Was Mary a virgin all her life?

Mary was chock full of sin wasn't she?

Click to expand...

No, she was not. Mary was preserved from sin by special action of God. This is the Catholic theological interpretation, as well as that of the Orthodox bodies and several Protestant churches as well.

The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short.

Click to expand...

The Bible also says that "all have gone astray, and there is no one who seeks after God (Romans 3:11); but that can't be entirely right, or you and I wouldn't be here, now would we? You can't take one verse and build a doctrine out of it.

I mean... how could mary not be born with original sin? That doesn't sound right.

Click to expand...

I would invite you to persue the topic of the Immaculate Conception on the following sites---you might find them quite interesting.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM

www.scripturecatholic.com

a2z.org/acts/

www.newadvent.org

www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

www.e3mil.com

www.catholic.com

www.catholic.net:80

www.electriciti.com/~answers

www.envoymagazine.com

Just a quick note: I think the core issue should be this-
Is a belief in the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Queenship of Mary necessary for salvation? IC and Assumption are formal Roman Catholic dogmas (not doctrines, dogmas) that are held as necessary for salvation. Further, their Liturgical Commemoration in the Sanctoral Cycles of the year serve to undergird their observance. Historically, the liturgical commemorations not related to new Saints which have showed up on the Calendar since the 1100's have been to undergird Roman doctrines not accepted by the Eastern or Protestant Churches, or to stand against society.

Thus, we see that Corpus Christi was meant to stand against the Eastern Orthdox who refused to use the term Transubstantiation, and rejected the Aquinas theory of Consecration. . . as well as to combat a loss of belief in the Real Presence in the Latin Church; The Feast of Christ the King was meant as a jab at Socialisim in the day of it's institution. . . noting that Christ was indeed the head of all things Christian, not the "common good" of a godless society. The Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker was actually instituted as an opposition to the Communist May Day celebrations. . . and displaced a far more important feast (Sts. Philip and James) from their rightful Feast to the 11th of May (though in the new Missal they have been moved closer to their original day of May 1).

If indeed we belive the old law, "The law of prayer is the law of believing" then one must believe in the IC and Assumption and Queenship of Mary to be in the right (at least in the Roman Communion).

Since these beliefs are, at best, based on rather questionable sources (her perpetual virginity, for example, is taken from the Protoevangelion of James, a blasted "gospel" account of the life of Mary from before the Conception of Christ through par to her life) most of which were flat out rejected due to false authorship and contradictory claims.

The belief in Mary's perpeutal virginity dates from the 4th Century in the east, the 6th and 7th in the west (as late as the 10th in the British Isles, esp. Ireland). The belief in her "falling asleep" (Dormition) is as old as the death of Mary. . . but the Dormition is not the same as the Assumption. The Ancient Church never cited Revelation 12 as justification for the Assumption (as many do today), and in fact found no reason to commemorate it. The Dormition is one thing, the Assumption is quite another. Universal belief in the Latin Rite only dates to the 14th Century in most places. Her Immaculate Conception is an even later liturgical innovation, and though Augustine seems to have been quite a proponent of the idea, it was not generally accepted in the West until the mid 15th Century.

The bottom line is this: These are NOT beliefs necessary for salvation. If they were, they would be in the Scriptures. They are not held by all Catholics. . . even the Eastern Rites in union with Rome do not describe the "Dormition" as an assumption experience, ala the Western Rites.

Since it is not necessary for salvation, they should not IMHO be liturgially mandated. To remove such things would go a great way to restoring the impared relationship the Roman Church has with the Eastern Churches not in Communion with her, as well as the Anglicans, Old Catholics, and the Lutherans in valid Apostolic succession.

Sorry. . . I meant for this to be short. . . my fault. Hope some folks found it helpful anyway.

Father Rob

To Fr Rob:

Since it is not necessary for salvation, they should not IMHO be liturgially mandated.

Click to expand...

My big question would be: what harm comes from the teachings?

I had a lot of problems with the emphasis on Mary when I first converted. But then I started reading what some of the scholars had deduced. I was fascinated that she had been forecast (probably not the right word, technically, but you get the gist of what I'm saying) in GENESIS. The complexity of her role goes way beyond being merely a womb. I would say that 99% of the Catholics don't truly appreciate the incredible research that has gone in to define Mary's role in our lives.

The role that completely blew me away was her being referred to as "the New Ark of the Covenant." It was seeing her portrayed as such that helped me to understand the reasoning behind her being the "Immaculate Conception." The original Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament had such incredible power, and the people had to offer it respect. During its existence in the hands of the Hebrews and their priests, the Ark was a visible, tangible presence of God in their midst.

The Ark disappeared, and there has been no trace whatsoever of it, despite Indiana Jones's efforts, LOL. It's simply GONE. I'm sure finding it would be the ultimate dream of any archaeologist on this planet.

But God wouldn't permit such a holy thing to be desecrated, would He?

Why, then, is it unreasonable to think that God would not do the same for the New Ark of the Covenant, as well?



Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by VOW
My big question would be: what harm comes from the teachings?

Click to expand...

The harm is that many people cannot accept the teachings, as they at least *appear* to directly contradict scripture. Since they are not necessary for salvation, the Roman Communion should not IMHO throw a stumbling block before those who might wish to convert (or remain) who cannot, in good conscience, accept the doctrines.

I had a lot of problems with the emphasis on Mary when I first converted. But then I started reading what some of the scholars had deduced.

Click to expand...

I have never had a problem with emphasising Mary in the slightest. I have no problem whatsoever with frequent remembrance of the lives of the saints, to the point of making sure that I commemorate each and every liturgical festival that falls on the Calendar and sharing the story of the life of that individual as a part of the homily, and reflecting on why the readings were chosen with respect to that individual's life. However, emphasis on Mary's self-lessness does not equal a necessity to promote and teach non-essential doctrines.

Also, we must keep in mind that Scholarly deductions are frequently wrong. Take a look at some of the idiotic "scholarly" discussions that have taken place over the years. If just a few of them had been accepted, then the Roman Church would be condom happy, ordaining women, and allowing homosexuals back at the Communion rail, all in the name of scholastic purity. No, just because a scholar makes a claim does not mean that it must be accepted as correct.

I was fascinated that she had been forecast (probably not the right word, technically, but you get the gist of what I'm saying) in GENESIS. The complexity of her role goes way beyond being merely a womb. I would say that 99% of the Catholics don't truly appreciate the incredible research that has gone in to define Mary's role in our lives. . . (editing to final clause) . . .But God wouldn't permit such a holy thing to be desecrated, would He? Why, then, is it unreasonable to think that God would not do the same for the New Ark of the Covenant, as well?

Click to expand...

Ah! Here we hit the crux of the issue. No, most Catholics, Roman or otherwise, do not understand the true nature and role of Mary, nor do they appreciate the power it can bring to the Catholic life. I will always and at all times voraciously defend the necessity of observing Mary's life as a perfect example (as perfect as a mere human life can be, that is!) of selfless obedience to her Saviour. However, the argument that you put forth (as many Theologians do) is, frankly, emotional. We all want to believe our mothers are perfect, virtious women. How much more don't we want to believe that our Lord's own mother, the Blessed Virgin is. However, there is no theological, biblical, or even emotional reason that she needed to be preserved form Original Sin or acutal sin at all.

Granted, I prefer to belive that she never committed any actual sins, but I realise that it is purely emotionalisim

Blessings,
Father Rob

>>Hope this is enlightening.

I don't see any light anywhere. In fact, I was going to ask you, is the rest of the Anglican Church in as much darkness as you are?

Matthew 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Originally posted by JohnR7
>>Hope this is enlightening.

I don't see any light anywhere. In fact, I was going to ask you, is the rest of the Anglican Church in as much darkness as you are?

Click to expand...

I was trying to share a bit of background, both theological, philosophical, emotional, and experiential.

My disagreements with Rome are far outweighed by my agreements with Rome. Differences do not mean darkness. They mean differences. This is a place for open discussion, and I am learning a great deal just by the open participation. Of course, I don't agree with everything I read, but then again, I don't accuse Roman Catholics of living in darkness just because they don't agree with me on some doctrines that aren't even central to salvation.

I understand the desire to defend the faith. In my teens I was a "flaming papist" (my term). I was solidly a Roman Catholic, I knew all the arguments that (at that time) had been made about nearly everything. As I aged, and studied, I found things I differed on. Today, I still feel compelled to defend the faith. .. and I have a great deal of love for the Catholic Faith (Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, etc...) but I have to be true to what I am.

I hope that you can find, if not enlightenment, then at least understanding, of some of the differences we have. . . because until we can intelligently assess, evaluate, and resolve our differences, there shall be no reunion between any branch of the Church Catholic.

Let us pray that we may all be one!

Father Rob

I understand and I defend your right to believe as you do, Fr. Rob. However, believing as I do that the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is endowed with the charism of infallibility, and both you and I are not, you will of course understand my reluctance to embrace your viewpoints, or to trust my own conclusions in these matters insofar as they disagree with the Church. Ergo, hopefully you will indulge me if I detract from your views in many areas as you have outlined them above.

Die dulci fruere; pax et abeo,
---Wols.

However, there is no theological, biblical, or even emotional reason that she needed to be preserved form Original Sin or acutal sin at all.

Click to expand...

Dear Father Rob,

I feel there is a theological reason for every Marian Dogma. Each and every one points to Christ and His pre-existant nature, or His nature as inherited from Mary. The following post is my feable attempt to explain the reason I feel the Immaculate Conception to be theologically necessary.

It is a pleasure to have you here, by the way

Sincerely,

Neal


From a post made here: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10872&pagenumber=1

Mary was given the Indwelling at conception, just as Adam and Eve were. Adam and Eve were not created fallen, but pure and in the image of God. It is because of Christ, the New Adam (1 Corinthians 15:21-23) , that Mary, the New Eve (Genesis 2:15) was given this gift.

[It] is amazing to me, ...that Christ was born sinless in his humanity by the very nature that he received from his mother. His flesh wasn't cleansed of anything, HE WAS CONCEIVED PURE BY NATURE, not through redemption as was Mary, because she had no sin to pass on to Jesus. He was truly the first-born of a new creation, [the only] one that was as God had intended it from the beginning, born pure without the need of cleansing (Romans 8:29). Through Christ, the first-born, we can be re-born, in Him, the Pure and Spotless Paschal Lamb. Through being baptized into His death, we can share in His life (Romans 6:4). How amazing is the Lord, our God, that he chose a lowly handmaiden to be Full of Grace (Luke 1:28) in preparation for the coming of His Kingdom.

The Immaculate Conception was for Christ, and in anticipation of His Coming. It was not made up to glorify Mary. It was a gift from God to us all.

Originally posted by Wolseley
I understand and I defend your right to believe as you do, Fr. Rob...Ergo, hopefully you will indulge me if I detract from your views in many areas as you have outlined them above.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with disagreement. . . none at all. I expect to experience people with differing opinions here. That's the nice thing about the place. I just wish that the disagreements were all phrased as nicely as your post was. . . instead of resorting to "potshot phraseology"

Blessings,
Fr. Rob

To Fr Rob:

It's a TAD more civilized here in the Catholic Discussion.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by isshinwhat


Mary was given the Indwelling at conception, just as Adam and Eve were. Adam and Eve were not created fallen, but pure and in the image of God. It is because of Christ, the New Adam (1 Corinthians 15:21-23) , that Mary, the New Eve (Genesis 2:15) was given this gift.

Click to expand...

Dear Neal,

Thanks for the welcome, and the stimulating thought!

I only have a few brief moments to make a reply, but I thought I would share this, from St. Irenaeus, writing in the year 180.

Speaking of the obedience of the Virgin, Irenaeus writes:
"This demonstrates (the obedince of the Virgin) the corresponding reference from Mary back to Eve. So it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the Virgin Eve had bound fast through disbelief and sin, this did the Virgin Mary set free in spite of sin through faith.

an alternate translation reads (Last sentence only):

[/i]For what the [/i]rich Virgin Eve had bound, the poor Virgin Mary set free through faith.

(Note, the words rich and poor, in one of the alternate texts, is italicised because the words can be translated in different ways, much like the italicised words in the King James Bible can mean several different similar words.)

Fr. Rob

yes i understand what u said
believing in the virgin mary is not nescessory of salvation
but u need her guidance
i wish to say that
i have read part of this book entitled"the virgin mary in the writings of mary valtorta"it is actually a report(something like cutting the original piece and paste it into a new book and some explanation in it)
there is 1 part about the role of the virgin mary during the end times our lady was present in the creation so she is present in the end times
this was a revelation as revealed to maria valtorta
in the end,god will abandoned us to our will and many will fall,the entire earth shall be in an uproar like a stormy sea,all mankind will be shipwreaked,EXCEPT THE SERVANTS OF GOD who are taken in to peter's boat and remain faithful to the holy navigator.then as a peaceful starrising above the terror and horror of the stormy waves,the star of the sea shall dawn.this will be the morning's star last apparition before sunrise,that is, before lamb of god'second and last coming,when the redeemercomes again,his forerunner will not be the penitent in the desert,he loyally cared for sinners to heal them of their unwieldiness and make them more agile to wel come the lord,but his penances were harsh and auster.THE FORERUNNER OF THE SECOND COMING WILL BE OUR ANGEL,THE WOMAN WHO WAS A SERAPH IN HER FLESH.she is the one in whom we establish our dwelling,since we could find none that was sweeter and worthier......................
after this there is a lot more
our lady will prepare the way to the king of kings just like what john did in those days
in the second passage,jesus is speaking
"the book of revelation foretells that in the end times,an angel will offerthe holiest incenses before god's throne,before beginning to pour the fire of god's wrath on earth.this imperishable incense,worthy of the most high,is the prayers of the saints,my very sweet martyr,are gathered by the angel(gabriel)who brought word to her.the same one received her consent(her be it done unto me according to ur word;lk 1:38, douay),and witnessed her supernatural wedding in which the divine nature bound itself with human nature.as god drew flesh to his height,he lowered his spiritual essence to become a peace-flesh between god and man"
"gabriel and his heavenly companions bent over jesus and mary's suffering,they were unable to comfort them,because it was the hour of justice,they did not turn away,however,and their luminous intelligence registered all the details of that hour.they did so in order to proclaim them to the risen,when time shall be no more.the blessed will rejoice,but reprobates will stand and condemned a first time.for both groups,this will be forstate of what I will say to them as their supreme Judge and sovereign king"(Quad.43,p.345-346[sept 13])
this is part of the quotation

>>believing in the virgin mary is not nescessory of salvation but u need her guidance

The Holy Spirit of God is the one who guides us. Even if you wanted to communicate with the virgin mary, she is in Heaven, so the only way you could communicate with her is through the Holy Spirit of through a messenger angel.

The advantage with the Holy Spirit is that He is able to search her out, if there is something your wanting to know about her. Thanks, JohnR7

>>Mary was preserved from sin by special action of God.

Oh, so Mary had special "action" from God? That would mean that Jesus did not have a mother like I had. So He can not be sympathic of me, because He had special "actions" working in His life that are not working in mine.

In order for Jesus to be "son of man", he had to have a mother just like every one else has. She could not be given any special actions or special favors from God, that is not available to everyone else.

LOL. Try going over to the Apologetics forum of Rapture Ready sometime, Fr. Rob. You'll never leave here again.

Oh, so Mary had special "action" from God? That would mean that Jesus did not have a mother like I had. So He can not be sympathic of me, because He had special "actions" working in His life that are not working in mine.

In order for Jesus to be "son of man", he had to have a mother just like every one else has. She could not be given any special actions or special favors from God, that is not available to everyone else.

Click to expand...

If it's special actions that separates us from Jesus, John, then it's not only Mary we have to worry about.

Jesus walked on water. I can't. He had a special action working in His life that is not working in mine.

Jesus caused people to rise from the dead. I can't. Another special action.

Jesus rose from His grave. I can guarantee I won't be able to do that, either. Another special action.

So He had a mother that was preserved from sin, and my mother wasn't. So what? Why is this different from any of the other aspects of Jesus that are different from me?

My concern is to make myself more like Him, not in how much He was like me.

the virgin mary was conceived without sin in the womb of saint anne,the virgin mary did not know she was sinless until the angel gabriel appeared to her.
even during the creation god was think about her
He kept her in mind in three ways:
1)as the MODEL of all things(exemplary cause)
2)as their goal(final cause of creation)
3)as the first of all creature,as the masterpiece of all creation(in this way,god made her the highest created testimony of his uncreated power,wisdom, and goodness

Jason wrote:
I thought someone said earlier that Mary was conceived without sin and didn't need to be cleansed from Original Sin, since she was immaculately conceived to give birth to Jesus. Isn't there a big contradiction there?

Click to expand...

I think I know what you had trouble with in my post. If not, ask me again and I'll clarify it, but I think this is it. You are correct in saying Mary never had Original Sin, thus she never needed cleansing, she was still redeemed, but in a special way. What I was trying to say in the last sentence was Jesus was the first ever man to be born naturally pure. Mary would have suffered from Original Sin had God not taken special action, but Christ inherited pure flesh from His mother. That was the first and only time in history this has happened. Did that clarify?

Neal

Hey everyone, I found these on http://www.bringyou.to/apolonio/a28.htm and thought I would share them.

God bless,

Neal

St. Augustine 390 AD

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God."

Click to expand...

St. Ambrose of Milan (340-397)

"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain."

Click to expand...

St. Ephraem the Syrian (cerca 340-350)

"Thou, and Thy Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in Thee, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in Thy Mother."

"My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate ...Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment ...Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate."

Click to expand...

St. Irenaeus of Lyon

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: 'Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.' Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey.... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.... Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book III c. 180 AD).

Click to expand...

St. John Damascene (645-750)

"O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens...This heaven is clearly much more divine and awesome than the first. Indeed he who created the sun in the first heaven would himself be born of this second heaven, as the Sun of Justice....She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God." (Homily on the Nativity 2, 3, 9 PG 96:664,676)

Click to expand...