What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter shawn38
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy, doesn’t it bother you what was written in one of the post I commented on?
 
Dokimas said:
What did you ask for an assertion and then say you’re not concerned about it?
Click to expand...
Dude, shalom_molahs wrote:
Originally Posted by shalom_molahs forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
God tells us that Jesus was sinless and that all the rest of humanity has sin and so Mary had sin.
Click to expand...
Now, what part of that do you think I might take exception to? 😛
The Sacred Scripture existed when they were ‘penned’ by their authors. That was the 1st century.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I, too, have done a bit of study on the dating of the New Testament.

Will you concede that several decades passed before the first epistle was drafted and more than half a century passed before the final book was completed?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Dude, shalom_molahs wrote:
Click to expand...
Now, what part of that do you think I might take exception to? 😛
  • To be more thorough, I should have added Ro 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Thank you. I, too, have done a bit of study on the dating of the New Testament.

Will you concede that several decades passed before the first epistle was drafted and more than half a century passed before the final book was completed? No concession. All were written within the 1st century, last by John.
 
CentralFLJames said:
The scriptures prophesied “A Virgin shall be with child”. There is no prophesy that says The Virgin ever loses her virgnity as a result of having the child. And since the prophesy is special by being announced in the Old Testament scripture we can safely assume that regular and normal human conventions and norms need not necessarily apply (i.e. losing virginity at birth etc.); and we should neither add nor subtract from what was said in so assuming by conventional human norms. It would be wrong to assume that Mary lost her virginity due to childbirth since the way scripture reads it is almost presented as a title: “The Virgin”. A title given by God is for all time.

The Church recognizes that God’s word manifests itself to humanity in 5 ways.
  1. As Divine Word given to an apostle and conveyed to The Church as Sacred Tradition
  2. As Divine Word that is convey in written form by the prophets and Jesus’ apostoles that we call Sacred scripture (The Catholic Bible)
  3. As Divine Word in the very life example of Jesus as “The Full Incarnate Living Word of God”
  4. As Divine Word written into the hearts of all men so that all are always accountable to God through the natural conscience of right and wrong God gives us all (morality).
  5. As Divine Word from the Holy Spirit to God’s Catholic Church through revelation which gives greater insight into #1 and #2 (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture) when the Church is in need of deeper insights for the current times in accord with Divine Providence.
That said #3, #4 and #5 are all referenced by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. We take it all together as "God’s Word’ since God can write on paper, on the wind, on the heart and on Creation itself.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are entrusted to the infallable interpretation of The Church and is the only divinely appointed teaching authority for the entire world.

I need to correct something that is wrongly implied in your question.
The Scriptures do not teach in and of themselves - only The Church is authorized to teach the proper interpretation and to discover the deeper secrets and mysteries as the Holy Spirit enlightens The Church. So, it is invalid for anyone to try to self-teach from a private and personal read of scripture without being first taught the principals and core tenants of faith and being introduced to the correct teachings that were handed down to us by word of mouth and by written word (sacred tradition and sacred tradition) by authorized men of God.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary teaching comes to us from The Church which used a deeper revelation of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture as it was enlightened by the Holy Spirit. It does not contradict a single word of sacred scripture.

James
Click to expand...
:amen:
 
Muzhik said:
IN addition, one of the titles of Mary is “The Ark of the New Covenant.” If you’ll recall, the Ark of the Covenant was pure and spotless within and without. The Ark not only carried the Tablets of the Law (aka “The Ten Commandments”), but also a container holding the manna that fed the Israelites during their time in the desert, as well as Aaron’s rod. (In Numbers 17, each tribe of the Isaelites was to provide a staff or rod. G_D would cause one of them to sprout overnight, and that would be a sign that this was the tribe to serve as priests of the Lord. Aaron provided his staff for the tribe of Levi, and that staff “put forth buds, produced blossoms, and bore ripe almonds” [Numbers 17:8].) The Tablets represented the Law of G_D, the manna represented the Bread of Life, and the rod represented new life that brings good fruit. Touching the Ark for any reason without G_D’s permission brought instant death.

In Christ Jesus, we have a New Covenant, with the fulfillment of G_D’s Law, the Bread of everlasting life, and a new life that bears good fruit. Mary carried Jesus, which makes her the Ark of the New Covenant. It’s important to note that when Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth, she is retracing the route the original Ark took on its way to Jerusalem, even staying with Elizabeth for 3 months. (Zechariah and Elizabeth’s house is in the same neighborhood as the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. The Jews of the time would have known this, and the connection between Mary and the Ark would have been clear to them.)

Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the Ark of the Covenant was to remain pure and untouched, it is reasonable to say that Mary remained “untouched” throughout her life.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this beautiful note on Mary having retraced the path of the ark of the Covenant while on her way to Elizabeth’s home. I know Luke draws a few parallels between Mary and the ark, but I was unaware of the tradition of Mary following the ark’s path in her own footsteps.

:blessyou:
 

Why did Mary have to be a virgin? Well I guess one reason is because of prophecy, but that’s not the most important reason. Another reason is that God wanted there to be NO question Who was the Father of Jesus. There is a vital reason of sinlessness too. There may be other reasons.​

There isn’t a Biblical reason that I’ve seen that is consistent with Scripture that makes it necessary for Mary to be a perpetual virgin.
 
Dokimas said:
Why did Mary have to be a virgin? Well I guess one reason is because of prophecy, but that’s not the most important reason. Another reason is that God wanted there to be NO question Who was the Father of Jesus. There is a vital reason of sinlessness too. There may be other reasons.
Click to expand...
The prophecy could have been different.

No question? The Jews asked: Isn’t he the carpenter’s son?

The virgin birth didn’t occur because Jesus is sinless. Jesus is sinless because of the grace of union between his human and divine natures. If Mary had her own children before or after she conceived and bore Jesus, it doesn’t mean she would have tainted him with sin. But if so, the word could have become flesh without being made of a woman just like Adam. God can turn stones into sons of Abraham if he so wills.
There isn’t a Biblical reason that I’ve seen that is consistent with Scripture that makes it necessary for Mary to be a perpetual virgin.
Click to expand...
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
Luke 1, 35

Please see 2 Samuel 6, 6. 😉

Try reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense for a change. Your literal and shallow approach is blinding you to the truth.

“And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her childbearing.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 19, 1 (c.A.D.110)

PAX :cool:
 
Dokimas said:
There isn’t a Biblical reason that I’ve seen that is consistent with Scripture that makes it necessary for Mary to be a perpetual virgin.
Click to expand...
That is my sense of things too. Thus, I am having trouble understanding why the PVM is such a significant thing for Catholics, other than the fact that it is a belief that has been held for a long time.

If Christianity were a house of cards (sorry if it isn’t the best analogy), than it seems to me that the PVM “card” could be removed without affecting the rest of the structure at all. In other words, the house would still stand, it would not fall over. The PVM doesn’t seem to be foundational.
 
Good_Fella said:
The prophecy could have been different.

No question? The Jews asked: Isn’t he the carpenter’s son?

The virgin birth didn’t occur because Jesus is sinless. Jesus is sinless because of the grace of union between his human and divine natures. If Mary had her own children before or after she conceived and bore Jesus, it doesn’t mean she would have tainted him with sin. But if so, the word could have become flesh without being made of a woman just like Adam. God can turn stones into sons of Abraham if he so wills.

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
Luke 1, 35

Please see 2 Samuel 6, 6. 😉

Try reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense for a change. Your literal and shallow approach is blinding you to the truth.

“And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her childbearing.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 19, 1 (c.A.D.110)

PAX :cool:
Click to expand...

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?​

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.​

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.
 
First, would you please use the quote function properly? It makes responding to your post soooooo much easier when you do. Thanks.

Second, you wrote:
Will you concede that several decades passed before the first epistle was drafted and more than half a century passed before the final book was completed?
Click to expand...
No concession. All were written within the 1st century, last by John.
Click to expand...

Not what I asked.

When was the FIRST book of the New Testament written, and how much time had passed since the Ascension?

When was the LAST book of the New Testament written, and how much time had passed since the Ascension?
 
Dokimas said:
I really don’t want to any more attention to another persons post. If you can’t find it, let’s forget it.
Click to expand...
Okay. You said you had commented on something, and you wanted to know my opinion.
 
sablouwho said:
That is my sense of things too. Thus, I am having trouble understanding why the PVM is such a significant thing for Catholics, other than the fact that it is a belief that has been held for a long time.

If Christianity were a house of cards (sorry if it isn’t the best analogy), than it seems to me that the PVM “card” could be removed without affecting the rest of the structure at all. In other words, the house would still stand, it would not fall over. The PVM doesn’t seem to be foundational.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph is probably true, Sablouwho.

However, look at this from another perspective: if it were not for the fact that Protestants object incessantly to the perpetual virginity of Mary, Catholics wouldn’t spend so much time on the subject.

Consider this: Protestants probably spend very little time discussing the Virgin Birth amongst themselves except for an obligatory mention at Christmas time. The rest of the year…it’s just a given. Similarly, Catholics spend precious little time discussing the PVoM amongst themselves…it’s really just a given.

This forum, because of its very nature, tends to give the appearance that some subjects are more important than they really are.
 
Dokimas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mary is not the New Ark? How, then, do you explain all these parallels?

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)

The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)

A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
–Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11)
–In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)

The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14)
–John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)

David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15)
–Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)

The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth.
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.
 
Randy_Carson said:
First, would you please use the quote function properly? It makes responding to your post soooooo much easier when you do. Thanks.

Second, you wrote:

Not what I asked.

When was the FIRST book of the New Testament written, and how much time had passed since the Ascension?

When was the LAST book of the New Testament written, and how much time had passed since the Ascension?
Click to expand...
Sorry; I misread your post. However the earliest epistle is probably Galatians about 45-55 AD (less than several decades) and the last the Books of John, yes, probably more than half of a century after Ascension.
 
  • To be more thorough, I should have added
Ro 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Click to expand...
So, from this passage, you conclude that Mary was a sinner, that she could not have been immaculately conceived and the Catholic Church was wrong to proclaim the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If the Catholic Church is wrong on this dogma, then infallibility is disproved, and if the Catholic Church is not infallible, then why be Catholic?

Is that a fair summation?
 
Dokimas said:
Sorry; I misread your post. However the earliest epistle is probably Galatians about 45-55 AD (less than several decades) and the last the Books of John, yes, probably more than half of a century after Ascension.
Click to expand...
Great. Since Galatians is far from a full treatment of the Gospels, then can we conclude that for 20 years or more (several decades, in fact), the Church could not possibly have practiced sola scriptura?

Did the Apostles practice sola scriptura?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top