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.
Is this 'disrespectful'?
Well, no, the blessed virgin's parents...
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.
But that does now answer the fundamental question. And as it usually takes me hours (and energy) to type such long replies as you are responding to, due to my arthritic fingers (though i often do it by God's grace for the benefit of all), then rather than engaging in more debate with you over what Scripture says or warrants, and seeing as you said " Personally, I would never try to convince anyone of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary," then i think the fundamental question as to the basis for your assurance of Truth, and this doctrine, is what is most relevant.
And i think the issue for both sides has been fairly well laid out and little more needs to be said.