Need help with perpetual Virgin?

[Jim_Baur]

How do we explain Matt. 1: 25?

THANKS!!!

 

[fermat]

Here is a good place to start:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

It addresses the ‘till’ question.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

*"Matthew 24-25
When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

foot note:Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it."*

It is clear that the verses explain Joseph did not have relations with Mary and Mary bore a son with no relations (before, during, or after). The issue is Protestants who have no writing from that time period wish to take the writing which occurred 50-70 years later and reinterpret it to mean opposite of Tradition. They wish to deny the Tradition, which is silly because the Bible is from Tradition!

Hope that helps you

 

[hansard]

There are many translations of the Bible getting around the various countries and parishes, many of which are approved and used by the Catholic Church.
Presumably, these translations are held as accurate by the Church of Rome–fit to be used in Holy worship–fit to be preached and evangelised. These texts are deemed fit to be appropriated in the wording of the sacraments.

Some of these texts (for example, the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible) use the word “brother”, without (as far as I can see) any dissertations on the etymology of that word. Brother means brother (a male sibling with the same two natural parents).

Your week-to-week, sitting in the pew, Catholic does not care one bit for these linguistic/etymoligical discussions. If the Bible says it was Jesus’ brother, that’s what they believe.

If a basic, translated, word like “brother” is to cause such contention, how do we read other family-related words like “son”,“sister”,“father,” “mother” (or, indeed, a thousand other nouns and verbs)–do ordinary church members have to go back to the original parchments and trace the etymology through two thousand years? Isn’t that why we have scholars (and haven’t they done a wonderful job of clearing up the whole matter?).

How do we read any word from a translated scripture, if “brother” can cause such a stink?

Honestly, if the debate is over the translation of a word, then surely all words are up for grabs now.

I just don’t think the Vatican carried the people with it on this (as you need to, when instituting change).–[the “perpetual virgin” idea, I mean.]

Believe it (as many do), or do not (as many do not).

And let it end there.

 

[NHInsider]

There are many translations of the Bible getting around the various countries and parishes, many of which are approved and used by the Catholic Church.
Presumably, these translations are held as accurate by the Church of Rome–fit to be used in Holy worship–fit to be preached and evangelised. These texts are deemed fit to be appropriated in the wording of the sacraments.

Some of these texts (for example, the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible) use the word “brother”, without (as far as I can see) any dissertations on the etymology of that word. Brother means brother (a male sibling with the same two natural parents).

Neither the NIV nor the NASB are approved by the Catholic church. The fact that they are found in many parish bookcases speaks more to the lack of education of those making the purchases than to the theologies those translations espouse.

Your week-to-week, sitting in the pew, Catholic does not care one bit for these linguistic/etymoligical discussions. If the Bible says it was Jesus’ brother, that’s what they believe.

If a basic, translated, word like “brother” is to cause such contention, how do we read other family-related words like “son”,“sister”,“father,” “mother” (or, indeed, a thousand other nouns and verbs)–do ordinary church members have to go back to the original parchments and trace the etymology through two thousand years? Isn’t that why we have scholars (and haven’t they done a wonderful job of clearing up the whole matter?).

Are you suggesting that the Church should change the words of Scripture? Now that’s a losing proposition.

How do we read any word from a translated scripture, if “brother” can cause such a stink?

Honestly, if the debate is over the translation of a word, then surely all words are up for grabs now.

I just don’t think the Vatican carried the people with it on this (as you need to, when instituting change).–[the “perpetual virgin” idea, I mean.]

Believe it (as many do), or do not (as many do not).

And let it end there.

Truth is not a matter of popular opinion or majority rule. When the majority believed the world was flat, it was still round.

While it is true that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not an essential truth for salvation, that does not mean that the Church should shrug its corporate shoulders and say “whatever.”

 

[crowcounty]

the church should shrugg their corporate shoulders and admit they dont know everything from time to time isnt that why some issues fall under the category of mysteries?

 

[Cachonga]

Here we have an interesting question. Jim Baur wants to know how to respond to Matt 1:25. Let me put in my 2 cents worth - the angel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, and that the child was of God. Nowhere does the angel tell Joseph to keep her a virgin. However, in Matt 1:25, we see that Joseph did as the angel had said, and took Mary as his wife, BUT he also kept her a virgin until the birth of Jesus (I am paraphrasing, but I believe the context is clear). Since there is no clear command for Joseph to keep Mary a virgin, I would suggest that, following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary did have normal, marital relations.

Now hansard suggests we just leave the issue alone; if you want to believe it - fine; if not - that’s fine, too. The problem with this is that Mary’s perpetual virginity is a dogma of the church, and to not believe it will bring one under the anathema of the church. If I understand my (former) catechism correctly, you cannot receive communion while you are under the anathema of the church, and if you do, then you are guilty of a mortal sin. Confession of sins is not valid, unless you also repent of your unbelief and acknowledge that the dogma is correct, and that you believe what it says. That this is a dogma with the power of the anathema makes it a very relevant subject!

 

[crowcounty]

in that case the whole rcc is out because they changed the creed excommunicants ipso facto

but i dont believe that the popes butt in a chair means doctrine that would imply that vatican 1 was actually an eccmenical council but then again since all of the churches were not present that makes it not doctrine… ipso facto

 

[crazzeto]

John 19 gets you at least 95%/98% of the way there

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john19.htm

25
10 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
26
When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27
Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

This single handedly strikes out the idea that Jesus had any brothers at all, if he did Mary would have automatically gone into their care as this was the custom. It also completely strikes the idea that Jesus had any unwed sisters, if he did then why is he leaving them with no care taker? He only left his mother in John’s care. And also this begs the question, if Jesus did have any married sisters, then why did Mary not fall into the care of the wedded sister and her husband? This just doesn’t make sense if Jesus had siblings.

So now that we effectivly proved Jesus didn’t have siblings, the next logical question is “if Mary wasn’t a virgin, then why did she never have any other childeren?”. At this point the best thing they can do is say “well… Maybe when the Holy Spirit made her infertal when Jesus was consived”… Well this would be a funny and ironic argument. Here they are accusing you of believing a tradition “not found in the bible”, and making up their own right in front of you to try and demonstrate how you’re wrong.

 

[po18guy]

The problem with this is that Mary’s perpetual virginity is a dogma of the church, and to not believe it will bring one under the anathema of the church. If I understand my (former) catechism correctly, you cannot receive communion while you are under the anathema of the church, and if you do, then you are guilty of a mortal sin. Confession of sins is not valid, unless you also repent of your unbelief and acknowledge that the dogma is correct, and that you believe what it says. That this is a dogma with the power of the anathema makes it a very relevant subject!

Please state source for your assertion, either from the catechism or from canon law.

 

[CWBetts]

Here we have an interesting question. Jim Baur wants to know how to respond to Matt 1:25. Let me put in my 2 cents worth - the angel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, and that the child was of God. Nowhere does the angel tell Joseph to keep her a virgin. However, in Matt 1:25, we see that Joseph did as the angel had said, and took Mary as his wife, BUT he also kept her a virgin until the birth of Jesus (I am paraphrasing, but I believe the context is clear). Since there is no clear command for Joseph to keep Mary a virgin, I would suggest that, following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary did have normal, marital relations.

Now hansard suggests we just leave the issue alone; if you want to believe it - fine; if not - that’s fine, too. The problem with this is that Mary’s perpetual virginity is a dogma of the church, and to not believe it will bring one under the anathema of the church. If I understand my (former) catechism correctly, you cannot receive communion while you are under the anathema of the church, and if you do, then you are guilty of a mortal sin. Confession of sins is not valid, unless you also repent of your unbelief and acknowledge that the dogma is correct, and that you believe what it says. That this is a dogma with the power of the anathema makes it a very relevant subject!

Hate to break it to you, anathema was removed from Church practice in the most recent Code of Canon Law…it just isn’t done anymore

 

[po18guy]

We also know from Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 13:41-44 that Jesus held a special place in His heart for widows. He felt so strongly about the plight of widows that He made the widow in the temple a teaching for His Apostles. In Jesus’ culture, childless widows had no means of support and were reduced to begging for subsistence. This was dehumanizing, and the sacrifice of the two small coins meant that the widow in the temple went hungry for the sake of her God.

Moving to Luke 7:11-17, Jesus encountered the funeral party leaving the city gates of Nain. A woman was burying her only son, and she was a widow. This would have condemned her to a life of begging and extreme poverty, since she had neither husband nor son to support her. Jesus very publicly demonstrated His love of, and compassion for widows by telling the widow of Nain “Do not weep” and then raised her son from the dead and presented him to her alive.

In light of this, consider now Jesus’ action in John 19:16-27. As He was dying on the cross, this constituted His last physical act of His earthly life. Exactly as He did with the widow of Nain, Jesus spoke first to his mother, telling her “Woman, behold your son” and then gave the Apostle to Mary, thus restoring a son to her. He also gave a mother to the Apostle, even though that Apostle already had a living mother. The Apostle took Mary into his home “from that hour”. None of this makes any sense at all if Joseph was alive, or if there was any family to support Mary. She would have been reduced to begging, which was a status unworthy of the woman who gave flesh and blood to our Lord - the woman called “blessed” by all generations (Luke 1:42, Luke 1:48). Note also that the Apostle (John) was the only Apostle who was not martyred, and was therefore able to care for Mary until the end of her earthly life.

Everything happens for a reason.

 

[po18guy]

Hate to break it to you, anathema was removed from Church practice in the most recent Code of Canon Law…it just isn’t done anymore

Who removed it? Constantine?

 

[wmscott]

in that case the whole rcc is out because they changed the creed excommunicants ipso facto

but i dont believe that the popes butt in a chair means doctrine that would imply that vatican 1 was actually an eccmenical council but then again since all of the churches were not present that makes it not doctrine… ipso facto

You really do not have to like the RCC, but a little respect in you tone will go a long way.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

St. John Chrysostom also addresses this in his Homilies on Matthew (Homily 5).

Now I don’t speak Greek, so I’m more than happy to let St. John Chrysostom, who would have been proficient in Greek to explain this to me.

 

[Cachonga]

po18guy:

Please state source for your assertion, either from the catechism or from canon law.

Look here and note item C

c)Lateran Council of 649 AD (DS 503): It as not ecumenical, but the Pope was present and approving, and the teaching was given under anathema, so it is equivalent to that of a general council. Vatican II in LG 57 referred to it in a note. Lateran Council said: “If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary as really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.” (emphasis mine)

CWBetts:

Hate to break it to you, anathema was removed from Church practice in the most recent Code of Canon Law…it just isn’t done anymore

Does that include the anathema found in 1 Cor 16:22? Just something to think about - if the Church puts an anathema on a dogma, then later removes the anathema, what does that say about the alleged infallibility of the Church? On a more serious note, I would join po18guy in asking “Who removed it?”, and would also ask, “When was it removed?”

 

[CWBetts]

Look here and note item C

Does that include the anathema found in 1 Cor 16:22? Just something to think about - if the Church puts an anathema on a dogma, then later removes the anathema, what does that say about the alleged infallibility of the Church? On a more serious note, I would join po18guy in asking “Who removed it?”, and would also ask, “When was it removed?”

1983 Code of Canon Law catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p5.asp

 

[Lampo]

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VIII

 

[Jim_Baur]

lampo

GREAT!

THANKS!

 

[Lampo]

lampo

GREAT!

THANKS!

My pleasure. I didn’t do much.