perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[pocohombre]

Well, yeah. The Son wasn’t conceived in the normal Jewish fashion either.

Conception is one thing, “raising” is another. For Jesus to become flesh is a special circumstance requiring a one time event. Being raised in flesh and spirit is part of normal humanity, which Christ became part of.

Could you please 'splain what that means?

You said Mary remained virgin to fully devote herself to raising Jesus ( paraphrased), because Jesus is "special’ , which He is. I just thought every baby is special , and deserves the best from a mother also, yet why are there not more “only” children ?. The insinuation is that multi tasking, multi raising children would have detracted from Mary’s divine role. Like it is good enough, or deserving of Jesus but not for other families and children. But I ramble. It is your paradigm and correct my reaction and feeling I get from your posit.

Except you have no Biblical evidence that she attended to other children.

Not believing anothers evidence is one thing, denying it has been put forth is disingenuous, and hopefully you don’t mean the latter. If so it requires a photovideo.

 

[Protestor]

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)?

Sure I can claim things that are not in the bible. I am not aloud to subsequently say that what I said was absolutely true or infallible. I ask more of the RCC because they claim that they know it is the truth. My opinion is that Mary was not necessary. If you disagree that is fine; just understand that I think you are wrong.

If you are trying to offer something more than just an opinion I want the reasons. I have already asked for the ECF thoughts on the matter and have no responses telling me their thoughts or links to past posts and/or websites.

I am saying what I believe to be true not what I know to be true. You are claiming that you know it to be true.

stewstew03:

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

Sola scriptura is IMO misunderstood by Catholics. I say this because of how they try to argue against it this is a different topic that I think there is already a thread on. Since we were already warned to stick too the OP I think it unwise to talk about SS on this thread. I will end with I do not go by strict SS but I understand why you bring it up. Lochias this is also kinda addressed to you as well.

I might not answer everyone I am starting a new rule for myself that before I can respond to a message that I have to read a chapter in the bible. This forum is taking up too much of my concentration. These issues are important, but God’s Word is more important

 

[pocohombre]

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!

You misunderstand that scripture. It really means that what is bound in heaven will be bound on earth. Or that what is bound here will already have been bound in heaven…Authority of binding happens when you are right , and not wrong about a matter. i have been told that is part of Greek writing and thinking, and God used it precisely in Holy Writ.

 

[eddie_too]

God chose Mary to be His Mother.

the Church has taught since the first Pentecost Sunday that Mary was immaculately conceived, conceived of the Holy Spirit without sexual intercourse, never bore children after Jesus’ birth, was assumed body and soul into heaven and lived without sinning.

all of these teachings could have and in the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the assumption would have been factually known by the early Church.

questions about these doctrines only came about hundreds of years after the events occurred. Mary could have said no. She did not.

using what God could have done is an empty argument since it has nothing to do with what God actually did.

He chose Mary. why in the world would a human being believe God chose a sinful woman when He clearly could have chosen a woma without sin? there is nothing in salvation history that indicates Mary ever sinned.

why in the world would a human being believe that St. Joseph would insist on intercourse when he knew Mary had been chosen by God to be His mother?

why in the world would a human being believe that the christian community would not know where Mary was buried if she had been buried?

people who reject the Marian doctrines would be doing themselves and us a great favor if they could identify their reasons for rejecting them.

even the first protestant reformers knew and accepted the doctrines of the Virgin Birth and Perpetual Virginity.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You misunderstand that scripture. It really means that what is bound in heaven will be bound on earth. Or that what is bound here will already have been bound in heaven…Authority of binding happens when you are right , and not wrong about a matter. i have been told that is part of Greek writing and thinking, and God used it precisely in Holy Writ.

He told St. Peter (first) and then the rest of the Apostles, that whatever YOU bind on Earth will (or shall have been) bound in Heaven, and tha whatever YOU loose on Earth will (or shall have been) bound in Heaven.

That’s a great explaination of the belief of infallibillity.

If Jesus is going to give them that Authority, then He sure as Heaven will make certain that the things they bind or loose will be in accord with His will.

 

[Lochias]

You misunderstand that scripture.

It really means that what is bound in heaven will be bound on earth. Or that what is bound here will already have been bound in heaven…Authority of binding happens when you are right , and not wrong about a matter. i have been told that is part of Greek writing and thinking, and God used it precisely in Holy Writ.

…so…Jesus actually meant the complete opposite of what he said…and the Church has missed it for over 2000 years?

Sorry, not buying it. Not one bit.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

God chose Mary to be His Mother.

the Church has taught since the first Pentecost Sunday that Mary was immaculately conceived, conceived of the Holy Spirit without sexual intercourse, never bore children after Jesus’ birth, was assumed body and soul into heaven and lived without sinning.

You mean:
the Church has taught since the first Pentecost Sunday that Mary was immaculately conceived, conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit without sexual intercourse, never bore children after Jesus’ birth, was assumed body and soul into heaven and lived without sinning.

Just wanted to clarify so that a typo wouldn’t confuse people about Catholic beliefs.

 

[pocohombre]

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

Sure it is nice but I find the more I know Jesus the more I can understand Mary.

 

[pocohombre]

He told St. Peter (first) and then the rest of the Apostles, that whatever YOU bind on Earth will (or shall have been) bound in Heaven, and tha whatever YOU loose on Earth will (or shall have been) bound in Heaven.

That’s a great explaination of the belief of infallibillity.

If Jesus is going to give them that Authority, then He sure as Heaven will make certain that the things they bind or loose will be in accord with His will.

That is right. Hence the Schism and Reformation.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That is right. Hence the Schism and Reformation.

Why? Because people wanted to buck the Authority that Jesus bestowed?
They were jealous and wanted to arrogate it to themselves, ala Korah (see Numbers 16)?

 

[Lochias]

Sure it is nice but I find the more I know Jesus the more I can understand Mary.

Well, apparently not, or you’d see how Mary’s PV is right, proper and necessary due to the very nature of Jesus himself.

 

[eddie_too]

i cannot even imagine that almighty God would NOT bestow every blessing imaginable in creation upon His mother.

i believe there is far more to Mary than we will ever know short of the beatific vision.

the Marian doctrines of the RCC are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to knowing and understanding Mary and her relationship to her Son and His Father and Holy Spirit.

 

[Auntie_A]

And so you say …Also - the existence of these other children would suggest that some attempt to claim advantage would have happened - human nature [like Mary and Joseph not being able to be chaste together ] - based upon their relationship to the divinity of Christ - the absence of that record speaks volumes … How come - no one - anywhere - failed to claim some beneficial advantage based upon being related to the God Man, the Second Person of the Trinity? Yet history fails to supply that evidence … -

Oh yeah? Since Dan Brown’s books and the Mary-Magdalene-as-Jesus’-wife fad, I have met a number of people who have stated that they were the special offspring/relatives of Jesus. And they had proof. Lots of it! And the fact that they were addicted to meth had nothing to do with it. I rest my case!

(Sorry…I have had this on my chest for too many years…had to let it out here. Just consider it a brief respite of sarcasm and irony in a heated debate.)

 

[Kliska]

Oh yeah? Since Dan Brown’s books and the Mary-Magdalene-as-Jesus’-wife fad, I have met a number of people who have stated that they were the special offspring/relatives of Jesus. And they had proof. Lots of it! And the fact that they were addicted to meth had nothing to do with it. I rest my case!

(Sorry…I have had this on my chest for too many years…had to let it out here. Just consider it a brief respite of sarcasm and irony in a heated debate.)

Ha!

Years ago a psychologist was treating two people that both believed they were Jesus… I asked if he introduced them to one another… he wasn’t amused.

 

[Protestor]

Either you trust the Church that Jesus established, or you don’t.

I would say the same thing to you about the protestant church. Obviously the protestant church which is christian is joined with the rest of the body of Christ. It is not like we are partially joined with Christ because you think we are wrong on subjects. We are just as much a part of the one true apostolic church as you are. All those who are christians belong to the universal (catholic) church. I see protestants as being another part of the Christ’s body. What do you think? The way you are talking I would say that you do not believe this. He is not being a cafeteria Christian he is following what he believes to be true. If he is a Christian , I do not know him so I would rather not say he is no offense pocohombre, he is joined with the body and follows the truth that God has aloud him to see. We do not corrupt the body of Christ by our belief, do we? I am not saying that you cannot call something out that you see as wrong or that we should not provide a reason for our beliefs. I am just saying that calling us cafeteria Christians because we choose things that line up with what God has revealed to us and do not choose those things have either not been revealed or are not true.

If I misunderstood either pocohombre or Lochias please inform me.
All or nothing? God has already provided protestants(christians) with a third choice. Who are you to take that away which he has given?

 

[Protestor]

i cannot even imagine that almighty God would NOT bestow every blessing imaginable in creation upon His mother.

I cannot believe that God would not bestow every blessing on every Christian. Not that any of us deserve even one.

 

[kaneata]

I would say the same thing to you about the protestant church. Obviously the protestant church which is christian is joined with the rest of the body of Christ. It is not like we are partially joined with Christ because you think we are wrong on subjects. We are just as much a part of the one true apostolic church as you are. All those who are christians belong to the universal (catholic) church. I see protestants as being another part of the Christ’s body. What do you think? The way you are talking I would say that you do not believe this. He is not being a cafeteria Christian he is following what he believes to be true. If he is a Christian , I do not know him so I would rather not say he is no offense pocohombre, he is joined with the body and follows the truth that God has aloud him to see. We do not corrupt the body of Christ by our belief, do we? I am not saying that you cannot call something out that you see as wrong or that we should not provide a reason for our beliefs. I am just saying that calling us cafeteria Christians because we choose things that line up with what God has revealed to us and do not choose those things have either not been revealed or are not true.

If I misunderstood either pocohombre or Lochias please inform me.
All or nothing? **God has already provided protestants(christians) with a third choice. Who **are you to take that away which he has given?

But when it comes to the topic of this thread, He has not given us confusion. That seems to have started recently as has been stated that even the Reformers believed in PV. There is only one truth.

 

[Protestor]

But when it comes to the topic of this thread, He has not given us confusion. That seems to have started recently as has been stated that even the Reformers believed in PV. There is only one truth.

What I am saying is that he has given you and I nothing on this subject. I am saying that it is a man made doctrine put in place because bunch of people who were theologians agreed on it being correct or it was something that enhanced the virtue of virginity or both or neither. In case you were wondering.

 

[kaneata]

What I am saying is that he has given you and I nothing on this subject. I am saying that it is a man made doctrine put in place because bunch of people who were theologians agreed on it being correct or it was something that enhanced the virtue of virginity or both or neither. In case you were wondering.

But the CC obviously doesn’t agree that a bunch of guys were sitting around and saying let’s come up with some new “stuff”. There have been numerous posters who have given scriptural background for PV.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Imagine that we are in a discussion on someone’s patio. We are enjoying ourselves as we discuss different issues–some of great import, some not so much. As we drink our cocktails and eat something deliciously unhealthy, we parlay back and forth. You pose a question to me and I pose questions to you. At one point, you ask me a question and I abruptly stand up and say, “Buh-bye!”

What would be the point of that, except to signal to everyone, “That is a question that makes me squirm and one that I cannot refute!”.

Just sayin’…