I want to understand the Catholic faith so....

[LonelyPilgrim]

Nonsense. Name your interpreters. The writer is simply indicating the woman's virginity prior to being married. It has nothing to do with Mary whatsoever. That is a pipe dream.

If it is a "pipe dream," it is one that Christian interpreters have consistently had since the earliest centuries. The Scripture, of course, has more than one interpretation, but exegetes have read in it a type of Mary and of the Church:

Christ Himself is a virgin; and His mother is also a virgin; yea, though she is His mother, she is a virgin still. For Jesus has entered in through the closed doors, and in His sepulchre—a new one hewn out of the hardest rock—no man is laid either before Him or after Him. Mary is “a garden enclosed … a fountain sealed,” and from that fountain flows, according to Joel, the river which waters the torrent bed either of cords or of thorns; of cords being those of the sins by which we were beforetime bound, the thorns those which choked the seed the goodman of the house had sown. She is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel, always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies; and through her “the Sun of Righteousness,” our “high priest after the order of Melchizedek,” goes in and out. Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh, thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin.

(St. Jerome, “The Letters of St. Jerome,” in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, and W. G. Martley, vol. 6, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1893), 78–79.)
​

Citations? They do not mention her perpetual virginity.

I have to go to work now, but I will share the citations from Irenaeus and the other later.

Peter never was sole bishop of Rome. That is a fable. Like Paul he MAY have been accepted as one of a number of bishops when he was taken there for martyrdom. There was no sole bishop of Rome prior to Justin Martyr's time. Both Clement and Ignatius bear witness to the lack of a sole bishop at Rome.

I don't know what part of Ignatius you've been reading, but from my understanding he attests explicitly to the monoepiscopacy in his time. You should really read my article, which addresses these questions.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[valiant]

I will say it again: the concept of purgatory has nothing at all to do with atonement of sins or even with salvation. The idea of indulgences does have to do with alleviating the burdens of those in purgatory -- but every one of those people is already saved; has already had their every sin washed away.

If they have had their sins washed away why do they need to be 'purged'?


As one Roman Catholic site puts it, 'Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.'


They don't seem to agree with you?

 

[valiant]

If it is a "pipe dream," it is one that Christian interpreters have consistently had since the earliest centuries.

Not from the earliest centuries. From the later centuries after 300 AD. It was the invention of ascetics.

The Scripture, of course, has more than one interpretation,

No it only has one interpretation. To refer it to Mary is not an interpretation it is a blatant falsehood.

but exegetes have read in it a type of Mary and of the Church:

I would not all them exegetes. A better word is inventors. It is really no good quoting Jerome. He lived FOUR HUNDRED YEARS after the event. What did he know about it.?

I have to go to work now, but I will share the citations from Irenaeus and the other later.

LOL you needn't bother. I studied early church history in depth.

I don't know what part of Ignatius you've been reading, but from my understanding he attests explicitly to the monoepiscopacy in his time.

But not with regard to the church of Rome. When a church had a single bishop he always addressed them as such. He did not do that to Rome.

You should really read my article, which addresses these questions.

LOL such modesty​

 

[Magenta]

I will say it again: the concept of purgatory has nothing at all to do with atonement of sins or even with salvation. The idea of indulgences does have to do with alleviating the burdens of those in purgatory -- but every one of those people is already saved; has already had their every sin washed away.

Oh my, another judgement on the state of people' souls despite the claim that Catholics do not engage in such behaviour.

 

[PennEd]

I didn't say that they didn't exist; I said that I had never seen them. They are not a major part of the Catholic faith or experience for me or anyone I know.



We are not. You've misunderstood this doctrine. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.



I've already shown in Revelation the elders who lift up the bowls of incense to the Throne of God, which are the prayers of the saints (meaning, in this context, those of us on earth). The same elders and martyrs are demonstrated as witnesses to our sufferings on earth.



Sir, I am not your enemy. I don't know why you are judging me with such hostility. I do trust in Christ and Christ alone -- but just as you have no standing to judge the state of my soul, I have no obligation to defend it to you. I pray God's peace and mercy for you.

So much wrong here. I fULLY understand YOU are not the enemy. Why would I spend time trying to plead Grace alone to you if I thought of you as my enemy?

I'm just going to stick with one thing you said although all of it is heretical.

How can you twist the elders in heaven lifting up the bowls of the prayers that the Saints prayed TO GOD to people praying to humans that have died? Are you saying we should pray to the elders? Since you CANNOT show me an example or doctrine in Scripture that we should pray to dead humans, saints or otherwise, why do you do it?

Show me where ANY SAINT has EVER prayed to ANYONE but GOD.

Pray on it with humility and wait for the answer from God.

 

[epostle]

The Protevangelium of James was rejected by the church councils as not being Scripture. So you look to heretical works for your confirmation of a false teaching? It figures.

The Protevangelium of James was rejected by the church councils as not being Scripture because of the time it was written, around 120 AD. It is a HISTORICAL document. What kind of weird world do you live in if you reject every historical document because it's not in the Bible??? You call it heretical because the content does not square with your bizarre man-made views that even the reformers would reject.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1). It is the consequential Christological errors that you fall into, especially Nestorianism. I'll take the word of a scholar over the word of some "church" that was founded within the last 20 years.

The consensus is that it was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, who says the text, like that of a Gospel of Peter, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the "brethren of the Lord" were sons of Joseph by a former wife

Joseph had his own children before meeting Mary. So what. It proves he was mature.

This is what Origen actually said:

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity"
(Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?"
Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).​

Please quote patristics accurately and stop making things up.

Equating the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Peter is revisionism and blindness to the facts.

"...To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants..."
​

So many anti-Catholics truly are doctrinally anti-Semitic. You can't stand Jewish customs that support original Christian beliefs, so you ignore them, or ridicule the P of J with nonsense. You have deviated even from the reformers due to your theological chaos and have no right to criticize Catholicism because her doctrines don't do flip flops like yours does.

 

[KenAllan]

Its a sad day when Catholics put Mary everywhere in the Scriptures and cast out the ones God is really talking about.

I believe the Catholics epostle and LonelyPilgrim do this because they hate God and want Mary as their God.

Matthew 15:8-9
[SUP]8 [/SUP] 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "
Putting Mary above others in the Scriptures is teaching as Doctrines thy commandments of men.


In Vain you pray to God epostle. In Vain you pray to God LonelyPilgrim.

Until both of you reject Satan and follow God and His Truths, neither one of you will be allowed to enter into Heaven.

I do know for a fact this is falling on deaf ears. Could it be epostle and LomelyPilgrim you were never chosen by God to receive Salvation?

Its a shame that both of you have such hatred for the very Word of God.

May God have Mercy on your souls when you stand before Him.

 

[Mec99]

Did you know LonelyPilgrim that there is no evidence in the Scriptures for Purgatory? Even your Theologians in the Catholic Church admits there are no scriptures for the existence of Purgatory.

Its interesting you Catholics claim only in Purgatory can YOU work off the Stain of your sins!

1 John 1:9
[SUP]9 [/SUP] If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

God says here Jesus does wash us clean of the stain of our sins. So why do you Catholics oppose what God says? Could it be you truly are NOT followers of Christ, but instead are followers of Mary? Could it be that Mary is your chosen God?

I do not see in either of you epostle and LonelyPilgrim the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All i perceive in both of you is darkness, and darkness so deep that no light from God can ever pierce.

You claim to follow God, but what you say and teach shows just the opposite.

Like Ken says, both of you have hardened your Hearts towards God. In both of you your Hearts are not right with God. This is why i believe neither one of you can understand anything God says or what we say.

Until both of you change your Hearts, you Worship God in Vain because God has refused to listen to your prayers. Until both of you repent and turn to God you will spend Eternity in the Lake of Fire with your God Mary.

 

[epostle]

ignoring the socially dysfunctional​

 

[Billyd]

For all the Catholics here. Please explain why it is so important for Mary to be a perpetual Virgin, and what benefit do you gain from addressing your prayers to her. Keep it brief.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

Not from the earliest centuries. From the later centuries after 300 AD. It was the invention of ascetics.

You called the idea that a Christian interpreter would read a type of Mary in this verse "nonsense." I have shown that it is not, and there are other authors I could likewise cite.

No it only has one interpretation. To refer it to Mary is not an interpretation it is a blatant falsehood.

Do you reject, then, the very idea of typology (the proposition that "the New Testament is veiled in the Old," to quote Saint Augustine)? Is only the plain and immediate sense of Scripture valid?

I would not all them exegetes. A better word is inventors. It is really no good quoting Jerome. He lived FOUR HUNDRED YEARS after the event. What did he know about it.?

So an exegete of Scripture has no standing to interpret Scripture because he is centuries departed from it? I suppose, then, that we ought to dismiss Luther and Calvin and every other Christian who has lived since the Apostles. They lived sixteen centuries after Scripture was written. What did they know about it?

LOL you needn't bother. I studied early church history in depth.

I am glad you already know everything. For those of us who are still learning and seeking the truth, I will share some more sources when I am able.

But not with regard to the church of Rome. When a church had a single bishop he always addressed them as such. He did not do that to Rome.

In every case that Ignatius mentions a bishop, there is only one in a local church. He draws theological significance from this, even: "See that you all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles. And reverence the deacons as the command of God" (Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 8). The oneness of the bishop, for Ignatius, is an image of the oneness of God, not a local or incidental circumstance. He makes similar exhortations in nearly every letter. To argue that because he does not in the letter to the Romans, there must be more than one bishop in Rome, is a specious argument from silence, contrary to all the rest of the evidence Ignatius provides.

LOL such modesty

I said that I addressed those questions in my article, and I did. I leave it to my readers whether or not I did so effectively.

God bless you, sir, and the peace of the Lord be with you.

 

[LonelyPilgrim]

For all the Catholics here. Please explain why it is so important for Mary to be a perpetual Virgin, and what benefit do you gain from addressing your prayers to her. Keep it brief.

Bottom line: it's not. It personally means nothing at all to my faith in God or Christ whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin. I believe it and defend it only because it is a truth that has been handed down from the beginnings of our heritage of faith -- that no orthodox Christian -- not even Luther or Calvin -- seriously challenged or questioned until our modern era.

And what benefit do I gain by addressing my prayers to her? The same benefit I get by asking anyone to pray for me: intercession. And as our sister in faith who was closer in the flesh to our Lord than any other person, I consider her intercession particularly valuable -- and my experience, and the experiences of many other people. have borne that out.

 

[epostle]

For all the Catholics here. Please explain why it is so important for Mary to be a perpetual Virgin, and what benefit do you gain from addressing your prayers to her. Keep it brief.

For all the anti-Catholics here. Please explain why you can't talk about anything else, since Catholics are never the first to bring up Mariology.

 

[valiant]

The Protevangelium of James was rejected by the church councils as not being Scripture because of the time it was written, around 120 AD.

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it was written c 120 AD. All we know is that it was written before the time of Origen. You Roman Catholics do love adjusting the facts.

But at least you admit that the church refused it as being Scripture. The truth is that it was simply a late second century invention. There is nothing HISTORICAL about it at all. It did not claim to be history. It arose when people began to fantasise. At least you have the consolation that it formed the basis of Muhammed's views in the Quran.

It is a HISTORICAL document.

It is NOT an historical document. It is a fantasy. It laid no claim to be true history but was based on a misuse of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

What kind of weird world do you live in if you reject every historical document because it's not in the Bible???

Do you call anything written in the second century 'a historical document'? Do you support the Gnostic writings of which this was probably one. They have just as much right to be called 'historical documents'. What they were were travesties of the truth.

You call it heretical because the content does not square with your bizarre man-made views that even the reformers would reject.

I call it heretical because it contradicts Scripture and is simply a late second century fantasy.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

LOL why are scholars who support your false arguments always 'world renowned'? Everyone knows what its aim was. BUT ON WHAT GROUNDS DID IT MAKE ITS CLAIM? NONE. It presented a wholly distorted picture which was contrary to the New Testament as anyone who reads it will soon see. The Mary it describes has no possible similarity with the Mary of the Scriptures.

It is the consequential Christological errors that you fall into, especially Nestorianism.

LOL such big words!!!! You are simply making yourself deservedly look a fool. If it is a Christological error to accept the Scripture then I plead guilty. I prefer the Scriptures to fairy stories.

I'll take the word of a scholar over the word of some "church" that was founded within the last 20 years

.

The church I belong to was founded 1985 years ago. But you silly little man that scholar merely said what the aim of the writer was. He did not condone it. Nor did he agree with it.

Joseph had his own children before meeting Mary. So what. It proves he was mature.

Joseph had no children before he met Mary. That is another invention of the Roman Catholic church. Jesus was accepted as his firstborn. Indeed had He not been so He would not have been the heir to the throne of David. That position would have been held by his supposed elder half-brother. So you are dethroning the Messiah LOL

This is what Origen actually said:

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity"
(Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
​

LOL who but a fool would cite the writings of someone who was condemned as a heretic by his own church? Besides Origen lived 200 years after the time of Christ. How would he know what was true or not? And he admits above that all he had to go on was surmise. You really are going to the bottom of the barrel LOL

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

More heresy LOL. Why do you think they didn't make him a saint. Have you any idea what Origen believed about the godhead? He was a confirmed Gnostic. And that is without going into the question of whether Origen did really write that. Was it one more of the many forgeries of which your church was guilty?

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?"
Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

LOL another passage from your confirmed heretic. Your church CONDEMNED Origen's teaching. Did you realise that?​

Please quote patristics accurately and stop making things up.

Patristics? A confirmed heretic? LOL just about sums you up.

Equating the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Peter is revisionism and blindness to the facts.

Nonsense they came from similar sources, late second century Gnosticism..".

..To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11).

Now which Gospel is that in? LOL The gospel of St Epostle? You are just a bad joke.

Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22),

There is no hint that these women were virgins, and in view of Jewish beliefs of the importance of procreation it was very unlikely. Again you are just making up your own scriptures.,

and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37).

But Anna was a WIDOW. Do you know what a widow is? She is certainly not virginal. LOL LOL

A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

But there is nowhere any hint that this was true of Mary.. Indeed quite the opposite. Why was she then living in Nazareth? How was she able to gad about the country visiting Elizabeth? You clearly have NO idea what the Gospels really say.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity.

Ideas unknown anywhere outside your fictitious writing. Can't you see how foolish you are being?

Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse.

yes the Protoevangelium would say that. It was trying to get rid of the fact that Joseph and Mary had other children. A sensible reading of the New Testament shows that Mary's children were younger than Jesus which was why Mary took the lead when they sought to prevent Jesus fulfilling His ministry.

(This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

It explains nothing of the kind. That was thirty years later and most people died around fifty.. Death was a common feature of those days. And besides, an older bachelor marrying a younger woman was certainly not uncommon. If Joseph was 25 he may well have died before Jesus was crucified.

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect.

LOL you have swallowed it whole, haven't you.? Try reading the New Testament which is REAL history and knows nothing of such nonsense.

The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord.

The New Testament says nothing about him having to answer to the Temple authorities. It is all in your fevered imagination.

Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow.

Which Gospel is that in? LOL Oh yes the Gospel of St Epostle LOL

Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I don't keep trash in my mind. But I can see that the Roman Catholic church would prefer myths to Scriptural truth. Funny how many centuries it took them to catch up with the Evangelium LOL

Mary had made no vow not to have children. It was quite normal for her to have children. You believe your gnostic writings, I will stick to the New Testament.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren."

You mean that that is the wangle they tried to use? Jesus had brothers and sisters. That is the quite normal use of the word. There is not the slightest evidence that they were any other than brothers and sisters (given Jesus unusual birth).

The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century).

That is simply a LIE for which you have no evidence. The idea is unknown in the first 200 years of church history. It only became of concern later when men began to invent myths about Mary.

It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren."

yes he too was a great heretic.

The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

how kind of them. So the Roman Catholic church allows you to believe which lie you like?

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord."

You mean they are too sensible to believe such tommyrot?

And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants..."

​

They did not 'recognise it as the teaching of the Bible'. It simply took them time to recognise the truth after being brainwashed by the Roman Catholic church. You whole thesis is a farrago of lies and fantasy.

So many anti-Catholics truly are doctrinally anti-Semitic. You can't stand Jewish customs that support original Christian beliefs, so you ignore them, or ridicule the P of J with nonsense. You have deviated even from the reformers due to your theological chaos and have no right to criticize Catholicism because her doctrines don't do flip flops like yours does.

LOL they don't flip flop. They simply FLOPPED!!!!!!

And they weren't Jewish customs. They were Roman Catholic inventions.

 

[Magenta]

Joseph had his own children before meeting Mary.

Scripture, please. Oh, this is something not mentioned in Scripture? Only in Apocryphal writings? Where Joseph was ninety years old with several children from a former marriage when he married a twelve year old virgin?

 

[epostle]

For all the Catholics here. Please explain why it is so important for Mary to be a perpetual Virgin, and what benefit do you gain from addressing your prayers to her. Keep it brief.

Because she isn't some slut that sleeps around on her Husband.

 

[Magenta]

Because she isn't some slut that sleeps around on her Husband.

Straw man.

 

[valiant]

For all the anti-Catholics here. Please explain why you can't talk about anything else, since Catholics are never the first to bring up Mariology.

LOL it was YOUR post I answered. I can understand why the Roman Catholic church wants to avoid the truth being known about its position. If you are frightened of the subject (as you should be) don't try to defend it.

 

[Billyd]

Bottom line: it's not. It personally means nothing at all to my faith in God or Christ whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin. I believe it and defend it only because it is a truth that has been handed down from the beginnings of our heritage of faith -- that no orthodox Christian -- not even Luther or Calvin -- seriously challenged or questioned until our modern era.

Thank you. If the people had the resources, and the ability to analyze them, I believe that there would have been many challenges to your conclusion. It has only been a century and a half or so that the average family had a Bible that the could understand, and a half century or so that they have had one translated into their current language.


What benefit do you gain by praying to her rather than directly to God? I believe that when Jesus was teaching us to pray he began with "Our father who is in heaven". That alone taught me all of my life that I am to address my prayers directly to him.

 

[Magenta]

A dutiful wife has sexual relations with her husband, as does a dutiful husband have with his wife. Not being a virgin for the rest of her life has nothing to do with her having sexual relations with anyone other than her husband. Are all Catholics so dishonest?