Seeking the truth

[MariaG]

MariaG,
You brought up some very important information in this post, that I think is often ‘news’ to many protestants…that the original reformers did not question the perpetual virginity of Mary. You final statement might gloss over the importance of this question, however.

As a convert to Catholicism later in life, I think that this particular issue or question comes up repeatedly, and early on in any apologetic discussion, because at first blush, Scripture would seem to contradict the Magisterial (teaching) authority of the Catholic Church. If Mary did not remain ever virgin, it would seem that so many Catholic positions (Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium of the Church, etc) would start to ‘crumble away.’

On the other hand, if Mary DID remain ever virgin, then it would have to be admitted that the Catholic Church’s position in this instance was correct, that the idea of Sacred Tradition might have some validity, and that the Magisterial office of the Church might be right in asserting that it has the unique authority in providing the authentic interpretation of Scripture. In this case, many protestant positions start to ‘crumble.’

As another Catholic Answers tract on Marian Doctrines states: “Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.”

Granted, this is more true for the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The tract I referred to is here: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

rocketrob

Shhh! Let them figure that out themselves

No, but seriously, I know some very committed Protestants from this site and in real life who have no intentions of ever coming to Catholicism, but are very devoted the the Virgin Mother. Zoey, a Methodist on this site (I think), with her feline friends is one that comes to mind. She is a staunch defender of the Virgin Mary and has been so for some time, but to the best of my knowledge, is not signed up for RCIA nor plans to anytime soon.

I think sometimes people are so against Catholicism that to accept that we have anything right at all is completely foreign to everything they have been taught. And if even one person can start treating the Mother of our Lord with the respect that we both know our Lord wants her to have, even if they never become Catholic, it is well worth it.

God bless,
Maria

 

[Chergirl]

This proves nothing once you understand who these “brothers” really are.

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

---

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

---

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

---

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

---

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

---

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

---

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

---

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

**

 

[crazzeto]

Cher… Read through the thread it’s already been proved Mary was a propetual virgin here. But if you’re really seeking to continue this, perhaps it would be good for you to start lurking the immaculate conception / propetual virgin threads in the general aplogetics forum.