Mary's perpetual virginity

[clh1217]

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?

I thank them…yea.

I don’t pray to them. Build statues to them. Call them “mother”, the ‘ark’, co-redemptrix, nor do I contribute my salvation unto their allowing God’s grace to work in and through them…

…such as you may do with Mary.

 

[RobHom]

Um, I have no issue with Peter.

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

Yes it is…but it got sidetracked because you wanted to be so certain of how and why the Bible is the “final authority”. My digression was to point out that people who define the Bible as the “final authority” don’t even embrace it as such except when it appears convenient to do so.

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.

I guess your understanding of verbiage in the English language is very different than mine… Christ “clearly” was speaking to Peter and “clearly” gave him a mission…which Peter undertook. The word Pope…was not in existence, and anyway it stems from the Italian word for father…and thus is an honorific or title given to the Apostolic Successor of Peter. You are hedging your bets on the lack of legalistic subparagraphs and subclauses… yet at the same time denigrating the very words of Christ.

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.

True enough…thus it was. All of the Apostles had their measure of authority…however, Christ chose Peter to give the Keys to.

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.

Not so…the verbiage is quite specific. Christ did not say “Hey Y’all…here’s the keys, y’all share them, hear?” He gave them to Peter. Its says so in the Bible…right?

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

It was granted to Peter…and the Apostolic Succession… otherwise would not the Church cease to exist after Peter and the other Apostles deaths?

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

Are you saying that you believe this? If so, you are denying everything you have said prior…because who among “you” believes they have the power to withhold forgiveness to anyone?

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.

And so it is.

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.”

I’ll take it that you posted it verbatim…and what it says if that is the case…sounds right.

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.

Even if your opinion as stated above, contains merit, the simple fact is…that any “church” without leadership…is simply a disaster waiting to happen. Look at all of the thousands of protestant religions out there…and look at all of the thousands of different interpretations of the supposedly same bible. Christ made Peter the supreme leader of the Apostles…because Peter of all of the Apostles knew “precisely” who Christ was…and so stated it when asked. Christ being God, who created man, knows the heart and mind of man…and knows that more than 1 person involved in an endeavor requires leadership, and that leadership requires a leader, therefore…Peter was made the leader of the Apostles by God Himself. And the Church, in order to continue through the ages must have a successor to the leader, thus the Apostolic succession is necessary.

Its actually quite simple.

 

[RobHom]

No…it IS NOT there.

That statement is incorrect, and even the Bible makes it clear that it exists…and its as clear as can be.

We can go back and forth.

Yes we can…and hopefully you will gain some knowledge from it all.

Yes, there are “mysteries”…

Do I detect a chink in your armor… ??

but the PV of Mary is not one of them.

Scripture has made it clear.

Wrong again…it is only your interpretation that implies that.

Insofar as the founders of the reformation embracing Mary’s Perpetual Virginity…I don’t buy for one second that notion of yours that they were “raised in it”. They were (Luther and Calvin) raised Catholic…In it all!! So how can you say that with all that they did reject of Catholicism…that they claimed was “unscriptural”…yet is scripturally correct, Why on earth would they not reject The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Perpetual Virginity??? If, it is, as you say…so “unscriptural”???

Here’s where your hangup is… Look at it this way… You are making either an interpretation that you really aren’t in a position to do so…or you are accepting the word of someone else who is not in a position to do so.

You can spend the rest of your life kicking the Rock of Gibraltar, but as far as Mary is concerned…you will never chip that diamond…nor will you or any other “revisionist” convince myself or any other Catholic that the Church…or Luther, or Calvin, Or Zwingli was wrong. When those people made those statements they made them on their knowledge and faith. I seriously doubt that anyone of your kind has discovered anything that wasn’t known before…except by “your interpretation”…which the Bible clearly remonstrates against.

 

[RobHom]

As a matter of clarification:

The following quote was not made by me…but was made by “clh” and I didn’t bracket it correctly…so it didn’t appear correctly in my response to him/her.

***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.

Actually, the “crux” of your posts are incorrect, and your are simply regurgitating the same nonsense that is hardly new or genuine…and which has been refuted since the beginning of the reformation. Nothing has changed…except the fact that the names of the posters or declaimers has changed down through the years…thats all your “crux” is.

 

[Annie_B]

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”.

God’s caring for us does make sense - at least to me God’s ways should not be a stumbling block or confusing…And they aren’t

Annie

 

[Sepharad]

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.

Personally, it is my opinion that the whole belief of Mary staying a virgin throughout marriage (despite Jewish Law stating that an unconsummated marriage is no marriage) stems from the ancient and medieval Catholic view of sex as sinful, even in marriage,except for procreation (a view advocated by Catholic clergy, esp. Pope Gregory the Great).

Apart from the fact that such a view runs counter to Jewish Law which Mary and Joseph are supposed to have followed strictly, it conveys the idea that there is something evil and sinful about marital sex, which is so absolutely contrary to the Jewish view of sex as something God created as good.

I personally see this celibacy belief as one of the many inroads ancient paganism made into the nascent Christian religion, esp. after nonJews from polytheistic backgrounds started joining the new faith in droves as Jews deserted it.

 

[RobHom]

Personally, it is my opinion that the whole belief of Mary staying a virgin throughout marriage (despite Jewish Law stating that an unconsummated marriage is no marriage) stems from the ancient and medieval Catholic view of sex as sinful, even in marriage,except for procreation (a view advocated by Catholic clergy, esp. Pope Gregory the Great).

But the issue here is not so much about whether or not they consummated a marriage according to Jewish Law…as much as whether or not Joseph carried out the instructions of God. Which it is obvious that he did.

Apart from the fact that such a view runs counter to Jewish Law which Mary and Joseph are supposed to have followed strictly, it conveys the idea that there is something evil and sinful about marital sex, which is so absolutely contrary to the Jewish view of sex as something God created as good.

Contrarian views not withstanding…we are not talking about two “everyday” Jewish kids in Gallilee. We are talking about a woman who was created by God as a special part of his plan, to perform a special function, thus as God’s doings…the “Law” has no bindings on God.

 

[Sepharad]

But the issue here is not so much about whether or not they consummated a marriage according to Jewish Law…as much as whether or not Joseph carried out the instructions of God. Which it is obvious that he did.

Contrarian views not withstanding…we are not talking about two “everyday” Jewish kids in Gallilee. We are talking about a woman who was created by God as a special part of his plan, to perform a special function, thus as God’s doings…the “Law” has no bindings on God.

But, you see, only Christians believe that…and not even all Christians believe this, that she stayed a virgin in perpetuity…only Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe that.

The problem is that Christianity evolved out of Judaism, and so in order to even claim to be true, it has to fit with Jewish Law. If it doesn’t, it can’t claim to be the fulfillment of Judaism, as it claims.

To say that all bets are off when it comes to Jesus fulfilling Jewish Law, or that Jewish Law does not apply to his specific situation, is to go against the very foundation of your religion…it also contradicts the Christian claim that Jesus somehow “fulfilled” Jewish Law.

In the Scriptures, is says, “***I am the LORD, I change not; ***therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed”…this is why Jews believe that God does not change His Law.

 

[LilyM]

But, you see, only Christians believe that…and not even all Christians believe this, that she stayed a virgin in perpetuity…only Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe that.

The problem is that Christianity evolved out of Judaism, and so in order to even claim to be true, it has to fit with Jewish Law. If it doesn’t, it can’t claim to be the fulfillment of Judaism, as it claims.

To say that all bets are off when it comes to Jesus fulfilling Jewish Law, or that Jewish Law does not apply to his specific situation, is to go against the very foundation of your religion…it also contradicts the Christian claim that Jesus somehow “fulfilled” Jewish Law.

In the Scriptures, is says, “***I am the LORD, I change not; ***therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed”…this is why Jews believe that God does not change His Law.

Firstly, a number of non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians have also belived in Mary’s perpetual virginity, Luther and Calvin being two of the most notable.

Secondly - even the Levitical law allows women to pledge their virginity to God and, with the husband’s permission, to keep to that vow even after marrige. A la Numbers 30:3-8

"When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

“If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.”

 

[Sepharad]

Firstly, a number of non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians have also belived in Mary’s perpetual virginity, Luther and Calvin being two of the most notable.

Secondly - even the Levitical law allows women to pledge their virginity to God and, with the husband’s permission, to keep to that vow even after marrige. A la Numbers 30:3-8

"When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

“If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.”

You know, I have read that passage of Torah many times, and not once did it ever occur to me that virginity during marriage would be included in that, because as a Jew I know that a vow of virginity during marriage is not possible according to Jewish Law…and evidently Jewish scholars agree with me, because in the commentaries for that passage, I have read that it does not include any vow that cannot legally be performed by a woman (such as a vow of virginity in marriage, because to do so runs counter to Jewish Law…it would be like a woman vowing to eat pork.)

The Talmudic tractate, Nedarim, goes into great detail as to what a legal vow constitutes and what it does not. In brief, a Jew cannot vow to do something forbidden by the Torah…or vow to not do something commanded by the Torah.

 

[LilyM]

You know, I have read that passage of Torah many times, and not once did it ever occur to me that virginity during marriage would be included in that, because as a Jew I know that a vow of virginity during marriage is not possible according to Jewish Law…and evidently Jewish scholars agree with me, because in the commentaries for that passage, I have read that it does not include any vow that cannot legally be performed by a woman (such as a vow of virginity in marriage, because to do so runs counter to Jewish Law…it would be like a woman vowing to eat pork.)

I’m not talking about a vow of virginity made in marriage … I’m talking about a vow of lifelong virginity made before marriage. Which presumably isn’t a sinful thing in and of itself, or is it?

If a woman made a vow of virginity BEFORE marriage, then it would seem that with her husband’s permission a woman can keep this vow even during marriage - it says she can keep any vow as long as her husband permits her to, even a ‘rash’ one.

 

[Sepharad]

I’m not talking about a vow of virginity made in marriage … I’m talking about a vow of lifelong virginity made before marriage. Which presumably isn’t a sinful thing in and of itself, or is it?

If a woman made a vow of virginity BEFORE marriage, then it would seem that with her husband’s permission a woman can keep this vow even during marriage - it says she can keep any vow as long as her husband permits her to, even a ‘rash’ one.

As I said, the Talmudic tractate, Nedarim, goes into great detail as to valid and invalid vows, their circumstances, etc. I really cannot see any case where something like that be recognized, esp. since a REQUIRED part of a traditional Jewish marriage ceremony is the yichud…its even in the Torah, because the parents must be given the “tokens of her virginity” to save as evidence in case she is ever falsely accused. Without yichud, the marriage is not legally valid in Jewish Law.

Look, I realize you believe that Mary was always virgin, and as a nonJewish Catholic you are fully entitled to believe that. But it really gives me a headache when I see Catholics trying to make the laws of my religion 'fit" such a belief, when it really cannot.

 

[GailMac]

Dear clh1217,
I’m no expert, but it seems to me that you are proving what I stated in my earlier post, that in order to “prove” you aren’t Catholic, you mis-use the Scriptures and distance yourself from the facts about Mary. Your loss, my friend.

From reading your posts, I’ve discovered that your thinking only goes in anti-catholic circles, so I won’t bore you with a point by point refutation, not that that isn’t possible. The words would be wasted. I wish you well in your journey and hope that God will restore to you that which you lost in your attemtps to find Him in the Word.

What I would like to say about your postition, mostly sola scriptura, is that no where in the Bible itself does it state that the Bible is the sole authority on the living of one’s faith. Neither did Jesus teach this to His disciples when He walked the earth. He never gave dictation, nor instructed anyone to write anything down while His preaching mission was underway. In fact, if you read ALL the Bible, the whole thing from cover to cover, you will find the protestant dogma of sola scriptura refuted. It does in fact, state that not everthing Jesus did and said is contained in Scripture.

I will also repeat my question, what exactly does it take away from **you personally **to think that Mary was a Virgin before, during and after her bearing the Word in her flesh? And since I don’t expect much of an answer to this, I will give you what has been my experience before, it will take away your identity as Catholic and that is why you will spin in sola scriptura cirlces proving you aren’t Catholic nor want to be confused as one.

Peace,

Gail

 

[clh1217]

That statement is incorrect, and even the Bible makes it clear that it exists…and its as clear as can be.

we will have to disagree.

Her PV is no where mentioned, nor celebrated as you do within the CC.

about the mysteries?

Do I detect a chink in your armor… ??

Wrong again…it is only your interpretation that implies that.

and who gives you authority to interpret??

Insofar as the founders of the reformation embracing Mary’s Perpetual Virginity…I don’t buy for one second that notion of yours that they were “raised in it”. They were (Luther and Calvin) raised Catholic…In it all!! So how can you say that with all that they did reject of Catholicism…that they claimed was “unscriptural”…yet is scripturally correct, Why on earth would they not reject The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Perpetual Virginity??? If, it is, as you say…so “unscriptural”???

Scripture speaks NOT of her virginity with the SOLE exception that she was a virgin when the HS came upon her.

End of it.

Here’s where your hangup is… Look at it this way… You are making either an interpretation that you really aren’t in a position to do so…or you are accepting the word of someone else who is not in a position to do so.

why am I in no position, but you are? Because you have the CC behind you?

Sorry…God doesn’t live in the RCC sized monstrance…

 

[clh1217]

Dear clh1217,
I’m no expert, but it seems to me that you are proving what I stated in my earlier post, that in order to “prove” you aren’t Catholic, you mis-use the Scriptures and distance yourself from the facts about Mary. Your loss, my friend.

From reading your posts, I’ve discovered that your thinking only goes in anti-catholic circles, so I won’t bore you with a point by point refutation, not that that isn’t possible. The words would be wasted. I wish you well in your journey and hope that God will restore to you that which you lost in your attemtps to find Him in the Word.

What I would like to say about your postition, mostly sola scriptura, is that no where in the Bible itself does it state that the Bible is the sole authority on the living of one’s faith. Neither did Jesus teach this to His disciples when He walked the earth. He never gave dictation, nor instructed anyone to write anything down while His preaching mission was underway. In fact, if you read ALL the Bible, the whole thing from cover to cover, you will find the protestant dogma of sola scriptura refuted. It does in fact, state that not everthing Jesus did and said is contained in Scripture.

I will also repeat my question, what exactly does it take away from **you personally **to think that Mary was a Virgin before, during and after her bearing the Word in her flesh? And since I don’t expect much of an answer to this, I will give you what has been my experience before, it will take away your identity as Catholic and that is why you will spin in sola scriptura cirlces proving you aren’t Catholic nor want to be confused as one.

Peace,

Gail

Oh please don’t do the "“anti-catholic” routine.

If you think it is in circles, maybe because the Catholics are using circular reasoning?

Scripture IS the FINAL AUTHORITY.

It is an absolute Travesty to consider it not so.

Scripture clearly reveals in both the NT that Jesus had blood brothers using proper language, …and to back up the NT with OT messianic psalms that BLOOD BROTHERS are what Jesus ‘brothers’ are…

It is obvious.

Now, …seeing that scripture IS the FINAL AUTHORITY on any matter considering God, why ignore what scripture says?

 

[LilyM]

As I said, the Talmudic tractate, Nedarim, goes into great detail as to valid and invalid vows, their circumstances, etc. I really cannot see any case where something like that be recognized, esp. since a REQUIRED part of a traditional Jewish marriage ceremony is the yichud…its even in the Torah, because the parents must be given the “tokens of her virginity” to save as evidence in case she is ever falsely accused. Without yichud, the marriage is not legally valid in Jewish Law.

Look, I realize you believe that Mary was always virgin, and as a nonJewish Catholic you are fully entitled to believe that. But it really gives me a headache when I see Catholics trying to make the laws of my religion 'fit" such a belief, when it really cannot.

Oh I don’t believe it has to fit in with Jewish law, but it’s interesting to see whether it could or not. Which I realise must give you headaches, for which I humbly apologise, but it’s interesting to speculate on.

Am I correct, though, in thinking that a young girl COULD potentially vow perpetul virginity to God (if perhaps she never marries or something?)

And I’d have to think there would be times when these ‘tokens of virginity’ would not be required, being impossible - the situation of Joseph and Mary being one. She was pregnant BEFORE they were married, everyone knew it, everyone knew she was no longer a virgin (or so they thought) so no tokens of virginity would be possible.

He implicitly claimed the child as his own by marrying her, so implying that they had already had relations. This idea of premarital hanky-panky being made good by later marriage is expressly described in the Torah, that much I do know, so it can’t have been that uncommon for there to be occasions where no tokens of virginity were possible.

 

[clh1217]

I’m not talking about a vow of virginity made in marriage … I’m talking about a vow of lifelong virginity made before marriage. Which presumably isn’t a sinful thing in and of itself, or is it?

If a woman made a vow of virginity BEFORE marriage, then it would seem that with her husband’s permission a woman can keep this vow even during marriage - it says she can keep any vow as long as her husband permits her to, even a ‘rash’ one.

Would not the marriage be null and void?

 

[GailMac]

Dear Sheparard,

I am shocked by what you say about Jews!

“You know, I have read that passage of Torah many times, and not once did it ever occur to me that virginity during marriage would be included in that, because as a Jew I know that a vow of virginity during marriage is not possible according to Jewish Law…and evidently Jewish scholars agree with me, because in the commentaries for that passage, I have read that it does not include any vow that cannot legally be performed by a woman (such as a vow of virginity in marriage, because to do so runs counter to Jewish Law…it would be like a woman vowing to eat pork.)”

I should tell you I have Jewish family members, Orthodox actually and one relative a Rabbi, so I know what I’m talking about, but they would be very insulted by what you have said. It in fact, isn’t true. There have been many Jewish marriages of “convienence,” past, present, and future, God willing! And it isn’t simply a woman’s choice, men make the same vows. Your tone makes it sound as if sex is the duty of every good Jewish woman and Mary would’ve been somehow sinful for maintaining a virginal state for herself. This is not only insulting to me as a Christian of Jewish origin, but also as a woman!

I think you need to re-evalute your basic understanding of the roles of women in society and need to get to know a few Jews on a day to day basis before you try to speak for them as an authority.

Peace,

Gail

 

[LilyM]

Would not the marriage be null and void?

Depends on whether you think a marriage is invalid without consummation.

Certainly the NT is clear enough that Mary and Joseph didn’t consummate at least until Jesus was born. You think they’d choose to live together in an invalid marital relationship for all that time? God Himself, through the Angel, told Joseph that it was OK to do so, HE wouldn’t tolerate an invalid relationship between them, Im sure.

 

[GailMac]

Dear clh1217,

Again I repeat: “What I would like to say about your postition, mostly sola scriptura, is that no where in the Bible itself does it state that the Bible is the sole authority on the living of one’s faith. Neither did Jesus teach this to His disciples when He walked the earth. He never gave dictation, nor instructed anyone to write anything down while His preaching mission was underway. In fact, if you read ALL the Bible, the whole thing from cover to cover, you will find the protestant dogma of sola scriptura refuted. It does in fact, state that not everthing Jesus did and said is contained in Scripture.”

If you cling to Scripture as the “sole authority” where can you point to in Scripture that states that fact? It doesn’t and if your Bible said something to the contrary, would you change your point of view?

Peace,

Gail