Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Dorothea]

There is NO reason NOT to expect otherwise...UNLESS you have an
unhealthy view of Mary - or an idolatry of Mary.

That could be said to those who have the view of Mary having children, too. No idoltry. Just following what the Bible states and what the Church has taught for the past nearly 2000 years and not following some incorrect teaching that was thrown out centuries ago.

 

[Philothei]

2. Does such make Mary holier, purer, than a wife who DID have marital _____ at least ONCE with her spouse within the Sacrament of Marriage in her life?

Mary is Mary she did it as a private piety and dedicated herself to God. A married woman cannot compair to Mary since she is not that....she is not Mary. Of course a married woman can be just as holy in her married life as Mary. ... The reason Mary is different is not because she was an ordinatry lady "not having marital relations" thus bravo.... we want all women to emulate that...NOPE! That is not the point of Mary's virginity.... and by no means it is to put down all other women celibant or married. The point is incarnation. Mother is God is ONE UNIQUE and thus out of her OWN choice decided to live like that. A womb that bear Christ is never to be used again as it hold its Glory God incarnate... I do believe there would not have been ANY woman who would want to live her life ....usual as like say going back to business ....after such a cosmic supenatuaral event...................I think she must have been speachless for some time after his birth... and the relatives did realize the immense event ... Who would ever think of "sexual marital relations" .... while she bore christ. And from the Bible and tradition we know she was involved in His life ...so why the suprice....Alll these nonesense about Catholics having a hang up with sexual relations is just nausieating and flaming IMHO. and there should be no place in Mariology !!!! I think this thread is getting repetitious and quite honesty boting

 

[narnia59]

.



And IMHO are addressed to the core of the issue.




.

The core of the issue is this -- there are those who have an unbiblical view that scripture alone is the sole source of doctrine, and there are those who do not.

Those who do not hold this view compromise the original church and still have this understanding 2000 years later.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

. Just following what the Bible states and what the Church has taught for the past nearly 2000 years and not following some incorrect teaching that was thrown out centuries ago.

Thank you for your contribution. IF I am permitted, may I ask some questions?


1. Where does the Bible state that Mary had no ____ ever? You stated it did, I'd just like you to quote that verse or those verses. Thank you.


2. How is not having a teaching an incorrect teaching? Of the 50,000 denominations that some Catholics insist exists, there are only 2 I know of that ANY teaching AT ALL. Both of them are of a very strong, bold, focused, stressed position that Our Lady had no _____ ever. But the other 49,998 have no position on it at all. They don't say She did have ____ and they don't say She didn't have _____. They say NOTHING. They hold to the oldest Tradition in this regard: silence. So, how is having no teaching an incorrect teaching?



Thank you very much.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[lionroar0]

wrong thread.oops

 

[Dorothea]

.





Thank you for your contribution. IF I am permitted, may I ask some questions?

You're welcome, and sure.

1. Where does the Bible state that Mary had no ____ ever? You stated it did, I'd just like you to quote that verse or those verses. Thank you.

Where does it say Mary had children after Christ?

2. How is not having a teaching an incorrect teaching? Of the 50,000 denominations that some Catholics insist exists, there are only 2 I know of that ANY teaching AT ALL. Both of them are of a very strong, bold, focused, stressed position that Our Lady had no _____ ever. But the other 49,998 have no position on it at all. They don't say She did have ____ and they don't say She didn't have _____. They say NOTHING. They hold to the oldest Tradition in this regard: silence. So, how is having no teaching an incorrect teaching?

I don't know. Maybe you should ask a Catholic.

Thank you very much.

You're quite welcome.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. Where does the Bible state that Mary had no ____ ever? You stated it did, I'd just like you to quote that verse or those verses. Thank you.

.

Where does it say Mary had children after Christ?

1. Lost me. You stated, "Just following what the Bible states ." Your statement is that the Bible teaches that Mary never once had ____. I just asked for the verse or verses. In stead of quoting the verse or verses that state what you said they state, you asked a question.

2. This thread is not about any dogma of "Jesus Was an Only Sibling." Indeed, such doesn't exist in any denomination known to me. This thread is about the Dogma of Mary Had No ____ Ever. It's not about sibs, it's about _____. Let's say on topic, okay?

Now, would you please quote the verse that says that Mary had no ____ ever. Thank you very much!

How is not having a teaching an incorrect teaching? Of the 50,000 denominations that some Catholics insist exists, there are only 2 I know of that ANY teaching AT ALL. Both of them are of a very strong, bold, focused, stressed position that Our Lady had no _____ ever. But the other 49,998 have no position on it at all. They don't say She did have ____ and they don't say She didn't have _____. They say NOTHING. They hold to the oldest Tradition in this regard: silence. So, how is having no teaching an incorrect teaching?


.

I don't know. Maybe you should ask a Catholic.

Then let me rephrase. You stated that all others are teaching incorrectly. My question is this: How is not having a teaching an incorrect teaching? Of all the denominations, there are only 2 I know of that ANY teaching on Mary's ____ sex after Jesus was born AT ALL. Both the CC and EO have a very strong, bold, focused, stressed position that Our Lady had no _____ ever. But all others have no position on it at all. They don't say She did have ____ and they don't say She didn't have _____. They say NOTHING. They hold to the oldest Tradition in this regard: silence. So, how is having no teaching an incorrect teaching?




.

 

[Breckmin]

Don't you think it unlikely that these are the only likely origins of the view; that there can be no other source for the view except those you find objectionable ?

I think that the view was probably 2nd-4th Century(sic) and not First Century.

I asked for the Flavius Josephus citation in another thread.

Personally, if it was not so inflammatory to say what I really think.....

perhaps I should just address the logical history of Mary being married
to Joseph and having other children.

Any other position in my view is completely illogical and loaded with
bias to force a "lifetime vow" on Mary - some vow she never made.

I can believe that it is possible she rose and is in heaven with Jesus...
but I have my reservations.

I can believe she is the new Eve...but I have my reservations.

But I can not believe the lie that she did not fulfill her marital duties
to Joseph...that her children besides Jesus were not her offspring...
or that the history hasn't been clear as to the fact that Mary didn't
need to stay a virgin - nor did she need to stay unmarried.

She married Joseph and had other children...and until someone gives
a VALID REASON as to why she "wouldn't" do this...I have no reason
to reject the logical historical record.

Perhaps I am in a bad mood tonight with only 4 1/2 hours sleep the
last couple days...

Perhaps I could have been more graceful in this post.....but I do identify
this as additional corruption in the RCC.

 

[Breckmin]

Sex in marriage within the Catholic Church is not just considered good, it is considered Holy.

Then Mary was doing something Holy when she became one flesh with
her husband Joseph and had other children.

Why wouldn't she?

 

[Philothei]

Then Mary was doing something Holy when she became one flesh with
her husband Joseph and had other children.

Why wouldn't she?

you keep missing the point. Mary was not ANY woman that she would find fullfillment or salvation having a "holy" marriage...she was the mother of the incarnate Logos. She had alraedy fullfilled her purpose in giving birth to Chrit. NO other woman has done this. No other has fullfilled her purpose cause that was a unique mission and God did not expect her to do any other "will" of His. She already fullfilled it and that was the incarnation.

 

[Philothei]

I should just address the logical history of Mary being married
to Joseph and having other children.

and yet the incarnation of God condusending to Mary's womb was not "logical" it was super-natural.... above all logic and human splendor

 

[Philothei]

some vow she never made.

and how can you be so sure? You have inside informaton?

 

[Philothei]

She married Joseph and had other children...and until someone gives
a VALID REASON as to why she "wouldn't" do this...I have no reason
to reject the logical historical record.

Perhaps I am in a bad mood tonight with only 4 1/2 hours sleep the
last couple days...

Perhaps I could have been more graceful in this post.....but I do identify
this as additional corruption in the RCC.

Historical record? where? I do not think there is any such thing available.....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

and how can you be so sure?

How is it substantiated to you as a matter of dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainty?

Yes, if you can so document that Mary vowed to NOT ONCE have _____, I'd be strongly inclined to accept Her promise as the reality fulfilled.

You have inside informaton?

You? Your denomination? If it's not special "insider information," then I'm sure you have the objective, verifiable, documentation that Mary vowed, "I will NOT ONCE have ________ in my lifetime." Or is it a case of insider information (obviously from Mary since she'd be the only one on the planet to know, so that Mary told you)?





.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, if you can so document that Mary vowed to NOT ONCE have _____, I'd be strongly inclined to accept Her promise as the reality fulfilled.

Luke 1:30-34

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ· εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. 31 καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. 32 οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυῒδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, 33 καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. 34 εἶπε δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· Πῶς ἔσται μοι τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;​

The context is Mary is betrothed to Joseph. The angel tells her she will conceive a son. Mary asks how this is possible since she is "not knowing a man" (continuous tense).

John

 

[Thekla]

Luke 1:30-34

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ· εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. 31 καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. 32 οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυῒδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, 33 καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. 34 εἶπε δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· Πῶς ἔσται μοι τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;​

The context is Mary is betrothed to Joseph. The angel tells her she will conceive a son. Mary asks how this is possible since she is "not knowing a man" (continuous tense).

John

Thank-you.

As before, it is illogical for Mary to question how she will conceive the announced child in the future, when she is already betrothed. The use of the continuous tense (within the context of an existing betrothal) logically demands the conclusion that she intends to remain chaste.

 

[Thekla]

I think that the view was probably Fourth Century and not First Century.

I asked for the Flavius Josephus citation in another thread.

I'm not sure what you mean -- perhaps you could be more specific ?
I also mentioned three non-Christian sources, all intending to discredit Christ, which present Mary as having only one child (Christ).

Personally, if it was not so inflammatory to say what I really think.....

If your statement is a conclusion, then no dialogue or discussion on the matter is of any value; thus, there is no reason to respond.

perhaps I should just address the logical history of Mary being married
to Joseph and having other children.

As mentioned before, and reiterated by Prodromos's post, Mary's response to the announcement (in Luke) logically shows her personal dedication to chastity.

Any other position in my view is completely illogical and loaded with
bias to force a "lifetime vow" on Mary - some vow she never made.

See above; the position that she intended a "normal" marriage is illogical.

I can believe that it is possible she rose and is in heaven with Jesus...
but I have my reservations.

I can believe she is the new Eve...but I have my reservations.

But I can not believe the lie that she did not fulfill her marital duties
to Joseph...that her children besides Jesus were not her offspring...
or that the history hasn't been clear as to the fact that Mary didn't
need to stay a virgin - nor did she need to stay unmarried.

I think it is going too far to call it a "lie". This would require an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. It must be admitted that scripture does not conclusively support your position, yet I do not think you are lying.

She married Joseph and had other children...and until someone gives
a VALID REASON as to why she "wouldn't" do this...I have no reason
to reject the logical historical record.

Again, see above; a logical reading of the Lukan passages re: the announcement supports the position of her intention to remain chaste. This is more clear in the Greek (the continuous tense) but is still present in the English translation if one approaches the passages logically.

If you recall, in Exodus, abstinence is required before ascending the MT. and into the presence of God. Mary and Joseph lived in the presence of the Godman, Jesus Christ; Mary had the presence of Christ in her womb.
When David desired for he and his men to eat the showbread, the priest first asks if they have been chaste for a time. Christ is the living bread which came down from heaven.

A contemporary teaching among the Jews was that Moses became abstinent after his ascent to the mountain and his sojourn in the presence of God there; it was not considered at all unusual to remain chaste after experiencing such a direct encounter with the Holy. Mary carried the Holy, Jesus Christ, in her womb; she nursed Him and was in His presence as His mother for most of His earthly life. Even after He began His ministry, she had still, like Moses, already experienced an overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. She also had been indwelt by Christ, our Lord and truly God, now enfleshed.

Given the contemporary understanding among the Jews, if Mary had had other children, it would be evidence that her Son was not the Christ.
Of the three non-Christian sources that seek to discredit Christ, the earliest is from the pagan, Celsus. Celsus, who states that Mary had only one child, claims he received his information from the Jews. It would have been more efficient, given the contemporary teachings re: chastity after being in the presence of God, to claim that Mary had borne more children. Instead, Celsus claims that Mary and her only child were turned out of the home of Joseph for adultery, and Mary fled with Jesus to Egypt.

Perhaps I am in a bad mood tonight with only 4 1/2 hours sleep the
last couple days...

Perhaps I could have been more graceful in this post.....but I do identify
this as additional corruption in the RCC.

No problem
I ask forgiveness if I have been a grump !

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, if you can so document that Mary vowed to NOT ONCE have _____, I'd be strongly inclined to accept Her promise as the reality fulfilled.

Luke 1:30-34

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ· Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ· εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. 31 καὶ ἰδοὺ συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. 32 οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυῒδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, 33 καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος. 34 εἶπε δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· Πῶς ἔσται μοι τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;​

The context is Mary is betrothed to Joseph. The angel tells her she will conceive a son. Mary asks how this is possible since she is "not knowing a man" (continuous tense).

Wrong.

This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL. It ignores the word, not interprets it. It simply ignores the actual word, as was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394), but there is a fundamental difficulty here, the verb to know (ginwskw, ginòskò) is in the present active indicative, which in no way indicates future intention. Gregory of Nyssa simply plays loose with the verb, twisting it so as to find some support for the developing view that Mary had no ____ ever. But the verb is what it is, and we all know it. Gregory of Nyssa (and those that follow him) are not interpreting the verse at all, they are simply imposing their view upon it - and ignoring the verb tense in order to do it.


And there's NOTHING here about any "vow." Nothing.


Where is the verse (or verses) where Mary stated she never once had ____, or that she never will even once have _____? That statement was made that Scripture states that, we're just asking for the verse. So far....

Then we were told that no having a position makes it a WRONG position, but here again, no explanation as to how a non position on Mary's ____ life makes it a WRONG position.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I also mentioned three non-Christian sources, all intending to discredit Christ, which present Mary as having only one child (Christ).

1. There is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Siblings." You might be confusing that with the topic of this thread, which is "Mary Had No _____." The topic is ______, not sibs.

2. Yes, there was some debate about whether Jesus had sibs. But that's moot to any apologetic about Mary having ____. Surely you know that it is possible to have an instance of ____ and not have a child result from that specifically mentioned in the Bible (or at all). Surely you know enough about biology to know that. The entire basis of this very common Catholic/Orthodox apologetic is simply absurd: A lack of sibs does NOT remotely suggest an entire, absolute, lack of ____.

the Lukan passages re: the announcement supports the position of her intention to remain chaste. This is more clear in the Greek

Wrong. This "interpretation" isn't an interpretation AT ALL. This pure eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 - c. 394), but the verb to know (ginwskw, ginòskò) is in the present active indicative. Gregory of Nyssa simply plays loose with the verb, twisting it so as to find some support for the developing view that Mary had no ____ ever. But the verb is what it is. Gregory of Nyssa (and those that follow him) are not interpreting the verse at all, they are simply imposing their view upon it - and ignoring the verb tense in order to do it. And there's NOTHING here about any "vow." Nothing.

A contemporary teaching among the Jews was that Moses became abstinent after his ascent to the mountain and his sojourn in the presence of God there; it was not considered at all unusual to remain chaste after experiencing such a direct encounter with the Holy. Mary carried the Holy, Jesus Christ, in her womb; she nursed Him and was in His presence as His mother for most of His earthly life. Even after He began His ministry, she had still, like Moses, already experienced an overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. She also had been indwelt by Christ, our Lord and truly God, now enfleshed.

Pure, abiblical, baseless speculation... Probably the weakest apologetics I've ever witnessed (including in my time studying Mormonism).

And the ONLY verse that say ANYTHING about Christ "dwelling" is John 1:14. And it says that Christ dwelt in the world, "among people." Thus, if your "logic" is correct, all 6.5 billion people on the planet must be perpetual virgins since Christ dwelt in the world.

Can you give me an example of one who experienced the holy and THUS, THEREFORE, as a required mandated consequence of such, never once had _____ in his/her entire life? And again, since Christ dwelt among us - the WHOLE WORLD has experienced the Holy, wouldn't your logic mean that you are a perpetual virgin?

if Mary had had other children, it would be evidence that her Son was not the Christ.

Again, the issue is not sibs, the issue is _____. Let's stay on topic, okay?

So, you have some documentation that according to the OT, if one has _____ even once AFTER a child is born, say 30 years later, that makes the child lesser than he/she would otherwise be? I would be a greater person in some sense of my parents ceased to have ____ upon my birth? Can you share that documentation? IF so, will you?

chastity after being in the presence of God

Again, document for me from the OT that all who were in the presence of holiness were alll THEREFORE perpetual virgins?

I'm in the literal presence of Christ every Sunday because of the Holy Eucharist. Is it thus your position that all who are in the presence of the Holy Eucharist are thus perpetual virgins?

to claim that Mary had borne more children

1. There is no doctrine of "Jesus Had No Sibs." You seem to be confusing that with the issue of this thread, a view of 2 of the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist, namely that "Mary Had No ____." This thread is not about sibs or Jesus, it's about ____ and Mary. That's why it's called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary."

2. As a defense of this view of 2 denominations, it is moot if Jesus had no sibs. I disagree with your insistance that every single time one had ____, there MUST be a child resulting from such and recorded as such in the Bible or Catholic Tradition. In fact, I'm of the position that it's possible to have an instence of ____ and not have a child AT ALL! Thus, the whole apologetic is baseless. It's MOOT to your position if Jesus had sibs or not. But again, let's say on topic. The issue here isn't sibs, it's _____. It's not Jesus, it's Mary. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Now, conversely, to the COUNTER argument, siblings via Mary is relevant. Because if it can be documented that Jesus had sibs via Mary, that would reveal the CC and EO to be heretical at this point. But, IMHO, that documentation is lacking. But such IN NO WAY suggests that the CC and EO are correct at this point.






.

 

[lionroar0]

CJ:

2. As a defense of this view of 2 denominations, it is moot if Jesus had no sibs. I disagree with your insistance that every single time one had ____, there MUST be a child resulting from such and recorded as such in the Bible or Catholic Tradition. In fact, I'm of the position that it's possible to have an instence of ____ and not have a child AT ALL! Thus, the whole apologetic is baseless. It's MOOT to your position if Jesus had sibs or not. But again, let's say on topic. The issue here isn't sibs, it's _____. It's not Jesus, it's Mary. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Now, conversely, to the COUNTER argument, siblings via Mary is relevant. Because if it can be documented that Jesus had sibs via Mary, that would reveal the CC and EO to be heretical at this point. But, IMHO, that documentation is lacking. But such IN NO WAY suggests that the CC and EO are correct at this point.

Thekla

Given the contemporary understanding among the Jews, if Mary had had other children, it would be evidence that her Son was not the Christ.
Of the three non-Christian sources that seek to discredit Christ, the earliest is from the pagan, Celsus. Celsus, who states that Mary had only one child, claims he received his information from the Jews. It would have been more efficient, given the contemporary teachings re: chastity after being in the presence of God, to claim that Mary had borne more children. Instead, Celsus claims that Mary and her only child were turned out of the home of Joseph for adultery, and Mary fled with Jesus to Egypt.