perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Peter_J]

It’s me not you (lol), but you’ve lost me on the bolded bit above. Could you explain for me? Maybe using an example?

Yeah, I wasn’t 100% happy with the wording of my last post, but I couldn’t think of a better way to put it.

Taking the example at hand, if I asked “Why do *insist *that Mary had other children? Why not say ‘Jesus *presumably *had literal brothers and sisters (other children of Mary) but we’re not absolutely certain.’?” then you might respond “We have to insist because Catholics say that she didn’t.” Is that right?

 

[aidanbradypop]

You forgot the second part of this sentence…“in my limited, and fallible, opinion”.

Be real careful making such a blanket and categorical statement such as this. Just because you can’t understand something yet doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

I am not a Pope. I never claim to be infallible with my “limited” opinions. Not sure what you mean by limited.

Why should I be “real careful” when giving my opinion. I understand quite well. Understanding something does mean I have to believe or not believe. I understand parts of Mormonism.

So how does believing in the PV of Mary get you to heaven faster?

 

[Peter_J]

You forgot the second part of this sentence…

I guess I just assumed that aidanbradypop was making an original statement that hadn’t been spoken before. (Which I guess goes to show that I shouldn’t “assume”. )

 

[aidanbradypop]

I guess I just assumed that aidanbradypop was making an original statement that hadn’t been spoken before. (Which I guess goes to show that I shouldn’t “assume”. )

Well I thought I was making an opinion. I guess it was limited and fallible.

 

[Kliska]

Yeah, I wasn’t 100% happy with the wording of my last post, but I couldn’t think of a better way to put it.

Taking the example at hand, if I asked “Why do *insist *that Mary had other children? Why not say ‘Jesus *presumably *had literal brothers and sisters (other children of Mary) but we’re not absolutely certain.’?” then you might respond “We have to insist because Catholics say that she didn’t.” Is that right?

Ahhh, I see! If I’m understanding the question, I’ve never heard a protestant say something like that. If the protestant was indeed insisting (I’m not, but others would!) that Mary had other children, and you asked them that, they wouldn’t say anything about Catholics, but rather, “because that is what scripture says.”

Someone may then say, but the ECF’s, and RCC/ECC/Lutherans/etc…, all believed in the PV of Mary. The protestant would then perhaps make a snide comment about such and then refer back to scripture. The argument for most “low-church” protestants would always go back to scripture instead of “against” a different church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow, good question. I’d have to say no (and keep trying to think on it). The biggest thing I hear protestants “harp” on against Catholics is “that teaching is contrary to scripture” or “not in scripture” or “it didn’t originate from the Apostle’s teaching, but rather the surrounding culture.” I’ve never heard a protestant say, “the Catholics are only teaching X because they hate Protestants.”

Interesting.

Have you ever heard of a Catholic teaching that actually contradicts scripture? Or only Catholic teachings which appear to contradict scripture until you really look at it more closely?

We disagree on this thread, of course, but I’m just curious if there is another example or two off the top of your head where the perspicuity of the scripture is undeniably supportive of the non-Catholic interpretation?

 

[Randy_Carson]

From my perspective I can say that I believe it comes up because the RCC has made several statements about Mary that anyone and everyone must profess to become Catholic. That’s a huge deal. I can’t just agree that she is blessed

Luke 1:46-48
46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,

 

[Peter_J]

We disagree on this thread, of course, but I’m just curious if there is another example or two off the top of your head where the perspicuity of the scripture is undeniably supportive of the non-Catholic interpretation?

The idea of scripture being “undeniably supportive of the non-Catholic interpretation” reminds me of a question a wise king once asked: “How can it be that everyone knows one thing, if many people believe another thing?”

 

[Lochias]

Luke 1:46-48
46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,

Amen.

 

[Peter_J]

Ahhh, I see! If I’m understanding the question, I’ve never heard a protestant say something like that. If the protestant was indeed insisting (I’m not, but others would!) that Mary had other children, and you asked them that, they wouldn’t say anything about Catholics, but rather, “because that is what scripture says.”

Certainly, certainly. We, likewise, would say that know what we know because of divine revelation, without reference to those who deny it.

But when it comes to insisting on a teaching by dogmatically defining it or anathematizing those who deny it, the principle that “A doctrine is not defined until it is challenged.” can definitely come into play.

 

[Kliska]

Have you ever heard of a Catholic teaching that actually contradicts scripture?

Heh, I’m not going there. Again, I’m a protestant for several reasons. I think we both know I believe that Catholic teaching on certain things contradicts scripture.

Luke 1:46-48
46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,

You misread my post.

"From my perspective I can say that I believe it comes up because the RCC has made several statements about Mary that anyone and everyone must profess to become Catholic. That’s a huge deal. I can’t just agree that she is blessed, highly favored, is the Theotokos, is a Saint, etc… And I can’t just believe on Jesus and God as laid out by the RCC, I would also have to believe in things like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and her Assumption.

In short, most protestants feel it is the RCC who has made Mary a defining feature in the conversation of teachings, for you can’t become Catholic without professing things specifically about her."

So, I do say she is blessed amongst women, highly favored, is the Theotokos, is a Saint, etc… I say the Apostle’s and Nicene creed is accurate, yet that isn’t enough to allow me to be RC, is it? The RCC has now declared that to become RC I’d have to agree that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and assumed into Heaven. In short, the RCC has now made Mary, her IC and assumption, into a salvational issue. That is the type of thing that gets Protestants riled up… not that the RCC should care. lol

 

[Randy_Carson]

Heh, I’m not going there. Again, I’m a protestant for several reasons. I think we both know I believe that Catholic teaching on certain things contradicts scripture.

I understand that. I’m just wondering if there are things you feel are so explicit, so clear, as to be beyond your ability to understand how we got it wrong.

You can go there all you want…people do so in this forum everyday…that’s why Catholic Answers exists.

You misread my post.

No, I quoted you verbatim. But it gets better here:

So, I do say she is blessed amongst women, highly favored, is the Theotokos, is a Saint, etc… I say the Apostle’s and Nicene creed is accurate, yet that isn’t enough to allow me to be RC, is it? The RCC has now declared that to become RC I’d have to agree that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and assumed into Heaven. In short, the RCC has now made Mary, her IC and assumption, into a salvational issue. That is the type of thing that gets Protestants riled up… not that the RCC should care. lol

Well, this is where you have to avoid putting the cart before the horse. Once you SEE and BELIEVE the Church built by Jesus as authoritative and infallible, the rest makes more sense. I can support my positions with scripture, but I don’t HAVE to…we argue from scripture because of your weakness not ours (said as compassionately as something like that can possibly be said).

 

[Kliska]

I understand that. I’m just wondering if there are things you feel are so explicit, so clear, as to be beyond your ability to understand how we got it wrong.

lol No, I can pretty much understand how you got it wrong Face it, you set yourself up for that one.

No, I quoted you verbatim.

Just like I’ve interacted with Muslims who “quote Jesus verbatim”

“Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

Well, this is where you have to avoid putting the cart before the horse. Once you SEE and BELIEVE the Church built by Jesus as authoritative and infallible, the rest makes more sense. I can support my positions with scripture, but I don’t HAVE to…we argue from scripture because of your weakness not ours (said as compassionately as something like that can possibly be said).

It works both ways in this case, however, as it is a Catholic contention that none of their teachings contradict scripture. So, in the case of a conversation like this, scripture is important.

 

[eddie_too]

where does the bible say that the bible is the only source of authority for the christian community?

opposition to the doctrine of Mary’s PV is a perfect example of why the bible is not the sole authority for christians.

the opposition exists because they misinterpret the bible.

 

[Peter_J]

So, I do say she is blessed amongst women, highly favored, is the Theotokos, is a Saint, etc… I say the Apostle’s and Nicene creed is accurate, yet that isn’t enough to allow me to be RC, is it?

I didn’t realize you wanted to be.

 

[Kliska]

I didn’t realize you wanted to be.

It’s more of an academic question. lol But really, is that not how it would work? With all of us talking and praying for unity, I think it is an important question.

 

[sebastian1213]

For Catholics, it’s doctrine!

I agree whole heartedly. Asisde from that, I would find it difficult to think that Gos, in His infinite wisdom, would choose Mary as the "vessel’ to give birth to His only begotten So (a virgin) only for her to somehow, in a sense, taint that by engaing in marital relations, afterward. To retain Her perpetual virginity only seems fitting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

lol No, I can pretty much understand how you got it wrong Face it, you set yourself up for that one.

For what? The Church has been teaching the same things for nearly 2,000 years, so I’m not sure I understand your position on “how” we got it wrong. but that’s another discussion.

I’m curious to know WHAT verses specifically, you think “Wow, this is so obvious…how did they miss it?”

I’m not asking for a lot here, Kliska. Just give me one…your TOP-of-the-list, whopper that we screwed up.

 

[Kliska]

For what? The Church has been teaching the same things for nearly 2,000 years, so I’m not sure I understand your position on “how” we got it wrong. but that’s another discussion.

I’m curious to know WHAT verses specifically, you think “Wow, this is so obvious…how did they miss it?”

I’m not asking for a lot here, Kliska. Just give me one…your TOP-of-the-list, whopper that we screwed up.

Sorry, but no.

Grace and Peace to you Randy.

 

[eddie_too]

the RCC preserves and teaches what she received from Jesus through His apostles.

the RCC cannot change what she received.

the Marian doctrines were part of the teachings the RCC received from Jesus through His apostles.

it would be very useful if those who oppose the RCC’s Marian doctrines would provide some kind of documentation or evidence of from whom and when these doctrines originated.

absent such documentation, the most reasonable conclusion is that these doctrines were always part of the teachings of the Lord. that is the RCC’s claim.