Question About Mary ??

[kell0618]

What does the Catholic Church teach about Mary and her perpetual virginity?

• The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as aeiparthenos (i.e. ever-virgin). For example, an anathema against the ‘three chapters’ condemns those who deny:

   that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God       came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy       and glorious Mary, mother of God and        **ever-virgin**,       and was born from her ...

• Though not an Ecumenical Council, the Lateran Council of 649 convened by Pope Martin I also issued an important statement affirming Mary's lifelong virginity:

   If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers,       confess truly and properly that holy Mary,        **ever virgin**       and immaculate, is Mother of God, since in this latter       age she conceived in true reality without human seed       from the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before       the ages was born of God the Father, and gave birth to       Him without corruption, her virginity remaining equally       inviolate after the birth, let him be condemned. [Source](http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html)

%between%

510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).Source

The Holy Catholic Church has the blessing of being around for 2000 years. We had much benefit from the writings of people who knew Christ personally as well as those who came after these people. We look to the Early Church Fathers for much information and the Church has always weighed Scripture alongside Traditions handed down from the Fathers. (Would you take your great-grandfather’s word for something he witnessed first-hand or would you beg for him to show you documentation first?)

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception issued in 1950 is where you will find Mary’s perpetual virginity highlighted.

Finally, there are several Old Testament images that are offered in support of virginity in partu. St. Ambrose in the above letter refers to Mary as the closed gate of Ezekiel 44:2. Isaiah 66:7 refers to the delivery of a male child born without labor pains. Lastly there is the reference in the Song of Songs (4:12) to the bride being an enclosed garden and a sealed fountain.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I’ll take it as this defination of “dogma”:

a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Your denomination’s belief is your denomination’s belief. Either way, it doesn’t effect our Salvation wether she remained a virgin or not. What Mary’s virginity said that another prophecy had been fulfilled.

And the Catholic Church’s belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is something that the earliest Christians, taught directly by the apostles who knew Mary, believed. I think they’d know something about it.

 

[believers]

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus quotes the Psalms

Jhn 15:25
But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Psa 69:4
They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.

Jhn 2:16-17
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psa 69:4-9
Psa 69 (4) They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away. (5) O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (6) Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.(7) Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. (8) I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. (9) For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

And the Catholic Church’s belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is something that the earliest Christians, taught directly by the apostles who knew Mary, believed. I think they’d know something about it.

Not only that, but those early Christians personally KNEW
those who were called “Brethren” and “sisters” of the Lord.
Mary’s perpetual virginity is a belief that goes all the way back to that very time, and could never have gotten off the ground if the early church knew that those brethren were children of Mary’s womb.

Out of ALL the early church’s ancient writers, only two
ever suggested such a thing, and the whole church rose up against those statements by Tertullian and Vigilatius.
Besides, they lived nowhere near the Jerusalem Church and could have honestly been mistaken. The early church spread out from Jerusalem by the apostles in the first century A.D. all over the empire, yet the entire early Church belived that Mary herself gave birth to NO other children. That would not and could not have been the case if she HAD given birth to other children.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4

 

[Sabda]

Another thing to think about. How could Mary and Joseph devote their whole life to Jesus if they had other children? I don’t know about the others on here but I have more than one child. It is IMPOSSIBLE to remain focused on only one child. ESPECIALLY when it comes to older children versus younger getting attention. The younger ones are, for the most part, going to be getting most of the parent’s attention. Since we know that Jesus was the first born than that means that as soon as the other children came along he would have been been taken out of the spotlight, so to speak. Mary and Joseph, knowing darn good and well who Jesus was, would have wanted to give him their whole attention. That meant no other children. Another way to put it is that they gave up their whole life to Jesus at the expense of having other children.

I’ve noticed that no one seems interested in responding to Numbers 30.

I’m aware that the NIV does not add abstinence to the sentence. Interestingly enough Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance confirms the NABs translation on this, so the chapter is dealing with vows of abstinence. Not just vows of any old nature.

 

[LJN21]

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus quotes the Psalms

Jhn 15:25
But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Psa 69:4
They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.

Jhn 2:16-17
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psa 69:4-9
Psa 69 (4) They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away. (5) O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (6) Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.(7) Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. (8) I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. (9) For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Do what?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

First of all, that is a psalm of David.
It applies in some aspects, prophetically, to Jesus of course.
But even scripture does not record that David was LITERALLY cast off my his mother’s sons!! This is a form of hyperbolic speaking here. Or are you suggesting that the only was Jesus could BE the Messiah is IF Mary had other kids?!?!?!?!?!?

Have you read all of Psalm 69 ?? The author speaks of his guilt.
Jesus had no sin and no guilt, so obviously ALL of Psalm 69 cannot LITERALLY be applied to Jesus !!

Look, in Luke’s Gospel, the Holy Spirit calls Joseph “a just man” or “a righteous man.” There are few men singled out in scripture with such explicit declaration of their righteousness in God’s eyes.
Thus, Saint Joseph was a very, very, holy man.
NOW. An angel came to him and TOLD HIM that his spouse Mary was pregnant by God the Holy Ghost and therefore not to be afraid to bring her into the home (in other words, she was not guilty of any sinful act). Drive the point home: she was pregnant BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. And you can BET that Joseph and Mary spoke to each other shortly thereafter. BOTH of them had been told that this child had NO human father, was conceived by THE HOLY SPIRIT and was the VERY SON of God the Father Himself.
THAT makes Mary’s womb “hallowed ground,” so to speak.
There is no way that Joseph, a righteous man filled with awe at the utter holiness of God, would ever consider putting his own seed into the womb that held God the Son of God Himself. No righteous man would. Moses took off his shoes on the holy ground where the Angel of the Lord appeared to him. In Mary’s case, God the Son of God, Himself, was living in Mary’s womb by the operation of the Holy Spirit. That “womb,” that “hallowed ground” could never be regarded by Joseph as common for the bearing of regular human beings after that. Moreover, knowing the scriptures, Joseph would have realized that God had made Mary the fulfillment of the great Woman of Prophecy (Gen 3:15)
and the great Virgin prophesied by Isaiah who would conceive and bear A son. Remember, God Himself (the 2nd person of the Trinity) enfleshed himself in Mary’s womb as his holy tabernacle for nine months. No righteous Jew would touch her after that.
They’d have way too much respect. GOD had entered the world through her “gate,” and therefore no one else was to use that Gate.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4

 

[CCM08]

All the reformers believed in the Ever Virginity of the Theotokos. In fact this was never an issue until the 19th century when individuals with little or no education, some of them couldn’t actually read, started using KJV translations and declaring themselves qualified to interpret Scriptures for others.

Whether one accepts or not, the Church has always believe in the Ever Virginity. The Protoevangilum of James, whether St. James wrote it or not, is a very early Christian document clearly demonstrating Christian belief on the matter.
It’s also interesting that the Scriptures list other parents for the so called brothers of our Lord. The whole matter is merely protestant foolishness.

 

[guanophore]

I would like to hear how one can say Mary had perpetual virginity based on scripture ……

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

This obviously is a response from Mary to the angel Gabriel after hearing that she would give birth knowing that she had not been sexually active with Joseph or any other man. Of the four definitions of the original Greek word for “know”, all have the idea of knowledge except one that has the idea of a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse.

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Once again the same root word “know” with the same implication for the definition. The implication of the sentence is that he did not have intercourse with her “till she had brought forth her firstborn son”.

Please give me your opinions !!

Thanks, Partridge

I do not think it is possible. The reason we believe this is because it is the teaching of the Apostles that was handed down to us. Sola Scriptura is not one of those teachings.

 

[jmcrae]

“knew her not till” implies Joseph knew her after.

Gen 4:1
And Adam KNEW Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Also, Jesus was the “firstborn son” of Mary. That implies “secondborn son” or “secondborn daughter”.

Actually it doesn’t.

The Israelites were commanded to sacrifice the firstborn of the flock to God each year, as an act of trust in Him. The reason this was such an act of trust is that there was no guarantee that there would ever be any second-born of the flock - the “first-born” of the flock could be all there was for that year, meaning that they just gave their entire income for the year to God - at the time that they were giving the first-born in sacrifice to God, they didn’t know yet whether the flock would produce any more offspring that year, since (having just given birth) the ewes weren’t even pregnant yet with their second lambs of the year.

That’s how we know that the term “first-born” does not actually imply that there is any second or third born. Also notice that they didn’t wait for there to be any brothers or sisters before calling Judah the “first-born” of Israel - he was “first-born” even during the period of time when he was an only child. Also Isaac, who had no younger brothers or sisters, was the “first-born” of Sarah.

 

[guanophore]

Salvation. Through Christ, we are “justified” or “just-if-I’d never sinned”.

What does it matter, therefore, if Mary remained a virgin or not? Wether Jesus was an “only child” or if he was one of 10 kids, He was STILL the first-born, the child parents dedicated to God.

It has no effect to our Salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not.
What would probably matter is if Mary was in submission to her husband.

Well for Catholics it’s Dogma

What does affect salvation is rejection of the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors, just as much as the Dogma itself. Those that do not accept this teaching have rejected Apostolic Authority, and as Jesus said “he who rejects you, rejects Me”.

 

[believers]

First of all, that is a psalm of David.
It applies in some aspects, prophetically, to Jesus of course.
But even scripture does not record that David was LITERALLY cast off my his mother’s sons!! This is a form of hyperbolic speaking here. Or are you suggesting that the only was Jesus could BE the Messiah is IF Mary had other kids?!?!?!?!?!?

Have you read all of Psalm 69 ?? The author speaks of his guilt.
Jesus had no sin and no guilt, so obviously ALL of Psalm 69 cannot LITERALLY be applied to Jesus !!

Look, in Luke’s Gospel, the Holy Spirit calls Joseph “a just man” or “a righteous man.” There are few men singled out in scripture with such explicit declaration of their righteousness in God’s eyes.
Thus, Saint Joseph was a very, very, holy man.
NOW. An angel came to him and TOLD HIM that his spouse Mary was pregnant by God the Holy Ghost and therefore not to be afraid to bring her into the home (in other words, she was not guilty of any sinful act). Drive the point home: she was pregnant BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. And you can BET that Joseph and Mary spoke to each other shortly thereafter. BOTH of them had been told that this child had NO human father, was conceived by THE HOLY SPIRIT and was the VERY SON of God the Father Himself.
THAT makes Mary’s womb “hallowed ground,” so to speak.
There is no way that Joseph, a righteous man filled with awe at the utter holiness of God, would ever consider putting his own seed into the womb that held God the Son of God Himself. No righteous man would. Moses took off his shoes on the holy ground where the Angel of the Lord appeared to him. In Mary’s case, God the Son of God, Himself, was living in Mary’s womb by the operation of the Holy Spirit. That “womb,” that “hallowed ground” could never be regarded by Joseph as common for the bearing of regular human beings after that. Moreover, knowing the scriptures, Joseph would have realized that God had made Mary the fulfillment of the great Woman of Prophecy (Gen 3:15)
and the great Virgin prophesied by Isaiah who would conceive and bear A son. Remember, God Himself (the 2nd person of the Trinity) enfleshed himself in Mary’s womb as his holy tabernacle for nine months. No righteous Jew would touch her after that.
They’d have way too much respect. GOD had entered the world through her “gate,” and therefore no one else was to use that Gate.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4

Jhn 7:5
For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

 

[Mommyof02green]

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1917638&postcount=3

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1768779&postcount=9

 

[guanophore]

Jhn 7:5
For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

Here we have an example of that uneducated Protestantism that does not take into account the history of the church, the Apostolic teachings, much less their authority.

 

[jmcrae]

Jhn 7:5
For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Nearest male kinsfolk. If he had siblings, these would be blood brothers. If he had no siblings, then they are his cousins, uncles, etc. Have you ever had dealings with a tribal culture? My inlaws are Inuit - you would not believe the number and kind of “brothers and sisters” I have, due to the complicated nature of tribal relationships.

Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

This is David speaking. He said this because he became King while the rest of his family remained poor shepherds.

 

[believers]

Actually it doesn’t.

The Israelites were commanded to sacrifice the firstborn of the flock to God each year, as an act of trust in Him. The reason this was such an act of trust is that there was no guarantee that there would ever be any second-born of the flock - the “first-born” of the flock could be all there was for that year, meaning that they just gave their entire income for the year to God - at the time that they were giving the first-born in sacrifice to God, they didn’t know yet whether the flock would produce any more offspring that year, since (having just given birth) the ewes weren’t even pregnant yet with their second lambs of the year.

That’s how we know that the term “first-born” does not actually imply that there is any second or third born. Also notice that they didn’t wait for there to be any brothers or sisters before calling Judah the “first-born” of Israel - he was “first-born” even during the period of time when he was an only child. Also Isaac, who had no younger brothers or sisters, was the “first-born” of Sarah.

Would you mind quoting the scripture verses to support your answers? In other words, prove what you say with scripture, otherwise it’s a non-answer.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

Yes that is what Psalm 69:8 has to say.
However, let us take a look at some verses later in Psalm 69
Psalm 69:24-28:

Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them. May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents. For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt. Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

This is in sharp contrasts to what Christ said at His passion. At His passion (crucifixion) Christ said “Forgive them for they do not know what they do”.

Christ asked for our forgiveness, Christ asked our salvation. That was the reason for His passion. Psalm 69:24-28 reflexes the opposite of this.

Yes it’s true that there are elements of Psalm 69 that reflex the passion of Christ. However it’s not a perfect reflection.

Seeing it’s not a perfect reflection of the passion I believe that it’s not a perfect reflection of Christ’s family life. (i.e. having Siblings)

Therefore, I do not believe that verse 8 speaks of Mary having children.

 

[jmcrae]

Would you mind quoting the scripture verses to support your answers? In other words, prove what you say with scripture, otherwise it’s a non-answer.

Aren’t you guys supposed to have all this stuff memorized? Surely you already know these famous Old Testament stories - don’t you?

Exodus 13:2
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

Notice how it never says, “Wait and see if the mother gets pregnant again.” As soon as the man or animal opens the womb, it is to be given to the Lord.

Exodus 13:13
And every firstling of an *** thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Since we can’t sacrifice human children, of course.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

First of all, that is a psalm of David. The author speaks of his guilt. Jesus had no sin and no guilt, so obviously ALL of Psalm 69 cannot LITERALLY be applied to Jesus !!

Psalm 69:5:

You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you. (NIV)

What guilt did Christ have?

 

[LilyM]

What guilt did Christ have?

Guilt AND folly no less! :bigyikes: