Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[2Timothy2:15]

That is why you have never heard that Joseph is a widower: you are physically separated from the Church of antiquity by the circumstances of your own birth and life experiences.

Separated from the Church by my birth and life experiences?

How do you have a clue what my life experiences are? The "Church" is a spiritual thing, not a physical. Sorry, but your whole statement sounded like spiritual elitism.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

You dont understand the contemporary meaning of the word brother, seemingly. It meant kinsman..relation. Extended family.

I understand just fine. Maybe you should look up the original Greek.

ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);

 

[thecolorsblend]

Anyway, the links you've provided do not demonstrate any compelling evidence that James the Just was not the brother of Jesus.

Sounds you like you need to read them since they're written almost on a college level.

This is problematic since Jesus himself says that his body is the fulfillment of the Jewish temple.

Oh dear, you didn't read my post very carefully, did you?

Many Catholics view Our Lady's womb as a fulfillment of the Jewish Temple.

A fulfillment. Not necessarily the definitive one. But the similarities are so obvious as to be undeniable.

A few ancients may have believed in perpetual virginity. But this was not made infallible Catholic doctrine until the 20th century.

Um, the term "ever virgin" was used in the Second Council of Constantinople... in 553 AD. Are you confusing this with the doctrine of the Assumption??

 

[thecolorsblend]

Also Why call her "your lady"

Our Lady.

I refer to Him as Our Lord and her as Our Lady out of respect. I wouldn't normally address my parents by their Christian names out of respect; same thing here.

Sometimes a post pretty much requires me to use their names. So I do it. But typically I stick with those titles.

 

[hooverbranch]

The Protestant reformation didn't come out of the Church, it came out of Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is itself a reformation of both the nature of the practice of theology and the nature of authority within the Church. Roman Catholicism came out of the Church, Protestantism came out of Roman Catholicism.

Ok historically this is true and I do not deny that. The Roman Catholic Church was not "The Church" in the beginning. I mean when Paul wrote the church in Rome he was giving Apostolic Doctrine to a Church that was not set up by an apostle and did not have an apostle there to guide it until Peter went and Paul was under house arrest (which Church history implies was about the same time)

And as I stated in my last post absolutely the Protestant Reformation was a protest of the Roman Catholic Church so it did come out if it.

Reformers have one thing in common: An authority that stands above the Church (i.e. outside of the Church) that is not God alone. For Rome that authority is the Papacy. For Protestants that authority is Scripture and one's own reasoning.

Once again I believe this point is accurate, but to a point. We do believe there is an authority that is over the Church and it is scripture. But we also recognize that the church has Authority. This is made abundantly clear in the New Testemant that your Pastors, Shepherds, Elders, Overseers (all are the same greek word) have a level of authority over you and they are held double accountable for that fact. But they do NOT have authority over Scripture. The Bereans in Acts questioned the Apostle Paul and used Scripture to make sure what he was saying was true and Paul praised them for it. Why is this? John teaches us in 1st John to "test the spirits" by standing firm to that which was from the beginning. What is he talking about here? That beginning message was the one brought by the apostles which is recorded for us in scripture. So yes we do see scripture as the ultimate authority even over the Church. But we do not see reasoning as an authority. Because Human Reasoning can and is flawed. Which is our exact thought of why scripture is so important to, like the Bereans did, discern Church leadership to make sure it is true.

Common reasoning does not produce Faith...

Once again I agree. In our society common sense (or common reasoning) is anti-christianity. And even if we lived 500 years ago when that was flipped. True believers do not get there by common reasoning. In Romans we are told that we are dead in our transgressions and sins. This goes to our sinful nature. So if our very nature is sinful then our common sense will also be sinful. If a lion has the choice of a fresh bloody steak and a salad what shall he choose? I would argue 99 times out of 100 the lion chooses the steak. So it is only through the transformation of our minds that we can see the absolute need of a savior and that can not be done with common reasoning, but an act of the Holy Spirt preparing our hearts. And by hearing by the Word of God.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yike, I didn't mean incarnate at all. What I meant to say was, was she conceived immaculate?

Are you asking me if I believe in the Immaculate Conception? Yes. She was to be preserved free of sin so that her womb could be Our Lord's dwelling place during His gestation. This, again, speaks to Our Lady being something of a temple inasmuch as she was, as a special grace, kept free of sin specifically for this purpose.

 

[thecolorsblend]

My point is that ones are saying that Mary had to be without sin, in order for Jesus to be in her body. And what I am offering is, that we children of God still do have some amount of sin, yet Jesus Himself lives in us.

No. He doesn't. Not in any literal sense. Whereas He literally grew in Our Lady's literal womb at a literal point in time. Literally!

 

[thecolorsblend]

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Oddly enough scripture does indicate that Jesus had a brother born James, obviously after the birth of our Lord.

Oddly enough the word is adelphos and at various points in Sacred Scripture is used to mean "family member with the same mother and the same father as someone else" or "a distant family relation" or "a countryman" or just someone of the same religion. So no, that's hardly ironclad proof of anything.

 

[truefiction1]

Separated from the Church by my birth and life experiences?

How do you have a clue what my life experiences are? The "Church" is a spiritual thing, not a physical. Sorry, but your whole statement sounded like spiritual elitism.

I apologize if my whole statement sounded like spiritual elitism, or denominational triumphalism. It isn't meant in that way, but you asked me a direct question and I honored you with a direct, pointed answer. The answer is still true: If you weren't separated from the Orthodox Church owing to providence, then you would know that Theotokos is ever-virgin.

While the Church is a "spiritual" thing as you say, it also has physical structure, otherwise it would not be the "body" of Christ in the world. Within that physical body is preserved a fullness of spiritual Life that is preserved within the Theology and practice of the Church. Within that fullness of Life in the Holy Spirit and in Christ is an acute awareness of the important intercessory role (by her prayers) of our "most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious lady Theotokos and 'ever-virgin', Mary".

I assume you don't have such an awareness, based on your questions and comments here. If I'm wrong about your lack of awareness in this regard then you're correct that I don't have a clue about what your life experiences are, and I stand corrected.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Really?
What gave you that idea, as you didnt get it from a Bible.
The New Testament said that Mary had other children, and not just Jesus.
Will you say she adopted them all, as there are quite a few.
Will you say that "children" is a mistranslation regarding Mary's "children".

I've provided other posts to address this canard. As there are several pages in this thread, I'll provide you with links I've used.

Did Mary Have Other Children? – Shameless Popery

St. Jude and the “Brothers” of Jesus – Shameless Popery

Put simply, it's very difficult (probably impossible) to argue from scripture alone that Our Lady had other children. However, the Early Church widely believed she remained a virgin her entire life. So one must ask where they got such a notion. And yet, nobody in this thread seems really willing to answer that in reply to me for some reason.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Our Lady.

I refer to Him as Our Lord and her as Our Lady out of respect. I wouldn't normally address my parents by their Christian names out of respect; same thing here.

Sometimes a post pretty much requires me to use their names. So I do it. But typically I stick with those titles.

oooh I see k makes sense now.

 

[Hank77]

What about the early church father comments do you find to be the most unbibical?

Early church -
Two early church fathers Bishop of Syria, Polycarp and Bishop of Rome, Anicetus could not agree about the correct observance Paschal or Easter.

Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
Sozomen also wrote:

As the bishops of the West did not deem it necessary to dishonor the tradition handed down to them by Peter and by Paul, and as, on the other hand, the Asiatic bishops persisted in following the rules laid down by John the evangelist, they unanimously agreed to continue in the observance of the festival according to their respective customs, without separation from communion with each other. They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs.[7]
Quartodecimanism - Wikipedia

Were either of their views not Biblical? Because the scripture does not specifically say either/or what should we say? Polycarp followed a different tradition than Anicetus did. Period.
That is same conclusion I have come to about the discussion in this thread.

How did I get there? Well there were two things. The Luke scripture that says 'Mary of James' convinced me that indeed the ones that were said to be Jesus' brothers, the first being James, were the sons of this Mary at the tomb. She was said to be the sister of Mary Jesus' mother, meaning sister-in=law, so the sons were Jesus' cousins, which is not uncommon to be called brothers in Asian tradition.
The second being the Matthew scripture, using the 'til' just tells us that Joseph and Mary had not consummated their marriage up in til the time of Jesus birth. That does not mean that they did afterwards nor does it mean that they didn't. It would be unusual for a Jewish couple not to but then there was nothing normal about their betrothal either. Normally a Jewish man would have divorced a pregnant woman who's child was not his.

So if someone were to ask me now if Mary remained a virgin all of her life I would have to say, I don't know. The Bible just isn't clear enough to dogmatically say either way. To each their tradition.

Be Blessed

 

[Hank77]

Are you asking me if I believe in the Immaculate Conception? Yes. She was to be preserved free of sin so that her womb could be Our Lord's dwelling place during His gestation. This, again, speaks to Our Lady being something of a temple inasmuch as she was, as a special grace, kept free of sin specifically for this purpose.

So she sinned after His birth and that is why she needed a Savior?

 

[truefiction1]

Ok historically this is true and I do not deny that. The Roman Catholic Church was not "The Church" in the beginning. I mean when Paul wrote the church in Rome he was giving Apostolic Doctrine to a Church that was not set up by an apostle and did not have an apostle there to guide it until Peter went and Paul was under house arrest (which Church history implies was about the same time)

And as I stated in my last post absolutely the Protestant Reformation was a protest of the Roman Catholic Church so it did come out if it.



Once again I believe this point is accurate, but to a point. We do believe there is an authority that is over the Church and it is scripture. But we also recognize that the church has Authority. This is made abundantly clear in the New Testemant that your Pastors, Shepherds, Elders, Overseers (all are the same greek word) have a level of authority over you and they are held double accountable for that fact. But they do NOT have authority over Scripture. The Bereans in Acts questioned the Apostle Paul and used Scripture to make sure what he was saying was true and Paul praised them for it. Why is this? John teaches us in 1st John to "test the spirits" by standing firm to that which was from the beginning. What is he talking about here? That beginning message was the one brought by the apostles which is recorded for us in scripture. So yes we do see scripture as the ultimate authority even over the Church. But we do not see reasoning as an authority. Because Human Reasoning can and is flawed. Which is our exact thought of why scripture is so important to, like the Bereans did, discern Church leadership to make sure it is true.



Once again I agree. In our society common sense (or common reasoning) is anti-christianity. And even if we lived 500 years ago when that was flipped. True believers do not get there by common reasoning. In Romans we are told that we are dead in our transgressions and sins. This goes to our sinful nature. So if our very nature is sinful then our common sense will also be sinful. If a lion has the choice of a fresh bloody steak and a salad what shall he choose? I would argue 99 times out of 100 the lion chooses the steak. So it is only through the transformation of our minds that we can see the absolute need of a savior and that can not be done with common reasoning, but an act of the Holy Spirt preparing our hearts. And by hearing by the Word of God.

The only thing I see that needs to be pointed out is that Scripture is not an authority "over" the Church. It is an authority within the Church, just as a bishop is not an authority "over" the Church, but an authority within the Church. There is no higher authority than the Church itself, "which is the pillar and foundation of the Truth". (1 Timothy 3:15)

Why? Because the fullness of the Holy Spirit is breathing within the Body of Christ, illuminating its members with the light of Christ, of Whom Scriptures refer to. Those who Love Christ and desire to participate in the Life of the Holy Trinity as fully as possible often wind up back in the Church of antiquity, sometimes not. All things and all paths are a matter of Divine providence.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So she sinned after His birth and that is why she needed a Savior?

No, she remained sinless. This was a special application of grace that, as far as anybody seems to know, was afforded only to her. The exact contours of it are a mystery (in the Catholic use of the idiom) but, to draw a parallel, when a Christian goes to Heaven he will not sin. He will be purified from sin because he has faith in Our Lord.

Our Lady is no different in that respect. But where she is different is the same grace that other Christians receive after death she received at her conception. It's effectively the same grace; merely applied to her differently. Her sinlessness doesn't come from herself or her own merit. Rather, it still comes from God. Indeed, it can't come from anywhere else. The issue here is God simply gave it to her on this side of death.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well because it's late and I'm getting a little punchy here. If not, I'll try clarifying this later on.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Now I have reread this before I posted and want to apologize if this comes off as an attack on the Catholic church. That is not my intention. I am just stating why Protestants do not see eye to eye on the doctrine of celebrating Mary. Because since reformers like Luther, Calvin and Zwingley we want to make sure we are putting the focus on God, because All Glory Belongs to Him!

I don't know much about Zwingli, but Luther and Calvin both would be more comfortable with Catholic teaching about Mary than what current Protestants believe. Calvin, in particular, argued that the 'brothers of the Lord were not biological brothers but other kin. You can believe as you wish, but your own reformers were in no haste to demote Mary. That came much later on and would have been strange to the reformers themselves.

 

[Hank77]

No, she remained sinless. This was a special application of grace that, as far as anybody seems to know, was afforded only to her. The exact contours of it are a mystery (in the Catholic use of the idiom) but, to draw a parallel, when a Christian goes to Heaven he will not sin. He will be purified from sin because he has faith in Our Lord.

Our Lady is no different in that respect. But where she is different is the same grace that other Christians receive after death she received at her conception. It's effectively the same grace; merely applied to her differently. Her sinlessness doesn't come from herself or her own merit. Rather, it still comes from God. Indeed, it can't come from anywhere else. The issue here is God simply gave it to her on this side of death.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well because it's late and I'm getting a little punchy here. If not, I'll try clarifying this later on.

I think I do understand what you are saying. I must say that when you and I don't sin even when tempted it is only by God's enabling us not to. The Lord sanctifying us.

But I'm still confused as to why she needed a Savior if she was born sinless, lived sinless, and died sinless.
That would make her just like Jesus who was sinless and He didn't need a Savior.
Sorry I'm not making the connection but thanks for trying. Maybe I'm too tired too, I'll read your post again tomorrow.

 

[FireDragon76]

In that passage the disciples wrongly conclude that if marriage is indissoluble then it is better not to marry. Jesus then responds that the calling of marriage is only given to some, and the calling of singleness is given to others. Both marriage and celibacy are good callings from God. Nowhere does he state or imply that one is better than another.

Good, so why did Protestants torpedo monasticism, a potentially perfect vocation for the celibate?

 

[Hank77]

I don't know much about Zwingli, but Luther and Calvin both would be more comfortable with Catholic teaching about Mary than what current Protestants believe. Calvin, in particular, argued that the 'brothers of the Lord were not biological brothers but other kin. You can believe as you wish, but your own reformers were in no haste to demote Mary. That came much later on and would have been strange to the reformers themselves.

Demote Mary from what position? She is the mother of our Lord, how much higher position could she have among women?

 

[FireDragon76]

I think I do understand what you are saying. I must say that when you and I don't sin even when tempted it is only by God's enabling us not to. The Lord sanctifying us.

But I'm still confused as to why she needed a Savior if she was born sinless, lived sinless, and died sinless.
That would make her just like Jesus who was sinless and He didn't need a Savior.

Mary was not God. She was just the first recipient of salvation through Jesus by participating in the Incarnation, so Jesus was still her savior- without Jesus, we would just have a sinful Mary, and potentially a damned Mary. At least that's my view of that particular doctrine.