Pertual Virginity of Mary

[Joe_5859]

How?

He’s referring to the fact that the oft-repeated statistic is a bit misleading. The National Catholic Register actually had an article about it last week:

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

For example, the source that gives us that statistic counts the Latin Rite Catholic Church separately for each separate country—giving us 242 Roman Catholic Churches (not to mention all the Eastern rites). That editorial choice means the number is greatly inflated from what we would generally speak of in terms of separate denominations.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Protestants have as many as 30,000 groups. What do you expect?

Okay it may be inaccurate but you know what I’m saying. This shows the danger of having several personal interpretations of Scripture. No wonder there are so many groups.

 

[Joe_5859]

Okay it may be inaccurate but you know what I’m saying. This shows the danger of having several personal interpretations of Scripture. No wonder there are so many groups.

Right. I knew what you were saying. That’s why I didn’t correct you on it.

Any number higher than 1 is a scandal for Christian unity, so whether it’s a dozen, a hundred, or 33,000, the point is largely the same.

 

[Kay_Cee]

hes says that just because a word can have different meanings doesn’t mean that we can put any meaning we want for the verses.

Doesn’t that apply to your friend as well? He agrees the word can have different meanings, but he can put any meaning he wants for the verses?

 

[Micosil]

Hi guys I was having a discussion with a Protestant yesterday about the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. As our conversation went deeper he brought up the passages of Matthew 12:46-50 and Matthew 13:54-58 to back up his position that Mary had other kids. I showed him the Greek and everything but hes says that just because a word can have different meanings doesn’t mean that we can put any meaning we want for the verses. He says that they have to be literal “brothers” because they are mentioned in the same verse as Mary and Joseph. He says it would’t be logical that they are being refered to as his cousins or something else. Basically he states that a “literal” brother best fits the context of the passages. How do I respond?

Explain to him how the Protestant Reformers defended this position.

Calvin:

The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.

This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.

He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers.

Martin Luther:

When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. …] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

Zwingli:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.

John Wesley:

I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

 

[Hockeygurl]

Unfortunately, these issues can eat us up if we let them. But think about it, if Mary did mother other children after Jesus does that change anything? Is it important? Maybe to some, but the same message remains regardless. Christ died, rose from the dead and will come again. The end. I don’t think nitpicking helps anyone. For me personally, I have a hard time saying anything for 100 percent certainty. So for me leaving the issue slightly open for discussion while accepting that there is ample evidence to believe her virginity remained intact is how I need to personally deal with it.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Unfortunately, these issues can eat us up if we let them. But think about it, if Mary did mother other children after Jesus does that change anything? Is it important? Maybe to some, but the same message remains regardless. Christ died, rose from the dead and will come again. The end. I don’t think nitpicking helps anyone. For me personally, I have a hard time saying anything for 100 percent certainty. So for me leaving the issue slightly open for discussion while accepting that there is ample evidence to believe her virginity remained intact is how I need to personally deal with it.

Jerome’s defense of this doctrine states that Polycarp and Irenaeus, disciples of John the apostle, believed it. So if Protestants wanna argue with John the apostle…

 

[e_c]

Unfortunately, these issues can eat us up if we let them. But think about it, if Mary did mother other children after Jesus does that change anything? Is it important? Maybe to some, but the same message remains regardless. Christ died, rose from the dead and will come again. The end. I don’t think nitpicking helps anyone. For me personally, I have a hard time saying anything for 100 percent certainty. So for me leaving the issue slightly open for discussion while accepting that there is ample evidence to believe her virginity remained intact is how I need to personally deal with it.

Whether or not God has flesh siblings is a HUGE deal. The details of the life of the individual God chose to enter the world through are a HUGE deal, especially if the details are about that same mechanism through which he entered (the womb).

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Jerome’s defense of this doctrine states that Polycarp and Irenaeus, disciples of John the apostle, believed it. So if Protestants wanna argue with John the apostle…

Like I said, do you wanna argue with John the apostle?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi guys I was having a discussion with a Protestant yesterday about the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. As our conversation went deeper he brought up the passages of Matthew 12:46-50 and Matthew 13:54-58 to back up his position that Mary had other kids. I showed him the Greek and everything but hes says that just because a word can have different meanings doesn’t mean that we can put any meaning we want for the verses. He says that they have to be literal “brothers” because they are mentioned in the same verse as Mary and Joseph. He says it would’t be logical that they are being refered to as his cousins or something else. Basically he states that a “literal” brother best fits the context of the passages. How do I respond?

As to the OP’s question, the brothers could be step-brothers(this is the view I hold), or cousins.

 

[Micosil]

As to the OP’s question, the brothers could be step-brothers(this is the view I hold), or cousins.

It seems throughout Church history, many explanations have been presented. The Protoevangelium of James seems to suggest that these “brethren” of Jesus are step-brothers of Jesus through a previous marriage of St. Joseph; St. Jerome later went on to disagree with this, claiming they were more than likely His cousins.

Regardless, whichever view seems more reasonable, neither of the ancient traditions claim they were his actual blood brothers, as in, subsequent children of Mary.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It seems throughout Church history, many explanations have been presented. The Protoevangelium of James seems to suggest that these “brethren” of Jesus are step-brothers of Jesus through a previous marriage of St. Joseph; St. Jerome later went on to disagree with this, claiming they were more than likely His cousins.

Regardless, whichever view seems more reasonable, neither of the ancient traditions claim they were his actual blood brothers, as in, subsequent children of Mary.

Thank you.

I’ve already had arguments with other Catholics because I hold this view. It is nice to see an open minded person.

 

[panevino]

I heard Tim staples recently point out that the word “sister” in the following verse is likely being used for a close relative rather than an actual sibling as it is unlikely that Mary (mother of Jesus) would have a sibling also called Mary.

John 19:25
These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

 

[Micosil]

Thank you.

I’ve already had arguments with other Catholics because I hold this view. It is nice to see an open minded person.

Which view precisely do you hold? I presented two views which are compatible with the standard Catholic understanding.

 

[Micosil]

Thank you.

I’ve already had arguments with other Catholics because I hold this view. It is nice to see an open minded person.

My understanding is that neither is the official Church teaching. Indeed, a fairly orthodox friend of mine also holds that view (the “brethren” of Christ are his step-brothers through St. Joseph); as long as we hold to the teaching of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (and all the other Marian doctrines, of course), it’s fine.

 

[Peebo]

They also mock Catholics for believing that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and not only symbolic…even though Jesus himself said in John 6 that it is exactly what he meant…he even repeated it to his followers…some of whom left him because they couldn’t accept what he was saying…he never stopped them or tried to tell them he didn’t really mean what he said…to be fair I believe that Anglicans…Orthodox…Lutherans…even some Methodists do believe in the real presence…to those who don’t believe the words Jesus spoke it’s only a small step to then mock the perpetual virginity of his mother…they also reject the Sacred Tradition of the church…I believe the Orthodox church does hold to Sacred Tradition as well as the Catholic Church…it was Jesus who taught tradition and passed on his sayings to his disciples who in turned passed them on to the early church fathers…there was no Bible for 400 years