Mary's perpetual virginity

[clh1217]

Just because I’m right…doesn’t mean I’m “brilliant”…but thanks anyway for the compliment.

What I’m seeing here, quite frankly is someone…you…trying desperately to sitting on a three legged stool that only has two legs.

I expect that soon you will begin with the “ad hominem” attack routine…that after all is the normal progression, right?

Insofar as the “Bible” is concerned…your knowledge regarding which is the valid one appears quite lacking…unless you are using one that stems from the Catholic Church. Thats just a simple fact. All others are politically or agenda mutations…pure and simple. Sorry.

Tis thee needing to think, nay?

In re “bloviate”…are complex compound sentences taxing?

The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church.

In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, ***not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. ***

God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16).

“…Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21).

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35).

“The grass withered, and the flower has fallen–but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:24-25).

The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church.

***The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God. ***

Which is the crux of most of my posts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am going to say that the "C"atholic church is NOT the church that Christ founded.

Really? What, then, was the Church that Christ founded, if not the Catholic Church? And what proof do you have to support your claim?

 

[clh1217]

Really? What, then, was the Church that Christ founded, if not the Catholic Church? And what proof do you have to support your claim?

scripture.

I agree…the small c catholic is used.

It is a UNIVERSAL church of all believers in Christ.

However, you are adhering to the "R"eligious institution of the "C"atholic (big C) Church…

Christ didn’t establish the "C"atholic Church.

I know you are refusing to look at it this way, …you actually can not without sacrificing dearly inside your "C"hurch.

This IS what you have been taught…I do understand that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Can you please show me ‘proof’ that Christ did not establish the Catholic Church? And (since we agree that He did indeed establish a Church, as Scripture tells us), which Church did He establish?

 

[RobHom]

I am going to say that the "C"atholic church is NOT the church that Christ founded.

Obviously you are expressing an opinion not based on fact, or apparently your “interpretation” of Matthew doesn’t make sense.

Lets take a look at it:

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

One is Douay-Rheims, and the other KJV…and they both say the same thing…so whats so confusing about the fact that Christ commissioned Peter to lead his Church?

 

[Annie_B]

greetings!

In the longest of runs, no. It does not matter.

However, her PV and alleged sinlessness give Catholics all the reason to praise her, idolize her, …worship her.

She has been given value that would embarrass her at the least, and GRIEVE God at the most…

in the end, her PV is an complete NON-essential.

I agree. She was, is and always will be the Mother of Jesus and that is why I admire her and look up to her. PV has nothing to do with the salvation of mankind.

Annie

 

[Annie_B]

If Mary never had sex with her husband, what kind of wife does that make her? How valid was their marriage if it was never consumated? This PV just does not make any sense…

Annie

 

[VociMike]

No, I praise God for HER willingness…He created her by the way.

she is blessed among women. Respected beyond reproach. She is to be exemplified, and her willingness and openheart sought after.

Why respect her if it is only God’s work? Why talk of her willingness and open heart if it is only God’s work. You continue to speak contradictions.

I think this is really all about your view of free will. Do you accept or deny that humans have the free will, each and every moment, to cooperate with God’s grace or to reject that grace?

 

[VociMike]

I do not know why?

What is the “not true” assertion?

I honestly do not care what Luther or Calvin thought…

I go by scripture.

How did they get it wrong…

I have NOT studied Luther nor Calvin’s ways.

“HOW” they got anything ““wrong”” not sure.

Well, if this teaching of Mary’s other children is so obvious, how is it that the leaders of the Reformation, the founders of Protestant theology, men who devoted their lives to understanding scripture, didn’t see it? According to you, it would be as if Einstein couldn’t do a child’s arithmetic problem correctly.

But all you can say is you don’t know how they could be so wrong, but you’re sure they were. And I don’t know why a Protestant would believe you over them.

 

[LilyM]

If Mary never had sex with her husband, what kind of wife does that make her? How valid was their marriage if it was never consumated? This PV just does not make any sense…

Annie

And what kind of Mother of God Incarnate does it make her, what kind of foster-father of the Redeemer does it make Joseph, if their focus was not on their task of raising the Son of God, and on that task alone to the exclusion of all else?

Jesus wasn’t a part-time Saviour, He didn’t combine his job with a married life and children, and He was divine. What makes you think they could or would do any differently when their tasks were the second most important, after His, in all of salvation history?

Raising Jesus would’ve been nothing like raising an ordinary boy, it was one of the greatest jobs of all time and no human could do it who wasn’t fully devoted to the task and not to any other. With no distractions such as raising other children, or marital relations.

Joseph married Mary because she needed someone to protect her from the very real dangers of being unmarried and pregnant, and because Jesus needed a model of human fatherhood and masculinity. He knew better than to trespass into her body which was the dwelling place of God Himself, and thus sacred to Him.

 

[clh1217]

Obviously you are expressing an opinion not based on fact, or apparently your “interpretation” of Matthew doesn’t make sense.

Lets take a look at it:

One is Douay-Rheims, and the other KJV…and they both say the same thing…so whats so confusing about the fact that Christ commissioned Peter to lead his Church?

Um, I have no issue with Peter.

Isn’t this thread about the PV of Mary???

anyhoo…

Undoubtedly the Lord entrusted Peter with authority in the church; yet he was never made a pope. To prove the papacy it must be shown that Jesus delegated supreme power to Peter to rule over the entire church, and that this authority is passed on to his alleged successors, the bishops of Rome.

Catholics note that since the Lord gave the “keys of the kingdom” to the apostle Peter alone, he must have a unique and superior authority.

While it is true that Christ did confer authority on Peter, it is also true that this authority was not unique to Peter, nor was it supreme over the other apostles and the entire church.

The power of the keys was granted to the whole church to be exercised in the forgiveness of sins.

The apostle Peter was the first to open the way of salvation by the preaching of the gospel, first to the Jews at Pentecost and later on to the Gentiles at Cornelius house.

The church continues to exercise that authority through the gospel, proclaiming forgiveness to those who believe in Christ, and withholding forgiveness to unbelievers.

The church is also duty bound to discipline obstinate sinful members; she also enjoys the happy privilege to restore penitents to full fellowship. Such was the interpretation of the power of the keys by the Church Fathers.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

“In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven.”

The Fathers generally attributed the “keys” as the prerogative of the church, not the exclusive power of any individual, whether the bishop of Rome or anyone else. They interpreted this authority in reference to the forgiveness of sins, as the scriptural text does, and not as supreme jurisdictional authority of one bishop over the entire church, as the Roman Church does.

 

[RobHom]

The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church.

As I recall…the writers were not Catholic, insofar as the writers of the articles are concerned…he was “Eastern Orthodox”.

In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, ***not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. ***

You’re “half-right”. But only half so. Do you deny that the Holy men that attended the Councils that established the Canon and certified the Books that compromise the Bible of 73 Books were not inspired by God in their work? If you deny this, then you bring the essence of the Bible into question entirely. Authority in the form you use it is entirely “nebulous”.

God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. “All scripture is inspired of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16).

If you are going to quote scripture…please don’t take it out of context. Snippets taken out of context change the meanings.
Here’s the whole of it:

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

*16 “All scripture,”… Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it. *

“…Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21).

Now…again, lets put things in their proper context…

20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

20 “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

That seems clear enough…right?

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35).

**

35 Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.

*35 “Shall pass”… Because they shall be changed at the end of the world into a new heaven and new earth. *

Your context was just a little bit off…

“The grass withered, and the flower has fallen–but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:24-25).

24 For all flesh is as grass; and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass is withered, and the flower thereof is fallen away. 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.

Far be it from me to “interpret the Bible”…especially when the Bible exhorts to precisely not do that…but I will venture a guess and say that without the reading of the entire chapter…the context is muddled by using just a snippet.

The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church.

You are entirely free to embrace revisionist theories be it religious or historical, however true history records that the Catholic Church established the Bible in that they compiled the Books that comprise the Bible…all 73 Books, and took great pains to prevent heretical books and schismatic books from being included. That also involved prevention of inclusion of gnostic books as well.

If the Catholic Church did not do it, who then did? Oh yes, God “inspired” these men…but unless you absolutely deny “that man has free will”, then you are saying that these men functioned merely as “automatons”…which I rather doubt. Sorry, your bag is still empty.

***The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God. ***

Which is the crux of most of my posts.**

 

[VociMike]

This PV just does not make any sense…

Neither does any part of God’s caring for us. None of it makes any sense. Where is it written that God’s ways should make sense to us? God’s ways are not our ways. God’s ways are a stumbling block, a folly, to those who demand that they “make sense”.

 

[clh1217]

Why respect her if it is only God’s work? Why talk of her willingness and open heart if it is only God’s work. You continue to speak contradictions.

I think this is really all about your view of free will. Do you accept or deny that humans have the free will, each and every moment, to cooperate with God’s grace or to reject that grace?

How do they contradict.

I can not attribute anything good of me, without giving it ALL back to God…

He is the maker, not I.

We can have free will…and still praise Jesus for it.

 

[clh1217]

Neither does any part of God’s caring for us. None of it makes any sense. Where is it written that God’s ways should make sense to us? God’s ways are not our ways. God’s ways are a stumbling block, a folly, to those who demand that they “make sense”.

Then why add to what is NOT there?

Isn’t what IS there a challenge enough for us normal folks???

LOL…

adding the PV to it is insanity.

 

[LilyM]

How do they contradict.

I can not attribute anything good of me, without giving it ALL back to God…

He is the maker, not I.

We can have free will…and still praise Jesus for it.

That doesn’t make it any the less our exercise of our free will though. It’s not God’s exercise of our free will or anything, although He did grant us the gift of free will to start with.

 

[VociMike]

Then why add to what is NOT there?

Isn’t what IS there a challenge enough for us normal folks???

LOL…

adding the PV to it is insanity.

But it is there. It is in the deposit of faith that God gave to his people through the Church. It is as clear as day.

Your mistake is in assuming that God’s deposit of faith is entirely contained in the bible - a very false and unbiblical notion, to be sure.

 

[VociMike]

How do they contradict.

I can not attribute anything good of me, without giving it ALL back to God…

He is the maker, not I.

We can have free will…and still praise Jesus for it.

Absolutely, we can praise Jesus for all our good attributes. But can we also praise a person for choosing to cooperate with God’s grace? You certainly did, earlier.

Do you ever praise any saintly persons for allowing God’s grace to work in them?

 

[clh1217]

Well, if this teaching of Mary’s other children is so obvious, how is it that the leaders of the Reformation, the founders of Protestant theology, men who devoted their lives to understanding scripture, didn’t see it? According to you, it would be as if Einstein couldn’t do a child’s arithmetic problem correctly.

But all you can say is you don’t know how they could be so wrong, but you’re sure they were. And I don’t know why a Protestant would believe you over them.

There is nothing to say.

Do you think I deny, or want to cover UP their faith in the PV of Mary?

This IS what they were raised on.

This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation.

The Reformers themselves took a mediocre… even positive view of Marian doctrines

• although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation.

Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the*** witness of Scripture ***and was rooted in Christology. People were not allowed to do this.

The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles.

Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

I can not go any deeper than what is said above.

You are merely taking the ““fathers”” of protestantism and turning the table in your favor.

I got it, I don’t deny your facts.

There is succession over time however as SCRIPTURE is finally unvieled from the "C"atholic Roman rule and reign.

 

[clh1217]

But it is there. It is in the deposit of faith that God gave to his people through the Church. It is as clear as day.

Your mistake is in assuming that God’s deposit of faith is entirely contained in the bible - a very false and unbiblical notion, to be sure.

No…it IS NOT there.

We can go back and forth.

Yes, there are “mysteries”…

but the PV of Mary is not one of them.

Scripture has made it clear.