Catholic Question

yes

 

Yes it is the generally accepted belief in Catholic tradition, though not a required belief for Catholics.

 

Actually this is a required belief.

There are four Marian Dogma that Catholics are required to adhere to and this is one of them.


LaRae

 

Well that depends on your definition of Catholic?

I, who concider myself to be a member of the Holy Evangelical catholic Church, do not believe that Mary remained a virgin. At the same time, I also acknowledge that there is enough compelling evidence for both sides of the debate think that it is really an open question and should not be defined as a necessary doctrine.

 

You're referring to Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Mother of God, and Bodily Assumption. The answer to this question should be answered by a Roman Catholic. Are there any who are currently on the board, or are we still awaiting their return after Easter?

 

I'm an ex-Rc and I'll tell you what it says in the Catholic Doctrinal Guide at the back of my old Catholic Bible.

"The important doctrines concerning our Blessed Lady are 1)she is the Mother of Christ and therefore truly and properly the Mother of God; 2) She was a virgin before the birth of Christ and remained a virgin after Christ's birth; 3) she was conceived immaculate so that she was preserved from the stain of original sin; 4) by special priviledge she was preserved from all sin even venial sin; 5) she is the Mediatrix of all graces and in a certain way the Co-redemptrix with Christ."

Hope this helps,

Enda

 

Enda, the RCC has not made coredemprtix-ness a dogma as of yet.

 

Johnv,

Yeah, I'm sure you're right, I was only quoting the passage I mentioned, it didn't say these were all essential doctrines only that they were important, I suppose they are being slightly vague here.

 

Brian,

We went round and round with the CC boys before they left about this very verse.

If I'm not mistaken it was in the "turning Mary into an adultress" thread.

They argued it into the ground and proved nothing.

The verse says that he didn't know her until she gave birth, in every other instance in the Bible where it says 'didn't until', the thing that it was referring to HAPPENED.

God Bless

 

You're referring to Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, Mother of God, and Bodily Assumption. The answer to this question should be answered by a Roman Catholic. Are there any who are currently on the board, or are we still awaiting their return after Easter? </font>[/QUOTE]Last time I checked I was still Catholic.


LaRae

 

Last time I checked I was still Catholic.
Okay, you'll do

 

Gee thanks

So are we clear on this now? Perpetual Virginity isn't something that can be rejected by Catholics in communion with Rome.

LaRae

 

It is important with the passage to note how the word TILL or UNTIL is used. At first glance it appears to be referring to the time after the birth of Jesus. But Catholics believe that if you look at how the word is used in the Bible it refers to the time before the event so this scripture could be read that "Joseph new Mary not, before the birth of Jesus". Thus making no reference to the time after Jesus' birth and in reading the scripture this way it would indicate that Mary remained a virgin.

Another example of using the word TILL or UNTIL in this manner is when Jesus said "I will be will you TILL the end of the age". It would not make sense if Jesus was refering to the time after the age because he would be saying he was abandoning them for awhile. It seems obvious that Jesus is refering to the time before the end of the age, just as in the scripture regarding Mary it is refering to the time before Jesus' birth. The author was trying to make it clear that before Jesus was born there was no relations between Mary and Joseph to confirm the prophesy of the Messiah being born of a virgin.

This is how Catholics look at this passage. Another interesting note, while not in the Bible there is documentation on the life of Anna who was Mary's mother and how she was infertile and when she became pregnant with Mary she offered her to God to be a consecrated virgin of the temple. For Mary to break this vow would be a terrible sin by breaking her vow. To help her keep her vow a husband was choosen to be her protector, Joseph was picked because he was an older man who already had children such that he would not need to fulfill his marital obligation with Mary.

If you take a look at the scripture regarding the annunciation, Mary says to the angel "how can this be since I know not man". Since she was a concecrated virgin she did not understand how she could become pregnant because she was to remain a virgin. If she was going to live a normal marital life with Joseph she would not of asked how, she would have assumed that the offspring of her and Joseph would be the savior.

For more information on this time before the birth of Jesus you can look at the writings of St. Jerome.

I know its difficult for someone to believe what is not in the Bible but remember, we believe the bible to be accurate and true. This does not mean everything else is in error, just that it could be in error.

God Bless You

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

Hmm....learn something new everyday.

But, there is a difference between 'learning' and 'believing. Know what I mean?

MEE

 

First of all this teaching does not meet Jewish requirements. No woman was ever allowed to serve
the temple. So to declare this and say Anna kept Mary to serve the temple is false. The temple did not have virgin women serving therein.

Secondly it would have been a disgrace in Israel for Mary to remain a virgin after Jesus' birth.
For her to not have other children if she was capable would have been a major disgrace. This is why it did not happen and the Bible speaks of Jesus having brothers and sisters.

If Anna had been a virgin when she gave birth to Mary it would have been recorded just like Mary being a virgin and giving birth was recorded.

The Bible tells us that Mary's lineage came from King DAvid which would have been an impossibility
if she was immaculate conceived. Not only that but every woman in here past would have had to have an immaculate conception which is ludicrous.

This is why the doctrine of original sin is not truth but error. Babies are born with a sin nature but not with sin. When the scripture states that "All have sinned" does not mean they sinned because of original sin it means that humans have a sin nature that causes them to sin.

Jesus had to overcome sin as a human. He had to not sin as a human. For him to have used his deity to be sinless would have made him not acceptable as the supreme sacrifice.

 

hrhema,

"Immaculate Conception" does not mean born of a virgin, and it has not been taught that Mary was born of a virgin mother. Rather, Immaculate Conception means born without original sin.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant is right. The Immaculate Conception heresy is the error that "Mary was born sinnless LIKE CHRIST".

It is another way to promote Maryiolotry among our Catholic bretheren so that while adoring Christ they can also adore Mary at her altars as they offer incense and prayers to her as "Queen of the Univers" and "all powerful" and as one that even God obeys.

I have enjoyed discovering the evolution of that heresy as it has expanded over time - but sometimes I wonder that Catholics do not simply "wake up" on their own - when it comes to that one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Adam and Eve created without sin. They chose to sin. You do not disagree with this statement, I am sure. And I assume you believe so because the Word of God, written in Scriptures, says so.

Why is it so hard to conceive the notion that God could create another human being without sin.

Adam and Eve were saved by the promise of a future Christ. So was Mary.

God bless,

Grant