In sales that is called a “Big Fat Claim” (BFC). It is a very effective tool, IF YOU CAN PROVE IT.
Well, read this and tell me what you think. Some snippets.
But in any event, by the end of the fourth century and into the fifth, Mary’s in partu virginity is upheld unanimously. We can see this in the declarations of various ancient synods and papal letters especially. Here is a list of authorities I have taken from Juan Luis Bastero’s book Mary, Mother of the Redeemer (by the way, I recommend Bastero as the best book on Mariology that can currently be purchased. It’s a must buy):That’s where belief in a “real and perpetual virginity” gets you.…
According to Church tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium it is not enough to accept just that Jesus’ conception was virginal; his virginal birth must also be professed. (If the “virgin birth” just meant the sort of birth a woman underwent who conceived virginally (which is what our modernists are saying), it would be superfluous and redundant for the tradition to make a point out of how the virginal birth is a distinct marvel from the virginal conception. If the former is reducible to the latter, why bother mentioning it?)
…
Mary is exempt from the curse of original sin. Even death itself comes to her in as much as she is naturally mortal, not as a punishment for sin. So if pain in child birth is a result of original sin, then why would Mary have to undergo this curse? She is not cursed. She is blessed above all women because she is the immaculate Mother of God.
…
Physical integrity as a constitutive element in virginity is explicitly mention in canon 3 of the Lateran Synod: “The ever-virgin Mary conceived without seed through the action of the Holy Spirit…and incorruptibiliter gave him birth without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolable even after his birth”. You really can’t get around the word incorruptibiliter. It upholds the traditional understanding of Mary’s in partu virginity. Other texts could be cited to the same effect.
Honest, I’m not making this stuff up.
Enjoy!
Your post demonstrates the problem with adding beliefs to scripture, even with good intentions. When you make stuff up, you end up having to explain ramifications.
It reminds me a bit of the end of the movie “The Invention of Lying”, where the first man able to lie, comes up with a god to help his mother cope with her dying. Word gets out and the whole world wants to know more about this god. As he expands the lie, it brings people to incredible joy, happiness and peace until they start asking questions about ramifications. And then the complexity bites him and the whole race, as the negatives start popping up en-mass.
The bible does not have those problems. People’s inaccurate interpretations do. It is one reason LDS is unraveling. I think it is why this belief, as it becomes more public and easily debated, is unraveling. Man made religious beliefs cannot survive the spotlight of the internet.