- Status
P
Pax
Guest
You are welcome, and thanks for the kind thoughts. Questions are always good and proper. We all need to be charitable…afterall, we are brothers and sisters in Christ.
R
Ruthie
Guest
Yinandyang,
What does it matter that “synerchomai” could mean “having marital relations?” The verse is simply saying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit before Joseph had the chance to conceive a child of his own with Mary. It says nothing about Joseph having the chance to do so later.
There’s a much stronger implication of marital relations in Mt 1:24-25: “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son…” (RSV)
Protestants will say that “until” draws a line between before something happens, and after it does. That’s true - but it is not the only meaning of “until.” The example I like to use is, “John studied hard until he was accepted at Harvard School of Medicine.” Did John stop studying then? I don’t think so!
The other “proof” they offer is the occasional references to Jesus having “brothers.” That one depends on the Gospels being written only in Greek, as opposed to originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew and translated into Greek.
The Greek language has specific words for various levels of kinship, like we do in English. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, though, the word translated “brothers” means “kinfolk.”
Hope this helps!
Ruthie
What does it matter that “synerchomai” could mean “having marital relations?” The verse is simply saying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit before Joseph had the chance to conceive a child of his own with Mary. It says nothing about Joseph having the chance to do so later.
There’s a much stronger implication of marital relations in Mt 1:24-25: “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son…” (RSV)
Protestants will say that “until” draws a line between before something happens, and after it does. That’s true - but it is not the only meaning of “until.” The example I like to use is, “John studied hard until he was accepted at Harvard School of Medicine.” Did John stop studying then? I don’t think so!
The other “proof” they offer is the occasional references to Jesus having “brothers.” That one depends on the Gospels being written only in Greek, as opposed to originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew and translated into Greek.
The Greek language has specific words for various levels of kinship, like we do in English. In both Hebrew and Aramaic, though, the word translated “brothers” means “kinfolk.”
Hope this helps!
Ruthie
Y
yinandyang
Guest
Thank you Ruthie and everyone else who contributed in standing up for our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity. Your information and answers have been immensely helpful.
I’m still trying to convince this person I’m debating with to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (and all of the other wonderful beliefs the Catholic Church infallably teaches on our Holy Mother as well). Please pray for this person and for me; That God will give me the right words to sucessfully accomplish so awesome and important task of spreading the fullness of the Christian faith to him, and to all who ask for an answer regarding the hope that abides in us Catholics. And that those who hear this truth willingly and joyfully accept it, believe in it, and abide by it in it’s entirety.
Thanks again for all the help.
I’m still trying to convince this person I’m debating with to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (and all of the other wonderful beliefs the Catholic Church infallably teaches on our Holy Mother as well). Please pray for this person and for me; That God will give me the right words to sucessfully accomplish so awesome and important task of spreading the fullness of the Christian faith to him, and to all who ask for an answer regarding the hope that abides in us Catholics. And that those who hear this truth willingly and joyfully accept it, believe in it, and abide by it in it’s entirety.
Thanks again for all the help.
P
phil8888
Guest
Well, the Church says it rejects nothign that is true and holy from other religions, so if Martin Luther happened to say something right, we wont reject it. We wouldn’t oppose it if Hitler said, we should love one another, just because of who said it. The point is, by showing people that this is not a uniquely Catholic feeling about Mary, it bolsters our POV, because it’s not exclusive. Some protestants will listen to things that protestants say before they listen to Holy Mother Church.That’s a strawman; simply because your church binds your conscience to its teachings, and the teachings of the ECFs, doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, is bound to the teachings of Luther, and Calvin. Catholics claim that their doctrines develop; is that another infallibly exclusive claim?
You are obviously enamored with Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings on the Virgin Mary, why do you reject their other teachings? :ehh:
Why is it OK for you to reject some of the teachings of Luther and Calvin, but it’s not OK for me to do the same? :ehh:
K
kotes19
Guest
I like to ask my Protestant friends:
Did you know that both Calvin and Luther had huge devotions and repect for Mary? Then, if you follow these men, why don’t you have the same?
Nine times out of ten they don’t even know that Calvin and Luther loved Mary.
Did you know that both Calvin and Luther had huge devotions and repect for Mary? Then, if you follow these men, why don’t you have the same?
Nine times out of ten they don’t even know that Calvin and Luther loved Mary.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Various translations of Luke 1, 27 have Mary “betrothed” or “espoused” to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation. Either term means that the couple were legally married, although their marriage hadn’t been formally solemnized yet. Mosaic law provided a two-part marriage ceremony. It began with the betrothal or espousal (kidushin) in which Joseph would have given Mary a marriage document and a token of monetary value, usually a ring. If Joseph had given Mary a ring, he would then formally have declared in the presence of at least two witnesses that Mary was his lawful wife as he placed the ring on her finger. The Hebrew word for “betrothed” is kiddush, which is derived from *kadash *meaning “holy, consecrated, and set apart” as Israel is described to be in her marital relationship with God. In Jewish practice, this is the central moment of the initial wedding ceremony at which time a contract is signed making the couple legally married. Thus when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, she was Joseph’s wife. But during this stage of their marriage the couple were forbidden by Mosaic law to cohabit together under the same roof.
Now the second part of their marriage would have followed a year after the first wedding ceremony. By this time Joseph was expected to be able to provide for Mary. And if both were happy with each other and remained faithful to each other, the second and final wedding ceremony (nisuin) would solemnly take place. The ketubah (contract)was the focal point of the second wedding ceremony. Here Joseph would have formally accepted the responsibilities of providing food and shelter, clothing for his wife, and attending to her emotional needs. After the ketubah was signed by Joseph and the two witnesses, and presented to Mary, the marriage was solemnized. Assured of her marital rights, and in accord with Mosaic law, Mary could now move into her husband’s home to fully consummate their marriage if that were their intention.
- “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife."
Matthew 1, 20*
The original Greek word for the phrases “before they came together / lived together” is sunerchomai. In light of 1:20, and the institution of marriage in Judaism, what Matthew is saying to his Hebrew audience is that Mary was found to be with child before the second marriage ceremony (nisuin) took place - upon which Joseph was able to take his legally married wife Mary into his home to live or “cohabit” with her, and she was permitted by Mosaic law to “accompany” her husband into his home. What Matthew is not saying in contradiction to 1:20 and in contravention of the sacred Tradition of the Church is that Mary was found with child before she had conjugal relations with Joseph. Unfortunately, many Protestants regard 1:18 as a proof-text against the Catholic dogma of the PVM. The Greek word may mean “conjugal co-habitation” which implies sexual relations between husband and wife, but Matthew does not contradict himself in his narrative. He couldn’t if he were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and his gospel were inerrant. What is erroneous is this particular super-imposed Protestant interpretation of the text.
PAX
:heaven:
J
JohnR77
Guest
I would begin by telling this person that he is (unknowingly) insulting God by denying it.
Convincing this person of the truth is not really our job. Providing the grace to believe in the truth is God’s job. And it is this other person’s job to comply with that grace.
Our job is just to provide the facts in a loving way.
Yes. That is the key.
See
defendingthebride.com/ma4/until.html#before
**BEFORE
** Matthew 1:18
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit”
Does the use of the word “before” in Matthew 1:18 imply that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born ?
No.
Modern Protestants did not discover a previously unknown to Catholics a Scripture passage that is a proof against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
Besides the fact that Protestants get their Bible from the Catholic Church which she painstakingly transcribed down through the generations, it is interesting to note that the** early Protestant Reformers also affirmed Mary’s Virginity after Jesus’ birth**.
This passage in Matthew 1:18 is one of the most celebrated passages by Catholics in the whole Bible. Understandably so, the beginning of each Gospel was often decorated with a special page. After that, the most celebrated page was this passage of Matthew 1:18 which tells of the Incarnation of Christ. It was often accompanied by a highly decorated “Incarnation Initial.”
See :
Lindisfarne Gospels
** Incarnation initial ( Matthew 1:18)
**
Book of Kells
** Incarnation initial
**
Gospels of S Chad, early 8th Century ?
** Incarnation initial Matt. 1:18
**
Canterbury Codex Aureus
** Incarnation initial Matthew 1:18 **
The Greek letters represented our Latin and English alphabet as follows:Lindisfarne Gospels
** Incarnation initial ( Matthew 1:18)
**
Book of Kells
** Incarnation initial
**
Gospels of S Chad, early 8th Century ?
** Incarnation initial Matt. 1:18
**
Canterbury Codex Aureus
** Incarnation initial Matthew 1:18 **
X - Ch
P - R
I - I
P - R
I - I
Now, let us look at the passage.
Matthew 1:18
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit”
Now, it is true that Mary and Joseph would “come together” or “lived together” after they got married, it is not true that Mary and Joseph would have sex. While the phrase that they would “come together” or “lived together” is vague, some modern Protestants argue that this implies that they did have sex. However, even if this phrase is a euphemistic way of saying “sex,” a study of the Greek usage of the word “before” shows that it does NOT necessarily mean that the condition or situation preceding in time “before” the event changed afterward. Consider :
John 4:49
“The official said to him, ‘Sir, come down before my child dies.’ ”
The same Greek word for “before” is used in both Matthew 1:18 and John 4:49.
Before –Greek “πριν,” Transliteration “prin,” Strong’s # 4250.
And, the context clearly shows that the child did not die.
Therefore, this passage in Matthew 1:18 does not imply that the virginal status of Mary would change either.
Why is this issue important ?
It is important because a denial of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is an insult to God. The children at Fatima (and ourselves) were even asked to do penance for those who deny this truth. It is God who created Mary and by His grace made her life a special testimony to Him and His Greatness. And Mary was most cooperative with this grace.
Also, see the faulty arguments for “Until” and “Firstborn.”
.
K
kkollwitz
Guest
This passage is enough to persuade me that Mary was never intimate with Joseph: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”
S
setarcos
Guest
Please forgive my ignorance on this matter but could someone please tell me why Mary must remain a virgin? What exactly are we taking away from her if her virginity was taken by her husband? Incidentally didn’t the holy spirit take care of that when it impregnated her. She, after all , didn’t just become pregnant, she was made to be pregnant by the spirit.
May God in his infinity see me through to the beginning of forever
May God in his infinity see me through to the beginning of forever
E
ericc
Guest
The question you are asking is why. The Church answer is not the why but what is fact. Mary’s EV has been a known fact very early in Church history. It is not a recent interpretation which later Protestants have just recently discovered. You can see from pioneer Reformers that Mary’s EV is a given.
Therefore the question you ought to ask yourself is why later Protestants started this line of novel questioning. Was it divine revelation that prompted this or is it some base motive instead.
There are many areas which generate more questions than answers. My short answer is that what has been set apart for God’s holy purpose can not be defiled by ordinary folks. Mary’s womb has been set aside for a holy purpose, to birth the Son of God. Her womb continued to be holy even after the birth of Christ. OT has plenty of verses on these holy objects. Joseph knows that intimately. In the OT, the ark of the covenant cannot be touched by ordinary folks. Those that did , died. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, God-bearer.
Jewish understanding is that Moses became continent during his frequent commune with God. God is living under his roof 24/7. To those that feel Joseph should go about his ordinary duties and disregard the presence of God is a clear reflection of 21st century sex-liberated thinking, not as a Jew living in 1 AD. And that is the toughest Dad job in the world. How do you interact with this God-child ? Just imagine Joseph’s predicament when dealing with Jesus as a toddler, as a teenager and so on. How do you talk to God? How do you mentor, discipline God?
S
setarcos
Guest
QUOTE=ericc;13381787]The question you are asking is why. The Church answer is not the why but what is fact. Mary’s EV has been a known fact very early in Church history. It is not a recent interpretation which later Protestants have just recently discovered. You can see from pioneer Reformers that Mary’s EV is a given.
Therefore the question you ought to ask yourself is why later Protestants started this line of novel questioning. Was it divine revelation that prompted this or is it some base motive instead.
There are many areas which generate more questions than answers. My short answer is that what has been set apart for God’s holy purpose can not be defiled by ordinary folks. Mary’s womb has been set aside for a holy purpose, to birth the Son of God. Her womb continued to be holy even after the birth of Christ. OT has plenty of verses on these holy objects. Joseph knows that intimately. In the OT, the ark of the covenant cannot be touched by ordinary folks. Those that did , died. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, God-bearer.
Thank you so much for your insightful reply. I am unsure as to which proofs you are referring to from the early church which confirm her virginity as a fact. Could you please point me in the right direction?
The only experience I have of references to Mary in the early church have been cursory and opinionated.
I’m not sure how Mary fulfilling her marriage duties would defile her? Aren’t all marriages made holy by God? I imagine that we had best leave up to God to decide what would make unholy what he has made holy hadn’t we?
Yes I agree there are many holy objects and each served it’s purpose in its time but I would imagine each was made holy according to the will of God and I imagine should God make a holy objects purpose change according to the needs of the time, it’s within his authority to do so and unless other wise explicitly instructed we would do well not to speculate on such matters. Is it beyond the possible for God after she had born his son to make it so she could serve another purpose as Joseph’s wife?
Humans do love their stories, subplots, and subplots of subplots.
I imagine theologians mouths water at types and typology and tying it all together at the end with a neat little bow. A type is not an equivalent though is it. For instance, we may consider Mary a type of the ark but there are significant differences. Let’s assume Mary is the Ark and the Christ it’s contents. Since we know touching the ark resulted in death then may we assume touching Mary resulted in the same? Surely not.
The contents of the ark certainly served a purpose in their time but they were put there as remembrances of the purposes they served. The manna sustained the Jews but doesn’t save them. The commandments may govern but has no authority unto itself. The rod of Aaron may have been a sign of Aaron’s princely authority but was not itself the one who gave that authority. The contents weren’t holy because of what they were they were made holy because of what they symbolized.
Christ is not made holy he is holy. He is the authority. He doesn’t just sustain, he saves.
So we see in no way is an equivalence established between the contents of the ark and the contents of Mary’s womb.
Now comparing symbolically one object with another and calling it a type because of their metaphorical convenience is one thing but constraining the one objects capability or allowances because of such a comparison is quite another.
I’m not even sure what purpose finding these types serve in salvation other than as intellectual curiosities.
Incidentally didn’t the high priests - the ones allowed into the holy of holies - have wives and presumably the duties associated with that? Seems like fulfilling your duties with God and having a family is not conflicting. And how holy was Christ and yet he was touched by the woman and she was made whole.
I suspect it all depends on what makes a thing holy and why and what constraints God sees fit to put on that thing because of it.
Personally I don’t see the beauty in perpetual virginity. It takes away from what God himself created and called good. It makes no sense to me to one moment laud God’s creation and the next say it would be defiling.
Therefore the question you ought to ask yourself is why later Protestants started this line of novel questioning. Was it divine revelation that prompted this or is it some base motive instead.
There are many areas which generate more questions than answers. My short answer is that what has been set apart for God’s holy purpose can not be defiled by ordinary folks. Mary’s womb has been set aside for a holy purpose, to birth the Son of God. Her womb continued to be holy even after the birth of Christ. OT has plenty of verses on these holy objects. Joseph knows that intimately. In the OT, the ark of the covenant cannot be touched by ordinary folks. Those that did , died. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, God-bearer.
Thank you so much for your insightful reply. I am unsure as to which proofs you are referring to from the early church which confirm her virginity as a fact. Could you please point me in the right direction?
The only experience I have of references to Mary in the early church have been cursory and opinionated.
I’m not sure how Mary fulfilling her marriage duties would defile her? Aren’t all marriages made holy by God? I imagine that we had best leave up to God to decide what would make unholy what he has made holy hadn’t we?
Yes I agree there are many holy objects and each served it’s purpose in its time but I would imagine each was made holy according to the will of God and I imagine should God make a holy objects purpose change according to the needs of the time, it’s within his authority to do so and unless other wise explicitly instructed we would do well not to speculate on such matters. Is it beyond the possible for God after she had born his son to make it so she could serve another purpose as Joseph’s wife?
Humans do love their stories, subplots, and subplots of subplots.
I imagine theologians mouths water at types and typology and tying it all together at the end with a neat little bow. A type is not an equivalent though is it. For instance, we may consider Mary a type of the ark but there are significant differences. Let’s assume Mary is the Ark and the Christ it’s contents. Since we know touching the ark resulted in death then may we assume touching Mary resulted in the same? Surely not.
The contents of the ark certainly served a purpose in their time but they were put there as remembrances of the purposes they served. The manna sustained the Jews but doesn’t save them. The commandments may govern but has no authority unto itself. The rod of Aaron may have been a sign of Aaron’s princely authority but was not itself the one who gave that authority. The contents weren’t holy because of what they were they were made holy because of what they symbolized.
Christ is not made holy he is holy. He is the authority. He doesn’t just sustain, he saves.
So we see in no way is an equivalence established between the contents of the ark and the contents of Mary’s womb.
Now comparing symbolically one object with another and calling it a type because of their metaphorical convenience is one thing but constraining the one objects capability or allowances because of such a comparison is quite another.
I’m not even sure what purpose finding these types serve in salvation other than as intellectual curiosities.
Incidentally didn’t the high priests - the ones allowed into the holy of holies - have wives and presumably the duties associated with that? Seems like fulfilling your duties with God and having a family is not conflicting. And how holy was Christ and yet he was touched by the woman and she was made whole.
I suspect it all depends on what makes a thing holy and why and what constraints God sees fit to put on that thing because of it.
Personally I don’t see the beauty in perpetual virginity. It takes away from what God himself created and called good. It makes no sense to me to one moment laud God’s creation and the next say it would be defiling.
E
ericc
Guest
This may be a good start.
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm. But then again what do you mean by proof?
You assumed she has intent to consummate. You assumed God intended for her to fulfill her marriage duties. You assumed Joseph wanted to insist on his conjugal rights. Her womb is holy. Unless you are suggesting that God intended to birth His Son in an unholy place. Joseph wasn’t consecrated as far as I can made out.
God tell us to set aside certain things for holy purposes.Lev 10:10. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean. For example he told Moses how to make Holy Oil and when and where to use it. However, you will not see Holy objects later on become common items. What has been consecrated to the Lord remains consecrated to the Lord. Can he un-consecrate it? He possibly could but he didn’t and wouldn’t because God is unchanging.
Of course not. Mary is a live person and expected to interact with the world around her.
Would you also say the contents of Mary’s womb is also symbolic and serve as remembrances? I hope not. The ark carried the stone tablets, the word of God. Mary’s womb carried Christ, The Word of God. The 10 commandments has God’s authority behind it, because it is God’s word. Jesus has authority, because all authority has been given to him. He is the Word of God. I think you are stepping on very shaky ground when you make assertions that the commandments carry no authority. That something takes on God’s authority when he commands it. And the authority behinds it continues to exist until he lifted it. We can not arbitrarily says " Oh that was 2000 years ago and therefore his commandments should have been symbolic by now." That is not up to us to decide. We can not cherry pick and says this one applies, and this one doesn’t. Jn 20:21-23. Christ gave the authority to forgive sins to men. It wasn’t symbolic, the authority still stands today because he didn’t withdraw it. So why do some Christians refuse to accept he has given the authority to men? The Father sent him, he sent us. Christ tell us to eat his body and do it in memory of him. 3 gospel writers tell us this very important instruction. Paul said it. ALL Church Fathers said so. And for 1500 years, we believe and do so. But many Christians today don’t even believe this. Ahhh, that can’t be true. Gotta be symbolic. Well, they have managed to compose their own Bible.
It depends on whether you want to see parallels or not. Both contained the word of God. Both came with authority. Both contained food from heaven, one is manna the bread from heaven, the other the Bread of Life. Both were given to us to eat literally. But the Bread of Life will give you everlasting life.
Why do we group things together based upon similarities? So that the lesson learnt in one can be extended to another. So that it help us reinforce the message that is consistent in both items. Some may say it is a useless exercise. For others, it highlight to them things told in one but implicitly told in another. I am sure you see the value in grouping things together and extrapolating/deducing the information content. Paul uses typology repeatedly in his writings. I hope you don’t brush off his writings as “intellectual curiousities”.
Continue
E
ericc
Guest
If there is no such thing as sexual cleanliness and purity, the OT won’t have devoted so much space on it. Lev 22:2-4. Aaron and sons were told to keep away from holy things so that they may not profane it. Emission of semen would make them unclean. And when Moses and his people were readying to meet up with God, they abstained from sex. Ex 19:15. True, rabbis in general were hostile to religious celibacy, yet they continue to practice temporary abstinence. You can research jewish rabbinic literature to confirm this practice. 1 Sam 21:4 also indicated that holy bread can be consumed if David’s men have abstained from sex. You will find more instances where a person is unclean after birth, sex, menstruation or sickness, they can’t go near holy objects, places. That I leave you to research them if you are unaware.
It makes no sense to you if you put on your 21st century hat. Sexual liberation of the 60s onwards has deadens one mind on to prohibited behavior. And you see it escalating. Fornication, adultery, divorce, remarriage becomes common. Same sex marriage is ok and so is abortion and so on. Things he made were good and shouldn’t disallow SSM by the same logic. Very early God has already indicate what is holy, what is unclean, how to purify. Things he made were good but up to humans to abuse and made bad. But this does not disallow God for setting apart holy objects for his own plans. Mat 19:10-12. But those that he set apart for holy use, you can not profane it. I didn’t made this up. You can argue with Him all you want that all things he made were good and all that stuff and that he shouldn’t prohibit you from doing unclean things to it. 1 Cor 11:27 for example.
Your argument that all things he made were good and therefore that allows you to do whatever you want is definitely un-biblical. Spend more time on Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers and go tell God that he is not making sense. I can tell that you spent very little time there.
L
littlestsouls2
Guest
Here is another possible response (taken from 'Christ the Life of the Soul’ by Bl. Dom Columba Marmion):
"St. Gertrude recounts that, hearing one day in the singing of the Divine Office these words in the Gospel: “First-born Son of the Virgin Mary” referring to Christ, she said to herself: “The title ‘Only Son’ would seem to fit Jesus much better than the title ‘first-born.’” While she was dwelling on this thought, the Virgin Mary appeared to her. “No”, she said to the great nun, “it is not at all ‘Only Son,’ it is ‘first-born Son’ which fits best; for, after Jesus, my very dear Son- or, more exactly, in Him and through Him- I have become mother of all of you in the womb of my charity, and you have become my children, the brethren of Jesus.”
G
Good_Fella
Guest
*For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. *
Romans 8, 29
The Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man—the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 33, 12 [A.D.180-190]
PAX
:heaven:
L
littlestsouls2
Guest
Excellent, excellent!
S
setarcos
Guest
This confuses me, are we children of God or children of Mary?
L
littlestsouls2
Guest
Both, like Jesus.
Mary is truly our spiritual mother. Satan hates Mary because it is through her that God will defeat him (Gen. 3:15)! If Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body, was born of Mary, it follows that the other members of the Mystical Body must also be spritually born of Mary.
J
JM3
Guest
God is the source of your creation, as well as the source of your salvation. Your parents are the cause of your creation and the Blessed Vigin is the cause of your salvation (S. Irenaeus, Adv. Hacr. III, 22, 4). Without the Blessed Virgin, your mother in the order of grace, you have no salvation. Just as, without your biological mother, you would not be born.
- Status