Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[benhur]

Best is to use the law of non-contradiction for discerning whether something is either/or or both/and. That is, when one is creating a false dichotomy.

For example, there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction when one says we should use Faith And Reason. Scripture AND Tradition. Faith AND works.

And the CC embraces all of the above.
Your pastor seems to be declaring an either/or.
There is no need to do this.

However, these things do violate the law of non-contradiction: one cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. So, for example the CC is either right about the 27 book canon of the NT, or she is wrong…??? "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son

She cannot be both/and.

Because that would violate the law of non-contradiction here.

Another example: either Mary remained a virgin in perpetuity, or she did not. There is no either/or here.

So that’s a good rule of thumb for embracing or rejecting the Catholic both/and paradigm, ben.

Thank you . Reminds me of two rules:.#1- I can’t be wrong, #2- If I am wrong refer to rule #1.

Understand absolute truth and either or. Thank you for explanation.

An example where posters sometimes use it :CC is either right about the twenty seven books, or ever virginity, (or really any CC dogma) or she is not the church Christ founded and is wrong about all.

I suppose there is not other option for CC.

Strong but brittle , not pliable.

 

[benhur]

You still have not answer the question, which was “You say you only believe what is in the Bible yet for the most part whenever you refer to the Mother of God you only refer to Her as “Mary” I do not see where you refer to her as “Blessed”. Why is that? The Bible says that all generations will call Her Blessed. Yet you do not, are you picking and choosing what you believe”

Quite literal aren’t we ? I won’t be literal and say you are wrong every time you you call your pastor , “Father”, so please don’t tell folk they must refer to Mary as Blessed Mary ,every single time, for fear of negating proclamation of her blessedness.

 

[JuanTomas]

Woundn’t saying one wants to remain a virgin after marriage be grounds today for a Catholic annulment?

 

[ericc]

I know you have been busy answering posts. But I think there are still some unanswered questions from our previous postings. Perhaps you have answered but I have not been able to locate your responses. The posts are moving too fast for me to catchup.

Let’s make it simple. Can you prove from scriptures that these half-brothers that you touted are maternal half -brothers and not paternal? Not conjectures, not suppositions, but conclusive. A yes or no answer would suffice. If yes, then chapter/verse as evidence and we shall move on from there. I shall refrain from hollering Church Tradition. We shall stick purely by the books eh?

Reminder. Conclusive, not one with possible alternate answers. I think you have conceded that the word adelphos is non-conclusive correct?

 

[YADA]

Woundn’t saying one wants to remain a virgin after marriage be grounds today for a Catholic annulment?

Not if the woman also was chosen to be the Mother of God Incarnate …

To attempt to equate the once in salvation history even of a virgin giving birth to the Savior of the Work to two people who rightly forfeited their will for their lives in order to be obedient to the Creator of the Universe [God] to the common marriage between two persons?

Now if two people entered into a marriage where they both had decided to live chastely and in accordance to the will of God - serving Him and Him only - forgoing earthly pleasures to be single mindedly unified in service to that same Lord … what make you think they would divorce and then seek an annulment based on the union not being consummated

It is a fact - read the Book of Numbers … that men and women made vows unto the Lord - …an unmarried woman could make such a vow and her Father had to honor that vow unless he immediately repudiated it … similarly a husband whose wife made that same vow - had to honor the vow unless he immediately repudiated that vow … so in fact - it is possible for a married person to take a vow of chastity and a single person … in those days it would not have been unheard of for a marriage of convenience to take place in order to provide something that each party needed - even if physical relations were not a part of the equation … in reality - similar marriages still occur

 

[ericc]

thetazlord:
I know you have been busy answering posts. But I think there are still some unanswered questions from our previous postings. Perhaps you have answered but I have not been able to locate your responses. The posts are moving too fast for me to catchup.

Let’s make it simple. Can you prove from scriptures that these half-brothers that you touted are maternal half -brothers and not paternal? Not conjectures, not suppositions, but conclusive. A yes or no answer would suffice. If yes, then chapter/verse as evidence and we shall move on from there. I shall refrain from hollering Church Tradition. We shall stick purely by the books eh?

Reminder. Conclusive, not one with possible alternate answers. I think you have conceded that the word adelphos is non-conclusive correct?

 

[Mystophilus]

When you do this, you realize that the “James & Joseph” who are Alphaeus & the “other” Mary’s sons are not the same as the “James & Joseph” who are Jesus’ “adelphos” who are also paired with Simon & Judas, & at least two unnamed half-sisters.

I never assumed that they were the same people. This is still all irrelevant to the topic.

In the OT, breaking of they hymen was more than a “sign” of virginity, it made a woman a virgin. The breaking of it “deflowers” them.

A. One can feel the presence of the hymen without breaking it; ask a gynaecologist. B. Where on earth did you get that idea from? It is not covered in the Bible, and contradicts Midrashim.

Origen referring to a gnostic source (which is also second half of the second century)

Nope: “Its earliest possible date of composition would be in the middle of the first century, when passion narratives first began to be compiled. The latest possible date would be in the second half of the second century” - Ron Cameron

isn’t anymore “proof” than the Protoevangelium of James is. Remember, Origen referenced this in the THIRD century. So, you’re getting FURTHER from the original events.

Sorry, but history is not about “proof”. It is about the weight of evidence, and we have more and closer saying that she had no other children than we have saying that she had other children. The mere fact that a text was not subsequently made part of the canon is not evidence against the historicity of its narrative.

Book 1 on pp.28-29; Book 2, pp. 35-36; Book 2, pp. 58-62; Book 3, p. 81; Book 4, p.134; Book 3, p.84; Book 3, p.97.

Eusebius did not have page numbers, and those are not chapter numbers.

Then what was “The Great Schism” in the 11th Century about?

A. Read the history of the Photian Schism. B. Read the history of the Filioque. C. Read what the Fathers of the East and West said about the whole Church. The Great Schism was merely the formalisation of a split which had happened many hundreds of years earlier.

I’m merely pointing out that using Christians who lived CENTURIES later who “agree” with you isn’t evidence that that belief is “necessarily” true.

Actually, the fact that the native speakers of a particular language have consistently understood a term in that language in a particular way is proof that the term means that.

So, majority = truth?

In linguistics, yes. Denotations are determined by consideration of collective usage, not by individual idiosyncrasy.

the consensus of the Greek Fathers

False! Eusebius cites otherwise.

Look up the meaning of “consensus”.

If it’s “ambiguous” then why have a dogma on it?

Look up “scholasticism”.

You are getting very far off topic here, and still failing to provide any demonstration of your claims.

 

[Cathoholic]

From our local area men’s Catholic Bible study (argument originally pointed out to me by Brother Marwil Llasos from the Philippines):

Let’s look at some other New Testament examples where the heos hou theme of the deniers doesn’t make any sense. Here’s another example.

A woman takes leaven (yeast) and puts it in her flour until (heos hou is used here) the loaf was all leavened.

MATTHEW 13:33 33 He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.”

So here we see leaven that this woman takes and she hides this leaven within flour.

She hides the leaven in three measures of flour. Now you know what I am going to ask.

Does the fact that the woman hid the leaven in the flour UNTIL the whole loaf was leavened mean she took out the yeast from the bread afterwards ? No. Obviously not.

But doesn’t heos hou NECESSITATE a change in status? No!​

 

[Cathoholic]

Considering . . . .

. . . It is not “dirty” to have marital relations with your wife . . . .

. . . and men commonly have marital relations with their wife—even when their wife is pregnant . . .

. . . . AND . . . .

Considering St. Joseph was told by the angel to take Mary “your wife” into his home . . . .

MATTHEW 1: 20, 24 (RSVCE) 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; . . . 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife . . .

MATTHEW 1: 20, 24 (NIV) But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "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. . . . . When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

. . . . WHY . . . .

Why do you think St. Joseph refrained from relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary at this time?

(Recall the angel gave no explicit prohibition about “marital relations”. So WHY would St. Joseph refrain from this at all?)

---

If you can answer this question correctly and completely, you will ALSO have the answer to the question of WHY St. Joseph would not “know” the Blessed Virgin Mary “AFTER” Mary bore Jesus either.

---

This is the question St. Jerome asked and I have yet to see it honestly addressed here by a denier of the Perpetual Virgin of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

---

ST. JEROME In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, (Matthew 1:20) “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, (Matthew 1:20) “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.” . . . . Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And **could the just man (St. Joseph) dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! ** We are to believe then that the same man (St. Joseph) who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards . . . . Helvidius . . . would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?

– St. Jerome against Helvidius section 8

(Above St. Jerome quote, with parenthetical additions, bold, and ul mine).

 

[clem456]

Thank you . Reminds me of two rules:.#1- I can’t be wrong, #2- If I am wrong refer to rule #1.

Understand absolute truth and either or. Thank you for explanation.

An example where posters sometimes use it :CC is either right about the twenty seven books, or ever virginity, (or really any CC dogma) or she is not the church Christ founded and is wrong about all.

I suppose there is not other option for CC.

Strong but brittle , not pliable.

Do you believe in Christ Ben? If you believe in Christ then you must believe there is a community that lives in him? Maybe not…maybe he was only Incarnated in the hearts and minds of those who claim him. Maybe he didn’t really live, walk, breathe, die, rise. Maybe it’s just all a New Age Gnostic fairy tale! Maybe Harry Potter has as much claim to absolute truth as Jesus! Hey, it’s written down, right there in a book!!!

Is Christ the way, the truth, the life, or is he not? Did he breathe on the apostles and give them the Holy Spirit to the end of the age, or did he not? You’ve seen the scriptures quoted here. We turn our heads when we don’t like what we read, eh?

In light of who Christ himself tells us he is, I find it odd that a person who claims Christianity would find absolute truth offensive.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus didn’t leave His Church without authority. I never stated that, so I don’t know why you assumed that. The Authority that Christ left His Church with were the Scriptures, which is why when the Church was born at Pentecost, Peter even READ from them. And then these Church leaders, like Peter, Paul, John, James, Matthew, etc, went on to write further Inspired Scriptures for future generations of the Church to compare the “gospels” they would be taught by false teachers to the TRUE Gospel of salvation (Galatians 1:6-9).

The “qualifications” of a pastor-elder-bishop is outlined throughout Scripture - such as in 1 Timothy Ch.3 & Titus Ch.1 and other NT passages such as in Acts, such as when Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1), rather than the “head elder” or “chief shepherd” which he designates to Christ (v.4). The fact that there are Protestant & other churches who violate these Scriptural criteria for eldership & church polity only demonstrates their “adding to” & “taking away” from Scripture to support THEIR “traditions” & “precepts the doctrines of MEN” (Matthew 15:1-9).

But since the OP is about church polity but about what Scripture supports about whether or not Mary had children after Jesus’ birth, can we please quit with the Red Herrings & focus on the OP?

The bible states the CHURCH is the pilar of ALL truth, you state scriptures is the pilar of ALL truth. The bible states to Timothy to keep to all of the teachings, those written down (the bible) and those that were given to you by word of mouth (Sacred Scripture that only the CC holds).

So you must use something other then the bible to defend your point, because the bible highly disagrees with you.

And if you are correct, where in scripture does it state that Gentiles would also be eligible to receive the word of God also, Scripture states the PETER said that it was revealed to him THOURGH the HOLY SPIRIT, not from written scripture.

 

[wmscott]

Quite literal aren’t we ? I won’t be literal and say you are wrong every time you you call your pastor , “Father”, so please don’t tell folk they must refer to Mary as Blessed Mary ,every single time, for fear of negating proclamation of her blessedness.

Just trying to make the point that another poster asserted. His or her assertion was that if it not explicitly in the Bible then it is not “Divinely Inspired” and not to be practiced. So in asking the question I wanted to know if the poster was one of those who cherry pick Scripture to fit their theology.

As far as negating Her Blessedness, I take offense to all who try and relegate the Blessed Mother to a common person of lesser stature than what God Himself elevated from the moment of conception.

 

[Porknpie]

So, what are you saying - that human beings themselves are infallible? Then you just elevated human beings to the level of God,

Yes, human beings are fallible … yet can make infallible decisions.

Fallible human beings, Catholic Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, infallibly determined the canon of scripture, what writings were and were not the inerrant and inspired Written Word of God.

That’s Christ’s guarantee: to guide his Church to all Truth on faith and morals.

That’s the ONLY way that you can trust that the 27 books of the NT are all in fact “scripture”. Then there’s not a small issue of 7 OT books being removed from protestant bibles 1,100 years after the same Church discerned the NT.

That’s most inconsistent.

And to the subject of the OP, it’s most inconsistent to believe that the same Church that discerned the canon of scripture, infallibly, can not declare infallibly, that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

 

[wmscott]

Yes, human beings are fallible … yet can make infallible decisions.

Fallible human beings, Catholic Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, infallibly determined the canon of scripture, what writings were and were not the inerrant and inspired Written Word of God.

That’s Christ’s guarantee: to guide his Church to all Truth on faith and morals.

That’s the ONLY way that you can trust that the 27 books of the NT are all in fact “scripture”. Then there’s not a small issue of 7 OT books being removed from protestant bibles 1,100 years after the same Church discerned the NT.

That’s most inconsistent.

And to the subject of the OP, it’s most inconsistent to believe that the same Church that discerned the canon of scripture, infallibly, can not declare infallibly, that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Agreed Since there are many who are so fixated on the written word to the point that they will only accept what is “explicitly” printed in the Bible. Where in Sacred Scriptures does it “explicitly” list the Canon of the Bible? Curious that they accept the Bible that the Catholic Church compiled and gave to the world, yet reject the teachings of that same Church.

 

[onenow1]

The individual body of believers that make up Christ’s church. This isn’t necessarily isolated to a particular “denomination,” but all those believers who have genuinely repented & believed in Christ as both their Savior AND Lord, trusting solely on His shed blood on the cross for the remission of their sins.

Although this question is a Red Herring to the OP, I wanted to answer it. Now, can we return to the OP?

This is absurd considering all the denominations that split up forming new sects. ! So now tell me why, do we have denominations that contradict one another ? Which one leads us to the truth of Jesus"s life death and resurrection and the commands he left for us to follow {doctrine} like the Immaculate Conception and continual virginity of the Mother of God ?

John 17

20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Did you take notice that there is no division in the words of the Father and the Son ? How does this happen with so many divisions in the people of God ?It is a shame so many of our brothers and sisters use multiple choice thought.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

Please! Jehovah Witnesses are the ones who ADD words & verses into Scripture, such as adding the indefinite article “a” to John 1:1 & the word “other” FOUR times in Colossians to change Jesus from “God” to “a” god. But when this is pointed out to them how ADDING things to Scripture that wasn’t originally there, they reject this

You didn’t actually address the argument that was presented, taz. You simply offered some nonsequiturs. True points, but nonsequiturs nonetheless.

Point that was being presented: they are using the very same paradigm you use.

How is it that you permit yourself to do what you object to in the JWs?

You seem to be allowing yourself lots of things that you object to in other organizations.

 

[thetazlord]

You didn’t actually address the argument that was presented, taz. You simply offered some nonsequiturs. True points, but nonsequiturs nonetheless.

Point that was being presented: they are using the very same paradigm you use.

How is it that you permit yourself to do what you object to in the JWs?

You seem to be allowing yourself lots of things that you object to in other organizations.

Because the JW’s don’t do what I do. They don’t base their faith SOLELY on their particular translation of the Bible. They don’t even accept the concept of the Trinity the way we do which, ironically, is supported by their own Bibles in Matthew 28:19! They don’t accept the fact that words were ADDED to their Bibles in order change verses in order to twist & change Scripture to fit their theology. I don’t do any of these, but rather quite the opposite. So, your argument about “permitting myself to do what you object to in the JW’s” is a false analogy. If anything YOU are doing these things with your belief in the PVM, which is completely ABSENT from Scripture. And when that’s pointed out to you, like the JW’s, you refuse to accept that Scriptural truth, as well as the fact that Scripture supports that Mary had other children.

 

[thetazlord]

This is absurd considering all the denominations that split up forming new sects. ! So now tell me why, do we have denominations that contradict one another ? Which one leads us to the truth of Jesus"s life death and resurrection and the commands he left for us to follow {doctrine} like the Immaculate Conception and continual virginity of the Mother of God ?

The Church that teaches the “truth” about the source of ALL truth:

“Sanctify them in the truth; You’re WORD is truth” (John 17:17)

And the truth based on God’s Word, which is the source of all truth, teaches that Mary had other children.

 

[onenow1]

The Church that teaches the “truth” about the source of ALL truth:

“Sanctify them in the truth; You’re WORD is truth” (John 17:17)

And the truth based on God’s Word, which is the source of all truth, teaches that Mary had other children.

Again which one ? I do not remember Jesus leaving a book how ever He did leave us a Church.

Jesus Christ did not command anyone to write a Gospel, but verses abound to go out and teach.

God Bless

 

[thetazlord]

Yes, human beings are fallible … yet can make infallible decisions.

Fallible human beings, Catholic Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, infallibly determined the canon of scripture, what writings were and were not the inerrant and inspired Written Word of God.

That’s Christ’s guarantee: to guide his Church to all Truth on faith and morals.

That’s the ONLY way that you can trust that the 27 books of the NT are all in fact “scripture”. Then there’s not a small issue of 7 OT books being removed from protestant bibles 1,100 years after the same Church discerned the NT.

That’s most inconsistent.

And to the subject of the OP, it’s most inconsistent to believe that the same Church that discerned the canon of scripture, infallibly, can not declare infallibly, that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

And fallible human beings can also make fallible decisions as well. So, we’re back to where we were before. Before you can accept - objectively - if someone’s teaching of infallible Scripture is infallible, you have to compare that teaching TO infallible Scripture, since Scripture can never be wrong, while fallible human beings are capable of being wrong. Simply saying, “I believe someone is infallibly teaching something infallibly, because they ‘say-so’” is circular reasoning. The test to see if that is true is to compare that teaching TO infallible Scripture, which teaches that Mary had other children.