Mary's Perpetual Virginity, What's the Big Deal?

[Randy_Carson]

EARLY PROTESTANTS ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
Catholic Int’l. ^ | November 19, 2003 | Robert Sungenis
Posted on 11/19/2003 1:57:57 PM by NYer
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1025045/posts

Ding, Dong, The Witch is Dead: The Radio Debate of Gerry Matatics Against James White and Eric Svendsen on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

On November 18, 2003, Gerry Matatics debated James White and Eric Svendsen on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, hosted by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

Let me say first of all that besides his excellent arguments, Gerry Matatics conducted himself as a true Christian gentleman. James White and Eric Svendsen, on the other hand, spent much of the time screaming at Matatics, and accusing him of all kinds of motives and statements that simply were not true.

Be that as it may, if you didn’t notice, the debate was over at about 7:55 pm, Eastern Standard Time. The rest of the 35 minutes was all conversation. Perhaps many missed it, because James White did his best to make it go unnoticed.

At about 7:55 pm, Mr. Matatics gave an example of the Greek phrase “heos hou” used in the time period of 100 B.C. to 100 A.D. which showed conclusively that “heos hou” continued the action of the main clause, not terminate it. Essentially, that was the only thing Matatics needed to do in the debate, and he did it well.

Before I proceed, again, let me explain why this is important. Eric Svendsen claims that the use of “heos hou” in Matthew 1:25 (which is translated by the English word “until” in the sentence “…he knew her not until she bore a son”), is a special Greek phrase that terminates the action of the main clause “knew her not.” In other words, Svendsen claims that Joseph’s state of “not knowing Mary” terminated at the point when Mary bore Jesus, which means that Mary, according to Svendsen, had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Svendsen makes this claim because, as he has continually boasted over the last few years, EVERY reference to “heos hou” in the time period under discussion (100 B. C. to 100 A.D.) shows that “heos hou” terminates that action of the main clause, never continues it. If “heos hou” continued the action of the main clause, then it would mean Joseph’s “not knowing Mary” would continue beyond the birth of Jesus, which would mean that Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations.

As a side note, Svendsen admits that the Greek word “heos” (“until”), used by itself, can either terminate or continue the action of the main clause. But it is his contention that when “heos” is coupled with “hou” in the phrase “heos hou” in the period under discussion, it NEVER continues the action of the main clause. He admits that prior to and after the period of 100 B.C to 100 A.D. “heos hou” was sometimes used to continue the action of the main clause, but that for some reason (which he never really explains) the meaning of “heos hou” which allowed a continuation of the main clause suddenly dropped out of existence. It just so happens that Matthew’s gospel was written in this particular time period.

Now, let me continue with the November 18th debate. As I stated above, Mr. Matatics provided a reference, between the years of 100 B.C. and 100 A.D, in which “heos hou” continued the action of the main verb. Here is the reference he gave:

And Aseneth was left alone with the seven virgins, and she continued to be weighed down and weep UNTIL the sun set. And she ate no bread and drank no water. And the night fell, and all (people) in the house slept, and she alone was awake and continued to brood and to weep; and she often struck her breast with (her) hand and kept being filled with great fear and trembled (with) heavy trembling.

First, the reference for this comes from the work of C. Burchard, in the story titled “Joseph and Aseneth,” which is found in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2, Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H.Charlesworth, p. 215. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Second, the word “UNTIL” in the clause “weep UNTIL the sun set” is the Greek phrase “heos hou.” You will notice if you read the sentence in context that Aseneth cried until the sun went down, but she continued to cry way into the night when everyone else was asleep. Here we have a classic case of “heos hou” continuing the action of the main clause, for the context itself tells us there is no other possibility. There are only two available choices: either “heos hou” terminates the action of the main clause, or continues it. It certainly does not terminate it in this incident, otherwise, Aseneth would have stopped crying and not continued when the sun set.

Thus, Mr. Matatics, in one fell swoop, has discredited the whole thesis of Eric Svendsen (which is the essence of the whole debate on November 18, if you were listening carefully). Svendsen had boasted that there were no such references to “heos hou” continuing the action of the main verb. He knew that if his opponents found just ONE reference that contradicted his boast, Svendsen’s entire argument would fall like a house of cards. Opponents didn’t need a dozen references. They only needed one, and that one reference would be the magic bullet. It is the magic bullet that totally discredits Svendsen’s entire doctoral dissertation, for the whole dissertation essentially boils down to the meaning of “heos hou” in the time period under discussion. If you were listening closely to the debate, it was at this point that Svendsen grew conspicuously quiet in the debate, and didn’t raise his voice again until near the end…

+++

Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Cathoholic]

Roscoe,

Concerning St. Joseph, WHY do you think Joseph “knew her not” before Jesus was born? After all, using your own line of discussion, “knowing” your wife when she is “with child” would certainly not be a sin.

Was this even necessary that St. Joseph “knew her not”? If you say no, than explain Scripturally WHY would the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph lived like this (and WHY would St. Matthew bother to record it). If you say yes, you are already answering your own question as to “why” Mary’s virginity “is a big deal” (at least in part).

So WHY do you think St. Joseph “knew her not” beforehand, and was it necessary?

If you can get that much, you will be pretty close to understanding WHY St. Joseph “knew her not” AFTER Mary had bore Jesus too.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It does no such thing. The definition of the word does not state that there is a change. It is referring only to the time UP to a point not beyond that point. That is why it is mentioned to say up to that point. The raven might have returned but the scripture does not say. It only mentions up to that point. But you asked why Matthew wrote the way he did. I answered it. The question is meaningless as it proves nothing about the intent or the meaning of the word. Words have definitions and you can’t just make up your own definition. As someone has pointed out this was a translation of a Greek word. The translator chose the word until because it was closest to meaning of the Greek. Which is only referring to a period of time before Jesus was born without reference to what happened after Jesus was born.

Until connotes a change. If I say “I’m going to stay here until” you are going to ask “until what?” unitl separates two clauses the first is determined by the second. There are many translations of the Greek. They all render it “until”.

 

[Cathoholic]

Roscoe,

You are trying to have “until” say something it doesn’t say. People have shown you Biblical examples of WHY “until” does not necessitate a change in status.

**MATTHEW 1:24b-25a ** . . . . he (Joseph) took his wife, but knew her not until (“heos hou”) she had borne a son . . . .

Does “until” necessitate a change in status? You seem to be saying it DOES necessitate a change in status.

A woman takes leaven (yeast) and puts it in her flour until (heos hou is used here) the loaf was all leavened.

**MATTHEW 13:33 ** 33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till (“heos hou”) it was all leavened.”

So here we see leaven that this woman takes and she hides this leaven within flour.

She hides the leaven in three measures of flour. Now you know what I am going to ask.

Does the fact that the woman hid the leaven in the flour UNTIL the whole loaf was leavened mean she took out the yeast from the bread afterwards? No. Obviously not.

Heos hou does NOT NECESSITATE a change in status does it Roscoe?

The “until” in Psalm 112:8 is also heos hou (in the Septuagint) Roscoe.

PSALM 112:7-9a 7 He is not afraid of evil tidings; his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD. 8 His heart is steady, he will not be afraid, **until (heous hou) **he sees his desire on his adversaries. 9 He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever;

If “heos hou” ALWAYS necessitates a change in status motif is true, then we have the bizarre conclusion that this righteous one described here is “not afraid” until he vanquishes his adversaries. Then after the enemies of the RIGHTEOUS ONE are subdued, the RIGHTEOUS ONE must get scared or “get afraid” according to the way this idea you are touting tries to force the *heos hou *objection!

Is the righteous one frightened after he vanquishes his enemies Roscoe?

You know the parable of the unmerciful servant so we won’t recount the whole story here. A man servant owes the King (who represents King Jesus) an enormous sum of money that this servant cannot pay. The servant begs the King to release him. The King releases the servant from his debt that he could not pay.

Then this same servant (of the King) had another guy (we will call him a “lowly servant”) who owed this same unmerciful servant just a pittance or a small sum of money. This lowly servant couldn’t pay even the small amount he owes, and he begs the unmerciful servant (who had HIS OWN debt cancelled recently by the King) to release his debt.

Yet this same (unmerciful) servant refused to forgive a small debt owed to him (by the lowly servant) and had him . . . . imprisoned!

What happened to this unmerciful servant when all of this got back to the King?

Well fortunately the Bible tells us what happened. The King was upset because the unmerciful servant did not forgive the small debt owed to this him by this lowly servant (I use “lowly” only in a financial sense here).

What then happened to this unmerciful servant?

Let’s find out.

MATTHEW 18:32-35 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; 33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

So we see in verse 34, that the King “in anger . . . delivered him to the jailers, till (heos hou) he should pay all his debt.”

Recall this “debt” was an enormous sum he cannot pay. How is he going to pay it back now from prison when he couldn’t even pay outside of prison earlier Roscoe?

Is “prison” here Hell (and thus permanent) Roscoe? If it is, you are affirming that heos hou does NOT necessitate a change in status! This admission by you would in principle go against your whole “until” thesis concerning Mary and Joseph.

If you say “prison” in this context is NOT permanent you will be defending a doctrine of purgatorial punishment which the guy must later get released from, despite the fact that he cannot pay all his debt.

Which one is it Roscoe? Are you going to say heos hou CAN include a change in status (and undermine your own argument about St. Joseph “knew her not until”)? Or are you going to keep insisting (despite all the evidence) that *heos hou *necessitates a change in status and accept absurd conclusions like the woman taking the leaven out of her bread dough, or the RIGHTEOUS ONE “chickening out” (after He subdues his enemies no less), just so you can fit your already concluded private interpretation doctrine into Sacred Scripture?

(parenthetical, bold and underline additions to Sacred Scripture mine)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Until connotes a change.

NO, it does not.
A change MAY, or MAY NOT occur after the denoted time period, so your examples only prove something that we all stipulate: the change MAY occur.

Since we have shown you many examples of cases where a change does NOT occur (thanks, Cathoholic, for your post above ), your statement has been proven false.

If I say “I’m going to stay here until” you are going to ask “until what?” unitl separates two clauses the first is determined by the second. There are many translations of the Greek. They all render it “until”.

Yes. But if you said, for example, “I’m going to stay here until you come home,” it doesn’t say anything about what happens AFTER that person comes home.

 

[Cathoholic]

Roscoe. You stated:

Until connotes a change.

Why would the native Greek-speaking early Fathers miss this fact about “until” connoting a change Roscoe, yet you and some relatively recent Protestants pick it up?

Why would the native Greek-speaking St. Epiphanius miss this principle way back in the 300’s A.D.?

**ST. EPIPHANIUS ** We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
— St. Epiphanius The Man Well-Anchored 120 A.D. 374

Why would St. Basil the Great from the 300’s A.D. miss it too?

**ST. BASIL THE GREAT ** For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence, but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of **the eternal Virgin **a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man’s compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh. So that He is at once flesh, and at the same time flesh of God the Word, and likewise flesh animated, possessing both reason and thought. Wherefore we speak not of man as having become God, but of God as having become Man. . . .
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 2

Here St. Basil get even more explicit as to why the “until” argument “connotes a change” idea is not appropriate . . . .

**ST. BASIL THE GREAT ** The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word “first-born” means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word “till” signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection. For could it be possible that she, who had borne God and from experience of the subsequent events had come to know the miracle, should receive the embrace of a man. God forbid! It is not the part of a chaste mind to think such thoughts, far less to commit such acts.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book IV Chap 14

How could that hero of early Church orthodoxy, St. Athanasius missed the heous hou point way back in the 300’s when the ancient Greek language is pretty close to Bible Greek?

ST. ATHANASIUS The union, therefore, was of just such a kind, so that He might unite what is man by nature, to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, thereby assuring the accomplishment of salvation and His deification. Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His essence, deny also that He took true human flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary. In neither case would it have been profitable to us men: if the Word were not by nature true Son of God, or if the flesh which He assumed were not true flesh.
— From St. Athanasius. Discourses Against The Arians (358-362 A.D.)

If “until” or heos hou necessitates a change in status, why Roscoe, did the Greek speaking St. Gregory of Nyssa in the 300’s A.D. miss this when he compares Mary to someone who is . . . . what? . . . a virgin for a little while and then tosses it away? No! St. Gregory compares virgins AND Mary to someone who lives a “virgin LIFE”. If St. Gregory merely meant virgin for a while, only to toss it away, this statement would be absurd because ALL sexually active women would be “virgins” in that re-defined sense. The word “virgin” would become meaningless in this context.

**ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA ** What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life.
— St. Gregory of Nyssa Chapter 2, Treatise on Virginity

Remember, these are statements that we matter-of-factly asserted by renowned Christian leaders well over a thousand years before Protestantism was invented (and even longer if you see that the original Protestants often affirmed this doctrine too–as has been brought out already by Randy Carson).

Why do all the Greek Orthodox even today affirm Mary’s Perpetual Virginity doctrine Roscoe? They are not “papists”. They don’t ascribe to “Romanism”. Are we to think it is a good thing to have some new Protestants who might have studied a little Greek at some Protestant seminaries come and help the Greeks out with their own language?

Or is the DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary an invention–a tradition of men that nullifies God’s word?

There are other examples too but I will wait for your answer Roscoe.

 

[adrift]

Until connotes a change. If I say “I’m going to stay here until” you are going to ask “until what?” unitl separates two clauses the first is determined by the second. There are many translations of the Greek. They all render it “until”.

Perhaps you will be the first to provide me a dictionary definition that states until connotes a change?
If you say “I’m going to stay here until…” only denotes a period of time up to until it does not say what you will do after. If you are going to say the definition of until is it connotes a change, something that the definition does not do, than you will have to explain the change of “she had no children until the day she died” and “We do not know where he was buried until this day”. By going by your own definition and not the common definition you wind up with crazy conclusion or not being consistent with your definition.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I think that all the examples given do denote a change or there is no reason to make a distinction. I don’t think we are getting any closer to why the perpetual virginity is a requirement.

Again I find the verse problematic not a reason to disbelieve.

If Jesus did have brothers and sisters should it make him less God or less a savior? If Mary did have other offspring would it make giving birth as a virgin any less miraculous?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Perhaps you will be the first to provide me a dictionary definition that states until connotes a change?
If you say “I’m going to stay here until…” only denotes a period of time up to until it does not say what you will do after. If you are going to say the definition of until is it connotes a change, something that the definition does not do, than you will have to explain the change of “she had no children until the day she died” and “We do not know where he was buried until this day”. By going by your own definition and not the common definition you wind up with crazy conclusion or not being consistent with your definition.

un·til
ˌənˈtil,ən-/
preposition & conjunction
preposition: until; conjunction: until

1.
up to (the point in time or the event mentioned).
"the kidnappers have given us until October 11th to deliver the documents"
synonyms:	(up) till, to, up to, through (to), up until, as late as
"I work until Thursday"
before, prior to, previous to, up to, up until, (up) till, earlier than
"this did not happen until 1998"

Some condition is applicable up to a point then it is not applicable. A change has occurred.

 

[adrift]

Some condition is applicable up to a point then it is not applicable. A change has occurred.

I think you misunderstood. I asked for a dictionary definition that states that until by definition is a change. What you provided was what I have been stating. It only means a period of time up to an event which does not say anything about after the event.

She was childless until her death.

Some condition (childless) is applicable up to a point ( her death) then it is no applicable. So she is no longer childless?

Some condition (No one knows where Moses grave is) is applicable up to a point (this day) then it is not applicable. We know where Moses was buried?

You see how crazy it becomes if you make up your own definition?

But use the correct definition up to
She was childless until her death.
Up to her death she had no children. No change she was childless before she is childless after.

No one knows where Moses grave is

Up until this time no one knows where Moses grave is. They didn’t know before they don’t know now. No change.

Until does not imply or state that a change occurs by definition and by the definition that you quoted.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Here is an interesting article -

academia.edu/1040859/The_implications_of_until_in_English_and_Greek

The author in the chart fails to fall on either side of the fence. Interesting none the less.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that all the examples given do denote a change or there is no reason to make a distinction. I don’t think we are getting any closer to why the perpetual virginity is a requirement.

Again I find the verse problematic not a reason to disbelieve.

If Jesus did have brothers and sisters should it make him less God or less a savior? If Mary did have other offspring would it make giving birth as a virgin any less miraculous?

Nope.

But since the Catholic Church has defined the perpetual virginity of Mary as dogma, you can understand why we might be a little suspicious when a non-Catholic sets out to try to prove the Church wrong.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Nope.

But since the Catholic Church has defined the perpetual virginity of Mary as dogma, you can understand why we might be a little suspicious when a non-Catholic sets out to try to prove the Church wrong.

I’m Catholic

 

[pablope]

I think that all the examples given do denote a change or there is no reason to make a distinction. I don’t think we are getting any closer to why the perpetual virginity is a requirement.

Again I find the verse problematic not a reason to disbelieve.

If Jesus did have brothers and sisters should it make him less God or less a savior? If Mary did have other offspring would it make giving birth as a virgin any less miraculous?

Well…after several pages of discussion…and an obstinate state to remain in what you want to believe…it comes down to this…a Church council decided on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary…despite the verse from Matthew…so it comes down to this…do you know more than the bishops of the Church, who decided, in a council…and defined that Mary remained a virgin till her Dormition?

 

[adrift]

Here is an interesting article -

academia.edu/1040859/The_implications_of_until_in_English_and_Greek

The author in the chart fails to fall on either side of the fence. Interesting none the less.

The article was indeed interesting. I found that he makes the same mistake that others do. He does not follow the dictionary meaning of the word but his own flawed understanding of what he thinks the word means. He defines the Greek as meaning up to a certain point in time without recognizing that is the very definition of until. I couldn’t help to agree with him that the text is translated in a way not intended by the original.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m Catholic

I was speaking about the pattern in general, but it’s good to know where you stand.

Still, I’ve heard dyed-in-the-wool Baptists argue less vigorously in denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity than you have…

 

[TimothyH]

I was speaking about the pattern in general, but it’s good to know where you stand.

Still, I’ve heard dyed-in-the-wool Baptists argue less vigorously in denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity than you have…

It is interesting how many Catholics argue against Marian doctrines and beliefs where many non-Catholics would have shrugged their shoulders, wondered why it all matters and walked away.

-Tim-

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is interesting how many Catholics argue against Marian doctrines and beliefs where many non-Catholics would have shrugged their shoulders, wondered why it all matters and walked away.

-Tim-

That was my original question - “what’s the big deal?”

Throughout the thread I’ve said that I’m not denying her Perpetual Virginity, just asking questions.

Personally, I don’t see how it enhances her status nor Jesus’. That doesn’t mean I’m arguing against it. I just don’t see why it matters.

 

[kmcarl56]

That was my original question - “what’s the big deal?”

Throughout the thread I’ve said that I’m not denying her Perpetual Virginity, just asking questions.

Personally, I don’t see how it enhances her status nor Jesus’. That doesn’t mean I’m arguing against it. I just don’t see why it matters.

It matters to non-Catholics because of the fact that Catholics often pray to Mary instead of directly to God/Jesus. We, as devoted Christians, deny the idolization of Mary as above Christ in prayer because so many times in the Bible, Jesus tells us to pray to God, The Father. He never tells us to pray to His mother, Mary, nor to give her sublime adoration.

With regard to the papacy, we do not think that the Pope should be called The Holy Father, since to us, there is only one Holy Father, who is God.

These are overwhelming reasons why non-Catholics deny the absolute truth of all of the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

…and this is why it matters! We, as Christians also, want to follow the words and laws as written in the Bible, not what is written by people who want to add or retract words to assert their own beliefs, which are man-made. These are non-Catholic Christian beliefs, which are some of the reasons why the reformation occurred in the first place.

For me, I am saddened by the arguments over such things, but I cannot deny that these issues do exist, and these are the issues which divide Christianity, not what holds the Church together as Christ intended, and as God desires.

The above assertions in no way deny the Catholic Church’s reasoning for their beliefs, nor does it deny the Protestant’s version of the reading of the words of the Bible. It is simply my explanation which tries to answer the OP’s question as to why it matters.