Matthew 1:25

[kbachler]

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.

He could conclusively prove it; they required him to renounce it.

Further, the point is that the entire creation story of Genesis is clearly allegorical; yet it was taught as something not to be questioned.

Instead, one could arguably discuss circumcision or the eating of certain foods, commandments clearly handed down.

No one is arguing whether or not there is one true God. No one is arguing words or concepts that can be clearly traced to God’s revelation of Himself.

Please demonstrate ONE such clear revelation of the ongoing virginity of Mary.

 

[kbachler]

"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 -

1. 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.

I note that you have been unwilling to answer my first question above.

 

[adrift]

Please demonstrate ONE such clear revelation of the ongoing virginity of Mary.

I am not sure what you are asking for here. The Church has declared infallibly that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus.

You make an interesting point about Mary and Joseph being married. However, there have been Josephite marriages. Was Mary and Joseph in a normal marriage? It doesn’t seem to be as Mary would never have asked the question she did when the angel told her she was to have a child.

 

[po18guy]

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?

If you believe that Mary had a normal sex life and other children, you disagree with the Church.

You are Catholic, correct?

 

[po18guy]

I note that you have been unwilling to answer my first question above.

I hope that question pertains, somehow, to this thread.

 

[po18guy]

I am not sure what you are asking for here. The Church has declared infallibly that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus.

You make an interesting point about Mary and Joseph being married. However, there have been Josephite marriages. Was Mary and Joseph in a normal marriage? It doesn’t seem to be as Mary would never have asked the question she did when the angel told her she was to have a child.

For those who believe that a marriage requires sexual relations and offspring, here is another most notable exception provided by the Franciscan Friars at American Catholic (bolding mine):

St. Elzear and Blessed Delphina
(1286-1323) (1283-1358)

This is the only Franciscan couple to be canonized or beatified formally.
Elzear came from a noble family in southern France. After he married Delphina, she informed him that she had made a vow of perpetual virginity; that same night he did the same. For a time Elzear, Count of Ariano, was a counselor to Duke Charles of Calabria in southern Italy. Elzear ruled his own territories in the kingdom of Naples and in southern France with justice.

Elzear and Delphina joined the Secular Franciscans and dedicated themselves to the corporal works of mercy. Twelve poor people dined with them every day. A statue of Elzear shows him curing several people suffering from leprosy.

Their piety extended to the running of their household. Everyone there was expected to attend Mass daily, go to confession weekly and be ready to forgive injuries.

After Elzear’s death, Delphina continued her works of charity for 35 more years. She is especially remembered for raising the moral level of the king of Sicily’s court.

Elzear and Delphina are buried in Apt, France. He was canonized in 1369, and she was beatified in 1694.

 

[Doxiemom]

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.

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.

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.

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?

Actually, my position is close to the traditional catholic teaching much to the discomfort of my fellow evangelical/pentacostal friends.
But since this matter has many good arguments on either side, AND, more importantly, it is not essential to my salvation, it is fine with me with mine, and yours with yours.