Replies

I am a loyal and faithful Catholic who practices my faith.

I don't doubt your sincerity.

And you pointed to an issue which is irritating and true. The Church’s tendency to make up things which are not based on fact. The circumstances surrounding the birth of Mary are not mentioned in the Bible. So why make up things we don’t know?

You've fallen into the "sola Scriptura" trap, perhaps without realizing it. Listen to the premise behind your statement: "if it isn't in the Bible, it can't be true or worthy of belief"... which is an unbiblical idea, since the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura" ANYWHERE. It's a tradition of sinful, fallible men (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc.) who were pursuing the "anything but Rome" mindset. Don't be fooled into granting a false premise.

This perpetual virgin stuff is equally annoying. The Bible mentions that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception of Jesus (Luke), but it stops there. It doesn’t go any further than that.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but: belief in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not optional; it's "de fide"--obligatory for belief for all faithful Catholics. See the Catechism, 496-498,510.

Beyond this, see above, re: the ridiculous error of "sola Scriptura".

The Bible does say Mary was married to Joseph and that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

The Bible also says "not to call any man on earth your father" (cf. Matthew 23:9), but it has St. Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) reminding an entire local church (the Corinthians) that they "do not have many fathers. For I [Paul] became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel". Some parts of the Bible are easy to misunderstand (especially if the reader is "sure" that he isn't misunderstanding!), which the unstable and ignorant distort and twist, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). This is why we, as Catholics, cannot simply run off with every private interpretation we see or think (whether from ourselves, or from Catholic or Protestant friends); we need an infallible guide to tell us what these things do NOT mean.

It is therefore safe to assume that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

You'd be going against the teaching of every last Father of the Church (all of whom lived far closer to the actual events than you and I do), if you assume that. Rather, it's safe to assume that, after carrying the King of Kings in her womb, the Blessed Virgin would have no desire to settle for mere human intercourse. Do some research (on some orthodox Catholic sites); the resources are plenty.

The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply and Mary and Joseph did just that.

That's a general vocation--not an all-inclusive one, as Jesus Himself makes clear: "[...]there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. (Matthew 9:12). St. Paul also makes this clear (though he says that celibacy is voluntary and good, but not a requirement): see almost all of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7).

Do you see how some Protestant (and other private ideas) can seem plausible for a while, but can be proven false, upon a bit of closer examination? The Church is here to guide us, not to make us miserable; just as guardrails are there to protect us, not to restrict our driving freedoms.

Listen to the premise behind your statement: "if it isn't in the Bible, it can't be true or worthy of belief"... which is an unbiblical idea, since the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura" ANYWHERE.

The phrase 'sola scriptura' is not found in the Bible. But then neither is the word 'Trinity'. Both concepts are however clearly taught. Should anyone wish to say the Trinity is unbiblical, that is a discussion for another time..

In the case of 'sola scriptura' it is demonstrable from both Holy Writ AND church tradition that the italicized statement is in error... It seems that some have need to familiarize themselves with the Bereans. Recorded in the Bible (and thus the inspired, inerrant Word of God) and since it is the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, it is also Church Tradition (held by some to be of equal weight with Scripture), this sure seems to indicate that to at least the Bereans, even if not to the Church now, it being in the Bible WAS important.

For your convenience here is the passage with the applicable part highlighted: "Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so." (Douay)

It is interesting that I see the use of the term 'unBiblical' to denigrate something that clearly IS taught in Holy writ in a screed defending teachings that are in actuality unBiblical...

Comments above reflect the author's personal opinion based on the references stated. Your mileage may vary.