Mary's perpertual Viriginity, why does it matter?

[mark_a]

sorry, it is a way of describing a issue no one wants to discuss

I understand what the expression means, I still don’t understand what you are relating it too.

By the way, “an elephant in the room” is how Maruus Grodi often describes the way the ETS completely avoids speaking of anything even remotely Catholic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room



about the cousins, brothers, being half siblings of Jesus. I think it probably goes in hand with what FCEGM posted.

Jesus was special.

Now, I had never given it another thought about Jesus having half brothers because if He did, they were not from God in the same way Jesus was. And never could be BECAUSE they were not a virgin birth.

The Israeli Antiquities commission makes a very good study of the forged ossuary of James. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, the Orthodox or Catholic Church would have their relics just like we have all the rest of the disciples.

If Mary weren’t assumed, we have her relics also.

 

[First_Love]

It also doesn’t say “except for christ”

True, but Christ was God (in human form of course…100% God, 100% human), Mary was just 100% human and all humans sin.

 

[Delphinus85]

True, but Christ was God (in human form of course…100% God, 100% human), Mary was just 100% human and all humans sin.

This doesn’t really work because if all humans sin, you can’t forget christ was 100 percent human. What stopped him from sinning? Obviously grace, and full knowledge of the horror of sin. Why couldn’t this have been given to Mary? Did not Christ free us to live lives free from sin, yet we choose to do it anyway? Is it possible Mary was saved through her faith in christ, but remained sinless, as all of us have the possibility of doing?

See, we are not FORCED to sin, we chose it. This is why the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness is so beautiful and true. We can live sinless, they tragedy is that we choose not to.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

The Israeli Antiquities commission makes a very good study of the forged ossuary of James. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, the Orthodox or Catholic Church would have their relics just like we have all the rest of the disciples.

If Mary weren’t assumed, we have her relics also.

Ive heard of the brother of James deal. Now, what relics and by that I take it you mean like the skeleton or something? So what disciples are in these ossuarys? which I understand to be a box or grave site of some sort. or are we heading to another thread.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

huh?? “A given” means that’s the way it is, as you put it. It’s a given that scripture is inspired. Scipture never says it is, but it is and everyone knows it. It was so obvious that no one needed to point it out.

sorry I guess I was trying to be clear that scripture was from God stating it as a fact. Rather than hoping that people would guess that.

And besides, there are a lot of things in scripture never laid out. It never says what happens to people who commit suicide. It NEVER lays out if contraception is wrong, it never lays out that masturbation is wrong. That’s why we have to look at early church documents to see that these were obviously wrong, and everyone knew it so it didn’t have to be addressed. Now, S/S (sola scritura) people will say that all these issues can be conjectured from the bible. So can this issue.

Thats why all the talk of binding and loosing things. and supporting your weaker brother etc etc. Im not in the least sola scripture, I dont even look at one source of scripture. Id look at 10 translations and compare them. Check out what the pastor, priest whoever has to say. Yes, that would include what catholics would have to say.

But the original question asks…why does it matter so much that people have to defend this position so adamantly?

Personally it doesnt matter to me. Mary was asked of God to do something, she and Joesph agreed. How it actually happened doesnt really matter. If they had kids afterwards, it makes them both more human.

If it matters its because, I hear enough from my friends that Jesus was God so He didnt suffer anyway. He knew what was going on etc. It was all no big deal. So if I told them Mary was protected, they would flip. Therefore she didnt do anything special, it was no big deal, who cares.

 

[Delphinus85]

If it matters its because, I hear enough from my friends that Jesus was God so He didnt suffer anyway. He knew what was going on etc. It was all no big deal. So if I told them Mary was protected, they would flip. Therefore she didnt do anything special, it was no big deal, who cares.

Ah I see what you mean. Coming froma catholic perspective I actually see Mary’s being protected as being even more pain given to her. I mean, she’s sinless and she gave up everything to raise God in the flesh. This means she had to be an example for him. Talk about pressure! He would learn to serve God from her example. She had to have something special going on. What’s more is she suffers in knowing how being sinless can be, and seeing people she knows and loves (Elizabeth, her cousin) sinning and being apart from God! Ouch! Even more, assuming she was sinless, she had to give her ONLY son (just as God did) and watch him die a horrific death for the sins of others.

Also, think of the beauty. God gives his only son (the divine) and human, represented by Mary, gives HER only son. Both making a supreme sacrifice. wow.

 

[First_Love]

This doesn’t really work because if all humans sin, you can’t forget christ was 100 percent human. What stopped him from sinning? Obviously grace, and full knowledge of the horror of sin. Why couldn’t this have been given to Mary? Did not Christ free us to live lives free from sin, yet we choose to do it anyway? Is it possible Mary was saved through her faith in christ, but remained sinless, as all of us have the possibility of doing?

See, we are not FORCED to sin, we chose it. This is why the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness is so beautiful and true. We can live sinless, they tragedy is that we choose not to.

Jesus was the perfect sacrifice though…had he sinned, we could not be saved from our own terrible fate. We cannot forget that Christ was 100% God as well as human. Mary was not. Our salvation is not dependent on the way Mary lived her life. Yes, I believe that Mary was a woman who was devoted to God and saved through her faith in Christ but so are all Christians and yet we sin. That is what is so beautiful about what Christ did on the cross. We are all sinners, undeserving of God’s love and mercy and yet He calls us righteous because of what Jesus did! She didn’t have faith in Christ before He was born and the Bible doesn’t claim that she remained sinless her whole life. I guess I do not see anything in the Bible that would lead me to believe she was perfect and I do see evidence that all people are sinful. Still, God allows us to be a part of His awesome plans!

 

[SIA]

I can easily say that Jesus did not guide the Church and had not promised that he will be with us forever, and that he didn’t really send us the Holy Spirit who will lead us to “all truths.” The truth, my friend is that Mary remain a virgin period. The Church declare it to be so, just as Jesus promised his Church will be guided in all Truth.

So to deny that Mary didn’t remain a virgin, or that she was not sinless is to deny the truth itself. The Church that declare Mary to be a Perpetual Virgin and Immaculate, is the same Church that declare that God is a Triune God, Three Divine Persons, but One God. It is also the same Church can canonized 27 NT in Scripture. The Church does not teach this certain truth about Mary, then I would have to doubt the Trinity, the Bible itself, etc, and even deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, which the Church declare to be infallible…

The church also declared all Protestants to be damned to hell in the Council of Trent, but ceased after Vatican II. How can the truth change?? The church doesn’t control truth or have the ability to change it, it is to be the pillar of it as Scripture proclaims.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Ah I see what you mean. Coming froma catholic perspective I actually see Mary’s being protected as being even more pain given to her. I mean, she’s sinless and she gave up everything to raise God in the flesh. This means she had to be an example for him. Talk about pressure! He would learn to serve God from her example. She had to have something special going on. What’s more is she suffers in knowing how being sinless can be, and seeing people she knows and loves (Elizabeth, her cousin) sinning and being apart from God! Ouch! Even more, assuming she was sinless, she had to give her ONLY son (just as God did) and watch him die a horrific death for the sins of others.

Also, think of the beauty. God gives his only son (the divine) and human, represented by Mary, gives HER only son. Both making a supreme sacrifice. wow.

Well I see your side too. Not sure how it figures, I still find that God throughout the bible calls those who are unsure of themselves but sure of God. Those that trust entirely on Him. Even when Mary said how can this be? Then accepted it would be that way.

I think I understand OsLukes post awhile back. I think this thing has the potential to turn in circles. I would say that Mary is to be honored amoung women because she changed her whole life for Jesus, her and Joesph. They trusted God without any assurance I thought of protection, just trust.

So I cant see the strength you speak of because shes perfect.

I thought she was perfect, because she didnt have any strength.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The church also declared all Protestants to be damned to hell in the Council of Trent, but ceased after Vatican II. How can the truth change??

Actually, the Council of Trent only affirm the Sacraments of the Church and it is targeted mainly for Catholics who remain in the Church, and reject the doctrines professed by Protestantism of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The Council of Trent did not damned Protestants to hell. I have actually look at the document myself at New Advent.org and the Council of Trent did not condemned Protestants to hell. In fact the Catholic Church never condemned anyone to hell.

Execommunication itself is not a condemnation to hell. It is form of disciplinary action to laity and gives the faithful either laity or religious to reframe from heretical beliefs, and repent. Condemnation to hell can only happen if the person is an unrepentent sinner and dies in the state of serious or grave sin. Thus, he goes to hell by rejecting the precepts of God.

The truth was preserved in the Council of Trent. The deposit of faith remains.

The Second Vatican Council no longer see fit to use the term heretics to those not in common with Rome in the light of the ecumenical movement. Some Traditionalist Catholics reject this and many of them do consider Protestants as heretics.

The Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council recognized Non-Catholic Christians as separated brothers and sisters in Christ. She acknowledge the sad division caused by sin which both parties are to blame.

The church doesn’t control truth or have the ability to change it, it is to be the pillar of it as Scripture proclaims.

The Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit is guided in all Truth. 1 Tim 3:15 states that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the the Truth. It isn’t in Bible that is the pillar and bulwark of truth

 

[mark_a]

Ive heard of the brother of James deal. Now, what relics and by that I take it you mean like the skeleton or something?

Yes.

So what disciples are in these ossuarys? which I understand to be a box or grave site of some sort. or are we heading to another thread.

I don’t want to derail your thread, but the Orthodox or Catholics have them all. We are very possessive of them. I lost my link with the particulars, though.

 

[Delphinus85]

The church also declared all Protestants to be damned to hell in the Council of Trent, but ceased after Vatican II. How can the truth change?? The church doesn’t control truth or have the ability to change it, it is to be the pillar of it as Scripture proclaims.

The truth didn’t change. People did. THink of the protestants of the day, and now. Back then they were seeking division. You can’t deny they were doing horrible things, including the slaughter of catholics. Everyone who was protestant was seeking division, and to tear down the church. They all claimed THEY were right. Protestants of today are much different.; they aren’t seeking divisions, they are simply trying to serve God the best they know how. Now there are some still seeking division (people distributing anti-catholic literature, bashing baptists, bashing methodists, etc…) and well, it says right in scripture that division is NOT acceptable.

Truth doesn’t change. Ever. People do though.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

The truth didn’t change. People did. THink of the protestants of the day, and now. Back then they were seeking division. You can’t deny they were doing horrible things, including the slaughter of catholics. Everyone who was protestant was seeking division, and to tear down the church. They all claimed THEY were right. Protestants of today are much different.; they aren’t seeking divisions, they are simply trying to serve God the best they know how. Now there are some still seeking division (people distributing anti-catholic literature, bashing baptists, bashing methodists, etc…) and well, it says right in scripture that division is NOT acceptable.

Truth doesn’t change. Ever. People do though.

I think Christ covered it best when He said all that have called my name, He didnt know. .
I cannot even imagine the anguish at hearing those words.

I have no real background in all this, all I know is the whole thing is saddening. But we have to remember for those that want to divide there are those who dont want that. Thats why Id rather talk similarities and gain knowledge and understanding.

I used to work at a real stressful office, they liked sending us on conflict management courses. they would have worked better if people took them to heart. But the same thing some tried to unite, some kept dividing.

Humans go figure, give us any situation and we mess it up. Thats why I smile when “they” say religion divides. You have it right, people divide.

Also, I found it odd that the 3 courses all spoke to understanding the other person, then figuring out how to react to them, knowing how you are.

mind you, Jesus beat them to it when He said Love your neighbour as yourself, right?

gonna copy paste and start a another thread

 

[leonie]

It matters that Mary was a perpetual virgin because she became a spiritual mother to all of us. Her motherhood to us is not based on a physical and biological relationship, but through a gift of universal motherhood given by God.

She is also a model for all consecrated virgins. She is both mother and virgin. So she is a model for nuns as well as those of us in a marital state.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3089417]For 2000 yrs, the Church believe that Mary is the Perpetual Virgin. It is odd that only Protestants deny this while the majority of Christians believe this since Catholics and Eastern Orthodox affirms this.

This is not true. Paul himself refers to James as being the Lord’s brother. Secondly when “brothers and sisters” is used in connection with father or mother does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55.
Protestants who reject the catholic intepretation as being without a strong foundation from the texts of Scripture. Just because a belief has been accepted for a long time does not make it true.

Explain, Kitty.

 

[justasking4]

leonie;3097890]It matters that Mary was a perpetual virgin because she became a spiritual mother to all of us. Her motherhood to us is not based on a physical and biological relationship, but through a gift of universal motherhood given by God.

If this is true then why don’t we ever see one statement in the entire NT for this?

She is also a model for all consecrated virgins. She is both mother and virgin. So she is a model for nuns as well as those of us in a marital state.

 

[leonie]

If this is true then why don’t we ever see one statement in the entire NT for this?

Revelation 12

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

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

13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the** rest of her offspring**—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

We are the rest of her offspring.

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.

 

[leonie]

For a book rich in scripture that protrays and explains the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, try

Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn

amazon.com/Hail-Holy-Queen-Mother-Word/dp/0385501692/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198077173&sr=8-1

Chapter topics:
amazon.com/gp/reader/0385501684/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-0396790-6320027#reader-link

 

[leonie]

This is not true. Paul himself refers to James as being the Lord’s brother. Secondly when “brothers and sisters” is used in connection with father or mother does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55.
Protestants who reject the catholic intepretation as being without a strong foundation from the texts of Scripture. Just because a belief has been accepted for a long time does not make it true.

If you don’t mind, I’ll answer this by quoting Dr. Hahn.

First though, I want to raise the possibility of James being Joseph’s son by a prior marriage. This is not my personal belief, but is a possibility. It is my view that James and the Brethren of Jesus were what we would call cousins.

From Hail, Holy Queen p 104

This is virtually a nonissue for anyone who has a glancing familiarity with Hebrew customs. The Hebrew word for “brother” is inclusive term applying to cousins as well. In fact, in ancient Hebrew there is no word for cousin. To a Jew of Jesus’s time, one’s cousin was one’s brother. This Familial principle applied in other Semitic languages as well, such as Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. Furthermore, precisely because Jesus was an only child, His cousins would even assume the legal status of siblings for Him as they were His nearest relatives.

I studied Anthropology in college, so I’ve never had any difficulty with this concept. There are many different kinds of kinship systems.

other evidence of Jesus’s status as a only child occurred on the cross. Jesus spoke to John his disciple giving him the care of his mother. Had Jesus had brothers, he would have not done this. It would have been an unrighteous action for a Jew.

 

[theors]

May I add my two cents as to Mary’s perpetual virginity?

1. First it was fitting to preserve the dignity of God The Father who sent His Son into the world. Since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not fitting that he have another Father lest the dignity of God be transferred to another.
2. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Ezechiel 44:2 : " And the Lord God said to me : This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: Because the Lord, the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut."

St. Augustine explains it best whe he says “What is the gate which is shut in the house of the Lord, unless it is Mary who will always remain inviolate? And what does it mean that ‘no man shal pass through it’ except that Joseph will not know her? And what does it mean that ‘it will be closed forever’, except that Mary is a virgin before (Christ’s) birth, during His birth and a virgin after His birth?”

To detract from Mary’s perpetual virginity detracts from the perfection of Christ who according to His divine nature is the only begotten of the Father. As He is His perfect son in all things, so also it was proper that He be the only son of His mother.

Remember, denying the perpetual virginity of Mary would do injury to the Holy Spirit whose most sacred place was the virginal womb of Mary in which He formed the flesh of Christ. It would not be fitting, therefore, that this place be violated through sexual intercourse.