perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Protestor]

It’s wrong because what you seem to be saying is, “I’ll know Scripture when I see it!”

Why? If I am a Christian shouldn’t I know what scripture is and which is not? Are you saying that I can only know scripture is divine if God is saying it and I cannot if he only inspired it?

So happy I can drink espresso again :coffeeread: I can actually make valid statements. I have already a weakness in my own premise but maybe it has more than one weakness. good luck

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, but then your previous post puts the emphasis on the wrong bit, IMO. I understand what you are getting at, but it wouldn’t follow that it made Mary “any more elevated” than anyone that can do the same. From a protestant perspective, I feel this at least explains it in a way that follows; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2725

Mary as co-redemptrix is a doctrine not a dogma. When explaining this term to your friend, make sure he understands that the Church does not teach (never has and never will) that Mary as Co-redemptrix is equal to Christ. “Co” is from the Latin “cum,“ meaning “with”. “Trix” is a feminine suffix, so the word means “the woman with the redeemer”—the woman with the one doing the act of redemption.

Just as Eve participated in the fall by her consent and pride, Mary cooperates with the redemption of man by her consent and humility as handmaid of the Lord. She gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us.

Lumen Gentium says,

1. Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God’s salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”(6*) Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith.”(7*) Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her “the Mother of the living,”(8*) and still more often they say: “death through Eve, life through Mary.”
2. Predestined from eternity by that decree of divine providence which determined the incarnation of the Word to be the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin was in this earth the virgin Mother of the Redeemer, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. she presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace.

Great - so you have no problem with Mary being honored in a special way as co-redemptrix!

 

[stewstew03]

…
Mary was not necessary for our salvation.
…

Where is this in the bible??

 

[Protestor]

Where is this in the bible??

It definitely is not in the bible that she was. I like how out of my whole post that is what you concentrated on. Is this because the rest of what I said is true or is it just to hard to explain to someone as obstinate as me? Why would the bible say Mary was not necessary for salvation. Couldn’t it convey that she was not by just never stating it?

Like I said before if you want to say she was necessary that is fine. I just want you to understand that you are not saying much. Let me explain, If Mary was necessary then it was also necessary for her father to make the arrangement for Mary to be married for us to receive salvation. You are making an inference “Mary is necessary for salvation”. I am just using that same inference to by applying it to other people who were necessary.

 

[PRmerger]

Why? If I am a Christian shouldn’t I know what scripture is and which is not? Are you saying that I can only know scripture is divine if God is saying it and I cannot if he only inspired it?

Because that means you have already heard the good news from some other means. Then you can read a text and compare it to the kerygma to see if it matches up.

Is that how you believe you can know whether something is the Word of God?

 

[Holy_Truths]

This is one doctrine that I always had conflict with. Growing up Baptist, it was always taught that Christ had half brothers and sisters. We believed in the virgin birth of Christ but Mary did not remain a virgin after. Catholic teaching, as well as some other faith traditions, say she was a perpetual virgin.

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother.

Roman Catholicism states that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. There is a Greek word for cousin, and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related half-brothers.

Another argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, before he married Mary. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

I would love to get the thoughts of other non Catholic Christians as well as non Christians about this subject. Look forward to reading them.

first, in Hebrew, any relative is called “brother” o " sister". In the Bible we find more than five hundred more examples where the word “brother” signifies a fairly close relationship.To avoid confusion, the Jews used some clearer form. If the gospel meant brothers -sons of Mary- -on mentioning them together with her, it should have said, “your mother and the sons of your mother are here.” this was the only acceptable way of expressing at that time. Some people say: "If the word ‘brother’ often denotes distant cousins, it may also mean brothers in the strict sense of the word. Let us look more closely to see who are the ‘brothers’ of Jesus. They are mentioned a the time Jesus visits Nazareth: James and Joset (Matthew says Joseph),Jude and Simon. Among the women at the foot of the cross, Mark mentions a certain "mother of James the less and of Joset. ". If it were Mary, mother of Jesus, it would be very strange that precisely at this hour she is spoken of as the mother of James and Joset rather than as mother of the condemned. It would also be strange that she is mentioned only after Mary of Magdala. John says that this Mary, wife of Cleophas, was the “sister” , which means probably a close relative of Mary (Jn 19:25). We must then admit that James and Joset are the sons of this “other Mary” (Matt 28:1) who was one of the group of women who came from Galilee with Jesus (Lk 23:55). They are at the most first cousins of Jesus, while Simon and Jude were more distant cousins. James and Joset would not be mentioned before Simon and Jude if they were more distant relatives of Jesus. Also, in the first Christian community, when the gospels were written, there was a very influential group composed of Jesus’ relatives and town mates of Nazareth. These were called “brothers of the Lord” and one of them, James, became bishop of the Jerusalem community. Little is said of this group other than that they were late in believing in Jesus even though he had lived with them for several years (Mk 3:21; Jn 7:3-5). In referring to them, the Gospel gives them the name the Christian community had given them, "brothers of the Lord’ or "so and so, brother of Jesus’. (topic was researched)

 

[Lochias]

It definitely is not in the bible that she was. I like how out of my whole post that is what you concentrated on. Is this because the rest of what I said is true or is it just to hard to explain to someone as obstinate as me? Why would the bible say Mary was not necessary for salvation. Couldn’t it convey that she was not by just never stating it?

Show me where in the Bible that the concept of the Trinity is explicitly stated, and you’ll have your answer.

We can infer much through logic, reason and history. Mary was necessary for salvation, however much you apparently wish she wasn’t. No Mary, no Jesus.

Like I said before if you want to say she was necessary that is fine. I just want you to understand that you are not saying much. Let me explain, If Mary was necessary then it was also necessary for her father to make the arrangement for Mary to be married for us to receive salvation. You are making an inference “Mary is necessary for salvation”. I am just using that same inference to by applying it to other people who were necessary.

And you’d be right. Sounds almost like God had a master plan for the whole thing, huh?

 

[PRmerger]

Mary was not necessary for our salvation

Where is this in the bible??

It definitely is not in the bible that she was.

So you are permitted to proclaim things that are not found in the Bible? That is, “Mary was not necessary for our salvation!”

Do you permit Catholics the same right? We can say things that are also not found in the Bible, (as it pertains to our faith)?

 

[Hockeygurl]

Typical - you pick and choose - take only that which supports your preconceived notions and ignore that which does not …bad form

A young girl can make a vow - and with that vow in place - her father could contract a marriage for her to provide for her welfare - and her husband would know and accept that vow as a condition of marriage … she would remain a virgin

A widower could make that vow - and take a wife [who understands and accepts the vow] in order to care for his household … care for his children … or for whatever reason - that wife could be a virgin or merely maintain a chaste life if she was not

You are stuck in your own biases - and have been tainted by a society that worships sex as the be all and end all - I feel so sorry for you

FYI - my grandmother - left with several kids to feed and house married an elderly severely disabled man who needed in home care back in the early 1900s … this was a marriage of convenience … she could not be a live in caretaker for an unmarried man without causing scandal … she needed a home and food for her children … they married to prevent the scandal and for mutual benefit but there was never any sexual aspect to their marriage … though not a vow to serve God - people enter into marriage for many reasons …

And I understand your freedom to believe what you want - as another poster and I have discussed - some Christians doubt the virgin birth entirely - and they are free to do so - as with in Protestantism - you can pick and choose what you believe …

As opposed to the ALL of Catholics I have in my family and choose to use BC or get sterilized among other things they don’t agree with. The difference is that they are not vocal about thier beliefs. They are the same IMO.

 

[ffg]

My eternal salvation is in Christ…not a Marian dogma.

This line got me thinking.

The first thing I thought of when reading this line was this historical event noted in John 19: 25-27.

"25 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 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. "

Are we not striving to be disciples? Should we not all take Mary into our ‘home’, into our hearts, if God himself gave her to us?

During an excruciating event, turture and hanging from a cross for a few hours, God chose to fight out the above words. (He did know He would be back in 3 days, could have given the instruction in a much more comfortable state of being)

If there is a ‘Body of Christ’ and Christians are all a part, is it not obvious that Mary is THE Heart? Mother’s are the heart’s of families. As the Body of Christ, if our heart is not beating, that would spell trouble. We must care for it. If we do, it might guide us to eternally great health (life with God).

I think our eternal salvation rests in truth and specifically our acceptance of it (how we accept and ‘how’s’ importance is another topic).

Christ came to teach the most pure truth, many times indirectly through actions, words, or both. Are we watching, listening and learning so as to forward that truth?

Or are we just standing in awe with a desire to be with the person, but miss His teaching?

If we try to create our own salvation path through our own ‘belief’ strategy by accepting and rejecting what we ‘feel’ is correct…we shouldn’t be surprised to one day learn two things - 1) there is a truth thus no need for our own strategy, and 2) our strategy was wrong.

 

[stewstew03]

It definitely is not in the bible that she was.

It “definitely” is not in the bible that she wasn’t.

I like how out of my whole post that is what you concentrated on. Is this because the rest of what I said is true or is it just to hard to explain to someone as obstinate as me?

No, because it was the only part of your post that was thought-provoking.

Why would the bible say Mary was not necessary for salvation. Couldn’t it convey that she was not by just never stating it?

So you are not a proponent of Sola Scriptura? My mistake.

You are making an inference “Mary is necessary for salvation”. I am just using that same inference to by applying it to other people who were necessary.

All necessary for God’s plan, which is why I thought your comment about Mary “not being necessary for salvation” to be profoundly obtuse.

 

[aidanbradypop]

This line got me thinking.

Are we not striving to be disciples? Should we not all take Mary into our ‘home’, into our hearts, if God himself gave her to us?

We should respect and honor her.

If there is a ‘Body of Christ’ and Christians are all a part, is it not obvious that Mary is THE Heart? Mother’s are the heart’s of families. As the Body of Christ, if our heart is not beating, that would spell trouble. We must care for it. If we do, it might guide us to eternally great health (life with God).

Nice poetic language here but I would say that Mary is a wonderful example for us. We should honor and respect her for the part she played in the birth of our Lord. I love her very much and thankful that she said yes to God.

Christ came to teach the most pure truth, many times indirectly through actions, words, or both. Are we watching, listening and learning so as to forward that truth?

How does this deal with the PV?

Or are we just standing in awe with a desire to be with the person, but miss His teaching?

again how does this relate to the PV?

If we try to create our own salvation path through our own ‘belief’ strategy by accepting and rejecting what we ‘feel’ is correct…we shouldn’t be surprised to one day learn two things - 1) there is a truth thus no need for our own strategy, and 2) our strategy was wrong.

The path is through Christ my friend. Not sure what path you are taking or assume I am on but there is ONE path and that path is Christ.

 

[Protestor]

Because that means you have already heard the good news from some other means. Then you can read a text and compare it to the kerygma to see if it matches up.

Is that how you believe you can know whether something is the Word of God?

I read ( catholic.com/blog/hector-molina/the-kerygma-enigma ) on kerygma and I am not quite sure what it is. Is there another link or could you explain it to me. I think to answer your question yes ,maybe if are you asking that wether I have the ability to read a text that is not canonical and tell you wether it is or not inspired. I have read some of the gospel of thomas it certainly is not inspired. Certain parts of it are fine.

By what means did I hear the good news?

 

[pocohombre]

That’s because you view the PV of Mary as a statement about sex in marriage.

It is no more a statement about sex in marriage (as in denigrating it) than saying, “Jesus is Divine!” is a statement which denigrates humanity.

Rather, the teaching on Mary’s PV, as all Marian teachings, only serves to enhance and enrich our understanding of Christ and His Divinity.

It’s all about Him, and not about Mary’s sex life.

No, it’s about Mary, all this Marian dogma, Mary. Christ is not defined by “Marian dogma”. Pv or non is miniscule to Christ’s divinty.

 

[pocohombre]

And which ones Kliska abruptly leaves.

Peer pressure to stay or not will not further discussion or pacify contentions.

 

[pocohombre]

if the Church had the power to define sacred scripture in the fourth century A.D., why would it lose that power in the following centuries?

“That power” and grace for NT book discernment is more universal than her power to discern extrabiblical Marion doctrine. It is not all or nothing . You can be right on some things and maybe not on others . If you are wrong on one doesn’t mean you are wrong on all.

 

[Lochias]

Pv or non is miniscule to Christ’s divinty.

Completely disagree. To understand Jesus’ Mother is to understand Jesus more fully.

 

[eddie_too]

who determines when the Church is right and when it is wrong?

 

[Lochias]

“That power” and grace for NT book discernment is more universal than her power to discern extrabiblical Marion doctrine.

Why?

It is not all or nothing .

Why not?

You can be right on some things and maybe not on others .

Either Jesus said what he meant when he said “I am THE way, THE truth and THE light”, or he was lying.

If you are wrong on one doesn’t mean you are wrong on all.

Christianity isn’t a cafeteria in which you can pick a little of this and a little of that. Either you trust the Church that Jesus established, or you don’t.

 

[kaneata]

“That power” and grace for NT book discernment is more universal than her power to discern extrabiblical Marion doctrine. It is not all or nothing . You can be right on some things and maybe not on others . If you are wrong on one doesn’t mean you are wrong on all.

Matt 26: 19 “…whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven…”
So yes, when the CC teaches something about faith it is true. At least that is what Jesus said!