perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

PV of Mary is de fide

I was only speaking about 2Ti 4:3 :slight_smile:

Hmmm… I do partake in the Last Supper each and every Sunday. I do not persecute Christ by being an Episcopalian and to say so is actually really rude. I hope that is not what you were getting at and I simply took your words out of context. :shrug:

regarding the verses in scripture that mention brothers of Jesus.

the words were, most likely, spoken in aramaic and translated in to the greek that is the language of our earliest versions of the gospels. accordingly, none of us know from text, word and language analysis why the greek word used was chosen. reliable and educated sources believe that the greek word(s) used do not limit their meanings to full blood brothers and sisters of Jesus.

knowing this, i am of the opinion that the most likely aramaic word spoken was the aramaic word that is the equivalent of our english word “relative(s)”. we often use relative when we are referring to someone to whom we are related but do not want to go in to all of the particulars of the nature of the relationship, for any number of possible reasons.

also, the early Church would have known absolutely, without question, whether or not Mary had other children.

if Mary had children after the birth of Jesus, the early Church would have anathametized anyone who had claimed Mary’s perpetual virginity. that did not occur. instead, the opposite occurred. we see direct evidence that the early Chuch did believe in Mary’s PV.

irenaeus writes in the second century. irenaeus was a bishop of the RCC and as a consequence had been determined by other bishops as being qualified to speak with apostolic authority about the gospel. when irenaeus’ writings on the subject became known, any number of bishops would have challenged him had the tradition been opposed to what he wrote.

in the fourth century, we see the first evidence of any self-proclaimed christians raising down about Mary’s PV. i am unaware that any of those casting doubt are considered orthodox successors to the apostles.

right reason leads a person to accept without question the PV of the BVM.

those who reject the doctrine are not relying on right reason.

Lochias, I want to briefly say that I think using the Westboro Baptist Church as a proof against Sola Scriptura makes for a weak argument. I think the WBC is one of the many fruits of the “new” (post-Reformation) concept of religious liberty. But that’s for another thread.

The bolded bit above is indeed an aspect of the Catholic faith that confuses me. So, they will accept and recognize a whole Church that doesn’t hold certain things about Mary dogmatically, but they will not accept an individual that does the same. As a “low-church” protestant that kind of thinking doesn’t make sense to me.

If anyone wants they can read my view of Mary here: forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11554267&postcount=1 In short, I don’t feel I have any type of wrong attitude toward Mary to rethink. I can appreciate it if someone thinks I’m missing out on some good info about Mary, but to make that info a hurdle to jump before I could join a church doesn’t quite sit well with me in what I see in scripture.

I wasn’t saying you persecute Jesus, I was only using the reference to show how Christ equates His Church with Himself. Sorry for any confusion.

And you partake in the one sacrifice of Christ that He offers to the Father eternally in Heaven that we see in Revelation? You partake of His actual Blood and Body?

Yes. Holy Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. The RP!

But this has nothing to do with the topic. :slight_smile:

That was actually a great post, Kliska. Kudos! :thumbsup:

lol Thanks… I think. :stuck_out_tongue:

He didn’t say that you, or any Episcopalian, was persecuting Christ. He was merely pointing out how strongly Christ identified with His Church; so much so that Saul’s persecution of the Church was interpreted by Christ as persecution of Him, personally.

Thanks, Peter (for not snorting). I have been truly trying to learn and understand Catholicism better for about half a decade—much longer, actually, in a more leisurely sort of way. Certainly I wouldn’t ignore everything since VII, but at the same time the apparent differences pre- and post-VII are something I am unable to sweep under the rug, and they make it hard for me to see the CC as a house unified rather than a house divided. Once again that belongs on another thread, though.

the Catholic Church is okay with intercommunion with some groups like the Polish National Catholic Church, without requiring agreement with dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.

It would take me a very long post to explain … and even then I probably couldn’t do justice to it. So rather than trying to convince you that it makes sense, I’m taking the much less ambitious goal of unconvincing you of the supposed strangeness of it. :slight_smile:

Let’s say John Jackson is a baptized Christian who believes everything that the PNCC believes (but disagrees with Rome on e.g. the Immaculate Conception), but is all on his own. If he goes to a Roman priest and requests communion, the priest will likely deny him (excepting special circumstances).

But now suppose that, a year later, John Jackson joins the PNCC. Even though his beliefs have not changed, a Roman priest would then have no problem giving him communion because he situation has changed: he’s no longer on his own, he is part of a PNCC diocese, subject to a PNCC bishop, etc.

I think you have done a really good job explaining it. But I think this is where the different life experiences and perspectives comes in and it still is all so strange to me. Why? Because John Jackson is the exact same person with the exact same beliefs as he was a year ago. I can’t see, in NT times, him being turned away and then accepted a year later because someone else didn’t turn him away.

In essence, John Jackson is communing with Rome “through the backdoor” so to speak, although obviously the PNCC wouldn’t want it looked at that way. To put this all in a different perspective I live in a part of the country where there is very little population. So, if John lived here too and wanted to find a PNCC to join, it would be a literal 5 hour drive one way, most likely. Do you see the issue I have where a church becomes so exclusionary that it becomes untenable, and perhaps uncharitable?

it is entirely understandable why many non-catholics struggle with the infallible proclamations regarding the BVM.

is the RCC in actuality using Mary as a stumbling block for non-catholics? for someone, not familiar with all that the RCC teaches and has not in faith assented to what the RCC teaches, it might appear that the RCC is doing exactly that.

separating some teachings of the RCC from the rest and using that alienation to oppose the teachings lends itself to serious error. the faith promulgated by the RCC is an integrated whole.

in addition, another aspect to consider when learning about the Marian doctrines that i see, is that the RCC cannot minimize the importance of the the Marian doctrines because they are facts. just like the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity are facts even though they remain mysteries. they are the created reality of almighty God. they are a real and true part of salvation history. the RCC, because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, cannot deny the truth and the Marian doctrines are part of that truth.

no one can adequately prove the truth of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, yet, because they are true, they are infallible doctrines of the RCC.

an important axiom for christians is that faith precedes reason when it comes to understanding the truth and reality…

Here’s an (imperfect) analogy.

Suppose a boyfriend and girlfriend are engaged to be married. Totally committed to each other for life.

The Church would deem sinful any marital relations before their marriage, but would encourage as holy the exact same thing afterwards.

Once a person has been educated on the matter? Yes.

Very well, I stand corrected.

I do think “fitting” doesn’t underscore correctly just HOW fitting the PV is. When I say “necessary”, I mean “necessary” in the sense that, because God chose this way to bring Christ into the world, a human mother who had been intimate with other males would not have done.

It’s Jesus, after all.

If the WBC didn’t use the EXACT same arguments for their position as some other Protestants on this thread are using for theirs, I would agree with you.

But they are. That can’t be denied. The POV that the aforementioned Protestants are espousing here is the SAME POV that led to the formation of the WBC.

Prove me wrong.

But that’s the point; there are issues here that “outsiders” can see that are extraordinarily important. The question becomes; if I were at Pentecost and heard Peter preach, what was he preaching? He was preaching and extolling Jesus Christ. Those that believed what he was preaching joined the ranks of the church that very day and were baptized that very day. But today that couldn’t happen. Someone would have to go through RCIA and agree to all the dogmatic teachings of the magisterium and the Popes through the whole history of the Catholic church, including things that don’t have to do with the gospel message directly.

Again, in effect, the RCC/ECC has now made the assumption of Mary a defining factor of who is and is not a part of the church, hence affecting their salvation (in the eyes of the RCC/ECC).

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.