I thought it might be good to talk a bit about a subject near and dear to his heart and the heart of his beautiful bride-to-be, Claire. That would be Mary (they are both members of the Militia Immaculata, founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe, and are consecrated to her). So today and Monday we will take a look at Mary. First we will discuss the meaning of her Virginiity. Then on Monday, we will take a look at the significance of the Wedding at Cana.
So What’s the Big Deal about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?
The first thing to note about this teaching is that it’s the natural extension of the dogma of the Virgin Birth. Many modern people assume that, at its core, the Virgin Birth was basically a stunt. That is, the common modern assumption is that the meaning of Mary’s virginity is pretty much exhausted when somebody says, “Wow! She had a kid without the assistance of a man! Cool! He must be God Incarnate or something! Let’s check him out!”
The problem is that this approach to the miraculous is constantly repudiated by Jesus:
Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ “ Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’ “ (Matt. 4:5–7).
***
And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed (Matt. 16:1–4).
God does perform miracles, but he does them in his own time and for his own reasons, not because curiosity seekers like Herod Antipas want to see nifty stunts as though God has to prove himself to them. Those people are met with silence, as Jesus met Herod Antipas’ requests with silence (Luke 23:8–9).
So if the Virgin Birth is not a stunt to prove that Jesus, being born of a virgin, must be one amazing guy, what is the point of it?
The point is that the virginity of Mary is a sign, not a stunt. Stunts merely draw attention. They often don’t mean much beyond “HEY!” And, at any rate, Jesus’ Virgin Birth drew no attention at the time it took place. But signs—and especially divine signs—are crammed with meaning. That is, signs signify. So the question becomes, “What did the virginity of Mary signify?” And the answer of the Catholic Church is that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity signifies crucial things, both about the “person of Christ and his redemptive mission” and “the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.” And since, like all divine signs, this one goes on signifying long after its immediate time, Mary’s virginity is appropriate, fitting, and significant on a perpetual basis.
God Is in Charge
The first thing the Perpetual Virginity of Mary makes clear is that the entire project of salvation is God’s initiative, not ours. That’s not me talking. That’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church—the Catholic Church that, as an Evangelical, I had often been told denies God’s grace and teaches “salvation by works”:
Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. “He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed . . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 503).
Jesus, like all of us children of God who call him our older brother, is born, “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” ( John 1:13). Jesus has God as his Father not as a stunt, but because this is the deepest truth about him. And because it’s true of him, it becomes true of us when we’re adopted by God through his grace.
Because of this, we are, so to speak, made members of a new human race headed by a New Adam (1 Cor. 15:45–50). But that NewAdam has a corresponding figure: the New Eve whose “yes” to God allows life to enter into the world just as the “no” of the first Eve brought death into the world. And that “yes” is the fruit both of God’s predestining grace and of her own free assent:
Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:
As St. Irenaeus says, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . . : “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 494).
All of which means that Mary is identified with the family of the New Adam just as much as the old Eve was identified with the family of the old Adam. Therefore, Mary’s virginity is a sign of joy that echoes down the ages even more than the weeping from the fall of Eve.
Virginity and Consecration to God
The notions of consecration and virginity have always been part of the Christian tradition. Indeed, as we have seen, pre-Christian tradition (both pagan and Jewish) also recognized at some instinctive level that the two went together. For virginity entails self-denial and, in some mysterious way, new life in God. It is a kind of sacrifice and, contrary to modern notions, it’s the sacrifice of something supremely good, not of something “dirty.” As David said, he would not offer “burnt offerings which cost me nothing” (1 Chron. 21:24). The entire principle of sacrifice rests upon the reality that something really good—not a piece of trash —is being offered to God.
Whoever offers the sacrifice recognizes that God is the author of the very gift being offered back to him—a gift that is (like the offerer himself ), next to nothing in comparison to God. Our Father receives such gifts gladly, and pours out on the worshipper abundances of grace and glory absurdly beyond the value of the sacrifice. And so, says St. Paul, we go from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18).
The great exemplar of this pattern is, of course, Jesus himself, who is both God and High Priest—and a virgin totally consecrated to God. The power of such virginity is indisputable. And so our culture still recognizes the “fitness” of virginity in someone especially close to God. That’s why The Da Vinci Code irritates the devout and titillates those who delight in attacking the Gospel. Both sides recognize that the idea of a Jesus with an active sex life is a jab at the notion that he was specially consecrated to God. Yet though we feel this instinctively, we still need to ask why virginity is so bound up with the idea of consecration to God. Certainly not because there’s something wrong with marriage. Indeed, it’s one of the great paradoxes of the Church that, while she exalts virginity as a higher estate than marriage, she simultaneously understands that Jesus established marriage—not virginity —as one of the seven sacraments.
Yes, you read that right: Virginity is a higher estate than marriage. That’s not some bitter anti-human enthusiasm left over from the Dark Ages. That’s Paul of Tarsus, who sums up the Catholic picture succinctly: “[H]e who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Cor. 7:38). St. Paul is just repeating the teaching of his master, whose disciples once shrugged at his teaching on lifetime fidelity in marriage by saying, “If such is the case ofa man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (Matt. 19:10). Those disciples were surprised when he didn’t correct their wisecrack, but agreed with them, saying, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and 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” (Matt. 19:10–12).
So the relationship between marital sex and virginity is not “bad / good,” but “good / better.” And the proof of it is Jesus himself, who lived a life of earthly virginity so he could live a life of heavenly marriage with his bride the Church. It’s the classic pattern: Die to yourself and live to God and you get back thirty, sixty, or a hundredfold more than you sacrificed (Matt. 13:23). Jesus gave up the good of marriage for the greater good of the heavenly wedding banquet. That’s why the “first of his signs” was done at a wedding ( John 2:1–11). John’s point is not that the sign was the first in a series of signs. He means for us to understand this sign as the archetypal sign, the sign that makes sense of all the other signs. If you want to understand what Jesus is about, John is saying, start here. And if you want to know who the real bridegroom at the real wedding is, says John the Baptist, then understand that it’s Jesus, the virgin who turns out to be the bridegroom of all bridegrooms ( John 3:29).
Such nuptial language pervades the gospel. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a wedding feast (Matt. 22:1–14). Paul tells us that not just the wedding at Cana, but every marriage is an image of Christ the groom and his bride the Church (Eph. 5:31–32). The book of Revelation portrays the cosmic consummation of all things as the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 19:5–7). The ultimate love story is the story of Jesus and the Church, according to Scripture. All our earthly love stories are just dim shadows of that reality. But love stories require two lovers, not just one. And that leads to the question, “What does total consecration in holiness look like, not for Jesus, but for his bride?”
Happily, it’s a question that John has already answered. For as we already know, the holiest thing in the old covenant was the ark of the covenant. And for John, as for Luke, the ark of the New Covenant is Mary, who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and who is the cosmic woman of the Book of Revelation, and who therefore is the icon both of the virgin daughter of Zion and of the Church. And that, in turn, leads us to the reality summarized in the words of Ambrose of Milan: “Mary is the type of the Church.”
Mary Signifies the Church’s Consecration to God
John sees Mary as a sign and icon of the Church, just as the early Fathers did. All of them thought her virginity, like Christ’s, was significant. For Mary is the model disciple whose sacrificial offering of virginity responds to Christ’s sacrificial offering, just as the disciple’s offering of the body as a “living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” is the fitting response of worship to the Lord (Rom. 12:1). More than anybody, Mary models the self-donating love of the disciple in imitation of Christ. For her face is, as Dante said, “the face that is most like the face of Christ’s.”
That’s more than poetry. For Jesus, we must remember, took his humanity from her. At the very level of physical appearance, it is quite likely that they strongly resembled one another. But even more profoundly, she was the disciple who spent more time in the direct presence of Jesus, loving and learning from God Incarnate more than anyone else who ever lived. And she didn’t begin her discipleship by crying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinner” (Luke 5:8), nor with the necessity of being knocked to the ground and blinded to get her attention (cf. Acts 9), but with immediate, complete, and loving submission to the will of God (Luke 1:38). In every other case, the overture of grace is received imperfectly. But in one case—Mary’s—it received a perfect welcome on behalf of the whole Church—enabled (like all sacrificial gifts) by the power of God’s grace. Mary was the disciple who loved Jesus more deeply and lived with him more closely than anyone, and the living sacrificial offering she made of her body was like nobody else’s. For Jesus himself was the living sacrifice of her body and the very fruit of her womb. When the lance pierced his heart, it pierced hers, too (cf., Luke 2:34–35). No other disciple of Jesus has ever offered more to God than she offered.
“But,” says the Evangelical doubter, “mere physical relationship doesn’t save! Remember when the woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!’ Jesus replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’” (Luke 11:27–28). All true. Which is why virginity matters as a sign, not of deprivation and sexlessness, but of faith. For
Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt,” and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will. It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: “Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 506).
Mary was not blessed because she gave birth. She gave birth because she was blessed: blessed to be chosen by God and more blessed still to have the pure faith to respond with an unreserved “yes” to God’s call—a pure faith she never lost or tainted, all the way through the bitterness of Golgotha. It’s not just her face, but her love for God, that most resembles Christ’s.
Comments
Post a Comment
Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not supported by Scripture. Mary had other children. See Matthew 13:55-56
Mark, this is such a beautiful gift to your son and new daughter and to the rest of us as well. I will offer my mass tomorrow for Matthew and his bride.
Thank you, Mr. Shea. “Tanti Auguri” to your son and his wife. It is also significant that you should write your comments about Mary’s virginity at a time that recalls the Annunciation, when our Mother was engaged to Joseph. Looking forward to Monday’s comments, Gonzalo T. Palacios, Ph.D.
Caro Jerome:
Many thanks. Two thousand years, & nobody ever noticed or reflected on that passage before.
Oh, wait…
Jerome, the greek word adelphos has a wide meaning in the Bible and is not restricted to the literal meaning of full or half brother (or sister for its equivalent). It could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended, as well as kinsmen such as cousins, family members by marriage or even friends and allies (2 Sam 1:26; Amos 1:9). Lot is called Abraham’s brother even though he is his nephew (Gen 11:26-28). Additionally, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a special word meaning cousin, so speakers of those languages could either use the word for brother, or the tangled son of my uncle.
There are other problems with assuming Mary had other children: When the angel Gabriel told her she would conceive a son, it makes no sense that she would ask ‘HOW can this be’ unless she had taken a previous vow of lifelong virginity. She would have just assumed the HOW would include Joseph and their conjugal marriage. But since she had made (the Church deduces) a vow of virginity and intended to keep it for the Lord, she is perplexed at the angel’s words.
And there’s more beyond this, but I’ll leave it here. Suffice it to say, there is strong, reasonable Scriptural evidence for Mary’s perpetual virginity; check out any Catholic argument to see them (Catholic Answers website, The Essential Catholic Survival Guide book, etc). God bless.
@Jerome - you have your Mary’s mixed up:
His brethren: These were the children of Mary the wife of Cleophas, sister to our Blessed Lady, (St. Matt. 27. 56; St. John 19. 25,) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.
[56] Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. [Matthew 27:56]
[25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. [John 19:25]
Jerome: “Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not supported by Scripture. Mary had other children. See Matthew 13:55-56” This is a typical one-liner biblical scholar.
My own son just got married last Saturday. God Bless the new couple. I hope someone gives them a copy of “Theology of the Body” as a wedding present. And I hope you end up with oodles of grandkids!
Congratulations and prayers!
St. Raphael advised Tobias to spend three nights in prayer, and continency with his new wife. It is a good practice, recommendable to all. :)
Then the Angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will show thee who they are, on whom the Devil can prevail, for they that so receive matrimony, that they exclude God from them selves, and from their mind, and so give themselves to their lust, as horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the Devil hath power [. . .] And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of our Lord, moved rather for love of children then for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain blessing in children. [Tobias 6]
Traditional days of continence are the holy days, too, and so temperance is practiced.
It’s good to hear people knowing of Mary of Cleophas and so the proper scripture readings, without confusion!
Here is why Mary did have other children:
1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin.
2) The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
3) The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
4) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
5) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
6) There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
7) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
8) There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. The bible never uses these two Greek words anepsiosor sungenisin reference to Jesus brothers.
9) Psalm 69 which is a messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. Verse 8—“ I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.”
10) Other references to Jesus’ brothers by Mary included: John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14
Jerome, there isn’t a hint in the Script of Reformation! Now, go ahead and prove your point there. There isn’t anywhere sola scriptura, now, go ahead and prove your point there. There isn’t anywhere sola fide, now, go and prove your point here.
Ken,
I’d love to discuss those things with you but we must focus on the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Jerome, you want to discuss the perpetual virginity of Mary, letting out Sola Scriptura alone? But your argument is all on Scriptures, “... is not supported by Scripture!” Tell me about that. And, you don’t have to discuss it with the perpetual virginity of Mary with me. Mark Shea had written and explained very plainly. Next, you find the answers from other people who answered what you said before already. If you are not getting it, you just don’t get it. If not in this article, there are plenty written in any good Catholic sites. Oh, also, you might want to read some from Jimmy Akin, on why not Sola Scripture before you dwell into the subject: http://jimmyakin.com/2012/09/sola-scriptura-the-bereans.html. Well, forewarning, it might just blow you mad again.
@Jerome - you only have 10 invalid questions and objections?
.
“And were we to enter into a more detailed investigation of these matters, an endless number of endless questions would arise, which would involve us in a larger work than the present occasion admits. We cannot be expected to find room for replying to every question that may be started by unoccupied and captious men, who are ever more ready to ask questions than capable of understanding the answer.” St. Augustine, City of God, Book XV.
Ken,
Lets start with the Scriptures since only the Scriptures tell us anything truthful about Mary. Then we can go to other sources. Now please deal with my 10 points.
Jerome, no, let’s not start with Scriptures if you cannot verify Sola Scriptura, because your presumption of anything in Christianity is Sola Scriptura (let’s not talk about Sola Fide for now). If you couldn’t get your assumption right, anything said after is naught. Like in math, you cannot get through the most basic axiom, you don’t prove anything more complicate.
And anyway, say I succumb to your asking, and to you enlightenment, let me quote you your first question “1) No mention of it in the Scripture. None of the authors of Scripture claim she was a perpetual virgin.” Well, in similar logic, neither in the scriptures anywhere say Mary breathes air and needs to eat.
Ken,
Good first step. There is no mention of anyone in the NT either that is said to breathe air or needs to eat. What should I gather from this?
Secondly, as I have pointed out, all that we know of about Mary is found only in the NT. This is all we have to work with.
Jerome, “Good first step. There is no mention of anyone in the NT either that is said to breathe air or needs to eat. What should I gather from this?” I am not sure if you don’t get my point or I mis-read you. My point is your first question couldn’t pass the most basic logic test! And that makes it not a valid question. And Second, “as I have pointed out, all that we know of about Mary is found only in the NT. This is all we have to work with.” That is your problem, not a problem to Catholics, for Catholics have besides the bible, the teaching from the Church, which is by the guidance from the Holy Spirit, and traditions. Your “all that we know of about Mary is found only in the NT,” only if you could justify Sola Scritpura to begin with. Repeat myself said previously: “If you couldn’t get your assumption right, anything said after is naught. Like in math, you cannot get through the most basic axiom, you don’t prove anything more complicate.”
Well, if you couldn’t get yourself straight to answer the basic question, Sola Scriptura, first, there is REALLY no point of further argument (discussion), for an unproved axiom cannot lead to any logical conclusion.
And your so like to Scripture only, I suppose after Sir Issac Newton’s finding the truth about gravity, anything scientific findings after him isn’t science anymore.
Jerome,
Scripture teaches that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. According to Paul and the promise given to the apostles and their successors, by Christ, remains true: He who listens to you listens to me.
No one here is interested with your protestant intellectual dishonesty regarding Scripture or the Church. The truth is that without the light and authority of the Church you’re lost. That’s why there are over 30,000 different flavors of protestants and counting. Over 30,000 different ways of getting saved. Which personal flavor do you subscribe to and to which pillar and ground of truth do you call Church?
Ken,
You brought up traditions. What traditions speak of Mary being a perpetual virgin? Who said it first and when?
Why don’t you tell me what you mean by Sola Scriptura then we can discuss it.
Dismas,
When Jesus spoke “He who listens to you listens to me” He was not speaking about the church but to His disciples when they went on ahead of Him to prepare the towns and villages for His coming. Luke 10:1-16.
Since you brought up how to be saved, how does a RC get saved? What must you do to saved? I have read that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Is this true?
Jerome, stop try to run from the question Sola Scriptura with asking other question. Otherwise, you are just another troll, and there isn’t any meaningful discussion forward.
Ken,
I’ll take your response as you really don’t know what it is. RC’ that I have tried to discuss this with never get the definition right. I was hoping you would have been the first. Its better you stay on the sidelines than engage in discussions.
@Ken - I have to agree with your assessment of troll. Is someone who never answers a question but only with another question truly interested in seeking truth by discussion? No, they’re divorced from anything resembling truth and are only interested in and attached to their own personal intellectual dishonesty. Clearly, a perfect example of what happens when one has no basis or authority, intellectually or spiritually, to support their false assertions.
Jerome,if Mary had other children Jesus would not have handed over her to His disciple John at the foot of the cross. Again you had to think of the fate of the Fig tree in which Jesus sought fruit when he was hungry. The tree was no more there for another man to seek fruit on it. It’s gone. Again look at the triamphant entry into Jerusalem, He rides on a young donkey no body has ever mounted on it. Again with its decorated mother accommpanying it in gladness. These are signs of the highest mystery any human being can fathom, whether Greek of Jew, unless it is revealed to him by His heavenly Father Himself. When you analyse the life of Mary and her Jewish Marriage and the history of the Jewish people you will understand that Jesus is the Messiah who came down to swallow the Jerusalem Temple and there is no more temple after him and He Himself is the temple, God living in Him for ever and ever. Amen.
If I was a catholic I would be embarrassed by the responses of Ken and Dismas. Y don’t u guys engage Jerome on a higher level?
Joseph,
There are a number of reasons Jesus gave Mary to the care of His mother. For one thing His brothers may not have even been aware of the events on the weekend that involved their brother or may not have been in close proximity to the city at the time. Secondly, since Mary was there Jesus knew He needed to care for the needs of His mother and so entrusted John with this task since he was there at the cross. Point #9 at my post at Sep 7, 2012 6:29 PM (EST) is relevant to His brothers.
Here’s a quick take on what Jimmy Akin has just recently written with regards to sola scriptura:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/sola-scriptura-the-bereans
Bill: “If I was a catholic I would be embarrassed by the responses of Ken and Dismas. Y don’t u guys engage Jerome on a higher level?” Good Try. You are even a level below Jerome, at least he was trying to up something, and you, nothing at all.
Jerome: “RC’ that I have tried to discuss this with never get the definition right.” Don’t just say it, give a definite answer, give a bullet proof of Sola Scriptura in the Scripture. Your tactic of avoiding the real question is leading no where. You are just hiding your head in the sand.
But I have to admit, you defeat me: I am tired of your cheap tactic, Meaningless. This is the end I want to say to you: Even if you don’t want to understand RC’s teaching, at least learn some manner in engaging argument and logic.
Ken,
You have shown you don’t understand your own church’ teachings on this. If you did, you would have answered some simple basic questions on tradition that I asked. This is why you need to stay on the sidelines. You don’t know enough to discuss it. Its sad to see this.
Um…Jerome, I think we know enough to recognize a master of obfuscation when we see one. It’s not that we don’t “KNOW” the answers or what our Faith teaches, it’s that we recognize from hours,days, weeks, months of arguing with dishonest people and we do not wish to waste our time. You believe in Sola Scriptura. We do not. Our premises are different. Until you can prove your premise, we have nothing to talk about. That’s all we’re saying. And don’t try to weasel out of it with your demand for a definition of Sola Scriptura from US. We’ve all been through this so many times it’s almost laughable. We can give you the word for word script on how this conversation will begin.
You came HERE. We did not go to you. You believe you are spreading the Truth? Then you very nicely say “HI. THIS is what I believe. I believe in Sola Scriptura, which to me, means….” Then we answer. You don’t come here accusing people of not knowing their faith, of avoiding questions and of being too stupid to enter the fight! YOU are the guest. Act like one. THAT IS in Scripture. Love one another as I have loved you. Would Jesus act like you have been?
When Jesus spoke “He who listens to you listens to me” He was not speaking about the church but to His disciples when they went on ahead of Him to prepare the towns and villages for His coming.
Reaaaaally? And you know this how? What handy dandy little pocketbook did you get that information from? On whose Authority do you claim to know what Scripture “means”?
Sheesh!
Why do people here want to talk about sola scriptura when the article mentions Mary’s perpetual virginity? I didn’t see anything in it about sola scriptura. I don’t get it.
Jerome, I really didn’t want to response to your trolls anymore. But your saying “Why do people here want to talk about sola scriptura when the article mentions Mary’s perpetual virginity? I didn’t see anything in it about sola scriptura. I don’t get it.” Really, really, really? And your are so amiss from the previous post that I said ‘Jerome, you want to discuss the perpetual virginity of Mary, letting out Sola Scriptura alone? But your argument is all on Scriptures, “... is not supported by Scripture!” Tell me about that.’ Now, that proves you just want to drive around and around and around. A troll at least have something new each time. But you are even worse, and nothing but a childish seeking attention. That’s it. You are so ignorable. Suggestion, you should try some political forums to feed your crave of attention. Your coming here wouldn’t help you to enlighten your life a bit, even to say if RC were totally wrong and you were right. And even if you really think you have an upper hand to all the answers to teach the RC, but your mentality is not here to enlighten the poor souls of the RC, but to feed your enlarged, twisted, and misguided ego. And to all end, you should find a common unified theology in all 30000 protestant denominations before coming again in a RC forum. Why should RC answer you if you people have 30000 different answers to the question to begin with? You are priceless.
Jerome, your whole premise has been that Mary is not a virgin because Scripture doesn’t say she is a virgin. You errantly cite Scripture to prove your premise but have been refuted several times. You’re a blatant liar when you ask, “Why do people here want to talk about sola scriptura when the article mentions Mary’s perpetual virginity?” By this question, you intentionally attempt to deceive and imply that we’re stupid. Noone here, other than yourself, is attempting to deceive nor are they stupid.
Ken,
Don’t worry about the unsupported claim of yours that there are 30000 protestant denominations. You only have to deal with what I have written in response to Mary not being a perpetual virgin. Should be easy to refute if I’m wrong. So far you have offered nothing that leads anyone to think I am.
“Speak this word to them:
My eyes overflow with tears night and day without ceasing; for my virgin daughter has suffered a grievous wound, a crushing blow. JEREMIAH 14:17.
I shall try Jerome, to help you understand.
If I say that the moon is made of cheese and I want to discuss what kind of cheese, what would your response be?
I hope it would be, that you do not believe the moon IS made of cheese. You would be refuting my PREMISE.
If I responded, “Why do you people all want to discuss whether the moon is made of cheese? I only want to discuss WHICH cheese it is made of” you would probably be scratching your head and saying “HUH?”.
This is what you have done with Sola Scriptura. Your premise is that if there is nothing about it in Scripture then it is probably not true. Scripture is the only INFALLIBLE source of Truth. Not the only source of Truth, but the only INFALLIBLE source of Truth. That is YOUR premise.
Our premise is that infallible Truth can be found in THREE places. Scripture, The Teaching Magisterium of the Church and Sacred Tradition.
Now from past experience, I can tell you how this conversation will proceed. You do not accept our premise. We do not accept yours. You will on one hand say that yes, there are other sources of Truth, (though not infallible). We will jump for joy at your understanding and proceed to show you a line of thinking found in the writings of the early Church Fathers all the way up until the present day…at which point you will say that we cannot count on what the Church Fathers wrote. Then we will say that while this info is not infallible and not meant to be, it is empirical data showing that the idea of her perpetual virginity was around from day one. Then we will show that Then we will point out that even tho the Church Fathers are not infallible, the teaching Magesterium IS infallible and SHE is the one who says that Mary’s virginity was perpetual (somewhere in there you will point out that it wasn’t made Dogma until thousands of years later and we will say that no, but it was believed by the Church. )
And after we have gone round and round and round for hours, days, weeks and months, you will say, but it is not in Scripture.
Rinse Repeat.
So to avoid this merry go round we are going to first things first…your premise. Until you can convince us that the moon IS made of cheese and that Scripture is the ONLY source of INFALLIBLE Truth, we cannot discuss what type of Cheese, or how we know that Mary remained a Virgin until her death.
A good starting point would be to show us WHERE in Scripture we are taught the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. (and of course you’ll pull up all kinds of passages that say Scripture is a good source of Truth, or that we must obey Scripture…all of which are true, but NONE of which say it is the ONLY source of INFALLIBLE Truth.
We on the other hand, CAN use Scripture to show that there are three sources of Infallible Truth. Scripture. The Teaching Magesterium of the Church. And Sacred Tradition. All equal. All equally True.
I sincerely hope that clears things up. Though I highly doubt that it will and I expect you will immediately reply with those Scripture passages claiming that Scripture can be counted on. Why? Because you guys do not listen. You do not read responses. You have an agenda and come hell or high water you are going to play it out.
Many of us here just don’t want to play. Seriously discuss? Yes. But we do not want to play reindeer games. Thank you for you time.
And Jerome, the claim that there are 30,000 denominations (meaning churches that have broken off from the one True Church) is not unsubstantiated.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm
But again, you obfuscate and diverge. The point is that ANY Christian Church that is not part of the Catholic Church PROVES that it is not a true Church, as Jesus called for UNITY not Diversity. He did not come to establish 2 churches or 88 churches or 10,000 churches. He came to establish ONE Church…The Church we call the Catholic (Universal) Church. Any other Church, even if it is just ONE, is a lie. THAT, my friend, is Scriptural.
So you can take us off on a roller coaster ride and we can spend hours discussing whether there are 31,000, 33,000 or 4 denominations of the Catholic Church. But it won’t matter. Because EVERY Church that broke away from our Mother Church, from Jesus’ Bride, is one too many!
Jerome, you’re nothing new or novel. If you were really interested in releasing yourself from the shackles of ignorance, all you had to do is google “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary” to educate yourself on the subject. The only person you can hold responsible for your intellectual dishonesty and insulting abject ignorance is yourself.
.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
.
Fathers of the Church
.
Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
.
Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);
and others.
.
Teaching of the Universal Church
.
The Council of Constantinople II (553-554) twice referred to Mary as “ever-virgin.”
.
Protestant Reformers
.
The protestant reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every-virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:
.
Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:
.
In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
.
Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
.
It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
.
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.
.
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
.
Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
.
I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
.
Objections
.
There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
.
1) The Bible frequently speaks of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus.
.
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.
.
Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
.
2) A second objection to Mary’s virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew’s gospel. “He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus” (Mt 1:25, NAB).
.
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
.
3) A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated ‘first-born’ in Luke’s gospel.
.
But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ’s relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
.
The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the “first-born” of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
@mk - your responses to Jerome are truly gifted, I apologize for the distraction and interference with my last lengthy post.
Dismas,
You’re answers are fine. You’ve addressed each of his points honestly and thoroughly.
Now we wait and see. Hope springs eternal. ;)
MK,
what is your source for the 30,000 different denominations for Protestant churches? How are they different substantially? After all, all orthodox Protestant churches believe the bible is the Word of God, Jesus was God, the Trinity, and salvation is in Christ alone.
Am I to believe that there are 30,000 different beliefs about these sets of beliefs? If so, I will need some documentation from you that shows that Protestant churches have different beliefs about the doctrines I mentioned above.
Dismas,
Church fathers and councils are not infallible. No one is except the Lord Jesus. The church father Hegesippus apparently didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a “cousin of the Lord” (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for “brother” and “cousin”. He chose “brother”, and added the words “according to the flesh”, to describe Jesus’ sibling named Jude.
Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ and not one after. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that Joseph and Mary did not have normal sexual relations. It is not sinful for husbands and wives to have sexual relations. There is no reason to think that they both did not have normal sex drives and a desire to procreate. It is also vitally important that they would have consummated the marriage sexually as married couples do. Jesus having blood brothers and sisters takes nothing away from His deity or mission.
In regards to point one that “First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.”
Point 4 refutes this—“ When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19”
In Matthew 27:56 “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” James and Joses were also mentioned in Mark 6:3 as being the children of Mary the mother of Christ.
Jesus was the first born of Mary and Joseph. In this context it would imply other children in their family that included James and Joses as Mark 6:3 points out. First born is also used in another way in Colossians 1:18. Here it is a reference to His being the first one to rise from the dead with an immortal body and never to die again.
Mk,
where did Jesus say that the RCC would be infallible? There is no reference to a church at Rome in the gospel or that the bishop of Rome would be infallible.
Protestant scholar D. A. Carson points out, 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. 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. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of “brothers” in this pericope, despite McHugh’s best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT… — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
Thank God Catholics have the Church, the ground and pillar of truth to lead them. Relying on recent speculation and farfetched exegesis developed by protestants and reformers which ignores centuries of tradition starting with our Church Fathers is willfully ignorant at best.
Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
.
Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373);
Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403);
Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419);
Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430);
Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444);
and others.
Jerome, I belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Before you continue with more questions. Can you please extend the courtesy of answering the following question:
To which pillar and ground of truth do you call Church, what is the name of your Church?
If you can’t or won’t answer this question, please say so and why.
Jerome,
where did Jesus say that the RCC would be infallible? There is no reference to a church at Rome in the gospel or that the bishop of Rome would be infallible.
Lol…think, Jerome, think. Think about what you just said. There is nothing in SCRIPTURE. Did I not just write 5 paragraphs on how we do not rely on Scripture alone? Did I not just say that you need to prove your premise before we can discuss which type of cheese the moon is made of? And more to the point, did I not just say that this is EXACTLY what you would do.
Let’s try this a different way. You believe that if it IS in Scripture it is the infallible Truth and that you need no other proof. WE believe that if it comes from Scripture OR comes from the teaching Magesterium OR is part of Sacred Tradition, it is infallible Truth and needs no other proof.
Whereas you would say, it is in Scripture so I believe it, WE would say, the Church has said it, so WE believe it. (Not the pope, not the priest, not the Bishop, but the CHURCH). We don’t need to to know why, or have other proofs, any more than you do if it is in Scripture. (Not that we couldn’t explain it if we so chose, which I do not because you aren’t really interested) It is enough that the Church has said it is True.
Why do we believe that Mary was a Virgin? Because the Church tells us she was. We don’t need anything else.
Why do you believe that Jesus died for your sins? Do you need any other proof besides Scripture? Well, it’s the same thing for us.
The Church, the DIVINE Church, not the human church, IS infallible, just as Scripture is.
Prove that the moon is made of cheese and I will show you where in Scripture it says that the Church is the keeper of infallible Truth.
Until then, I have nothing further to say.
Jerome,
what is your source for the 30,000 different denominations for Protestant churches? How are they different substantially?
First, I gave you my source but as I predicted you’re not really interested. Second, YES, of course they are different substantially. If they weren’t they wouldn’t exist. Some believe that Baptism is salvific, some believe we are born bad, some believe in one sacrament, some in two, some in 7 and some in none. Some believe in consubstantiation, some believe in transubstantiation, some believe in NOsubstantiation. Some believe in the trinity, some do not. Some believe abortion is moral, homosexuality is a good and birth control is a gift from God…some believe God hates homosexuals. Some believe the Catholic Church is the seat of the Anti-Christ. Some believe in Sola Scriptura, some do not. Some believe in Sola Fide, some do not. Some believe in once saved always saved, some do not. Some believe that Mary is the Mother of God, some believe she was just a woman. Some believe in infusion, some believe in imputation. Some believe marriage is forever, some accept divorce. I could go on, but what is the point. If they all believed essentially the same things, there would only be 2 Churches. The “True One” and the one denomination that split from her. But they split from her and then from each other over SUBSTANTIAL differences.
Which one do you belong to, and why?
lol…
Today’s reading:
My brothers and sisters, show no partiality
as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. James 2:1
And all this time I thought Paul was speaking to all Christians…not just his brothers and sisters…
Mk,
You would make a good Mormon. They to tell me too that “Because the Church tells us she was. We don’t need anything else.” This kind of thinking does not hold if there are no facts to support the claim. That is exactly the problem you have here. No amount of claiming your church is divine or infallible can change this.
The fact is that you do need the Scripture to support your positions. If something is in Scripture then we are on solid biblical-apostolic grounds. If not, then you are on quicksand. As I said before, the only record we have of Mary is found only in the NT. There is nothing outside of the NT that is reliable information about her. So even though a father may claim that she did not have other children that does not mean its true because that is in direct opposition to the various passages that show she did have other children.
Jerome,
Hahahahah…uh-huh. You are actually going to compare us to Mormons because we believe if the Church says so then it’s true?? YOU believe that if SCRIPTURE says so, it is true. How is that any different. You guys slay me. The Mormons also believe in Scripture. Does that make them Christians with no substantial differences???
Again, I am perfectly willing to discuss Mary’s virginity, the Church’s Authority or anything else. AFTER and ONLY after, you show me that your premise is correct. Where in Scripture is it taught that Scripture is the only source of Infallible Truth?
If something is in Scripture then we are on solid biblical-apostolic grounds. If not, then you are on quicksand.
No one is disputing this. What we dispute is your assertion that it is impossible to be on solid biblical-apostolic grounds in any other way. NOWHERE does it say this in Scripture. You’re killin’ me. You just go ahead and keep making the same statements over and over. When you’re ready to prove them, let me know.
Mk,
According to your source there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations. Not just one. Please don’t tell me all Rc’ believe the same things because that is not true. There is just as much diversity of beliefs in the RCC as in Protestants. Some believe birth control is ok, others do not. Some believe in gay marriage, some do not. Some believe what the pope says and others do not. Some believe you can divorce and some do not. Some believe all people will go to heaven and some do not.
Even RCC teachings contradict itself. At one time it taught you had to belong to the RCC to be saved while today it teaches you don’t. At one time the pope was not infallible now he is. Take a specific passage of the bible. On rev 12 your church has a number of different positions of who the woman is. Its enough to make your head spin.
What orthodox Protestants don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, Christ is God and died for our sins and rose again?
Mk,
show me how a doctrine that was not taught by the apostles can be apostolic? Your popes are not apostles and there has not been one since John died. Church fathers are not apostles either. Since your church teaches that Mary never had children and the apostles did then your church is contradicting again the apostles.
Jerome,
You’re way off with that last comment. You obviously don’t know the Roman Catholic faith. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and dispel your ignorance. Because there are Catholics that don’t completely adhere to the teachings of the Church, it doesn’t mean there AREN’T these teachings that all that are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church assent to. You really don’t understand.
Mk,
you argue like a Mormon i.e. church authority alone is enough to make something true. They to have other sources that they depend just like you do. You have not shown you are willing to discuss Mary’s virginity because you know full well all you have is only what your church tells you to believe and I have shown that the Scriptures don’t teach such a thing.
The Scriptures alone are the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Your traditions nor its leaders are inspired or inerrant. Sorry to bust your bubble but those are the facts.
abimopectore,
Then apply the same principle to orthodox Protestant churches. The fact is that rc’ are all over the board on what they believe. This includes its leaders.
Jerome, there is only one true Roman Catholic Faith. Those that call themselves Roman Catholic but dissent to some or all of it’s teachings are fooling themselves. They are no longer Roman Catholic, they in actuality have become protestants.
.
I belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Before you continue with more questions. Can you please extend the courtesy of answering the following question:
.
To which pillar and ground of truth do you call Church, what is the name of your Church?
.
Why won’t you answer this question, is it cowardice?
Jerome,
You’re not understanding. You’ve been challenged to offer a proof within scripture for “Sola Scriptura” and you can’t produce one. So before you start making claims as you’ve done, please provide the proof for why Catholics should embrace your hermeneutic of interpretation from Scripture alone. You forget one thing about how you compare mk to Mormons. The Roman Catholic faith has been the one true Catholic faith since the beginning for around 1000 years before the first split. Protestants split in the 1500s. If there is anyone that needs to justify themselves, it is you. The Roman Catholic Church was here first much earlier than the system of your belief that has continuously changed even from the time of the Reformation.
from that same website:
However, since virtually all of these western and smaller eastern rites are in union with the Pope (I am not sure of some of them), there is actually one Catholic Church, not 242 churches or denominations.
These are not truly denominations. They are “rites”. They are part of the Catholic Church, and are under one head, The Pope in Rome. They are part of the Roman Catholic Church…they are not part of the Roman Rite.
We ALL believe the same Dogma/Doctrine. We have different “traditions” with a small “t” but the same “Traditions” with a capital “T”. We ALL believe that infallible Truth comes from Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. We all believe that Baptism is salvific, in infusion not imputation, in Transubstantiation, in 7 Sacraments, that Mary is a perpetual virgin, the Mother of God and without sin, that abortion is wrong, birth control is wrong, homosexual acts are wrong…and on and on. Where we differ is in our art, our music, the robes the priests wear…but in all matters doctrinal or dogmatic, we are the same.
What we are not, are denominations.
What orthodox Protestants don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, Christ is God and died for our sins and rose again?
What Catholics do not believe this? Are you saying that Protestants are Catholic? (Which is funny, because that’s actually pretty close to the Truth. Since there is only ONE Church, you are apostates and heretics of the One True Church…ironic, ain’t it?)
Dismas,
according to rome i belong to one of the thousands ecclesiastical communities. These are really not churches. At least that is what Rome says. So i really don’t belong to any church according to Rome.
What did you think of the pope’ statement that RC’ who do not embrace church teachings are really like Judas and should leave the church? You can find the article here: http://m.ucanews.com/news/2012/08/30/pope-compares-disobedient-catholics-to-judas
The Scriptures alone are the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
LOL…here we go again. The moon is made of cheese.
I am fully capable of discussing Mary’s perpetual virginity and most other aspects of the Catholic Church. I am choosing not to. There is a difference. You, on the other hand keep insisting the Moon is made of cheese and have yet to prove it. The word amateur comes to mind.
Mk,
Orthodox Protestant churches that teach apostolic doctrines are catholic but not Roman Catholic. The RCC does teach heresy on multiple levels.
mk,
if you had facts to support the perpetual virginity of Mary you would have brought them up by now. The fact you have not shows don’t have any facts.
according to rome i belong to one of the thousands ecclesiastical communities. These are really not churches. At least that is what Rome says. So i really don’t belong to any church according to Rome.
Exactly. It is impossible for you to belong to a “Church” with a capital “C” as there is only one CHURCH and you have rejected here. What you belong to are groups of like minded people who believe that Jesus was our savior. That is not the Church. It is “a” churchsmall “c”. You are dissenters and heretics, athough I believe your intentions are good. You CAN belong the THE CHURCH if you choose. But by an act of the will you have rejected Christ’s Bride, His Body and chosen instead to follow your own ways.
As for the Popes statement…I for one give him a standing ovation.
Mk,
the source you quoted calls your church a denomination and it does fit.
mk,
Keep in mind Rome is not the standard of truth. Just because she makes statement about Protestant churches does not mean its true. In fact we know its not by the NT.
if you had facts to support the perpetual virginity of Mary you would have brought them up by now. The fact you have not shows don’t have any facts.
Nice try. Facts I got. Desire to engage a dishonest person in a pointless conversation? Not so much.
Orthodox Protestant churches that teach apostolic doctrines are catholic but not Roman Catholic. The RCC does teach heresy on multiple levels.
Uh-huh. If you say so. Tho I find it hard to believe that you actually believe that considering that the Church is who decides what is heretical. I can just see me trying to make a case that the Mormons are heretical within their own Church, because I, a member of a different belief system, say so. Duh. Think Jerome, think. It’s not possible for you to say that we are heretical. By definition.
Mk,
the source you quoted calls your church a denomination and it does fit.
Um no, Jerome, it does not. It says that there are denominations (according to the encyclopedia it cites) WITHIN the Catholic Church. But then it goes on to say it believes the encyclopedia is wrong. NOWHERE does it say that the Catholic Church itself, is a denomination. It even explains that the encyclopedia treats each country as it’s own church which is inaccurate.
Keep in mind Rome is not the standard of truth.
Now why in the heck would I keep that in mind, when it is exactly what I believe, what the Church teaches, what I have said a number of times here and what Jesus Himself says in your infallible Scriptures?
I’m bored now. You have offered nothing new, just as I knew you would not, and this conversation is verbatim the same conversation I have had hundreds of times with various protestants.
I’m outta here. If you ever decide to prove your premise, let me know. You must be a liberal since your entire mode of debate is dodge, obfuscate, misdirect and avoid at all costs answering direct questions. Is your real name Joe Biden by any chance?
Mk,
Here is a quote from your source that calls your church a denomination:” “As a statistical unit in this Encyclopedia, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.” (Barrett, et al, World Christian Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 27, in the “Glossary” under definition for “Denomination” [later updated to 242], emphasis added)”
Jerome, It would seem you have little grasp of Scripture at all. To say: “The Scriptures alone are the inspired and inerrant Word of God” is a false statement. The Scriptures themselves refute your false claim. Scripture teaches us that the Church is the ground and pillar of truth. Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, but declares itself only profitable to teach, reprove, correct and instruct. It also says it’s not to be privately interpreted and that those who do, do so to their destruction:
.
[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [1 Timothy 3:15]
.
[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [2 Timothy 3:16]
.
All scripture,: Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it. St. Jerome (342-420)
.
[20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [2 Peter 1:20]
.
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [2 Peter 3:16]
.
The pillar and ground of the truth: Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. St. Jerome (342-420)
Mk,
you are the dishonest one. You write you can defend your position on Mary’s perpetual virginity but in reality you cannot. Your church is an apostate church. It has deviated from apostolic doctrines as taught in the Scripture.
Jerome, you’re a coward and a liar if you won’t declare what church you claim membership.
Yes, Jerome, you win. I’m am an imposter, an apostate, a heretic and a liar. That’s me. Wow. You’re good. And all this time I was sure the conversation wasn’t moving forward because you hadn’t yet proved your premise. Can’t talk. Gotta go. On my way to the corner Baptist Church to amend my ways! Thank you so much for showing me the Truth.
*eye roll*
Dismas,
This last statement: “The pillar and ground of the truth: Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. St. Jerome (342-420)” proves this is not your church since it does uphold error (papacy, purgatory, indulgences etc) and brings in superstitions such as praying to the dead and Mary. The Marian devotions is idolatry. Just read some of the things written about her.
Mk,
you are welcome.
No Jerome, it’s not my Church that upholds, it’s you that upholds error. As scripture teaches us:
certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [2 Peter 3:16]
Hey Dismiss, give it up. Come meet me at the Baptist Church on the corner of ... oh, heck, wait a minute…There are FOUR Baptist Churches on this corner. Hmmmm…which one is the True Church…I know. I’ll look in Scripture. Surely if the Baptist Church is the Church Christ was talking about it will say so there. ;)
Hi Jerome!!
You have good objections,, and I want to do my best to answer them. I’m going to focus right now on your original question about the Perpetual Virginity, hopefully I can answer your other ones as well. But before I do that, I wanna recommend an awesome CD set called “The Gospel Truth about Mary: Volume 2” by Tim Staples. Seriously, get a hold of it, he goes through 8 positive biblical reasons why Mary was Perpetual Virgin. It really helped me, maybe it can you too. If you want a detailed explanation for why Catholics believe this, that’s where to go. Now for my feeble attempt. :)
It’s true, as you say, the Bible never says anywhere explicitly that Mary was perpetual virgin. But I have to point out, that there are many things that Christians all believe and agree on that aren’t explicitly in scripture as well. (The Trinity, for example.) Nowhere does the Bible say that God is trinity, yet I’m assuming you believe that as I do. The concept however, IS biblical. So that’s what we really need to ask here, is the CONCEPT of Mary’s perpetual virginity scriptural. And the answer, I argue, is yes.
Reason 1
Mary is revealed in the New Testament as the new ark of the covenant. How? Look at the parallels in Luke’s Gospel. In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth exclaims,“and how is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” to any person familiar with the Old Testament who read this, this was quoting almost verbatim 2 Sam 6:9 where David says, “how is it that the ark of the Lord should come to me.” Coincidence? Maybe. But there are even more parallels. Lk 1:39 tells us Mary “arose and went” to visit Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea, 2 Sam 6:2 says David “arose and went” to bring the ark into the same region. Lk 1:41 John “leaped with joy” when Mary came, just like David jumped and danced with joy in front of the Ark. (2 Sam 6:16) Finally, 2 Sam 6:11 says “and the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months.” Luke tells us Mary stayed in the house of Zechariah for “three months” (Lk 1:56) It seems Luke is trying to tell us something. But there’s one more even shocking parallel to note. The Greek word translated “exclaimed” is very rare in the bible, it only shows up once in the entire new testament and a total of five whole times in the Old. What’s interesting is all five times is in connection to the ark!! In particular the melodic sounds made by the Levite singers when the ark is processed. (2 Chr 5:13) Elizabeth was of the tribe of Levi according to Lk 1:5. The connections are literally overwhelming, especially when we remember what the ark contained inside of it. (the manna, Aaron’s staff, and the Decalogue, or “Ten Words) These are all types of Christ, the true manna, (Jn 6:31-33) high priest, (Heb 3:1) and the Word made Flesh (Jn 1:14) and who carried Him physically within her? Mary.
But ok I see it coming, what does that have to do with the perpetual virginity? Remember, the Old covenant Ark was so Holy, because of what it contained, not of itself, that no one except the high priest could even TOUCH it. (2 Sam 6) I don’t have to go in to much detail about consecration in the Old Testament, Mr. Shea already did pretty much perfectly, and way better than I ever could. But basically when someone or something was consecrated to God for His purpose, it was perpetual, it could never be used for ordinary purpose again. To do so would be to desecrate it. Exodus 29 has God explaining what to do about Temple offerings, once they were offered, they could never go back to being ordinary food. That’s why when we understand all this, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a given. She had been set apart for God, if the Old covenant ark could not even be touched by man, how much more the New Ark? Types were only “shadows of the good things to come” after all. (Heb 10:1)
Interestingly, I know this won’t hold as much weight for you as Scripture, and I don’t expect it to, but this explains why the early Christians would respond so strongly when someone would call in to doubt Mary’s virginity. (and not just early Christians, but John Calvin and Martin Luther as well) and really, it’s all based on Christ, just like every Marian dogma. It’s because of who she gave birth to. If Jesus was really God in the flesh, then for Mary to have other children would be like using the ark of the covenant as a toy chest. There’s nothing wrong with toys, but when God sets something apart for His purpose, it is forever His.
Anyway, I planned on giving all eight biblical reasons, but I’m afraid this is getting a bit long. :) I’ll give a few more though.
#2
Ez 44:1-2 says “Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, this gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut” This again is a type of Mary through whom, not just the spiritual presence of God entered the world, but God in the flesh! How much more than would Mary, the true “gate”, remain shut.
#3 I think this one was already mentioned by someone, Lk 1:34 “And Mary said to the Angel, “How shall this be, since I know not man?” Her question makes no sense unless she had taken a vow of virginity. Why? Because its not as if Mary wasn’t married. Verse 27 says Mary was betrothed to Joseph, we tend to think that means engaged, but this was first century Israel, not modern day America. When someone was betrothed back then, it meant they had a ratified union. Just like when we get married, we profess our vows in front of a priest or minister, our marriage is then ratified. It hasn’t been consummated yet, but at the reception no one would say that the couple is not married yet. That’s what it was with Mary and Joseph, if they were planning on following the normal course for marriage, her question is silly. And it’s not because Mary thought it was gonna happen that instant either. The angel only told her she “will conceive” a son. He uses the future tense seven times in two verses. And future just means future. There’s also no mention that this will be a miraculous event yet. As far as Mary would be able to tell, she and Joseph would be parents of the messiah. Again, it makes no sense why this would shock her. I mean I know if someone came up to me at my wedding reception and said “you will conceive a son, I would be joyful, but not exactly confused. :) It’s pretty obvious, unless Mary never planned on having relations.
I know this is hard to imagine, a MARRIED virgin????? That’s never been heard of! But its the same way with a pregnant virgin. That doesnt automatically disprove it. Salvation history is full of extraordinary occurrences. There will never be a world wide flood again. It makes sense that the most awesome and extraordinary event in history would be surrounded by extraordinary circumstances.
Anyway, I wish I could go through more but I have to go somewhere, and this is already long enough. This dogma is so deep there really is no pithy answer that would satisfy. But check out that CD set! I hope this helped a little and I’ll keep praying for you and please do the same for me! I need it. :)
God bless!!
-Robyn
Robyn,
Thanks for your input but we must examine carefully some of the things you propose. You state that “Mary is revealed in the New Testament as the new ark of the covenant.” The problem with this is that none of the apostles nor the Lord Jesus ever speak of her like this. They don’t even hint at it. You also have to ask what would the status of Mary be as an ark after Jesus was born? Since she no longer was carrying the Lord Jesus in her womb what would that make Mary?
If anyone would be considered the ark as a type it would be the Lord Jesus Himself. For example, He is a type of mercy seat where mercy is given. Would you consider Mary to be a type of mercy seat where sins are forgiven? Jesus also in His person perfectly fulfilled the law of God (the tablet of the ten commandments. Do you think Mary fulfilled the law perfectly? Another object in the ark was a jar of manna that sustained the Jews for 40 years. Do you think Mary fulfills this?
If Mary is truly a type of ark then she would have to be the fulfillment of these things. We know that she is not. The only One who is, is the Lord Jesus.
Would you agree?
Robyn,
Do you think that Mary as a young Jewish girl would want to have a family of children of her own some day? Was this not the norm for a young Jewish girl who would have known that to have many children was a blessing of the Lord?
Psalm 127:3-5 ESV
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
Psalm 127:3 ESV
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
The Truth about Mary and Scripture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA&feature=player_embedded
Dismas,
That link was AWESOME! Thank you so much!
Jerome - earlier today you made a reference to some article and asked, “What did you think of the pope’ statement that RC’ who do not embrace church teachings are really like Judas and should leave the church?
Here are the Holy Fathers comments in their entirety. The reference to Judas is in the last paragraph. I thought the Holy Fathers comments were brilliant as always and never did he make the statement you say he did.
http://www.news.va/en/news/angelus-26-august-2012
.
BENEDICT XVI
ANGELUS
Castel Gandolfo
Sunday, 26 August 2012
.
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
.
On the past few Sundays we have meditated on the “Bread of Life” discourse, which Jesus gave in the Synagogue of Capernaum after satisfying the hunger of thousands of people with five loaves and two fish. The Gospel today presents the disciples’ reaction to this discourse, a reaction which Christ himself deliberately provoked.
.
First of all, the Evangelist John — who was present with the other Apostles — says: “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (Jn 6:66). Why? Because they did not believe in the words of Jesus who said: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven… he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (cf. Jn 6:51, 54); words that were truly difficult to accept, incomprehensible. This revelation — as I have said — was incomprehensible to them because they understood it in a purely literal sense, whereas these words foretold the Paschal Mystery of Jesus, in which he was to give himself for the world’s salvation: the new presence of the Blessed Eucharist.
.
Seeing that many of his disciples were deserting him, Jesus turned to the Apostles, asking them: “Will you also go away?” (Jn 6:67). As on other occasions it was Peter who answered on behalf of the Twelve: “Lord, to whom shall we go?”. We, too, might wonder: to whom should we go? “You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn 6:68-69).
.
We have a beautiful comment of St Augustine on this passage. In one of his sermons on John 6 he says: “See how Peter, by the gift of God and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, understood Him. How other than because he believed? ‘You have the words of eternal life’. For You have eternal life in the ministration of Your body and Your blood . ‘And we have believed and have known’. He does not say: ‘we have known and then believed’, but ‘we have believed and then known’. We believed in order to know; for if we wanted to know first, and then to believe, we should not be able either to know or to believe. What have we believed and known? ‘That You are Christ, the Son of God’; that is, that You are that very eternal life, and that You give in Your flesh and blood only that which You are” (In Evangelium Johannis tractatus, 27, 9). St Augustine addressed this homily to his believers.
.
Finally, Jesus knew that among the Twelve Apostles there was also one who did not believe: Judas. Judas could have gone away too, as did many of the disciples; indeed, perhaps if he had been honest he would have been bound to leave. Instead he stayed on with Jesus. He did not stay out of faith or out of love, but rather with the secret intention of taking revenge on the Teacher. Why? Because Judas felt let down by Jesus and decided that he, in his turn, would betray Jesus. Judas was a zealot and he wanted a victorious Messiah who would lead a revolt against the Romans. Jesus had not measured up to these expectations. The problem was that Judas did not go away and his greatest sin was his deceitfulness, which is the mark of the Devil. For this reason Jesus said to the Twelve: “One of you is a devil” (Jn 6:70). Let us pray to the Virgin Mary to help us believe in Jesus, like St Peter, and always to be sincere with him and with everyone.
To all good apologetics here, after so long an argument you have provided to the person whose name is Jerome, and with the effect, we have to (at least I myself) finally concede that he is not a truly truth seeker or even a person who simply is curious and asks a question, he is just someone who wants to seek attention instead. May be his own “church” wouldn’t provide the kind of mental exercise he seeks to make him feel “high” as he has in attacking the RC. He has no intellectual premise, but only a personal premise, to attack the RC, not for reason, but for hatred; he has one tactic: circling around and around. His goal: to agitate people, to make himself feel good. He is an introvert in reality, he probably couldn’t make a decent conversation with live human beings and so he has to resort to trolling in the Internet to prove his existence. He may be saying things about Scriptures, but he is just as well a psychopath. And we have our own fault: falling into his trap arguing with him, feeding the beast in him. Well, learn something new everyday. I don’t expect to reply or answer anything ever to this type of person again. It drains you, it wouldn’t make your life fulfill anything. And he will always try anything to poke you to answer him back so he will keep on his attacking you, and even names you a “Mormon.” Wow, when I think I saw what is low before, it wasn’t. But his weapon is a good instrument onto himself, for why this person is so Scientologist, if not his way of believing thing (whatever it is) but his tactic? No way, no way. Reason and logic are not in the playbook of a psychopath. He may even be pulling a lot of quotes here and there, but that only proves him a intellectual psychopath. But still, he has no intellectual premise, but only a personal vendetta premise, to attack the RC, to feed his mental high. This kind of person teaches me one thing though: to avoid at all cost. Yup, I’ll concede to his calling me coward, “don’t know my belief,” loser, etc. Well, I am truly when dealing with such a person.
@Ken - take heart my friend, my Brother of the same Mother. I believe the behavior to which you refer is rooted in jealousy and envy of truth. In the end, his Church provides no reason for his faith. In light of this fact, it becomes less difficult to overlook his lamentable behavior and provide him the truth which he is deprived and so desperately seeks.
.
Although his tactics are grevious, they redound to our benefit in having an answer and a reason for our faith just as scripture exhorts us:
.
[15] But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. [1 Peter 3:15]
.
Clearly he and his Church have run out of the wine of truth. Why else would he be here and who are we to deprive him of it?
They haven’t run out of the wine of Truth. They’ve replaced it with grape juice. ;)
@nearly everyone other than Robyn:
I am a Catholic and this is embarrassing. There is nothing wrong with saying to Jerome, “Huh. Those are interesting points you bring up and I don’t know quite how to answer them. I am entirely confident that they have an answer, but since you are engaging in the Scriptures at a higher level than I am (at least in this matter), you need to go to someone who truly can argue with you. I am not that person.”
Instead, we’ve gotten so much bluster and so many non-sequiturs that you’ve undercut our position entirely. Just admit you’re not sure how to answer him, close the browser, and go about your day, having resolved to pick up a book or two that can help you understand better the mystery of Mary. Jerome will still be here when you get back, I promise.
BTW, since Jerome is arguing that the an honest reading of scripture demands we reject the Perpetual Virginity, all you have to show is that scripture is ambiguous in this matter. Jerome has the much harder task.
all you have to show is that scripture is ambiguous in this matter.
Feel free. All one has to do is look at how hard Robyn and Dismas worked to do exactly that to know that it is futile. No matter what anyone says, the response will be the same…
“But it’s not in Scriiiiiiipture!”
You cannot have an honest discussion when your premises are different. That’s just the way it is. Jerome has made a statement…ONLY Scripture contains infallible Truth. Until he proves that premise, the further conversation is pointless. (See the moon is made of cheese comments above).
But if you think you can tackle this job, have at it. I suggest you first figure out WHOSE honest reading of Scripture you’ll look at and under whose Authority such a reading is interpreted. Good Luck.
All I can say, is been there, done this. Fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice, I’m an idiot. Not doin’ this again. Uh-uh, no way. I don’t engage Satan in conversation. Not sayin’ Jerome is Satan, just saying he is dishonest and Satan is the father of lies. God does not play games. Either Jerome approaches this conversation honestly and sincerely or he can go troll some other site.
Shnikeys, mk. Both Jerome and we share the premise that scripture is God’s Word. I agree that Jerome’s further premise that God’s written Word is his only Word is unfounded, non-traditional, and - amusingly enough - non-scriptural. Nevertheless, even given our differences, there is room to engage in a non-evasive manner. Basically, Jerome made an assertion. A bunch of people gave a semi-shallow, fairly easy refutation. Jerome came back with a more robust argument, and suddenly everybody changed the subject. Robyn was the only one who even tried to engage his argument. I just want people to admit they got bested and go away to learn something rather than posturing and pretending that Jerome is the problem.
And you’re right that Jerome’s comment was a bit on the trolling side, since Mark wasn’t really trying to prove a case to the Evangelicals but rather explore the meaning of the Perpetual Virginity. But if that’s the case, ignore him or send him to a website where he can argue with Catholic scripture students to his heart’s content.
In any case, I see no reason for calling Jerome “dishonest”. The only dishonesty here is pretending that the _real_ problem is sola scriptura when people were perfectly ready to argue from scripture as long as they knew how to argue it. Once they were out of their depth they should have admitted as such.
Jon W,
Jerome IS the problem. I have dealt with the Jeromes of the Catholic blogosphere before. He asked a question. Before answering it I asked him to prove his premise. He dismissed me. I asked again, explaining why. Others did the same. I am not going to get into a Scripture War with him. This would be pointless. A. I don’t believe Scripture is the ONLY source of Truth and B. I don’t believe that Jerome has the Authority to interpret scripture so anything he would say would not be considered definitive.
Robyn, God bless her, made an attempt to engage him. Again, his response was to say her answer wasn’t Scriptural. To suggest that because the fact that I wouldn’t engage him because I <i>couldn’t<> engage him is false. I could easily, and happily, have answered his questions. But it would have been a waste of my time.
As I said, feel free to engage him yourself and see where it gets you. But don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions or throw those of us who have dealt with these Jeromes before, under the bus. I am quite capable of discussing this using Scripture. I chose not too. There is a difference.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.