It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[BreadOfLife]

Skip to main content
Watch a quick tutorial for the new Catholic.com

Magisterial Teaching
Though this teaching has NEVR BEEN AN OBJECT OF FORMAL DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH and therefore IS NOT INFALLIBLE, the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives perhaps the clearest example of the general understanding of the Church through centuries past.

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord . . . just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity.

From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ. . . . To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus . . . without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.

It seems fitting: Eve’s sin is causally linked to labor pain. The New Eve was uniquely free from the sin of Eve and did not experience that pain. Indeed, I argue it would seem contrary to our sense of Jesus and Mary as the “New Adam” and the “New Eve.” And, as I said above, it would not seem right to inaugurate this great and glorious New Covenant by experiencing pains that were the result of failure in the Old.

Pope Alexander III (1169):
[Mary] indeed conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and went hence without corruption, according to the word of the angel, or rather (the word) of God through the angel, so that she should be proved to be full, not merely half filled, with grace and (so that) God her Son should faithfully fulfill the ancient commandment that he had formerly given, namely, to treat one’s father and mother with honor.

The Liturgical Tradition
The Church at prayer, both East and West, reveals a common understanding of Mary having been freed from labor pains. In the Mass of “Mary at the Foot of the Cross II,” celebrated in the Latin Rite before the 1969 reform of the liturgy, the Church prayed:

In your divine wisdom, you planned the redemption of the human race, and decreed that the new Eve should stand by the cross of the new Adam: as she became his mother by the power of the Holy Spirit, so, by a new gift of your love, she was to be a partner in his passion, and she who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.

And also in the Byzantine liturgy, from the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ and from the Synaxis of the Theotokos, Tone 2:

Behold! The Image of the Father and his unchangeable eternity has taken the form of a servant. Without suffering he has come forth to us from an all-pure Virgin, and yet he has remained unchanged. He is true God as he was before, and he has taken on himself what he had not been, becoming man out of his love for all. Therefore, let us raise our voices in hymns, singing: O God, born of the Virgin, have mercy on us.

The liturgy of the Church has always been an exemplary tool of catechetics and moral certitude theologically as well as the primary instrument of our spiritual nourishment in Christ. Thus, the fact that the Church asks its children to affirm Mary’s freedom from the pains of labor in liturgical prayer at Mass is a testimony as to the authority of this teaching of the Church.

Though this teaching has NEVR BEEN AN OBJECT OF FORMAL DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH and therefore IS NOT INFALLIBLE, the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives perhaps the clearest example of the general understanding of the Church through centuries past.

Catholic Answers, although a great source for apologetics - does not have Magisterial Authority.

 

[Marymog]

Mary,

Your support of perpetual virginity because 'Christianity HAS been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years', is an Appeal to Tradition Fallacy. The logical form of the fallacy you committed is:

Christianity has been supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary for generations/centuries.
Therefore, we should keep supporting the perpetual virginity.
Our ancestors thought the perpetual virginity was right.
Therefore, perpetual virginity is right.​

It is fallacious reasoning.

Here is a list of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?)

Protoevangelium of James vs The Bible
1 Gabriel is called an archangel (PeJ, Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.)

The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century.

2 Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (PeJ 9:12).

Bible: Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”

3 Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (PeJ 16:3).

Bible: Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15).

4 Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (PeJ 12:11–14:31).

Bible: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1.

5 The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (PeJ 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3).

Bible: Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife.

6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (PeJ 16:2).

Mary: Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14).

7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (PeJ 21:1–2).

Bible: Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1).


This comparison should lay to rest any support of the pseudo ‘Infancy Gospel’ of James as a genuine document to be followed in its support of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Protoevangelium of James (The Infancy Gospel of James) is a fake that is in the Pseudepigrapha. It is a false document attributed to Jesus’ brother, James. Promotion of this pseudo document to support the perpetual virginity, is using the unreliable (PeJ) to support the improbable (perpetual virginity).
Oz

Hi Oz,

Yup. You are right.

Now your homework for tonight is to find the contradictions in scripture so we know which books of the Bible we need to throw out.

But of course there are no contradictions in scripture. Are there?

I appeal to a 2,000 year "traditional fallacy". You appeal to a 500 year traditional fallacy. Since what I believe has been taught for 2,000 years and your belief is ony 500 years old, wouldn't the most recent belief be THE fallacy instead of the oldest belief?

If one is arguing FOR the perpetual virginity and they have evidence to back up that argument how is that a fallacy?

Wouldn't it be the one arguing AGAINST the perpetual virginity that throws away the evidence that is committing the fallacy?

Curious Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wow, I think you stuck the Breadman but good.

See post #941 . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, you don't know.....

Your question was: "Hey Breadman, what's the new pope's take on Mary?"
I asked you: As far as what??

What do you want to know about?

 

[GodsGrace]

Though this teaching has NEVR BEEN AN OBJECT OF FORMAL DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH and therefore IS NOT INFALLIBLE, the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives perhaps the clearest example of the general understanding of the Church through centuries past.

Catholic Answers, although a great source for apologetics - does not have Magisterial Authority.

BoL

I learned from the Catholic Church the doctrine of the CC.
NOT from Catholic Answers.

You wanted proof of what I learned.
I believe I provided you with same.

If you do not agree, it means the church you very much respect is teaching what it does not even believe!
This IS the belief and teaching of the CC.
This IS what I've been taught.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Your question was: "Hey Breadman, what's the new pope's take on Mary?"
I asked you: As far as what??

What do you want to know about?

Breadman, Breadman, you don't know what the pope thinks of Mary, do you?

 

[Marymog]

Mary,


Here is a list of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?)

Protoevangelium of James vs The Bible
1 Gabriel is called an archangel (PeJ, Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.)

The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century.

No argument here. The practice of calling Gabriel an archangel started in the 2nd Century which is when Proto. of James was written. All historians generally agree it was written in the middle of the 2nd century. Since adding the word "archangel" to the text DOES NOT destroy the perpetual virginity belief we will move on and throw out that silly "contradiction".

2 Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (PeJ 9:12).

Bible: Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”

Putting Mary's response to the angel IN CONTEXT shows (depending which translation you use) that Mary "questioned in herself" OR "reasoned with herself". That STRONGLY suggest that she was thinking it (PeJ 9:12) in her mind, and it was not what she actually said to the angel. But why put statements in context if it throws another wrench in your theory?

3 Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (PeJ 16:3).

Bible: Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15).

I agree that Herod was out to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem. Hebron, which is where John the Baptist was born, is only 18 miles from Bethlehem. That sounds like "the Bethlehem region" to me. How many miles away from Bethlehem do you have to be for it NOT to be considered "in the region"?

4 Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (PeJ 12:11–14:31).

Bible: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1.

Here in the States each of the 50 states are made up of counties. I live in the County about two miles from one City limit (population 450,000) and one mile from another City limit (population 5,000). When anyone asks me where I live I tell them I live in the City that is closest to me which is also the city I get my mail at. I tell them I live in City X even though I really live in the County. So was Jesus born inside the City limits of Bethlehem or was he born on the outskirts of town that everyone considered Bethlehem? Can you imagine this conversation:

Oz: Let's go visit my friend Joseph while he and Mary are in the Judea region.
Marymog: Ok...Let's go. Where are they?
Oz: In the Judea region. I already told you that Mary.
Marymog: Right. Got it. But can you narrow it down a little bit more please so we know which road to take?
OZ: Just outside of Bethlehem.
Marymog: Thank you Oz. Now we know what road to take and which city we are going to. Bethlehem!!
Oz: Mary!! Technically we are not going to Bethlehem. We are going to the Judea region.
Marymog:

Another minor discrepancy that is no worse than the discrepancies in scripture.

5 The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (PeJ 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3).

Bible: Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife.

Once again, putting the Proto. of James in context, Joseph did accept her as his wife and went to enroll her as his wife: How shall I enroll her? As my wife? I am ashamed. As my daughter then? But all the sons of Israel know that she is not my daughter.

This contradiction does not negate perpetual virginity.

6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (PeJ 16:2).

Mary: Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14).

I am not sure where you got your translation from but I have two other reliable translations (Roberts-Donaldson, M.R. James) that differ from yours:

And when Mary heard that the children were being slain, she was afraid, and took the young child and wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid him in an ox-manger.

And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall.

Neither of those translations mention a manger at the inn. Furthermore, this event happened AFTER the Magi left Bethlehem and AFTER Herod eventually heard that he was being mocked by the Magi. They didn't have telephones or email back then so it probably took a week or two for Herod to hear what was going on and send out the troops. Mary and Joseph were probably long gone out of Bethlehem by then. The ox-stall could have been in any city 50 miles from Bethlehem. None of this debunks the perpetual virginity teaching and it is not even contradictory to scripture.

7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (PeJ 21:1–2).

Bible: Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1).

Once again the translation you used, which I can't find, does not mirror the reliable translations I have found: And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judaea, for Magi came, saying.."

And there came a great tumult in Bethlehem of Judaea; for there came wise men, saying..."

BOTH translations say that the Magi went to Bethlehem but NEITHER translation say they met Herod there. Both translations also say that Herod sent officer TO the Magi.

If your basing your argument on a suspect translation then we need to talk. We need to discuss where you got your translations from my good friend.

I look forward to your response.

Looking Forward Mary!

 

[epostle1]

Luke 1:34
ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω.

Mary's response to the archangel Gabriel telling her she will conceive and bear a son makes no sense if her betrothal to Joseph was intended to include sexual relations. Gabriel gives no time frame to when she will conceive, just that it will happen in the future, so the natural understanding of a betrothed girl being told that she will conceive would be, "Joseph and I are going to have a baby together". Mary however, responds with the question "how can this be, since I am not knowing a man". The grammar indicates that her circumstances are on going and not just at that moment in time, so it excludes an expectation that she and Joseph would be producing children.

 

[epostle1]

And I also reject Calvin's teaching on double predestination, irresistible grace, and infant baptism.

You are missing the point. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been universally taught by all 3 main branches of Christianity for 2000 years, Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic. Calvin's errors have nothing to with the truths that all the early reformers unanimously taught. It's the nature of liberal modernist Protestantism to protest Protestantism by teaching 150 year old heresies that do violence to Scripture and all of Christian history.

 

[epostle1]

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

"As an Evangelical, I had long regarded the reading of Ezekiel 44:1-2 to support Mary’s perpetual virginity as mere 'proof-texting.' I thought the Fathers were beginning with this passage and then trying to build a doctrine of perpetual virginity on it. But the more I saw how the early Church (including the New Testament authors)

• linked the tabernacle,
• the temple,
• and the Body of Christ,
• and the roles of Mary,
• the ark,
• and the gate of the temple,

the more I came to realize that the Church’s faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not derived from Ezekiel 44:1-2 any more than her faith in the virgin birth was derived from Isaiah 7:14. . .

Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity

A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

The argument that there is no explicit proof text for the PVofM is as silly as claiming Jesus didn't remain a virgin because there is no proof text. It's Duh Vinci Code theology.

 

[epostle1]

Breadman, Breadman, you don't know what the pope thinks of Mary, do you?

The Pope teaches us to follow Jesus, but you say we should not listen to the Pope but we should listen to you because you are more a pope than the Pope, and we should not follow Jesus because it's what the Pope teaches.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,

Yup. You are right.

Now your homework for tonight is to find the contradictions in scripture so we know which books of the Bible we need to throw out.

But of course there are no contradictions in scripture. Are there?

I appeal to a 2,000 year "traditional fallacy". You appeal to a 500 year traditional fallacy. Since what I believe has been taught for 2,000 years and your belief is ony 500 years old, wouldn't the most recent belief be THE fallacy instead of the oldest belief?

If one is arguing FOR the perpetual virginity and they have evidence to back up that argument how is that a fallacy?

Wouldn't it be the one arguing AGAINST the perpetual virginity that throws away the evidence that is committing the fallacy?

Curious Mary

False!

I hold to a biblical position and have tried to demonstrate it throughout this thread. In addition, my article, Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document, deals with the biblical and other material.

I do not hold to the Protestant Tradition of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & John Wesley, who were coming out of the RCC, and continued to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

My position comes from Scripture. I find nothing in Scripture to support Mary's perpetual virginity.

That's no fallacy but your wanting to label it as a fallacy when it is not.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You are missing the point. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been universally taught by all 3 main branches of Christianity for 2000 years, Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic. Calvin's errors have nothing to with the truths that all the early reformers unanimously taught. It's the nature of liberal modernist Protestantism to protest Protestantism by teaching 150 year old heresies that do violence to Scripture and all of Christian history.

kepha,

That is false. Protestants have not 'universally taught' the perpetual virginity. That's your misunderstanding.

There were some early and prominent Reformers, who came out of the RCC, who continued to teach perpetual virginity as they had not dealt with all of the RCC doctrines that detract from Scripture, e.g. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, John Wesley. This article states:

Helvidius was a 5th-century Christian who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was rebuked and refuted by Jerome in his treatise, “On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius“​

Oz

 

[Marymog]

False!

I hold to a biblical position and have tried to demonstrate it throughout this thread. In addition, my article, Perpetual virginity of Mary promoted by false document, deals with the biblical and other material.

I do not hold to the Protestant Tradition of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli & John Wesley, who were coming out of the RCC, and continued to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

My position comes from Scripture. I find nothing in Scripture to support Mary's perpetual virginity.

That's no fallacy but your wanting to label it as a fallacy when it is not.

Oz

Hi Oz,

You never addressed the most important question: But of course there are no contradictions in scripture. Are there?

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Wesley, the men of the RCC, the men of the Orthodox Churches, the men of current Protestant Churches didn't use Scripture to support Mary's perpetual virginity? Interesting theory. Or they just don't know how to properly interpret scripture like YOU DO?

Curious Mary

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,

You never addressed the most important question: But of course there are no contradictions in scripture. Are there?

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Wesley, the men of the RCC, the men of the Orthodox Churches, the men of current Protestant Churches didn't use Scripture to support Mary's perpetual virginity? Interesting theory. Or they just don't know how to properly interpret scripture like YOU DO?

Curious Mary

Mary,

Your sarcasm is totally unwarranted and is a detriment to our conversation.

Would you please direct me to 'the men of current Protestant Churches [who] didn't use Scripture to support Mary's perpetual virginity?

Tell me about current, evangelical Christian leaders who support Mary's perpetual virginity from Scripture.

Oz

 

[Marymog]

Mary,

Your sarcasm is totally unwarranted and is a detriment to our conversation.

Would you please direct me to 'the men of current Protestant Churches [who] didn't use Scripture to support Mary's perpetual virginity?

Tell me about current, evangelical Christian leaders who support Mary's perpetual virginity from Scripture.
Oz

Dear Oz,

A legitimate question is now SARCASIM? A detriment to our conversation?

There is no conversation since you haven't answered the question. How about if you answer my questions and then I will answer yours?

But of course there are no contradictions in scripture. Are there?
They just don't know how to properly interpret scripture like YOU DO?

Curious Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Oz,

Yup. You are right.

Now your homework for tonight is to find the contradictions in scripture so we know which books of the Bible we need to throw out.

But of course there are no contradictions in scripture. Are there?

I appeal to a 2,000 year "traditional fallacy". You appeal to a 500 year traditional fallacy. Since what I believe has been taught for 2,000 years and your belief is ony 500 years old, wouldn't the most recent belief be THE fallacy instead of the oldest belief?

If one is arguing FOR the perpetual virginity and they have evidence to back up that argument how is that a fallacy?

Wouldn't it be the one arguing AGAINST the perpetual virginity that throws away the evidence that is committing the fallacy?

Curious Mary

Hi Mary,
I do want to say this to you...
Many times I've said that Christianity was changed with the reformation in 1,500 AD.

I say that when it is changed for the INCORRECT and unbiblical reason.
For instance, double predestination. THIS was never taught by the early church.

As far as the PV of Mary, we can say that PERHAPS the original church as teaching something incorrect? Like indulgences, for instance.

Indulgences were not biblical and were not accepted by the reformed church.

No where in the bible can we find that Mary and Joseph did not have a normal relationship after marriage.
Mathew 1:25

So relying on what the early church MIGHT have taught for 1,500 years, in this case, is not applicable.

Also, I've asked for something written that the early fathers believed.
No one here has been able to come up with something. Except the Prot. of James, which is very suspect.

IOW, JUST BECAUSE something was taught for a long time, does not make it correct.
Indulgences was not a correct teaching.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Luke 1:34
ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω.

Mary's response to the archangel Gabriel telling her she will conceive and bear a son makes no sense if her betrothal to Joseph was intended to include sexual relations. Gabriel gives no time frame to when she will conceive, just that it will happen in the future, so the natural understanding of a betrothed girl being told that she will conceive would be, "Joseph and I are going to have a baby together". Mary however, responds with the question "how can this be, since I am not knowing a man". The grammar indicates that her circumstances are on going and not just at that moment in time, so it excludes an expectation that she and Joseph would be producing children.

That's adding your opinion to the Bible, a well known ploy of the roman catholic church.

 

[GodsGrace]

Luke 1:34
ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω.

Mary's response to the archangel Gabriel telling her she will conceive and bear a son makes no sense if her betrothal to Joseph was intended to include sexual relations. Gabriel gives no time frame to when she will conceive, just that it will happen in the future, so the natural understanding of a betrothed girl being told that she will conceive would be, "Joseph and I are going to have a baby together". Mary however, responds with the question "how can this be, since I am not knowing a man". The grammar indicates that her circumstances are on going and not just at that moment in time, so it excludes an expectation that she and Joseph would be producing children.

Kepha,
I'm a reasonable person.
I never even heard of the above --- not even from the C C.

We don't need grammar or dialectics or anythingj.

Sometimes the bible is very clear - this is one of those times...

You and BoL should get together and decide if Mary and Joseph were married or engaged (bethrothed).

Of course, they were bethrothed.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's adding your opinion to the Bible, a well known ploy of the roman catholic church.

Amen!
This is done many times in that church.
They DO come up with doctrine whose foundation cannot be biblically supported.