This heretical teaching is disproven.

[Soulx3]

Because you don't acknowledge it in yourself. Everyone else sees it.

The proverb/idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" refers to a situation where someone accuses another of a flaw or fault which the accuser has themselves. It calls out hypocrisy and psychological projection. Who in this thread have I allegedly accused of a fault or flaw that I have myself? What is that supposed flaw or fault?

 

[Soulx3]

1. No. You quoted nothing in Scripture that shows the four brothers were not children of Mary. What you showed is that the TEXT doesn't specifically state whether they are children of Mary or not - I simply doesn't say, either way. The TEXT doesn't support the view of those few modern American "Evangelicals" but equally it doesn't support the official, de fide DOGMA of the RCC either. Same/same.

In the opening post, I provided scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies that collectively prove Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3), or kinsmen/relatives, were His cousins. Without the early Christian testimonies, the scriptural verses themselves only indicate they were Jesus's kinsmen/relatives. I never said my disproving the teaching/belief Jesus's four brothers were His half-siblings proves the perpetual virginity of Mary, and in fact, I concluded the opening post with the following: [Note: this in and of itself does not prove the perpetual virginity of Mary.] This is not to say there isn't scriptural evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary at all.

 

[Josiah]

Who in this thread have I allegedly accused of a fault or flaw that I have myself?

Again, you don't acknowledge that you have it. Everyone else sees it (it's obvious) but you won't.



.

 

[Soulx3]

3. You rebuke a few, modern American "Evangelicals" for their GUESS, their THEORY, their SPECULATION that Mary and Joseph had sex because that's what married couples naturally do (St Paul even seems to command it). Okay. That's their SPECULATION but you (correctly) note the Bible never says that. You GUESS, your THEORIZE, you SPECULATE that Mary made some mysterious vow of perpetual virginity but prove the Bible never says that. You rebuke them for the same thing you do.

4. So.... you note that the Bible doesn't actually state that these 4 men where children of Mary. Right. It also doesn't state they weren't. You rebuke the personal opinion of a few who speculate that Mary and Joseph naturally had sex because the Bible never states that they did. Right. It also never remotely states that they did not have sex. You simply rebuke them for errors you make, the same thing you do.

What I've done in this thread is (I) provide scriptural evidence and early Christian testimonies that prove Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:5//Mk. 6:3) were His cousins. Without the early Christian testimonies, the scriptural verses themselves only indicate they were Jesus's kinsmen/relatives. And (II) provide scriptural evidence that I believe shows Mary took a vow of perpetual chastity, as well as speak generally about how anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse and other children should provide scriptural evidence they believe shows that, and point out flaws as I see them in another's arguments.

 

[Soulx3]

Again, you don't acknowledge that you have it. Everyone else sees it (it's obvious) but you won't.

You've applied the proverb/idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" to me, which refers to a situation where someone accuses another of a flaw or fault which the accuser has themselves. It calls out hypocrisy and psychological projection. So, again, who in this thread have I allegedly accused of a fault or flaw that I have myself? What is my supposed flaw or fault that I allegedly accused them of?

 

[Josiah]

who in this thread have I allegedly accused of a fault or flaw that I have myself? What is that supposed flaw or fault?

Pot calling kettle back is when someone rejects something in another that applies also to them. They are thus guilt of the idiom. You haven't admitted that you do what you reject others doing. You just haven't admitted it.

You rebuked some few modern American "Evangelicals" for holding to a position that you insist is not stated in Scripture - their claim isn't biblical. Well, you prove yours isn't either. BOTH are possible given the text (theirs far more than yours), but NEITHER is stated in Scripture.

You want the "evangelicals" to not change verb tenses - but you do. She used the PRESENT tense (only applying to that moment) but you twist it so that She at least MEANT to state things in the future or perfect tense.

You rebuke those "evangelicals" for imposing their SPECULATIONS into the text (Mary is the mother of these 4 men, married couples have sex) - you indicate this is not allowed. But your whole argument in support of the PVM is imposing your SPECULATIONS into the text (She made some vow... the men were cousins).



Again, I don't think anyone here is "debating" your view about "brothers" or how long Mary was a virgin. Most here would have opinions variant from your, but that's not been the point. It's your apologetics. You are BY NO MEANS supporting your views... and you're being hypocritical by framing all this is your rejection of certain Protestant apologetics, by using the same apologetics - doing what you reject. Biblically, your views are certainly POSSIBLE but you've not shown they are correct, the view of those "evangelicals" is also POSSIBLE but they have not shown it's correct. Same/same.




.

 

[Soulx3]

Pot calling kettle back is when someone rejects something in another that applies also to them. They are thus guilt of the idiom. You haven't admitted that you do what you reject others doing. You just haven't admitted it.

You rebuked some few modern American "Evangelicals" for holding to a position that you insist is not stated in Scripture - their claim isn't biblical. Well, you prove yours isn't either. BOTH are possible given the text (theirs far more than yours), but NEITHER is stated in Scripture.

You want the "evangelicals" to not change verb tenses - but you do. She used the PRESENT tense (only applying to that moment) but you twist it so that She at least MEANT to state things in the future or perfect tense.

You rebuke those "evangelicals" for imposing their SPECULATIONS into the text (Mary is the mother of these 4 men, married couples have sex) - you indicate this is not allowed. But your whole argument in support of the PVM is imposing your SPECULATIONS into the text (She made some vow... the men were cousins).

"The pot calling the kettle black”​

The core meaning of this proverbial saying refers to someone calling out a flaw or fault of someone else that they possess themselves. It is rooted in the hypocrisy and irony of the accusation or criticism, as this reflects a characteristic of the accuser themselves.

Since you applied the proverb/idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" to me I asked you, "Who in this thread have I allegedly accused or criticized for a fault or flaw that I have myself? You didn't answer. So, I'll answer for you: no one.

In this thread, I've spoken generally saying that anyone who teaches/believes that Mary hadn't taken a vow of perpetual chastity, and did give birth to other children, should provide scriptural evidence that they believe shows this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura.

In this thread, I've spoken generally about how, for the past decade, I've been arguing with Protestants where most claim it's "clearly stated in Scripture" that Jesus's four brothers (Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3) were His half-siblings. In the opening post, I've provided the scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies that collectively prove Jesus's four brothers were His cousins. I've also provided one scriptural passage thus far that I believe proves Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

In this thread, I never said that Mary was speaking in the future, or eternal sense, but rather the present-tense when She stated to Gabriel that She's a virgin in Her question. Therefore, your accusation that I "changed verb tenses" is a lie. And, I never said that Mary stating to Gabriel She's a virgin is the sole proof that She had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

In this thread, I've never "rebuked" a Protestant member, nor spoke of having done so to a Protestant outside this forum, for "imposing their speculation" into Scripture regarding Jesus's four brothers, nor into Joseph and Mary's marriage, or anything else. So, your accusation that I did is a lie.

Therefore, no, I'm not the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Josiah]

Since you applied the proverb/idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" to me I asked you, "Who in this thread have I allegedly accused or criticized for a fault or flaw that I have myself? You didn't answer.

I have. Over and over and over and over.

Read post #106 or any of a dozen or more posts to you.

You just don't admit it.


.

 

[Soulx3]

I have. Over and over and over and over.

Read post #106 or any of a dozen or more posts to you.

You just don't admit it.

Anyone who looks through your dozens of posts won't find you naming a member(s) on this forum who I accused or criticized for a fault or flaw that I have myself. So, no, you haven't answered my question. In post #107, I once again refuted your falsehoods about me.

 

[Josiah]

Anyone who looks through your dozens of posts won't find you naming a member(s) on this forum who I accused or criticized for a fault or flaw that I have myself.

AGAIN, you just deny that you are guilty of it. One need not state "I'm guilty of pot calling the kettle back" to indeed be guilty of it. One need not accuse another of "pot calling kettle black" for that one to be. Obviously.

Read post 106 for starters. Clearly, you are guilty of doing what you reject (the meaning of pot calling kettle black).


.

 

[Soulx3]

AGAIN, you just deny that you are guilty of it. One need not state "I'm guilty of pot calling the kettle back" to indeed be guilty of it. One need not accuse another of "pot calling kettle black" for that one to be. Obviously.

Read post 106 for starters. Clearly, you are guilty of doing what you reject (the meaning of pot calling kettle black).

"The pot calling the kettle black”​

The core meaning of this proverbial saying refers to someone calling out a flaw or fault of someone else that they possess themselves. It is rooted in the hypocrisy and irony of the accusation or criticism, as this reflects a characteristic of the accuser themselves.

Again, since you applied the proverb/idiom "the pot calling the kettle black" to me I asked you, "Who in this thread have I allegedly accused or criticized for a fault or flaw that I have myself?," but you didn't say who, and anyone who looks through your dozens of posts won't find you naming a member(s) on this forum who I accused or criticized for a fault or flaw that I have myself. And, in post #107, I once again refuted your falsehoods about me.

 

[Castle Church]

Honestly, the whole argument/debate is silly. Catholics are not beholden to argue from Sola Scriptura. If the Church teaches this as doctrine or dogma that is what the doctrine or dogma is - full stop. It does not claim to follow scripture alone or be inspired by scripture alone, so why try and force something that does not need to be forced? The argument can simply rest that the church teaches this and has taught it from ancient times.

IMO this is one of those teachings that flow out of the RCC, so to prove it as fact one needs to prove the RCC to be in the position to define such teachings in the first place. If the Church has that ability and can prove that, then proving other teachings from scripture are not necessary as the foundation of where doctrine and dogma comes from has been laid.

 

[Josiah]

Honestly, the whole argument/debate is silly. Catholics are not beholden to argue from Sola Scriptura. If the Church teaches this as doctrine or dogma that is what the doctrine or dogma is - full stop. It does not claim to follow scripture alone or be inspired by scripture alone, so why try and force something that does not need to be forced? The argument can simply rest that the church teaches this and has taught it from ancient times.

CORRECT! Exactly! A point I've brought up several times, especially in post #77. She ignored it.

Her FIRST problem is that she's rebuking the apologies of a few "Evangelicals" by using a rubric her church boldly repudiates, then she herself uses it to try to support her claims. Laughable. Absurd.

IMO this is one of those teachings that flow out of the RCC, so to prove it as fact one needs to prove the RCC to be in the position to define such teachings in the first place. If the Church has that ability and can prove that, then proving other teachings from scripture are not necessary as the foundation of where doctrine and dogma comes from has been laid.

Bingo.


The RCC claims that IT is the Authority, the "norma normans" See post 77. Now IF all the claims the Catholic Church itself makes for it itself are true (and there is no support for that) THEN, IF it is true, it's reasonable to accept that what it itself officially, formally declares is True - and since Catholic Scriptures, Catholic Tradition and Catholic Magisterium are also True, and every one of those "three stools" would have to agree with each other, if only by implication. Her apologetic works in THAT context, all based on accepting the remarkable claims the RCC itself makes for it itself. That's how Catholic apologetics works. And it DOES work - as long as the basis, the claims of the RCC are fully accepted, it works only inside
Catholicism.

Protestant epistemology works differently. There's only one "norma normans" - Scripture. And by "Scripture" Protestants mean the words on the page, NOT "as I think is MEANT." I'm the first to admit this rublic is often abused, but that's the rubric. Tradition can help us understand Scripture (at least in Lutheranism and Anglicanism), Reason can be used (at least in Calvinism and Methodistism) but these aren't the norma normans, they are tools to help understand the words on the page, they are helpers to understand - not authoritative or normative. That's the words formed by letters (in the original Hebrew and Greek, not some translation).

But here's the thing: She's using the Protestant epistemology (which her church boldly condemns) to rebuke the new view of a few modern American "Evangelicals" and then uses the very things she just condemned to try to support the Catholic dogma. Amazing. Stunning. Laughable.


@Soulx3

My Catholic teachers all freely admitted that this is one of several Catholic DOGMAS that are not clearly taught in the words of Scripture (although it IS if we go by what the RCC says the words MEAN rather than what the text actually state). They freely admitted this, and noted it's not a problem for Catholicism. Doctrine can flow (be sourced) from ANY of the "three stools" - and the others (all being equally true) must therefore agree, if only by implication and interpretation., it doesn't need to be remotely explicit, it can simply be implied. That's what we see here from our sister. Because the RCC holds that Scripture makes the PVM POSSIBLE (and it probably is), the text must be interpreted so as to agree with the other two stools - Catholic Tradition and Catholic Magisterium. Protestants are not going to agree with that epistemology. For two reasons: 1) We hold that Scripture is the words on the page, not what one thinks it MEANS. 2) Catholic Tradition and Catholic Magisterium are not embraced as normative or authoritative (only the RCC accepts that). So, Catholic epistemology doesn't go very far outside of Catholicism.

Our sister is (IMO) correct to note that this new, rare, modern Evangelical opinion doesn't hold up to Protestant epistemology which is why it's dogma in no Protestant church - a popular OPINION in some circles, but dogma nowhere. And she would have a point IF she used Catholic epistemology to support the Catholic dogma, but it "works" only within Catholicism. Her WEIRD attempt to blend the two so as to rebuke the Protestant opinion while using the same thing she just rejected to support hers is just "pot calling kettle black", it's very contradictory, it's laughably absurd. REALLY bad apologetics - as all else in this thread have tried to show her. To no avail.

I asked you, "Who in this thread have I allegedly accused or criticized for a fault or flaw that I have myself?"

Again, still one more time, yet again - NO ONE has said you accused someone else as guilty of rejecting what that other person does. The point is that YOU are guilty of this, not someone else, YOU. For example, you condemn some "Evangelicals" for imposing speculations into the text while you yourself do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, just a lot worse... and with DOGMA rather than just their personal opinion. There are other examples that have been pointed out to you by posters here - always ignored.



.

 

[tango]

On the topic of timing, and the idea that Mary's "I am a virgin" protest indicated that she must have vowed to remain a virgin forever, given the angel didn't explicitly state when she would conceive the Messiah.

In today's world where young women could quite conceivable go out clubbing one night, find a young man, go home with him and find themselves pregnant in the morning it's far from impossible that a girl who was a virgin, who didn't even have a boyfriend, might find herself pregnant by tomorrow even if as of right now it was unexpected. Although the Jews clearly weren't expecting a Messiah from such an unexpected background, given what we now know about Jesus having about the most humble possible start to his earthly life it's easy to see how, in the modern world, he could have been born to a single mother living in social housing on the wrong side of the tracks.

In Mary's world being pregnant when unmarried was a disgrace - Joseph wanted to put her away quietly. In other words, get rid of her. Don't have her stoned, as she clearly deserved for her unfaithfulness, but quietly send her somewhere else to spare at least some of the shame and disgrace. A woman who was still a virgin because she had yet to marry her partner (Joseph in this case) wouldn't expect to get pregnant at least until some time after she was married. It's reasonable to assume that Mary planned to remain a virgin until she and Joseph were married, regardless of what stance we take regarding whether she planned to remain a virgin forever.

It's reasonable to assume an event important enough for God to send an angel is going to be a fairly imminent event, and one worthy of actually sending an angel. If I were going about my day to day business and an angel appeared to tell me what was going to happen I'd figure it was something happening soon, rather than something that would happen in the next 20-30 years or more, unless the angel made a long timeframe clear. If there's nothing for me to do except wait for a few decades until it finally happens and I think "ah yes, the angel said this would happen", there's little point in sending the angel in the first place. If the groundbreaking news the angel brings is "hey Mary, one day you'll find yourself pregnant" it's not exactly startling news. Young woman gets pregnant, hold the front page for that one folks, this could be huge. Even if Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity and the angel was referring to her finding herself pregnant 20 years later, the chances are a virgin who found herself pregnant after 20 years would immediately wonder what happened and only then remember that maybe this was what the angel mentioned all those years ago.

If Mary took a vow of perpetual chastity it raises other questions. Why would she get married at all, if she took such a vow? Why would Joseph, who presumably wanted heirs, take a wife who had taken a vow that would preclude her providing him with those heirs, as well as deprive him of the marital relations he would reasonably expect from his wife?

It seems the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin requires all sorts of assumptions, none of which seem likely. It's not even as if Mary needed to remain a virgin after Christ's birth - if Jesus was born to a virgin it doesn't seem to make any difference whether his mother remained a virgin, any more than we should assume Mary lived forever because Jesus was born to a live woman.

I'm still finding it hard to conclude that the idea of Mary remaining a perpetual virgin is anything other than a man-made concept with attempts to twist Scripture to fit it, rather than drawing anything realistic from what Scripture actually says.

 

[Soulx3]

...YOU are guilty of this, not someone else, YOU.

The following is the definition of "the pot calling the kettle black:"

"The pot calling the kettle black”​

The core meaning of this proverbial saying refers to someone calling out a flaw or fault of someone else that they possess themselves. It is rooted in the hypocrisy and irony of the accusation or criticism, as this reflects a characteristic of the accuser themselves.

According to the definition, if I accused or criticized someone for a fault or flaw that I have myself, then I would be guilty of being the pot calling the kettle black, but I didn't.

Catholics are not beholden to argue from Sola Scriptura.

I never said that Catholics are beholden to argue from Sola Scriptura. I spoke generally saying that anyone who teaches/believes that Mary hadn't taken a vow of perpetual virginity, and did give birth to other children, should provide scriptural evidence that they believe shows this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura. Is that not true?

On the topic of timing, and the idea that Mary's "I am a virgin" protest indicated that she must have vowed to remain a virgin forever, given the angel didn't explicitly state when she would conceive the Messiah...

Firstly, again, I never said that Mary's conception would happen in the far future. Secondly, again, I never said that Mary's statement She's a virgin is the sole proof that She had taken a vow of perpetual virginity.

If Mary took a vow of perpetual chastity it raises other questions. Why would she get married at all, if she took such a vow? Why would Joseph, who presumably wanted heirs, take a wife who had taken a vow that would preclude her providing him with those heirs, as well as deprive him of the marital relations he would reasonably expect from his wife?

Joseph and Mary can be a difficult topic of discussion for two reasons:

(I) the four Gospels of Christ lack an extensive, much less complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life
(II) many Christians automatically assume as false any details about Joseph and Mary that aren't found in the four Gospels of Christ

Regardless, I have the answers to your questions, which aren't found in the four Gospels of Christ, but rather The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I-V (a Work on the Life of Jesus), an expansion of the four Gospels by Jesus through His spokesperson, Maria Valtorta.

In 1943, Maria Valtorta began taking dictation from Jesus and other heavenly persons, as well as receiving scenes, or visions from the life of Jesus. At Jesus’ request, she wrote everything she saw and heard, filling 122 notebooks totaling 15,000 pages. Maria received most of the revelations before 1947, but they continued until 1953. Her writings were compiled into the following books: The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I–V (a Work on the Life of Jesus), The Notebooks: 1943, The Notebooks: 1944, The Notebooks: 1945-1950, The Little Notebooks, The Lessons of St. Paul to the Romans, and The Book of Azariah.

In the following chapters from The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, are the scenes, or visions that Maria Valtorta received regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception, Her vow of virginity, Joseph accepting the Virgin as his wife, Joseph's vow of virginity, the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and the Annunciation.

5. The Birth of the Virgin Mary
6. The Purification of Anne and the Offering of Mary
7. The Son Has Put His Wisdom on His Mother's Lips
8. Mary is Presented in the Temple
11. Mary Will Confide Her Vow to the Spouse God Will Give Her
12. Joseph Is Appointed Husband of the Virgin
13. Wedding of the Virgin and Joseph
16. The Annunciation

I believe wholeheartedly that Maria Valtorta was Jesus's spokesperson, further validated by those who've analyzed and tested the credibility of her and her literary works. Below are just a few of those studies:

(I) The results from the mathematical analysis of Maria Valtorta's Work by Professor Emilio Matricciani and Dr. Liberato De Caro, where they concluded:

In conclusion, what do these findings mean? That Maria Valtorta is such a good writer to be able to modulate the linguistic parameters in so many different ways and as a function of character of the plot and type of literary text, so as to cover almost the entire range of the Italian literature? Or that visions and dictations really occurred and she was only a mystical, very intelligent and talented “writing tool”? Of course, no answer grounded in science can be given to the latter question.

(II) The results from the astronomical and meteorological analysis of Maria Valtorta's Work by Professor Emilio Matricciani and Dr. Liberato De Caro, where they concluded:

“It seems that she has written down observations and facts that really happened at the time of Jesus’ life, as a real witness of them would have done. The question arises, unsolved from a point of view exclusively rational, how all this is possible because what Maria Valtorta writes down cannot, in any way, be traced back to her fantasy or to her astronomical and meteorological knowledge. In conclusion, if from one hand the scientific inquire has evidenced all the surprising and unexpected results reported and discussed in this paper, on the other hand our actual scientific knowledge cannot readily explain how these results are possible.”

(III) In David Webster, M.Div.'s chapter "Proof by Geography and Topography and Archaeology" of A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work, he relates:

“An additional line of incontrovertible evidence (which Valtorta was encouraged by Jesus to include for the benefit of “the difficult doctors” of the Church) deals with the vast amount of geographical, climatic, agricultural, historical, astronomical, and cartographical information given in her work. Authorities in these fields have verified the accuracy of what she has reported with appropriate astonishment. Valtorta accurately identifies this agricultural and climatic information that is often unique to Palestine with the appropriate calendar period which she often specifically identifies. Without any evidence of planning and with hardly any corrections, Valtorta ends up with a perfectly flowing 3½ year story line with Jesus appropriately in Jerusalem and Judea for Passover and Pentecost in all four spring seasons, and at the Tabernacles in all three fall seasons of His ministry. Valtorta shows Jesus to have traversed the land of Palestine from one end to another in at least six cycles (some 4,000 miles), ministering in some 350 named locations, including places in Palestine known only to specialized archaeologists. Not once, however, does she have Jesus (or any one of the other 500 characters) in a place inconsistent with either the story line or distance or timing necessities.”

(IV) In professional engineer Jean-François Lavère's The Valtorta Enigma, he writes:

“The work [The Poem of the Man-God] overflows with exact data from the viewpoint of history, topography, architecture, geography, ethnology, chronology, etc. Furthermore, Maria Valtorta often provides precise details known only by some scholars, and in certain cases, she even records details totally unknown at the time she recorded them, and which archeology, history, or science have later confirmed.”

Note: If you research Maria Valtorta, you'll find websites/articles in support of and in opposition to her and her writings. Over the past decade, I believe I've familiarized myself with them all, and have come to own and read all of her writings. Therefore, I'm here to answer any questions, etc.

 

[Lamb]

Btw, I'm one of those non-Catholics who lean toward Mary being ever virgin.

How can someone believe this?

Think of the Holy God inside her womb for 9 months, that's how. Not that sex is sinful, but I can see how she could want to remain untouched.

We tend to see things through a modern lens and sex is very casual these days, where people live together without remorse, celebrities celebrate their adulterous habits, etc... Discard the modern thinking and try to think like Mary, who carried the Lord and also think about the Ark of the Covenant and how no one was allowed to touch it. I'm not saying that Joseph was forbidden, but I can definitely see how Mary could remain a virgin. There are many men who prefer not to have sex, just as there are many women, and I know it's shocking to those who are sexually active, so they have a hard time believing that a married couple could be celibate.

 

[Albion]

Btw, I'm one of those non-Catholics who lean toward Mary being ever virgin.

How can someone believe this?

Think of the Holy God inside her womb for 9 months, that's how. Not that sex is sinful, but I can see how she could want to remain untouched.

Okay, but if we remember where this particular thread began...

the issue wasn't whether or not she could have remained a virgin for the rest of her life, or even that she did so (if anyone chooses to contend for that possibility), but whether a Christian must either believe it true or be a heretic.

What's more, the doctrine was rationalized historically by coming up with some explanation for how a woman could give birth and yet remain a virgin, biologically or physically speaking. That applies to Mary giving birth to Jesus regardless of what happened later in her life.

 

[tango]

Btw, I'm one of those non-Catholics who lean toward Mary being ever virgin.

How can someone believe this?

Think of the Holy God inside her womb for 9 months, that's how. Not that sex is sinful, but I can see how she could want to remain untouched.

We tend to see things through a modern lens and sex is very casual these days, where people live together without remorse, celebrities celebrate their adulterous habits, etc... Discard the modern thinking and try to think like Mary, who carried the Lord and also think about the Ark of the Covenant and how no one was allowed to touch it. I'm not saying that Joseph was forbidden, but I can definitely see how Mary could remain a virgin. There are many men who prefer not to have sex, just as there are many women, and I know it's shocking to those who are sexually active, so they have a hard time believing that a married couple could be celibate.

She could want to remain untouched. That doesn't mean she did want to remain untouched.

There's a huge spectrum between the modern day permissiveness where sex is seen by some as being little more than a few steps on from shaking someone's hand, and vows of lifetime celibacy. Since God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiple, and there are only so many ways one man and one woman can be fruitful and multiply, it's safe to say that sex isn't unclean however much some people might like to think it is.

People exist who choose to refrain from sex. That doesn't mean Mary was one of them. The difference is between the possibility that Mary may have chosen to remain ever-celibate, and the insistence that she must have done because, well, someone might like the thought that she was. As Albion said, the argument that it's a heresy to consider that Mary might have chosen to have sex with her husband is the problem, not the idea that maybe it might have been jolly nice if she had remained chaste her entire life.

Modern thinking aside, how can a man produce an heir if his wife is pledged to remain forever celibate?


Edit (hit save by mistake...):
It's possible that Mary was forever a virgin. I personally find the idea improbable but nothing in Scripture explicitly states that she was or she wasn't. It doesn't really matter one way or the other - if cultural differences in terminology mean that the people described at the time as "brothers" were what we would call cousins or even friends, or whether they were actual brothers (albeit what we'd currently call half-brothers, given they couldn't possibly share a father with Jesus) makes no difference to our life, to our salvation, to anything really. If Mary and Joseph had enough sex to make modern day porn producers blush but never produced any offspring it still makes no difference to our life, or our salvation.

Here the OP has been arguing that the belief that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin is some kind of heresy, and basing it on nothing more than speculation and tense-twisting.

Now suddenly the OP has introduced something from outside of Scripture that allegedly supports their case, but it remains unclear why it's so important whether or not Mary ever had sex.

 

[Albion]

deleted

 

[Soulx3]

Btw, I'm one of those non-Catholics who lean toward Mary being ever virgin.

How can someone believe this?

Think of the Holy God inside her womb for 9 months, that's how. Not that sex is sinful, but I can see how she could want to remain untouched.

We tend to see things through a modern lens and sex is very casual these days, where people live together without remorse, celebrities celebrate their adulterous habits, etc... Discard the modern thinking and try to think like Mary, who carried the Lord and also think about the Ark of the Covenant and how no one was allowed to touch it. I'm not saying that Joseph was forbidden, but I can definitely see how Mary could remain a virgin. There are many men who prefer not to have sex, just as there are many women, and I know it's shocking to those who are sexually active, so they have a hard time believing that a married couple could be celibate.

Precisely! God made sure the ark that would carry His written Word be made with the best and purest materials, why would He put less Thought and care into the ark that would carry His Word made flesh: Himself: the Most Pure, Holy, and Perfect One, by Incarnating Himself in an impure woman? God, the Most Pure, Holy and Perfect One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her Body and Spirit had to have already been so Holy, Pure, and Perfect (in part by His doing), as to be Second only to God, in order to be a Heaven on Earth for Him. Would God not also want a Spouse and Father of Holiness and Purity for such a Woman as Mary and Her Son (God Incarnate), rather than an average impure male? Could God not bring two holy and pure people together in order to be each other's Spouses and the parents of God Incarnate?

According to Jesus's spokesperson, Maria Valtorta, God Ab Aeterno Thought of creating the soul that was to be the soul of the Mother of God. He preserved Mary's soul from becoming subject to the law of the first parents (inheriting the original sin of disobedience), thus remaining an immaculate soul capable of possessing the fullness of His Grace, and then infused it into the embryo at the moment of Her conception. These factors, coupled with Mary being conceived by and born of two Just human parents, having a natural good will, and vowing to remain a life-long Virgin for God, resulted in Her being so Pure in Body and Spirit as to be Second only to God, and thus a worthy dwelling place for God Incarnate, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, the most Pure, Holy and Perfect One to take form in and have as His Mother, and a Mother for all mankind. Therefore, Mary saying "God My Savior' (Lk. 1:47) is true, because He did save Her, before She was even conceived.