[annalex]

As it stands, Matthew simply noted the birth as the limit, not some future event. Matthew never noted "perpetual virginity" even though he knew them both well.

Two reasons. First, Matthew's focus is on the virgin birth of Christ, not on Mary and Joseph's relations. Second, the knowledge of the said relations is of intimate nature. It simply would not be known to even the closest friends of the family.

Unless Mary was God's wife, which she wasn't

In fact, the Church does give Our Lady the title Spouse of the Holy Spirit, with a good reason.

I don't understand the rest of your post, except to say that the precise physiological manner in which Jesus was born is indeed a matter of theological speculation and is not defined diogamtically by the Church.

[spunkets]

Re: As it stands, Matthew simply noted the birth as the limit, not some future event. Matthew never noted "perpetual virginity" even though he knew them both well.

"Two reasons. First, Matthew's focus is on the virgin birth of Christ, not on Mary and Joseph's relations.

Matthew's focus was on their relations. Notice Matthew was talking about Joseph taking Mary home for the first time and was pointing out that they never knew each other until the birth.

"Second, the knowledge of the said relations is of intimate nature. It simply would not be known to even the closest friends of the family.

No it is not. It would most likely result in another birth. Bros and sisters are mentioned.

Given the fact that Matthew knew them, It's very possible that their were other children and they were referred to as bros. and/or sisters. That could be the reason Matthew limited the "until" to the point of birth. Matthew may very well have know the other kids.

" In fact, the Church does give Our Lady the title Spouse of the Holy Spirit, with a good reason."

That would make her God's wife, which she isn't. It would also make her Son, her husband, which He isn't. It's enough to say that she was full of the Holy Spirit. I consider that her person, or self was like the Holy Spirit. She was not however married to Him.

"the precise physiological manner in which Jesus was born is indeed a matter of theological speculation and is not defined diogamtically by the Church."

It's good that the Church didn't stamp the light through the window thing, but that was one of the complaints in the article. I don't believe it. John never mentioned it and the only ones that would have known are Mary and Joseph. Mary might have told John. Since there is zero evidence for it, and no evidence that their lives were otherwise eased, the claim is pure invention.