Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

[Faithhopeandcharity]

After the first century the Apostles didn't create more Apostles. Nobody on earth met the requirements for Apostleship. To be an Apostle you had to have been with Jesus and sat under His teaching. (Acts 1:21-25)

21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all people, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to [w]occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

Matthias met this requirement. Nobody at the Lateran council met the requirement for Apostleship.

In two of his Epistles, Paul identifies the office of apostle as the first that Jesus appointed to serve His churches (1 Corinthians 12:27–30; Ephesians 4:11). Clearly, the work of apostleship was to lay the foundation of the Church in a sense secondary only to that of Christ Himself (Ephesians 2:19–20), thus requiring eyewitness authority behind their preaching. After the apostles laid the foundation, the Church could be built.

After the apostles’ deaths, other offices besides apostleship, not requiring an eyewitness relationship with Jesus, would carry on the work.

Those offices were called, in various places, Elder, Bishop, or even President. Their roll was to carry on the teaching of the original apostles but they themselves weren't apostles and had no special revelations directly from Christ.

The Apostles didn't pass on the authority of Apostleship, they passed on the responsibility to lead the church in the truth of the Gospel that they preached.

So, no, there were no apostles at any of the councils. All the men at those councils were bound by the gospel of Christ that was delivered by Christ and the apostles. Their job was to be faithful to the teachings that were handed to them by the Apostles. Unfortunately, they weren't faithful to the Gospel and the teachings that were given them and instead affirmed new teachings that had crept into the church.

The bishops have apostolic authority under apostolic succession Same authority as Christ and the apostles Jn 20:21-23 until Christ returns

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Matt 28:19-20 applies until Christ returns
Peter and his valid successors and the apostles and their valid successors continues to the end

 

[Lanman87]

The bishops have apostolic authority under apostolic succession Same authority as Christ and the apostles Jn 20:21-23 until Christ returns

Another tradition of men created to have control over the masses. Apostolic succession isn't what Catholic's say it is.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Another tradition of men created to have control over the masses. Apostolic succession isn't what Catholic's say it is.

Biblical! Why does Jesus command them to obey the successors of Moses? Matt 23

 

[Albion]

Matt 28:19-20 applies until Christ returns
Peter and his valid successors and the apostles and their valid successors continues to the end

Check. We promise to take note that such is your own belief, that you're sticking to it, and that you feel the need to say it often.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Check. We promise to take note that such is your own belief, that you're sticking to it, and that you feel the need to say it often.

Matt 28:19-20
What are the things Christ commanded his apostles in this verse?

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Or tell me what is the second commandment? According to scripture

 

[Lanman87]

Biblical! Why does Jesus command them to obey the successors of Moses? Matt 23

I always find it ironic that Catholics try to use where Jesus told us to "do what they say but not what they do" as the Catholic church having the same authority as the "Scribes and Pharisees". That is one group I don't want to have anything to do with.

Most of Matthew 23 (and other places) is Jesus calling out the Scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy.

Also, Jesus himself did not obey the hundreds of man made traditions and rules the scribes and pharisees.

Mark 7:9-13

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is [a]certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, [b]given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Also see Matthew 12:1-8

Jesus was telling the people that the Scribes and Pharisees were to be obeyed only in the sense that they taught the Old Testament scriptures from the "Chair of Moses". In other words, they were to obey the Mosaic Law. But Jesus himself showed us that we are not to obey the "Traditions of Men". For the Jews, that was all the hundreds of extra rules and practices that were the oral tradition of the Scribes and Pharisees. For Christians, it is anything that distracts from or nullifies the Gospel message of redemption through Faith in Christ.

Mariology (along with a bunch of other things the Catholic church teaches) are Traditions of Men that were not part of the "rule of faith" handed down by Christ and the Apostles. It is something made up by church leaders hundreds of years after Christ just like the "Traditions of men" that were made up by the scribes and pharisees during the time between the writing of the Old Testament and the Advent of Christ.

Both are to be rejected.

 

[FredVB]

There is not anything in scripture about perpetual virginity and that would not be present in a godly marriage. Mary was betrothed and was a virgin, until Jesus was born. It was mentioned that he had brothers, and while in the language used then it could mean other family members besides brothers Jesus really had there is no textual basis to conclude that. James the Just is definitely recognized as his brother, and not any other related family member.

 

[Lamb]

There is not anything in scripture about perpetual virginity and that would not be present in a godly marriage. Mary was betrothed and was a virgin, until Jesus was born. It was mentioned that he had brothers, and while in the language used then it could mean other family members besides brothers Jesus really had there is no textual basis to conclude that. James the Just is definitely recognized as his brother, and not any other related family member.

Historically what did the ancient church fathers believe, because I thought that Mary not being a virgin was more of a modern idea?

 

[tango]

Matt 1:24-25 NKJV Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. (emphasis mine)

I'd say this makes it pretty clear that Joseph and Mary had a normal marital relationship after Jesus was born.

 

[BruceLeiter]

The bishops have apostolic authority under apostolic succession Same authority as Christ and the apostles Jn 20:21-23 until Christ returns

How do you know that they do, @Faithhopeandcharity? What in the Bible gives any church leader the right to declare ideas that aren't in the Bible to be the truth?

 

[lost trails again]

Mary was the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone!

Many people do not realize that the " Ark Of The Covenant " was not the dwelling place of the Spirit of God nor did the interior of the Ark provide anything miraculous or supernatural.

Although the Vatican Primates who claim the the seat of Saint Peter have never pronounced that ............
“” ..........The Holy Spirit overshadowed and then indwelled - INSIDE the Ark /

many Catholics seem to present that idea that the Holy Spirit dwelled inside the Ark Of The Covenant “”

But the truth is - there simply is not a single passage in any scriptures anywhere that say or describe the Holy Spirit dwelling inside the Ark Of The Covenant - in fact, this is not where the presence of the Lord was..

The scriptures simply say - Exo 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from - ABOVE THE MERCY SEAT - from -- BETWEEN THE TWO CHERUBIMS - - WHICH ARE UPON THE ARK .

The Lord never was said to have ever dwelled inside the Ark Of The Covenant. ...... the Spirit of the Lord appeared in the sanctuary tent - " appearing at the entrance of the tent " and communicated upon the mercy seat between the two cherubim of Gold that was - located / placed..... ABOVE THE ARK

Exo 25:21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat - ABOVE UPON - the ark;

Deu 10:2 written documents - commandment tablets, you will put them inside the ark.


also, many people do not realize that - Aaron's rod - ( which WOULD LATER BE kept in the Ark ) budded or sprouted,'

this was a staff or wooden rod that began to grow sprouts or buds upon it,

I have seen instances where Christians compare Aaron's rod directly to how Jesus, resurrected { AFTER } he existed enfleshed in Mary's womb. But the Bible is not saying that - the rod of Aaron budded because of the fact that it was placed inside the Ark -

- the Ark has nothing to do with the fact that Aaron's rod budded ..

saying - .,,,,,,,............ MOSES LAID UP THE RODS BEFORE THE LORD IN THE TABERNACLE FOR A WITNESS.

THE RODS WERE NEVER SAID TO HAVE BEEN LAID INSIDE THE ARK


Num 17:8 - THE VERY NEXT DAY - the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds.

just overnight, suddenly, a branch stripped of all limbs, suddenly grew almonds.... but the rod was not inside the Ark Of The Covenant , when this happened............... it was not inside the Ark.

It is not until - the New Testament that Aaron's rod is mentions as having been later stored and kept inside the Ark of the covenant for storage, after the fact that the rod had already budded and bloomed - outside of the ark, BEFORE it was later placed inside the Ark.....

is this not untruthful to make the claim that Scriptures describe the Holy Spirit “ dwelling inside the Ark ?

Catholics compare the Ark of the Covenant to Mary but the “ Holy Spirit “ did not dwell inside the Ark Of The Covenant - the Presence of God dwelled in the entrance of the TENT Tabernacle and the priest communed communicated the mercy seat above the Ark is where the blood was sprinkled - on top of the Ark - above the Ark


Exo 25:17 ...... make a mercy seat of pure gold........ make two cherubims of gold.....located at the two ends of the mercy seat.

:21 ...... put the mercy seat above, upon / on top of the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark.

the Ark was nothing more than a temporary storage chest and also a temporary symbolism denoting the covenant and contract that God had make with Israel... the written documented covenant was placed in the box.


Jer 3:16 The Hebrews returning to God will be a condition wherein the Jews will not speak of The ark of the covenant - neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it;

neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

this doesn't really sound like Jesus and Mary - but rather a fantasy foundation built upon a pagan foundation and pagan roots - that are contradicted by basic Biblical manuscripts at every turning of the Catholic path.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Biblical! Why does Jesus command them to obey the successors of Moses? Matt 23

Jesus says nothing about obeying their teachers because they succeed Moses. The Bible is clear in saying that we must obey the authorities and teachers we have. The only exception is if their teaching or command is unbiblical. You cannot claim apostolic succession from Matthew 23; instead, you have read the church's doctrine into it:

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,
Mat 23:3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

Heb 12:25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.

Act 4:18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.
Act 4:19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge,
Act 4:20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

 

[BruceLeiter]

The bishops have apostolic authority under apostolic succession Same authority as Christ and the apostles Jn 20:21-23 until Christ returns

Where did you get the idea, other than from the church, that that passage is only for the Apostles, @Faithhopeandcharity?
Jesus has sent every Christian to witness to the people around them about what they believe and what God has done in their lives. We are also called to share the grace that we have received by forgiving others their sins:

Mat 10:17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues,
Mat 10:18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.
Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour.
Mat 10:20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Act_1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Joh 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Joh 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

 

[lost trails again]

X

Mary our Co-Redemptrix - was taught directly by the Vatican for over 300 years

From the 16th century to the 20th century the Catholic magisterium began to propagate and teach that Mary provided
Co - Redemption and Re - Mediation of all graces.

In 1913 the Holy Office approved a prayer invoking Mary as our Co-Redemptrix - Pius the XI also publicly referred to Mary's Co-Redemptrix on three separate occasions

The term “ Mary the Co - Redemptress “ was used by Vatican Primate Leo XIII in 1894.

Again - Primate Leo XIII insisted that "For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our Co - Redemptress comes to us..."

Again - 1908 Co - Redemptrix was used three times by Roman Congregations under by Vatican Primate Pius X:

under the Magisterium, Pius X demanded that “ Mary was - The Co - Redemptress “ three times by the Holy See in the initiatives of three Congregations of the Curia, in the publication of their official acts, Acta Sanctae Sedis (later to become Acta Apostolicae Sedis)."


But then - suddenly - Vatican Primate Benedict XVI declared that this Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.

Pope John Paul II - in his 1994 Apostolic letter, Tertio Milennio Adveniente, John Paul said, "Christ, the Redeemer of the world, is the one Mediator between God and men, and there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved - Acts 4:12

When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Catholic Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co - Redemptress, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) responded that, "...the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE

Pope Ratzinger literally said - “ the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of scripture and that the formula Co - Redemptress - gives rise to misunderstandings. ..

Misunderstandings

In December 2019, at a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica celebrating the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Pope Francis said that he - discouraged proposals for a new dogmatic title - Co - Redemptress

Pope Francis said "“When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making that dogma, - let’s not get lost in foolishness. Francis - today - calls the idea of declaring Mary Co - Redemptress ‘ as = FOOLISHNESS’ -

on Dec, 12, 2019 the Pope Francis called the idea of declaring Mary as Co - Redemptress ‘foolishness’ saying how Mary “ NEVER introduced herself as Co - Redemptress

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/12/pope-calls-idea-of-declaring-mary-co-redemptrix-foolishness/ & Once again, Pope Francis says Mary is not the ‘co-redemptrix’

The biggest deceptive in all of this is the fact the very head and spokesman for the Roman Catholic Faith Pope Ratzinger literally said - “ the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of scripture.


Why does the Pope insinuate and dishonestly imply that scripture / The Bible is a part of the Roman Catholic teachings about the Mother Mary that Rome presents ? ? to say that defining Mary as “ Co-redemptrix “ departs to too great an extent from the language of scripture,

when most all of everything that Catholicism teaches about Mary is a complete departure from and contradiction of scriptures.

The Vatican attempts to propagate the untruth that somehow their teachings about Mary must be aligned and represented by scripture

but this is nothing but dishonesty filled with centuries of Roman Catholic contradiction among themselves that they blemish and tarnish and pervert the very honor and horribly misrepresent mother Mary with blasphemy and disrespect.

This example is no different than all of the other ways that Roman Catholics dishonor and debase the beautiful mother of the Lord Jesus Christ and pervert her beauty and honor in blasphemy and shame and misrepresentation to pervert her into a blasphemy.

It is complete contradiction of the Bible itself to represent the faith of Roman Catholicism, that propagates that their teaching as stated by Pope Ratzinger that formulating “Co-redemptrix”

“Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE “ - to pretend that Catholics are concerned and honest about representing the Mother Mary of Scripture.

What about Mary as Co - Mediator ?

This does not depart from THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE….. ? ?

Catholics attempt to transfer this message over onto Mary -

to demand that Mary is a Co Matrix and Co Redeemer and CO Mediator and Heavenly Queen -

Mary SPIRITUALLY receives the transferred merits and attributes, powers and quality’ s and transmutations - of the blessed fruit within her womb - Yahashua.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Yahoshua was sinless - He has no Savior –

Mary is excited, rejoicing and thankful for Her savior -- and heads off to the UPPER ROOM on the day of Pentecost to JOIN those in the upper room who are receiving the Gift Of The Spirit Of The Holy

The Bible does not unify with the Magisterium and the developing traditions of The Roman Catholic Faith.

It is just like the Pope kissing the Quran and Declaring that the Bible and the Quran are the same and about the same god. –
The Scriptures say that the Quran is a lie and that the god of Islam is a lie as well.

We know that the Popes are dishonest and untruthful, we just hope and pray that Roman Catholics can accept this and be honest and stop disrespecting and dishonoring Mary and her Son and his holy word.

 

[lost trails again]

Pope Ratzinger demanded that formulating “Co-redemptrix” - departs to too great an extent from THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE “

if he is worried about the language of scripture why not be honest about - Mary as Co - Mediator ?


why is honestly and concern for the language of scripture only important when teaching becomes unpopular, why is it after 2000 + years, the chair of St Peter is incapable of deciding X Cathedra over the most critical sacraments concerning salvation . ! ?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Pope Ratzinger

His regnal name is Benedict XVI, why did you use an incorrect name?

if he is worried

Pope Benedict XVI is dead, he is not worried now.

why not be honest about - Mary as Co - Mediator ?

Blessed Mary is not co-mediator of salvation, but she does pray for us and thus is an intercessor.

why is honestly and concern for the language of scripture only important when teaching becomes unpopular, why is it after 2000 + years, the chair of St Peter is incapable of deciding X Cathedra over the most critical sacraments concerning salvation . ! ?

What sacrament is that?

 

[BruceLeiter]

His regnal name is Benedict XVI, why did you use an incorrect name?

Pope Benedict XVI is dead, he is not worried now.

Blessed Mary is not co-mediator of salvation, but she does pray for us and thus is an intercessor.

What sacrament is that?

@MoreCoffee, here is where I disagree strongly with the Roman Catholics. You say, "She does pray for us and thus is an intercessor." How do you know that she does? She is human, and thus her soul is limited to one place in heaven, since she certainly isn't God, who is everywhere. She, therefore, can't hear everyone's prayers and as a result, can't relay them to God the Father. After all, Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, not to Mary:

Mat 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Mat 6:7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.
Mat 6:8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Mat 6:9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.

The crux of the disagreement I have is that the RCC has added a tradition established by the Popes apart from the Bible that they consider to be authoritative. The Bible should be the only basis for the Christian faith.

 

[Frankj]

@MoreCoffee, here is where I disagree strongly with the Roman Catholics. You say, "She does pray for us and thus is an intercessor." How do you know that she does? She is human, and thus her soul is limited to one place in heaven, since she certainly isn't God, who is everywhere. She, therefore, can't hear everyone's prayers and as a result, can't relay them to God the Father. After all, Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, not to Mary:

Mat 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Mat 6:7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.
Mat 6:8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Mat 6:9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.

The crux of the disagreement I have is that the RCC has added a tradition established by the Popes apart from the Bible that they consider to be authoritative. The Bible should be the only basis for the Christian faith.

I have a difficult time accepting that praying to anyone but the father through Jesus is not a form of Idolatry and makes their prayers to saints and such a form of praying to false gods.

And I've never had a Catholic explain why it is not a violation of what the Apostles taught and what the church believed before the emergence of Constantinian Christianity that reformed the structure and beliefs of the early Christians along Roman hierarchical lines and politically approved doctrinal lines.

I would speculate that if a first century Christian were to attend any modern Church he probably wouldn't even recognize it as the same religion he practiced.