Matthew 1:25

[gonzoinfinity]

the belief of perpetual virginity is unnecessary. It doesn’t do anything to change our perception of who Christ was/is or what He did.

The belief in the perpetual virginity is a very important belief in the Catholic faith. One reason being, that if you doubt one belief, then your belief in the entire Catholic faith becomes also open to debate. The deposit of the faith is not up for debate, vote or modernist re-interpretation. Being a cafeteria catholic is another name for being a covert schismatic. As a catholic, one should defend and uphold as true every tenet of the Catholic faith, because once one questions the authority that Jesus Christ confided in Peter on one issue, then one questions the authority confided by Jesus Christ himself, which is, in effect, to deny that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of God capable of honoring his promise to the Church that the gates of hell themselves would not stand against it.

This should be reason enough for any catholic to not feel free to challenge the faith or contradict any teaching with regard to that sacred deposit of faith, entrused to the Church by Jesus Christ, Himself. When you question the deposit of faith, the perpetual virginity of Mary being part of that sacred trust, you are in effect questioning your perception of who Christ was/is and what He did, because you are saying that Jesus Christ, as represented by His Church is capable of falsehood, and therefore not really the Son of God. That is what is ultimately at stake here.

 

[gonzoinfinity]

I’ll pray for you and you pray for me, too.

 

[jorge_carrillo]

This is more a “follow up” to my question about Our Blessed Virgin I did ask yesterday,in Matthew 1:25 is written "…He had no relations with Her until She bore a son,and He named Him Jesus…" (…et non cognosebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogentium et vocavit nomen eius Iiesum…) What would you say about this? And what is important,I am not going “against” the teachings of the Church,that I never will,but it makes one wonder what who and why. And one thing what I often think about,Our Blessed Virgin was free from all sins,but She was married to Joseph,and then She did no sin having a “relationship” with Him? I once was asked this question,“was it really so important that She did remain a virgin also after She gave birth to Christ” and I did not know what to answer. God bless you all.

The Always Virgin Mary remained virgin, the quote you gave about Mary not having relations with Joseph until Jesus was born, is not focusing in the sexual life of Mary and Joseph but in the miracle of the birth of the Lord.

The word Until does not mean that after that limit things are different, for example in the sacred scripture there are also other ultimations which don’t implicate a change in the state of things after the clauses had been completed.

Genesis 3, 19

{3:19} By the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, until
you return to the earth from which you were taken. For dust
you are, and unto dust you shall return.”

Did it mean that when Adam died he could eat with out sweat?

{6:23} And so, there was no child born to Michal, the daughter of Saul,
until the day of her death.

Once Michal died then she could have children?

 

[gonzoinfinity]

the belief of perpetual virginity is unnecessary. It doesn’t do anything to change our perception of who Christ was/is or what He did.

The belief in the perpetual virginity is a very important belief in the Catholic faith. One reason being, that if you doubt one belief, then your belief in the entire Catholic faith becomes also open to debate. The deposit of the faith is not up for debate, vote or modernist re-interpretation. Being a cafeteria catholic is another name for being a covert schismatic. As a catholic, one should defend and uphold as true every tenet of the Catholic faith, because once one questions the authority that Jesus Christ confided in Peter on one issue, then one questions the authority confided by Jesus Christ himself, which is, in effect, to deny that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of God capable of honoring his promise to the Church that the gates of hell themselves would not stand against it.

This should be reason enough for any catholic to not feel free to challenge the faith or contradict any teaching with regard to that sacred deposit of faith, entrused to the Church by Jesus Christ, Himself. When you question the deposit of faith, the perpetual virginity of Mary being part of that sacred trust, you are in effect questioning your perception of who Christ was/is and what He did, because you are saying that Jesus Christ, as represented by His Church is capable of falsehood, and therefore not really the Son of God. That is what is ultimately at stake here.

And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.
James 2, 10

 

[po18guy]

Matthew wrote this verse to show either of two things:

1. That Mary and Joseph were just average folks who had a normal marriage.
   - or -
2. To show that Christ is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (7:14) of the virgin birth.

Here is a translation which provides clearer evidence that Matthew wrote this verse to demonstrate to fellow Jews (at whom his Aramaic Gospel was aimed) that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of prophecy:

Matthew 1:25
Knox Bible (KNOX)
25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.[a]

Footnotes:

Matthew 1:25 The text here is more literally rendered ‘he knew her not till she bore a son’; but the Hebrew word represented by ‘till’ does not imply that the event which might have been expected did take place afterwards. (Cf. Gen. 8.7, Ps. 109.2, Dan. 6.24, I Mac. 5.54.) So that this phrase does not impugn the perpetual virginity of our Lady. Nor is any such inference to be drawn when our Lord is called her ‘first-born’ Son, which refers to his position as redeemable under the old law (Lk. 2.23).

Yet, to be the true Messiah, Christ had to fulfill all Messianic prophecies, not just one or two. Thus… (bolding mine)

Zacharias 12:10
Knox Bible (KNOX)
10 On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem, I will pour out a gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look, me whom they have pierced through.[a] Lament for him they must, and grieve bitterly; never was such lament for an only son, grief so bitter over first-born dead.

If you read the whole bible, and all of prophecy, this post-reformation spurious argument for “other children” is not only ridiculous, it is in essence, anti-christian. If Mary had other children, Jesus did not fulfill Zechariah’s prophecy and is not the true Messiah.

Who would incite this argument against scripture and Christ, God, or someone else?

 

[kbachler]

(you did a poor job quoting this, so I fixed it, so that it wouldn’t appear that these were your words) the belief of perpetual virginity is unnecessary. It doesn’t do anything to change our perception of who Christ was/is or what He did.

The belief in the perpetual virginity is a very important belief in the Catholic faith. One reason being, that if you doubt one belief, then your belief in the entire Catholic faith becomes also open to debate. The deposit of the faith is not up for debate, vote or modernist re-interpretation.

Faith is ALWAYS up for question; otherwise it isn’t faith. That’s the point.

Being a cafeteria catholic is another name for being a covert schismatic. As a catholic, one should defend and uphold as true every tenet of the Catholic faith, because once one questions the authority that Jesus Christ confided in Peter on one issue, then one questions the authority confided by Jesus Christ himself, which is, in effect, to deny that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of God capable of honoring his promise to the Church that the gates of hell themselves would not stand against it.

No one is questioning Christ’s authority, or Peter’s. What is questioned is our understanding of imperfect information that is passed down in less than perfect ways.

This should be reason enough for any catholic to not feel free to challenge the faith or contradict any teaching with regard to that sacred deposit of faith, entrused to the Church by Jesus Christ, Himself. When you question the deposit of faith, the perpetual virginity of Mary being part of that sacred trust, you are in effect questioning your perception of who Christ was/is and what He did, because you are saying that Jesus Christ, as represented by His Church is capable of falsehood, and therefore not really the Son of God. That is what is ultimately at stake here.

Should we not have questioned whether the Earth was the center of the Universe? Should we not have questioned whether the universe was created in 6 days? Questioning and developing a BETTER understanding of our God, our Christ and our Church does not mean we are less faithful, it means we are just as faithful. Perhaps even more faithful.

Christ blessed those who believed by the ***story that was relayed ***to them, without seeing. He did not scold Thomas, or shame him. He did not tell Thomas that he should have believed because Peter told him so. He presented to him the evidence that Thomas requested. And in this we note that this was a story of events, told by disciples - where there were questions and conversation and interaction could occur. For the topics you raise, there is no conversation, no interaction and no clear verbiage. No where does it clearly say that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life; there are arguments for and against. It does clearly say who is the way, the truth and the life, it does clearly say who rose from the dead, and why.

 

[kbachler]

Matthew wrote this verse to show either of two things:

1. That Mary and Joseph were just average folks who had a normal marriage.
   - or -
2. To show that Christ is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (7:14) of the virgin birth.

Here is a translation which provides clearer evidence that Matthew wrote this verse to demonstrate to fellow Jews (at whom his Aramaic Gospel was aimed) that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of prophecy:

Yet, to be the true Messiah, Christ had to fulfill all Messianic prophecies, not just one or two. Thus… (bolding mine)
If you read the whole bible, and all of prophecy, this post-reformation spurious argument for “other children” is not only ridiculous, it is in essence, anti-christian. If Mary had other children, Jesus did not fulfill Zechariah’s prophecy and is not the true Messiah.

Who would incite this argument against scripture and Christ, God, or someone else?

Apparently, you haven’t read the whole Bible the way in which you claim. Do you consider the story of Abraham and Isaac to be anti-Christian?

If Mary did not remain a virgin, and even if she had other children, a different understanding of Zechariah’s prophecy shows that it was still fulfilled and that He (Jesus) was the true Messiah. Mary’s continuing virginity is not a requirement for Zechariah to be right.

By your standard, Jesus would not be the true Messiah because He was named Jesus. (Isaiah 7:14: 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.)

Note that the virgin was with child - Isaiah mentions nothing about whether the virgin continued to be a virgin.

 

[kbachler]

And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.
James 2, 10

Let’s get the quote right: James, 2:

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy;** mercy triumphs over judgment**.

 

[gonzoinfinity]

KBachler,

A good catholic knows that the deposit of the faith is NEVER up to debate. Why do you suppose that it is an obvious quality of faith that it is up for debate? That makes absolutely no sense to a catholic. Belief in the Catholic Church works like this: There is one true God; He founded one true Church (Ephesians 4,5), and through the ministry of this Church, the authoritative truth regarding this triune God and the deposit of faith, which He bequeathed to this Church is comprised of objectively true beliefs regarding certain articles of faith.

This is why certain articles of the faith are NEVER up to debate for a Catholic who truly understands how the Catholic Church works. Just as we know objective truth exists, 1+1 always equals 2, for example, whether in China, Australia, Japan or Canada, then the God who has authored such objective truth cannot be any less true or consistent than the examples of objective truth we find around us.

The deposit of the faith, vouchsafed to the Holy Roman Catholic Church by means of the promise made to Peter by Jesus (Matthew 16,18) has been assured of being safeguarded from error with regard to matters of faith and morals even against the attacks of hell, itself. The deposit of faith cannot be any less true than or open to debate than 1+1=2, because it has been safeguarded from error by the God of objective truth.

The perpetual virginity of Mary happens to be part of this deposit of faith and has been safeguarded by the authority of Jesus Christ himself. It has also been verified by Mary of Agreda, as well as the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, who have both furnished extraordinary evidence to support their extraordinary claims to have witnessed in mystic revelation the lives of Jesus, Mary and others…(stigmata, incorruption).

Therefore, to question the authority conceded to the Holy Roman Catholic Church with regard to the deposit of faith is to question the authority of Jesus Christ…

P.S.: That the sun does not revolve around the earth was never an article of faith, so this is not a valid comparison of the necessity to challenge established religious dogmas. By the way, the Church supported the work of Galileo, and even patronized him with generous donations to continue his research. They merely prohibited him from teaching as established fact that which he was as yet unable to conclusively prove. He had many supporters in the Church, and generally speaking, educated churchman and church scholars were excited and eager to see him prove that the earth revolves around the sun. But again, his work did not concern the deposit of faith.

 

[po18guy]

Apparently, you haven’t read the whole Bible the way in which you claim. Do you consider the story of Abraham and Isaac to be anti-Christian?

If Mary did not remain a virgin, and even if she had other children, a different understanding of Zechariah’s prophecy shows that it was still fulfilled and that He (Jesus) was the true Messiah. Mary’s continuing virginity is not a requirement for Zechariah to be right.

By your standard, Jesus would not be the true Messiah because He was named Jesus. (Isaiah 7:14: 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.)

Note that the virgin was with child - Isaiah mentions nothing about whether the virgin continued to be a virgin.

I choose to agree with the Church, while you choose to disagree.

Please explain why you would remain in a Church that you do not trust.

 

[Doxiemom]

Has anyone ever considered the fact that , if Mary lost her virginity, there would be no “proof” that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Given all the circumstances of her life, it seems that God placed her in particular positions to maintain her virginity. And that virginity was a kind of “witness” to the event of His birth without destroying this evidence.

If that virginity was lost, her story would lack credibility. Fulfillment of the prophecy was necessary,then, now, and forever.

And I cannot quote the verses, but does it not also say that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Another reason why Joseph was never to touch her,

 

[po18guy]

Has anyone ever considered the fact that , if Mary lost her virginity, there would be no “proof” that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Given all the circumstances of her life, it seems that God placed her in particular positions to maintain her virginity. And that virginity was a kind of “witness” to the event of His birth without destroying this evidence.

If that virginity was lost, her story would lack credibility. Fulfillment of the prophecy was necessary,then, now, and forever.

And I cannot quote the verses, but does it not also say that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Another reason why Joseph was never to touch her,

Exactly right. The only proof of virginity before a birth is virginity after that birth. But, as we see, evidence will not convict some hearts. Neither will the traditions of both the Eastern and Western Churches. What can it be but arrogance that assumes that one is smarter, more enlightened, more capable and more Spirit-lead than the Church in determining this?

 

[gonzoinfinity]

kbachler, don’t need leave the Church because Jesus loves you and needs smart people like you

 

[po18guy]

kbachler, don’t need leave the Church because Jesus loves you and needs smart people like you

He most certainly needs those who believe in Him to also believe in the Church He founded for their salvation. That requires, as it did in my case, that I abandon many of my personal beliefs, take up my cross and then follow Jesus.

 

[gonzoinfinity]

Forum Elder you’re a champion of the faith.

I totally liked your Zachariah 12:10 argument. I am currently attempting to sear it into my monkey brains for future use.

 

[po18guy]

Forum Elder you’re a champion of the faith.

I totally liked your Zachariah 12:10 argument. I am currently attempting to sear it into my monkey brains for future use.

Thank you for your very kind words. Per Fr. Wade Menezes, frequently heard on EWTN, self-knowledge is of greater importance than knowledge of God. Thus, I have come to know that I am not smarter than the Church. I do not write my own version of the catechism - I read the Church’s version in order to learn the collective wisdom of the Saints.

 

[kbachler]

I choose to agree with the Church, while you choose to disagree.

Please explain why you would remain in a Church that you do not trust.

Who said I disagree? Considering the merits of a position, testing ideas for validity, is neither a statement of agreement in belief nor disagreement in belief.

Nor is it a matter of trust. We are commanded to love God in many ways, including with all our mind. If one simply “believes” without considering the belief or what it means, how in any sense can that be considered “loving with all your mind?”

I recall reading stories of a group of people around the time of Christ that also held firmly in their beliefs, knowing they were right, considering nothing else. Even early Christians struggled with core beliefs, directly commanded by God, like what they could eat and whether circumcision was necessary.

Did you learn so little from this?

To paraphrase Erasmus, if Christ returned today do you doubt that He would wonder where this new group of Pharisees sprang from?

 

[kbachler]

Thank you for your very kind words. Per Fr. Wade Menezes, frequently heard on EWTN, self-knowledge is of greater importance than knowledge of God. Thus, I have come to know that I am not smarter than the Church. I do not write my own version of the catechism - I read the Church’s version in order to learn the collective wisdom of the Saints.

The two most important commandments “love your neighbor as yourself” and “love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.” Do you agree or disagree?

If you disagree, then why are you still a member of a church you disagree with?

If you agree, then on what basis is it more important to have self-knowledge than knowledge of God, when the latter is commanded, and the former is not?

 

[kbachler]

He most certainly needs those who believe in Him to also believe in the Church He founded for their salvation. That requires, as it did in my case, that I abandon many of my personal beliefs, take up my cross and then follow Jesus.

If you are following Jesus, then how do you reconcile your statement with His command to “love God with all your mind?” Who was more learned in the Word than Christ? He often surprised the educated of his day.

 

[kbachler]

Has anyone ever considered the fact that , if Mary lost her virginity, there would be no “proof” that Jesus was born of a virgin.

And why is that a problem?

On one level its not a problem because Christ is revealed; we choose to believe or not. If there were a “proof” of God, incontrovertible, free will would be lost, or at least at risk. That doesn’t seem to be His plan in any sense.

On another level, once Christ was born, how would there be any proof of her virginity? And who would check?

There doesn’t seem to be an issue here.

Given all the circumstances of her life, it seems that God placed her in particular positions to maintain her virginity. And that virginity was a kind of “witness” to the event of His birth without destroying this evidence.

Why does it seem that way? He put her in a marriage, an institution that He created so that husband and wife would become one flesh.

I have to disagree with this perspective.

If that virginity was lost, her story would lack credibility. Fulfillment of the prophecy was necessary,then, now, and forever.

The story lacks no credibility because the point of the virginity is that He was a special child, unique, clearly from God, at the time of birth Ongoing virginity is not needed to prove that.

See Genesis chapter 22, its God’s allegorical thesis for Christ.

And I cannot quote the verses, but does it not also say that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Another reason why Joseph was never to touch her,

There are arguments that have been made over the years for this. There are, however, no verses that state this. If she were, she’d arguably be a bigamist, so that seems questionable also. Also keep in mind that while Mary brought Christ into the world, Christ existed before Mary.

Look at this another way also - part of the reason for Christ is for God to become man to bridge the gap created by man’s fall. If the goal is to become man, then why are any of these “exterior” concepts of perpetual virginity necessary?