I'm only an ex-Catholic, but I am going to guess any answer you would get would boil down to:
Posted on 02/02/2017 5:24:02 PM PST by markomalley
She has 180,000 followers on Twitter, became a daytime TV star with a cooking show sharing traditional convent recipes and waded into local politics speaking out in support of Catalan independence.
But the latest public declarations from the 51-year-old Dominican nun have provoked a stern telling off by the Catholic Church.
Her unlikely appearance on a chat show at the weekend to talk about sex led to her revealing that she didn’t really believe in one of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith – that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a virgin.
"I think that Mary was in love with Joseph and that they were a normal couple, and the normal thing is to have sex,” the nun who was born in Argentina before moving to a Catalan convent 26 years ago told Risto Mejideon on the Cuatro show Chester in Love.
"It’s hard to believe and to take in,” she added. "We’ve stuck with rules that we have invented without reaching the true message.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.es ...
Do you believe Mary knew how babies are made, prior to the angelic visit? When the Angel told her she would bear a son, do you think she even imagined it would be due to supernatural occurrence? She sure made it plain to the Angel that she had not ever had sex! She, at her tender age, would not be proclaiming she would remain a virgin because she had made a covenant with Joseph to be married.
But no, you must twist the exchange to fit the great lie at the heart of Modern Catholicism! How utterly disgusting that you drag Mary around as some totem for your religion's lies! You've almost made her into a goddess! BLASPHEMY
“we do have the Hebrew of Matthew, courtesy of some Rabbis”
Sure, but that is of a later origin. It could be based on an earlier Hebrew text that was lost, or it could just be a later translation from the Greek or Roman, in which case it could tell us nothing that it’s predecessors didn’t tell us.
“is the same word used in describing David’s relationship (or lack thereof) with his wife after she ridiculed his behaviour when the ark was brought up—he did not know her until the day of her death”
That’s not a really convincing argument. After all, “until the day of her death” has an implicit finality (due to the death) that “until she had brought forth her firstborn son” does not. Both of them indicate something did not happen until a certain time, but while in David’s case the death would make it impossible for it to have happened after, in Joseph’s case, there is no such impediment. In fact, the phrase “firstborn son” in the same sentence actually may serve to imply that Mary bore other children, for it would be redundant otherwise, since Mary’s virginity (and hence her childlessness) was already established.
Based solely on Scripture, I believe that Mary is the mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is God. Beyond that, Scripture does not reveal whether or not Mary had relations with Joseph or had other children. There are hints one way or another, but no explicit statement.
I never really gave much thought to this question. When I first saw this being discussed on this forum, my initial thoughts were that maybe Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin. But as I followed the back and forth arguments on this forum, and read up on the history of this belief, I began to realize that we should not lightly discard a belief that has been almost universally held since the early days of Christianity. Beginning with Ireanaeus and Origin, Christians throughout the centuries, except for some fourth century writers who were widely condemned, have widely attested to perpetual divinity. Even several reformers, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley, held on to this belief. It wasn’t until a short time ago in the 1800’s that some Christians started questioning the belief.
After giving it considerable thought, I believe the arguments in favor of perpetual virginity are stronger than the arguments against perpetual virginity.
That interpretation simply raises more questions. Why would Mary be espoused to any man if she didn’t intend to consummate a marriage? Why would Joseph intend to marry a wife who wouldn’t bear his children instead of a wife who would?
Indeed: the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions even lesser notable departures from the norm, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), barrenness (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, birth by a virgin (Mary), to Christ being sinless. But while the Spirit records the virginity of Mary before birth, all He states as concerns after that are indications that this was a normal marriage.
And the Lord Jesus Himself affirms the Genesis description of marriage: Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.
Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm] , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that (without Rome's permission).
And which would have required the permission of either her father or husband. (Numbers 30:3-14)
Yes, and also, Mary was called a virgin in Hebrew AND Greek, two distinctly separate languages from different families which had entirely different sets of synonyms.
So, if the word for virgin also meant “young woman” in Hebrew, it would be very strange if it also coincidentally was a synonym for “young woman” in Greek. (I’d research this to confirm it but I think it would be superfluous because...)
We also have Mary’s own statement in the gospels that she hadn’t “known a man”, which also indicates actual virginity without using the word in question at all.
There is if you want to make the humble, pious, Spirit-filled Mary of faith in scripture into an almost almighty demi-goddess:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is apparently honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Jason Engwer writes,
Basil
Contrary to what Roman Catholics often suggest, there were many people in the early centuries of Christianity who rejected the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).
The New Testament evidence is against the perpetual virginity doctrine. Luke, for example, was familiar with Greek words he could have used to express the doctrine, and he used that terminology repeatedly, but not with regard to Mary and her children. Instead of using the Greek term for "only-born" (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38), he used the term "first-born" (Luke 2:7) to refer to Jesus. He uses the word "supposedly" to describe Jesus' relationship with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but doesn't use any such terminology to describe Jesus' relationship with His brothers and sisters. He understood the difference between a "relative" and a "brother", even distinguishing between the two within a single sentence (Luke 21:16), but he repeatedly chooses the term "brother" to describe Jesus' siblings.
The church father Hegesippus apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a "cousin of the Lord" (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for "brother" and "cousin". He chose "brother", and added the words "according to the flesh", to describe Jesus' sibling named Jude.
Tertullian apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus' brothers were "really" his brothers, his "blood-relationship" (Against Marcion, 4:19). Elsewhere, Tertullian comments:
"Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting 'more than a prophet,' - him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ. For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that body? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband." (On Monogamy, 8)
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to *replace* the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Mary.html
Some writers from 4th century, Helvidius and Eunomius of Cyzicus (one of the Arians leaders), interpreted Matthew's statement to mean that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations after Jesus' birth, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were the biological sons of Mary and Joseph, a view held by Helvidius and Eunomius.[46] Helvidius appealed to the authority of Tertullian against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, to which Jerome (c.340-419) replied that Tertullian was "not a man of the church."[47] Basil of Caesarea denied Eunomius' view since Basil sees Matthew 1:25 as evidence for, not against, Mary’s perpetual virginity.[46]
Epiphanius held too that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph's sons from (an unrecorded) former marriage.,[48][49] He adds that
"When the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it is plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come ... For because she had been betrothed to Joseph Mary appeared to be the wife of a husband, but she had no sexual relations with him." [50]
By the 4th century, the doctrine of perpetual virginity had been well attested.[51] For example, references can be found in the 3rd century writings of Hippolytus of Rome, who called Mary "the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption," [52] and the 4th century works of Athanasius,[53] Epiphanius,[54] Hilary,[55] Didymus,[56] Ambrose,[57] Jerome,[58] and Siricius[59] continued the attestations to perpetual virginity – a trend that gathered pace in the next century.[6][7] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#Early_Church
Against Helvidius. This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the "sisters" and "brethren" of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the "sisters" and "brethren" spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar's "Early Days of Christianity," pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages. - Against Helvidius (Jerome): The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Joseph was basically just an adoptive father, so if he was not a virgin, it wouldn’t confer any kind of spiritual “uncleanness” or imperfection to the adoptive child, whose conception he was not involved in.
Also, at the time, there was no social or legal stigma for a non-virgin man to marry, while the same could not necessarily be said of a non-virgin woman. Such thinking wasn’t even limited to that time, it was extremely common until just a few decades ago, and surely still is in many parts of the world.
Who told you the Holy Spirit is a woman?
Certainly not your official Catholic English translation:
“But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, HE will teach you all things”
Consider what men such as Jerome resorted to in their unbalanced view of virginity (which is good and honorable, and better for interests) vs, marriage (which is good and honorable and better for interests):
Jerome saw marriage as so inferior (at the least) to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he engaged in specious reasoning and abused Scripture to support his extreme imbalanced views, teaching,
"It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil ." (''Letter'' 22). On First Corinthians 7 he reasons, "It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil."
You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer.
Then we have this false dilemma:
"If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray.
And wresting of Scripture to serve his purpose:
This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html
So much for 2 x 2 evangelism, while "if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew" "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)
Then we have Augustine who taught that one cannot engage in marital relations without sinful lust:
the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
For the belief was, as Harding (below) holds, "before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions (reproductive actions]." But having lost that due to the Fall, then men as Augustine held that martial relations must involve carnal sinful lust, and even interprets Heb. 13:4 which states that the marriage bed is undefiled (unlike under the Law) to simply mean if it is free from adultery!
However, if martial relations was painful I do not think he would considered it iniquitous. But as per the logic that a function which at the last is uncontrollable is sinful, perhaps another daily bodily function of relief which can uncontrollable (if you cannot find a bathroom) is also sin.
Similarly, Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication," partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]
. Also regarding some strange views on the issue of Adam and Eve and sexual relations, RC priest John A. Hardon, S.J stated, "some of the Fathers [as Athanasius and John Damascene] were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin." (Harding: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm)
For John of Damascus wrote,In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed416 . But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves417 . And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return418 , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed419 . So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children420.
...God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” — John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV; http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/cat_stjohndamascus_exact_exposition_Orthodox_Faith_bk04.shtml
What is the strongest argument?
I'm only an ex-Catholic, but I am going to guess any answer you would get would boil down to:
“Everything I have read about the households and families of that period would have mitigated against younger children giving the eldest much grief.”
Good point. If Joseph had died young, which wouldn’t be uncommon, Jesus would be in charge of the family members, even over Mary, and that would not be an appealing prospect to younger siblings who had tormented Him.
Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit is female??
‘truth’ by committee, it’s the Catholic way!
As with the condition itself, the issue is what the norm is. I have not done a study on the Hebrew word, nor subscribe to that being the original form of Matthew, but I have studied the use of the Greek (but do not claim to know the language) for "till" in Mt. 1:25, and found that almost without exception it refers to a terminus before or indicating a change.
Perpetual marital virginity is a very notable exception the norm, with only one recorded precedent, which was due to the infirmity of the male. And which celibate status in marriage (which sanctified union is only inferred, being the norm), is duly noted by the Spirit of God.
1 Kings 1:1-4 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat. Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat. So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not .
In contrast, the Holy Spirit records the exception to the norm in the case of Mary before she gave birth, but rather than affirming this being a continuing state, we have the conspicuous "till," which naturally only makes sense as indicating a change in that status in to a normal marital relationship.
And if not, then Joseph deserves more credit, for I think celibacy usually is harder for the male, and his permission would have been necessary for Mary, unless it came from her father and he concurred (Numbers 30).
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Read and discern ...
Which makes him a model of self-control, being a couple of deep love for each other being unable to express that physically, under the premise that somehow this was required. Which is was not.
Sort of a ridiculous proposal...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.