Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

[BroomWagon]

This thread offers hilarious, tortuous answers in support of the “perpetual” virgin dogma. If you loved God, Jesus, Mary and had compassion for poor old Joseph you would be glad she was (as stated in the INFALLIBLE Gospels) a fruitful wife and mother. It looks like Catholics are more concerned that the FALLIBLE church should not be caught out in a porky pie than Mary AND Joseph enjoying life in the fulness of God’s wonderful gifts. If the Clergy are forced to give up on God’s particularly nice and HOLY gift that’s no justification for putting the dampers on those who glady fulfil God’s order to “go forth and multiply”
PS The Pope’s INFALLIBLE, Ex-cathedra statement was that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, NOT condemning her to life-long celibacy… If THAT conception is twisted to suggest it meant HER no-original-sin birth, then Jesus’ conception was not “immaculate”: now THAT IS heresy! You can’t have it both ways

It’s hilarious that you think you are more knowledgeable than the Church Fathers, than people who lived at that time and project on others stating the truth that their statements are “tortuous”. The Bible is not written in English. Your statement is self-serving while holding someone who “thinks” different than you up to ridicule.

 

[adrift]

You’ve already been shown – TWICE – that “until” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Looks like Jesus was taling about you when He said (in Mark 8:18), “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

Sorry Erich I misread your post and to late to edit mine sorry

 

[BroomWagon]

This thread offers hilarious, tortuous answers in support of the “perpetual” virgin dogma. If you loved God, Jesus, Mary and had compassion for poor old Joseph you would be glad she was (as stated in the INFALLIBLE Gospels) a fruitful wife and mother. It looks like Catholics are more concerned that the FALLIBLE church should not be caught out in a porky pie than Mary AND Joseph enjoying life in the fulness of God’s wonderful gifts. If the Clergy are forced to give up on God’s particularly nice and HOLY gift that’s no justification for putting the dampers on those who glady fulfil God’s order to “go forth and multiply”
PS The Pope’s INFALLIBLE, Ex-cathedra statement was that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, NOT condemning her to life-long celibacy… If THAT conception is twisted to suggest it meant HER no-original-sin birth, then Jesus’ conception was not “immaculate”: now THAT IS heresy! You can’t have it both ways

LOL! Why don’t we interpret the Upanishads sometimes, we’ll just use the English versions.

 

[tabycat]

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Do you REALLY think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is NOT a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church --meaning that it is NOT REQUIRED belief?

If so, please point me to the section of the Catechism which says that belief in her perpetual virginity is NOT required of us as Catholics, and that rejection of the belief still keeps us as Catholics in good standing. .

It’s not a dogma. It’s tradition. People on here like everyone to think they are going to hell and that everything that comes out of the Church’s teachings are dogma but they are not. I am not going to be bullied . The question is not did Mary have other children? The question is would it change the way you see her? No it would not and I think she probably did have other children. The proof of what the Church teaches in regards to dogma is on the one asserting it not the one denying it.

No, it is NOT simply tradition. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh yeah, what a great and holy family and what a wonderful experience for those kids. . .no WONDER we never hear anything about them later in Scripture. They never had a chance NOT to hate Wally Cleaver. . .I mean Jesus.

More dramatic emotion and your own opinion.

/

Thank you for your ‘concern’ but I am neither ranting, nor upset. . .NOR did I answer the question as you ‘state’, please do not put words in my mouth. That is pretty sad.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Since nobody has bothered so far to check the catechism, let’s see what it says about Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Mary - "ever-virgin"
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.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 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”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159 [501](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/501.htm’) Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160

Now tell me, is DOCTRINE something that is ‘optional’ for Catholics to believe?

 

[adrift]

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? The reality is that the beliefs of the Church regarding Mary were pronounced hundreds of years after she died, starting in the 5th century! The status of Mary as the Immaculate Conception did not become a dogma until 1854. The Assumption of Mary became thus not until 1950!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

Starting in the 5th century?

150 Protoevangelium of James although not accepted as inspired it does demonstrate the belief of the time

And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’"

Origen 248

. might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17

As I already have documented, the Gospels themselves show that she never had any other children than Jesus.

The doctrine that she was ever virgin did not start in the 5th century. It was there from the beginning.

Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Tractate 8 (John 2:1-4)
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Those who deny the perpetual virginity of Mary are Antidicomarites that is they are heretics.

 

[Irishgal49]

No, it is NOT simply tradition. Where did you get that idea?

It was attached as part of dogma but not included in the dogma itself.

 

[Irishgal49]

Since nobody has bothered so far to check the catechism, let’s see what it says about Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Mary - "ever-virgin"
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.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 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”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159 [501](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/501.htm’) Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160

Now tell me, is DOCTRINE something that is ‘optional’ for Catholics to believe?

Optional to BELIEVE or to follow? People BELIEVE all sorts of things.

 

[Irishgal49]

Thank you for your ‘concern’ but I am neither ranting, nor upset. . .NOR did I answer the question as you ‘state’, please do not put words in my mouth. That is pretty sad.

That’s OK I didn’t really answer the question either. It’s a huge if but of course it wouldn’t change anything to me.

 

[adrift]

Optional to BELIEVE or to follow? People BELIEVE all sorts of things.

Please give me a document that says that it is optional?

Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Tractate 8 (John 2:1-4)
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

It is listed as the Antidicomarites Heresy doesn’t sound optional.

 

[stevekehl]

I’ve been reading these posts for a few days now. Apparently Mary’s virginity is really important to some, and not so important to others. The question I have is if I believe in Jesus, accept Him as my Savior, but I don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity will I go to hell?

 

[Mark121359]

If so, please point me to the section of the Catechism which says that belief in her perpetual virginity is NOT required of us as Catholics, and that rejection of the belief still keeps us as Catholics in good standing. .

It’s not a dogma. It’s tradition. People on here like everyone to think they are going to hell and that everything that comes out of the Church’s teachings are dogma but they are not. I am not going to be bullied . The question is not did Mary have other children? The question is would it change the way you see her? No it would not and I think she probably did have other children. The proof of what the Church teaches in regards to dogma is on the one asserting it not the one denying it.

The Four Marian Dogmas… 1) Divine Motherhood 2) Perpetual Virginity 3) Immaculate Conception 4) The Assumption

A priest once asked Lucy, one of the visionaries of Our Lady of Fatima, “Why five Saturdays, and not nine, or seven, in honour of the Sorrows of Our Lady?

That same evening, on May 29th 1930, while in deep prayer the seer implored Our Lord to inspire her with an answer to this and other questions that her confessor, Father Gonçalves, had asked. A few days later she reported the following answer to her confessor:

“When in the chapel with Our Lord, during a Thursday nigh adoration -as it was her habit to do – Our Lord explained the following to her:

“My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
1.Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception
2;Blasphemies against her perpetual virginity
3.Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as Mother of men;
4.The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
5.The offenses of those who outrage Her holy Images

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark of the Covenent. The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God . . . with men”’ (CCC 2676).

The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.
It is perfectly clear to me without question and should be perfecly clear without question to all Catholics that this beautiful, perfect Lady remained a virgin throughout her life!

 

[Irishgal49]

The Four Marian Dogmas… 1) Divine Motherhood 2) Perpetual Virginity 3) Immaculate Conception 4) The Assumption

A priest once asked Lucy, one of the visionaries of Our Lady of Fatima, “Why five Saturdays, and not nine, or seven, in honour of the Sorrows of Our Lady?

That same evening, on May 29th 1930, while in deep prayer the seer implored Our Lord to inspire her with an answer to this and other questions that her confessor, Father Gonçalves, had asked. A few days later she reported the following answer to her confessor:

“When in the chapel with Our Lord, during a Thursday nigh adoration -as it was her habit to do – Our Lord explained the following to her:

“My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
1.Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception
2;Blasphemies against her perpetual virginity
3.Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as Mother of men;
4.The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
5.The offenses of those who outrage Her holy Images

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark of the Covenent. The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God . . . with men”’ (CCC 2676).

The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.
It is perfectly clear to me without question and should be perfecly clear without question to all Catholics that this beautiful, perfect Lady remained a virgin throughout her life!

That is very beautiful but doesn’t prove anything about Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[Irishgal49]

Please give me a document that says that it is optional?

It is listed as the Antidicomarites Heresy doesn’t sound optional.

It doesn’t sound optional but that doesn’t mean that it’s dogma either. I am curious if it’s your intention to force me to believe what you believe. That doesn’t work for me.

 

[adrift]

It doesn’t sound optional but that doesn’t mean that it’s dogma either. I am curious if it’s your intention to force me to believe what you believe. That doesn’t work for me.

No I just don’t want you to misrepresent what the Church Teaches or mislead others to what the Church teaches.

 

[Irishgal49]

No I just don’t want you to misrepresent what the Church Teaches or mislead others to what the Church teaches.

I don’t lead anyone to anything. I don’t represent the Church and wouldn’t want to do so. What I deal with is within myself. I don’t teach others and I’m at a job where we’re not allowed to mention church (govt job). What I believe I keep to myself. I just know there is a difference between dogma and doctrine. And there are people who disagree with things. Some people aren’t 100% perfect. I have a priest/friend who told me, “It’s OK we’re all in the process of conversion.”

If someone wanted to know the Church’s stance, I’d direct them to a priest. If they want to know my opinion then I’d tell them. But I don’t pass off my opinion as the Church’s stance even if I agree with the Church because subtle differences could be there that a person doesn’t even realize.

 

[IanGE]

I’m sorry, but this is just a bunch of ignorant rubbish. In Jewish culture, there most certainly were celibate marriages that were allowed for consecrated virgins so that they could be protected by a man (it was a violent and harsh world that required much physical work to survive, and men were more adept at hard labor and farming) and the man could have help as well with tending the home.

And you are throwing out common sense in reading your own personal, fallible, errant opinion into the text of the Gospels. Look again. Mary, who was legally married to Joseph and was awaiting the time until she was to enter Joseph’s household. The angel tells her that she will bear a son. Now a woman awaiting to complete her marriage and would soon be in her husband’s home would be thrilled at this news, and would be under NO confusion about HOW she would be pregnant. But look at Mary’s response. She asks HOW this could happen.

Why don’t you explain this answer in light of your belief that she was about to complete her marriage to Joseph in a normal marriage. Your personal opinion lacks common sense and logic.

Sorry my “ignorance” offends you. But I fail to accept as learned, common sense and logic the connection between your statement that Jewish marriages allowed for consecrated virgins and Mary: was she a “consecrated virgin” or just a normal child engaged to be married and looking forward to all that it entails. BTW the Greek word used is rooted in “a token, such as an engagement ring.” On the other hand I fail to see how my ignorance, lack of common sense and logic by simply quoting the Gospel: *“kai ouk eginoskev auten HEOS etekev uion.” *(Mat. 1.25: and [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not UNTIL she gave birth to a son." That’s wot’s written in the inspired book. If you want to take umbrage at the Holy Spirit, go ahead but beware of the unforgiveable sin!
BTW In Luke 1:34, Mary says: “Pos estai touto, epei andra ou givosko.” (How will this be since I know no man?") Virgin birth: IMPERATIVE; perpetual virginity: disproved in the Inspired word of Matt. 1:25. Mary’s own words: “I am the Immaculate conception” taken to mean her own (original) sinless conception by human parents: Mmmmm! Does that mean Jesus’ conception was NOT immaculate? Or that JESUS was born in original sin? IMPOSSIBLE! The concept of original sin over-riding the Holy Breath (Spirit) of God in Adam’s nostrils and/or Eve’s contracting an original sin AND that sin perpetuated by ALL of Adam and Eve’s breed is Catholic doctrine. Possibly to justify a Catholic-only baptism despite my Lord Jesus’ dreadful sacrifice to forgive ALL sin (including ‘original’) and reconcile with God all those who believe in and whole-heartedly ACCEPT Jesus’ sacrifice.
PPS WHEN did Mary’s “perpetual virginity” become infallble dogma? And ppcontributers to this forum are STILL confusing “virgin BIRTH” with “PERPETUAL virginity”.

 

[IanGE]

You’ve already been shown – TWICE – that “until” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Looks like Jesus was taling about you when He said (in Mark 8:18), “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

When you point one finger at someone you have THREE fingers pointing back at you!

What ELSE can “until” (heos) possibly mean then? If Joseph CONTINUED to refrain from God-given marital joy with Mary, Matthew would have INSPIRED to say so. But he used “UNTIL”, meaning he “knew” Mary after Jesus’ birth. Just as his INSPIRED words in Chapter 1: “…but BEFORE they (Joseph and Mary) came together…” That clearly indicates they DID come together later. Why the big deal lumbering poor old (sorry, (young) Mary with perpetual celibacy? Is that to justify the dictat that Clergy shall be celibate? God never ordered that (“go forth and multiply”; “the two shall become one flesh”). The Church first forced celibacy on Bishops cos they were nominating their sons to take over. Later they extended celibacy to Priests because of the tragedy of priests having to “put away” their wives when they became Bishops. Later still, in the 10th century, this dictat spread to cover monks and nuns but they continued to liaise and marry up to the 15th century when the church had to really crack down on this impertinent, manufactured) sin. The spin-off fruit of the celibacy doctrine (dogma?) has brought in mysogeny, prizing virginity and thereby demonising sex, even between loving married couples and, of course, deterring healthy young men and women from taking the cloth.
There is no longer any need to put THAT obstacle between a Calling and the Catholic clergy. Perhaps if the Catholic church reverted to their early Christian roots and had clergy who were married or not, just good guys who were “the husband of but one wife” (1 Timothy 3), mayabe Mary would be praised not only for opting to be the Mother of God but enjoying a very human, fruitful marriage.