Why Do Catholics Say That Mary Remained a Virgin!

Leatherneck

Well-known member
Those don't conflict with Catholicism.

You don't have evidence that confirms your view, nor that conflicts with Catholicism's view.

I know that you don't care either way, anonymous on the internet. irl, there might be some reasoning with you, but you're obstinate online.
If you considered scripture evidence, which you obviously don’t, then there is ample evidence.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
If you considered scripture evidence, which you obviously don’t, then there is ample evidence.
The scripture evidence points directly at Catholicism, that believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Lord said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The Orthodox literally separate themselves from the Church over one word in the Creed; filioque, it means "[and from] the Son", in reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit. But we agree about everything else.

You Protestants agree on the Resurrection of Christ, we agree on the Trinity, and on many other things, but diametrically disagree about first of all the Eucharist, or similarly, Mass.

Like with the Old Covenant, the New Covenant has its liturgy. We don't just repeat the Eucharist however, as if it's just a tradition or custom or habit, we believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We are "partakers of the Lord's table" (1Co10:21), and you are not.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The Bible is not inconsistent with her ever virginality, just so long as the Lord's siblings are the sons and daughters of St. Joseph from a prior marriage, like that he was a widower and had a family from his first wife.
Which there is exactly zero evidence for. I've believed for years, as I intimated in the opening post, that this doctrine falsifies the Catholic version of Christianity. This sort of contrivance only serves to cement that belief. All you've said here is that you don't care if there's any biblical evidence for the belief. You'll find some sort of way to preserve your pet doctrines whether they are consistent with scripture or not.

It could also be---speculatively---that he was injured in his privates, that's not part of the tradition though; which is that he was confronted with the matter, just as it's retold in Scripture, when Mary became pregnant with Christ, and the Angel set it out for him, just what he would be 'signing up' for if he proceeded with the marriage, and he said, "Yes. Good."
This is so laughably ridiculous that I'm actually glad you said it!

It seems every defense of this Catholic dogma serves as its own best refutation.

As far as the bishops know, this is Apostolic Sacred Tradition, meaning that the Apostles authorized and approved of the teaching. The Church grounds all her beliefs in the teachings of the Apostles. The Church is Apostolic because of this dependence upon them for all that we do and believe.
Where is the evidence for such a tradition? Where is there any record of any Apostle ever teaching anything even similar to the idea that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life?

Were Matthew and Mark not an Apostles? If they believe this dogma wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect at least one of them to have inserted some sort of clarification when they mention Christ's brothers and sisters?

Paul was an Apostle and he too makes mention of "James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19) and yet nothing at all by way of avoiding any confusion about him being Mary's son.

So where is the evidence that any of the Apostles taught such a thing?

Is there any or is it the same people that want you to believe it that are telling you that the Apostles taught it.
And that includes the faith that we have in the Scripture, that it is the Word of the Lord, we believe this because the Apostles approved the contents /canon of the Bible.
That's an idiotic reason to believe such a thing. God's word does not get its authority from men.

But leaving that aside, if you accept the Bible as God's word then why do you not form your doctrine from it rather than the reverse? You admitedly take doctrines of men and conform your understanding of God's word to it. How is that not backward?

We trust in Scripture because we trust that the Apostles authorized the Scripture, with the teaching authority that they were given by Christ; theirs is actually Christ's own teaching authority, so that Apostolicity for Catholicism is tantamount to of God.
Absolute lunatic insanity.

If you accepted only those traditions that were not in conflict with God's word, it might be fine but you have it backward and intentionally so.

It is impossible to understand how such an transparently obvious error can persist.
We expect that the Scripture is consistent with the Apostolic Sacred Tradition, and that it doesn't conflict with it.
Accept that it does and you go right on your merry way performing whatever mental contortions you have to perform to rationalize away the clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
This is all given as far as I'm concerned as a Catholic.
Well, why not answer my question then?

What is it that compels the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity? Her virginity prior to Christ's birth makes perfect sense and is clearly taught in Scripture but after He was born there is no need for her to remain a virgin and the bible is flatly obvious about the existence of Jesus' siblings and so why even bother forming such a doctrine in the first place?

Clete

P.S. This was an excellent post, by the way! Thank you for engaging the discussion!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete, don’t like my post you are free to ignore them and move along.
You're posts are fine. What I'm trying to elicit is fewer one liners and more substance. One liners have their place but don't you have something more to say than one sentence?
 

Right Divider

Body part
The scripture evidence points directly at Catholicism,
No, it does NOT (not matter how many times you make that assertion).
that believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Lord said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Like most of Churchianity, you have no idea what that actually means. It's about JUDGES. Here is the fuller passage:
Mat 18:15-20 KJV Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
These refers to THIS:
Deu 17:2-7 KJV If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, (3) And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; (4) And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: (5) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (7) The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
And also THIS:
Deu 19:15 KJV One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
 

Leatherneck

Well-known member
The scripture evidence points directly at Catholicism, that believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Lord said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The Orthodox literally separate themselves from the Church over one word in the Creed; filioque, it means "[and from] the Son", in reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit. But we agree about everything else.

You Protestants agree on the Resurrection of Christ, we agree on the Trinity, and on many other things, but diametrically disagree about first of all the Eucharist, or similarly, Mass.

Like with the Old Covenant, the New Covenant has its liturgy. We don't just repeat the Eucharist however, as if it's just a tradition or custom or habit, we believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We are "partakers of the Lord's table" (1Co10:21), and you are not.
¶ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. The Roman Catholic Eucharist is a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus, which scripture says only happened once, and we take the Lord’s supper to remember that single sacrifice by Jesus. Men who add to or take from scripture have a promise from God that He will judge them accordingly.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
¶ And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body
1st Corinthians chapter 10, starting at verse 17 for context:


17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?​

If you eat of the sacrifices offered on an altar, then you are partakers of that altar. The Jews did it in Jerusalem, and pagans did it too. People who ate food sacrificed on altars were partakers of those altars.

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

The perpetual sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered on the Lord's table, which is an altar.

which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. The Roman Catholic Eucharist is a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus, which scripture says only happened once, and we take the Lord’s supper to remember that single sacrifice by Jesus. Men who add to or take from scripture have a promise from God that He will judge them accordingly.
I am not guilty of 'taking from' Sacred Scripture, not I.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If you guys want to discuss the Eucharist, something that is the very definition of biblically indefensible dogma, then please do it somewhere other than on a thread that is supposed to be about the biblically indefensible dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Idolater,

If you desire to believe that the bible doesn't mean what it seems to mean when it talks about Jesus' siblings and insist, without evidence, that these siblings were all older children of Joseph's from a previous marriage, then that seems to me to require more than simply a religious desire to believe that Mary remained a virgin forever.

What line of reasoning compels such a treatment of scripture? Is there any such line of reasoning?
 

Leatherneck

Well-known member
1st Corinthians chapter 10, starting at verse 17 for context:

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.​
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?​

If you eat of the sacrifices offered on an altar, then you are partakers of that altar. The Jews did it in Jerusalem, and pagans did it too. People who ate food sacrificed on altars were partakers of those altars.

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?​
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.​
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.​
The perpetual sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered on the Lord's table, which is an altar.


I am not guilty of 'taking from' Sacred Scripture, not I.
You are guilty of “ adding to “ scripture.
 
Top