Mary's perpertual Viriginity, why does it matter?

[bengal_fan]

Revelation 12

Obviously, the child is Jesus. Therefore the mother is Mary…

We are the rest of her offspring. .

or the church… or israel…

your argument is based on the assumption that (it seems) everything in the bible is a symbol for something else to come. everything is prophecy. this could very well be true and the “woman” in rev. 12 could be the church AND israel AND mary. but understand that your argument is far from a “slam dunk”.

I also must point out that not all of the deposit of faith is explicitly detailed in the Scriptures. Of course, the Bible Alone is a whole other topic that has been extensively detailed by many in different threads.

i agree it’s a whole other topic. but, because it is not explicit in the scriptures (as the contents of the creeds are… albeit not word for word but easily derived) it should not be necessary for salvation. therefore, it doesn’t matter either way if mary was perpetually a virgin or just a virgin before and up until the moment after giving birth to Christ (because that is what is said in the creeds). it also does not matter if she was sinless. sure, she could be the fulfillment of the ark, but she also might just be a righteous girl God chose to use for this amazing event. righteous does not mean perfect and God could have easily been born of an imperfect woman … He’s God, He can do anything He wants.

 

[leonie]

or the church… or israel…

your argument is based on the assumption that (it seems) everything in the bible is a symbol for something else to come. everything is prophecy. this could very well be true and the “woman” in rev. 12 could be the church AND israel AND mary. but understand that your argument is far from a “slam dunk”.

.

I never said it was a slam dunk. I just gave a scriptural support in the New Testament for the motherhood of Mary. It’s a very sound and logical interpretation. The woman could also be Israel (I’ve heard that interpretation), but I don’t believe that she is the Church–Jesus founded the Church. The church didn’t give birth to Jesus.

If the woman is Israel and not Mary, the passage doesn’t make as much sense, because the woman (clothed with the sun) 's other offspring are those who follow Jesus. These could be the children of Israel, I suppose, but by the time of the authorship of the book of Revelation, the Church was not strictly a Hebrew sect.

I’m not debating, btw, but explaining why it was important for Mary to be a perpetual Virgin.

Mary is the mother of Jesus. By His own words, we are his brothers and sisters. It makes sense that her motherhood extends to all of us. Keep in mind that her motherhood is only through the power of Christ. She is a creature like us who has a special role only though the Grace of God.

 

[leonie]

Of course, I disagree. As a Catholic, I have an authority that interprets scripture with the guarantee of infallibility. :extrahappy:

One of our injunctions of our catechism is that man’s purpose on earth is to know, love and serve God in this life so we can be happy with him in the next. One way to know the mind of God is to study salvation history. All the prefigures of Mary in the Old Testament reveal God’s mind about the mother of Jesus.

I really hope you will consider reading the Scott Hahn book.

Another reason why Mary had to be sinless was her role as the new Eve…

whoops, gotta go get dinner out of the oven.

Have a nice evening!

 

[bengal_fan]

I never said it was a slam dunk. I just gave a scriptural support in the New Testament for the motherhood of Mary. It’s a very sound and logical interpretation. The woman could also be Israel (I’ve heard that interpretation), but I don’t believe that she is the Church–Jesus founded the Church. The church didn’t give birth to Jesus.

the church brings Jesus to the world. that is why it makes perfect sense (and that it is actually one of the interpretations the church (catholic) has given for this passage. of course they teach that it is both/and not either/or.

If the woman is Israel and not Mary, the passage doesn’t make as much sense, because the woman (clothed with the sun) 's other offspring are those who follow Jesus. These could be the children of Israel, I suppose, but by the time of the authorship of the book of Revelation, the Church was not strictly a Hebrew sect.

of course there are the many passages in the NT which say that the true children of Abraham (i.e. the true members of Israel) are those who believe in Jesus as Messiah. so, this passage would just be the logical end of that theology (Paul actually says it quite a bit).

I’m not debating, btw, but explaining why it was important for Mary to be a perpetual Virgin.

i understand, i just happen to disagree about the importance of mary being perpetual virgin.

Mary is the mother of Jesus. By His own words, we are his brothers and sisters. It makes sense that her motherhood extends to all of us. Keep in mind that her motherhood is only through the power of Christ. She is a creature like us who has a special role only though the Grace of God.

i see the logic and don’t really have a problem with it. but why does it exclude her having other children with joseph? it doesn’t. it is not a necessary doctrine. it could very well be true (and i do lean towards it being true), but it is not necessary for salvation and it is not necessary for anything else within the Christian faith. nothing stands or falls on this doctrine (other than maybe the infallibility of the catholic church… )

 

[bengal_fan]

Of course, I disagree. As a Catholic, I have an authority that interprets scripture with the guarantee of infallibility. :extrahappy:

well, at least you believe there is a guarantee of infallibility. the orthodox don’t believe it’s there. protestants don’t believe it’s there. you are putting your faith in it, which means there really is no guarantee, just a belief.

One of our injunctions of our catechism is that man’s purpose on earth is to know, love and serve God in this life so we can be happy with him in the next. One way to know the mind of God is to study salvation history. All the prefigures of Mary in the Old Testament reveal God’s mind about the mother of Jesus.

and that’s if you interpret them as prefigures of mary.

I really hope you will consider reading the Scott Hahn book.

read it 3 times so far. i’ve also listened to a number of tapes and cd’s by scott, tim staples, and others on mary.

Another reason why Mary had to be sinless was her role as the new Eve…

i don’t see why she would have to be sinless to be the new eve. i don’t even see why she is the new eve. the word in genesis that catholics translate as feminine could be translated either way. the NT talks of Jesus as the new adam but never speaks of mary as the new eve.

 

[Jennifer123]

I wonder if they were not big on Mary having other children because then the brothers and sisters would share a common mother with Jesus.

Therefore, those siblings could claim they are half brothers and sisters of Christ.

And do I hear all the conspiricy theorists sit up

Or thats the reason they were called cousins, and anyway they rejected Jesus anyhow so even so, they were not thrilled to have Him as family. So, if they didnt want Him then, the descendents cant have Him now.

or is this talking about the elephant in the room??

Interesting that I was just wondering this myself in our parish Apologetics class last week. I know many Protestants have to wonder what difference it makes if Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin. The material didn’t address this and I don’t really have an answer.

BUT - I have heard this explanation (above) before - that if there indeed were step-brothers (primarily) that it would confuse the notion of the divinty and Kingship of Christ.

That and the fact that Jesus gave His Mother to John the Beloved, which would have been a horrible insult to immediate family and to His Mother if He had any siblings.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Interesting that I was just wondering this myself in our parish Apologetics class last week. I know many Protestants have to wonder what difference it makes if Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin. The material didn’t address this and I don’t really have an answer.

BUT - I have heard this explanation (above) before - that if there indeed were step-brothers (primarily) that it would confuse the notion of the divinty and Kingship of Christ.

That and the fact that Jesus gave His Mother to John the Beloved, which would have been a horrible insult to immediate family and to His Mother if He had any siblings.

Yea! someone else,

Well, I know it was brought out in Dogma that movie everybody probably hates by Kevin Smth. The main character was a descendent of Christ. There doesnt seem much to say about siblings anywhere.

There is the view, well Jesus had brothers and sisters but christians being good willed to it, dont think the way say Kevin did. Or the view, it looks like catholics have that he didnt have brothers and sisters.

Your thought about Jesus giving His mother to John is a very good point. And something to wrap ones mind around. The only down side would be, maybe He did because His own family had rejected Him. Perhaps they rejected Mary too. Unfortunetely either works. any ideas??

 

[paarsurrey]

Okay, so I know the thread title seems heretical, but it’s not, I promise!! :.

Hi

In my opinion this concept, like so many others, has been formed by inference by the Catholics. For a belief , CLAIM and REASON must be from the book you belive in, not from you own reasoning. This would be making their religion by the Catholics themselves; not by GodAllahYHWH.

The Protestants are right, there are no straight passages in the Bible to form a CLAIM or a REASON for this concept.

I respect your faith.

Thanks

 

[leonie]

well, at least you believe there is a guarantee of infallibility. the orthodox don’t believe it’s there. protestants don’t believe it’s there. you are putting your faith in it, which means there really is no guarantee, just a belief.

and that’s if you interpret them as prefigures of mary.

read it 3 times so far. i’ve also listened to a number of tapes and cd’s by scott, tim staples, and others on mary.

i don’t see why she would have to be sinless to be the new eve. i don’t even see why she is the new eve. the word in genesis that catholics translate as feminine could be translated either way. the NT talks of Jesus as the new adam but never speaks of mary as the new eve.

Since you’ve studied the issue intellectually, I just conclude that you haven’t accepted the gift of faith on the issue.

Lots of atheists “study” the Bible and Christianity, but don’t believe. It’s because their hearts and minds are closed to God. Faith is a free gift, but we have to accept it.

In this case, I think your heart and mind is just closed to Mary. This makes me sad, but it’s nice that you’ve taken time to look at the issue.

Maybe you could just take it to prayer. There’s been some theological concepts of which I have struggled with, but after deciding to accept the teaching despite my lack of understanding. After giving my assent, then, I’ve come to understand intellectually. I just think God works that way. He wants us to step out in faith.

I am really sad for those who don’t have an authoritative Church. It is such a security to have complete assurance that my Catholic Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals. I know when I don’t understand a teaching–it’s my lack and not the Churches.

God bless. Thanks for letting me express my love for our Blessed Mother, ever Virgin.