Best. South Park episode. Ever.

Hehe, well, you didn't come here expecting a blue pill did you?  Keep in mind, I don't hate YOU.  I hate error, which leads to sin.  I don't hate people, I do hate heretical "isms."  Distinctions are important.  Also, generally, Catholic orthodoxy considers fraternal correction an act of charity.

What SaloSV is trying to say is (I think). That by your friends not assisting you in the Truth, they deny you Charity. Like being a Father reprimanding your child. Do you withhold punishment, because it would feel better to all parties? No, you guide your children in what is right and wrong. Hence a Charity, by not letting them out into the world unprepared.

Hope this is not taken as belittlement.

There are plenty of "acts of charity " needed within the Catholic Church to keep you guys busy for awhile.

Interesting. So, because there are issues in the Catholic Church, (as there are in all churches) we should withhold the Truth? What those do that are not the Faith, doesn't take away from the Truth of the Faith.

With the small amount of people, which I assume you are speaking of the sexual abuse scandals, compared to the vast majority that did not perform these acts. Doesn't make the Faith False.

And I for one, respect that.  Just finished dinner with a LDS buddy of mine.  We strongly disagree on religion, but both respect each other enough not to compromise on our beliefs while talking to each other.  No, childish name calling, no low jabs, and I will answer any question he has and he will do the same for me.

That's why I don't follow isms, including Catholicism.

The haughty attitude of a few here doesn't help matters, either.

I don't think they care. More of that "charity ".

We do care. Your pride blinds you.

God Bless

The first person that started to adore Mary was a woman and recorded in the Bible.
Luke 11:27-28

27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus said "NO" and turned her to God's word. The Bible.

So Mary was but a womb and breasts? Or, was she a person who heard the word of a God (as spoken by Gabriel, not in a book) and kept it?

Yes she obeyed the Word that was spoken to her which was written down for you to read. But Jesus turned the woman who said this away from giving attention to Mary and onto God.
It was God that performed the miracle of the virgin birth, not Mary. Mary was just the recipient.

Mary is mentioned in the Bible, but if you take all the Scriptures that talk about her it would amount to less then 1 page in the New Testament.
Man cannot save man, God had to become a Man in order to go to the Cross as the Sacrifice that God would accept to save man from his sins.
And in order to do that God had to become flesh and thats where Mary comes in. John Chapter 1, which is why she was mentioned.
Because its not about Mary, Its about the one who God sent to save man from his sins, and that is Jesus.

He turned attention always from focusing on Mary's body, to focusing on Mary's decision to comply.

And, that decision only happened because she was chosen. You might think she was nothing special, but God apparently felt differently.

Of all the wombs in all the towns in all world, He chooses mine."

Play it Jesus. Play, "As Time Goes By."

If you feel so inclined, pick up St. Anne Catherine Emmerich's Visions on the "Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary."  Extremely interesting revelation that goes into much detail about Mary's parents and the household she was raised in.

Of all the women in the world Mary was chosen, yes that is a blessing.
But she is not what the catholic church makes her out to be.
She was born in sin like everyone else and needed a Savior. She said so herself.
She also Glorified God and not because of anything she did. Because what happened with Mary could have only been done by God.

Luke 1:45-49
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

Right, so in reality, none of this Marian devotion is required to be Catholic anyways.  However, I might compare it to a spaghetti and meatball dish, without the meatballs or the sauce...  and maybe overcooked pasta.  Yes, you will get fed, but you will ultimately be malnourished.

A strong and orthodox Marian devotion essentially ensures your faith in Jesus will not waiver.

I see the main difference between us is that you are willing to form your own interpretation based on a few passages in scripture, where Catholics rely on tradition before Christ, scripture, and 2000+ years of tradition after Christ's time.  If you are willing to reject the mysteries of Marian theology, you are obviously willing to let go of the authority of St. Peter and the apostolic lineage.  Really, the Catholic perspective is much reduced without her, and I would even argue that it nearly falls apart.  

In fact, if the Miracle at Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, Carmel, and various others mean nothing to you as a Christian, then your perspective becomes a bit obtuse and lacking precision, to the point of not being able to believe in miracles.  And that, my friend, is a short step away not believing in the supernatural, and an even shorter step away from being an atheist.

I'm sorry, I ain't going there.  Our Lady's promises are simply too great to ignore.

I was fed all that when I attended a catholic school in the late sixties into the seventies.
Then I got "saved" at age 36.
Jesus delivered me from being a weekend alcoholic, and the lifestyle that went with it, cured me of a 2 pack/day nicotine addiction in a moment plus many other things.
And it had nothing to do with Mary.
Now I am close to being an atheist??

Jesus had several brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary. Or I should say half brothers and sisters.

Also Mary was of the tribe of Levi and Judah. King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The argument that lead me to believe that Mary & Joseph had relations was that it sealed for all time the window of time for The Messiah to born of a virgin. Just as the burning of the Herodian Temple with its genealogical records sealed for all time that a Jew could claim to be a descendant of King David. There is only one birth in all of history that fulfills all the prophecies about One born of a Virgin, a descendant of King David, that appeared in the Temple & taught, then died with His tormentors casting lots for His clothing while His unbroken bones were out of joint. Only One!

The adoration of the Virgin Mary causes me no offense and I keep my mouth seriously shut around Catholics about this issue so as not be provocative nor be an anal orifice about the situation. To me, it doesn't rustle my jimmies at all compared to the "'Name it & Claim it.' get rich quick" or "'No alcohol' drunkards" on the Protestant side of the fence. As Protestants, we need to remove the beam from our eye before looking askew at dust in the Roman Catholics' eye.

And that is your answer why you lost your faith (assuming you "were" Catholic).  Not your fault brother.

Guys please read Matthew 1:25. "And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

If there is any other way to read that except Joseph was told by God not to have sex with Mary UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus.

"
But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s "firstborn son" and that Joseph "knew her not until" Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’"

The "firstborn" were not given the title because there was a "second-born." They were called "firstborn" at birth. Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him."


Tim Staples - Catholic Answers

The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity


Tim Staples  

August 30, 2011


Those who deny Mary’s perpetual virginity most commonly refer to two texts:

Matthew 13:55-56: Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of his sisters with us?
Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)
A surface reading of these passages seems problematic. If Jesus had "brothers" and "sisters," would not Mary have had other children? If Jesus was Mary’s "firstborn," would there not be at least a second-born? And if "he knew her not till," did he not then "know her" at some point? We’ll begin with Matthew 13:55-56.


Oh, Brother!


First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another "brother." Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another "brothers" in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four "brothers of the Lord" mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: "Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother."

Notice, the "James" of whom Paul was speaking was both a "brother of the Lord" and an "apostle." There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a "son of Zebedee." He most likely would not be the "James" referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.

Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this "James" was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as "apostles" in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going "up to Jerusalem" to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he "should be running or had run in vain." It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about "apostles" (proper), or "the twelve."

But for those inclined to argue the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses another line of reasoning:

The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus," are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary." They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (CCC 500)
The Catechism here refers to the fact that 14 chapters after we find the "brothers" of the Lord listed as "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas," we find "James and Joseph" mentioned again, but this time their mother is revealed as being named Mary, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. We can conclude that "James and Joseph" are "brothers" of Jesus, but they are not uterine brothers.

But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s "firstborn son" and that Joseph "knew her not until" Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’"

The "firstborn" were not given the title because there was a "second-born." They were called "firstborn" at birth. Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him.

Until Then


Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for "until" whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph "not having come together" would have ended after Jesus was born.

The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."

Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.




The Affirmative Argument


Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:

1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.

3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.


Mary’s Protector


An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then "take [Mary] his wife" according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true "son of David" and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.

Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.



You can help bring the fullness of Catholic Truth to the world!

Support Us
Newsletter
Get our latest content delivered right to your email inbox.


email

Subscribe
Ask your question
The Meaning of Mary's Name
Magazine
BROWSE
ABOUT
PRINT ARCHIVE
SUBSCRIBE

ABOUT

News
Mission & Vision
Projects
Leadership & Profiles
Jobs
Advertise
PUBLISHING

Catholic Answers Press
Book/Magazine Submissions
Permissions
SITES

Speakers
Shop
Forums
Conference
Cruises
Chastity
SOCIAL

Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Instagram
Pinterest
Copyright © 1996-2017 Catholic Answers

Contact us

Mary was the ark of the new covenant. Just as the ark carried the the Word of God and bread sent from heaven in the Old Testament, so did Mary. Only the sacred was carried in the ark, not the profane.

Ok those verses don't say there were other children but it say not to have sex with Mary until after she gives birth. Sounds like God was cool with Joseph doing what is natural and having sex with his wife after she had the child. Does it not?

I guess we didn't read the same thing. I will find more info for you. But, in the mean time, contemplate this..... You are asked by God to protect and care for the Woman who will bring forth the Christ..... would you then be thinking of carnal pleasures with her? Really?

Also, if there were half brothers and sisters. Taking into account how much Catholics revere the Saints. Wouldn't there be SOMETHING written about them. Something a little more extraordinary about them?

Mary: Ever Virgin

Karl Keating-Mary: Ever Virgin- Catholic Answers


Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

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).

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.



The Protoevangelium of James


"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’" (ibid., 8–9).

"And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’" (ibid., 15).

"And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’" (ibid.).



Origen


"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]).



Hilary of Poitiers


"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).



Athanasius


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).



Epiphanius of Salamis


"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

"And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).



Jerome


"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock" (ibid., 21).



Didymus the Blind


"It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).



Ambrose of Milan


"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).



Pope Siricius I


"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).



Augustine


"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).



Leporius


"We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary" (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).



Cyril of Alexandria


"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).



Pope Leo I


"His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained" (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004




Copyright © 1996-2017 Catholic Answers

God clearly said not to have sex with her until after she gave birth. Mary was his wife. I absolutely would want to have sex with my wife and if God thought she was special enough to birth Christ? All the more attractive to me. Sex within the circumstances (marriage) is an activity that God designed as a natural one. I've never understood why some people think sex is dirty or wrong even when it is as God designed within marriage. Why would Mary having sex with the husband that God sent her be wrong???

1Cor 7:5

How was Mary born without the stain of the original sin? Was she not a descendant of Adam and Eve?

All were born into Adams Sin, which means that people born into sin are not going to give birth to someone who is not.
Except for Jesus, but as you know, she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Not of man.

If Mary is everything the catholic church says she is, then you better worship her.

Wow, you would want sex from the Mother of God? I guess that makes sense. You extrapolate that everyone feels this way I assume. Which is false. Humans can survive without Earthly pleasures.

Yes, Mary was human. But she was the sacred vessel that brought the Christ into the world. She was only able to do that through the Immaculate Connception.

Personally, I would be pleased to just be a part of it. I would be fine being the step father of God. I don't think I would need or expect sex.

But, if that's what you feel. Then so be it. I am not going to argue that with you.

So Mary is without original sin, which means her nature is Divine, she is the Queen of Heaven, there are statues and shrines of her around the world, and churches around the world named after her.
And she is the ark of the new covenant.

What else does she need to be before you start worshipping her?

Do you assume that Mary didn't have physical desires that she wanted Joseph to satisfy? She was human after all and to have sex with her husband isn't a sin.

True. But, I trust her contemporaries on her virginity. Yes, she may have had desires. But that doesn't mean she acted on them.

I'm convinced, I'll sacrifice a goat for her tomorrow at sunrise.

Wouldn't surprise me if you did, that's how traditions of men get started.

wow.

ETA: good thing you don't keep pictures of loved ones in your house. We don't want you worshiping them, adoring them, remembering them or honoring them.

There are people who define their faith by what they aren't moreso than what they are. It gives them purpose.

It's fascinating, really. One must simultaneously believe that there was no central Church authority after the Pentecost generation while also believing all sorts of crazy conspiracies requiring pagan Greeks and Romans to contaminate the faithful from Egypt to Mesopotamia to Rome with false teachings.

How is Mary not born in to the original sin?

Wow.

Have you seriously never heard of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception?

Traditions of men.
Our Messiah is the only one free of sin.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Then Jesus is not God. God will not arrive through a vessel of sin.

See?  Short step to atheism, or more accurately, Arianism (denounced in the 4th cent at the Council of Nicaea).  The architect of confusion is quick with this issue.

"Traditions of men"! "Traditions of men!" Sound the alarms!!


Do you believe that the bible is inspired by God? Written by the hands of men? Did Jesus entrust His Church to men?


Matthew 18: 15-20

15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
[b]
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”



Do you also deny God's word? Are you a pagan or a tax collector? Or do you pick and choose with what you are willing and comfortable to believe?

Not my interpretation. Only God is sinless,
Mary grew up a Jewish girl and would have had to offer the sacrifices for her sin that the Law of Moses/Old Testament required.
If she claimed to have no need to offer those sacrifices because she was not born into original sin, the religious leaders of that time would have stoned her.
And if she did not offer the sacrifices that God required, then God would not have choose her. She would be in rebellion against God.