"Cult of Mary"

Quote: Evenbob

You can't parse this any other way,but I bet you'll try.

Historically, people have all kinds of interpretation. Believers of perpetual virginity of Mary say they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage, and are half brothers.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is held by Catholics as being an essential part of faith.

Martin Luther , the founding figures of Anglicanism such as Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer , and John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. But today, most Protestants, don't consider it important (consistent with the greatly reduced importance of Mary in general).

Quote: Pacomartin

affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary..

With no proof at all.

"The view that these brothers were the cousins of Jesus on Joseph's side is based on pure conjecture. That they were cousins on Mary's side is based on the unproved identity of "Mary, the wife of Cleophus" with the sister of Mary (John 19:25; Mark 15:40), and on the unproved identity of "Clopas" with Alphaeus (Mark 3:18).

Jesus' siblings are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5)."

I find it a little strange that thousands of years after the ones who actually knew Mary and Joseph we consider it pure conjecture that those who were referred to as brothers and sisters were cousins or other relatives. Wouldn't we rather consider the pure conjecture would be on our part removed by such distance and time? It has been a consistent tradition dating back to the Apostles themselves that Mary had no other children than Jesus. I would take that as truth before the conjecture of guy in 2015 who has some kind of axe to grind against the Church's consistent teaching.

You should also look up the word that is used in the Scriptures to refer to brothers or brethren. It is a lot broader than you think.

Quote: FrGamble

I find it a little strange that thousands of years after the ones who actually knew Mary and Joseph we consider it pure conjecture that those who were referred to as brothers and sisters were cousins or other relatives.

'When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didn’t “get it right” is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10)' http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/maryvirginity.php

This is a hot topic, I had no idea. Of
course she had other kids, why would
she not.

Quote: Evenbob

'When the word adelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions.

Take a look at Matthew 23:8, "As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi'. You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers (adelphos)." There are also many times in St. Paul's writings were he addresses his readers as brothers. We don't have time to go into the OT. It clearly does not always mean blood brothers. I'm surprised something like that could be actually said by someone who seems to know and respect the Scriptures and even more so that it would be believed and represented here.

Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Matthew 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers but His cousins, then who is His mother, and who is the carpenter's father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55 refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenter's son refers to Joseph and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus' brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

The Bible makes it as obvious as the nose
on your face that Mary had other children.
It says so in many places. But it doesn't fit
the 'story' the Church wants to paint, so
they change it. Poof, it's gone.

Unbelievable.

Again, the Church is not changing anything. For over a thousand years it is was the consistent and universal belief stemming from the Apostles themselves and those who were at the events referenced in Scripture that Mary had no other children. If anyone changed anything it was the protestants who came up with a new interpretation of these Scriptures passages that was unheard of before. Why did they do this? That is a good question, especially because the whole thing seems a little like arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Maybe it is because, like you, they only want to make some point or force some agenda - that is an awful way to read into Scripture what you want it to say.

My dear brother once again you have it backwards and upside down, unbelievable.

Quote: FrGamble

Again, the Church is not changing anything. .

Sure it is. If it wasn't, there would be no
disagreement, and there's plenty of
that. It's all about sex, the Church has
had an obsession with sex for a thousand
years. Here's but a tidbit of it's history:

'Jovinian, a Catholic theologian, incurred the Church's wrath by disputing Mary's virginity; contended that` married and celibate life were of equal merit, and tried to teach that Mary retained her virginity at conception but that she lost it at child-birth. For publishing; a book containing such heretical ideas, Jovinian was excommunicated by Pope Siricius. The Church continues to teach that Mary's hymen remained intact.'

And then there's this wonderful fellow:

'St. Augustine ( one of the greatest of the "Doctors of the Church" ) 'discovered' how evil sex was and how offensive sexual acts were, as even birth took place between the organs of defecation and urination. He was the man, according to the Catholic theologian Uta RankeHeinemann, who was responsible for welding Christianity and hostility to sexual pleasure into a systematic whole. To Augustine, original sin was transmitted through the sexual act, thereby making copulation evil.'

So of course Mary was an eternal virgin, she
was incapable of the evils of sex. They changed
the Biblical story to fit the new story, as religion
is wont to do..

I wish you could give your source about St. Augustine, because I think this is referencing his thought before his conversion. He was for a time quite a playboy then he joined a cult that taught that sex and really the entire physical world was evil and then finally he became Catholic are rejected his former ways of thinking and embraced the beauty of the world and the holiness of sex in the context of marriage.

The more I read about the 'ever virgin' theory,
the more I shake my head in wonder at the
ridiculousness of it. That a virgin would have a
baby in the first place is ludicrous, but then to
remain a virgin the rest of her life? And this
act of not having sex somehow makes her special?

Religious people really need to lighten up about
sex, it's just, well, sex. All creatures do it, even most
insects. It's just like all the other urges we have,
nothing more. I read somewhere that in the Church,
the rules and regs regarding sex are twice as long
as all the other rules put together. I have a friend
who went to Catholic school 50 years ago who says
they indeed frowned on highly polished shoes, you might try
and peek up a girls skirt with them. Obsessed..