Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="justinangel, post: To continue, there have been factions, dissensions, and theological differences of opinion in the Catholic Church ever since apostolic time, albeit the existence of a central apostolic teaching authority and universal doctrinal unity.

"Central" and "universal" are subtle attempts to subvert what is patently apostolic because it WAS the apostles themselves (despite how some may feel about Paul), not some beaurocratic nightmare of semi anonymous and mostly unaccountable ecclesiastical executives, like Anicetus, changing Easter to Sunday.

These factions within the nascent church and there on aren't independent denominations which speak for themselves and answer only to themselves. The Judaizers and Ebonites, for instance, were held accountable for their false teachings to the apostles and those whom they appointed to share in the divine office. In the first millennium there was just one visible magisterium. The ecumenical councils which were convoked in the wake of heresies attests to that fact.

That this rapidly growing supremacist facade was reactionary in the face of dissent is no surprise. Constantine funding attempts to deconflict this new religion he was employing to glue his empire together, was cost efficient vs damage control, you know... "an ounce of prevention...)

Dissenters like Arius and Nestorius had to stand in judgment before the fathers of the councils. They refused to recant and were excommunicated from the Church. In Protestantism there are tens of thousands of independent corporate entities which hold different essential doctrines under their own individual magesteriums. If members of one denomination can no longer believe in any of the teachings of their denomination, they can hop to another one which appeals to their religious sensibilities while remaining in Christ's one invisible Church according to the Protestant definition of the Church.

Indeed. No fascist franchise on religious sensibilities to restrict spiritual liberty in Christ, so no need to create a gay Catholic group, a pro-choice Catholic group, etc, etc, etc...to maintain a facade of conformity within the ranks.

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches don't see it this way. These two churches exist in the state of mutual excommunication from the one visible Apostolic Church founded by Christ and his Mystical Body.

Exactly. We see the fruit of their religious sensibilities.

Anyway, you might find a large group of nuns gathered from all over the western world at St. Peter's Square protesting and demanding female ordination to the priesthood but, nevertheless, they all believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, as defined by the 4th Lateran Council, and in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary as defined by Pope Pius lX and Pope Pius Xll.

At least we can agree it is comforting that they profess it even if we have no idea if any of them ever struggle with doubt. Freedom and hierarchies are like oil and water. Family is the more apostolic model.

Protestants cannot agree on how to define Christ's presence in the consecrated bread and wine or on whether the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice or only a memorial of Christ's death.

Catholics include real presence vs transubstantiation in their classic schizm.
Religious freedom is hard for authoritarianism to cope with.

Further, there are Protestants who believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and her Assumption, while there are many who don't as a matter of pious belief. The essential meaning of the original Greek word for heresy is "picking and choosing what to believe". This has always been unacceptable for members in the one Catholic Apostolic Church, but it's the norm in Protestantism. Here we have not only faction and dissension within single denominations, but actual splintering under one cloak of invisibility (physically divided but spiritually and mystically united) which began in the so-called reformation period. There is a big difference.

Where was the difference in 1054?
Practice what you preach and you might be taken more seriously..

 

[Albion]

Protestants cannot agree on how to define Christ's presence in the consecrated bread and wine or on whether the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice or only a memorial of Christ's death.

If there were such a beast as "The Protestant Church" you might have a point there.
Of course, there isn't one, so you don't.

 

[Standing Up]

A built in component in the mother's ritual impurity is the symbolic responsibility of bringing another sinner into the world. So it makes even less sense to think that Mary gave birth to a potential sinner when Christ was born. It was Eve who gave birth to Cain. Mary was chosen by God to bring forth only the new Adam who came to reconcile the world with God and regenerate mankind. Mary certainly is the spiritual mother of all the living who are reborn in Christ through water and the Spirit.

For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.
Romans 8, 29

PAX

Talk about incredible as to the depth of fall. The impurity was not due to a mother bringing another sinner into the world. Her impurity was because of her blood issue at birth.

Lev. 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

This is the reason Mary brought two pigeons.

Had there been no afterbirth as you, RC, and PoJames say, Mary would not have had to make the offering. But she did (Luke 2:24). This is further proof that Christ was born normally with water and blood in the normal way complete with cord and afterbirth.

As Scripture and tradition based thereon say, Mary's virginity ended at His birth.

 

[justinangel]

That is a perverse interpretation of my assertion, sir.

It's your assertion that's perverse. You underestimate the power of God's grace in transforming our nature. Perhaps we should all sin so that we won't be like God.

All to exhibit a lengthy zenith of hyper romantic eisegesis, exercising mother obsession and reproductive phobia.

I prefer exegesis to vitriol. Perhaps you can be more objective instead of ranting and raving. Could it be that you're suffering from Catholic-phobia?

 

[patricius79]

I find it heart breaking that you define the simple beauty of her humanity as being sinful. Mary is indeed a lily, but in the words of the prophet, she is a "lily among thorns".

As the lily among thorns, so is my darling among the daughters."
Song of Solomon 2, 2

καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Luke 1, 42

The expression “blessed among women” is a Hebraism which literally means “blessed are you above all other women” (Eve). We have an example in Judith 13, 18: And Uzzi′ah said to her, “O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to strike the head of the leader of our enemies.” The Hebraic expression implicitly exalts Mary above Eve for reasons we shall see. We should also notice the parallel structure of verses between Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Judith. It is safe to assume that the evangelist intends to say Mary’s blessed state shares a same likeness with that of her divine Son, as foreshadowed in the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. To understand what he means by Mary being blessed we must examine the particular Greek word he employs to describe Mary’s state. It isn’t the same word Luke uses in 1:45 which is makaria (μακαρία). The word that the evangelist chooses to use here is eulogemene (Εὐλογημένη). This word is used on only one other occasion in the NT, and that being with reference to the Kingdom of Heaven: “Blessed (eulogomene) be the kingdom of our father David that cometh: Hosanna in the highest” (Mk. 11:10). Eulogemene is derived from the verb eulogeo (εὐλογέω). Luke is evidently drawing a parallel between Mary and the Kingdom of God to explain how it is that the mother of our Lord is blessed together with her divine Son. Obviously Mary’s blessed state is intended to mean much more than having been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus and having cause to be happy because of this divine favour. It has to do with her personal affinity with him in a spiritual and mystical way.

Luke also writes: “The kingdom of God is within you” (17:21). The Greek word for “within” is entos (ἐντός) which can mean either “inside” (within) or “among” (in the midst of) the subject. This word originates from the preposition en (ἐν) which is “in”. Since Luke is typifying Mary as the kingdom of God in his description of her being individually and personally blessed, the former meaning is applicable here, and it has to do with her interior state which resembles that of her divine Son’s in his humanity. This becomes more apparent to us by looking at the following passages: ‘Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in (en) you?’ (1 Cor. 3:16); ‘Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”‘ (Jn. 2:19). Thus Elizabeth is pronouncing Mary blessed for the quality of her soul that enabled her to put her faith in God and trust in His goodness and mercy. Her kinswoman is truly blessed for having the Spirit of God dwell within her, whose sanctifying grace has made her pure as her divine Son is pure in his humanity (cf.1 Jn. 3:3).

As a partaker of the divine nature, Mary is free of all the corruption in the world caused by dark human desires (2 Pet. 1:4). By the light of the Spirit who dwells within her, divinity shines in her soul. Indeed, Mary's soul proclaims and magnifies the glory of the Lord (cf. Lk 1:46). Sanctification is a supernatural quality of the soul. The beauty of the purity of her divine Son in his humanity is reflected in her created divine image through the grace of God. By Mary’s love for God and humanity, the divine quality of her soul shines forth. The inner core of her being is undefiled and resembles the inherent righteousness of her divine Son in his humanity. In her blessed state she sees the God whom she desires within her, as she gazes upon herself when she pronounces her Canticle of Praise in the Gospel. In her state of the fullness of grace she finds that the Lord she longs to see face to face is inside her. The glory of God radiates her soul with its light as her soul proclaims His glory. The kingdom of God “is neither here nor there” but within Mary. She is with the Lord as fittingly as she should be in his work of redemption – at total enmity with Satan and the powers of darkness that rule the world within God’s providence.

It is no coincidence that the original Greek word eulogeo also occurs seven times in the Gospels with reference only to Jesus. We find it in the second clause of Luke 1:42 and in Mark 11:9: ‘And they that went before and they that followed, cried, saying: Hosanna, blessed(eulogemenos) is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.’ The blessed state of the kingdom of heaven shares in the likeness of the blessed state of the Lord: “full of grace and truth” (Jn.1:14). ‘And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou above all women’ (Lk. 1:28).

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.”
Theodotus of Ancrya

PAX

The Kingdom of God is not here or there, but only within the Virgin Mary! Amen!

 

[justinangel]

Talk about incredible as to the depth of fall. The impurity was not due to a mother bringing another sinner into the world. Her impurity was because of her blood issue at birth.

It's a built in component of the mother's ritual impurity.

Lev. 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

The law applies to women who conceived their offspring by the seed of their husbands.

If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of the separation of her flowers. And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised: But she shall remain three and thirty days in the blood of her purification.
Leviticus 12:2-4

Mary did not conceive Jesus through the reception of the seed of any man, but through the power of the Holy Spirit. So she wasn't rendered ritually impure either by the conception or birth of Jesus. Jesus is Mary's seed (Gen 3:15). A natural birth is the result of a natural conception.

This is the reason Mary brought two pigeons.

The accompanying sacrifice of a yearling lamb, for which a poor woman could substitute a second pigeon or a turtledove, was not part of the purification ceremony itself, but a holocaust of thanksgiving for a successful delivery. The priest made expiation for any non malicious sins the mother may have incidentally and involuntarily committed to ensure that the thanksgiving sacrifice would be acceptable. A ritual bath was also part of the woman’s purification preparation to re-enter the sanctuary. The Jewish Mishnah records that full immersion for both men and women in the Temple mikvah (pool for ritual purification) was necessary before entering the courtyard to offer sacrifices (Mishnah: Yoma, 3.3). Mary would have ritually bathed in the mikvah before presenting her purification sacrifices. What she was purified of was what the issuance of blood involved, that is not having full volition to submit to the will of God and being unable to commune with Him while under the trauma of naturally giving birth. The burnt offering (olah) is an expression of desiring to commune with God and be restored to that state of unbridled communion and complete submission to God free from the restraints of natural forces. The Hebrew word implies ascending from the profane to the sacred. Procreation itself is holy, but it is tainted by the natural birth process which is profane, symbolically perhaps in light of Eve's transgression and her distancing herself from God.

Had there been no afterbirth as you, RC, and PoJames say, Mary would not have had to make the offering. But she did (Luke 2:24). This is further proof that Christ was born normally with water and blood in the normal way complete with cord and afterbirth.

Mary submitted to the ritual of purification after childbirth because as a Jewish mother she was under the Mosaic Law. Jesus submitted to circumcision (a purification ritual symbolizing being made spiritually clean) for the same reason (cf. Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4). Luke emphasises this to affirm that neither Jesus nor Mary were personally subject to the law and in need of following it. Why? Because Joseph wasn't the father. His seed did not open Mary's womb and thereby end her virginity. The spiritual trauma of profanely giving birth and being born originally stems from the reception of the man's seed.

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord.
Luke 2,22

As Scripture and tradition based thereon say, Mary's virginity ended at His birth.

Whose tradition would that be? Certainly not the Apostolic Tradition.

PAX

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="justinangel, post: It's your assertion that's perverse.

Get a grip. You haven't even addressed it. You made up some blasphemy strawman.

I prefer exegesis to vitriol.

You have combined eisegesis with vitriol and pretend to objectivity.

 

[Rick Otto]

Whose tradition would that be? Certainly not the Apostolic Tradition.

As if it matters, when the Magesterium has a license to exegete it into whatever they want.

 

[Standing Up]

The law applies to women who conceived their offspring by the seed of their husbands.

If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of the separation of her flowers. And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised: But she shall remain three and thirty days in the blood of her purification.
Leviticus 12:2-4

No it doesn't say that. This is another example of your eisegesis.

What it says is a woman conceived, she was made fruitful. It says nothing about how or by whom.

The accompanying sacrifice of a yearling lamb, for which a poor woman could substitute a second pigeon or a turtledove, was not part of the purification ceremony itself, but a holocaust of thanksgiving for a successful delivery.

No, this is more of your eisegesis. Scripture says nothing about a thanksgiving offering, rather it is specifically for her issue of blood. Lev. 12:7 she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.

So again, scripture and tradition are clear. Christ Jesus was born normally in the normal manner with water and blood. Thus Mary would have to go present her offering.

 

[patricius79]

Mary submitted to the ritual of purification after childbirth because as a Jewish mother she was under the Mosaic Law. Jesus submitted to circumcision (a purification ritual symbolizing being made spiritually clean) for the same reason (cf. Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4).

It makes sense to me. Jesus also submitted to John's baptism, which was a baptism of repentance, even though Jesus didn't need to repent. Paul says that Jesus was born of woman, born under the law. This shows that one can be under the Law without being a sinner.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Kingdom of God is not here or there, but only within the Virgin Mary! Amen!

Huh????????????????????????????????

 

[patricius79]

If there were such a beast as "The Protestant Church" you might have a point there.
Of course, there isn't one, so you don't.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You appear to be saying that there is no Protestant Church. I would agree that there is only one Church: the historic, Catholic Church.

I think that just as we must eat Christ's Flesh and Drink His Blood, so too must we be devoted to the Mother of God, the Immaculate Virgin, our Mother, to be saved.

Of course, if a person has no opportunity for these things, or truly has no way of knowing about these mysteries, then that is another matter.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure I understand your point. You appear to be saying that there is no Protestant Church. I would agree that there is only one Church.

What I meant was this:

You said Protestants disagree about the meaning of the Eucharist. Sure. They belong to a number of different churches, so what's the surprise in that?

If you'd said instead that Lutherans (for example) are in disagreement with each other--that might have been a criticism worthy of making your point. But to say that the members of different churches hold different beliefs doesn't say anything that's not obvious. Why would we think that the members of a wide range of different churches all agree with everyone one else on every doctrinal point anyway?

The Catholic churches certainly disagree with each other on many points. Do you, therefore, assume that this proves that none of them can be correct? No. And the same goes for the Protestants.

 

[Standing Up]

I think that just as we must eat Christ's Flesh and Drink His Blood, so too must we be devoted to the Mother of God, the Immaculate Virgin, our Mother, to be saved.

Your faith icon says Christian. No Christian believes what you've said (bolded). Not even your own group RC believes that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Your faith icon says Christian. No Christian believes what you've said (bolded). Not even your own group RC believes that.

You should know by now that he is not a Christian. Some time ago he stated that Mary is part of the godhead. He believes in Mary (the Queen of heaven), the Holy Spirit (the spouse of Mary), and Jesus Christ (the King of heaven).

 

[prodromos]

You should know by now that he is not a Christian. Some time ago he stated that Mary is part of the godhead. He believes in Mary (the Queen of heaven), the Holy Spirit (the spouse of Mary), and Jesus Christ (the King of heaven).

If you believe that the above claim makes Mary part of the godhead, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

 

[justinangel]

No it doesn't say that. This is another example of your eisegesis.

What it says is a woman conceived, she was made fruitful. It says nothing about how or by whom.

Either you can't read, or you want words to mean what you want them to. Call it a state of denial. The Mosaic law explicitly applies to mothers who have conceived their offspring by the seed of man.

No, this is more of your eisegesis. Scripture says nothing about a thanksgiving offering, rather it is specifically for her issue of blood. Lev. 12:7 she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.

I suggest you study traditional Judaism. There's more to this than what you read in a single verse in Scripture to accommodate your bias.

So again, scripture and tradition are clear. Christ Jesus was born normally in the normal manner with water and blood. Thus Mary would have to go present her offering.

Your conclusions are based on a faulty premise and are nothing but ungrounded conjectures.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

As if it matters, when the Magesterium has a license to exegete it into whatever they want.

The Magisterium itself does not exegete. It teaches and governs.

Actually, Scripture proceeds from Tradition. Holy Writ must be interpreted in light of Tradition. But, of course, the Jews reject Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7,14 just as many Protestants object to the Church's interpretation of Isaiah 66, 10 in light of the Apostolic Tradition.

"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child."

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Get a grip. You haven't even addressed it. You made up some blasphemy strawman.

There's that word blasphemy again. So I have addressed what you implicitly wrote after all. Maybe the problem is you don't understand what you're really saying. You certainly did equate being sinless with being divine. The truth is many Protestants do reject the Immaculate Conception because they believe it makes Mary a "goddess" and not really human.

You have combined eisegesis with vitriol and pretend to objectivity.

I'm not the one who is ranting and raving. And if you're going to charge one with eisegesis, be prepared to prove it in a rational and objective manner. I've been objective, but until now all I've got are unobjective and senseless retorts from people who are suffering from Catholic-phobia.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="justinangel, There's that word blasphemy again. So I have addressed what you implicitly wrote after all. Maybe the problem is you don't understand what you're really saying.

I understand you can't really address the problem because it would challenge your delusions to the point of identity crisis.

You certainly did equate being sinless with being divine. The truth is many Protestants do reject the Immaculate Conception because they believe it makes Mary a "goddess" and not really human.

No Justin, the truth is that the equation belongs to you and you deny its necessary implications.

I'm not the one who is ranting and raving

. LOL! Yeah, right.

And if you're going to charge one with eisegesis, be prepared to prove it in a rational and objective manner.

Why should you demand I adhere to standard you don't?

I've been objective

,LOL! That's funny.

but until now all I've got are unobjective and senseless retorts from people who are suffering from Catholic-phobia.

awww....poor justin!