Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[apophasis]

Therin lies the rub, Good Fella. Maybe someday I’ll be pursuaded in full. Maybe not. I’ll let the HS dictate either way, with the assistance of you and other thoughtful posters.

Until the, I’ll do my best to remain Christian and intellectually honest in my responses.

The Holy Spirit does not guarantee protection from being burnt for anyone who insists on playing with fire. Or protection from falling into a pit of error if he refuses to cover an obvious hole. Some things are left until the judgment seat of Christ when the value of what you’ve built upon the foundation (Christ) will be revealed and then either rewarded or burnt.

You see, in this respect, I do believe, like Catholics, in free will.

 

[apophasis]

How do you know what Mathew wrote is clear when you are unwilling to understand what the words mean in Greek. The language that Mathew wrote in…

He didn’t write the passage in English.

I’ve studied the Greek and there’s nothing there to preclude a change of action. I already discussed this in a much earlier post. You may go back and look it up. The argument presented was between “heos” and “hau heos.”

I have another question for you. When will Christ no longer be King? When will his reign end?

The context of 1 Cor. 15:25-26 is not referring to the cessation of His reign, but the cessation of His enemies. Apples and oranges.

The real question is: In Matt. 1:25 for how long does Matthew say Joseph “was not knowing her” (his wife)? “Until” when?

Now if Matthew was truly trying to communicate perpetual virginity why did he even bother to employ the word “until” (Gr. heos)? If he was really trying at all to communicate perpetual virginity then he would have simply stated that Joseph never knew his wife. But the employment of the word “until” clearly communicates (1) that Mary remained a virgin to the birth of her first born Son (verifying the virgin birth of Messiah), and (2) a change of action between Joseph and his wife then occurred. What was put on hold no longer was. And what was taken off hold in no way “defiled” Mary (or her womb) - as some here suggest (a grossly distorted view of both sex and virginity).

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

If we discard OT typology altogether

I am in no way suggesting this.

Or shall we just accept a little measure of good old fashioned OT typology to satisfy our beliefs.

Of course. But how much is “little measure”? When are we judiciously and accurately seeing parallels which are intended, and when are we making connection where they weren’t?

Example: Mary is Queen of Heaven

Me: Where does that belief come from?

Apologist: The Mother of the King was the Queen in atiquity: ergo, Mary is Queen of her Son’s Kingdom in Heaven.

Logical? I guess, so. I mean it’s certainly not illogical.

But is it applicable? I dunno.

 

[apophasis]

Indeed! Everywhere the name of Mary is blessed, the Kingdom grows!

20 And again he said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.” Luke 13:20-21

“Leaven” is not a good thing, G. Matthew in a parallel passage describes “the kingdom” on earth, i.e., during this church age, when the King is absent (Matt. 13:33-35)

In this parable Jesus depicts this present age as a woman who hides leaven in three pecks of meal until all is leavened. Leaven in Scripture always has a negative connotation. Israel was to eat unleavened bread for the Passover meal, and during the Feast of Unleavened Bread no leaven was to be found in the house of an Israelite for seven days (Exo. 12). Jesus warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16), and the apostle Paul equates leaven with “malice” and “wickedness” (1 Cor. 5:8). In Galatians five he equates leaven with the introduction of false doctrine and warns the churches in Galatia with the principle that, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Gal. 5:9).

Similar to the warning of the Apostle, in this parable the meal represents that which is good being made of wheat rather than tares. However, this present age along with the professing church is permeated with false doctrine and unbelief manifested by various forms of wickedness and worldliness. The introduction of “leaven,” representing outward profession rather than true inward faith, actually makes the church appear much larger than what it actually is. The professing church will continue in the world after the true Church (the Body of Christ) is taken out at the time of the Rapture.

 

[LilyM]

“Leaven” is not a good thing, G. Matthew in a parallel passage describes “the kingdom” on earth, i.e., during this church age, when the King is absent (Matt. 13:33-35)

In this parable Jesus depicts this present age as a woman who hides leaven in three pecks of meal until all is leavened. Leaven in Scripture always has a negative connotation. Israel was to eat unleavened bread for the Passover meal, and during the Feast of Unleavened Bread no leaven was to be found in the house of an Israelite for seven days (Exo. 12). Jesus warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16), and the apostle Paul equates leaven with “malice” and “wickedness” (1 Cor. 5:8). In Galatians five he equates leaven with the introduction of false doctrine and warns the churches in Galatia with the principle that, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Gal. 5:9).

Similar to the warning of the Apostle, in this parable the meal represents that which is good being made of wheat rather than tares. However, this present age along with the professing church is permeated with false doctrine and unbelief manifested by various forms of wickedness and worldliness. The introduction of “leaven,” representing outward profession rather than true inward faith, actually makes the church appear much larger than what it actually is. The professing church will continue in the world after the true Church (the Body of Christ) is taken out at the time of the Rapture.

Leaven isn’t a good thing, and that’s why the Kingdom of God is compared to it? No, it’s the ‘leaven OF THE PHARISEES’ specifically that is a bad thing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Depends on the context.

Exactly.

What did it mean in Israel during the time of the Old Testament?

 

[guanophore]

Acts 4:12. There is only one “NAME” given to us. Mary’s words were true that from that time on all generations would call her “blessed.” But nowhere does she state that all, or any, who call on her “name” will be blessed. Once you elevate her to “name” status within the faith, you’ve transformed her into deity.Matt. 12:21 “And in His name the Gentiles will hope.”

Shall we call her “blessed” but not mention her name? God chose to elevate her by choosing her. You are wrong, however, she is not a deity. She has no more been “transformed” into a deity than any of the rest of humanity. If you have some sort of ailment in this matter, and cannot call Mary “blessed” without “transforming” her into a deity, then it is better that you not do so. This would be a form of idolatry for you, since you cannot tell the difference between humans and the Holy God.

 

[Artfulldodger]

I was chatting with a Jewish co-worker about faith. This gentleman mentioned that he had heard that it is a misconception that Mary was a perpetual virgin, because the word in the original language could be translated one of two ways, only one of which meant “virgin”.

I told him that as a Catholic, I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I also mentioned that in addition to the bible, we have the writings of those who lived at or near the time of Jesus, and also knowledge of the oral tradition of the time.

I wanted to keep the discussion both casual and respectful. If this comes up again, how might I strengthen my argument?

Well I would have said to him if Moses parted the Red Sea then God could have easily given birth without parting the natural things necessary for the natural birth of a normal child, which in this case was far from natural.

 

[Good_Fella]

In this parable Jesus depicts this present age as a woman who hides leaven in three pecks of meal until all is leavened. Leaven in Scripture always has a negative connotation. Israel was to eat unleavened bread for the Passover meal, and during the Feast of Unleavened Bread no leaven was to be found in the house of an Israelite for seven days (Exo. 12). Jesus warned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16), and the apostle Paul equates leaven with “malice” and “wickedness” (1 Cor. 5:8). In Galatians five he equates leaven with the introduction of false doctrine and warns the churches in Galatia with the principle that, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Gal. 5:9).

The professing church will continue in the world after the true Church (the Body of Christ) is taken out at the time of the Rapture.

Galatians 5:9 decribes the pyramid effect of countless Protestant denominations that began with the false teachings of Martin Luther who broke from Sacred Tradition and the historic apostolic faith. The Rapture and dispensationalist eschatology are examples of false teachings in Protestantism. The Church Fathers never taught these strange doctrines. It may have been a 16th century Jesuit named Rebira who introduced the idea of the present day Protestant teachings in his fallible theological speculations. However, the Catholic Church has never embraced this eschatology and soundly refutes it.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

I am in no way suggesting this.

Of course. But how much is “little measure”? When are we judiciously and accurately seeing parallels which are intended, and when are we making connection where they weren’t?

Example: Mary is Queen of Heaven

Me: Where does that belief come from?

Apologist: The Mother of the King was the Queen in atiquity: ergo, Mary is Queen of her Son’s Kingdom in Heaven.

Logical? I guess, so. I mean it’s certainly not illogical.

But is it applicable? I dunno.

How would you judge which parallels are actually intended? The ones concerning Mary are about as clear as the ones concerning Jesus. They are so obvious as to dismiss any chance of coincidence. It’s a double-standard on the part of Protestants who accept OT typology which refer to Christ, the Church, or even the Apostles, but reject any types of Mary in Scripture.

Returning to the Gospel of John 19:25-26, Jesus isn’t incidentally making a bequest of his Mother to John. His words from the Cross carried much greater significance than that. We should note that if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of his mother after he dies, he would have made his first request to his disciple. But, on the contrary, his first statement is made to his Mother. The emphasis is thus on Mary becoming the mother of John, not John looking after Mary. Also, the disciple is not addressed by his individual given name. He is referred to generically as “son”. John represents all the followers of Jesus. Jesus gave Mary to be the Mother of all Christians.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

Galatians 5:9 decribes the pyramid effect of countless Protestant denominations that began with the false teachings of Martin Luther who broke from Sacred Tradition and the historic apostolic faith.

It’s just what it says, it’s a permeating effect. The introduction of what we might think is a “benign” error can have great effects as it spreads over time. That’s quite a bizarre interpretation, GF. Is it the official interpretation of the magesterium or are you giving us your own “private interpretation” of Scripture?

 

[Mommyof02green]

It’s just what it says, it’s a permeating effect. The introduction of what we might think is a “benign” error can have great effects as it spreads over time. That’s quite a bizarre interpretation, GF. Is it the official interpretation of the magesterium or are you giving us your own “private interpretation” of Scripture?

To be honest majority of scripture does NOT have an “official” interpretation by the magesterium. A Catholic is free to walk away with their own interpretation as long as that interpretation does NOT contradict the teachings of the magesterium.

To have a better understanding of this you can read paragraphs 101 to 141 of the CCC.

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Shall we call her “blessed” but not mention her name?

That’s not what you said:

Guanophore: “Indeed! Everywhere the name of Mary is blessed, the Kingdom grows!”

It’s one thing to count her “blessed” because she was chosen to bear the Messiah (the context in which she is counted as “blessed”). But quite another to “bless the name of Mary.” Scripture gives no such instruction. But insteads 72:19 “And blessed be His glorious name forever; and may the whole earth be filled with His glory. Amen, and Amen.”

Ps 96:2 “Sing to the LORD, bless His name; proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.”

Ps 103:1 “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and all that is within me, {bless} His holy name.”

Ps 113:2 “Blessed be the name of the LORD from this time forth and forever.”

God chose to elevate her by choosing her.

I don’t see where God elevated her. I do see down through the centuries where men have elevated her, but not God.

You are wrong, however, she is not a deity.

I didn’t say she was. God forbid! Did you not understand what I meant by men assigning to her “name” status within the faith?

If you have some sort of ailment in this matter, and cannot call Mary “blessed” without “transforming” her into a deity, then it is better that you not do so.

Counting her blessed (Lk. 1:48) is one thing, but proclaiming that men, everywhere, are to “bless the name of Mary” is quite another thing altogether. The connotation is vastly different.

This would be a form of idolatry for you, since you cannot tell the difference between humans and the Holy God

Nothing wrong in counting her blessed. To “bless the name of Mary,” however, indeed is an idolatrous act.

 

[apophasis]

BankOfTheTiber:

Of course. But how much is “little measure”? When are we judiciously and accurately seeing parallels which are intended, and when are we making connection where they weren’t?

Example: Mary is Queen of Heaven

Me: Where does that belief come from?

Apologist: The Mother of the King was the Queen in atiquity: ergo, Mary is Queen of her Son’s Kingdom in Heaven.

Logical? I guess, so. I mean it’s certainly not illogical.

But is it applicable? I dunno.

But you can know. “The faith” is not necessarily based on what is “logical” to men, but what is divinely revealed to men. Is it “logical” for a virgin to conceive? Not at all. But it was divinely revealed to us.

Was Solomon told by Nathan the prophet to set up a throne for his mother? IOW, was he divinely instructed to elevate his mother to that position? Or did he do it on his own volition? Was king David, before him, instructed by God to elevate his mother to a position of “queen mother?” When Gabriel visited Mary and he told her that the Child she would bear would sit on the throne of His father David (Lk. 1:32), was she told at that time that she too would sit on her own throne at His right hand? Negative on all three accounts. So the real question is, was the position of “queen mother” (Bathsheba’s or Mary’s) created by God or men? An act of God or of man? I don’t think the answer is, “I dunno.”

 

[apophasis]

To be honest majority of scripture does NOT have an “official” interpretation by the magesterium. A Catholic is free to walk away with their own interpretation as long as that interpretation does NOT contradict the teachings of the magesterium.

To have a better understanding of this you can read paragraphs 101 to 141 of the CCC.

Thanks for the reference. But the answer to my question is?

 

[YADA]

But you can know. “The faith” is not necessarily based on what is “logical” to men, but what is divinely revealed to men. Is it “logical” for a virgin to conceive? Not at all. But it was divinely revealed to us.

Was Solomon told by Nathan the prophet to set up a throne for his mother? IOW, was he divinely instructed to elevate his mother to that position? Or did he do it on his own volition? Was king David, before him, instructed by God to elevate his mother to a position of “queen mother?” When Gabriel visited Mary and he told her that the Child she would bear would sit on the throne of His father David (Lk. 1:32), was she told at that time that she too would sit on her own throne at His right hand? Negative on all three accounts. So the real question is, was the position of “queen mother” (Bathsheba’s or Mary’s) created by God or men? An act of God or of man? I don’t think the answer is, “I dunno.”

It is hard to prove a negative by silence…Did God command or inspire this?

We do not know that God did not command this or that God did not inspired the decision…all you can say is that it was not recorded in scripture as being “commanded” or “inspired”…A that is of God is not written in the scriptures…even those all of things done and said by Jesus [while he walked the earth] are not recorded because the world could not contian them [as the scriptures tell us]!

We do know that the queens of the Davidic Kingdom were the mothers of the King and not the spouse…that is a fact in evidence from scripture…why would the “mother [Mary] of the Lord” who is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the fullfillment of the Davidic promise whose mother was to be called “Blessed” by every generation and who is blessed amongst all women be any different?

Jesus perfected the law. He was able to adhere to the law perfectly. Therefore Mary is honored and respected as a Mother by her Son [God], better than any mother who ever lived…no son could have loved their mother more than JEsus did Mary. No son could have honored their mother more. No sone ever provided for or cared for their mother perfectly…the way that Jesus cared for Mary.

We whether you recognize it as such or not we do have a crowned woman. There is a reference where there is a depiction of a woman - crowned in the Book of Revelation - who gives birth to a Son and does battle with the ancient foe …

Mary is the woman who gives birth to the Son [Jesus] the ancient foe is an allusion to the Garden of Eden, Eve and Satan, her offspring [Mary and Jesus - both being offspring], the woman is carried off to a place prepared for her…

Now yes it is true that this can be illustrative of the Church, Isreal [new] in addition to Mary -

All three [images] are acceptable as scripture is multi-layered and one meaning leads to the next. This has been discussed and has been posted before numrous times;

the Child - Jesus [a known idividual - person - not symbolic]; andcient foe - dragon - serpent - Satan [again a known entity with a name] and Woman - [the first and primary allusion to the person of Mary, a known person who has a name]

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

It’s a double-standard on the part of Protestants who accept OT typology which refer to Christ, the Church, or even the Apostles, but reject any types of Mary in Scripture.

It saddens me that you cast such a large blanket over me. Go back and read some of the posts I’ve made re: Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, the original topic of this thread (Esp Ezekiel 44:2 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=190271), and I think you’ll find that what you assume about me, is not necessarily true.

Returning to the Gospel of John 19:25-26, Jesus isn’t incidentally making a bequest of his Mother to John. His words from the Cross carried much greater significance than that.

You certainly believe that to be so.

We should note that if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of his mother after he dies, he would have made his first request to his disciple. But, on the contrary, his first statement is made to his Mother. The emphasis is thus on Mary becoming the mother of John, not John looking after Mary.

My friend, this is semantics. There is *no *difference between telling Mary, “John will look after you”, and telling John, “Look after Mary”, save sentence construction.

Also, the disciple is not addressed by his individual given name. He is referred to generically as “son”.

Literary device. When I speak with my (biological) mother, she never calls my father Jon. She always refers to him as “your father”.

Me: Where’s dad?

Mom: Your father went to the store.

not

Mom: Jon went to the store.

One more point: You left out the last sentence of John 19:27.
After Jesus says "“Behold, your mother!”, John could have ended it there without further comment, and it would have been pretty clear to all what the outcome was. But he didn’t. He added

“From that hour the disciple took her into his own household”

I can draw two conclusions from that. One is that Mary and John were all quite clear on the wishes expressed from the cross, and two: if there were further meaning behind the words, something important enough as Mary becoming mother of us all, John had ample reason and motivation to interject it here.

 

[Mommyof02green]

In Galatians five he equates leaven with the introduction of false doctrine and warns the churches in Galatia with the principle that, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (Gal. 5:9). …. The professing church will continue in the world after the true Church (the Body of Christ) is taken out at the time of the Rapture.

So you basically say that Gal 5:9 is a warning against False Doctrine. Am I wrong? To you a False Doctrine would be things like Mary’s Perpetual Virginity!

Galatians 5:9 describes the pyramid effect of countless Protestant denominations that began with the false teachings of Martin Luther who broke from Sacred Tradition and the historic apostolic faith. The Rapture and dispensationalist eschatology are examples of false teachings in Protestantism. The Church Fathers never taught these strange doctrines. It may have been a 16th century Jesuit named Rebira who introduced the idea of the present day Protestant teachings in his fallible theological speculations. However, the Catholic Church has never embraced this eschatology and soundly refutes it.

Good Fella, basically response with YES, Galatians 5:9 is a warning against False Doctrine, but I don’t see the Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as a false doctrine. I see the Rapture as false doctrine along with other things that I can find in Protestantism.

Oh my Gosh, what a shock a Catholic and Non-Catholic can both look at Galatians 5:9 and say it is saying BEWARE of false doctrine!!! :bigyikes: To bad they can’t agree on what that false doctrine is

As for the Rapture you can go here to see how Catholics view it: catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

So the real question is, was the position of “queen mother” (Bathsheba’s or Mary’s) created by God or men? An act of God or of man? I don’t think the answer is, “I dunno.”

The position was created and maintained by men with real authority who were chosen by God to lead His people.

“Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.”

That kind of authority.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh my Gosh, what a shock a Catholic and Non-Catholic can both look at Galatians 5:9 and say it is saying BEWARE of false doctrine!!! Too bad they can’t agree on what that false doctrine is.

Gee, I thought scripture is supposed to be so clear that anyone can understand what it means and that the Holy Spirit leads each individual believer into ALL truth.

How can there be any disagreement on what the Bible teaches on these various doctrines?