The not so virgin Mary

[Stouts989]

I often opine that Mary was perhaps the greatest theologian who ever lived. Who else could rely on over 3 decades of learning about God from God Himself?

It would have been cool if we had writings from Mary and/or Joseph about Jesus.

At the foot of the Cross, Mary shed tears. Not for her Son, because her will was to accept God’s will. That meant the death of Jesus on the Cross. Mary would have willed the death of her Son to fully accept God’s Will. Thus her tears were not so much for Jesus, as they were for us…

Why us?

 

[Tomster]

The posts have been great so far …

Let me just say … the Greek heous is clear but ALSO the word “until” or “til” in common usage can only be positively held for what comes before its limiting affect not future events … future events are always specualtive at best and open to other influences that affect outcomes … past events are open to evidentuary investigation …

Just as an example I can tell my grandson that I will take not take him to the movies until he cleans his room … when he has cleaned his room you can investigate the e evidence to show that I kept my word and did not take him to the movies [no ticket stubs, etc] or find proof that I violated that oath [stubs and popcorn grease on both our fingers]… but you cannot read into that passage that I immediately took him to the movies when his room was clean, nor the next day, next month, next year or ever … I could have changed my mind, wanted to take him - even intended to take him BUT was hit by a truck, had a heart attack or died. I may have lacked the means to purchase a ticket [ever]. OR I could have taken him OR I might intend to take him at some future time and place yet to be determined …

DEAR OP …

What did the original protestant reformers believe about the Mother of Christ? …

Can you [the OP] tell me what Luther, Calvin or Zwingli taught on this subject?

And why would a woman [espoused to be married] respond the way Mary did at the annunciation that she was to give birth to the Lord, mother the Incarnated Godhead … If she knew she was to have and intended to have carnal relations with her husband?

Having been over shadowed by the Holy Spirit in an intimate and once in a life time manner such that the result of the encounter was the birth of the God Child Jesus - why would Mary [or even Joseph] consider sexual intimacy a factor in their relationship? … Mary was intimately joined to the Holy Spirit - such that many early christian writers refered to her as the “spouse of the Holy Spirit” … you can see where this imagery comes from …

This is something I cannot understand … no days psychologists tell us that children are permanently scared from entering into healthy sexual relationships because their mother’s verbally abused them during potty training … yet Mary and Joseph had to have sex - even though Mary - a vigin - gave birth to God through miraculous means … they have to be just like the overly sexed 20th - 21st century american populace … and not to would somehow dishonor God, be disobedience to the command to be fruitful and multiply …

YADA,

I’ll let the original reformers do the talking.

First of all, the lion’s share of a discussion on Protestantism an Mary must be centered on Martin Luther, inasmuch as he is commonly acknowledged as the “Father of the Reformation.” Was Luther a devotee of Mary? At the doctrinal level, one finds Luther’s acknowledgment of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that is, virginity before birth, in birth and after birth, is explicit and he uses such formulas of Mariology as de ventre clauso utero, without the seed of man, ever-virgin. Luther accepts this teaching as a received assumption rather than a securely biblical deduction. In other words, Luther was not such an “absolutist” on the issue of sola Scriptura, as some might think. With Luther’s acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity came a recognition of the long established universal belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, which was endorsed by all the Reformers virtually without qualification. And furthermore, this position even found its way into the marginal comments of the Geneva Bible of 1560 A.D.

It is interesting to see how far Protestantism and all of its offshoots have strayed from the teachings of the “Father of the Reformation.”

It shoulds be added that the English strain of Protestantism all accepted the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and lo and behold they used Ezekiel 44 to prove that it was biblicly founded.

 

[MrS]

It would have been cool if we had writings from Mary and/or Joseph about Jesus.

Why us?

Why us? Perhaps because she is our Mother, and she weeps for the sins we heap on her Son.

.

 

[Scardinoz]

This is a very old discussion and people get to be very animated when discussing it.

Please excuse me while I profess my ignorance.

Why is the issue of whether or not Mary had relations with her husband after Jesus was born an important one? I had always assumed that she did simply because they were married and, from what I understand, that is common practice among married couples.

However, if they chose not to or even if Joseph passed so soon after Christ’s birth that they never became of one flesh, of what great import is it to us? Has it any significance two thousand years later, let alone eternal?

If, all of a sudden, we find ‘The Gospel According to Mary’ and it says at the end, “I had sex with my husband”, what real implications would that have on the Catholic church?

On the other hand, if it said at the end, “Jesus was the first and last of my children; I never have and never will have sex with a man”, what implications would that have on protestantism?

 

[MrS]

This is a very old discussion and people get to be very animated when discussing it.

Please excuse me while I profess my ignorance.

Why is the issue of whether or not Mary had relations with her husband after Jesus was born an important one? I had always assumed that she did simply because they were married and, from what I understand, that is common practice among married couples.

However, if they chose not to or even if Joseph passed so soon after Christ’s birth that they never became of one flesh, of what great import is it to us? Has it any significance two thousand years later, let alone eternal?

If, all of a sudden, we find ‘The Gospel According to Mary’ and it says at the end, “I had sex with my husband”, what real implications would that have on the Catholic church?

On the other hand, if it said at the end, “Jesus was the first and last of my children; I never have and never will have sex with a man”, what implications would that have on protestantism?

It has great importance.

The vessel through whom we received the Word Made Flesh is Mary. All Grace from God came to us first through the virgin birth.

At the very least we should honor her as much as her Son honors her. (4th Commandment)

At the very least we should be aware of the numerous “types” of Mary in the OT, and how they become real in the NT.

At the very least we should avoid any downplaying of God’s greatest Masterpiece.

.

 

[Canto]

Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2)

taken from catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6956&CFID=4859796&CFTOKEN=36084250

 

[GodIsGracious]

This is a very old discussion and people get to be very animated when discussing it.

Please excuse me while I profess my ignorance.

Why is the issue of whether or not Mary had relations with her husband after Jesus was born an important one? I had always assumed that she did simply because they were married and, from what I understand, that is common practice among married couples.

However, if they chose not to or even if Joseph passed so soon after Christ’s birth that they never became of one flesh, of what great import is it to us? Has it any significance two thousand years later, let alone eternal?

If, all of a sudden, we find ‘The Gospel According to Mary’ and it says at the end, “I had sex with my husband”, what real implications would that have on the Catholic church?

On the other hand, if it said at the end, “Jesus was the first and last of my children; I never have and never will have sex with a man”, what implications would that have on protestantism?

Scardinoz, you asked a question that even I wondered how it’s importance could be answered.

I found this article:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Very good read. Remember, even the early “reformers,” Martin Luther, and others mentioned in that article, still believed and upheld Mary’s virginity.

 

[Scardinoz]

Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God.

Theoretically, if Mary had sex while in blessed union with her husband, Joseph, would that compromise her purity of heart and total love for God?

If we found irrefutable evidence that Mary had relations with her husband after Jesus was born, what implications would that have for the Church?

Thank you for your responses. Please know that I am not arguing but learning and trying to gain an understanding that I have thus far lacked, and I suspect most protestants lack.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Theoretically, if Mary had sex while in blessed union with her husband, Joseph, would that compromise her purity of heart and total love for God?

If we found irrefutable evidence that Mary had relations with her husband after Jesus was born, what implications would that have for the Church?

Thank you for your responses. Please know that I am not arguing but learning and trying to gain an understanding that I have thus far lacked, and I suspect most protestants lack.

Scardinoz, if you had read the article I linked to, you’d see that Mary was a consecrated virgin. That means she had a vow of perpetual virginity. She made a PROMISE to God to stay a virgin. If she did not, then that would mean she broke her PROMISE to the Lord. Can you see the grave implications of that?

Joseph was espoused to her as a protector. Here is an excerpt of the article which also explains why it is an insult to assume Mary had sex simply because she was married:

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit

 

[Good_Fella]

Mary followed Jewish customs for purification after Jesus birth like any other new Jewish mother, the description in v 23 indicates normal physiological birth.

Mary did not need purification like other Jewish women, because her Son who was born of her made her clean. However, Mary faithfully chose to live according to Mosaic Law, that it may be fulfilled in all righteousness.

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

Jesus came into the world to cleanse us from the stain of original sin. I find it hard to believe, if not blasphemous, that he himself would be the cause of his own mother’s defilement.

A leper came to him and kneeling down begged him and said, “If you wish, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, “I do will it. Be made clean.”
Mark 1, 40-41

Mary conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, who overshadowed her. Our Lord is not the natural son of Joseph. Our Blessed Mother’s virginity was preserved intact during the miraculous birth of Jesus as it was at his miraculous conception in her womb. When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians, he intended to write Jesus was made of a woman, emphasizing the miracle of the Incarnation in all its fullness. The Incarnation was unaffected by the taint of original sin. As the antithetical new Eve, Mary gave birth to Jesus - not Cain, the first anti-Christ.

** Matthew 13:55-56** "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us?.. 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”

** Mark 6:3**

IN HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.

For the crime of Jacob all this comes to pass, and for the sins of the house of Israel.
Micah 1, 5

The terms Jacob and Israel are figurative here for God’s household. The Messiah was rejected by Israel, not our Lord’s alleged immediate family. Give us a break!

Then in other verses in Matthew differentiates between his literal brothers and his spiritual brothers:

Mt 12:46 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But He answered the one who was telling Him and said,
“Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

So someone says to Jesus, your mother and your brothers are outside, and Jesus points to his disciples and says** whoever does the will of My Father who is in Heaven he is my brother, sister, mother etc. **

Jesus stretched out his hands towards his disciples who were standing outside with his mother. He said: “Here are my mother and my brothers.” That someone in the crowd was referring to our Lord’s disciples as they were related to him by blood, perhaps his first cousins; since they were with Mary. Aware of this, Jesus meant to say: natural kinship with him amounts to nothing. Only those who do the will of his father are true kin of his. In other words, our Lord’s relatives (cousins?) mean more to Jesus as his disciples. The fact that they are related by blood is insignificant. Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and in semitic idiomatic usage the term “brother” (ach) can refer to any male relative and clan member, as well as a disciple whether he actually is related by blood as a relative. Meanwhile, the text fails to indicate that these “disciples” you refer to were inside with Jesus. But even if they were, it would make no difference. That someone in the crowd was referring to our Lord’s relatives regardless of whether they were actually disciples as well.

In John 2:12, again Jesus distinguishes between his literal brothers and his disciples:
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

The term brethren (adelphos) could mean our Lord’s closed circle of apostles as distinguished from his general close followers, or male relatives who accompanied Jesus, Mary, and the Apostles.

In Galatians 1:18: Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem… 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother

He did not see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s cousin. It would have been redundant of the author to write “except James”, the Lord’s apostle. James was a cousin and an apostle of our Lord.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Toribus]

Theoretically, if Mary had sex while in blessed union with her husband, Joseph, would that compromise her purity of heart and total love for God?

If we found irrefutable evidence that Mary had relations with her husband after Jesus was born, what implications would that have for the Church?

Thank you for your responses. Please know that I am not arguing but learning and trying to gain an understanding that I have thus far lacked, and I suspect most protestants lack.

Hi Scardinoz,

Just wanted to jump in and say that for Catholics, that question is… well, it’s nonsense?

Not trying to put you down in any way! Rather, let me explain by paraphrasing St Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas tells us that since it is not for man to fully understand the divine plan, but rather only that which has been revealed to us by God, we needn’t concern ourselves with contemplation of the verifiably false. That is to say, since we know by God’s revelation that he did really take flesh and “dwell among us”, then it profits us nothing to bicker about what might have been if God had chosen, say, to just forego the whole incarnation and say “ah well it was just fruit, I forgive you”.

So too here, Catholics accept on the universal testimony of the Fathers and unbroken Tradition (ie that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all) the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Therefore, Catholics aren’t even under an obligation to consider the possible implications of the situation postulated (ie the Blessed Virgin not remaining a perpetual virgin).

 

[Canto]

Theoretically, if Mary had sex while in blessed union with her husband, Joseph, would that compromise her purity of heart and total love for God?

While Mary no dobut loved Joseph deeply she consecrated herself to God. She made a vow of virginity. To break such a vow…

If we found irrefutable evidence that Mary had relations with her husband after Jesus was born, what implications would that have for the Church?

Don’t mean to dodge the question but it’s a mute point as there is no evidence. The word of God (written and spoken) is clear - Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Thank you for your responses. Please know that I am not arguing but learning and trying to gain an understanding that I have thus far lacked, and I suspect most protestants lack.

 

[Scardinoz]

It seems compelling to believe that Mary did, in fact, remain a virgin for the duration of her life.

GodisGracious: I read the article (catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp)
However, much of the basis of the article is the Protoevengelium of James and another article (catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9008qq.asp) says…

The Apocrypha is divided into Old Testament and New Testament works. The Old Testament Apocrypha includes writings such as 3 Maccabees, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, and the Book of Enoch. The New Testament Apocrypha contains works such as the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Peter, as well as various pseudepigraphical epistles and apocalypses.

Most of these books have little or no historical value. Since they’re not inspired, apocryphal books aren’t theologically pertinent, except insofar as they reveal popular Jewish or early Christian beliefs or heresies and help us understand the background of the Bible.

However, the seemingly consistent belief among early church fathers is compelling enough in its own right, especially as I have no solid reason to consider that she actually did have relations with her husband.

Thank you, again, for the constructive discussion. Debate is such a waste.

 

[MrS]

Thank you, again, for the constructive discussion. Debate is such a waste.

Agreed

Constructive discussion…

Just Debate…

 

[Peter_J]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches [snip]

Interesting that you go to catholic.com to learn what Reformed theology teaches.

The verses used in the counter argument are invalid though. (2 Samuel 6:23, and Deut. 34:6). I’ll use the same translations to parallel the previous ones.

2 Samuel 6:23
[NASB]
23 Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

[KJV]
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

[NIV]
23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

Actually, some translation do say “till” or “until”. See bible.cc/2_samuel/6-23.htm

An interesting word study would be to look at the Septuagint and see which Greek word is being used in 2 Samuel and Deuteronomy and see if its the same Greek word is being used in Matthew 1.

Yes, that would be a better approach.

 

[mark_a]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

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

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

To all my fellow Catholics: How in the world did we miss all this for two millenia? Thanks Stouts989. I’ll call the pope and let him know what you’ve discovered!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

+In the wonderful gift and blessing of the . . . "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" . . . entrusted to the Church . . . world-wide . . . during John Paul II the Great’s papacy . . . *(Imprimi Potest, + Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) . . . *this subject is dealt with at some length . . . Below is a portion of this sharing . . . for Holy Mother Church . . . prayerfully . . . guided by the Holy Spirit . . . has clearly . . . definitively . . . spoken to us in regard to your subject . . .
Mary - "ever-virgin"
[Section 499] "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”

[Section 500] “Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.”

[Section 506] “Mary is a virgin because her virginity is ***the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt,” ***and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will…”
Be very careful dear child . . . Stouts989 . . . the subject you have chosen to discuss deal’s with our . . . Crucified Lord’s . . . God the Son’s . . . very own Holy Mother . . . With all due respect . . .for devout Catholics . . . this subject is a . . . ***profoundly holy one ***. . . and the very way that you phrased your subject line . . . *to the heart of my soul in ***Christ Jesus ****. . . is distinctly . . . "not marvelous" . . . and immediately brings up the question as to whether you are really a . . . "seeker of truth" . . . or whether you are just out to get into an argument . . .

If you really are seeking . . . "truth" . . . then pray to our Lord Jesus . . . ***the Blessed Christ ***. . . for a deepening of your faith . . . and the guidance of the Holy Spirit into understanding the teachings and truths that our wonderful Holy Mother Church has opened up . . . and shared in some depth . . . and settled for God’s children in this matter . . .

"Let love be without dissimulation.
Abhor that which is evil;
cleave to that which is good."
Romans 12:9
:bible1:

God love and bless you with Holy Discernment . . . and may you listen . . . and hear . . . the voice of the Magesterium . . . and the voices of the Holy Saints and Holy Fathers in Holy Mother Church . . . on this subject . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Dear Holy Spirit of God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

---

Message of the Holy Mother to St. Bernadette at Lourdes, France

"I am the Immaculate Conception"

“[T]he Holy Saints and Holy Fathers in Holy Mother Church” are as incompetent to pronounce on this subject as anyone now living, since none of the Fathers was privy to any of the BVM’s gynaecological or obstretric details. The Fathers can posture & bully to their hearts’ content - & they did; just read Jerome ! - but they were in no position to know the facts. Therefore, their positive assertions to the contrary are worthless. We will never lack for moonshine & nonsense if we are guided by them.​

Useless arguments for the Perpetual Virginity are reasons to ignore or to deny it. The Catholic apologetic for it is so abysmal that its very unpersuasiveness is a reason to treat the whole set of beliefs as utter tosh . Catholics have to do better than serve up illogic & unreason & superstition & smart retorts - they degrade their own faith if they fail to, as well as insulting those they supposedly seek to persuade. People are are not all idiots, & if Catholicism has no solid reasons for what it claims to value, people are going, sooner or later, to notice.

 

[Jesus_123]

+:compcoff:
*Thought you folks might like to read what . . . Father John Corapi . . . the renown Catholic priest of EWTN fame . . . sent out in his e-mail magazine . . . received today . . . (highlights only) . . .the material is available in a new book he has written re Sacred Scripture . . . it’s available on his website . . . *

Dei Verbum - "The Word of God"

In my personal opinion, the best short series that I have ever produced is entitled Word of God. The subject matter of this series concerns what we call Divine Revelation. Another way to explain it would be how the Catholic Church reads the Bible. … :bible1:

… Put very simply, Divine Revelation is God our Father revealing himself to us in the Person of his only Son, Jesus Christ—the Word of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit. This revelation of God our Father to us in the Person of his only Son is at once ONE and THREE, like the holy Trinity. Wherever one Person of the most holy Trinity is, there the other two must be in virtue of the theological reality of what we call circumincession or the divine perichoresis. This is the basic principle behind our Catholic-Christian understanding of God’s revelation of himself to us.

Like the Trinity, revelation of the one God is Trinitarian in nature as well. God reveals himself to us by way of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching—no one of which can subsist without the other two. To use an analogy, God is not God unless Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and authentic Divine Revelation is not that unless Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. The three are one, indissoluble and compenetrated.

The knowledge contained in this enormously important Church teaching will go a long way in helping you to understand the Bible :bible1: and how to read and interpret it. …

The six talks in this series are:

**1. Divine Revelation Itself
2. The Transmission of Divine Revelation
3. Sacred Scripture:
Inspiration & Its Divine Interpretation
4. The Old Testament
5. The New Testament
6. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church **

****God bless you,

Rev. John Corapi, SOLT, STD****

*Nice to have an orthodox Catholic priest’s perspective . . . *

God bless . . .
____________

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart;
and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him,
and he shall direct thy paths.
Proverbs 3:6
:bible1:

. . . all for Jesus, Mary and Joseph+
​

 

[Canto]

“[T]he Holy Saints and Holy Fathers in Holy Mother Church” are as incompetent to pronounce on this subject as anyone now living, since none of the Fathers was privy to any of the BVM’s gynaecological or obstretric details. The Fathers can posture & bully to their hearts’ content - & they did; just read Jerome ! - but they were in no position to know the facts. Therefore, their positive assertions to the contrary are worthless. We will never lack for moonshine & nonsense if we ares guided by them.​

This Tradtion was handed down through the Church and the fathers believed and handed on this Tradition - and it didn’t contradict the written Tradition. St Paul tells us to hold onto tradtion wether written OR spoken. The fathers did this. It’s the word of God!

Useless arguments for the Perpetual Virginity are reasons to ignore or to deny it. The Catholic apologetic for it is so abysmal that its very unpersuasiveness is a reason to treat the whole set of beliefs as utter tosh . Catholics have to do better than serve up illogic & unreason & superstition & smart retorts - they degrade their own faith if they fail to, as well as insulting those they supposedly seek to persuade. People are are not all idiots, & if Catholicism has no solid reasons for what it claims to value, people are going, sooner or later, to notice.

All the non-Catholic arguments are easily refuted!!!

-Until - up to a point in time not after
-Brothers - not literal blood children of Mary
-First-born son - doesn’t imply others followed
-Blessed rather - Mary heard the word of God and kept it and was thus more blessed for keeping the word than merely being related to Christ
-my mothers sons - a quote from the psalms some use yet beforehand the same man speaks of his wrongs and follys.

What other scripture have you got to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity. May I be so bold as to suggest none?

 

[Primox]

The evidence is far too sharp to ignor - but perhaps God has touched my heart

Beginning with a special thanks to Canto and all the others who contributed,

This has been extremely enlightening. I had always viewed, because of Protestant scruitany and hostility, that Mary was a mere pon; a vessel to deliver what was Good to the world - the Son of God. I dismissed her significance on the grounds that she was human and only later was made Holy. But Jesus himself, Holy, became a man. I had been mistaken. Mary is my Mother. I feel foolish for having thought so crudely.

It’s these revelations that make God’s urging stronger to unite myself with his Catholic Church. Thank you, posters, for this great concession to my faith!

God Bless you all.