Defending Mary's Virginity

Through the Immaculate Virgin,

(Edited)

Please let me defend the Virginity of Mary most Holy. If somebody comes, and hurts your own Mother feelings, would you not grab him, and throw him off a cliff? Would you let him hurt your sweet Mother? I do not think so.

Saint Jerome was very passionate when he defended his heavenly Mothers Virginity. He called hellish helviius “a boor, a hypocrite, who invents ideas worth not even two pence”.

I dedicate this here thread to Thee, oh sweet Virgin of Virgins, my Mother. Do thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. Oh Mother of the word incarnate, dispise not my petitions but in thy mercy, hear and answer me. Amen. I love you my Queen, and to show my love for thee, I come here to defend thy Sacred Virginity. Let the devil shout and attack it if it can. He can’t attack the Queen, but he unfourtunately, can attack Her dignity. But Mary will not budge.

(Edited)

First, we should know that God values Virginity more than any other virtue What made Saint John the Evangelist most pleasing to Mary and Jesus was his puurity. In the book of Revelation, it is sadi that: *These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
*(KJV. All the passages are from the King James Bible, so as to not cause inconvenience).

Now it so happens Mary, the most perfect of all God’s creatures HAD to be the most perfect and pure Virgin ever! As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters. Lilies are symbols of Virginity. Now Mary, is so pure and undefiled that, whilst other were thorns either to themselves or to other, Mary was not. Pure than all the angels! Purity itself as thou givest thy Purity to all! Mary, according to Saint Thomas was so pure that He countenance alone was enough to inspire chaste thoughts. She did not bring bad thoughts, She inspired good one’s. Saint Jerome, writing against that bigot, son of the devil Helvidius, or rather HELLvidius, said: you say that Mary did not remain a Virgin? I say, that, not only did She remain a Virgin but that, Saint Joseph kept his Virginity through Her.

Chesterton, the Apologist of the 20th century, got so angry against Arnold Lunn who wrote: You hear a great deal about His Mother, for Our Lady has become the patron of a party, whereas Christ was never a party leader. He wrote a poem which included this verse: the little hiss which only comes from hell. This little line had such an effect on Lunn, that it contributed more to his conversion to Catholicsm than all the debates there could ever be waged against him.

Annd now, defending my Lady’s Virginity, against that raving justforcatholics and that evangelicaloutreach.

First: the Perpetual Virginity is not against the Bible. Those who deny the Sacred Virginity just randomly search out verses that seems to deny the Sacred Virginity. They interpretet it in a wrong light. These, Bible onlyists, do not use, what we call, common sense. They do not meditate on what the verses would be wanting to say.

The other day, I told my friend that his cat looks a bit sick. He punched me for that and now I am sick! I think he took my meaning in a wrong light…

Now these people who belive in Sola Scriptura just think that, by looking at a verse, they have grasped it’s full meaning. Yet, we do not see Christ getting verses from the old testament and saying them just how they are. He always proved His doctrines with common sense. In fact, all His parable define common sense as it is! And the Church, when it interpretets the Bible or tries to prove something, as with all it’s good and real theologians(I mean real theologians, not that heretic Karl Rahner or that silly Karl Barth), it thinks deeply about it. Thomas Aquinas, using just common sense, wrote his masterpiece of a work the Summa Theologica. Using this method, I will show and define how Mary is the ever Blessed Virgin.

They clain that the Holy Spirit guides them in interpreting Scripture. Yet, if this is true the, how come that we have so many Protestant denominations with many diffirent creeds, many diffirent interpretations? And do not say that I am claiming that there are 30,000 denominations? This trick, used by a fallen away catholic was just a red herring to ‘prove’ that Catholics are liars… yet, is you read his article, he does not prove his point; he just gives a not even half baked article.

Anyway, if it really is the Holy Spirit interpeting the Bible, why on earth does the alleged Spirit make up so many interpretations, constantly contradicting himself? One contradiction alone is enough to show that somebody is a liar. But since most Holy Ghost can never contradict Himself as He is the way, the truth and the life, it shows that He, the most holy God, does not help the heretics in their interpretations.

You say that Mary did not remain a Virgin after the birth of Christ. The how come all the Protestant ‘masters’ believe that Mary was a Virgin before the birth of Christ? So as to fulfill the prophecies of Isaias: behold, a Virgin shall concieve and bear a son…, yet, how come you say that She did not remain a Virgin after the Birth of Christ? Martin Luther and Clavin held that She remained the Virgin undefiled that She always was. Yet, a certain Joseph Mizzi said that they do not hold these two as infallible. But that means that the protestant church is not infallible as he [Luther] invented it and neither do we take Mizzi as infallible. I have shown this in the above post(but we do take the Church as infallible. See the Baltimore Cathechism). Now how come the “successors” of Luther and Calvin deny Mary Most Holys’ Virginity? Because in their pride, anger, and hatred of the Church of God(the Catholic Church), they strive to pull away the Catholic roots in their denominations.

But still, why do the Lutherans NOT deny the Virginity of Mary Most Holy? Luther used to be a Catholic(yet he became anti-catholic). It can be said that he, Luther, although he is a heretic, still preserved a little spark of devotion towards Mary, and that, the Lutherans still have a small devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Maybe those silly fundamentalist denominations do not have a love for Mary Most Holy? Because, if they did, they would strive to honour Her and to show how much Jesus honoured Her.

But no, they do not. They either ignore Her and even hate Her. I have seen these things myself. Just look at that anti-catholic jesusislord.com. I shudder to go in that website, as it so blasphemous and unkind(and harsh)…

So tell me, what is wrong with the Virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ? It contradicts scripture? It too is according to scripture. Not with commonsense and general knowledge? It too is with general knowledge!

Thank you Philipmarie.

When considering the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin we must also take into account how original sin has been transmitted to every human being, Jesus and the Blessed Virgin being the exceptions.

If the Blessed Virgin was infected with original sin, was Jesus then infected with it? Hardly!
If the Blessed Virgin was not infected with original sin would her suppossed “other” children have been infected with it?

The first question we might want to discuss on this thread, without derailing the whole thing, and to answer once and for all did the Blessed Virgin remain a virgin her whole life, is how is original sin transmitted?

After Adam and Eve fell, they were cursed by God and all their children with them. Original sin made had two effects: it made the children of Eve in a state of mortal sin(this is in the order of grace) and it made them in a disposition inclining them towards evil(in the order of nature). The former, because they have the dishonour of being Eve’s children, and the latter, because, of the fist sin they have passed unto them the inclination to sin. Now, original sin, with it’s twofold effects(state of sin and evil inclination) is brought about like this:

suppose a Mother was exiled from her city, called the Church. She was caught stealing apples, and for such a crime, was exiled outside the city while She was pregnant with two children. They were born outside the Church(Church here means the city). What happened to the Woman and her children. They were exiled from the friendship of the King because of this dishonour, and, since the air outside the city was not very good, they became vulnerable to sickness. The children, if they die outside the Church, cannot be buried inside the City. The King cannot accept them, as they are the children of the woman who was caught stealing apples. They are not the Kings friends as the King only accepts as friends the citizens of the Church, not one who has the dishonour of being a child of the enemy of God!

Yet, the children, in order to gain the friendship of the King wish to eneter the Church and become it’s citizens. So, they become friends of God by regitering to become citizens(the registering happens to be called Baptism), and so, the dishonour of being children of the nemy of God is removed. But their children and grandchildren still have to register, as they have the dishonor of being from the lineage of the woman who stole apples! And the vulnerability to sickness still remains as it had passed from their parents unto their children!

Starting off with some background material for this thread so that we can all gain a better understanding of how original sin is transmitted I’d like to say that original sin is transmitted through the act of generation.

It is a result of mankind’s solidarity, physical and spiritual, with Adam. We are burdened with original sin only in so far as we are one family with Adam as our head and representative. His headship in the supernatural order is founded on and co-extensive with his physical headship, and therefore affects all those and only those who are descended from him by physical generation. Or, again, original sin is not a matter of the individual’s will, but of the “family” will, the representative’s will; it partakes of the nature of sin only in so far as it is derived from Adam. But everything derived from him comes to us by the way of physical generation whereby human nature is handed on from father to son. Hence original sin, just as every other human inheritance, comes to us by this channel. This is not to say that the act of generation is the efficient cause of the existence of original sin in the individual sin. That act is not the efficient or productive cause even of the existence of the child’s soul. All it does is so to dispose the material body, to put it into such a condition that, according to the divinely established laws of nature, it calls for and, if we may be allowed the word, necessitates the creation of the soul by God. But this soul, good and, indeed, a perfect thing in the natural order, is deprived of that sanctifying grace which it ought to have had, according to God’s original but conditional design; instead of being supernaturalised, as it ought to have been, it is a purely natural thing; at the same time, and owing to the same cause, the whole human being, body and soul, is deprived of the gift of integrity, which it ought to have possessed, and, therefore, subject to concupiscence. But all this comes into effect when, and only when, the complete human being comes into existence, which is the act of generation. This act, then, is the vehicle of the transmission of original sin.

When you write things like this you just turn off the audience you were hoping to convince, and give them reason to believe the false claims that Catholics worship Mary as they do God, treat her as the 4th member of the Trinity, etc. I doubt you can imagine the damage such statements do to the Catholic faith, and Catholic evangelizing efforts.

With statements like this you are giving fundamentalists a sword.

This is a parable. The King represents God, the apple stealing woman, Eve, the children namely, us, the city the Chuch, citezenship the mark of Baptism(the mark of the children of God), registeration for citizenship represents Baptism, the dishonor of belonging to the apple stealing woman original sin, and the vulnerability to sickness represents the inclination towards evil.

God cannot allow as citezens children whose grandparent stole His apples, even if their parents are Church citezens. They have to be registered by their parents to become citezens(a citezen is called a Catholic). By Baptism, they renounce the devil and the old Eve, and become Children of God. Here, I explained(or rather, the Blessed Queen of Heaven through me!) the nature of original sin and it’s effects.

The dishonor of being children of Eve is called original sin which makes us enemies of God because we are children of an enemy of God. This state of being Eves’ children is called the state of sin.
Being in a state of sin (which makes us enemies of God) is the spiritual effect of orginal sin. The natural effect is the one which inclines us to evil. Even if the parents are without original sin, the children have it because they are children of the old Eve(they have the dishonor of being her grandchildren). Baptism removes original sin. It removes the dishonor of being Eve’s children but i still does not remove the inclination towards evil. Striclty speaking, do not think that the effects are original sin itself. The state of being God’s enemies and the evil inclination are the effects; being Eves children is Original sin.

To conclude: Original sin is brought from the dishonor of being Eves grandchildren. It’s effects are being enemies of God and being inclined to evil.

Baptism did not exist in the times pf the Old testament, yet God promised his people a Redeemer. The Redeemer was to take flesh and dwell among us, yet, He needed a Mother. But this Mother had to be of the same nature of the children of Eve, yet, She could not be a slave like them! She could not be vulnerable to sickness!

(Edited)

As for that statemnt, I wrote it to show the dginity of Mary most Holy, and how much She is loved by God. I boldly say it, and I boldly, boldly, decalre that Jesus love her with an infinite love, she who loved Him so much on earth!

I am a traditional Roman Catholic but do not be alarmed. I am not going to be severe. I heard somebody complaining that he meets with so much severiy in traditionalist forums. Please be cautious about which traditional forums you visit. If you visit some forums are probaby are influenced by that Traditioninaction, do not be alarmed. I mean not to criticize, as I myself am such a frustrated little sinner, but traditioninaction are inlined to be a little severe to judge to hastily. Beware of them, as they are rather heretical traditionalist Catholics. Not that traditional Catolicsm is heretical, by no means! But the conclusions they try to bring up are without foundation, which, consequently, lead to many contradictions. I only found one Traditional Catholic group which does not contradict itself or the other(it is not affiliated with them). I am not telling though! I do not want others to be lead astray from this here thread!

Of all the Marian Dogma’s the perpetual virginity is, to me the easiest to accept.

Personally I have resolved the issue down by simple common sense.

If one read the Bible, the sequence of events leading up to the Birth of Christ, we see Mary being visited by an Angel and told she will bear the Son of God.
Later we see Joseph, a rightious man, trying to quietly "put her away’, obviously he was not buying the story of how she came to be with child but not wishing to expose her to shame.
Joseph is then visited by and Angel of God and set straight. He is told that Mary is indeed pregnent with God’s own Son and he is to take her into his house.
Now Joseph knows that this woman, Mary is the betrothed of the Most High God.

So now I ask those who question the Perpetual virginity of Mary to answer this.
What would you do in Joseph’s place? Would you choose to have sex with the betrothed of God most High? Would you choose to have sex with the mother of God’s Son?

Just ask them to think about this carefully in the light of WWJD, In this case, "What would Joseph do?

Peace
James

So as to fulfill the prophecies of Isaias: behold, a Virgin shall concieve and bear a son.

I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but you should be careful quoting Isaiah 7:14. Another poster stated that St. Jerome vigorously defended her virginity. He defended it to the point of modifying 7:14 when making the Vulgate translation (Hebrew to Greek translation of the OT.

Every Hebrew text uses ha’alma in 7:14. This word translates to a young marriageable woman. No Hebrew text uses betula, the Hebrew word for virgin. However, St. Jerome translated ha’alma as “virgin”. I think he knew better.

You will find many bibles, even Catholic approved, that use young woman or maiden in
Isaiah 7:14 and either are consistent with the Hebrew. The KJ bible and other Catholic use virgin. I believe in Mary’s virginity, but it bugs me to hear a bad translation of Isaiah
used as reference.

Excuse me, but, you would not mind in future avoiding the word ‘sex’, please? We are speaking about the purity of the Mother of God you know, and I think it is a bit indecent. I was going to write on this.

As for Saint Jerome, he knew Latin and Hebrew perfectly. I took the quote, I think from either the KJV(not because I like this Bible, but to not cause convenience against the protestants) or the Douy Rheims.


I resume my apologetics.

Douy Rheims

Looking at the spelling of Isaias (I might have this wrong) it came from here. I don’t doubt that St. Jerome knew both Hebrew and Greek well enough to be a competent translator.
From what I’ve read that he was quite the grumpy and obstinate character and wouldn’t be above modifying a word to make a point.


First, the verse:** And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son:** *And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: *. Now, how can this prove that Joseph knew her after? “the dove went forth from the ark and did not return till the waters dried up.” It does not mean that it returned. I did not learn to read until I was four. It does not mean that I learned to read after. Or how about: And Hellvidius did not repent until he was chastised and thrown to the everlasting punishment. It does not mean that he repented after he was thrown into hell! Yet, you claim to think that Matthew wrote this verse to show that Joseph did know her after the birth of Jesus?

If it were true, then, Matthew would not write it like that. If one were to write “and Mr. X did not know Mrs. Y until she brough forth her son”. It would be showing that you wanted the reader to be interested in their private things? And I did not speak o my cousin Therese until I met her the other day in the street corner. Oi, do you wish to know what I was speaking to my coousin about? I was speaking to her about the sweetness of the Blessed Virgin and hiow beautiful She is.

The most chaste Spouse of Mary most holy would never loose his mind so as to have carnal intercourse with Her. Who would ever dream that Joseph, the most chasteand upright man there ever was would do that? Who would ever dream that God would honour His Most Pure Mother with a madman for a Spouse? Why on earth would God want a mad man for a foster father? It would not even pass into the mind of Saint Joseph that he should do such a sacrilege.(The womb of Mary, being the holiest place on earth, as Our Lord has set His throne there. God wanted His temple to be very beautiful, as I shall expalin in the next post).

As you wish - - Would “intercourse” be any more acceptable to you?

A Rose by any other name :shrug:

Peace
James

Before I continue, my friend who wanted me to speak about original sin had a point. Mary is the Mother of God and, She, being destined to be the Mother of God, had to be fit for it. God would not choose somebody at random to be His Mother. Who on earth heared of such a thing? God prepared Moses, David, the prophets and made them fit for their office. So too, He wanted to make a Mother worthy of God. Here we are talking on the Immaculate Conception and the Blessed Virgins sinlessness.

First, it was becoming for God the Father for Him to have a worthy mother. A Father, seeking to get his son married would not marry him to one who had a bad reputation: he would try to marry him, if possible, to a Queen!
The Son, now, if He was able to choose a Queen(He is God), would not choose a slave to be His Mother. If you could choose your own Mother, would you not make Her the most beautiful and sublime creature there could ever be? And, you would indeed sin if, having it in your power to honour your Mother, would not. Honour your father and your mother. And Jesus honoured His Mother so much that, according to Saint Bonaventure, not even God could honour His Mother more!

If a Knight were to see that a robber was trying to break into the house of his lady to murder her, would he not kill him and fortify the house of his Lady with barricades and walls and canons?? In the book of Sirach, we read that the glory of the parents are also their children, and that a father without glory is a disgrace for the children. Suppose that Jesus had a Mother who was under the power of his biggest enemy? Would the King go and live in a Castle belonging to His enemy? Would he even get married to an enemy of God?

Jesus wanted His sweet amiable Mother to be the Immaculate Conception, not because God could inherit original sin, but because it would be a disgrace, and rather embarrasing for Him to have a Mother who was kidnapped by His enemy. Thus, it was that this blot may not happen that the Immaculate Conception occured.

Mary was called by the Angel full of grace. Now she could not have been full of grace had the Blessed Virgin been subject to sin. Many complain with the excuse that other people in the Bible were full of grace, yet they could not have been immaculately concieved? Their claim is without foundation, as these sinful people are called full of grace in a certain sense. I can say that that is the most beautiful flower there could ever be, yet, I know for certain that there could be other more beautiful flowers. But, the way which the angel spoke to the Blessed Virgin is speacial, because:
-he declared unto Her that She was full of grace, and
-the writer who spoke about the sinful people being full of grace were using phrases. Sure, the Holy Spirit wrote through them, but they still used their own writing style. It is very evident in the Bible. Not all the authors have the same wrting style.

This, God endowed the Blessed Virgin with such grace and honour and loved Her so mcuh so that. He not only made Her the Queen of Heaven and earth but also His Mother. He honoured Her by making Her worthy to become the Mother of God. If we were to compare the merits and virtues of all the Saints put together with the least act of the Blessed Virgin, it would not even be like comparing an atom to the infinity of outer space! For Mary’s grace and virtue always increased. Let us say, for example that at the first moment of Her existence, she, who even at that time had the use of reason according to some really, really good theologians, She had a thousand degreese of grace. The next moment, it doubled and She had two thousand, the next four thousand, he next eight thousand, then sixteen thousand, then 32 thousand, then 64 thousand that, in a whole minute, she would be having more than million degrees of grace. I am not exagerating as nothing is impossible for God. So, from the first moment of Her Immaculate Conception to Her glorious death and Assumption, She surpassed all the creatures of God in such a way that we can say that she surpasses in an infinite way, as it were all that surrounds us. According to the Saints, nobody but God alone surpasses the Blessed Virgin! And we should not consider that the Saints were small, we should consider just how great the Blessed Virgin is.

The Immaculate Conception is proven of in the Bible as Mary is reffered to by God saying: I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and your seed and her seed; She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait of Her heel. In Protestant bibles, it is read that He shall crush the serpents head. Yet, in the Vulgate of Saint Jerome, we read She. As stated by a thread subscriber, Jerome was a bit grumpy and obstinate. If he read that it was Jesus who was to squish the snake, why would he replace ‘He’ with ‘She’, as well, even the Blessed Virgin is next to God, lesser than atoms(although next to Her, we are lesser than atoms.). Then why do we read ‘He’ instead of ‘She’ in protestant bibles? Maybe because the Protestants do not scruple in ruining verses from Scripture and even removing whole books. I can show you just how much protestant Bibles are corrupt if you wish.

The WOman is cited frequently in the Bible. Jesus called Mary, His Mother Woman at the foot of the Cross to show that She was the Woman spoken of in the Begining. And the woman in revelation is called ‘woman’, thereby showing that Mary is the Virgin of Revelation, with the crown of twelve stars.**

I have to retire for the evening. You would not mind not posting would you, as I wish to keep the thread neat. Yet, if you wish to post do so. But for love of the Immaculate Virgin, please do not as I really wish to settle this question once and for all. It offends the Blessed Virgin as it is very offensive and cruel to deny Her sacred Virginity. How on earth can Christ reward those who offend His Holy Mother? He does not reward them, He hurls them into hell if they die denying Her Virginity. The Church never disputed whether Mary is a Virgin or not. Saint Hilary called those who did so: Irreligous, perverted , knowing nothing of religous truth.

I have to say that I do not see why you are going to such lengths on a Catholic Forum.
Aren’t you “preaching to the Choir” here??

Who here has disputed the perpetual virginity with you? :confused::confused::shrug:

Peace
James

But it’s true. God obeyed Mary when He was growing up, He obeyed Her when She was grown, …no prooof He obeys Her now, though. I don’t think They have that relationship anymore.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.