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

[YADA]

I’m not ignoring anything. I just get the importance that is placed on Virginity. Seeing that it wasn’t a mainstream practice of the Jewish people.

The Essenes disappeared. Their model was faulty.

I assume you meant "…just do not get … " … but it seems you don’t want to ‘get it’ … in fact - you have made up your mind that it was not only not important, it was not necessary and never happened … all this based upon your interpretation and authority …

Why did the Reformers held Mary’s perpetual virginity to be a foundational aspect of the Christian faith?

What does the Church teach regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary and why?

The words of scripture did not change - so all the writings you are interpreting were read, understood and interpreted by early Christians and they reached a different conclusion then you do.

Married people were expected to share marital relations in the time Mary and Joseph lived - thus that would be the normal conclusion - and yet early Christians believed otherwise as did Christians for nearly 1700 years - then - suddenly a Truth changed … why would that be? - some new revelation?, New understanding? … You are smarter then every other Christian who ever pondered this?

You say you see Jesus’ conception in the womb as being necessary … You say Mary’s being free of sin before his birth as necessary, her remaining chaste until his birth necessary - but others do not … Bishop Spong wrote a book where he puts forth [scholarly] that Jesus was probably the result of Mary’s being raped by a Roman Soldier … there was no virgin birth … and he reads the same scriptures you do and is an Episcopal Bishop

So why is your interpretation any more valid then his?

 

[JoeT777]

I’m not ignoring anything. I just [don’t] get the importance that is placed on Virginity. Seeing that it wasn’t a mainstream practice of the Jewish people.

The Essenes disappeared. Their model was faulty.

Consider the titles that Catholics give to Mary and ask why give her these particular titles. Then ask yourself how these titles focus our faith on Christ.

JoeT

 

[zz912]

I have not seen any reference to the Bible verses which state:

"And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! IS THIS NOT THE CARPENTER, THE SON OF MARY, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? AND ARE NOT HIS SISTERS HERE WITH US?’ So they were offended at Him.

In conclusion, Jesus DID have brothers and sisters — in fact, several of them! Including him, Mary gave birth to FIVE boys and at least TWO girls, for a family of SEVEN children!

The reason it hasn’t been mentioned is because it has been answered many times. You should study your Bible more. Two of these men are SPECIFICALLY named as having a different mother. The other two are apostles.

*Matt 27:55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

Mark 15:47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.*

So may you should rethink your contention that these four are sons of Mary, when they obviously aren’t.

Where do you get this idea of 6 siblings? Using YOUR scriptural understanding, He actually had at least 120 brothers and sisters.

Acts 1:13 When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. 15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, 16 “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I assume you meant "…just do not get … " … but it seems you don’t want to ‘get it’ … in fact - you have made up your mind that it was not only not important, it was not necessary and never happened … all this based upon your interpretation and authority …

Why did the Reformers held Mary’s perpetual virginity to be a foundational aspect of the Christian faith?

What does the Church teach regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary and why?

The words of scripture did not change - so all the writings you are interpreting were read, understood and interpreted by early Christians and they reached a different conclusion then you do.

Married people were expected to share marital relations in the time Mary and Joseph lived - thus that would be the normal conclusion - and yet early Christians believed otherwise as did Christians for nearly 1700 years - then - suddenly a Truth changed … why would that be? - some new revelation?, New understanding? … You are smarter then every other Christian who ever pondered this?

You say you see Jesus’ conception in the womb as being necessary … You say Mary’s being free of sin before his birth as necessary, her remaining chaste until his birth necessary - but others do not … Bishop Spong wrote a book where he puts forth [scholarly] that Jesus was probably the result of Mary’s being raped by a Roman Soldier … there was no virgin birth … and he reads the same scriptures you do and is an Episcopal Bishop

So why is your interpretation any more valid then his?

You are correct, I meant “not” -

I understand the Virgin Birth in the context of the multitude of miraculous births in religion and mythology. “This person is special, pay attention”

I’m not denying the birth, nor the perpetual virginity, I am having a hard time with why it is an important component after the birth.

There is one verse that I do find problematic -

Matt 1:25

The NABRE renders it

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Douay- Rheims

25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There is no need to call a child first born unless there are more children. “Knew her not” and “relations” are pretty clear euphemisms.

The NABRE note on the verse states - usccb.org/bible/matthew/1

• [1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

This is coming from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. One could understand why this is confusing.

 

[zz912]

My only point was I don’t understand the value or importance placed on virginity.

Well then maybe you should read, and then re-read the words Christ had about virginity. And then read some more and ponder them deeply. Christ placed virginity on a higher good than married life (not I didn’t say that married life was bad, only that virginity was better).

Matthew 19:12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Well then maybe you should read, and then re-read the words Christ had about virginity. And then read some more and ponder them deeply. Christ placed virginity on a higher good than married life (not I didn’t say that married life was bad, only that virginity was better).

Matthew 19:12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

The literal rendering is eunuch -

[12] For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’ s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

It doesn’t say it’s better. If was “better” and we were all to seek it, we wouldn’t be around long would we.

 

[Church_Militant]

The literal rendering is eunuch -

It doesn’t say it’s better. If was “better” and we were all to seek it, we wouldn’t be around long would we.

Actually it does Roscoe, else why would the disciples have responded with "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." (See Matthew 19:10) Still, Our Blessed Lord shows us that this is a discipline of the church and not a doctrine…but this has no relation to your topic of the Blessed Virgin.

You might take a look at my blog articles…
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

 

[po18guy]

IS THIS NOT THE CARPENTER, THE SON OF MARY, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? AND ARE NOT HIS SISTERS HERE WITH US?’ In conclusion, Jesus DID have brothers and sisters — in fact, several of them! Including him, Mary gave birth to FIVE boys and at least TWO girls, for a family of SEVEN children!

What anti-Catholic site are you copying and pasting from? (Jehovah’s Witnesses?) If you continue, your credibility will be zero, as three of those four “brothers” are shown from scripture to be the sons of women other than Mary. From www.biblechristiansociety.com

"The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet, as you mention, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus. Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon…”
The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and named, in the Bible. So, Mary must have had other children and the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.

First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56. Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses…” It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus.

Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified as an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible-only believer - in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith - then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James; after all, how many brothers named “James” would Jesus have?

But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus - neither one of them had a father named Joseph! Which means, neither one of them was Jesus’ sibling. Neither one of them had the same mother as Jesus. So, the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19 as a “brother” of Jesus, is a brother in a broader sense of the word, he was not a brother in the sense of having the same parents.

Now, Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), often identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as someone who was not one of the twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.

So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible.

The bible goes against you here. As well, your anti-Catholic/Anti-Eastern Orthodox/Anti-Anglican and anti-LUTHER claim of “other children” makes Mary a liar, since she vowed before Gabriel to be the bond slave of her own Son (Luke 1:38 NASB). Did your Jesus create a liar for His own mother? That is not the action of a Savior but rather, of a con-man. Think about what you are saying before saying it, please.

You cannot add meaning to scripture for personal reasons, or for reasons of a denominational agenda. Both written and oral tradition are clear that Mary had one Child, exactly as Gabriel told her in Luke 1:31.

Or, is it OK to add to the bible as long as it goes against the Catholic Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is one verse that I do find problematic -

Matt 1:25

The NABRE renders it

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Douay- Rheims

25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There is no need to call a child first born unless there are more children. “Knew her not” and “relations” are pretty clear euphemisms.

Yes, that can be confusing. I will clear both questions up for you here:

Matthew 1:25: Until she brought forth her firstborn son

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)

“Until”

In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…”
Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day”
But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.”
The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…”
May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?

Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

“Firstborn”

Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Actually it does Roscoe, else why would the disciples have responded with "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."

He was speaking the case of an adulterous wife. It would be better not to marry if you married a women given to adultery.

3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,* saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
4 He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”
8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 I say to you,* whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word,* but only those to whom that is granted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It reads to me getting married is what you should do but not everyone is cut out for it so in that case

As I stated in a previous post, both Jesus and Paul state that celibacy is a desirable state.

Jesus says that those to whom the gift of celibacy is offered should accept it.

Paul wishes that everyone were like him (celibate) in order to focus their full attention on God.

Marriage is a vocation just as the single, celibate life is a vocation. Different people have different callings or vocations, and all of us should respond to God appropriately.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”[/INDENT]

Frankly that comes across as nonsense. “Up to a certain moment” implies time, i.e. it didn’t happen before.

Removing an inconvenient word as a solution is outrageous.

I am aware of first born as a title but given the context “son” would have sufficed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Frankly that comes across as nonsense. “Up to a certain moment” implies time, i.e. it didn’t happen before.

Removing an inconvenient word as a solution is outrageous.

I am aware of first born as a title but given the context “son” would have sufficed.

I appreciate the fact that this is inconvenient for you.

However, since I have demonstrated that other possibilities and interpretations exist, Matthew 1;25 cannot be used to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Mary did not remain ever-virgin.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I appreciate the fact that this is inconvenient for you.

However, since I have demonstrated that other possibilities and interpretations exist, Matthew 1;25 cannot be used to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Mary did not remain ever-virgin.

It’s not inconvenient for me, it’s problematic. You are the one that removed the word not me. I am not setting out to prove anything, just asking questions.

 

[po18guy]

There is one verse that I do find problematic -

Matt 1:25

The NABRE renders it

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Douay- Rheims

25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There is no need to call a child first born unless there are more children. “Knew her not” and “relations” are pretty clear euphemisms.

The NABRE note on the verse states - usccb.org/bible/matthew/1

This is coming from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. One could understand why this is confusing.

Personally, I find the NAB and NAB/RE to be rather horrible translations. Their notes and intros can be toxic to the faith. They cry out for improvement or replacement. I use them for reference only. No less than Jimmy Akin finds the NAB to be a “squishy” translation. Let’s look at a translation that was favored by Pope Pius XII and Bishop Fulton Sheen, the Knox Translation:

25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.[3]

[3] The text here is more literally rendered ‘he knew her not till she bore a son’; but the Hebrew word represented by ‘till’ does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place afterwards. (Cf. Gen. 8.7, Ps. 109.2, Dan. 6.24, I Mac. 5.54.) So that this phrase does not impugn the perpetual virginity of our Lady. Nor is any such inference to be drawn when our Lord is called her ‘first-born’ Son, which refers to his position as redeemable under the old law (Lk. 2.23).

Remember that Jesus had to fulfill the Prophets. In particular, let’s look at what Zechariah prophesied (Zech 12:10 - underlining mine):

10 On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem, I will pour out a gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look, me whom they have pierced through.[3] Lament for him they must, and grieve bitterly; never was such lament for an only son, grief so bitter over first-born dead.

If an only son and first-born are mutually inclusive, why did Zechariah clearly specify both? Jesus had to fulfill all three aspects of that prophecy: “pierced through”, “only son” and “first born dead.”

And, what was Matthew’s purpose in 1:25? Was it not to show that Christ is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isaiah 7:14)? Remember also that the assault on Mary’s perpetual virginity did not exist when the Douay-Rheims was penned. And, American Catholicism had gone flaccid by the time that the NAB was penned. The attack on Mary was promoted mostly in the 19th-20th century by anti-Catholic fundamentalists who privately interpret scripture apart from the Sacred Christian Tradition. They are nothing more than the fulfillment of Peter’s words in 2 Peter 3:16: **

16 in which, as in all his letters, he talks of this. (Though indeed, there are passages in them difficult to understand, and these, like the rest of scripture, are twisted into a wrong sense by ignorant and restless minds, to their own undoing.)

** But, look at the very next verse and what Peter is cautioning us against: **

17 For yourselves, beloved, be warned in time; do not be carried away by their rash errors, and lose the firm foothold you have won;

**

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s not inconvenient for me, it’s problematic. You are the one that removed the word not me. I am not setting out to prove anything, just asking questions.

The word “until” was removed simply to demonstrate what it’s function in the sentence was and not to hide anything.

Then I provided multiple examples from scripture showing that “until” does not force a meaning that you think it forces.

 

[JoeT777]

You are correct, I meant “not” -

I understand the Virgin Birth in the context of the multitude of miraculous births in religion and mythology. “This person is special, pay attention”

I’m not denying the birth, nor the perpetual virginity, I am having a hard time with why it is an important component after the birth.

There is one verse that I do find problematic -

Matt 1:25

The NABRE renders it

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Douay- Rheims

25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There is no need to call a child first born unless there are more children. “Knew her not” and “relations” are pretty clear euphemisms.

The NABRE note on the verse states - usccb.org/bible/matthew/1

This is coming from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. One could understand why this is confusing.

It would seem that the **BIG DEAL **is that if Mary isn’t a person like Eve prior to the fall then the resulting Christ isn’t God/man. Christ would have original sin and obviously not God/man. To avoid this such a Christ would need to possess the body of man, like evil spirits possess men, which makes the validity of His sacrifice questionable. Man would be left doubting who died for our sins, God or man? And, we know that the two natures of the Second Person in the Trinity are inseparable. God can’t die, so the only logical result is for this kind of Christ to be a man. As a consequence, with such a god, we would be right to ask if human sacrifice appeases God? There are other equally objectionable heretical conclusions contrary to Christ’s teachings.

These heresies were raised in the first 600 years of the Church all from the same source of questioning the virginity of Mary. The only Christological formula that produces God/man is for Jesus Christ to be born of a New Eve. Mary is the human mother of God who is blessed with original justice at birth (a creation of God), which is partly restored in us at Baptism.

There are posts in this thread that address this - maybe you missed them.

JoeT

 

[Randy_Carson]

It would seem that the **BIG DEAL **is that if Mary isn’t a person like Eve prior to the fall then the resulting Christ isn’t God/man. Christ would have original sin and obviously not God/man. To avoid this such a Christ would need to possess the body of man, like evil spirits possess men, which makes the validity of His sacrifice questionable. Man would be left doubting who died for our sins, God or man? And, we know that the two natures of the Second Person in the Trinity are inseparable. God can’t die, so the only logical result is for this kind of Christ to be a man. As a consequence, with such a god, we would be right to ask if human sacrifice appeases God? There are other equally objectionable heretical conclusions contrary to Christ’s teachings.

These heresies were raised in the first 600 years of the Church all from the same source of questioning the virginity of Mary. The only Christological formula that produces God/man is for Jesus Christ to be born of a New Eve. Mary is the human mother of God who is blessed with original justice at birth (a creation of God), which is partly restored in us at Baptism.

There are posts in this thread that address this - maybe you missed them.

JoeT

Joe-

This is good stuff, but the question is not whether Mary was a Virgin before Jesus was born but rather whether she remained a virgin AFTER.

 

[Evan]

It would seem that the **BIG DEAL **is that if Mary isn’t a person like Eve prior to the fall then the resulting Christ isn’t God/man. Christ would have original sin and obviously not God/man.
JoeT

Joe, think about it. If the HS can prevent Mary, from the first moment of conception, from having original sin, couldn’t he prevent, instead, Jesus from having original sin?

Anyway, the Immaculate Conception is a different topic. We are discussing the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

 

[JoeT777]

Joe, think about it. If the HS can prevent Mary, from the first moment of conception, from having original sin, couldn’t he prevent, instead, Jesus from having original sin?

There are at least two problems with this. One is that the perfection of His Divinity would be nourished and in intimate contact with corruption. Another would be that the two natures of Theandros are inseparable, an injected Spirit would suggest conjoining natures, not one and the same substance.

Anyway, the Immaculate Conception is a different topic. We are discussing the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I don’t believe it is a different topic, separate the mother from the man and you no longer have a human nature.

JoeT