Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

Yes I am a Catholic.

Yes I do question things from time to time.

Especially if it is a dogma or a doctrine that contradicts what is written in the Bible.

I am not a drone marching in lock step with any particular group.

Being a Catholic does not forfeit your right to think for yourself, read for yourself, and investigate for yourself.

public...

denial of services...

fill the jails with protesters...

whatever it takes; because the spineless weasels we’ve elected to Washing are going to do...

NOTHING!

Mother Teresa of Calcutta never insulted the faith of other peoples.

Goodie for her.

(Repeated usage of any combative religion forum is bad for the brain and worse on the heart.)

1. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "

(Note: we have a Thinker. Watch him closely...)

Goodie for her.

Get with it, Elsie. Jesus would never like that type of response. If you can't get the simple right, why do you think anyone would listen to you on the more complicated issues regarding Christ and His Kingdom?

An awful lot of pure CONJECTURE in this statement; NONE of which is SUPPORTED by any facts.

Forgive me, but I think you are forgetting some things. I am responding to the claim that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition that holds that St. Joseph was an elderly widower who already had children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin. It is no more conjectural than the argument that St. Paul's specific commentary on lust in marriage would apply to the marriage of our Lord's parents. It is no more conjectural than the argument that St. Joseph was a young man subject to such concerns. The difference between the conjecture that St. Joseph was young and lustful and that he was an old widower is that the latter is supported by tradition and the former is merely suggested as an argument against tradition. In the absence of any other evidence I see no reason to reject traditional teaching.

I cannot 'procreate', but I sure like a roll in the hay!

Please go back and read the context of what you are responding to. It has nothing to do with a "roll in the hay" as you so eloquently put it, but was put forth as a measure, by the poster, of all who were bound by the requirement of consummation. As a Christian from a Christian family I can tell you that consummation is also required for our marriages, and yet people do get married in old age for other reasons and those marriages are not considered null and void by people. When two octogenarians wed nobody is going to argue that they are not really married until they have "a roll in the hay." St. Joseph has traditionally been held to have been an elderly man past the age of procreation, and that his marriage was not for his own pleasure in the acts of consummation, but as a means of protection and care for the Blessed Virgin and the fruit of her womb. It was a pious act which was a response to the call of God, and not for his own benefit. That is why there was a discussion of "ability to procreate" and its impact on the status of any given marriage.

Why does Catholicism deny this GOD given pleasure to Mary and Joseph?

That is a bizarre question. That would be like asking why Catholicism denies St. Peter the pleasure of dying an old man at home with his grandchildren. How does Catholicism deny people from 2000 years ago some pleasure by merely recognizing what they did? Bizarre.

I hope a bunch of us OLD coots pounce on you whippersnappers (whipper - not mackerel) and mention Abraham, Noah, and others who were 'old men', yet fathered children late in life.

What is your point? Yes, older people have, by the grace of God, had children, but that doesn't affect anything. My elderly aunt who married very late in life also could have, by that same grace, become pregnant at eighty-five. Did she? No. And does that amazingly slim possibility actually mean that she must have had sex with the ninety plus year old man she married? Does it mean that he must have married her because he wanted to have sex and make babies? No, of course not. People do get married for other reasons, and I doubt very seriously there was ever a time when such was entirely unknown to society. That you or anybody else can or might want to have sex at any given age does not deny that some who are older might still desire marriage even if they cannot do as you may.

The fact is that tradition teaches us that St. Joseph was not a young man but a much older one who had married previously and had his own children. You may not accept that, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that the Bible contradicts it. Nothing I have seen, including the post I replied to above, has ever demonstrated or produced any actual such contradiction.

You’re not getting any traction with trying to SHAME me into being silent.

Ignoring Jesus’ words isn’t a good business model.

You may not accept that, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that the Bible contradicts it.

You've pointed out quite well how Catholicism gets a LOT of it's practices!

Forgive me, but I think you are forgetting some things. I am responding to the claim that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition that holds that St. Joseph was an elderly widower who already had children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin.

I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!

How does Catholicism deny people from 2000 years ago some pleasure by merely recognizing what they did? Bizarre.

Ask Rome.

It is the one who 'claims' Mary was/is a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.

Should I ask them why they deny St. Peter and St. Paul a comfortable death at home?

I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!

No, you were arguing facts which weren't relevant. I know you disagree with the tradition, but agreeing and disagreeing are not what was at issue. The claim was that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition, which is not true. My post had nothing to do with your "we wuz first . . ." commentary. It was a response to a direct assertion which was erroneous. And, BTW, the Church conjured nothing up out of thin air. What I have posted regarding St. Joseph is an ancient tradition. You can reject it if you want, and I wouldn't argue with that, but it is not made up out of thin air.

You don’t have to be silent to be respectful. However, it’s true; Christ does work wonders in the quiet prayerful soul. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgNj2Sf_mgo&feature=kp

But rejecting a Church dogma makes one an apostate Catholic. It’s a big club.

Especially if it is a dogma or a doctrine that contradicts what is written in the Bible.

Name one Church dogma that is contradicted by the Bible.

You sound like a Protestant: if it isn't in the Bible; it can't be true, even if it's not contradicted by the Bible.

First, let me say that the perpetual virginity of Mary v is not taught in Scripture, and while we can debate whether Scripture disallows, neither actual proof or the weight of Scriptural substantiation is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, and thus the fundamental question is, what is the basis for your assurance of Truth as a RC?

If "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne.

Solomon was heir to David's throne, and he was not his eldest living son. Adonias was older but was not the king because God did not choose him. It seems silly to pretend that God would have to choose an older step-brother to be Christ when he rejected Adonias as king of Juda.

It is good that you found that, which i myself had not realized when providing what another had argued, yet while Adonijah was the natural successor of David with his three older brothers being dead, Adonijah disqualified himself by publicly proclaiming himself king before David even died, which by inspiration David's promise seems to have foresaw. (1Kg. 1: 17,18,24)

And the establishment of the throne of Solomon kingdom itself was conditional, (2 Chronicles 7:17-20) upon faithfulness, as is any magisterial office, and not as superior to Scripture.

In any case, your appeal is to exception, but it is characteristic of the Holy Spirit to make manifest when there is an exception, for which multitudes of examples can be given, and thus the Holy Spirit is careful to provide the word "supposed" in Lk. 3:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," (Luke 3:23)

The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name.

it is hard to deny that the scriptures tell us that the Blessed Virgin did in fact have a sister named Mary. It may be odd, but it is so. And, just to be clear, I did not actually suggest that the brothers of the Lord were his cousins, which is a common theory, but rather his step-brothers.

The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name.

Again, that is possible, but nothing is recorded of that abnormal situation, and which would belong in the area of speculation, not doctrine. Perpetual virginity is not needed for any Biblical doctrine.

Israel knew nothing of a marriage that was not consummated between two persons who could procreate, nor does the NT.

Well, I don't see how one could say that. I will grant that it is atypical historically, but so is much we read about in the New Testament. And that there is perhaps no direct record of such in the scriptures does not mean such a marriage never existed.

This is more appeal to silence in order to support a very notable (and essential according to Rome) aspect, which again would only allow it as speculative, not doctrine. The fact is that the very description of Mary in the beginning, and repeated by the the Lord in Mt. 19, is that marriage in that of being one flesh,

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

The Holy Spirit is careful to characteristically record notable exceptions to the norm, even of lesser characters, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size (Ogg) and fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), distinctive holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) prolonged virginity and devotion (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), the supernatural transport of Enoch and Phillip, the celibacy of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, absence of parents, sinlessness (of Christ is stated at least thrice), yet Marian lifelong sinlessness and virginity are not, but are read into the text based upon the fallacious idea of necessity, or possibility.

I had an elderly aunt who did just that, and we have no idea whether they consummated the relationship physically. After all, who is going to ask?

I distinctly said "between two persons who could procreate," and as for asking, that the marriage was procreated and the bride was a virgin was a issue that the OT law recognized and dealt with.(Dt. 22:13-21)

Paul actually instructs the married to have sexual relations, and restricts abstinence in marriage to only a period of fasting, and then to come together again. (1Cor. 7:3-5)

Yes he does, but it is in a context. He makes that clear from the start by stating that what he is saying is "in fear of fornication." We know from this that he is speaking to people who are still sexually active. They are struggling against lust. He is not speaking about marriages in which the partners are not afflicted by this danger.

Rather, it does not say the married couples were struggling against lust, but what the text is dealing with is preventing getting in that condition due to going to extremes (or having to go to extremes to prevent it in marriage), by being tempted by sexual desire so as to engage in an unholy manner of release, which can occur when faced with a situation in which satisfaction is offered and desire awakened. This was why the devil tempted Christ to deliver Himself prematurely from His fast in Mt.4 after He became hungry, and the Israelites sinned in the manner in which they ate (with the blood) due to Saul's imposed fasting. (1Sam. 14:24-33) For two persons of opposite gender to live together as celibate is akin to keeping a cake in the refer and never eating it.

While those who are gifted with the ability to remain celibate should be single, (1Cor. 7:7) and to whom Paul advocates celibacy, the desire to express affect sexually is the normal extension of a romantic relationship btwn two persons in love, and it remains that marriage is both described as sexual union, or leaving the continent status of family life, and becoming one flesh, and in which marital relations are enjoined (thus the sin of Onan), and which serve a far deeper purpose then merely gratification of the glands.

For contrary to the unScriptural conclusions of some church "fathers" that marital relations must involve sexual lust, the marriage bed is undefiled as it need not involve lust. (Heb. 13:4)

Thus an unconsummated marriage of perpetual virginity btwn Joseph and Mary (which i think would ascribe more virtue to the former than the latter) is clearly contrary both to the description of marriage and lacks precedent in any marriage btwn two souls able to procreated. And consistent with the Holy Spirit noting exceptions to the norm, the only manifest marriage that was not consummated was btwn feeble David who "gat no heat" and Abishag "who ministered to him, but the king knew her not." (1Kg. 1:1-5) But instead of this, the only testimony we have provided are things which normally indicate marital relations, including "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25).

Except in rare instances "heōs" ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:25) indicates a terminus and a change, or allowing for that.

It can allow for a future change, but it is not required. The word as used there only means that there were no marital relations up to that point, and it implies nothing about what follows.

This also impugns the Holy Spirit as a teacher and is basically special pleading, as in the rare exceptions in which "heōs" ("till") denotes continuity, then that is not hard to see. (Mat 11:12; 12:20; 26:36; 27:8; 28:20; Jn 5:17; 1Co 8:7; 1Jn 2:9;

Some examples of heōs (Strong's 2193) denoting continuity are not valid ones, and for others i researched,

(Mat 12:20) A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till2193, he send forth judgment unto victory.

This denotes a terminus with the context of that of Christ's work of redemption till all that will be redeemed is gathered in, as after that there will be not more bruised reeds and smoking flaxes, as He will make all things new, bless the Lord .

(Mat 24:21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to2193 this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Denotes a limit, that of unprecedented tribulation even up to the time of “then,” this time, but also for all time. Thus the grammatical use of heos to stress the unprecedented nature of tribulation is clarified as not meaning a terminus.

(Joh 5:17) But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto,2193, and I work.

Denotes continuity, as it has no terminus. The Father is working even up to now, but continuity of obvious.

(Act 8:40) But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till2193 he came to Caesarea.

Denotes a terminus, not of his preaching but his present continuous preaching circuit.

(1Ti 4:13) Till2193 I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

Denotes a terminus, not of his ministerial work forever, but of commanded activity that he is to occupy himself with uninterrupted until Paul's arrival.

(Act 25:21) But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till2193 3757 I might send him to Caesar.

This denotes a terminus, with Paul being held in one place until sent elsewhere, obliviously not an end to his imprisonment.

Instead of any teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin, ,we have many texts which refer to Mary having other children. (Mat_12:46,48, Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40,47, Mar_16:1; Luk_24:10; Joh_19:25; Gal_1:19)

I think you infer too much from these verses. Look at the first, Matthew 12.46-48. It refers to the Lord's Mother and his brethren, but it never says they are the children of his Mother.

I am not inferring anything than the normal conveyance of the text, that of a mother with her children, rather than cousins, a distinction the Spirit of Christ knows how to make when fit:

But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. (Luk 2:44)

And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. (Luk 21:16)

Note however, that is it not necessary that Mary had children in order to believe Mary had a normal consummated marriage, in the absence any teaching that she has an extraordinary marriage, and not simply in conceiving and carrying Christ, which extraordinary miracle is stated.

Your second verse is much the same. Actually it is even weaker. Matthew 27.56..are we really supposed to believe that in the Gospel of our Lord he would not even deserve mention as a child of a woman in a list of her offspring? It would be strange enough to see him given in a list of other people in any way, as if they were all of the same level of importance, but not to be there at all?

James, and Joses are listed as brethren along with Simon and Judas (Joseph in the Vulgate, the two names being one and the same in some Talmudic writings) in Mt. 13:55, all common names, but it likely does denote the wife of Cleophas, sister of the Virgin (Jn. 19:25) which should be your argument, although there were "many women were there beholding afar off." (Mt. 27:55)

But your objection agrees with my point, as it would be unreasonable not to mention the most notable Child in this list (and another text is provided which clarifies it), as it would not to mention a unique cleave-less marriage and extended virginity and solitary child status of Christ, which is noted in other cases of notable, but less notable, characters.

Now, it is perfectly natural for the author to point out that such a genealogy, which would otherwise imply direct biological descent, was not meant to indicate that St. Joseph was the real biological father of our Lord or else he would risk confusing the reader regarding the Virgin Birth.

Indeed, this careful attendance to extraordinary aspects is why in the novel absence of any record for such an aspect as perpetual virginity and a cleave-less marriage, when that noted when it occurred before, as did post marital virginity among a devout, then the norm is to be assumed.

There is simply no need for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, unless martial relations are sinful or necessarily denoting inferior virtue, as some CFs erroneously held , contra. Heb. 13:4)

I don't like the word "need" in this context. Which dogmas are "needed" in that sense and which are not? Many people think certain moral teachings are not "needed" but I accept them anyway,

"Needed" refers to it being essential as seen by Catholics, some of whom liken Mary to be Ark which Uzziah died when he touched it. But which was due to his lack of qualification or reverence, and is not analogous to a lawful marriage. Or it is desperately argued that Mary's question, "How can this be, since I know not man?" means she had already taken a vow of perpetual virginity. And a pope is aghast at the thought that Mary would ever "be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king." (Pope Siricius I, Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392])

So much for marriage being "honourable in all, the bed being undefiled," and the glorification of it by the Holy Spirit.

The fact is that Mary's parents did not need to be sinless to bear Mary, nor holy men to be channel's for God's pure words, nor would Mary need to either be sinless nor a perpetual virgin to bear the Christ. Instead it is part of the larger hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism far "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6), which is the larger issue.

Now i am too tired to say more.

I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!

Not quite. She has employed forgeries to support her claims, and to teach for doctrines traditions of men, while Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Note The Assumption Of Mary In The Earliest Sources, but " It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

The only Divine evidence to Rome of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.

First, let me say that the perpetual virginity of Mary v is not taught in Scripture, and while we can debate whether Scripture disallows, neither actual proof or the weight of Scriptural substantiation is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, and thus the fundamental question is, what is the basis for your assurance of Truth as a RC?

Well, I would say that this does veer a bit from what was written concerning contradiction. Something may not be in the Bible, which may be a compelling reason for some not to accept it, but that is still not quite the same as saying it is actually contradicted there.

In any case, your appeal is to exception, but it is characteristic of the Holy Spirit to make manifest when there is an exception, for which multitudes of examples can be given, and thus the Holy Spirit is careful to provide the word "supposed" in Lk. 3:

I am very doubtful about it being an appeal to exception, but as the first heir and the most prominent, even an exception disproves the suggestion that order of birth would bind God in regard to his own Son. The reasons for exception in the case of Solomon pale in comparison to the birth of God Himself in the flesh.

Again, that is possible, but nothing is recorded of that abnormal situation, and which would belong in the area of speculation, not doctrine.

I am assuming that you are speaking of alternative readings for John 19.25? I suppose it is entirely possible that four women were being described there, and not three, which would make "his mother's sister" somebody other than Mary of Cleophas. That seems entirely reasonable to me. But, I don't think it really changes my position. After all, I have not argued that the brothers of the Lord were cousins, but actual brothers, and so the sister here doesn't seem to be an issue. Or am I overlooking something?

This is more appeal to silence in order to support a very notable (and essential according to Rome) aspect, which again would only allow it as speculative, not doctrine.

I wouldn't really argue with this, or at least not in this situation. Personally, I would never try to convince anyone of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I distinctly said "between two persons who could procreate," and as for asking, that the marriage was procreated and the bride was a virgin was a issue that the OT law recognized and dealt with.(Dt. 22:13-21)

Yes, but it begins with the protest of the husband. These rules were not about third parties demanding information, but demands made by the people involved. And these rules only demonstrate the norm as society generally had to deal with it. Nobody would argue that marriage, as a rule, is a sexually active relationship and is about procreation. But, people can and have been married for other reasons, and those marriages would only have been declared null and void by third parties if one of the people asserted their rights under the agreement. That is why I give the example of my elderly aunt. The status would only be challenged if one of them did so, and they wouldn't if they married for their own reasons and not for the purpose of procreation or sexual activity. And, being in their case eighty-something and ninety-something, I have doubts about theirs being a sexually driven connection.

But, I am not saying there is good reason, on its own, to assume the parents of our Lord did this. All things being equal I think, for no other reason than statistical likelihood, it would be wise to simply assume that the marriage was like most of its time. I don't only because of the teaching of the Church, and I don't expect others to accept that themselves because of things I post on a forum. So I hope you won't misinterpret me on that.

For two persons of opposite gender to live together as celibate is akin to keeping a cake in the refer and never eating it.

Yes, but only if you are able to eat cake or are tempted by it. If St. Joseph were an elderly widower there is no reason to be amazed that he may not be so tempted.

Thus an unconsummated marriage of perpetual virginity btwn Joseph and Mary (which i think would ascribe more virtue to the former than the latter) is clearly contrary both to the description of marriage and lacks precedent in any marriage btwn two souls able to procreated.

I just don't see this. Unconsummated marriages have certainly existed, and people can and have lived lives of continence. It is hard, but that isn't a compelling argument against it. St. Simeon Stylites lived for almost forty years on the top of a pillar. That isn't something most of us could, or would, do either, but it did happen. And, even if this were so by your own words it would not apply here if the two souls were not able to procreate, or were not seeking a relationship in which to do that.

This also impugns the Holy Spirit as a teacher and is basically special pleading, as in the rare exceptions in which "heōs" ("till") denotes continuity, then that is not hard to see. (Mat 11:12; 12:20; 26:36; 27:8; 28:20; Jn 5:17; 1Co 8:7; 1Jn 2:9;

Well, honestly, I think this verse is much trampled by both sides. Scholarship does seem divided, and language is rarely quite as mathematical as people try to make it. And though I am not comfortable with the absolutism of the opposing side, I am equally uncomfortable with the apologists on the Catholic side who insist on using as examples different Greek words which happen to be translated as until. I would say that there is obviously a limit set by the use of this word regarding definite continuity, and even would say that in general it usually implies a loss of continuity at that point. But, that is true in English as well. As for this particular word I see definite exceptions to your position in situations such as John 5.17, and we also see usages in the LXX such as 1 Machabees where it does not indicate a change. The limits are always there, though the implied change can at times be variable or very unclear. Ultimately I am simply not convinced that this word requires the interpretation given to it by the opposition, and the examples I have read of other usages of it allow for the reading we see here.

I am not inferring anything than the normal conveyance of the text, that of a mother with her children, rather than cousins,

Okay, now this seems a bit inconsistent to me. Just above you demanded a very strict reading of a rather esoteric Greek conjunction with various argued interpretations, but here you seek to suggest that something as basic as "his" could mean something other than belonging to Jesus? His mother and his brethren. Both are related to him, not each other. There is absolutely nothing there saying they are her children, or even implying it. As I have said, if my father's mother and sister had been waiting for him they would be described and reported in just that way. It wouldn't mean they were mother and daughter by birth, which they are not.

And, please recall that I have never argued that the brothers of the Lord were actually his cousins. I do not find that argument very compelling frankly, for several reasons.

Note however, that is it not necessary that Mary had children in order to believe Mary had a normal consummated marriage, in the absence any teaching that she has an extraordinary marriage, and not simply in conceiving and carrying Christ, which extraordinary miracle is stated.

Yes, I don't argue that, and haven't suggested you should believe it. I don't believe it possible to convince somebody of the truth of this doctrine by this kind of debate regarding such facts as these. It just doesn't work that way. I was only discussing certain claims regarding the alleged Biblical contradiction of one particular tradition, i.e. the brothers of the Lord were his brothers, but by St. Joseph and not His Mother.

But your objection agrees with my point, as it would be unreasonable not to mention the most notable Child in this list (and another text is provided which clarifies it), as it would not to mention a unique cleave-less marriage and extended virginity and solitary child status of Christ, which is noted in other cases of notable, but less notable, characters.

I am sorry but I fear you lost me a bit here. The Lord would not be reported in that list because he was not a child of that woman. I am a little confused about how that connects to the second half of the above assertion. Am I misunderstanding something in this? If so, if you clarify this for me I would be more than happy to share my thoughts on it, if I have any.

Indeed, this careful attendance to extraordinary aspects is why in the novel absence of any record for such an aspect as perpetual virginity and a cleave-less marriage, when that noted when it occurred before, as did post marital virginity among a devout, then the norm is to be assumed.

This is probably quite reasonable, but not really a contradiction. I would say a contradiction requires explicit denial, not mere silence.

The fact is that Mary's parents did not need to be sinless to bear Mary, nor holy men to be channel's for God's pure words, nor would Mary need to either be sinless nor a perpetual virgin to bear the Christ.

Well, no, the Blessed Virgin's parents would not seem to have needed to have been sinless to bear her, and I don't think it is commonly thought that they were. Am I wrong about that? And, more directly, I suppose that the Blessed Virgin probably did not need to be sinless or a perpetual Virgin to bear the Lord. But, need just does not seem to apply in these situations, and I would never use that word in that way. I just don't view such doctrines from that point of view. For me it is enough that the Church has spoken, and I accept it as it is.

I suppose you may think that a cop out, but I really don't mean it that way. I just don't think about necessity in this as it seems to imply I can decide whether God needed to do as he did. I mean, do babies need to die? Did Christ need to die? Could God not forgive sins simply by deciding to, and then making it simply be so? Does hell or judgement need to exist? All these things invite an insidious kind of pretension and I am just not comfortable with going down that road. If something is consistent with the 2000 year witness of the Church then it is good enough for me.

Instead it is part of the larger hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism far "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6), which is the larger issue.

Hmmm, I just don't see that. Honestly, I cannot imagine a more Christocentric idea than the Perpetual Virginity of our Lady. It doesn't seem to me to exalt the Blessed Virgin at all really. Many people have lived lives of virginity. It isn't that exceptional. But, just as your quote from Pope Siricius above reflects, the most compelling moral reason for desiring such a teaching would come from the incredible and unimaginable holiness of He whom she gave birth to, and not because of her at all. From my point of view, even if we are wrong, we are not wrong on this because we think so highly of our Lady, but because we think such of our Lord.

Now i am too tired to say more.

Well, thank you for having taken the time to say what you did. I appreciate the interest.

Should I ask them why they deny St. Peter and St. Paul a comfortable death at home?

Ask anything you, for all answered have been pre-rationalized by the Powers that be.

No, you were arguing facts which weren't relevant.

Who decides whether they are relevant or not?

Just because a reply is addressed to a certain person; the unknown other readers are always in the back of my mind when I compose my responses.