Matthew 1:25? Mary not a virgin?

[TinaG]

Again there is a problem with your reply. You admit that not everyone that picks up the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet you placed this inspiration in opposition to the infallible Church. When I said that Catholics had an infallible Church to guide us, you said you had the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But now your answer is well… not necessarily. Further your examples were not applicable showing how contradictory opinions could all be leading to the Truth. In effect, you are advocating that Truth is relative (to the individual) one of the most insidious forms of liberalism extant in the world today.

If everyone is being led by the Holy Spirit in opposite ways to contradictory truths, then you have what we see in modern Protestantism. Thousands of sects all claiming to be correct and teaching opposing and contradictory doctrines. Do you really see this as the Divine plan? Is this really the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer that we would all be one?

Doesn’t it make more sense that His Church would safeguard the Truth? An Infallible Church where He is the Head?

What a wonderful series of non-sequitors leading to a predetermined conclusion.

If the Roman Catholic Church had bothered to safeguard the truth maybe we wouldn’t have some of the problems we have. If the pope had suffered the rebuke of the Orthodox bishops and not excommunicated himself from them, severing the Church, we would not have some of the disunity. If the popes had not done what the Medici popes and others did, selling the church and its offices and trading spiritual power for political and economic power, things might be different. If the RCC protected its sheep instead of itself, as demonstrated again today by many bishops who protected the priests who molested children instead of protecting the children, things might be different. If bishops actually taught, and did signs and wonders as successors to the apostles, it might have some credibility. If the Catholics had not sacked Constantinople, weakening it against the Moslems and leading to the downfall of the Byzantine Empire, things might be different. If bishops had not gone out with swords at the heads of armies to defeat their enemies in battle, things might be different.

If you have an infallible church, it does not bother guiding you. Protecting or advancing the truth is the LAST thing the Catholic Church ever seems interested in. You have not even bothered teaching the last two generations what Catholicism is, as was conceded recently on another thread.

I see the differences between Protestants as nothing in comparison to the disunity within the Catholic Church. You share the cup with Robert Mugabe, John Kerry, the Pope and Nancy Pelosi. What a wonderful picture of unity.

God sent the Holy Spirit to teach us. It is clear the Church is not up to the task.

-Tina “Grouchy at the Moment” G

 

[PRmerger]

What a wonderful series of non-sequitors leading to a predetermined conclusion.

Tina, sarcasm is the protest of the weak. I rarely use it. You are above that.

(When you say “wonderful” you actually mean “not wonderful” aka “illogical”, which is the essence of sarcasm).

 

[PRmerger]

Rather we are convinced both views are sincerely held by Christians. The Catholic Church also has room for divergent views - Molinists and Thomists, for one.

Fair enough.

You are correct in saying that the CC allows (or tolerates) different theological viewpoints.

The argument you present is that, well, yes, Protestants disagree on some theology, and so do Catholics, but we agree on the essentials.

You list your essentials below quite nicely. (More on that later).

By your standard you have the same thing, and there are many issues the CC has simply not ruled on. It is apparently ok for you to do it but not for others.

Well, sure, because we as Catholics believe in a Magisterium which can discern what are essentials and what are not.

As a Sola Scriptura advocate, with no functioning magisteriium, you have your list of essentials which is arbitrary and, well, non-Scriptural. It is left to a fallible man’s judgement as to what’s an essential and what’s not.

My denomination is a Confessional church, with its beliefs set out in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I recently witnessed an ordination in which the man being ordained affirmed that he believed the WCF contains (or maybe represents) the (not a) system of doctrine laid out in the Scriptures. Members are required to affirm fewer statements, down to the “Essentials of the Faith” for regular members. These were established by the denomination at some point as Scriptural requirements for believers. If you cannot affirm them you cannot be a member. It’s said better here

-Tina “Presbyterian” G

 

[PRmerger]

My denomination is a Confessional church, with its beliefs set out in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I recently witnessed an ordination in which the man being ordained affirmed that he believed the WCF contains (or maybe represents) the (not a) system of doctrine laid out in the Scriptures. Members are required to affirm fewer statements, down to the “Essentials of the Faith” for regular members. These were established by the denomination at some point as Scriptural requirements for believers. If you cannot affirm them you cannot be a member. It’s said better here

-Tina “Presbyterian” G

Now to the “essentials” argument.

Your denomination is “confessional” and by that I suppose you mean you have “confessed” belief in a particular set of doctrines. These are your “essentials”, but if another denomination disagrees and states, say, “No, baptism by immersion is an essential”, there is no way to refute. (That is, if one is a Sola Scriptura denomination)

For the Scriptures do not tell us what’s an essential and what’s a non-essential doctrine, correct?

In fact, in the past several years when I’ve asked non-Catholics what these essentials are, I’ve gotten quite a disparate list of essentials.

Here’s what I learned from another Protestant on another thread about what’s considered “essential” by Protestants.

1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (1 John 5:7)
7. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)
8. Jesus is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6)."

Then, here’s another different list of “essentials”.

Those “essentials” were written by Matt Slick of CARM, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. The CARM web site states that CARM exists to defend the Christian faith by analyzing religions such as Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and comparing them to the Bible. They give (at least) these scriptural references. Certainly these essentials are lacking per Catholic dogma.

Primary Essentials:

Diety of Christ – John 8:24, John 8:58 + Exodus 3:14.
Salvation by Grace – Gal 5:4, Eph 2:8-9
Resurrection of Christ – 1 Cor 15:14, 1 Cor 15:17
Gospel – Gal 1:8-9, 1 Cor 15:1-4
Monotheism – Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, Exodus 20:3-6

Secondary Essentials:

Salvation – John 14:6
Trinity – John 3:16, John 5:26, 1 John 4:10, John 14:26, 15:26, Isaiah 44:24, Gal 3:13, Rom 15:16
Incarnation through Virgin Birth – Matt 1:23, John 8:24

And yet here is another list of “essentials”.

1)Love God with all you heart, soul, mind, body, etc.
2)Accept Jesus , because that’s the only way one can have the Father, by having Son., through Him you will live again.
3)Follow His commandments.
4)Preach His Gospel.
5)Wait His Second Coming and do not let, His Second Coming surprise you like a thief in the night, but be prepared for it, because we are sons of light and not of darkness.
6)If you have the opportunity in your lifetime, baptize.
7)Celebrate the Lord’s Supper. (The way you believe it is to be celebrated, God knows your heart, but you have to keep it.)

And I note that there are some egregiously missing “essentials”:
-God is love
-God created us
-Love one another
-God forgives our sins
-Repent and be baptized

At any rate, as Scripture does not delineate what’s essential to being a Christian, Christians must rely on an extra-biblical authority for this.

 

[PRmerger]

My denomination is a Confessional church, with its beliefs set out in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I recently witnessed an ordination in which the man being ordained affirmed that he believed the WCF contains (or maybe represents) the (not a) system of doctrine laid out in the Scriptures. Members are required to affirm fewer statements, down to the “Essentials of the Faith” for regular members. These were established by the denomination at some point as Scriptural requirements for believers. If you cannot affirm them you cannot be a member. It’s said better here

-Tina “Presbyterian” G

Just curious: I noticed in your list of essentials that repentance is not mentioned. Is that an oversight? Or is that really not required by your church?

Also, no mention of the forgiveness of sins. That is not an essential in your church?

 

[PRmerger]

If the Roman Catholic Church had bothered to safeguard the truth maybe we wouldn’t have some of the problems we have.

This is an uncharitable attack on my Church, Tina. The Church has not “bothered” to safeguard the truth? My Church has been infallibly proclaiming, safeguarding and protecting this truth since Pentecost. The fact that you even have the truth of the Scriptures is because Catholic monks painstakingly transcribed, preserved and translated these sacred words so you can enjoy them and know, infallibly, that they are the Word of God.

If the pope had suffered the rebuke of the Orthodox bishops and not excommunicated himself from them, severing the Church, we would not have some of the disunity. If the popes had not done what the Medici popes and others did, selling the church and its offices and trading spiritual power for political and economic power, things might be different. If the RCC protected its sheep instead of itself, as demonstrated again today by many bishops who protected the priests who molested children instead of protecting the children, things might be different. If bishops actually taught, and did signs and wonders as successors to the apostles, it might have some credibility. If the Catholics had not sacked Constantinople, weakening it against the Moslems and leading to the downfall of the Byzantine Empire, things might be different. If bishops had not gone out with swords at the heads of armies to defeat their enemies in battle, things might be different.

All examples of your misunderstanding orthopraxy vs orthodoxy. Not one of these bad men who were popes ever proclaimed any heterodox teaching.

If you have an infallible church, it does not bother guiding you. Protecting or advancing the truth is the LAST thing the Catholic Church ever seems interested in…

Again, Tina, an uncharitable attack against my Church. You are in our home here and ought to be a bit more respectful, grouchy mood of yours notwithstanding.

 

[Good_Fella]

If the Roman Catholic Church had bothered to safeguard the truth maybe we wouldn’t have some of the problems we have. If the pope had suffered the rebuke of the Orthodox bishops and not excommunicated himself from them, severing the Church, we would not have some of the disunity.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think the full theory is that the graces of marriage do not become available until consummation takes place, so while the marriage is ‘vaild’ as far as it goes, it is not complete as a sacrament. therefore it can be annulled. As a non-believer I find it hard to keep track of all this.

You won’t find that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All of the graces of the Sacrament of Matrimony are given at the Public Sacramental Liturgy (the Church wedding.)

CCC 1640: Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved.

The consummation of the marriage will make the valid marriage irrevocable, but the special graces are already given to strengthen the couple in staying faithful to their marriage.

Nowhere will you find the Church saying that consummation is the necessary step for the receiving of graces in Sacramental marriage.

 

[Hokomai]

You won’t find that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All of the graces of the Sacrament of Matrimony are given at the Public Sacramental Liturgy (the Church wedding.)

CCC 1640: Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved.

The consummation of the marriage will make the valid marriage irrevocable, but the special graces are already given to strengthen the couple in staying faithful to their marriage.

Nowhere will you find the Church saying that consummation is the necessary step for the receiving of graces in Sacramental marriage.

I stand corrected. Thank you. Given then, that the sacrament is complete, and graces are given, why is it possible to dissolve the marriage bond in cases of non-consummation, and is this not divorce?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I stand corrected. Thank you. Given then, that the sacrament is complete, and graces are given, why is it possible to dissolve the marriage bond in cases of non-consummation, and is this not divorce?

The Church never speaks of dissolving a marriage, but annulling a marriage that was never valid in the first place. It does not matter whether the marriage was consummated or not, if the marriage was invalid in the first place.

 

[Safia]

I’m not sure if this has been said – no time to read through all the postings – but here’s original linguistic proof of Mary’s ever-virginity:

It requires a side-by-side comparison of two parts of Matthew’s Gospel, for easier reference:

“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus” (Mat 1:24-25, RSV).

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age’” (Mat 28:18-20, RSV).

In the original Greek, the word for both “until,” in the first set, and “to,” in the second, is heros, which by definition is final and an end; it doesn’t imply a future or anything to follow. Thus, in the first context, Joseph never “knew” Mary after she had borne Jesus.

 

[Hokomai]

The Church never speaks of dissolving a marriage, but annulling a marriage that was never valid in the first place. It does not matter whether the marriage was consummated or not, if the marriage was invalid in the first place.

Hmmm - with due respect to your greater knowledge here, someone who takes a different view has been writing canon law!

Can. 1123 Whenever a marriage is either convalidated in the external forum, declared null, or legitimately dissolved other than by death, the pastor of the place of the celebration of the marriage must be informed so that a notation is properly made in the marriage and baptismal registers.

DISSOLUTION OF THE BOND
Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.

 

[TinaG]

I took several days off of CAF.

I started reading through the responses to my last post.

I will respond at some point, but not now. Not yet.

-Tina “G is for Silent” G

 

[Randy_Carson]

[bibledrb]Matthew 1:25[/bibledrb]

This says, Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary, UNTIL they bore a son. Would this mean that Joseph did have relations, but after Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Well, the Catholic Bible, New American Bible, says this: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 – “Until”

Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had borne Jesus. The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

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

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

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

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point. Consequently, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What a wonderful series of non-sequitors leading to a predetermined conclusion.

If the Roman Catholic Church had bothered to safeguard the truth maybe we wouldn’t have some of the problems we have.

If the Church had not bothered to safeguard the truth, you wouldn’t have a Bible or most of the theology that your “confessional church” espouses. The heavy theological lifting was done by Catholic theologians long ago. You’re welcome.

However, it is interesting that you acknowledge that “we” have some problems.

If the pope had suffered the rebuke of the Orthodox bishops and not excommunicated himself from them, severing the Church, we would not have some of the disunity.

It was not the Pope’s responsibility to maintain unity with himself…the Orthodox have not maintained unity with the seat of Peter.

However, it is interesting that you acknowledge that “disunity” is a problem.

If the popes had not done what the Medici popes and others did, selling the church and its offices and trading spiritual power for political and economic power, things might be different.

Maybe, but I’m not exactly sure how. Good and bad popes have come and gone, but no false doctrine has ever been taught by the Catholic Church by either group.

However, I find it interesting that you seem to think Jesus has failed in some way to build His Church properly or to remain with it forever as He promised.

If the RCC protected its sheep instead of itself, as demonstrated again today by many bishops who protected the priests who molested children instead of protecting the children, things might be different.

Maybe. Since you want the Catholic Church to fall, you must be thrilled at the prospect of Catholics leaving the Church over this scandal.

However, studies show that the actual number of priests involved is FEWER than the number of non-Catholic clergy involved in similar and other sex scandals.

If bishops actually taught, and did signs and wonders as successors to the apostles, it might have some credibility.

Maybe you’re right.

However, you might consider that overcoming the Roman empire, continuing in existence for 2,000 years despite incredible opposition, founding universities, hospitals and charities in every nation, contributing to the modern concepts of law and justice, and converting nearly half the world’s population to Christ directly or indirectly as some evidence of credibility.

If the Catholics had not sacked Constantinople, weakening it against the Moslems and leading to the downfall of the Byzantine Empire, things might be different.

Maybe.

However, the defeat of the Moslem army at Lepanto saved all of Europe. Do some homework on that.

If bishops had not gone out with swords at the heads of armies to defeat their enemies in battle, things might be different.

Maybe.

However, do you think the Moslems would have simply gone away quietly on their own? Or would the Protestant armies in Germany and Switzerland have behaved any differently? Did the Catholic bishops lead armies in England when Henry VIII looted and pillaged Catholic monasteries and churches?

If you have an infallible church, it does not bother guiding you.

Really? Ever heard of the Catechsim of the Catholic Church? Ever read a document of the Second Vatican Council? You have no idea what you’re talking about, and this kind of mindless nonsense gives non-Catholics a bad name.

Protecting or advancing the truth is the LAST thing the Catholic Church ever seems interested in. You have not even bothered teaching the last two generations what Catholicism is, as was conceded recently on another thread.

Right. The Second Vatican Council and the release of the Catechism in 1992 were meaningless. So are all the encyclicals, apostolic letters and exhortations from John Paul II and Benedict XVI along with those of their predecessors. When John Paul II stood before five million young people in Manila or 10 million in Mexico city at World Youth Day, nothing was accomplished.

I see the differences between Protestants as nothing in comparison to the disunity within the Catholic Church. You share the cup with Robert Mugabe, John Kerry, the Pope and Nancy Pelosi. What a wonderful picture of unity.

What a wonderful picture of mercy that the Church continues to dialog with people like these that they might be saved.

God sent the Holy Spirit to teach us. It is clear the Church is not up to the task.

Then you need to take this up with Jesus because the Church is His Body, His Bride, and He is the one who has built it. I’m sorry you’re not happy with the quality of His handiwork.

 

[PRmerger]

Originally posted by TinaG
Protecting or advancing the truth is the LAST thing the Catholic Church ever seems interested in. You have not even bothered teaching the last two generations what Catholicism is, as was conceded recently on another thread.

Really? Ever heard of the Catechsim of the Catholic Church? Ever read a document of the Second Vatican Council? You have no idea what you’re talking about, and this kind of mindless nonsense gives non-Catholics a bad name.

I think Tina may be referring to a comment I made here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8734067&postcount=6

in which I maintained that the Church has done a dismal job providing nourishing food to her flock. In the past, the catechesis was abysmal–more “Kumbahyah” than filled with Truth.

The confusion, I think, lies in our use of nomenclature. In my comment, I used “Church” to mean our priests and bishops. In your comment, while it is of course trenchant and true, you speak of “Church” to mean “Magisterium”. And here the Church has always been at the forefront of proclaiming God’s Word.

 

[Christina79]

Perhaps, and perhaps not - if the Gospel knew they were not having sex. We cannot assume he did know.

A married couple not having sex ever may seem strange from our view of marriage in the 21st century Western society. Plenty of couples in the past had sexless marriages for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes marriage was like a business contract, or a political arrangement. I don’t think Julius Caesar or Mark Anthony spent much time with their wives; they spent a lot more time with their mistresses. Their wife’s job was to produce an heir and not much else. I she couldn’t produce an heir - husband lost interest and the case of Henry VII - wife looses head.

My grandmother told me that in her day, once you didn’t want any more children your sex life was over.

We don’t know Mary and Joseph were a ‘love match.’ In fact, its more likely it wasn’t as marriages were arranged and young girls were often betrothed as young as 9, and married as soon as they could have children. If the legend of Mary is true, which it might be, that Joseph’s wife had died, he had children from a previous marriage, he was a lot older than Mary, he married Mary to help her family financially because they were very poor, Mary was a temple virgin and married Joseph because in marrying him, she could keep her temple vows as he already had children and was much older than her, not having sex ever isn’t so strange.

Could you please show me where this information is found on Joseph being much older and possibly already having children?

My own personal opinion: because Jesus sanctified through His touch. Mary, not being divine, could not do this and thus was perhaps defiled (or made non-immaculate) by another sinner’s touch.

Are you saying that Mary was not even to be “touched”…not just intimately, but at all??

 

[PRmerger]

Could you please show me where this information is found on Joseph being much older and possibly already having children?

This is part of Catholic tradition (here, different from Sacred Tradition)–that is, part of the lore handed down. It may have originated from the non-inspired Protoevangelium of James, which depicts St. Joseph as being older and having children.

Are you saying that Mary was not even to be “touched”…not just intimately, but at all??

I am merely speculating. The Church, (not to mention the Scriptures) has not made any definitive declaration on this. I suppose it would be helpful if there were a verse that said that Mary was touched?

 

[couponfit]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:25[/BIBLEDRB]

This says, Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary, UNTIL they bore a son. Would this mean that Joseph did have relations, but after Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Well, the Catholic Bible, New American Bible, says this: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

First you must keep in mind the Jewish customs and culture of marriage at the time. He was betrothed to Mary. Joseph was old, and Mary was young. Mary was likely from a historical perspective a consecrated virgin which was not so uncommon with female children of very religious Jews who worked in temples as Mary’s parents Anne and Joachim are believed to have been. Joseph was chosen because he already had children and they were Jesus’ brothers and sisters mentioned in the bible so he historically agreed to honor her virginity but take her as his wife (celibate).

The relation was not meant to mean sexual! It was mean to mean cohabitational. The first year after being betrothed was spent with the woman living with her family away from the man. Then they would have a wedding night and celebration and the woman would be taken into the man’s house. Joseph considered not taking Mary into his house because it was so obvious to any one that Mary got pregnant without him. Mostly because they did not see each other as they lived apart in separate cities. Even up to the point of birth Mary and Joseph did not reside in his home and they had no relations yet as a husband and a wife living together.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

First you must keep in mind the Jewish customs and culture of marriage at the time. He was betrothed to Mary. Joseph was old, and Mary was young. Mary was likely from a historical perspective a consecrated virgin which was not so uncommon with female children of very religious Jews who worked in temples as Mary’s parents Anne and Joachim are believed to have been. Joseph was chosen because he already had children and they were Jesus’ brothers and sisters mentioned in the bible so he historically agreed to honor her virginity but take her as his wife (celibate).

The relation was not meant to mean sexual! It was mean to mean cohabitational. The first year after being betrothed was spent with the woman living with her family away from the man. Then they would have a wedding night and celebration and the woman would be taken into the man’s house. Joseph considered not taking Mary into his house because it was so obvious to any one that Mary got pregnant without him. Mostly because they did not see each other as they lived apart in separate cities. Even up to the point of birth Mary and Joseph did not reside in his home and they had no relations yet as a husband and a wife living together.

All of that is pure conjecture, as there are many other scenarios with just as much validity. The real answer is that the use of the word “until” in the Bible does not imply that everything changed afterwards, which evangelical English readers wrongly infer.

For example a parent leaving for an evening out says to a child “I want you to be good until I get home,” no way implies the parents expects the child to be as bad as he wants after the parent gets home.

The evangelist’s true meaning is that this child was not fathered by St. Joseph. That is ALL it is saying. It is NOT saying anything about their marital relations after the birth of Jesus. That is to misunderstand the meaning completely.