Do Catholics know that Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Christ? (she had other children after)?

Question

My point is, many Catholics worship mary as a perpetual virgin (it is part of their catechism). And i think if they knew this they would stop. She is not a goddess Catholics ;)

Sniper-

They do worship Mary. They pray dircectly to her 10x more than they pray to God. Don't tell me I'm wrong. I did the same thing and I even wore a scapular.

Also, your reasoning is completely whack. The Jews called their cousins their brothers and sisters? What proof do you have of this??

If this is true, why didn't Mary call her cousin, Elizabeth "Sister":

Luke 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren

I will tell you why: Because COUSINS are COUSINS, and BROTHERS AND SISTERS are BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

Answer 1

No, they do not know it because they do not teach them that.

The esteeming of Mary as being a perpetual virgin was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and goes against scripture in Matthew 12:46 and Matthew 13:55

Answer 2

We honor and venerate Mary as the Mother of God and a Mother to us all. We do not worship her for that is for God

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Answer 3

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Answer 4

How was James, “the brother of the Lord,” (Matt. 13:55, Acts 15:13-21, 1 Cor. 15:7, Gal. 1:19) related to Jesus. All believers agree he was related, but no one knows exactly how.

The possibilities are that James was:

1. A full brother of Jesus, another Son of God born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. No one to my knowledge accepts that God had another child by the Blessed Virgin Mary.

2. A half-brother of Jesus, a younger son of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some Christians believe this possibility but most Christians including those who are Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believe that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life.

3. A stepbrother of Jesus, a son of Joseph and a previous wife. Many Christians believe that Joseph had a least one previous marriage that resulted in children.

4. A stepbrother of Jesus, an adopted son of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. When parents died, relatives frequently took their children in and raised them as thier own. An adopted orphaned boy would be considered the brother of Jesus.

5. A cousin of Jesus. The Aramaic language has no word for cousin. Aramaic frequently uses the word “aha,” which we translate into Greek as “adelphos” or English as brother, for cousin.

6. A comrade of Jesus. This is a remote possibility. Greek uses adelphos the same as English does in “a band of brothers.”

Possibilities 1 and 2 obviously go against Catholic beliefs.

The Catholic Church prefers possibility 5 but 3, 4 and 6 would not go against doctrine.

With love in Christ.

Answer 5

They will never listen to your common sense, no matter how hard you try.

Of course Mary could not have been a virgin and had a number of children, let alone one. But then again when has logic stopped them?

Take for instance an even greater heresy than the creation of Mary as a Goddess (Yes Catholics DO worship her now as Queen of Heaven). Take the creation of the Pope as a God on earth since the end of the 19th Century through the belief of infallibility.

In 1871 That Pope Pius IX through the Papal Bull “Pastor aeternus” published the heretical false statement claiming the Pope is infallible and therefore is both above all laws of humanity above all human beings and cannot be questioned by faithful Catholics.

Now, the purpose of this Papal bull which is still defended by the Vatican today was to prevent the Pope from being charged with being a criminal because of his complete involvement in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and the Vatican’s ongoing open support for international slavery. See The Almanac of Evil for more information.
http://one-faith-of-god.org/final_testament/end_of_darkness/evil/evil_0190.htm

However, an unintended consequence of this heretical document placing the Pope above all human laws and all human beings was that the Vatican effectively made the Pope a God- a direct contradiction of its own doctrines for 1600 years and automatically grounds for excommunication of all people who follow such heresy.

So today, when a person is a Catholic and say they support the Pope not only are they heretics in worshipping a man claiming to be a God, they are certainly not worshipping Jesus as head of the church.

Jesus was a human being. While alive, he never claimed to be infallible like the Popes have claimed for 100+ years.

The Papal Bull of “Pastor aeternus”is one of the greatest heresies and openly contemptuous documents against the entire alleged spiritual scriptures of Christianity as well as the human race.

The fact that Catholics unwittingly worship the Pope as a God shows you have no chance of convincing them that the Goddess Queen of Heaven (Mary), was not a virgin.

Answer 6

The fact is, Catholics know that Mary was, is, and always will be a virgin, because there were numerous Catholics who were alive then, who actually knew Mary, and who also knew St. John, who was entrusted by Jesus with her care, because she had no other children.

No one even seriously questioned the matter until the 16th century.

It was only the late day descendants of the protestant reformers who lost their way, and chose to reinterpret scripture in such a way so as to demean the true nature of the Mother of God in this way, simply because it conveniently set them even further apart from the Catholic Church.

Answer 7

Sorry, but there just isn't any such evidence to support what you claim. Certainly the New Testament does not provide any evidence and neither do any Traditions on Mary. So why would you think otherwise?

And no, Catholics don't worship Mary. Worship is due only to God. And you are in harmony with Catholic teaching when you say she is not a "goddess".

Answer 8

Firstly, Catholics do not, I repeat do not worship Mary, they honour her!!! Where in the bible does it says that she have children after Christ. What the bible says is that Christ has brothers and sisters. These brother and sisters of Christ are His cousins and not His actual brothers and sisters and therefore are not children of Mary!!! In those days, the Jews address their cousins as their brothers and sisters!!!

Answer 9

She stopped being a virgin after a brief but hot encounter with Gabriel, a young and beautiful stud that got her pregnant the first time. The rest is just a fairy tale.

Answer 10

NO> Mary is Ever-Virgin. At the cross, Jesus handed his mother over to John to take care of her, since he didn't have any other brothers.