found this;
510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999):

*Below is the link to The Vatican site and Cathecism *
Paragraph 2. "CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1K.HTM#-J3

 

[RobbyS]

AlanFromWichita:

Dr.,

Thank you for a respectful and thoughtful post. I think I like this forum so far because these are things I just can’t discuss with most Catholics or even priests without feeling judged and condemned.

You wrote:

I don’t see how the Church being founded by Christ or even that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, implies that it is infallible. The Church has been wrong in the past, and from time to time changes teachings and practices. To his credit, John Paul II even apologized on behalf of the Church for past atrocities committed. When we can objectively say the Church has taught or done wrong things in the past, are we not obliged to follow our own hearts and minds and test even the teachings of the Church? After all, if the Church was objectively wrong in the past about some things, are we not foolish to believe it cannot be wrong in the present about other things?

The church gives us a method of worship, a dispensary for the sacraments, an institution to carry on teachings, etc. but it is entirely run by imperfect, fallible human beings. I see no harm in believing teachings that are based on the opinions of men who are hopefully inspired by the Spirit, but I still think that if I regard those teachings as infallible and God-given, then I have elevate the Church to the position of God. Following the Church should lead me to God, but if I think the Church is infallible then I have elevated her to the position of God which is idolatry. That is dangerous because then I become a lemming. Further, why do we have the Spirit within us if we are not supposed to have any opinion that contradicts the Church?

Alan

You might reflect on how it is that you arrived at your present opinions? Regarding virginity, it is a fact that since the beginning of the Church virginity has been held in high regard. It is part of our faith that Christ himself was a virgin and so was John the Baptist. It was part of the faith that Christ would soon come and that such mundane matters as marriage and family were expected to take second place. There are numerous exhortations in the New Testament to leave family and possesion behind and to “follow him,” with the implication that in doing so we are taking up our own cross. A medieval model of this sort is provided by St. Francis, who literally abandoned his comfortable bourgeois life
and led the life that Our Lord led. The “ideal” Christian, therefore, is someone like him. Your seem to have a different view in mind, which suggests that your “suspicion”–pardon me if that is incorrect-- of virginity comes from our culture, which is dominated by the view that Virginity–and by extension–celibacy
is “unhealthy.”

 

[Tom]

Ewes:

Rev 11:19; 12:1-6.10 it talks about Mary…“She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.”

Read the rest of the chapter, she is my mother also, she went thru all of that pain because of me, not Jesus. She still goes thru considerable pain as I grow.

 

[Tom]

Pardon me for interrupting but,

AlanFromWichita:

Either way, if they are teaching something (even though it may not have the official stamp of infallibility) that contradicts itself or the Bible, whether it’s dogma, practice or whatever, it has the same effect of injecting confusion into the flock.

What contradicts Scripture?

AlanFromWichita:

I do think it is at least risky, if not arrogant and presumptious, for any individual human or group of human beings to claim to have an “infallible” interpretation of God’s spirit, at the risk of misleading a billion souls if they are wrong – particularly when their ruling are purely speculative.

The whole idea of infallibility is based on Scripture. So if we follow Scripture, the Church is infallible in her teaching. To reject the infallibility is to reject Scripture. But are we getting off the subject here?

AlanFromWichita:

Thank you for the article by Jerome. I read through it briefly, but didn’t study it thoroughly because of its length and my impatience. I found it interesting, but again I didn’t see that he even attempted to prove that Mary was forever a virgin. The only think I thought he really was arguing is that we have insufficient evidence to assert that she is NOT a virgin.

See the thread “Mary for Protestants”