Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Mommyof02green]

Simply that we have voices (intercessors) here on earth as well as in Heaven, to … well … intercede ('cause that’s what intercesors do!) for us and with us, to the Lord, our God.

How does that follow from the previous point?

Besides being intercessors for us would you say that those in heaven are also our bothers and sisters through Christ?

If you say yes then you can go back and review post 428 click here

 

[PC_Master]

Sure.

I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE - Jesus

All Truth is from Heaven. By knowing the Truth, we are getting closer to know Jesus since he is the Truth. By believing something that is false, you move away from truth.

do you still have a problem?

You’re still ducking the question. What specific difference does it make whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin? Are you asserting that if she wasn’t, somehow she was less fully pointing us to God? Is there some way in which the virgin birth isn’t enough?

 

[HailMary]

You’re still ducking the question. What specific difference does it make whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin? Are you asserting that if she wasn’t, somehow she was less fully pointing us to God? Is there some way in which the virgin birth isn’t enough?

I’m not ducking anything, I’m asserting a truth that if you believe otherwise, you are deceiving yourself.
Let me ask you the same type of question:

Mt 1:19
And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
What specific difference does it make that Joseph was a just man? Are you free, PC, yo believe otherwise? Why?

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

There must be a reson for the literary device, no?

Of course! There’s a motivation for all we fallen humans do, and say. If you are willing to agree that this is literary device, then I will submit to you that John does this out of humility, and awe - that he was shown unending love by Christ, despite his unworthy state A love only God could give.

Who is suggesting otherwise?

You are, and the Catholic Church does. There’s the implication that Christ giving his mother to John’s keeping is an archetype for Christ giving his mother to all of us. As I’ve said before, it’s a beautiful metaphor…really…but I just don’t see the justification for it, within context of the passage

As St. Timothy put it, “All Scripture is God-breathed…”.

Yup!

There is not a “larger meaning”.

But you (I assume), and the Catholic Church, teach that there is! Sometimes, Sacred Scripture is literal! Sometimes it’s figurative (Revelation anyone?), and sometimes, it’s both. And there are clues given as to how to interpret each instance. I find no clues in this passage, or any immediatly surrounding it (context, people, context) to argue that it is anything but literal.

The serious question that has not been addressed is why would Christ be so, dare I say, almost forgetful, that nobody is going to be with Mary for THREE days while He is dead?

I have addressed this. Christ, being God, knew that his time on earth was much shorter than Mary’s time on this earth.

And the timing thing has not been addressed either. Why wait till the “last moment”, basically, before He breathes his last? Since we know Christ is not “forgetful” He must have had a real reason why He waited so long to give Mary TO John.

It was an act of compassion and love. Are you married? It doesn’t matter…the concept is the same … are or would the last words out of your mouth before your loved one walks out the door for work be, “I love you”? The timing? It’s perfect. His last words before “It is finished!”

Why was the literary device, which I have no objection against, why was that one used?

When we’re in Heaven, we’ll sit down and ask St. John this question. Deal?

Does this apostle represent all of us?

Well…does it? And why?

Why would the Holy Spirit and the writers decide to take your attention away from the Cross by dealing with this side matter if it has no lasting effect?

Honor your father and mother?

What would you have thought if you were one of the followers of Jesus and you witnessed Him say this to Mary and John?

Unspeakable awe. Here is a man (God) unjustly condemned. Drawing his last breath. Dying in the most excruciating way (Excruciating and Crucifixion share common entimology)…and instead of thinking of himself, and his misery, he’s making sure his mother is looked after.

 

[HailMary]

You are, and the Catholic Church does. There’s the implication that Christ giving his mother to John’s keeping is an archetype for Christ giving his mother to all of us. As I’ve said before, it’s a beautiful metaphor…really…but I just don’t see the justification for it, within context of the passage

Most of the Christians have seen this “justification” as you called it. The burden of proof is on you to not see it this way. I don’t need to look very hard to find the multitude of Christians interpreting it this way as I previously stated.

 

[HailMary]

She who gave birth to the Head, must, consequently, give birth to the Body. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of all Christians, if we are to be members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[GabrielN]

I believe that Mary stayed a virgin through her whole life. For one, the church teaches so… Two, she had to remain pure. (at least that is the way I was taught…):coffeeread: [SIGN]AVE MARIA! AVE MATRE DEI![/SIGN]%between%

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Most of the Christians have seen this “justification” as you called it. The burden of proof is on you to not see it this way. I don’t need to look very hard to find the multitude of Christians interpreting it this way as I previously stated.

I respectfully disagree. It’s not “justification”, it’s justification… proof of concept. If you believe something, you should be able to defend it. There should be a basis for your belief, one that you can put forward as the reason for your stance in the faith.

If your belief is founded on the fact that the Catholic Church has said it’s so … well, good on you! I applaud you for your faith! But I await The Church to elucidate me as to why they believe it to be true. They’ve not done so, and so I sit waiting for enlightenment.

P.S. … I’m kind of discuouraged by the fact that I answered almost every one of your questions/posits … and you picked one of mine to reply to. Does your silence give consent?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I look at Mary, and I don’t see a favored woman. Instead, I see that God used her to perform a miracle, allowing her to conceive and give birth while a virgin.

This is because you judge according to the flesh. But is your position supported by scripture? :nope:

Luke 1:28
28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

Luke 1:30
30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

It appears that the angel and God saw a “favored woman” even if you cannot.

I look at Peter, and I don’t see the doubter who began to sink as he walked on the water. Instead, I see Christ, who was truly supporting them both.

Weird…that’s not what Jesus sees at all. Jesus sees The Rock that Peter will become and upon whom Christ would build His Church.

Matthew 16:17-19
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

He also sees Peter as one of the men who would have authority to speak for Christ Himself.

Luke 10:16
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Perhaps if you took your Protestant glasses off, you could see these things more clearly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But you (I assume), and the Catholic Church, teach that there is! Sometimes, Sacred Scripture is literal! Sometimes it’s figurative (Revelation anyone?), and sometimes, it’s both. And there are clues given as to how to interpret each instance. I find no clues in this passage, or any immediatly surrounding it (context, people, context) to argue that it is anything but literal…

Both/and - not either/or.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

**963 **Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer… She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."500 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."501

**I. MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH **

**Wholly united with her Son . . . **

**964 **Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross.
There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."503

**965 **After her Son’s Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."504 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."505

**. . . also in her Assumption **

**966 **"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.507

**. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace **

**967 **By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)508 of the Church.

**968 **Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."509

**969 **"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation … Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510

see also paragraph 970.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[HailMary]

Does your silence give consent?

Consent to what? I am at work and its hard to reply without getting too distracted. PM me for any discussion you have.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

The literal sense presents problems since John own mother was present at the Cross when this was being said. It would have been an assault and insult to John’s own mother, for Jesus to tell John that his mother is Mary and not the “Mother of Zebedee’s children”

Call it literal, and yet poetic, if you must. In fourty three days, he’s at the right hand of God the Father. Yes, it appears that John’s mother was present, but that does not in any way preclude John from looking after Mary as well. It’s not an insult to John’s mother at all. it’s a sign of trust, and of love. And surely his mother knew of John’s discipleship.

When you think about it, it would have been easier on Jesus for him to look at John and say: “John care for my mother” in his painful and bleeding and agonizing near death state.

It would have been a lot easier if Jesus had chosen not to speak in parable, too. But he chose to. And who are we to question?

Care to hear how an Atheist and Christian debunker would interpret that bit of scripture?

Honestly? No. Atheists and Christian debunkers make me ill.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Consent to what? I am at work and its hard to reply without getting too distracted. PM me for any discussion you have.

You can always respond to #442 at your leisure. I’m not going anywhere, God willing.

 

[HailMary]

You can always respond to #442 at your leisure. I’m not going anywhere, God willing.

Well, from what I have posted earlier, the two questions you asked should be easy to answer.

Why was the literary device, which I have no objection against, why was that one used?

When we’re in Heaven, we’ll sit down and ask St. John this question. Deal?

Deal. God-willing, we both enter Heaven.

Does this apostle represent all of us?

Well…does it? And why?

Yes, of course it does, because we died with him and we are raised with him.
Mark 8:34
He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said 8 to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

Why would the Holy Spirit and the writers decide to take your attention away from the Cross by dealing with this side matter if it has no lasting effect?

Honor your father and mother?

Of course honor your father and mother. But we are not talking about Jesus doing this, we are talking about all of us, honoring Our Mother: who, based upon this passage, and Sacred Traditions, hymns of the Church, etc, is Mary.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Both/and - not either/or.

Yes, I believe I covered all three possibilites.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, I believe I covered all three possibilites.

Great. I hope that the paragraphs I quoted from the Catechism provide the explanation from the Church that you indicated you wanted to see.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Sometimes, Sacred Scripture is literal! Sometimes it’s figurative (Revelation anyone?), and sometimes, it’s both. And there are clues given as to how to interpret each instance. I find no clues in this passage, or any immediatly surrounding it (context, people, context) to argue that it is anything but literal.

You’re right context is important!!! I will never argue with that. Some of the contexts come from a understanding of who John was and why did he write this Gospel?

Who was he speaking too? When was the gospel written? What type of literally forms can be found in the Gospel? etc…

I don’t know much about the Gospel of John.

However what I do know is:

1. It was written in the late 90’s of the first century
2. It is highly literal and symbolic.
3. It is the product of developed theological reflections
4. It was organized and adapted to serve the evangelist theological purpose.

What was the evangelist theology? What was his theological purpose? Who was he writing too? What where the theological questions of those day? What was his audience questioning at the time? What didn’t they grasp? Or what did they grasp?

If they already had a theological understanding of something, like Mary being the Mother of Christians through Christ, would the evangelist have take time to write about it?

In the last passage of John he basically said there is a lot more I can write about but to do so would be a never ending task.

So perhaps he could of written more to explain the symbolic meaning behind the “behold your Mother”; “behold your Son”.

However, perhaps his audience knew that and got that so he only focused on what they needed help with. For example: That Christ was preexistent and the incarnate Word of God. (First Chapter of John)

 

[JoeyWarren]

It would have been a lot easier if Jesus had chosen not to speak in parable, too. But he chose to. And who are we to question?

That really is a red-herring. Telling a parable would have been a time consuming event. Someone that been severely beaten and was near death even before the nails went in would not have resorted to a parable. One day you might understand the medical mechanics of a crucifixion. Once you do, you will have a better understanding of what was said, and what was required of the crucifyee to even speak.

 

[PC_Master]

I’m not ducking anything, I’m asserting a truth that if you believe otherwise, you are deceiving yourself.

That’s not what I asked – I asked what difference it actually makes. Answer that, instead of focusing on “you’re deceiving yourself if you deny the truth”.

If I don’t believe Jesus was divine, it makes a difference.
If I don’t believe the old covenant was replaced with a new one, it makes a difference.
If I don’t believe the virgin birth, it makes a difference (both in my worship of God as well as in proof of the Messiah’s divinity).
If I don’t believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, it doesn’t make any difference. Thus, it doesn’t matter.

Why is it so hard for you to directly address this?

Let me ask you the same type of question:…What specific difference does it make that Joseph was a just man?

It answers a question – it tells us why Joseph was going to put Mary away instead of stoning her (which was customary – things out of the ordinary often need explanation). Second, it clarifies that Jesus was not the son of Joseph (and that Joseph knew this to be the case). If it had simply said “before they were married, Mary was found with child”…how do we know it wasn’t Joseph’s?

But instead, it says Joseph was a righteous man, and was going to put her away quietly instead of having her stoned, thereby implicitly showing that he had not committed adultery with her, which is a crucial point to the virgin birth.

However, that seems rather off-topic, and doesn’t help us draw an analogy for this question. If there is a connection I haven’t seen, you’ll have to illustrate it for me.

Are you free, PC, yo believe otherwise? Why?

Whether or not I’m free to believe otherwise only matters if there’s reason to believe otherwise. As far as I am aware, there isn’t.

This is because you judge according to the flesh. But is your position supported by scripture? :nope: …It appears that the angel and God saw a “favored woman” even if you cannot.

Read my later reply to HailMary (bottom of post #425 in this thread).

Weird…that’s not what Jesus sees at all. Jesus sees The Rock that Peter will become and upon whom Christ would build His Church.

While the interpretation of the passage is disputable, it doesn’t matter. My point was, which should have been clearly visible, that it isn’t the person we should focus on when dealing with things God has done. It’s God’s greatness we should focus on. Good or bad, right or wrong, people are just people, who are not worthy of praise as God is.

If Mary points to Christ, and that is her purpose, then I don’t need to look at Mary at all. I can just look at Christ. Thus, so long as what I know of Mary causes me to immediately and directly consider Christ – in this case consisting of the virgin birth – I don’t need need to know anything else about her. Perpetual virginity changes nothing – I’m still focusing on Christ. All perpetual virginity would do is introduce a potential for focusing on Mary, and how she managed to remain a virgin. That is not beneficial for promoting focus on Christ, and the virgin birth is quite enough to accomplish the task, so why does the perpetual virginity matter one way or another?

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Deal. God-willing, we both enter Heaven.

Awesome. I pray that we both have the opportunity to do so!

Good thing we have eternity on our side! I have LOTS of questions! I predict at least two Apostles attempting to hide behind The Throne of God.

Yes, of course it does, because we died with him and we are raised with him.
Mark 8:34
He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said 8 to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

I’m sorry. I don’t see how this is even remotely applicable.

Of course honor your father and mother. But we are not talking about Jesus doing this, we are talking about all of us, honoring Our Mother: who, based upon this passage, and Sacred Traditions, hymns of the Church, etc, is Mary.

But we *are *talking about Jesus doing this! Yet another evidence of His perfection. Before he cried “It is finished”, setting the stage for the ultimate act of love for mankind (his death was necessary - his ressurection was the penultimate), he assured that his earthly mother, the woman whom God Almighty knew from eternity past, would yield herself completely to HIS will, was taken care of while she yet walked this earth.

Your supposition that Mary is also the mother of all of us, has yet to be proven by your words. There’s NO proof of it in the aforementioned passage of Scripture. None. If there is other Scripture, or it’s contained in the writings of the ECF - my mind remains open.