Salvation requires belief in Mary's Perpetual VIRGINITY?

[RebeccaJ]

Does that mean that Salvation is becoming increasingly difficult over time?

Only for people who see religion as a long string of unbelievable things that have to be believed in…been there done that, still struggle with it.

I have a hard time believing God has a checklist at judgment time…believed this, rejected that, doubted this, believed that, really failed at that, spent too much time working at this…80% grade is passing. If it works that way, I don’t think they’ll be too many people in heaven.

Beyond that, I myself work at believing things, like Incarnation. This sort of Mary/Joseph stuff is so in my periphery that I hadn’t even thought about it. But, I suppose if a couple work something out together, that’s their deal, not mine. I’ve certainly heard of stranger things than living as a brother and sister in marriage. Believing that someone lived this way is one of the easier things to believe, IMHO.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;2905341:

I saw that thread, you didn’t mention how jmcrae showed that you were incorrect on at least three of those verses. Yes, I read your counter arguments and remain unconvinced.

In discussing the Greek word heos hou, the Hebrew original is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the Greek word is used. It is not always used to imply that there is a change of condition. Your examples from the other thread showed that quite clearly.

But let’s get back to the topic at hand, shall we?

You can remain unconvinced. The evidence is clear and quite convincing to those who do not have a linguistic or theological axe to grind. In none of those examples did the situation stay the same, not a one.
The Hebrew original is relevant because there are few people who feel the Greek is inspired as it relates to the OT. Thus, putting one’s eggs in a secondary translation is only appropriate if one holds a very conservative view about biblical translations like the KJO folks do.
But what words the inspired writers, Greek for the NT and Hebrew for the OT, used is very relevant. What words people used in a translation, not so much.

 

[wanner47]

I think that God will take one’s intent into account at the time of Judgment… did one reject the teaching of Perpetual Virginity because of a disbelief of the authority of Jesus’ Church, or is it because s/he was genuinely confused about some aspect of the teaching? Was it ever properly explained?

In short, was the person consciously making an attempt to reject the Church with the rejection of that teaching, or was that not the intent?

God is merciful, and I think He will extend that mercy to our fallible human intellects as well, as long as we did the best we could to obey and uphold the teachings of Jesus to the best of our knowledge and ability.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

For Catholic teachings added over time

Actually you are incorrect here.

Catholic teachings are not ‘added over time’. Catholic teachings are more deeply understood over time, but there is no ‘new’ Catholic teaching ‘added over time’.

When it comes to the faith, everything that is ‘there’ today was ‘there’ at the time of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. The Holy Spirit guides us to deeper understanding so that the words we use to explain the Trinity TODAY may be more ‘in depth’ in our Spirit guided knowledge of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Three Divine Beings in One God, co-equal, from eternity, than what St. Paul or St. Peter may have spoken of. But the fact that Father, Son, and Spirit were all “God” and God ONE supreme being were known by the apostles. The ‘Trinity’ isn’t something “added on” to scripture.

Everything taught in Catholicism today as faith–please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church–was ‘known’, explicit or implicit, in Scripture and/or tradition (which NEVER contradict either other). Trinity? Read your Bible, it’s there. The eucharist as Real Presence? Likewise. The Virgin Birth, the communion of saints, the immaculate conception and more-- all there.

And for 1500 years nobody had any trouble with any of the above. Sure, the Orthodox may have used different ‘words’, or may have had a slightly different ‘take’ on things --the idea of ‘dormition’ does NOT CONTRADICT the possibility of death, and NEITHER contradicts the sustained oral teaching of Mary’s assumption --but until the full scale, anticlerical revolt of the first Protestants, no Christian ever believed that there was no Trinity (although Universalists and Jehovah Witnesses profess to be Christians and they do not). No Christian ever believed that the eucharist was NOT the real body and blood of the Savior (though few if any Protestants believe it today). No Christian ever believed that Mary was not ever-virgin. Luther himself, and Calvin, believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, though most Protestants scorn it today.

So, whose teachings are ‘added over time’? CHANGE over time?

Not the Catholics. . .

 

[newbetx]

I am one of the Catholics that responded that belief in Perpetual Virginity is not required for salvation. You are right that over half of Catholics voted either “no” or “don’t no”.

For myself, I believe this doctrine, but I have trouble accepting that I would automatically be damned for eternity if I did not. In fact I have trouble believing that adherence to this belief has any effect on salvation at all.

I’m listening to “The Gospel Truth About Mary”… Unless I’m confused, in it Tim Staples brings up this subject. His anology uses a T-shirt saying…

“No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus.” So yes, one is expected to understand Mary to actually know Jesus. Implication is that you must know Jesus to be saved. That said, the theif that was killed with Jesus was saved and he had no clue who Mary was. So if we’re looking for absolutes, I don’t think this is one of them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Are you SURE the thief had ‘no idea who Mary was?’

If I’m not mistaken, not only was the thief aware of who JESUS was, he also witnessed the fact that Mary was there by the cross, and that Jesus ‘entrusted her care’ to St. John. That would have pretty much ‘told’ the thief that this was the mother of Jesus (why else would He have ‘given her care’ to someone?), that she mattered enough for Him to give her care ‘to’ His disciple (a pretty safe bet the thief who after all recognized Jesus recognized His DISCIPLE too), and that she also ‘went to the cross’ with Him and suffered by His side. A woman of courage, of faith, of hope, and of love.

The thief knew her, as he knew Jesus. Even IF the thief had someone only recognized Christ as being somehow ‘special’, and had never heard of who He was or what He claimed, had never seen Him before, never heard a word of His teaching, never even heard of Judaism. . .by ‘knowing’ Christ the thief had discerned Mary, just as we see in any person the ‘influential person’ who helped shape him. No one lives in a vacuum. Christ was ‘taught’ by Mary and raised by Mary and the way that He spoke, thought and acted was thus influenced by that “mothering” of Mary, just as any human child is influenced by his ‘mothering’ , ‘fathering’, lack thereof, etc.

This does not give Mary ‘more than her share’. For it is only by Christ’s PERFECTION in carrying out the teachings she gave Him that ‘reflect’ back on her. IOW, we honor Christ EVEN MORE by acknowledging, respecting, and honoring the role His mother played in His life. We acknowledge His ‘humanity’ by realizing that He was a human son as well as a Divine Son. He is “God-made-man” not ‘man-made-God’.

 

[AgnosTheist]

When it comes to the faith, everything that is ‘there’ today was ‘there’ at the time of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection.

Read your Bible, it’s there. The eucharist as Real Presence? Likewise. The Virgin Birth, the communion of saints, the immaculate conception and more-- all there.

perpetual virginity - no.
assencion of mary - no.
rosary - no.
prayer to saints - no.
papal infallibility - no.

etc, etc, etc.

 

[Mannyfit75]

perpetual virginity - no.

When Jesus, Mary and Joseph (Jesus at twelve yrs) went to the temple. There are no mention of Mary and Joseph having other kids. Only Jesus is with them. If Joseph and Mary did consumate their marriage via sexual intercourse, surely the other children would be mention.

Instead there is nothing in Scripture that says they had other. Second, there is no Aramaic or Hebrew word for cousins. So the Gospel writers use brother and sister in its steed. Third, during the crucification of our Lord, Jesus gave Mary to John. John to Mary. If he indeed had other siblings, he would have given it to them. Yet, we know that the Beloved disciple is John.

assencion of mary - no.

Wrong. It’s not ascension. It’s assumption. Mary does not have the power to take herself into heaven. God does that.

rosary - no.

Rosary is a devotion and not required by the faithful to practice. It’s highly recommended.

prayer to saints - no.

We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. In the Book of Revelation, we have angels offering prayers of the saints.

papal infallibility - no.

Jesus said to Peter, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven. Papal infallibility is nothing more than the Holy Spirit protecting the Pope from teaching error.

etc, etc, etc.

 

[ericss]

When it comes to the faith, everything that is ‘there’ today was ‘there’ at the time of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection.

I don’t think I can agree with that statement. Certainly the bodily assumption of Mary, which is now infallible Catholic dogma, was not “there” at the time of Christ’s resurrection, since it occurred later. Unless you are making the reductionist argument that everything has always been “there” since God, being omnipotent, has always known the entire arc of history. But I don’t think that is what you are arguing.

What about all the miracles performed by the saints, or, for example, the appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe in 1531? Aren’t those articles of Catholic faith?

until the full scale, anticlerical revolt of the first Protestants, no Christian ever believed that there was no Trinity

I believe that is not correct. Isn’t the nature of the Trinity what the fourth-century debate over Arianism concerned, with those Christians who followed Arius believing that Christ was of a different nature than God the Father? I’m sure there are other examples of early Christians who had differences over the Trinity.

 

[wanner47]

I think your quote got screwed up; it wasn’t me who said that!

 

[AgnosTheist]

When Jesus, Mary and Joseph (Jesus at twelve yrs) went to the temple. There are no mention of Mary and Joseph having other kids. Only Jesus is with them. If Joseph and Mary did consumate their marriage via sexual intercourse, surely the other children would be mention.

its quite possible that joseph had insufficient sperm count.

If he indeed had other siblings, he would have given it to them.

hey we are discussing virginity here.

Wrong. It’s not ascension. It’s assumption.

my bad!

Mary does not have the power to take herself into heaven. God does that.

and the idea that mary assumed into heaven is nowhere to be found in the bible.

Rosary is a devotion and not required by the faithful to practice. It’s highly recommended.

catholics are not required to believe that the Rosary came from Mary? We are talking about belief, not practice.

We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. In the Book of Revelation, we have angels offering prayers of the saints.

'prayer of the saints" is a world of difference from “prayer to the saints”.

Jesus said to Peter, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven. Papal infallibility is nothing more than the Holy Spirit protecting the Pope from teaching error.

that was peter, not pope benedict.

 

[jmcrae]

“prayer of the saints” is a world of difference from “prayer to the saints”.

The Saints got the prayers from somewhere and then gave them to God. The most likely place they got them from was from people on earth praying to them.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The Saints got the prayers from somewhere and then gave them to God. The most likely place they got them from was from people on earth praying to them.

Thats quite a stretch, my friend. cant they just make prayers on their own?

 

[Mannyfit75]

its quite possible that joseph had insufficient sperm count.

This is a completely uncharitable comment by saying such things about Joseph. You ought to** practice charity**. You seem to lack it.

hey we are discussing virginity here.

We are. I also like to add that in the Eastern Tradition, it is believed Joseph was much older than Mary and was a widower and have other children before he wed her. This doesn’t contradict any teachings we have.

my bad!

You are human you make mistakes.

and the idea that mary assumed into heaven is nowhere to be found in the bible.

Revelation 12:1-5. The woman clothed with the sun is Mary. She appeared in heaven. We know Mary to be from the earth. How she got to heaven, is that she assumed. We know the woman is Mary because the male child whom she gave birth too will rule all nations with an iron rod and he was taken up to God and to his throne. This sounds similiar to the Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Assumption of Mary has Scriptural Basis. Pure Logic. I say.

catholics are not required to believe that the Rosary came from Mary? We are talking about belief, not practice.

Like I said, CC does not require a Catholic not to pray devotion. NO where does the CC say that the rosary is a belief. It is a practice. The rosary originally was reciting the 150 Psalms. Yes, Mary gave a monk the rosary. That is private revelation, which Catholics are not bond to believe much like the Apparition of Mary.

The rosary is a devotion not a belief and it not a requirement. Read the Catechism and no where does it state rosary is a belief. It is a meditative PRAYER…

Boy for an Ex-Catholic, it seems to me that you don’t know Jack about Catholicism. tsk tsk

'prayer of the saints" is a world of difference from “prayer to the saints”.

It is Biblical.

that was peter, not pope benedict.

Pope Benedict XVI is the successor of Peter. Therefore, he have the same authority. Jesus Christ pass down his authority to his Apostles, Peter first and then to his Apostles. I trust Jesus over your opinions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

This is a completely uncharitable comment by saying such things about Joseph. You ought to** practice charity**. You seem to lack it.

really, whats so uncharitable about that? barren couples are not uncommon.

Revelation 12:1-5. The woman clothed with the sun is Mary.

only by allusion (or a wide stretching of interpretation). rather, even protestants agree with the catholic opinion that the woman is the church…

newadvent.org/bible/rev012.htm

Like I said, CC does not require a Catholic not to pray devotion.

you did not answer the question. are catholics required to believe in the rosary? ‘believe’, mon. not ‘pray’.

It is Biblical.

prayer TO the saints is not in the bible.

Therefore, he have the same authority.

thats not in the bible.

 

[newbetx]

Are you SURE the thief had ‘no idea who Mary was?’

If I’m not mistaken, not only was the thief aware of who JESUS was, he also witnessed the fact that Mary was there by the cross, and that Jesus ‘entrusted her care’ to St. John. That would have pretty much ‘told’ the thief that this was the mother of Jesus (why else would He have ‘given her care’ to someone?), that she mattered enough for Him to give her care ‘to’ His disciple (a pretty safe bet the thief who after all recognized Jesus recognized His DISCIPLE too), and that she also ‘went to the cross’ with Him and suffered by His side. A woman of courage, of faith, of hope, and of love.

The thief knew her, as he knew Jesus. Even IF the thief had someone only recognized Christ as being somehow ‘special’, and had never heard of who He was or what He claimed, had never seen Him before, never heard a word of His teaching, never even heard of Judaism. . .by ‘knowing’ Christ the thief had discerned Mary, just as we see in any person the ‘influential person’ who helped shape him. No one lives in a vacuum. Christ was ‘taught’ by Mary and raised by Mary and the way that He spoke, thought and acted was thus influenced by that “mothering” of Mary, just as any human child is influenced by his ‘mothering’ , ‘fathering’, lack thereof, etc.
quote]

He probably did know that it was Jesus’ mother. I meant to imply that I suspect he had no idea about her virginity, emaculate conception, etc.

 

[Keikiolu]

A catholic said:

“Let me just put it this way. The belief in virginity of Mary is essential because this belief confers that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, and that she had no other children after Jesus was born.”

"Let me uses Jesus Christ own words. He said this to his apostles. “He who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you rejects me. He who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

The Church declare Mary to be a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus Christ. When the Church speaks, Jesus speaks also. Therefore rejecting this true is rejecting what he has taught. Jesus was given authority from the Father, His teaching is not his own, but from God, the Father.

End of Discussion. You cannot separate the teachings of the Church with that of Jesus Christ. Hence the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. He is the Head. So if a Christian deny this truth that Mary is not a virgin, then he is denying the very words of Jesus Christ himself."

Is this true? If you dont believe in the perpetual virginity, your faith in Jesus and your good works are for nothing? If you dont believe in the perpetual virginity, you cannot be saved? This means that every non-catholic christians (who dont believe the idea) are false christians?

Poorly worded question, Aggy.

It is only necessary to believe IF you have been presented with that information.

So,… it IS possible to not believe this because one is not informed in an authoritative way that it is true, and still be saved, in some mysterious way.

You have been informed. You must now believe it, or you deny Christ in denying His Church, and be held accountable as God wills.

No one can say you are damned, as that is God’s job,… but your apparent odds of salvation seem to be getting less and less.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AgnosTheist forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*its quite possible that joseph had insufficient sperm count. *

This is a completely uncharitable comment by saying such things about Joseph. You ought to** practice charity**. You seem to lack it.

OK,… I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record (for those of you who remember “records”), but where do YOU draw the line on when you put someone on your ignore list…?

My suggestion: This nonsense of Aggy qualifies quite well indeed for his being included on nearly anyone’s ignore list.

Best to you Aggy. May you find some spare “charity”, among other things, in the very near future so as to improve your image.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Poorly worded question, Aggy.

You have been informed. You must now believe it, or you deny Christ in denying His Church, and be held accountable as God wills.

yeah it was poorly worded as i did intend on implying ‘being informed’ by mentioning non-catholic christians.

and yeah what you said was basically what a number of catholics here said already.

so what do you think about all those non-catholic christians who have been informed? are they all rejecters of christ? how does that affect their afterlife? sure hell?

 

[newbetx]

really, whats so uncharitable about that? barren couples are not uncommon.

only by allusion (or a wide stretching of interpretation). rather, even protestants agree with the catholic opinion that the woman is the church…

newadvent.org/bible/rev012.htm

you did not answer the question. are catholics required to believe in the rosary? ‘believe’, mon. not ‘pray’.

prayer TO the saints is not in the bible.

thats not in the bible.

Show me where the word Trinity is in the Bible. Catholics believe a lot more than what is just in the Bible. Or a subset of it.

God lets us believe what we want. Agreed? We’ll leave it up to Him to sort us all out.

As I understand things, Yes, Officially you SHOULD believe a whole list of things. Some can accept blindly. Others, like myself, have to become believers (Like Thomas). Jesus did not love Thomas any less than the rest, but we are all called to believe the Truth.

The Truth, is the Truth and has always been the Truth. When and how us humans finally get the drift, is a matter of time. So if “we” didn’t “get it” until the 12th, 14th or 20th century, then so what?