The authors at "godrules" are so ignorant as to refer to "Saint Tertullian". It may seem like a mere detail, but it's a telling error which shows a real unfamiliarity with the subject, like a sportscaster who persists in talking about home-runs in football. Tertullian write a huge amount of valuable stuff, for instance refuting the Gnostics, and also he originated the term "Trinity" --- that's a biggie! --- but he was never honored as a saint because a number of his later writings directly contradicted the teachings of the Church.
Even St. Augustine, who IS a canonized saint, and a very great one, is not accepted uncritically or in toto. For instance, some of his writings can be interpreted as denying free will as well as asserting total depravity: this the Catholic and Orthodox churches reject.
People who try to conflate "early Church Fathers" totally with Catholic doctrine, as if they were one and the same, never quote St. John Chrysostom, who wrote in a beautiful and positive way about the embrace of marital love. They also manage to miss the entirety of Catholic Sacramental theology, which holds Holy Matrimony to be a sacred sign, a "Mysterium Tremendum" imaging the union of Christ and the Church, and sexual intercourse to be a constitutive element of that Sacrament.
So it is not only not considered a sinful, dirty or depraved act, it is considered an outward sign of the inward life of grace.
Catholics know this.
Propagandists who comb the ECF's for obsolete "gotcha" texts do not.
Please be wary of such distorted misuses of early Christian writers.
As for Mary, what do you think --- that God just used her as a Hagar, a reproductive concubine, and then passed her off to Joseph: "Here, I got what I wanted, now you can have her"?
We know from Scripture that God the Most High chose May as his dwelling, a marvel foreshadowed by the Ark of the Covenant.
The Ark carried manna; Mary carried Jesus, the Divine Bread of Life. The Ark carried the Tablets of the Law; Mary carried the Divine Giver of the Law. The Ark carried the staff of Aaron, which symbolized God's life-giving power; Mary, in a way far excelling this, carried the Living God Himself. Thus Mary is untouchable and inviolate for even stronger reasons than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies would be untouchable.
If only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, certainly no man could enter Mary: the idea here is inviolability.
In the NT, Mary herself bears witness to her commitment to virginity. When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she seems astonished --- revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.
Imagine this: You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? I know not man.” **Huh?** For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from—--or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—--unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
Lastly, the “ever-virgin” argument boils down to, “The Church believes this because the Church has always believed this.” All the ancient churches –Coptic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Arabic-speaking, Greek-speaking, as well as Latin --- which existed from Apostolic times --- refer to Christ’s mother as "Our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary," Aeiparthenos in Greek, or the equivalent in Syrian or Coptic or whatever. Our martyrs who were killed by Nero and Diocletian believed this. You can find an inscription in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome: “Beata Maria Semper Virgine”, "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin.”
This same truth was firmly held by Luther, Zwingli, and other Christians until well into the Reformation --- even Calvin rejected arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity based on the mention in Scripture of “brothers of Jesus,” whom Calvin understood to be other close kin, e.g. half-brothers and cousins. The Anglicans in the 16th, 17th, even the 18th century, (John Wesley) hailed Mary as ever-virgin.
This idea that Mary was NOT ever-virgin, is a Renaissance-era innovation. So you can either think that the ancient churches and the devout and learned Christians for 15 centuries were right; or you can think they were all wrong. I, myself, would think it rash to presume that most Christians in most places have been wrong about most things, most of the time, but that a handful of breakaway Renaissance-era Europeans all-of-a-sudden and for the first time grasped the meaning of the ancient texts.
i have no doubts about their sincerity, but I do wonder at the adherence to the indoctrination! They seem to blindly follow and accept the lies the cult displays. This mary thing is born from a need for tangible feelings, and not giving over to the Spirit calling us out! Cults need blind followers, but every now and then, God can speak through an ass. That seems to be the impression from the roman cult toward non-rccers...
Now you’ve moved the goal posts. It went from being the “unanimous” consent of the ECFs, down to a broad consensus. Is this 80%? 75%? 51%?
Imagine this: You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? I know not man.” **Huh?** For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from—--or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
GOOD GRIEF THE IGNORANCE OF THE WORD! Forgive my caps on this, but this is utterly ridiculus and has been pointed out to you on several occasions by me. This is what is frustrating. After having been shown the Greek behind this you continue to post this falsity. I expect better from you.
The Greek indicates she had not had sex with anyone at the time. Nothing in the Greek indicates what catholics are suggesting. The Greek for “know” means to have intimate knowledge/contact through personal experience….in other words….sexual intercourse.
Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
She’s astonished in that she knows she hasn’t had intercourse with anyone.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—--unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
False equivalence and false assumption on the part of the catholic. Again, there is NOTHING in the text indicating Mary had decided to remain a virgin. The texts show she and Joseph did have intercourse, much to the chagrin of catholics everywhere. Sarah was already married and had been having sex with Abraham in trying to have a child.
This idea that Mary was NOT ever-virgin, is a Renaissance-era innovation.
The Greek texts say otherwise. Paul says otherwise when he noted he met James, the Lord’s brother.
You know what, Mrs Don-o?
Much as I like you and respect you, that fall back line of *Wellllll, it’s not infallible teaching of the church* has WAAAAAAAYYYYYY outlived its usefulness, and honestly, I expect better out of you in the way of discussion.
For one thing, were weren’t talking about *official* teaching of the Catholic church. I was addressing the attitude of many Catholics.
For another, the Church has more than contributed to that kind of thinking, maybe not intentionally, since it likes lots of little Catholics, but in portraying celibacy as a superior and more honorable calling for one’s life, it has most certainly presented the view that sex is someone unworthy or beneath someone.
Scripture clearly states that Joseph did not know his wife until AFTER she gave birth, and the writers of the Gospels name Jesus' brothers by name.
So, yes, the "church" for 15 centuries was wrong in claiming she was perpetually virgin. I don't care about their pedigree, or claimed intellectual prowess.
Scripture states otherwise.
The Ark is JESUS, not Mary.
The ark carried the Shekinah glory, not God in physical form. What carried the Shekinah glory was Jesus' body.
Mary was not untouchable. There's not one shred of evidence for support of that in Scripture.
Did people die when they touched Mary? How did her mother not die then, if touching Mary resulted in death?
How did people not die when Jesus touched them?
Was Mary more holy than Jesus, that people could touch God Incarnate and not die, but would die if they touched Mary?
“Lastly, the “ever-virgin” argument boils down to, “The Church believes this because the Church has always believed this.” “
And yet I await any evidence that the Church EVER believed this before 100 ad... how’s it coming?
If the Church didn’t believe it before 100 ad, it is a later invention - of pagan origin. So far, there is no evidence to demonstrate the original church ever believed it.
Best.