What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[chessmane4e5]

Chessman in Blue, Dokimas in Red

1. There was a few posts that quoted Tertullian and Jerome. Tertullian as saying that Mary had kids, or was not a Perpetual Virgin; Jerome supporting that Mary was Perpetual Virgin. Well, I think everyone can agree that Jerome was a pretty smart guy, right? There’s a lot of smart guys that don’t belief in God. What’s you point in light of this fact? And we know that Jerome and Pope Damascus worked together compiling the New Testament. Are we to believe then that Jerome was not aware of all this “evidence” that was being included which goes against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? Especially those controversial passages which refer to the brother’s of Jesus?

My point was right after your comment. Do you think Jerome was intelligent enough to translate the New Testament into Latin and yet missed the fact that the New Testament contained verse that showed that Jesus had brothers and Mary had sons? The passages which are often cited as proof for Jesus having brothers, are fairly obvious. How is it that Jerome would be so careless in his defense of Mary’s Perpetual Divinity? (I don’t expect you to be able to answer this question without a doubt, but any hypothesis you might have would be insightful.)

1. Speaking of Jesus’ siblings. IF He had any, wouldn’t it seem likely that they had kids, who had kids, etc. Lineage is very important to the Jewish people, yet I have never heard of any claims. Surely some of the Apostles or Early Church Fathers would have known of this. Was it all a big cover up, possible led by the Apostle John whom became Mary’s son at the foot of the cross? Peter had a wife; I suppose we could conclude he had children; do we know of his lineage?

I am looking for my source, I remember reading at least the name of a son of Peter’s. Let me keep looking.

1. I am not a woman, but I was there when my first (second and third as well) child was born. It blew my mind, to say the least. Now I can imagine being Joseph. An Angel has appeared to me, explaining that Mary is going to conceive a son by the power of the Holy Spirit, his name will be Jesus, and he will save people from their sins. Now we can only speculate how much of this Joseph understood. Was this the Messiah foretold by God, or was this some other miracle of God. Either way, if I were Joseph (whom supposedly was already married and had kids), the last thing I would thinking about would be having intercourse with Mary.

Also, think about Mary (and maybe any ladies out there can back up my claims). Mary was a young girl, suddenly this Angel appears and tells her what is going to happen. Now almost everyone believes that Mary really was a virgin (I do, until Jesus was born just as Matt 1:25 says) and that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit (I believe this too) and not by Joseph. Imagine giving birth to the Son of God. (I can’t)

Do you have any kids of your own? I am sorry that you can not imagine this, as being able to put yourself in someone’s shoes is sometimes critical to understanding why a person acts a certain way or does something (like not having sex).

Imagine raising him as your kid. You would constantly be reminded of the time that the Angel of the Lord appeared to you. Sexual relations with Joseph had to be the last thing on her mind. (Are you a mind reader?) I am sure that if Joseph wanted to consummate the marriage, she would have, but as I stated above, I think this was also the farthest thing from Josephs mind. (again, are you a mind reader?)

Not a mind reader and even if I could Joseph is dead, so it would be absurd to think I could read his mind. But what I can do is imagine (or pretend) that I was in his place at that time and think about what I would have done. While this is not definitive proof (I hope my thoughts do not come off that way), it at least provides a reason. Most people want to just say that Mary and Joseph must have had sex, as they were married. I am sure it was a little more complicated than that.

Clearly this is all my opinion, but it is at least plausible. I know we live in a sex-filled world today, so it might be hard to fathom how two people could be married and not have sex, but if you knew what Mary and Joseph knew, would you have acted differently? (If sex within marriage is sinful, I guess I’d see things your way. In fact Paul may go as far as saying that not having sex with your spouse is sin – 1 Corinthians 7:1ff)

I never said sex within marriage is sinful. Paul does talk about abstaining for a period (this also helps to support the Catholic teaching on NFP). Under normal conditions, Paul is correct. But seriously, would you have intercourse with someone who carried the Lord in their womb and gave birth to them. Common sense is all it takes to end this discussion of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity once and for all.

 

[Radical]

I finally finished reading all the posts in this thread

Although I can’t remember all I wanted to say, 3 things have stuck with me.

… Are we to believe then that Jerome was not aware of all this “evidence” that was being included which goes against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? Especially those controversial passages which refer to the brother’s of Jesus?

Yes, Jerome found a way to explain those passages away, but he did not do so because he could trace his view back to the apostles. He claims that Ignatius and Polycarp held to the same views, but when he lists the books that these two wrote he lists the same 8 epistles that we have today…and there is no PV to be found in any one of them.

Clearly this is all my opinion, but it is at least plausible.

Your church shouldn’t require adherence to the merely plausible

P.S. for those Sola Scriptura or Bible takes precedence over Tradition posters:
1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

well 1 Cor 11:2 actually says: * I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.*

First, you will need to provide us with those exact teachings that Paul gave the Corinthians…word for word from the Greek and, of course, your source…Once you have done that, we can see if your church has held those teachings “just as they were passed on”, or if those teachings were changed and others were fabricated.

 

[Radical]

Hello, Aspirant…sorry to take so long to respond, life got in the way.

Reason does not allow a conclusion of “novelty” from an absence of evidence.

such is merely your opinion

Similarly, if I tell you that my great-great uncle Joe was a vegan, you cannot reasonably assert that this statement is a novelty unless you can produce some actual evidence that Joe’s diet included animal products. Without any evidence that he ate animal products, the most you can reasonably say is that my statement may or may not be so.

You need to improve this example…You should provide that you also claim that you heard this directly from your great-great uncle James, but we know that James died well before you were born. You have letters from Joe’s family mentioning that Joe came for dinner, but there is never a mention of any special requirements for Joe’s diet, and we can’t find anybody else that claims that Joe was a vegan prior to your claim (though you have managed to convince your younger brothers Tom, Dick and Harry that Joe was a vegan).

Only if you could present evidence that Christians believed the contrary could “novelty” be reasonably asserted.

No. In matters of history such as this we are dealing with probabilities. One must account for the 180 years +/- of silence wrt the virginitas in partu (VIP). Reasonable possibilities include:

a) The VIP was taught from the time of the apostles but any written accounts (prior to the Protevangelium of James) were lost.

b) The VIP was a novelty introduced by (or around the time of) the Protevangelium of James (PJ).

It is a question of which scenario is the likelier. You might point to something like the explicit teaching of the PJ and suggest that such a full-blown description suggests a non-novelty, but on that basis I suppose that we would have to grant that Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were not novelties either.

A great many things are not mentioned in the New Testament. So what?

It goes to likelihood. Are we to believe that Matthew went to the bother of mentioning the attendance of the Magi, but didn’t think that the miraculous birth process was worth recording? Are we to believe that Luke went to the bother of mentioning the announcement to the shepherds, but didn’t think that the miraculous birth process was worth recording? Are we to believe that the most likely scenario is that all record of the miraculous event from the first 180 +/- years was lost? When we come again and again to the consideration of Christ’s birth and Mary’s virginity in the early church fathers of the 2nd century and no mention is made of the PV of Mary,… when we come to the rules of faith set out by those earliest chruch fathers and no mention is made of the Catholic doctrines of Mary, the likelier scenario is that those doctrines are later novelties and that your inferences are merely wishful thinking.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Your church shouldn’t require adherence to the merely plausible

The Catholic Church doesn’t. I am not sure about any other church.

well 1 Cor 11:2 actually says: * I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.*

First, you will need to provide us with those exact teachings that Paul gave the Corinthians…word for word from the Greek and, of course, your source…Once you have done that, we can see if your church has held those teachings “just as they were passed on”, or if those teachings were changed and others were fabricated.

First, you obviously know it is impossible to produce any of the writings of the Apostles that are not in the Bible. If we had them, they would naturally be in the Bible.

Second, we have the writings of the Early Church Fathers, which according to Paul and others, is just as good. I know it might be easy to dismiss Tradition in this day and age, but I adhere to a source that you hold higher than Tradition, the Bible : “The Gates of Hell will not Prevail against You.” Since I believe that Jesus is not a liar, I hold fast to my faith in the Church He founded upon Peter.

Third, you need to provide us with the exact teachings from the Bible that it alone is the only Authority on matters of Faith. Book, Chapter, and Verse, please. I have provided you with as such, and there are more here scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[chessmane4e5]

It is a question of which scenario is the likelier. You might point to something like the explicit teaching of the PJ and suggest that such a full-blown description suggests a non-novelty, but on that basis I suppose that we would have to grant that Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were not novelties either.
It goes to likelihood. Are we to believe that Matthew went to the bother of mentioning the attendance of the Magi, but didn’t think that the miraculous birth process was worth recording? Are we to believe that Luke went to the bother of mentioning the announcement to the shepherds, but didn’t think that the miraculous birth process was worth recording? Are we to believe that the most likely scenario is that all record of the miraculous event from the first 180 +/- years was lost? When we come again and again to the consideration of Christ’s birth and Mary’s virginity in the early church fathers of the 2nd century and no mention is made of the PV of Mary,… when we come to the rules of faith set out by those earliest chruch fathers and no mention is made of the Catholic doctrines of Mary, the likelier scenario is that those doctrines are later novelties and that your inferences are merely wishful thinking.

Yes I am to believe most of those things considering what was going on. John the Baptist is preaching a gospel of repentance. Jesus comes to forgive our sins and die for them. Who are you going to explain to everyone that Mary is sinless? Everyone can understand why Jesus is sinless, He is God. But Mary?

Polytheism was a major, just as it was when God revealed himself to Abram. Never before in history had One God been the focus of religion. If it was know how special Mary was, people would have wrongly elevated her to God status. Now the Apostles are not only trying to preach the Gospel of Christ, but refute even more heresies.

Also, how likely would it have been for Mary to be running around bragging about how special she was? She was a lowly servant whom only wanted to serve the Lord. I know you will dismiss this and what I have suggested earlier, but if you take a minute to pray about Mary and think about what was going on, it starts to make sense.

 

[CentralFLJames]

First, you will need to provide us with those exact teachings that Paul gave the Corinthians…word for word from the Greek and, of course, your source…Once you have done that, we can see if your church has held those teachings “just as they were passed on”, or if those teachings were changed and others were fabricated.

No he doesn’t have to provide the exact teachings that Paul gave in Greek etc. since PAUL did not deliver them to anyone in Greek text. Paul in almost all case first SPOKE what he had to say on a visit then later wrote down what he had INSTRUCTED in a follow up letter so they would be sure to remember what HE TAUGHT ORALLY.

Catholics retain the traditional teachings that were passed down. Christianity has nothing in common with a legalistic or Pharisaical system and so your forensic methodologies don’t apply and will not lead to complete closure or will lead to wrong outcomes. Christian teaching was conveyed in person by word of mouth.

We Catholics have no reason to doubt what we teach is accurate as it us taught as it was handed down. It is only Protestants who are trying to reverse engineer Christianity from a distance of 2,000 years who need forensic evidence to disprove what was taught for 2,000 years. You are the skeptic - not Catholics. Yet you reject your best surviving forensice evidence - the Catholic Church itself! The Church is ancient. You are the one that is applying a legal methodology to ratify the faith not Catholics. Catholics have said all along that there is no written record of all that was taught. So it is you who must find evidence to refute what we say was taught orally and handed down. YOur only basis so far seems to be skeptism - but that is not good enough to slander the held truth. Good luck in your attempt to redefine Christianity according to an arbitrary legalistic-forensic standard to prove Christianity was something it never was.

The entire idea that Christianity can be reduced to text on paper is laughable since Christianity had always been a religion for trusting people. If you can’t trust the original Church fathers, the apostolic bishops then you have no hope of being a complete Christian since it means that the gates of hell prevailed and corrupted Christianity and it is a false religion. As such Christianity is simply not ever going to be a sufficient religion for skeptics and suspicious minded sorts who always must believe in conspiracies and invent conjectures to justify creating a new Christianity that never was.

This organic suspicion and lack of trust that pervades the corpus of Protestantism is ultimately what will be Protestantism’s downfall as they turn that on their own competing factions with that same suspicion. Christianity is built on a foundation of trust - not a foundation of suspicion and legal evidence. If Jesus wanted a religion that would pass a legal review he would never have bothered to hand select his apostles. Instead he would have just sat down and selected scribes to write a self-help book or rained down Bibles from heaven all over earth – along with a self-help book that teaches how to read too.

James

 

[aspirant]

Although I understand the theological “truths” argued in this thread, it seems PV is not consistent with the following:

Matt 1:20 “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Doesn’t the Church teach that husbands and wives conjugate or make valid their marriage through sexual intercourse?

No. We Catholics believe that the validity of a marriage is not based on consummation, but in the mutual consent of the spouses.

My point is this… at what point is doctrine or “truth” more important than Christian unity? Should we sacrifice oneness for correct doctrinal “truth”?

What good would “Christian unity” be if it was not rooted in truth?

Hello, Aspirant…sorry to take so long to respond, life got in the way.

No worries. I have been away myself.

Reason does not allow a conclusion of “novelty” from an absence of evidence.

No, it’s reason.

You need to improve this example.

No. As long as no contrary evidence exists, “novelty” is an invalid conclusion.

Reasonable possibilities include:

a) The VIP was taught from the time of the apostles but any written accounts (prior to the Protevangelium of James) were lost.

b) The VIP was a novelty introduced by (or around the time of) the Protevangelium of James (PJ).

Among others, like:
c) The VIP was taught and consistently handed down from the time of the apostles without being explicitly written about.

Are we to believe that Matthew went to the bother of mentioning the attendance of the Magi, but didn’t think that the miraculous birth process was worth recording? Are we to believe that Luke went to the bother of mentioning the announcement to the shepherds, but didn’t think that the miraculous birth process was worth recording?

For their respective purposes and audiences? Not only possible but, in my view, probable.

when we come to the rules of faith set out by those earliest chruch fathers and no mention is made of the Catholic doctrines of Mary

Nor would I expect anything of the kind. As I said before, I think the most surprising thing about the Protoevangelium is how explicit it is.

 

[onenow1]

Nor would I expect anything of the kind. As I said before, I think the most surprising thing about the Protoevangelium is how explicit it is.

Hi,aspirant ! I would also note if you don’t mind; in the beginning God created Adam and Eve free of any sin; so this would seem most probable in light of the divinity of Jesus, where Jesus is, there is the Trinity. I find it hard to believe some of our seperated brethern have dissmissed Mary as only a vessel, not worth mentioning except at Christmas ? This diversion of the reality of Mary’s role, undermines the Gospel story in Luke. I think the reality is if Jesus in His Divine Humanity places Mary at the same level as us, I think everyone should wonder just how important is human kind, if His Mother is nothing more than a vessel to be used.

Luke 22:27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves

“Mary” the first to serve the Lord, from birth to death in the new covenant in the blood of Jesus received from Mary, through the Holy Spirit.

God Bless
My 2 cents worth onenow1

 

[Joshua27]

Interestingly, I would like to point out that the Gospel writers misunderstood the ancient scripture (old testament) as it prophesied about the Messiah, when they were writing their accounts of the Messiah:

The word “Alma” (young woman) is mistranslated into “virgin”, while the true word for “virgin” is “Bethulah”.

Alma (young woman) is use 7 times in the bible, while Bethulah (virgin) is used 50 times, and either word is never used interchangeably.

Isaiah 7:14

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman [alma] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.”

There is never a discription of her viginity from the word used…just that she would be a young woman.

Of course, if this thread is going to ignoring the old testament prophesy that the gospel writers exclusively relied on (when writing their accounts), then my post doesn’t apply to this theological discussion.

 

[Dokimas]

Interestingly, I would like to point out that the Gospel writers misunderstood the ancient scripture (old testament) as it prophesied about the Messiah, when they were writing their accounts of the Messiah:

The word “Alma” (young woman) is mistranslated into “virgin”, while the true word for “virgin” is “Bethulah”.

Alma (young woman) is use 7 times in the bible, while Bethulah (virgin) is used 50 times, and either word is never used interchangeably.

Isaiah 7:14

There is never a discription of her viginity from the word used…just that she would be a young woman.

Of course, if this thread is going to ignoring the old testament prophesy that the gospel writers exclusively relied on (when writing their accounts), then my post doesn’t apply to this theological discussion.

Did they misunderstand Mary when she was confused about being pregnant and not having ‘known’ a man yet?​

BTW, did the Holy Spirit misunderstand what the OT said?​

There is at least one important reason that Mary had to be a virgin until she gave birth: because there would be no other way to prove that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Deacon_Latif]

If you will permit me to give you my perspective as a traditionalist Lutheran. The perpetual virginity of the Mother of God is both important and significant.

Its importance is that it befits the purity and holiness of the living temple of the Incarnation of our Lord. Ezekiel 44 can be instructive here, I think, for the temple which the prophet describes for us in that chapter has a portal which no man enters, for it is reserved for the Lord Himself to enter in by it, and it remains shut. Ezekiel, in this typological description of the Temple, is showing us that the womb of the Virgin Mother of God, is closed, clauso utero. Our Lord truly entered the world through it, yet without opening it. By faith we accept this paradox. Likewise, after His resurrection, He truly entered the closed room.

Its significance, I suggest, lies in the fact that Mary is the great type of the Church. What is true of her is true of us spiritually. Or as the seventeenth century poet George Herbert wrote:

How well her name an Army doth present
In whom the Lord of hosts did pitch His tent.
Latif

 

[CentralFLJames]

If you will permit me to give you my perspective as a traditionalist Lutheran. The perpetual virginity of the Mother of God is both important and significant.

Its importance is that it befits the purity and holiness of the living temple of the Incarnation of our Lord. Ezekiel 44 can be instructive here, I think, for the temple which the prophet describes for us in that chapter has a portal which no man enters, for it is reserved for the Lord Himself to enter in by it, and it remains shut. Ezekiel, in this typological description of the Temple, is showing us that the womb of the Virgin Mother of God, is closed, clauso utero. Our Lord truly entered the world through it, yet without opening it. By faith we accept this paradox. Likewise, after His resurrection, He truly entered the closed room.

Its significance, I suggest, lies in the fact that Mary is the great type of the Church. What is true of her is true of us spiritually. Or as the seventeenth century poet George Herbert wrote:

How well her name an Army doth present
In whom the Lord of hosts did pitch His tent.
Latif

Indeed - the topology of Mary is all through the OT. Catholics (and Orthodox) have seen this for over a millennium. I mentioned some of it here in this very thread topic under post CFLJames #205

Mary is without a doubt prefigured in the OT literature. She is each of the strong Jewish heroines, Daughter Zion, Arc of the Covenant. New Eve, etc. More here: Mary in Scripture

James

 

[Good_Fella]

If you will permit me to give you my perspective as a traditionalist Lutheran. The perpetual virginity of the Mother of God is both important and significant.

Its importance is that it befits the purity and holiness of the living temple of the Incarnation of our Lord. Ezekiel 44 can be instructive here, I think, for the temple which the prophet describes for us in that chapter has a portal which no man enters, for it is reserved for the Lord Himself to enter in by it, and it remains shut. Ezekiel, in this typological description of the Temple, is showing us that the womb of the Virgin Mother of God, is closed, clauso utero. Our Lord truly entered the world through it, yet without opening it. By faith we accept this paradox. Likewise, after His resurrection, He truly entered the closed room.

Its significance, I suggest, lies in the fact that Mary is the great type of the Church. What is true of her is true of us spiritually. Or as the seventeenth century poet George Herbert wrote:

How well her name an Army doth present
In whom the Lord of hosts did pitch His tent.
Latif

Thank you for the beautiful verse.
*
A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.*
Songs 4, 12

Pax Christu :heaven:

 

[aspirant]

Interestingly, I would like to point out that the Gospel writers misunderstood the ancient scripture (old testament) as it prophesied about the Messiah, when they were writing their accounts of the Messiah:

The word “Alma” (young woman) is mistranslated into “virgin”, while the true word for “virgin” is “Bethulah”.

This translation was not, as you seem to think, original to the gospel writers. Jews translated the Hebrew almah in Isaiah 7 into Greek as “virgin” (parthenos) between the 3rd and 2nd centuries before Christ. This was the translation used by Greek-speaking Jews from that time through the first century AD, and highly esteemed among Jewish scholars. So when the Gospels were written, they simply reproduced what the accepted Greek translation of Isaiah already said.

If you will permit me to give you my perspective as a traditionalist Lutheran. The perpetual virginity of the Mother of God is both important and significant…

I agree regarding both the OT typology and the ecclesial typology. Thank you for your post, brother.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, you will need to provide us with those exact teachings that Paul gave the Corinthians…word for word from the Greek and, of course, your source…Once you have done that, we can see if your church has held those teachings “just as they were passed on”, or if those teachings were changed and others were fabricated.

No, actually, we don’t.

The question of whether or not the Catholic Church has successfully adhered to the Word of God is a SEPARATE question from whether the Church SHOULD adhere to the Word of God passed on by “word of mouth or by letter.”

Your demand for “those exact teachings…word for word from the Greek” is simply an attempt to divert the discussion into waters that are less choppy for you.

I’m actually surprised that you would attempt such a thing so transparently. Maybe I shouldn’t be…

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. In matters of history such as this we are dealing with probabilities. One must account for the 180 years +/- of silence wrt the virginitas in partu (VIP). Reasonable possibilities include:

a) The VIP was taught from the time of the apostles but any written accounts (prior to the Protevangelium of James) were lost.

b) The VIP was a novelty introduced by (or around the time of) the Protevangelium of James (PJ).

Isn’t it also possible that no one thought to write about something that everyone took for granted?

 

[Radical]

The question of whether or not the Catholic Church has successfully adhered to the Word of God is a SEPARATE question from whether the Church SHOULD adhere to the Word of God passed on by “word of mouth or by letter.”

Randy, you are missing the point…The apostles said things which they did not write down, but it is begging the question to assume that the PV of Mary was included in those unrecorded things. The question we are asking here is whether the PV of M is part of the inspired teaching of God that was passed on.

Your demand for “those exact teachings…word for word from the Greek” is simply an attempt to divert the discussion into waters that are less choppy for you.

No…it shows that you can’t even begin to show what the apostles taught (outside of the Bible)…let alone demonstrating that they taught the PV of M. It is all based on your one big step of faith which assumes that whatever the CC teaches was once taught by the apostles. Your cohorts sing a similar chorus:

CentralFLJames:

If you can’t trust the original Church fathers, the apostolic bishops then you have no hope of being a complete Christian since it means that the gates of hell prevailed and corrupted Christianity and it is a false religion.

chessmane4e5:

I know it might be easy to dismiss Tradition in this day and age, but I adhere to a source that you hold higher than Tradition, the Bible : “The Gates of Hell will not Prevail against You.” Since I believe that Jesus is not a liar, I hold fast to my faith in the Church He founded upon Peter.

It seems that they are inclined to reason in a circle that goes like:

…because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error, the Catholic Church must be right when it claims that the promise that the “Gates of Hell will not Prevail” means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error and therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

 

[Radical]

I had said:

No. In matters of history such as this we are dealing with probabilities. One must account for the 180 years +/- of silence wrt the virginitas in partu (VIP). Reasonable possibilities include:

a) The VIP was taught from the time of the apostles but any written accounts (prior to the Protevangelium of James) were lost.

b) The VIP was a novelty introduced by (or around the time of) the Protevangelium of James (PJ).

Isn’t it also possible that no one thought to write about something that everyone took for granted?

That is merely a subclass of (a)…it would still have to be taught and passed on somehow, but you seem to be suggesting that there would/could be few if any written accounts that needed to be lost.

Why would that be likely? The suggestion that “There was no need to write it down b/c everyone took it for granted”…seems like question begging again.

 

[Good_Fella]

If my literal reading of Scripture is blinding me from truth is your literal understanding of the Bread and Wine turing into the literal Body and Blood of Jesus keeping you from truth?

This is a single verse which is clearly obvious that Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively, or else Jesus would have explained what he may have really meant when many of his followers deserted him on account of his words. When reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense, besides the literal sense, we have to take the Bible as a whole into perspective. We mustn’t arbitrarily isolate single passages as you do to accommodate our preconceived notions. This approach of affirmation amounts to begging the question, a fallacy one can easily stumble upon by rationalistically proof-reading the Scriptural texts.

To fully understand Mary’s position with God in the hypostatic order of redemption we have to refer to the Old Testament and Israel’s position with God. Once we perceive that Mary is a type of Israel, we can see the reason for her perpetual virginity. The Judeo-Christians of the time shortly after Mary’s dormition, at which point the Gospels and Epistles were wriiten, were aware that the mother of our Lord was ever-virgin by oral tradition: the preaching of the Apostles and the living testimony of witnesses. As former devout Jews they could readily appreciate the connection the apostles drew between Mary (of the house of Judah) and Israel. The Gospel of Luke confirms a sacred tradition that had already existed in the Church before the evangelist penned his gospel, a tradition established by the Apostles themselves through their preaching, that Mary is the personification of Daughter Zion, the virgin bride of God. Our Lady’s pre-eminent position with God presupposes her perpetual virginity.​

2 Sam 6:6 ¶ And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled.

But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God.
2 Samuel 6, 7

The earthly ark (a copy of the real One in Heaven), which **was cleansed **by the blood of the sacrifice, held the mercy seat with the angels. The Presence of God dwelt between the angels above the mercy seat. If the earthly ark was cleanse, if Mary was an ark, the Blood of the Lamb would cleanse her too. However, Mary was not the ark, Jesus, IMO, is the ark. The tabernacle was a WONDERFUL picture of Jesus, who He is and what His ministry was all about, including the ark.

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the Ten Commandments, a pot of manna, and Aaron’s fruited almond rod. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word who was with God and is God, the Bread of Life and true Manna come down from heaven, and the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. Mary was cleansed by the blood of the Lamb at the first instant of her conception, the precise moment when God fashioned her soul and she was formed to become the worthy mother of our Lord according to God’s precise specifications. Infinite perfection is an attribute of God’s infinite being. In his infinite perfection, God has efficaciously willed that the mother of his Incarnate Self be the perfect mother for him. Mary could not have met God’s prerequisite if she had been created in the state of original sin.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus (ante.A.D. 235)

St. John had his vision of the woman in heaven immediately after he envisioned the ark. The two objects of his vision are inseparable.

PAX :heaven:

 

[CentralFLJames]

It seems that they are inclined to reason in a circle that goes like:

…because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error, the Catholic Church must be right when it claims that the promise that the “Gates of Hell will not Prevail” means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error and therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

It seems that the opponents of the full Christian faith and of intellect illumined by faith and of plainly spoken biblical truth are inclined to a walk their dogma around the moebius strip in an endless chase of its own tail like this:

'Because man is fallable and entirely corrupted by original sin man can not not know truth on his own unless he is one of the elect of God (we think and presume we “Reformers” are all of the elect). It is the elect who will by grace come to realize that anything taught by man is corrupt and therefor all the Catholic Church teaches is corrupt since we elect say it is so and will have it so (and if your papist objects tell him Dr. Martin Luther will have it so). Therefor, we elect will reform the corrupt church in our own totally depraved condition trusting that God will give us the grace to overcome our totally depraved intellect so that we may perfectly reform it as we see fit. The Catholic could not do this themselves since the are not the elect. Ergo, we are exempted from fallibility (at least temporally while we reform the Church) to save God’s people from corruption since it is clear to even us totally depraved men that Satan took charge of The Church immediately after the resurrection and we are called to be the rescuers of Christianity. Therefor any dogmas we do not solemnly proclaim as true are by definition corrupt since God ordains this (if we say so ourselves). Forget that not one of us Reformers agree on any doctrines except: 1) that the pope has no authority and; 2) the bible is the one rule of faith and; 3) that by faith alone in our infallable decrees spoken by God’s grace that one is saved (all except of course Catholics who can not have real faith since they are not of the elect and don’t believe in a word we say), So have faith is Christ alone, ahh, and also in our new theology alone."

Please spare us the childish hyperbole.

Show us any other Church but the Catholic Church that was in continuous existence in the first millenium. The gates of hell have not prevailed because the Catholic Church continues to teach the same core apostolic faith it always has for 2 millennium. The gates of hell have nor prevailed because the Catholic Church has anathematized almost all Protestant belief as heretical and apart from Baptism and general Christian morality as materially “not Christian”. The gates of hell have not prevailed because there has never been a false teaching that has come from the Catholic Church and no principality or heretic has ever been able to silence the Catholic Church or overcome her. I’d say you are going against 2,000 years of success.

James