Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, a Holy and Pure Vessel.

Document that.

The Ark of the Old Covenant was built to exact dimensions, wood and the purest gold

I know of NOTHING that indicates that Mary was made of wood and purist gold.


Scripture ONLY indicates that Jesus dwelt in the world. Does that make the world a wooden box, specifically the long lost Ark of the Covenant?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What do you think the vows a woman might take in Numbers 30 are referring to? Those by which she would "bind herself", and her father and/or husband would have such an interest in?

Please document any 'covenant' that Mary made - the content of such and when she made such. Otherwise, any and all references to such are irrelevant and baseless- and nothing more than an entirely unsubstantiated bit of pure speculation.


I know that if you go centuries after Mary died, you can find that those spreading this story said it's true. MY experience is that all who spread stories tend to argue that it's true - and the less support they have for it, they louder they scream "but it's true! It's true!" I'm sure your experience with gossipers is the same as mine. I'm not saying THIS is gossip, but I DO agree with my Catholic teachers who stressed that a story - no matter how well intended - that is personal and unsubstantiated IS the definition of "gossip" and is a serious violation of the Commandment, "thou shall not bear false witness" - even if the gossiper sincerely believes it true. That's what my Catholic teachers taught me, and I think they have a point.


If this is a matter of highest certainty of truth (dogma), it should be the easiest subject to document as true. It's stunning, isn't it, how entirely, completely, totally missing that substantiation is. Lots of ASSUMPTIONS, lots of QUESTIONS - no evidence, no substantiation, nothing at all. Frankly, as I compare this to LDS apologetics for doctrines there, it makes Catholicism look very badly in comparison, speaking solely of the quality of apologetics.






.

 

[Incariol]

Document that.






I know of NOTHING that indicates that Mary was made of wood and purist gold.


Scripture ONLY indicates that Jesus dwelt in the world. Does that make the world a wooden box, specifically the long lost Ark of the Covenant?





.

You can't be serious.

The Birth of Jesus Foretold

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Mary Visits Elizabeth

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

 

[justinangel]

Please quote from just 5 of those Jewish Christians in Palestine during the First Century that state, as dogma, that Mary had no sex ever. Just 5 will establish your point.

How does one quote an unwritten tradition that was passed on to the next generation and from that one to the next. I am referring to Mary's vow of chastity. Awareness of her perpetual virginity and vow certainly existed in apostolic time as is supported by Scripture in Luke 1:34. Mary would not have remained a virgin unless she had made a vow to God.

What vow? Would you please document that content of such and Her making of such? Thanks.

The vow is implicitly documented in the Gospel of Luke, not only by Mary's question "How shall this be, since I do not know a man?" but also by Luke's typification of Mary as a type of untouchable ark which belonged exclusively to God as his personal sanctuary amidst the profane. Scripture must not be read only in the historical-literal sense (a Protestant handicap), but also in the spiritual-allegorical sense. And since Scripture is the result of the Apostolic Tradition of the one universal (visible and hierarchical) Church founded by Jesus Christ himself on Peter and the Apostles in A.D. 33, it must be interpreted in light of this tradition. Observe:

Then the cloud (shekinah) covered (episkaisei) the meeting tent, and the glory of the Lord filled the Dwelling.
Exodus 40, 34

And the angel said to her in reply, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow (episkaisei) you."
Luke 1, 35

When the ark was completely fashioned, the glory cloud of the Lord covered or overshadowed the tent of meeting. The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle: God's special dwelling place in the profane world. By God's specifications, the ark was made from the purest gold inside and out, for it was fashioned to contain the holy word of God inscribed in stone: the Decalogue. Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin, for she was predestined to conceive and bear the Word of God made flesh as a type of sacred vessel. Her womb was a sacred dwelling place for the Son of God in the profane world. And her soul was sanctified by the grace of God at the first instant of her conception by God's specifications. Luke portrays Mary as the living tabernacle of the Word of God, the Ark of the New Covenant. The Divine Presence filled her womb as it did the tent of meeting upon filling the ark. When the Holy Spirit covered or overshadowed Mary, the Divine Holiness penetrated and enveloped her womb. Joseph was conceived in his mother's womb in sin, so his seed would have defiled the sacred sanctuary of Him who was without sin. Luke documents the nascent Church's faith in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by way of typology in his Gospel. And if Mary had intended to be a virgin all her life, then she must have made a vow to God for spiritual reasons. There can be no practical mundane reasons.

Yes. How does that suggest that it is Apostolic and true?

The Apostolic Tradition is transmitted first and foremost by apostolic succession in the episcopate and divine teaching office of the Church.

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [the Apostles] appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should believe afterwards."
St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 42, 44 (A.D. 98)

"True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrines of the Apostles and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists of reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4, 33:8 (A.D.180)

1. How is it possible to "infer with certainty?" Isn't that a contradiction?

Not if the inference is based on the assumption that Mary was aware of the biological facts of life. By the age of 14 she would have been.

2. She says "I do not know a man." It's PRESENT tense. For the DOGMA of "Mary Had No Sex Ever" to be substantiated, it would have to be future perfect. It's not. If I state, "I'm a virgin" that has ZERO relevance to whether I will die a virgin. If I state, "I live in an apartment," that does not mean that I will continuously live in an apartment up to and including the moment of my death. PRESENT tense has nothing whatsoever to do with PERPETUALITY. Nothing.

If someone offered a non-smoker a cigarette, he would likely say, "No thanks. I don't smoke," meaning he never smokes, and has no intention of starting. If a smoker was offered a cigarette, he could say, "Not right now. I won't be havving a cigarette until after lunch, " meaning he does smoke and intends to have a cigarette in the future. Luke's use of the present tense denotes a state or condition, not an instant in time. The angel Gabriel offered Mary a child. Like the non-smoker, she meant No, thanks. I don't have children and have no intention of having any. But she accepted the angel's offer after he explained to her that the conception would be a supernatural one.

I think the Catholic Tradition here is FAR more likely - although again, speculation. That Tradition is that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened AT THE SAME TIME, which is why the Annunication is celebrated exactly 9 months before Christmas. Long before this idea of Mary Had No Sex Ever, we had this Tradition - that Jesus was conceived at the moment of the annuniation that you reference. Hence, could it be that Mary was right? That Mary understood this? Thus, She asks Her question in the PRESENT tense - knowing the prophecy is a PRESENT reality? IF She was wrong, and the prophecy was that She'd conceive 25 years in the future, would she not have asked Her question in the future tense? IF the ancient Tradition you celebrate every year by celebrating the Annunciation on March 25th, then Mary's question AND THE VERB SHE USED makes perfect sense: She understood the prophecy to be fulfilled IN HER HEARING - not 20, 30, 40 or 50 years in the future. Thus, Her FUTURE status had nothing to do with anything, it was Her PRESENT situation that is the all of this. "How can this be since I AM (present active) a virgin?"

Virginity is essentially a state that does not necessarily have to change in the course of time. Jesus was conceived at the moment Mary pronounced her fiat (Lk 1:38), and that wasn't until the angel assured her she would not conceive the child by the natural way. As a Jew, Mary did not expext the Messiah to be the Divine Word in the Trinity.

Please quote from anyone who knew Mary or ANYONE who knew Her that states that Mary Had No Sex EVER. Just one.

John knew Mary, and Ignatius of Antioch knew John and writes: "The virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world". This is one mystery alongside the virgin birth of Jesus that Ignatius refers to in his letter. If Mary had other children by Joseph, then her virginity could not have been kept hidden, for she no longer would have been a virgin. Irenaeaus (180) and Justin Martyr (155) call Mary "The Virgin".

Nearly 600 years after Her death (or was it undeath)....

How did Pope Martin 1 know that Mary Had No Sex EVER?
Do you know why he cared SO very, very much about that tidbit of Her marital relations?

Pope Martin knew by the transmission of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, as did the early Church Fathers.


Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You can't be serious.

The Birth of Jesus Foretold

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Mary Visits Elizabeth

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

You can't be serious. There is absolutely nothing in your quoted texts that states or implies that Mary is or was the Ark of the Covenant, a wooden box constructed of the finest wood and purest gold.

 

[LOCO]

You can't be serious. There is absolutely nothing in your quoted texts that states or implies that Mary is or was the Ark of the Covenant, a wooden box constructed of the finest wood and purest gold.

Think about it.

The Ark of the Old Covenant carried the word of God carved in stone.

The Ark of the New Covenant (Mary) carried the Word of God made flesh.

We are not saying Mary is made of wood or gold. We are saying that she is the Ark of the New Covenant because she, a pure human vessel, carried the Word of God made flesh.


‪The Truth About Mary and Scripture: MUST SEE!‬‏ - YouTube

 

[LOCO]

Document that.






I know of NOTHING that indicates that Mary was made of wood and purist gold.


Scripture ONLY indicates that Jesus dwelt in the world. Does that make the world a wooden box, specifically the long lost Ark of the Covenant?





.

Of course she was holy and pure. I would not dare to say otherwise of the First Christian and mother of Our Lord. Jesus loved and honoured her as we do. She obeyed and listened to the good angel unlike Eve who listened to the evil angel.

Noone is saying that Mary is a wooden box. She is not the lost Ark of the Old Covenant. She is the Ark of the New Covenant. She carried Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant no longer exists.

Have another look at that youtube clip I sent you in the other post.

 

[justinangel]

You can't be serious. There is absolutely nothing in your quoted texts that states or implies that Mary is or was the Ark of the Covenant, a wooden box constructed of the finest wood and purest gold.

In Luke 1:28, the angel says to Mary, "Hail, O favoured one" (Chaire kecharitomene). The Greek syntax kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle of charitoo, literally meaning "having been completely endowed with grace" (charis). The expression can be used as a verb or a noun, and so the angel addresses Mary by her state of grace instead of by her given name when first greeting her in affirmation of her purity. Our Lady was already made pure by God's intervention by the time the angel appeared to her (Lk 1:30), for she was predestined to contain the divine Word of God in the flesh by her physical union with the Holy Spirit who descended upon her and filled her body with the Divine Presence. Mary was fashioned pure and undefiled the instant God infused her soul with his sanctifying grace upon her conception as the ark was created with the purest products of nature. She was spared the stain of original sin in anticipation of her divine maternity.

Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom enters not, nor dwells she in a body under debt of sin.
Wisdom 1, 4

Luke affirms the traditional Mary-ark parallel in his Gospel by referring to the second Book of Samuel. John the Baptist leaped for joy in his mother's womb at the sound of Mary's voice (1:41), as David danced with joy before the ark (6:16); Elizabeth asked how it was that the mother of her Lord should come to her (1:43), as David had that he should be so privileged the ark of the Covenant should come to him (6:9); Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (1:56), as long as the ark had remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite (6:11). He and his entire house were blessed just as Elizabeth and her child were with Mary's presence. Uzzah was slain by God for having touched the ark (6:7). Clearly the Judeo-Christians of the nascent Church perceived Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. John envisioned the woman in heaven right after he beheld the ark, bearing witness to its personification (Rev 11:19, 12:1).

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this it is signified that his tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
St. Hippolytus (ante A.D. 235)

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[Incariol]

You can't be serious. There is absolutely nothing in your quoted texts that states or implies that Mary is or was the Ark of the Covenant, a wooden box constructed of the finest wood and purest gold.

Sure, if you are only paying attention to what is physical and literal, but I think you would have to be deliberately obtuse to see how the burning bush and the Ark prefigure Mary, who bore God incarnate within her, without being burned.

 

[justinangel]

Sure, if you are only paying attention to what is physical and literal, but I think you would have to be deliberately obtuse to see how the burning bush and the Ark prefigure Mary, who bore God incarnate within her, without being burned.

What burned was the love Mary had in her heart for God.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[Incariol]

​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Birth of Jesus Foretold

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Mary Visits Elizabeth

39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”

Yup. Nothing - N.O.T.H.I.N.G.- about Mary Had No Sex Ever. Thanks for pointing that out.







.

 

[MrPolo]

How does one quote an unwritten tradition that was passed on to the next generation and from that one to the next.

Josiah's criteria is nonsensical anyway. It's like demanding 5 1st century Christians articulating the dogma of the Trinity – or for that matter, demanding 5 Christians who said Christ was "in, with, and under" the bread as Josiah espouses and attempts to defend vehemently since that is his own belief.

And the rest of the early Church must have missed the memo regarding the "vow." Eg:

Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spoke in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How, says she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place? and had not added, seeing I know not a man, certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. (Augustine, Holy Virginity, 4)​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah's criteria is nonsensical

Really? Let's try this. I insist, as a dogmatic statement of fact, a statement of highest importance, certainty and relevance, that "Jesus said in Scripture that the most handsome man in the world is me." Would it be "nonsensical" for some to post, "where?" And if I quoted, "Go and make disciples of all nations" as the Scripture, would it be "nonsensical" to note that the quoted verse does not so much as even mention me or handsome?

And the rest of the early Church must have missed the memo regarding the "vow." Eg:

Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spoke in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How, says she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place? and had not added, seeing I know not a man, certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. (Augustine, Holy Virginity, 4)​

If this quote is accurate, then it would seem Augustine had an opinion. That, IMO, is not the same thing as documentation of the date and content of this mysterious "vow." Unless you are willing to say that Joseph Smith's opinion about something is the same as proof, then it's apples and oranges.


IMO, this deletion of the present tense and then insertion of the future perfect indicates nothing except a willingness (and necessity) to CHANGE what the text says. It also indicates a desertion of Catholic Tradition (which I was told by Catholics pre-dates the concept that Mary had no sex ever) - that the Incarnation and the Annunication happened TOGETHER - at the same time - which is why the RCC and EOC both celebrate the Annunciation exactly 9 months to the day before Christmas. IF this ancient Tradition is true, then Mary's question IN THE PRESENT TENSE (the original - before the RCC "interpreters" deleted that and replaced it with a future perfect verb) makes perfect and natural sense: "How can this be since I AM a virgin?" (PRESENT active tense). IF She wrongly understood that this Incarnation would be 25 years in the future, after She was united with her husband and had a plethora of children, then why would She ask the question about the PRESENT, about today? The natural sense of the actual word in the text (which I realize, Catholics just delete and replace) does NOTHING to support that Mary took some (as yet entirely undocumented) mysterious "vow" or supports that Mary died (or not) as a virgin, that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.



My Catholic teachers taught us that it's a SIN to "gossip" which they defined as a personal story of potential offense which is not personally confirmed as true. We were told that while gossipers always claim the story to be true, the gossipers claim is in no sense related to confirmation. If I were to insist - as a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth - how often you have had sex, I have a hunch (just a hunch) you'd think it important (maybe even necessary) that there is some documentation of the truthfulness of such, beyond my insistence that it is true. You might even consider it none of our business - true or not. Maybe. Just a hunch. Perhaps you'd think my RESPECT for you and your marriage would include this? Just a wild hunch, I'm probably wrong about that.






.

 

[Incariol]

Yup. Nothing - N.O.T.H.I.N.G.- about Mary Had No Sex Ever. Thanks for pointing that out.







.

*watches the goalposts moving in amusement*

 

[justinangel]

IMO, this deletion of the present tense and then insertion of the future perfect indicates nothing except a willingness (and necessity) to CHANGE what the text says. It also indicates a desertion of Catholic Tradition (which I was told by Catholics pre-dates the concept that Mary had no sex ever) - that the Incarnation and the Annunication happened TOGETHER - at the same time - which is why the RCC and EOC both celebrate the Annunciation exactly 9 months to the day before Christmas. IF this ancient Tradition is true, then Mary's question IN THE PRESENT TENSE (the original - before the RCC "interpreters" deleted that and replaced it with a future perfect verb) makes perfect and natural sense: "How can this be since I AM a virgin?" (PRESENT active tense). IF She wrongly understood that this Incarnation would be 25 years in the future, after She was united with her husband and had a plethora of children, then why would She ask the question about the PRESENT, about today? The natural sense of the actual word in the text (which I realize, Catholics just delete and replace) does NOTHING to support that Mary took some (as yet entirely undocumented) mysterious "vow" or supports that Mary died (or not) as a virgin, that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

What deletion? A baseless conjecture to accommodate your bias. You'll find a distortion in one Protestant Bible Version. For example: "How shall this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?"(HCSB). The present perfect tense suggests that Mary asked the question in a state of shock, for the angel appears to have implied to her that she had violated Mosaic Law by already having relations with Joseph in their betrothed state. This translation allows the possibility that Mary will no longer remain a virgin after she conceives and bears Jesus and so accommodates Protestant bias.

"I am a virgin" and "I don't know a man" mean the same thing in the simple present tense. At the present time when Mary is told she will conceive a child, she responds "I am a virgin". But the angel doesn't tell Mary that she is going to conceive the child at the present time, but in the future. Her response makes no sense if she had intended to have any children in the future. Thus the verb tense denotes a permanent condition, not an instant in time. There is no possibility that her virginal state will change to a non-virginal one in the future.

"How can this be since" is another way of saying "But": "But I am a virgin. Virgins don't conceive children (at any time)." "Don't worry, Mary. The Holy Spirit will come upon you." "Let it be done to me."

Your prejudice against Catholicism has impaired your ability to reason and is keeping you from seeing the truth.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[justinangel]

Josiah's criteria is nonsensical anyway. It's like demanding 5 1st century Christians articulating the dogma of the Trinity – or for that matter, demanding 5 Christians who said Christ was "in, with, and under" the bread as Josiah espouses and attempts to defend vehemently since that is his own belief.

And the rest of the early Church must have missed the memo regarding the "vow." Eg:

Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spoke in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How, says she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place? and had not added, seeing I know not a man, certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. (Augustine, Holy Virginity, 4)
​

Many Protestants mistakenly assume that the first Church Father known to have explicitly written about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or her Assumption had invented it or incorporated it from a tradition that had begun in his time and not a transmitted tradition that started with the Apostles. They demand documented proof explicitly put in writing at the time when tradition was transmitted only orally by preaching. And not everything the Apostles and their close associates preached was later explicitly or comprehensively put down in writing.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15 [NKJV]

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Many Protestants mistakenly assume that the first Church Father known to have explicitly written about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or her Assumption had invented it or incorporated it from a tradition that had begun in his time and not a transmitted tradition that started with the Apostles. They demand documented proof explicitly put in writing at the time when tradition was transmitted only orally by preaching. And not everything the Apostles and their close associates preached was later explicitly or comprehensively put down in writing.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15 [NKJV]

Pax Christu
J.A.

This would not pose a problem for this Protestant if a certain Church had not dogmatized these traditions and insisted that unless one believes them with complete docility and without question one cannot be saved. However, I am quite unwilling to accept that Church's dogmatization in light of the fact that they and they only hold this view. No other Church in Christendom has elevated these traditions to this level.

 

[justinangel]

This would not pose a problem for this Protestant if a certain Church had not dogmatized these traditions and insisted that unless one believes them with complete docility and without question one cannot be saved. However, I am quite unwilling to accept that Church's dogmatization in light of the fact that they and they only hold this view. No other Church in Christendom has elevated these traditions to this level.

There was just one,visible, and hierarchical universal Church as intended by Christ in the first millennium. The Protestant churches began to emerge in the 16th century long after the Church had already infallibly taught her Marian doctrines. Historically, at least, you are in no viable position to dispute her teachings and beliefs. "The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3,15): not religious movements or denominations that were started by private individuals who opposed the divinely appointed teaching authority of the Church and separated themselves from her in a spirit of rebellion to begin teaching what had never been taught from the start; i.e, sola fide, sola scriptura, and sola Christo.

The Bride of Christ is of "one body, one Spirit, one faith, and one baptism" (Eph 4:3-5).

It's because of the malady of skepticism and rationalism which afflicts Protestantism that this variable religious movement, with its conflicting doctrines and practices among countless denominations, can never fit the biblical description of the Church. And until you can reach an agreement among yourtselves in matters of faith and morals, you have no business telling Catholics what they should or shouldn't believe, what is true or false doctrine. Unfortunately, disunity in faith will continue to plague Protestantism because of its disdain for dogma and universal centrality. But God's truth is objective and intended by Him to be accessible, so Jesus founded one visible Church with a hierarchical teaching authority on Peter and the Apostles that should be carried on by succession in the divine office (Col 1:25). And that was in A.D. 33. The people never dared question the teaching authority of the apostles and their appointed associates who would succeed them (Acts 5:13; Heb 13 7,17). Neither should we, for there is just one Spirit and thereby one true faith that all Christians must profess.

"Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, on which the Saviour built his Church."
St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380)

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[MrPolo]

Many Protestants mistakenly assume that the first Church Father known to have explicitly written about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or her Assumption had invented it or incorporated it from a tradition that had begun in his time and not a transmitted tradition that started with the Apostles. They demand documented proof explicitly put in writing at the time when tradition was transmitted only orally by preaching. And not everything the Apostles and their close associates preached was later explicitly or comprehensively put down in writing.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15 [NKJV]

Pax Christu
J.A.

That and the denial of development of doctrine (except for Protestant doctrines like the canon, Trinity, Incarnation, Rapture, double predestination, and a few others). Even though doctrines developed within Scripture itself!