A Question for Catholics

[boughtwithaprice]

I will ask the question again.

1. What difference does it make if Mary had sex after Jesus was born. Why is this even an issue? Why does it matter?

2. what is the purpose behind this doctrine is. What is the Goal?

3. Is this simply a matter of historical accuracy?

4. Is there some Theological implication that I am missing?

5. Is there some Spiritual Shift that occurs when married people who are following God order have sex?

6. Is there some damnation that occurs.

7. It seem like an unnecessary teaching that just make you a target.

8. Or is it some kind of pseudo authority power trip. It is that way because we said so.

9. What am I missing?

These are excellent questions and deserve an answer. You need to ask yourself, are you ready to hear the answer? Or are you prepared to reject all arguments unless they agree with you?
That is a an honest question and I am prepared for the same, as it makes no difference to ME what Mary did. Her condtion does not change mine. That is not a belief, that is a fact.

The real question is what difference does it make to GOD? He is the author and finisher of our faith, plain and simple

Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments. Elsewhere scripture says my commandments are not burdensome.

Satan’s arguments are that God is a tyrant and gives impossible commands just to watch us squirm and cry. Satan say submission to God is slavery against which we should rebel as unjust

We know that is a lie by faith, but by experience it seems like a daunting argument. To understand and strengthen our faith, we need to be clear in our minds. The spiritual battle is in our minds and will, not in works of the flesh.


One of the arguments for tyranny is the proverbial insult “rules for thee, not for me”. That is the style of our American Congress which makes laws and then immediately exempts themselves from them. Does God do that? If Satan could prove it, it would be a powerful argument for tyranny, but is it true?

Let’s look at God’s commands that He gives to us.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Does God honor His mother? If so, the only fitting place for her is queen of Heaven and Earth as described in Psalm 45 (44 D/R)

If Mary is not at Jesus right hand, we could hear the howls from hell for all eternity that God is a tyrant. He commands you what He Himself will not do. That will not happen because we know that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.
Jesus is not a tyrant in that He forces all to do this, but He is so holy that there is no denying it.
For that to be true He must obey His own commands, else He would not give them.
I believe God honors His mother

The same can be said for the command regarding adultery. Satan loves to blaspheme and looks for all opportunity to speak evil of God and show his hate for Mary. We get the term “Son of B——“ as a direct blaspheme against Jesus regarding Satan’s hate for Mary. He views her lower than a female dog.

Can you imagine the howls from hell for all eternity if Mary had other children? Children from two fathers while both fathers are still alive, and one of them is God? God does not condone that behavior from human wives, why would He desire it of His own mother? Satan will be in hell for eternity, but his howls of blaspheme would go unchecked. God has the power to stop them, but why would He need to use that power if it were not true?
At the name of Jesus every mouth is stopped, not because He is holding it closed, but His holiness is above reproach. That is possible of His mother is a perpetual virgin

In the 21st century, people view sex as a “need” it that is not so. God granted us sexual intercourse not to be used for pleasure only, rather for the procreation of children and love between husband and wife.

As men, we are to mortify the deeds of the flesh, sex being one of them, and use it only as intended. Prior to about 1960 for the world and 1930 for Christians, contraception was viewed as for prostitutes and degenerates. The Catholic Church still teaches that it is gravely sinful, even though some partake.

We do not understand the treasure that it virginity and chastity and modern man is conditioning to view it as a joke or a condition with which to be embarrassed. It is not so with God, and purity is highly favored. A man that commits impure acts, sins against his own body

That is why I believe Mary to be a perpetual virgin . If I am wrong, God will instruct me. If I am right, then God alone belongs the glory

In your case, if you are right, no problem, but if you are wrong, then you are blaspheming God and His mother this whole time and not knowing it. That would be extremely embarrassing for you at the throne of grace.

Why chance it? As humans reading scripture, you rightly point out that we cannot definitively know the answer until we appear before God. My question would be, what advantage is it to you that Mary had other children? Does it glorify God? Where is the satisfaction of making a definitive statement regarding something that you confess as unknown?

I pray for you

 

[Valletta]

You keep bringing up Michal. But the verse comes from the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew:

“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.” (2Sa 6:23 NKJV)

The word translated "to the day" there is the Hebrew יום yowm, which I am told means "day" or "time". So it doesn't allow for the possibility of somebody reading the verse and imagining it could mean that she had children after death.

In Matthew 1:25, the Greek word ἕως heos means "unto" or "until". We can look at other verses in the New Testament that use the same word. Here are just 2 examples:

“When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.” (Mt 2:9 NKJV)

The star moved, and the wise men followed it from Bethlehem to the place in Bethlehem where Jesus was. There it stopped.

“When we had come to the end of those days, we departed and went on our way; and they all accompanied us, with wives and children, till we were out of the city. And we knelt down on the shore and prayed.” (Ac 21:5 NKJV)

The people followed Paul and his companions but stopped doing so once they were out of the city.

In both those examples (and there are many more I could have quoted) something is mentioned which happened until a certain point, then stopped. Similarly in Matthew 1:25. Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

Again, the Greek "until" says zero about what happened after the subject event. Catholics use the Greek Septuagint for the OT because that's what the Apostle's taught from. The Greek word used is the same. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, or how often you underline it, the Greek "until" tells us nothing about what happens after the event. Since it is repeated so many times it seems that is the best you have to make your case. What does the existence or non-existence of Mary's perpetual virginity have to do with your salvation?

 

[concretecamper]

Reading the past few pages on this thread makes it painfully obvious that no one contributing here can accurately interpret scripture without the help of His Church. That is why we need the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to do so. Praise Jesus for founding a Church for the salvation of souls

 

[Adventist Dissident]

These are excellent questions and deserve an answer. You need to ask yourself, are you ready to hear the answer? Or are you prepared to reject all arguments unless they agree with you?
That is a an honest question and I am prepared for the same, as it makes no difference to ME what Mary did. Her condtion does not change mine. That is not a belief, that is a fact.

The real question is what difference does it make to GOD? He is the author and finisher of our faith, plain and simple

Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments. Elsewhere scripture says my commandments are not burdensome.

Satan’s arguments are that God is a tyrant and gives impossible commands just to watch us squirm and cry. Satan say submission to God is slavery against which we should rebel as unjust

We know that is a lie by faith, but by experience it seems like a daunting argument. To understand and strengthen our faith, we need to be clear in our minds. The spiritual battle is in our minds and will, not in works of the flesh.


One of the arguments for tyranny is the proverbial insult “rules for thee, not for me”. That is the style of our American Congress which makes laws and then immediately exempts themselves from them. Does God do that? If Satan could prove it, it would be a powerful argument for tyranny, but is it true?

Let’s look at God’s commands that He gives to us.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Does God honor His mother? If so, the only fitting place for her is queen of Heaven and Earth as described in Psalm 45 (44 D/R)

If Mary is not at Jesus right hand, we could hear the howls from hell for all eternity that God is a tyrant. He commands you what He Himself will not do. That will not happen because we know that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.
Jesus is not a tyrant in that He forces all to do this, but He is so holy that there is no denying it.
For that to be true He must obey His own commands, else He would not give them.
I believe God honors His mother

The same can be said for the command regarding adultery. Satan loves to blaspheme and looks for all opportunity to speak evil of God and show his hate for Mary. We get the term “Son of B——“ as a direct blaspheme against Jesus regarding Satan’s hate for Mary. He views her lower than a female dog.

Can you imagine the howls from hell for all eternity if Mary had other children? Children from two fathers while both fathers are still alive, and one of them is God? God does not condone that behavior from human wives, why would He desire it of His own mother? Satan will be in hell for eternity, but his howls of blaspheme would go unchecked. God has the power to stop them, but why would He need to use that power if it were not true?
At the name of Jesus every mouth is stopped, not because He is holding it closed, but His holiness is above reproach. That is possible of His mother is a perpetual virgin

In the 21st century, people view sex as a “need” it that is not so. God granted us sexual intercourse not to be used for pleasure only, rather for the procreation of children and love between husband and wife.

As men, we are to mortify the deeds of the flesh, sex being one of them, and use it only as intended. Prior to about 1960 for the world and 1930 for Christians, contraception was viewed as for prostitutes and degenerates. The Catholic Church still teaches that it is gravely sinful, even though some partake.

We do not understand the treasure that it virginity and chastity and modern man is conditioning to view it as a joke or a condition with which to be embarrassed. It is not so with God, and purity is highly favored. A man that commits impure acts, sins against his own body

That is why I believe Mary to be a perpetual virgin . If I am wrong, God will instruct me. If I am right, then God alone belongs the glory

In your case, if you are right, no problem, but if you are wrong, then you are blaspheming God and His mother this whole time and not knowing it. That would be extremely embarrassing for you at the throne of grace.

Why chance it? As humans reading scripture, you rightly point out that we cannot definitively know the answer until we appear before God. My question would be, what advantage is it to you that Mary had other children? Does it glorify God? Where is the satisfaction of making a definitive statement regarding something that you confess as unknown?

I pray for you

thank you for your response it was thoughtful and respectful. I agree with you that we need to see it from God's point of view and what things mean to God. That being said, I am not where you are at. The issue of honoring your mother and honoring Mary was not something I ever thought about as a protestant, until recently. Not that I hated Mary, just did not worship Her. I must say I disagree with on too many things in this article. Sex and why it was created is one of them. I don't believe that is God's view of things.

"Can you imagine the howls from hell for all eternity if Mary had other children? "

This is actually a very good argument in your favor. but one could also make the case for it being blaspheme for Mary to be called the new EVE. the seem like incest. I have been wrestling with the Idea that Mary is the wife of God. That seems more constant, but does have problem with Joseph share the same woman as God. That is bizarre and werid at the same time. The whole thing is weird. why would God co-opt someone else bride and then tell Him to take care of her His entire life? Just to weird when you think about it. I am not were you are at. Just don't see it. I thing that all doctrine is suppose to help up glorify God I not sure even after you explanation that honoring Mary does honor God. I see that your view is out of respect for her which you have and abundance of. And maybe as protestants we need to honor her a little more, but I can't go that far without more evidence.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Reading the past few pages on this thread makes it painfully obvious that no one contributing here can accurately interpret scripture without the help of His Church. That is why we need the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to do so. Praise Jesus for founding a Church for the salvation of souls

we need the Holy Spirit

 

[RileyG]

Reading the past few pages on this thread makes it painfully obvious that no one contributing here can accurately interpret scripture without the help of His Church. That is why we need the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to do so. Praise Jesus for founding a Church for the salvation of souls

Amen!

 

[RileyG]

we need the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church until Christ’s second coming, that’s true.

 

[prodromos]

according to the text. Sex has always been part of this world, you wouldn't be here without it. So don't knock it.

Who 's knocking it? There is a right place and a wrong place for sex. In modern Western culture it is constantly in your face. Almost every TV show or movie, many advertisements are saturated with sex. The intent is to normalise sex in every place and anyone who thinks their interpretation of Scripture isn't affected by that is kidding themselves.

Rome was worse in regards to sex. The had brothels, temples of prostitution, and sexual paraphernalia that rivals anything we have today. They made a religion out of sex so saying we are sex obsessed is not really a good argument.

This reveals that your argument is Rome centric. It's an anti-Catholic bias which ignores Rome was just a small part of the Ancient Church. Every ancient Church from India through Africa to Ireland taught that Mary had no other child beside Jesus

 

[RileyG]

Who 's knocking it? There is a right place and a wrong place for sex. In modern Western culture it is constantly in your face. Almost every TV show or movie, many advertisements are saturated with sex. The intent is to normalise sex in every place and anyone who thinks their interpretation of Scripture isn't affected by that is kidding themselves.

This reveals that your argument is Rome centric. It's an anti-Catholic bias which ignores Rome was just a small part of the Ancient Church. Every ancient Church from India through Africa to Ireland taught that Mary had no other child beside Jesus

All the reformers believed Mary was a perpetual virgin too.

 

[David Lamb]

Again, the Greek "until" says zero about what happened after the subject event. Catholics use the Greek Septuagint for the OT because that's what the Apostle's taught from. The Greek word used is the same. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, or how often you underline it, the Greek "until" tells us nothing about what happens after the event. Since it is repeated so many times it seems that is the best you have to make your case. What does the existence or non-existence of Mary's perpetual virginity have to do with your salvation?

Let me reassure you on your question. I certainly don't believe that belief about whether or not Mary's virginity was perpetual affects one's salvation.

Regarding the Greek word for "until", in almost all of the 139 instances seem to be indicating "until", "up to", or "as far as." I have just looked at the first 30 of the 139, and they all except one have a meaning such as "up to a certain point." The exception is translated, "How long" when Jesus asks, "How long shall I bear with you?" (Matthew 17:17). But even there, the idea is, "Up to when shall I bear with you?"

 

[prodromos]

It would have been obvious to Christians in the early Church who met Mary and any of Jesus' brothers and sisters, that Mary was not old enough to be mother to any of Jesus' siblings. There is no suggestion in early Church writing that Mary was mother to anyone but Jesus and it isn't until 3 centuries later that a guy named Helvidius decided that he knew better than the Church. The Ecumenical Councils only made definitive statements to defend what had always been taught by the Church against false teaching that had been introduced. Although Mary's ever-virginity was not a doctrinal issue, it was still the truth and considered worthy of defense.

 

[David Lamb]

It would have been obvious to Christians in the early Church who met Mary and any of Jesus' brothers and sisters, that Mary was not old enough to be mother to any of Jesus' siblings. There is no suggestion in early Church writing that Mary was mother to anyone but Jesus and it isn't until 3 centuries later that a guy named Helvidius decided that he knew better than the Church. The Ecumenical Councils only made definitive statements to defend what had always been taught by the Church against false teaching that had been introduced. Although Mary's ever-virginity was not a doctrinal issue, it was still the truth and considered worthy of defense.

Why would Mary not have been old enough? The bible refers to Jesus as her "firstborn Son." If she was old enough to be the mother of Jesus, she would have been old enough to give birth to other children after Jesus.

 

[prodromos]

Why would Mary not have been old enough? The bible refers to Jesus as her "firstborn Son." If she was old enough to be the mother of Jesus, she would have been old enough to give birth to other children after Jesus.

Not if they were older than Jesus, indeed most were probably older than Mary

 

[David Lamb]

Not if they were older than Jesus, indeed most were probably older than Mary

But we are told Jesus was her firstborn Son, to Whom she gave birth before coming together with Joseph.

 

[prodromos]

But we are told Jesus was her firstborn Son, to Whom she gave birth before coming together with Joseph.

Any only child is also a firstborn. It is a term referencing the child that opened the womb of their mother. It does not mean that there are necessarily subsequent children.
You also interpret the Gospel writer of describing sexual intimacy between Joseph and Mary which has absolutely no bearing on the Gospel. There are no unnecessary details in the Gospels so it would be very out of character for the authors to include such details.

 

[David Lamb]

Any only child is also a firstborn. It is a term referencing the child that opened the womb of their mother. It does not mean that there are necessarily subsequent children.
You also interpret the Gospel writer of describing sexual intimacy between Joseph and Mary which has absolutely no bearing on the Gospel. There are no unnecessary details in the Gospels so it would be very out of character for the authors to include such details.

I know that, but you said earlier, "Not if they (other children of Mary) were older than Jesus, indeed most were probably older than Mary." If Jesus opened the womb of Mary as her firstborn, how can any other children of Mary have been older than Jesus? You keep saying the matter has no bearing on the gospel, and that's true in that it doesn't affect salvation, but I have never suggested that it did.

 

[prodromos]

I know that, but you said earlier, "Not if they (other children of Mary) were older than Jesus, indeed most were probably older than Mary." If Jesus opened the womb of Mary as her firstborn, how can any other children of Mary have been older than Jesus? You keep saying the matter has no bearing on the gospel, and that's true in that it doesn't affect salvation, but I have never suggested that it did.

Mary didn't have any other children. Jesus' brothers and sisters were all children of Joseph by his former wife.
My point on it having no bearing on the Gospel is that the Gospel writers did not record information which had no bearing on the Gospel. You interpret Matthew as doing the contrary.

 

[David Lamb]

Mary didn't have any other children. Jesus' brothers and sisters were all children of Joseph by his former wife.
My point on it having no bearing on the Gospel is that the Gospel writers did not record information which had no bearing on the Gospel. You interpret Matthew as doing the contrary.

Well, you have to assume that Joseph had been married before he married Mary. And if that were the case, such children would not be related to Jesus at all, as their father was Joseph, and their mother the former wife of Joseph that you assume there was, whereas the Father of Jesus is God, and His mother Mary.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Well, you have to assume that Joseph had been married before he married Mary. And if that were the case, such children would not be related to Jesus at all, as their father was Joseph, and their mother the former wife of Joseph that you assume there was, whereas the Father of Jesus is God, and His mother Mary.

Yes, it is a counter assumption that has no scriptural reference. It comes from our 21st century concept of the nuclear family.
We can have this perspective as a first world nation. The infrastructure is in place where society can reasonably support nuclear families

In ancient times, the population was much lower and families stayed together in a traditional family format. Many sons were considered arrows in a man’s quiver because that meant more sons to work for the good of the family
It was almost impossible for one to “go it alone” or with a wife and immediate family.

To do so, one would have to be a great hunter or fisherman, else know how to farm, but even with a farm, one needs workers to care for it, hence sons as arrows in his quiver

The alternative is slavery. We think slavery to be evil. In ancient times, I look at myself. I can’t hunt. I can’t farm. Man, I am going to stave to death. I can’t do jack on my own.

Wait some dude has a big farm down the road. I don’t know how to farm but I can offer my body to labor and I can take orders. I will have a place to sleep and something to eat. I offer myself to indentured servitude

Oh no tangent alert Sorry

My point is that the concept of a family was different in 30AD than 2024. The term for brother includes cousin because they were all part of the same family, maybe the same household. It does not imply that these men were direct decedents of either Mary or Joseph

Have you ever heard of a Spanish family moving into a single family home in the USA and the family size is like 20 people ? Not just mother father kids, but aunts uncles cousins all in the same house ?

I admit that it is my understanding and I just say I don’t know what really happened, but it is another possibility
I err on the side of Mary’s perpetual virginity for the greater glory of God for reasons I have already explained.

 

[Lukaris]

St. Irenaeus wrote an overall account of the Apostolic preaching in the mid to later 2nd century and attests to the tradition of the Virgin Mary as the new Eve ( chapter 32):


33. And just as through a disobedient virgin man was stricken down and fell into death, so through the Virgin who was obedient to the Word of God man was reanimated and received life.139 For the Lord came to seek again the sheep that 100was lost;140 and man it was that was lost: and for this cause there was not made some other formation,141 but in that same which had its descent from Adam He preserved the likeness of the (first) formation.142 For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin’s intercessor,143 and by a virgin’s obedience undo and put away the disobedience of a virgin.

St. Irenaeus: Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

www.ccel.org

Later he explains the meaning of Isaiah 11:1-10 in that the rod of Jesse is from the Virgin Mary ( chapter 58):


By these words he states that He was born from her who was of the race of David and of Abraham. For Jesse was the descendant of Abraham, and the father of David; (and David’s) descendant the virgin was who conceived Christ. Now (as to) the rod: for this cause also Moses with221 a rod showed the mighty works to Pharaoh: and with other men also the rod is a sign of rule. And by flower he means His flesh;222 for from spirit it budded forth, as we have said before.


It seemed basically understood that Mary is ever Virgin. The chapter numbers I cited were numbered by a printed translation I have but appear one different from the online account.