DeoOmnisGloria.com

I agree, of course, with the NB's conclusion - i.e., that "until" in Mt. 1:25 doesn't imply intercourse later. However, I think its argument for that conclusion is faulty. You can't exegete Greek via the Latin translation. While the Latin of Mt. 1:25 is the same as that of Jn. 9:18, the Greek is slightly different.

Kevin,

Thanks for the comment. You make a good point in reference to the Greek. I would say this...in both verses the same root is used. By this I mean that the context is the very similar if not the same. One place where the word "until" clearly indicates something afterwards is Luke 1:20:

And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.

In Christ,
Joe

Why does it matter? (a little blunt but still a valid question)

Stan,
The Catholic Church has always taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Often non-Catholics attempt to prove the Church is in error by saying this is untrue.

Also, the comparison of Mary as the new "Ark of the Covenant" (holding the Word of God) is only valid if she were a perpetual virgin (I won't go into the details).

God bless,
Jay

The Ark of the Covenant was stolen and lost and the Temple was also destroyed. All of these were dwellings for the Lord. So I wouldn't compare her to the ark if you want the suport the perpetual argument. I don't see Mary as less if she knew her husband or had other children. Reason why Mary is valid is because she bore the savior of the world not because she didn't have any children afterward. The more I think about it, this feeds into the stereotype that Catholisim view sex as dirty or evil. Thats probally why non-catholics beat this dead horse so much. Sex is healthy and blessed part of a husband/wife relationship. While paul does talk about abstaining from mariage to honor God its really a logistiacal thing for ministry not a holliness issue. The model for Chastity comes from the Romans/Greeks who had vestital virgins for particular gods. That being said I would never put down someone sacrificing marriage for God if thats what has been put on their heart.

God Bless

Stan,
I think you're missing the point. No one is saying Mary would be less if she "knew" her husband. However, since the formation of the Church in Matthew 16:18 it has been taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Throughout the ages this was always taught as Truth until the protestant revolution.

The Bible is pretty clear that Mary did not have other children, but protestants often focus on this point in order to try and discredit the Church, which has proclaimed this as Truth over the centuries. In other words, if Mary weren't a perpetual virgin, then the Church is wrong in this teaching and could be wrong in others. If she is, then the Church has always been right in this teaching. What matters is whether this is true or not, would you agree?

As far as your celibacy issues, Jesus first noted that it is good to be celibate for God in Matthew 19:12. St. Paul took it further in 1 Cor 7:7-38. This is where the model for chastity comes from - God Himself in the form of Christ. I agree that sex is a healthy part of the marriage relationship, however in the time of Joseph and Mary it was accepted that some would take vows of virginity. But women still had to marry, since they had limited rights apart from their husbands. This is why Joseph died when Jesus was so young - he was an old man when he took Mary as his wife. According to books written around that time he was a widower.

This doesn't say or mean that sex is 'bad.' The Church actually teaches that sex within marriage is holy. However, it doesn't mean that the mother God choose wasn't a perpetual virgin. In fact, all of the evidence supports this claim, which begs an interesting question: Why do protestants try so hard to insist it isn't true?

God bless,
Jay

I'm starting to see a pattern in Protestant logic:

Praying to Jesus is good, therefore asking his friends to pray for you is bad.

The authority of Christ is good, therefore the authority of the Pope is bad.

Exercising sexuality within marriage is good, therefore celibacy is bad.

The infallibility of Scripture is good, therefore the infallibility of the Church is bad.

Remembering Christ's sacrifice when we celebrate the Lord's supper is good therefore eating the Body and Bloody, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord at the Lord's supper is bad.

Christ offering himself and his sufferings as sacrifice at Calvary was good, therefore offering Christ and his sufferings as sacrifice at the Mass is bad.

Catholics believe that Mary's celibacy is good, therefore Catholics believe that sexuality is bad.

While Protestants can hold whatever logic they want, please dont put words in our mouths and say that Catholics condemn sexuality simply because they praise celibacy.

Guys,

You have the plain reading of Scripture on the one hand, which seems to strongly suggest that Mary had other children, and you have the Tradition of the Catholic Church on the other, which teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Only by bending and twisting several verses can one reconcil the two. Congratulations, you have done it! You have blurred the plain reading of Scripture at least enough to allow you to semi-intelligently justify remaining in a Church which claims infallibility.

In the process you have proven yet another one of your arguments, which you claim Protestants are guilty of. That is, one can make Scripture say just about whatever one wants it to say, when one comes at it with a set agenda, even if it is the exact opposite of what it actually says. You and the Church have effectively destroyed the integrity of Scripture. I hope you are proud of yourselves.

However, please do not disparage the logic of those who do not buy into it.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
We aren't the ones destroying the integrity of Scripture! Also, from the early Church on you can see a consistant belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that Scripture supports this. You are the one contending that only in the 15th century and beyond do we really "understand" Scripture and that everyone else is wrong. Does this really sound logical to you?

Ultimately, you must decide to follow the Church's interpretation that has remained constant (but developed in depth) through the centuries or Martin Luther's interpretation, which we now know has only one fruit: division. Don't pretend like we're making it up - those who knew the apostles agree with us, not with you.

God bless,
Jay

I think it is somewhat disturbing, that all of us, as followers of Christ should get caught up in a war of words against eachother over issues like this. Here we pit protestant against catholic, man against man, Christian against Christian. We shame eachother for things that in actuality have little repercussion in the end. If Christ where to join in wouldn't he really be saying, that we should be caring for our fellow man and joining these two separate entities. We are not in the time of Henry the VIII, we no longer need to be political about this. See eachother as brothers and work toward the common good and not to prove eachother wrong. Why should we search the scriptures to tear down foundations of our fellow man when we have so little time left to extend mercy to them.

I disagree with Thomas' comment that "we have the plain reading of Sacred Scripture on one hand...". This amazes me after we consider the detailed explanations that have been proved in the article above and in Dave's first part of this series that is linked to above. We have clearly shown that the context of the verses that Protestantism has based almost all of their arguments on has no foundation.

So where is the clear proof Thomas? Again, Sacred Scripture wasn't written in English...so don't refer to the "plain" reading (as you read it), for words are often misunderstood in translation, as is clearly the case in both of these passages.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

To concur with your position here, Thomas doth protest too much. However, from my own experience, the rather complex and tortured arguments focusing on NT cross-references and Aramaic vocabulary, though scientific, do more to lose the attention (and patience) of an audience than they do convince.

Nevertheless, have Dave add the Greek words “he suggeneia” and “suggenes” to his argument (Cf. Luke 1:36, 61) for words used more often in the NT than “anepsios” (only at Col 4:10) to refer to one’s “cousin” or “relative” (as they are often translated in the NT), but refer as well to kin/clan-folk (cf. Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; Acts 10:24..).

It is ironic that the “villainous” Fr. Raymond E. Brown offers what I think are the best words offered regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. [He is “villainous” among ultra-conservative Catholics who do not carefully read his work on the topic, but too quickly skim over it, skipping the footnotes - folks like Fr. John Echert at EWTN, and much worse(!), Bob Sungenis who calls Brown a “material heretic”! Too funny! Sungenis’ continual mordant invective against Raymond Brown culminated in a derogatory poem that Sungenis wrote and published on his Catholic Apologetics web site celebrating Fr. Brown’s death! End of tangent..]

On one hand Brown says that the historicity of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be decisively settled by scientific, historical-critical means. On the other hand, he says that the perpetual virginity of Mary must remain “an open question” for those who consider the historical-critical method “all sufficient.” Brown does not however, consider historical-criticism to be “all sufficient,” and so he relies on the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary to “resolve the ambiguities” left in the wake of historical-criticism [BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE (Paulist Press, 1985) p.37, n.26; pp.40-43; 71]. Hence, the advantage of a Catholic (scripture and tradition) over a Protestant – not necessarily in terms of apologetics (folks who want to bicker about it, always will), but in terms of access to authoritative teaching on the matter.

Peace!

The Catholic Church is notorious for manipulating and disregarding verses to hold to it's traditions. Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth but she had a husband, It's God's will for husbands and wives to know each other sexually. They didn't know each other until after his birth. Christ is the only mediator and intercessor, not the"virgin" mary.

The whole belief of her perpetual virginity was from the Gnostic Gospel of james from the 3rd century. A book written 2 centuries after christ, the author was not a physical witness and this book was written too late to even beconsidered legit, the cannonical new testament was from the 1st century written by those who's names are on them.

I could go on but it comes down to do you believe the bible as it's written or do you believe a reinterpretation done to bring it into unity with traditions that have contradicted it from the beginning. Truth or Tradition...the choice is yours?

Steve,

Did you know that Martin Luther and John Calvin also taught that Mary was perpetually virgin?

Steve,
If we assume your opinion, and it is your opinion, is correct for the moment, then I would ask you three things? First, since Mary and Joseph most likely did not practice contraception then where are the siblings of Jesus to be found? Second, if there were other siblings then why would Jesus, from the cross, task St. John with taking Mary into his care instead of one of her other children? Lastly, what verses are you speaking of that you believe are manipulated or disregarded? You cannot make a blanket statement like that without providing some context for your position. Otherwise, you are merely stating an opinion without any basis whatsoever. Therefore, I would ask you to prayerfully contemplate my questions and answer them honestly.

To answer your question though, "do you believe the bible as it's written do you believe a reinterpretation done to bring it into unity with traditions that have contradicted it from the beginning."

I believe 100% of Scripture as the inerrant Word of God when it properly understood. However, I DO NOT believe in your interpretation of Scripture, nor do I believe in any of the "man-made traditions" of protestants i.e., salvation by faith alone, bible-alone, etc. Truth includes Tradtion (capital T) and is definitely my choice, but your version of "truth" is what I reject.
In Truth,
Matthew

Dear Steve,

I would just like to remind you that Christ did not tell the apostles to go and write everything down that he said and did. Rather, he told them to TEACH all nations. This does not of course exclude the possibility of teaching through writing, as St Paul and the Evangelists did. But we have to put ourselves in a situation where the written Word of God was not available to a wide audience until well into the sixteenth century. How was the Truth to be preserved in the absence of the lack of a widespread dissemination of sacred texts particularly in the first few centuries of the Church's existence, save through a teaching Church? As St Paul said (1 Timothy 3: 14-15), " I give you these instructions, although I hope I will see you soon. If I delay, you know how you ought to conduct yourself in the household of God, that is, the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth."

God be with you, Stephen. Pray for me as I will for you.

Brendan

Post a comment