Why is it believed by Catholics that Mary was a virgin her whole life?

[larry2]

Dogmas of the Catholic Church. (Fundamentals)

I will just use excerpts of their statement I found online under Dogmas of the Catholic Church - Catholic Apologetics. One of their big dogmas at the bottom must be believed, or a Catholic is subject to excommunication for the sin of heresy. Fear is a very real thing to them. To insure correctness, read the whole article online.

Since Our Catholic Faith comes from God, they are not open for debate, and they are not reversible.

There is, then, no place for "pick and choose" in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself. If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel:

•  Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.
The Catholic Church is infallible because it is :

•  1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.
If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.
________________________ ________________________ _

IV. The Mother of the Redeemer

1.   Mary is truly the Mother of God.
2.   Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.
      Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
3.   Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.
4.   Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
5.   After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
6.   Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

In Jesus' name - larrry2

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/008/0081232.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/008/0081384.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/0060023.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/008/0081222.htm

Which can all be found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/index.htm

[OneLung]

Who typically reads all those texts?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I suppose those who are interested in the subject matter.

[OneLung]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, are these texts used in accredited Seminary study, or are they outside of accepted academic standards?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, are these texts used in accredited Seminary study, or are they outside of accepted academic standards?

Virtually no seminaries are nationally accredited as educational institutions.  ORU is the only one I know of, and I'm not sure that that program gives an accredited degree even there.  Seminaries are usually "accredited" by the denominations they are a part of.

As far as being within accepted academic standards, that's kind of the wrong question.  The fact that they are from the 2nd through 4th centuries puts them within the field of study, but the real question is whether they are accurate or not.

If you go to a seminary that is Protestant, then they're going to emphasize that they were written too late to be first or second hand accounts, weren't canonized, etc.  If you go to one that's Catholic (not sure they call them seminaries) then they'll emphasize that they're ancient manuscripts witnessing a widespread early church belief, and that they are a part of the church's history that shouldn't be ignored.  All of the above are true.

It's a question of how you spin the facts, and what passes the test of everyday rational thought.

I'm guessing that Mary and Joseph got it on, since television and the Internet hadn't been invented yet.

[broach972]

 

[OneLung]

Just about every major university offers graduate programs in Theology.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

True, but they are NOT seminaries, and are not taught by Christians, for the most part.

[OneLung]

I kind of figured that would be your opinion. :)

[chosenone]

There's no proof in the Bible that she was a virgin her whole life after the virgin birth of Jesus. Matthew 1:23-25 mentions that she might not be.

Matthew 1:23-25
Mt 1:23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”
Mt 1:24 When Joseph woke up; he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

Mt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

It says "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." No union until. Its saying that he possibly did after the virgin birth. Union means intercourse. Why is it believed, 100% wise, that she remained a virgin her whole life. Catholics have said that she always was because of tradition. It never said she was her whole life in The Bible. Catholics only base it off of tradition.

 

 To say that he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus, does of course  mean that he DID have union with her AFTER the birth of Jesus.
This is just one example of the things that are believed despite what the Bible says.
This also maybe why some do come out of the Catholic faith becuase they have 'seen the light'.

[kensington]

Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

This is blasphemy.. of Jesus Christ.

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.

She gave birth without having had sex,  but... Her Hyman would have been broken when He passed through the birth canal.

Which one are they implying?  The word of God speaks to the "first born that OPENS the womb".  Unless she birthed him another way... 

[Hehealedme]

This also maybe why some do come out of the Catholic faith becuase they have 'seen the light'.

Definitely one of my reasons, yes!...

[Hotrod]

There's no proof in the Bible that she was a virgin her whole life after the virgin birth of Jesus. Matthew 1:23-25 mentions that she might not be.

Matthew 1:23-25
Mt 1:23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”
Mt 1:24 When Joseph woke up; he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.

Mt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

It says "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." No union until. Its saying that he possibly did after the virgin birth. Union means intercourse. Why is it believed, 100% wise, that she remained a virgin her whole life. Catholics have said that she always was because of tradition. It never said she was her whole life in The Bible. Catholics only base it off of tradition.

They base it on the ideology of the later church fathers, which is no different then some of the most paramount later church father constructed ideology that is ALL Chrisitanity.

Can't really throw out the Baby with the bath water.

[CDHealy]

None of any of these statements (regarding why all Christians everywhere believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary from the beginning) are based on anything more than typical Protestant anti-Catholic polemic.

In fact, Ezekiel 44 was a long-standing text Christians used to provide the prophetic basis for Mary's perpetual virginity.

All of the magisterial Protestant Reformers believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

And the polemical mangling of logic to *necessitate* that "until" *always* means a change afterward is so demonstrably false as to be laughable.

But, hey, the Protestant hysteria has to be maintained, so let's keep trotting out all the falsehoods, illogic, question-begging reductionism and empty polemics.

I suppose it's easier to trot out a brand-new thread going over all the tired retreads than to read the actual arguments presented in the Catholic forums here and dealing with those.  After all, strawmen are so much easier to fight than the real thing.