Posted on 03/17/2012 2:30:01 PM PDT by reaganaut
I understand the history of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (ἀειπαρθένος). I know it was taught as early as the 4th century, and I understand the development of "Spritual Marriages" in the Early Middle ages. That isn't what I am asking.
I have a good grasp of the history, doctrine and Biblical texts. I have done a lot of research on the topic. I grew up in Catholic school and Matthew 1:25 always got me in trouble during Catechism class.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25).
"Know" is a very common idiom for sex in Judaism of the period of writing. Again, I don't want to debate the text or history.
Protestants have no issue with Joseph and Mary having a normal marriage and having sexual relations AFTER the birth of Jesus (not before for obvious reasons) and having other children.
What I am curious about is the WHY the doctrine is important to MODERN Catholics (Medieval Catholics I get). Why does matter if Mary was ever-virgin (after the birth of Christ) or not?
**Every Hail Mary mentions Jesus.**
He hears you without mentioning Mary’s name. I would hear her name so much it just seemed to be mentioned every 30 seconds.
We agree to disagree on Mark 6:3.
This trucker is off to bed.
Lord bless
Being a virgin has nothing to do with being sinless. There are plenty of sinning virgins. In fact, all virgins are sinners because all people are sinners. It’s only the non solo scriptura faiths such as Catholicism and Orthodox that believe she was immaculate.
But being a virgin fulfills prophecy, and puts her in contrast to Eve as obedient to God’s laws and man’s laws, nothing more. Jesus inherited flesh and blood from Mary, and his royal status as a descendent from David. But the reason He is sinless is because He is God incarnate.
Jesus’s freedom from sin nature comes through who He is, the Alpha and Omega. His mother was in need of a Savior just as much as the rest of mankind. But here Catholic doctrine diverges from Protestant, so I won’t argue the point. I know Catholics just totally disagree on this, and that is all there is to it.
I do sense you are on a spiritual journey. That is always inspiring to observe. I will pray for you and wish you much success in your journey!
- - —
While I appreciate the sentiment, you are mistaken, at least if you think it is a spiritual journey as a ‘seeker’ or that I have any question of my theology and/or beliefs. I do not. My faith in Christ alone to save me is very secure.
My seeking ended at the foot of the Cross where I gave my life to Christ almost 20 years ago. The only spiritual journey I am on now is for Him to continue to transform me in His image. I have no desire or expectation of ever joining the Catholic church, even though hold no ill will towards it.
This was more of an intellectual exercise. I was looking for theological reasons for the importance, not apologetics as I know both sides of that coin.
You wrote:
“He hears you without mentioning Mary’s name.”
Yes, He does. The point is that you were wrong.
“I would hear her name so much it just seemed to be mentioned every 30 seconds.”
Because Mary’s name is mentioned in each part of the Hail Mary - that’s twice in each Hail Mary.
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
Note that Jesus is referred to three times: once by name (Jesus), once by His role (Lord), and once by what He is (God).
Since Jesus is mentioned more than Mary in the Hail Mary it is strange that you did not say, “I would hear Him referred to so often that it just seemed He was mentioned every 5 seconds” since that is the truth of it.
It’s about time someone clued into Calvin and Luther’s blindness - nicely said
It’s confusing. Catholics constantly remind us that it was THEIR church who gave us the Bible. We Prots read the Bible and take it as God’s Word. When we post scripture to back up a claim, it’s RCC’s that push it aside and tell us the Bible isn’t complete. That we don’t understand what is right there in black and white from the book THEIR church gave us. In other words, tradition and teachings trump God’s word.
It’s not a wonder the PTB in the Catholic church didn’t want the Bible in the hands of the masses. It’s obviously contradictory to what they teach and reading it would cause confusion. The masses would read for themselves and see where adding to scripture is NOT compatible to their own Bible. And they did and here we are!
Sometimes the only answer is because it’s been taught as tradition for a zillion years. Period. Error or not. “this is the way it’s always been done so we will keep on doing it” What else can they possibly say? The Bible is WRONG? Which is actually what they are skirting around everytime tradition vs. scripture comes up.
IMO
If you cannot or will not comply, then LEAVE THE THREAD.
I was speaking about the sinless nature of Jesus! I don’t believe Mary was sinless. In fact, neither did she, as evidenced in Luke 1:47: “My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior”. She acknowledged that she needed a Savior! But, once again, I was not talking about her.
This is just a wild guess, but it is my understanding that in Judaism one was known by a given name followed by "son/daughter of" the father's given name. But there are occasions when a person is known as "son/daughter of" mother's given name. Could this be the case here? Was there a custom or a ritual reason why He was known as Yeshua ben Miryam? It would not mean anything as far as whether He had brothers or not, it would be a surname.
First, very simply, Catholics love Truth; manifested primarily in the Person of Jesus and all that He taught, and through His Body, the Church, which He left to guide us.
We believe Mary was a perpetual virgin because it is true. As Claud said earlier, the Church has always taught this.
As Campion pointed out, why would Mary, betrothed to Joseph, ask Gabriel how she would conceive, if she planned on having intercourse with Joseph? Is there any reasonable explanation, except that she intended to remain a virgin AFTER her wedding?
I think one of the most beautiful explanations is that the Church considers Mary the Ark of the New Covenant.
The Ark of the old covenant contained the 10 commandments (Word of God), Manna (bread from heaven), and Aaron's staff (priesthood symbol).
The Ark of the New Covenant- Mary- contained the living Word of God, the true Bread from Heaven, and the High Priest Himself.
No one was allowed to touch the Ark in the OT; and no one was allowed to touch (sexually) the Ark of the New Covenant.
The Church does not teach this because it considers sex to be dirty or sinful; on the contrary, the Church teaches that sex is holy and sacramental. To forgo sex for the greater glory of God and the furtherance of The Kingdom is, however, encouraged.
So while the perpetual virginity of Mary is not explicit in Scripture, Catholics do not believe that all truth is contained in Scripture. Jesus built a Church for us; and that Chuch existed before the New Testament scripture was written.
I hope that helps as an explanation, and I would ask you to return the favor-
As a non-Catholic Christian, why do you hold so closely that if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true?
Thanks, and God bless you!
In the time of Christ, there were those who erroneously looked upon John the Baptist as the "Messiah" and John the Baptist was only Jesus' cousin! Ergo the rationale behind the womb of the Virgin Mary being providentially reserved by God the Father for no one but Christ.
Those who embraced John the Baptist as messiah and regarded Christ as the "usurper" were members of a sect begun by a Samaritan heretic named Dositheos after the death of John the Baptist.
Dositheus' disciple, in turn, was none other than the Samaritan gnostic heretic Simon Magus, who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Simon Magus, who was baptised into the Christian faith before he apostatised, is called "the father of all heretics" and a precursor of antichrist because he set himself up as a messiah.
The fact that there have been so many conflicting posts on this subject shows just how misunderstood the Catholic church is. I asked a young man who will be ordained a priest in December about your question and got this reply:
Mary’s virginity is important to us since it reflects the purity and dignity as well of Who she bore. There is a sacredness in Mary’s body since it was God who chose her—not just the soul but the WHOLE Mary, body and soul. No other human has the dignity given to her after being overshadow by the Holy Spirit. Also the Scripture was fulfilled having a Mother and Virgin. A miracle yet a mystery. The dignity of both vocations in God’s plan.
Thank you for that response.
We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine about children of Mary, and you were right in rejecting the idea that any other offspring should come from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. . . . For if they accept the doctrine on the authority of priests that Mary had a number of children, then they will strive with greater effort to destroy the truths of the faith.
Those fears need not be present within you or I.
As others mentioned, there is the Protoevangelium of James which may as well be of later origin than those whom rely upon it (even though it be known to contain historical impossibilities) whom wish to push it back to earlier origin. Whichever way, it still comes across as an imaginative prequel, written after the fact that the Synoptic Gospels must have had wide circulation.
Here's a thesis which is difficult to refute, for it's information is fairly thorough, and precise.
All the alleged history offered for Mary when she was just a young girl, and her alleged vows, comes from the Protoevangelium which is an apocryphal work at best...but one clever enough, and widely believed enough early on, to not land in the pile labeled "spurious" which it may very well belong.
Notice that Origin's initial claim of the idea, he himself sourced being from the Protoevangelium of James.
Others, following his lead, did much the same. It appears the idea was so much repeated. Some whom would seek to discredit the divinity of Christ, denying even the virgin birth itself, quoted the various sources speaking of Christ's brothers as "proof", so a body of apologetic sprung up which we see repeated almost verbatim today. The echoes from past defenses, based somewhat upon a false story (not written by James, it is most widely believed by historians) but which has other dimensions which much cloud discussion.
I apologize for not digging out this reference and reasonable explanation [at the link] previously, when I first saw this thread. I came upon it again here, while searching for the very article linked to.
Who is the Virgin Mary ?
Answer: Mother of Jesus
How did she become His Mother ?
Via the Holy Spirit.
Who is the Holy Spirit ?
God, 3rd Person of the Trinity.
How does one become a mother ?
First she must give birth, and before giving birth she must have a spouse.
Who is Her Spouse?
The Holy Spirit (God).
Was She a Virgin, yes. (Isaiah)
Was that necessary ?
Obvious, I don’t think God is going to have the vessel of His Son’s birth in a vessel that is She Herself was not conceived Immaculately, and additionally free from sin, ALL sin, most obviously, flesh sins.
Therefore she is married to God.
God does not die.
God is Her Spouse, as well as Her Son.
She can not be subsequently married or get married AGAIN, (polygamy) if Her Spouse lives forever.
She is bound to Him.
St Joseph can not marry someone who is already married, nor can he have a relationship (relations) with another Man’s Spouse.
The Blessed Mother would therefore need to get divorced from God to marry St Joseph. And Jesus’ Law, no divorce, both Old & New Testament. You can not separate what God has joined (both Old & New Testament)
So that is why she remains Perpetually Virgin, because she can not have a second spouse.
God only had One Begotton Son, therefore, no OTHER Children(that is Begotton children).
Additional reference, nothing too do with the above, see Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda. By the way, Mary of Agreda, who died several hundred years ago, her body remains intact, not decomposed, INCORRUPT, visible in a glass coffin. If you have any doubt of her authenticity,(or any of the other Saints ) you must seriously get to the bottom of this INCORRUPT issue. Consider this when you think of an INCORRPUT person, what kept the worms, insects, maggots, and other flesh eating items away from her (and other INCORRPUT saints, who were buried in nothing more than wooden boxes, no modern day coffins with valves, embalming, etc, just simple wooden boxes.
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.