Mary ever-virgin

[Ken]

Dr. Colossus:

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.

And the model Christian should abstain from sex?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Ken:

And the model Christian should abstain from sex?

No, rather the model Christian should look to Mary’s virtue of Chastity. That is, all Christians are called to Chastity and whether sex is involved or not depends on their vocation.

Scott

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Tom:

Pardon me for interrupting but,
What contradicts Scripture?

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?

See the thread “Mary for Protestants”

When I wrote about a teaching that, “contradicts itself or the Bible,” I was actually thinking about several recent articles about NFP and contraception that I have read in our diocesan newspaper, which agreed with an hour-long special on NFP I saw on EWTN.

As far as the topic at hand, I don’t claim the Church’s teaching actually contradicts the Bible, but she has to bend over backwards, as it were, to show that the Bible does not contradict it. For example, “brother” means “cousin” in this context or "

Tom:

Pardon me for interrupting but,
What contradicts Scripture?

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?

See the thread “Mary for Protestants”

When I wrote about a teaching that, “contradicts itself or the Bible,” I was actually thinking about several recent articles about NFP and contraception that I have read in our diocesan newspaper, which agreed with an hour-long special on NFP I saw on EWTN. Some of the arguments they use are circular and self-contradictory. Maybe I’ll get into that more in another post because it is off-topic, but I suggest that if they tell me things that make no sense on one topic right there where I can see it, why should I believe she knows any better on matters of pure speculation that cannot be backed up in any way?

As far as the topic at hand, I don’t claim the Church’s teaching actually contradicts the Bible, but she has to bend over backwards, as it were, to show that the Bible does not contradict it. For example, “brother” really means “cousin,” or " he had no relations with her until she bore a son" really means “he had no relations with her ever.” Perhaps the Church is right and these things do not contradict Mary’s perpetual virginity, but neither do they support it. The Church seems to assume that this belief is correct unless absolutely proven wrong beyond any defense, but I am bold enough to ask whether they believe this based on anything other than wishful thinking. The only “evidence” I’ve seen that actually supports this teaching is purely speculative.

Another reason I am a bit skeptical is that I have a lot of “insider” experience at serving in parish leadership, working as liaison between parish and diocese for our recent historic synod, and in public politics, elected three times as a party precinct person, endorsed by conservative pro-life senators and representatives. With that experience, I see what happens behind the scenes and then read what comes out in writing. I’ve seen first hand how Church politics, personal opinions of lay people who know nothing of God’s word, and theory which has no basis in fact actually works its way into writings that eventually become promulgated by the bishop, and then are delivered as sermons. I’ve seen first hand how Church leaders, both lay and religious, steadfastly maintain that they are following policies that they not only haven’t read, but specifically prohibit the exact things they are doing. In the case at hand, I do not claim that Mary ever did have sex. I really don’t know because I did not know her personally or talked to anyone who did. I do suspect that the Church really doesn’t know either, and I don’t see how God is glorified by our focus on our speculations about Mary’s sex life.

Alan

 

[RobbyS]

None of the dogmas associated with Mary has anything to do with “her sex life.” The Virgin Birth, for instance, is, as evangelical Protestants say, a “sign”, or we would say, a miracle. To the Greeks, this would have meant a mark of divinity. Because this was known to the Greeks as
an indication that that child was the son of a God, modern skeptics have decided that it was a pious fiction, mean by “Matthew” and “Luke” to show that this child of a humble girl was the son of a god, amd destined for the great things that are related further on in the text. I short, these are stories not meant to be taken seriously by
the “enlightened” men of our time. Allthis is the effort by philsophers to debunk Christianity. But main point is: Is this the way that you think? Or do you accept as true this story that has been handed down over two thousand years? It, of course defies all that science tells you, all that you experience tells you. But can it not be true anyway, just because science and personal experience do not in fact satisfactorily explain everything, not even the greater portion of it all? Can it not be true just because the Church tells you it is true?

 

[jimmy]

AlanFromWichita:

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.

Your welcome, we are always glad to have new people on the boards.
Now I don’t think there is anything in Catholic doctrine or practice that contradicts itself or the bible, if you have something that does then I would like to see what it is.

AlanFromWichita:

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.

The teaching of infallability is not just some made up doctrine. It comes from the bible.

The Pope did not just come to the conclusion on the spot that Mary was assumed to Heaven. It is a doctrine that is from the early church. This doctrine is over fifteen hundred years old. The pope made it a dogma.

I agree that it may cause an obstacle for those who have problems with the faith but for someone who is strong in the faith it is no problem. There has been no decrease in the number of Catholics since it has been declared a dogma. If they know something is true or they have a strong conviction that it is true then you can not just leave it out of the faith. They are trying to guide the world in all truth.

Continued…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

RobbyS:

None of the dogmas associated with Mary has anything to do with “her sex life.”

But main point is: Is this the way that you think? Or do you accept as true this story that has been handed down over two thousand years? It, of course defies all that science tells you, all that you experience tells you. But can it not be true anyway, just because science and personal experience do not in fact satisfactorily explain everything, not even the greater portion of it all? Can it not be true just because the Church tells you it is true?

Dear RobbyS,

Thank you for the post. Are you saying that the teaching on Mary being an ever-virgin is not dogmatic, or that her being a virgin has nothing to do with “her sex life?” If the latter, perhaps I should have said, “her sex life or lack thereof.” Either way, I think it is undignified, if not downright crude, to speak publicly about whether a Friend’s mother consummates her marriage to her husband. As I’ve said throughout, why does it matter, and why are we so obsessed with harping on that fact?

Is what the way I think? Are you asking me if I believe in the virgin birth? Honestly I don’t know. After years of giving preachers and teachers the benefit of the doubt, and being fooled and mocked for trying to be obedient and honest as a lay leader, I don’t take anything that any religious authority tells me as God-given fact. I only compare it to other facts and see what correlates and what doesn’t. I am learning that when I’m asked for my honest opinion, often it is best to give them a response closer to I think they want to hear or are willing to accept than my honest opinion.

If I take the Bible to be historically accurate, and Mary was telling the truth and did not suffer memory loss when she asked the angel “how can this be…” then I agree that the virgin birth is true. I have no question whatsoever about why the Church maintains the teaching of the virgin birth. It is totally Biblical.

It doesn’t really bother me that a virgin birth is outside the realm of what makes sense to my wordly mind and defies traditional biology. The most convincing reason I know of, is Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is absolutely mind-boggling and foreign to the senses of perception and of logic. If I believe that Einstein and others invented an atomic bomb, then I can also believe in a virgin birth. I would not dare refute the virgin birth of Jesus simply because it is defies my limited perception and logic.

When it comes to Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of her son, that is a whole different ball game. The Bible, as far as I can tell, doesn’t say anything of the sort. I don’t know why the Church even thinks it is important. If she did fulfill her marital “duty” (1 Cor 7) to her husband, how would that diminish our faith in any way?

You ask, “Can it not be true just because the Church tells you it is true?” In a nutshell: maybe, maybe not. I’ve worked with numerous brilliant, educated and thoughtful people, and I have seen how easily they can be deceived and convince others to believe like them. I have seen how “facts” that are in error can take on a life of their own and go on the TV news even though the originator of the “facts” realized they were wrong and tried to stop it. This often happens when the “facts” are not as newsworthy as fiction. I’ve been burned too many times by innocently believing in too many things I’ve been told by authorities: teachers, preachers, managers, government officials, and others. Now I keep my beliefs in what others tell me tentative until I can back them up, no matter who it is telling me.

Alan

 

[MichelleGemma]

Catechism of the Catholic Church #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. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

Also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church #'s 491-493, 502-511, 721-724

“Who are you? O Immaculate Conception!
Not God, for God has no beginning. Not an angel, directly created from nothing. Not Adam, made from the dust of the earth. Not Eve, drawn from Adam’s body. Nor is she the Incarnate Word who already existed from all eternity and who was conceived, but is not really a “conception.” Prior to their conception the children of Eve do not exist, hence they can more properly be called “conceptions”; and yet you, O Mary, differ from them, too, because they are conceptions contaminated by original sin, whereas you are the one and only Immaculate Conception”

Quote from the writings of St. Maximilian Kolbe

 

[MichelleGemma]

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

"THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST TRANSCENDS THE ORDER OF NATURE

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine. Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; (Jn 20:19) or, not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conceptin and birth of the Son so favored the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity. (On the Nativity of Christ see Summa Theo. 3a xxxv, xxxvi.)"

 

[jimmy]

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.

I haven’t read that article in a while, I thought it included this arguement about the gospel of Luke. This article also has a lik=nk to early church fathers beliefs of Marys perpetual virginity
catholicapologetics.net/LUKE_1_34.htm

Here is St. Thomas’ arguement
ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP028.html

 

[RobbyS]

AlanFromWichita:

,

Alan

I should explain why I pit “sex-life” in parentheses: It is a modern term with the implication that there is something odd about her perpetual virginity. Both Luther and Calvin accepted the dogma, so one might guess that the basic problem is that modern Protestants treat the Bible as a “stand-alone” text that can be interpreted in isolation from tradition and Neither of the two men thought of sola scriptura in that way. Each knew too much about Scripture to think of it that way. Each was too knowledgeable about the Church Fathers not to give due consideration to what these men said about the Bible. Modern evangelicals of a certain type have come to dismiss not only the Fathers but the Reformers themselves and to depend on their own talents and/or the Holy Ghost to interpret the Bible. They have, however, accepted the antimonastic tradition of the Reformers, so they they reject the idea that virginity has its special merits. Indeed, they go in the reverse direction and assume that everyone should be married.

In any case, I propose that we accept that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary” and that the birth stories are essentially correct. Put yourself in Joseph’s shoes. Would you insist on your “rights” as a husband or would you recognize that mother and child were
something very special? Tradition has it that Jospeh was older than Mary and perhaps a relative who had agreed to take Mary as
a special charge. If that is so, then he might have had other children. children old enough to be on their own. And he, of course, would be beyond the age in which fire burned in his loins.
And of course he would die before the time of Jesus’s ministry.
And Mary. Would she go on to have a larger family knowing as she did how extraordinary a person her child was? Frank Sheed even speculated that knowing who the child was that she would steep herself in the Torah, because even a wunderkind would have to be educated? Besides, other legends suggest she herself was precocious, not as we usually assume, a lowly peasant girl. For instance, might not she have had a servant to escort her to see Elizabeth? All speculation, but just to suggest that the mere glimpses we get of her in the Bible are inconclusive. Why insist that our own powers are sufficient to discern the true meaning of Scripture?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Some arguments in the thread suggest that Mary could not be virgin, because I am not virgin. I would humbly ask people if they are the mother of God. I would also ask them if that makes every nun who ever lived a nyphomanic.
I know that some people remain virgin, both priests and nuns.
There is nothing to say that Mary did not also, and there is even some reasons, I am aware of, to say she did.

The perpetual virginity has a basis in scripture, although its defense is not absolute.

1. Mary did not know how she was to have a child, even though she was betrothed. This indicates a vow of virginity.
   (As already noted).
2. Ps.22:9-11, the one relating to the crucifixion of the messiah.
   << Yet thou [God] art he who took me from the womb;
   thou didst keep me safe upon my mother’s breasts.

God’s guidance was happening at the birth. Births, without modern medicine, are very dangerous events. How many women died - along with the child - in the pioneer days, let alone in Jesus’ day. There is no suggestion of Mary laboring here, but rather of God handling the birth himself. The importance of what was happening makes it certain that God did not leave it to ‘chance’.

1. At the cross. Jn:19:26 Jesus gave his mother to John.

For Jesus to give Mary to John is strong evidence that Jesus had no blood brothers. For if he had, then John (son of Zebedee), would not have been acceptable. Mary would have been cared for by one of Jesus’ blood brothers.
So there is no evidence of sexual activity being revealed by Jesus, at a time where it would have been expected.


The question of the vaginal birth, and post birth virginity is a seperate problem.

Beyond the danger of childbirth, there is one other question which would bother me in assuming a vaginal birth :

Jesus did not recieve his name until the first time his blood was shed, Lk 2:21. His name means God Saves, and it is by his blood which we are saved.
It would be highly inappropriate for anyone to have cut his umbilical cord prior to the naming ceremony. His blood flowed in the umbilical cord, not Mary’s.
I would like to think that the naming, which is so important to God throughout the old testament, was not spoiled by a premature shedding of blood. But that is not probable in the natural course of childbirth.

As for virginity with respect to Joseph:

I dont believe that Joseph would have the guts to tray and have relations with a woman who had a child by God. How could he be certain God wouldn’t be angry with him? Mary was greater than the old Ark of the covenant, which brought death at one touch – and she shows signs of having a vow (to God…) of virginity. I wouldn’t risk it if I was in his position.

As I see it, Joseph was husband to protect her reputation.
There was no doubt in Joseph’s mind who’s wife she really was!
A sexually starved man doesn’t care whether or not a woman is pregnant, but Joseph did. And he wasn’t a self centered person either for he was preparing to divorce Mary quietly.
Then God gives the final punch, saying the Holy Spirit got her pregnant so marry her anyway. Joseph married her out of obedience, not personal libido.

This is borne out since Joseph had plenty of opportuninty to have relations with Mary while Jesus was in the womb.
But we know he didn’t. He obviously had self control.
If he had marital rights, why not do so at that time too?
God certainly didn’t forbid it verbally…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As for the pain of childbirth (Revelations), I did a word study which might be helpful.

I do know that the new testament greek quotes from the greek (LXX/septuagint) in preference to the hebrew.
This is important because the author of Revalations did not quote the expression used in Genesis for the curse laid on Eve although he could have. ( There’s a little more to the argument ).

Transliterated from the greek, the two passages look like:

Gen 3:16
kai tH gunaike eipen plHthunwn plHthunw tas <> sou kai ton <> sou en <> teKH tekna …

Rev 12:2
kai en gastri exousa kai kraZei <> kai <> tekein.

The <<>> are my emphasis.

1. << stenagmon >> = groaning
2. << lupas >> = grief/remorse (to be sorrowful).
3. <> = travail / birth contractions.
4. <> = Torment / torture / pain.

All four words are used in the OT and NT. – very consistantly.
Their meaning does not appear to vary with age of the book.
NT. examples of 1 & 2 & 3 are:

Lk 14:9, 19:22, 26:37 (#2)
Jn 16:6, 16:21**, 21:17 (#2)

Rom 8:22 (#1) & (#3)
Gal 4:19 (#3)*

The word, << wdinousa >>, from Revelations, is almost exclusively a description of labor pains and by extension birth. Women are usually mentioned in association with that word.
An exhaustive search shows that there are only two usages that really show up in the bible. Labor pain of a birth, and the pain of death.

For example, it shows up as dying in:
Ps 18:5-6 <–> 2Sam 22:6,
Ps 116:3

And as a mere expression for animals giving birth in:
Job 39:1

Is 26:17-21, Is unusual, in that it uses it with both connections.
And all of this is culminated in -->Jesus himself<–, where the
word is used in acts 2:24.
( Yes, even Jesus experienced labor pains, from death itself ).

Grief is rarely used in connection to childbirth, but it is
notably used in Gen 3:16, and Jn 16:21

Since John is the traditional author of the Gospel, and revalations, it would be worth noticing that in Jn 16:21, he says a woman has grief when her time to give birth has come, and in the passage of revelations 12, he does not use this word.
But rather that she is put to the test (torture) by the child, and that she has pangs of labor. (Neither are found in Genesis).

In my opinion, what is going on, is that Mary / the woman is not suffering the curse of Eve, which was to bear children who were as good as stillborn. They would eventually die seperated from God, and their actual sins (Cain slaying Abel) would multiply Eve’s grief/sorrow. (ahh, raising Cain…).

It is also interesting to notice that the other word used in Genesis, groaning, takes on fuller meaning with the Holy Spirit in the new testament as he prays on our behalf. So only the grief of Genesis really represents the curse.

The problem is the tendency to associate personal sin with the suffering of the woman in Revelations, but this is not necessarily the case.
In Revelations, the woman could be suffering the trial (torment) that the child brings with it. For example, see Lk 2:34-35
Which is a result of sin, but not Mary’s personal sin.
To make this easier to see, look at Gal 4:19, the sin is not Paul’s, although Paul claims, metaphorically, to be in travail.
Suffering the pangs does not imply personal sin.

Hope that was more help than confusion.

 

[BayCityRickL]

The selection from Rev most often is interpreted by most Christians (according to Fr. Benedict Groeschel) as referring to Mary.

The fact is that the verses do not mention Mary by name. Non-Catholics prefer to interpret the woman in Rev 12 as referring to national Israel. I just thought I’d point that out.

The pain of childbirth is a consequence of original sin, as described in Genesis. At a symbolic level, I’d take a stab and say the pain referred to the longing for the Messiah. Again, as not being a biblical scholar, I’d nonetheless also say that all pain in life is meant to turn us to God.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I’m not sure why the Church puts so much emphasis on the virginity of Mary, beyond pointing out that it fulfills one of the prophecies of the OT.

There are many women who go through life as virgins and they don’t get anywhere the attention or praise as does Mary. I’ll have to pull out the CCC (catechism of the catholic church) to delve into this.

I am revealing only my ignorance, not my disrespect, by saying that I don’t understand the importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’m not sure why it is any more important than the fact that she never had her appendix removed or a tummy tuck.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

BayCityRickL:

I’m not sure why the Church puts so much emphasis on the virginity of Mary, beyond pointing out that it fulfills one of the prophecies of the OT.

There are many women who go through life as virgins and they don’t get anywhere the attention or praise as does Mary. I’ll have to pull out the CCC (catechism of the catholic church) to delve into this.

I am revealing only my ignorance, not my disrespect, by saying that I don’t understand the importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’m not sure why it is any more important than the fact that she never had her appendix removed or a tummy tuck.

Dear BayCityRickL,

Thank you for showing that you understand my question, and admitting you have the same uncertainty. I’m not sure which prophecies you are talking about, because I haven’t spent a lot of time at OT. Mostly I thought the prophecies were for the virgin birth, although in one of the references above that I got from jimmy, St. Thomas uses Ezechiel 44:2 as evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity. If this is what Ezechiel 44:2 says, I’ll have to take someone’s word for it because it is at best highly figurative, so I don’t know if it even applies.

We really don’t know whether she was or was not, and the best of all scholars of all times who have had third-hand information at best, cannot resolve it by showing it is Biblical truth or otherwise. The most compelling arguments seem to assume we know the mind of God, because they are based on our judgment that God would not have had the mother of His Son “defiled.”

After my experience on this forum, I am tempted to rephrase my question another way. So what if she was not a virgin after Jesus’s birth? Are we so convinced in this fact that our faith depends on it? Has the Church not actually invited divisions and protestantism by holding such speculative beliefs as if they were absolute and must be believed by all?

All I’m asking for is people to have an open mind and not insist conclusively that things we believe because of tradition are the Gospel truth. We make assumptions based on our human intellect and reasoning, and then defend them as if it were God’s work to do so. I think this is very dangerous.

Whoever has ears, let them hear!

2 Cor 3:6
“who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.”

Gal 3:1-3
“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”

2 Tim 4:3
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

Mark 7:6-9
He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’ You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.” He went on to say, "How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!

Col 2:20-23
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Alan

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Perpetual virginity is ultimately about Christ. That is why it is so important. Remember that the Messiah is from the line of David, the inheritor of the kingdom. Add more children to Mary and now you have a mess. Naysayers will say that since Jesus died, we can look for another messiah through one of Mary’s other children.

Alan, in another post you admitted you were a Cafeteria Catholic. The Bible quotes you have given are the standard stock-and-trade quotes wrenched out of context by anti-Catholics to disprove certain Church teachings. Also, another thing we typically encounter with these folks is the Scripture spam. That is, a list of Bible quotes with no explanation as if a mere list is an argument. In other words, you seem to really be a Sola Scriptura protestant. Of course when you realize that “Scripture alone” very much is the ultimate, speculative “tradition of men” you will go a long way towards a return.

Scott

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scott Waddell:

Perpetual virginity is ultimately about Christ. That is why it is so important. Remember that the Messiah is from the line of David, the inheritor of the kingdom. Add more children to Mary and now you have a mess. Naysayers will say that since Jesus died, we can look for another messiah through one of Mary’s other children.

Alan, in another post you admitted you were a Cafeteria Catholic. The Bible quotes you have given are the standard stock-and-trade quotes wrenched out of context by anti-Catholics to disprove certain Church teachings. Also, another thing we typically encounter with these folks is the Scripture spam. That is, a list of Bible quotes with no explanation as if a mere list is an argument. In other words, you seem to really be a Sola Scriptura protestant. Of course when you realize that “Scripture alone” very much is the ultimate, speculative “tradition of men” you will go a long way towards a return.

Scott

Dear Scott,

You are making me happy that I got on this forum and stayed with it. I appreciate your honest observations, because that is how I learn. I consider your critique an act of friendship, as a person who sees what they think is a correctable flaw in me but does not tell me is no friend, any more than a friend would not let me go around with a bit of egg on my face all day until I see it in the mirror myself. Your honest feedback is a mirror for me; when I see my reflection in you I can finally understand why people sometimes treat me the way I do when I honestly am seeking truth.

As far as the inheritance issue, David had many heirs. Mary could not have been the only living descendant of David, because Joseph is traced to David in Matthew. Right – or is that even relevant? I don’t know enough about Jewish law to see this as an issue. On a related point, to those who say that when Jesus said “behold your son” to His mother indicates He must not have had any brothers (at least at that time) I say they may have an issue there. I don’t know that I expect to come to a “final” conclusion on the issue of Mary’s virginity after Jesus, but I at least want to hear all the arguments for and against it. I used to hear a lot of Catholic-bashing from Protestants who think they know it all and if I see their point and don’t know how the Church defends her position, then I cannot be a witness for her. We are always being cajoled into bringing Catholics into RCIA, but why should anybody prefer Catholicism when Catholics cannot defend their own positions on controversial teachings such as those regarding Mary?

I would like to know which of my scripture quotes you think are out-of-context. I’d be happy to discuss any one of them, but I did not before because my posts would be way too huge. I wish the reader to consider them, perhaps looking up their context as required. If appropriate, you can send me a private message instead of publicly posting. Until a few days ago I never heard of Sola Scriptura, which I assume means that the Bible is the only source of knowledge. Perhaps it isn’t, but I have a hard time believing something just because “tradition” holds it as true, given the quotes I referenced.

Perhaps I should start a thread on the relationship between being guided and taught by the living Word through Holy Spirit and being guided and taught by studying static, written Church laws.

Alan

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Until a few days ago I never heard of Sola Scriptura

My bad. I have to stop making assumptions that everyone is the fully up-to-date apologetics wizard. Sorry.

Just stick around, it’s a great place to learn and you will learn fast.


Scott

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have shown information up to the crucifixion of our Lord which argues his mother’s virginity.

Rather than post a large well thought out defense of the after-crucifixion area, suffice a medium sized comment.

Jesus was the heir to the throne of David. Any brother’s (blood) that Jesus might have had, then were princes in the Davidic kingdom. Yet Jesus does not give any of these supposed blood brothers a throne in his kingdom, or a seat at the last supper.
Lk 22:28-30
And there are no recorded complaints from his blood relatives.
The twelve he chose were given these positions.
I think that It is harder to show that Jesus really had blood brothers than to show he didn’t.

The line of David is traced through Joseph for certain, and less certain through Mary (She was, after all, cousin to Elizabeth – a purebred Levite!).
Any natural child born of Joseph would have higher claim to the throne of David than Jesus himself. Jesus is only the adopted son of Joseph!
See the history of Solomon…
Again, I don’t believe Joseph would have risked it.

Does her virginity affect our faith, YES. It is Dogma, and the disbelief of Dogma is a sin against Faith.
Anyone who does not believe the whole of what is taught, is not according to the whole = kata - holos = catholic.

I am less sure that childbirth pain is a consequence of original sin than I am that Mary is ever-virgin.
I am certain that sorrow and grief are an effect of original sin, but not mere ‘suffering’.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Oh, and I almost forgot,
Joseph died long before the crucifixion…