Portuguese Bishop denies perpetual virginity of Mary

UPDATE 26 Dec:

The bishop “corrected” things – he thinks – in a sermon.  HERE

UPDATE 24 Dec:

Note below that I wrote: “what they are reported to have said”

From a reader …

Quick update: as expected Bp. Linda has now denied saying what he said. According to his (I think) note to Observador, he will “proclaim his total adherence to the faith of the Church regarding the virginity of Our Lady”

(He will proclaim [it]…) tomorrow at Mass, during the Homily, which will be broadcasted by Radio Renascença (Portugal’s ‘c’atholic radio).

I will try to get that and send it to you

 

If the bishop was misquoted, what about the other guy?

___

Originally Published on: Dec 24, 2018

Observador, a Portuguese site, posts the responses of Bp. Manuel Linda, Bishop of Porto, and Fr. Anselmo Borges, essayist and university professor at Coimbra University, to seven questions.

Their responses include that Mary was not a virgin and that Christ, conceived in the normal human way, was not born in Bethlehem.

This, a contradiction of the clear teaching of the Church, is heresy.  These men should be investigated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and required publicly to correct what they are reported to have said.

Try this on for size…

3. And how can Jesus be the son of a virgin?

Jesus is not the son of a virgin woman, both Father Borges and Bishop Linda explain. He was conceived by Mary and Joseph like any other person and he is “truly man”. Virginity is only associated with Mary as a metaphor to prove that Jesus was a very special person.

The gospel of St. Luke, one of the most trustworthy in the Bible, tells us that an angel called Gabriel was sent by God to the city of Nazareth, in Galilee, to visit Mary, presented as “a virgin wedded to a man”. The angel said to her: “Mary, do not fear, because you have found grace before God. And in your womb, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be grand and he will be called the son of the Highest. And our Lord God will give to him the throne of David, his father. He will reign eternally in the house of Jacob and his kingdom will have no end”.

Mary was confused because she had never had sexual relations with any man. But the angel Gabriel explained it to her: “The Holy Spirit will descend upon you and the virtue of the Highest will cover you with his shadow. For that, the Saint, who will be born from you, will also be called Son of God. And also, your cousin Elizabeth has conceived a son in her old age. And this is the sixth month for that who was called sterile. Nothing is impossible for God”.

Regardless of these words, Bp. Linda told Observador that “we should never refer to the physical virginity of the Virgin Mary”: “The Old Testament says many times that Jesus would be born from a damsel, daughter of Israel, who would be simple, poor and humble. But, in truth, that is only a reference to that woman’s total devotion to God. The gift of being mother of God was given to Mary because because she had an undivided heart. What matters is the total donation”, Bp. Linda explains. And he adds: “There certainly exist women with a broken hymen [which is associated to the physical sign of a woman losing her virginity] who are more virgin in the sense of total devotion to God that other women with an intact hymen”.

[…]

So, to say that Jesus was born of a virgin woman is a theological truth but not necessarily a biological truth. Fr. Borges even adds that “theology is not a treatise in biology” and that the virginity of Mary only serves to “underline the importance of Jesus as God’s special son”: “Mary and Joseph only later realized the special son they had had. Any mother is amazed at her sons and with Mary and Joseph the same thing happened. Our Lady is special because she converted to the message of Jesus. Sometimes she understood it, sometimes she didn’t”, Fr. Borges concludes.

There are other wrong ideas about the life of Jesus beside having been born from a virgin woman. For example, it is a custom to say that Mary’s parents were called Anna and Joaquim, but that is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It is just that those aspects became “tradition”, Bp. Linda explains.

Fr. Borges agrees and says that happens because Jesus’ biography started to be written backwards. Jesus was, probably, not born in Bethlehem as the Bible says: in truth, he must have been born in Nazareth. But since for Christians Jesus is “the true Messiah”, then that means in theory that, like Joseph, he is part of the lineage of king David, who was from Bethlehem. Jesus must have also been exiled in Egypt, as the Bible suggests. Only he is the “true liberator”. Now, Moses is from Egyptian origins and was a liberator of the people of Israel. That is why a parallel was drawn between both.

The Church teaches clear that Mary always a virgin ante partum, in partu, post partum, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ.

So much for the prophecy that the Messiah, from the line of David, would be born in David’s city, Bethlehem (“house of bread”), where David was crowned.

There is an old but good piece about the virginity of Mary by Fr. William Most.  HERE  He lays out various point at which the Church clarified the doctrine of the virgin birth and perpetual virginity of Mary.  It is a good reference.

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was was taught very early by Fathers, including, Sts. Athanasius, Ambrose, and Augustine.  It was taught dogmatically at Constantinople II in 553 that Mary is “ever-virgin.” Pope Martin I (+655) taught that “ever-virgin” meant Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ’s birth.  This has been reaffirmed so many times through the centuries that summing them up here would take too much space.  As Fr. Most puts it:

A doctrine taught with multiple papal approval plus that of Vatican II should be called infallible, for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition. It shows the way the texts of the Church are to be understood. So the Holy Office was right in calling the ideas of [Viennese theologian Albert] Mitterer and others, “flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal tradition of the Church.”

Mitterer and others, such as Walter Kasper and Jean Galot have bought into same garbage that these Portuguese clerics have peddled.

“Flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal tradition of the Church.”

This is the poison fruit of too great an emphasis on those tools of modern scholarship which wind up destroying that to which they are applied.  The inevitable result is the sowing of confusion and the erosion of faith of good people.   What these men did was nothing short of scandalous.

The best examination of what this improper approach to the data of faith does – and its corrective – is from Benedict XVI in the first volume of his three part Jesus of Nazareth series.  In his forward, he lays it all out.

Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration US HERE – UK HERE

And don’t forget, in this season, his volumn on the Infancy Narratives. US HERE – UK HERE

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Our Solitary Boast, You must be joking! and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Portuguese Bishop denies perpetual virginity of Mary

  1. FrAnt says:

    It would seem that the “Interdict” should be brought back into use, and throw in an Excommunication while we’re at it.

  2. rtjl says:

    ‘Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am pure of heart, a theological virgin if not a physical virgin, and everyone knows that theological virgins cannot conceive and become pregnant no matter how much sex they have?”’

  3. John the Mad says:

    Bishop Linda and Fr Borges should indeed be investigated and sanctioned, but it would have to be initiated and prosecuted by clerics from the Vatican and the results approved by Pope Francis.
    Their recent record in defending Catholic doctrine is rather spotty, to say the least.

    Still, as a believer in miracles and in the virtue of hope I pray this Christmas eve that Jesus will defend His mother and the ancient Catholic truth of the Virgin birth, will be upheld.

    Merry Christmas to you father.

  4. JabbaPapa says:

    I have no idea why such men as these should wish to continue as Catholics even if they should be Lay persons, but to see priests putting forward these atheist/Protestant fallacies, of 19th Century Revisionist anti-clerical origin, is monstruous.

  5. Hidden One says:

    “That child, born in Bethlehem of the Virgin Mary, came not only for the people of Israel, represented by the shepherds of Bethlehem, but also for all humanity….” – Pope Francis, first words of his homily for the Epiphany, January 6, 2015.

  6. HvonBlumenthal says:

    This is the same bishop who said he was very concerned at the TLM because young people and intellectuals are drawn to it.

  7. Ms. M-S says:

    I was happy to see the quotation from a very dear old friend, Father William Most here. He didn’t suffer modeling clay doctrine, fools, or fence sitters gladly. I remember him saying more than once in his last years, “Let the schism begin.”

  8. GM Thobe says:

    It would appear that another thing heretofore considered binary is now open to “new possibilities”, just like the new genders, whose names are legion. On the other hand, at least there is honesty and in the response, from which an effective correction can be made.

  9. Percusio says:

    “In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will be preserved” I hope that this quote is as near as to what our Blessed Mother, Our Lady of Fatima had told Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta. There is something sinister here, an outright challenge to the Blessed Mother herself by those apostles in the Catholic Church who have been given the responsibility of preserving the faith. I’m sorry. I see these as demonic. (red dragon) attacks upon our Blessed Mother Herself. I realize that the interpretation of the above statement which our Blessed Mother said are many, but I think that when the “Church Herself” makes such statements about her perpetual virginity and consequently derogatory of her Son, this becomes a challenge of authority of King and Queen and human bishops. It is a challenge, it is a test, it seems to me a temptation similar to that given to our Lord by Satan to prove that what God, in this case Mary, says is really true. Yes, dogma and apparitions are not of the same kind when it comes to the faith, but approved apparitions are not challenges to our faith but often words of conversion from a present evil state. It is not a dogma of our faith that we have to believe these words of our Blessed Mother, but it does discredit an event that was verified and sealed by a miracle of “biblical proportions”. I hope I haven’t introduced any error pertaining to dogma and apparitions, it was/is not my intent.

  10. JMody says:

    What level of apostasy/heresy/cowardice will prompt action by the Holy See if this does not? What will the divine correction be if there is no fraternal correction to this? I’m with Percusio here – this cannot be mere idiocy anymore.

  11. richiedel says:

    He’s against Vatican II! (cf. Lumen Gentium 52, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69).

    NB: “By her belief and obedience, not knowing man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the new Eve she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father, showing an undefiled faith, not in the word of the ancient serpent, but in God’s messenger.” (Lumen Gentium 63)

    -AND-

    “It gives great joy to this holy and general synod that even among the separated brethren the there are some who give due honor to the Mother of our Lord and Savior, especially among the Orientals, who with devout mind and fervent impulse give honor to the Mother of God, ever virgin.” (Lumen Gentium 69)

  12. Malta says:

    Wait a second, why would Joseph think of divorcing Mary quietly if he was the natural father? (cf.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_1:19).

    What gives a bishop the right to change sound doctrine, dogma, the teachings of the Church and the very essence of the Catholic faith. HE SHOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED unless he publicly repents of his error.

  13. JGavin says:

    These quotes are egregious enough to demand action. Investigation is what is in order since a misquote or a deliberate obfuscation would not be surprising. As to the actions on the part of Francis , given his devotion to Our Lady Untier of Knots, I would think this Protestant/Modernist view would be anathema to him. (Anathema- that needs to come back as well)

  14. Sawyer says:

    Years ago I used to think that people were crying wolf about the dangers of modernism. Now I get it. Modernism has infected and corrupted much of the Church, even clerics.

  15. HvonBlumenthal says:

    If you worked for, say, a windpower plant and you constantly preached that there is no global warming and no reason for alternative fuels, your employers would probably suggest you were in the wrong job.

  16. TonyO says:

    but to see priests putting forward these atheist/Protestant fallacies, of 19th Century Revisionist anti-clerical origin, is monstruous.

    In addition, it’s plain stupid to boot. These errors have been dealt with, answered with ease, decisively defeated, and shown up for their foolish fallacy time and time again, in such wise that ANY ordinary Catholic can find solid and easy answers without half trying. It takes a combination of monstrosity and dire stupidity to fall into such a hole.

    The priests must be investigated and dealt with: it is not enough to declare their COMMENTS heresy, it is also required that they publicly submit to correction where they publicly embrace the true doctrine a leave off their error – or they be excommunicated for obstinate refusal to submit to the teaching Church. Nobody should hope (now) that it would come to the latter, but this kind of malicious teaching needs to be stopped in its course, in a public way, to restrain the evil it spreads. Merely getting this bishop and priest silenced is not enough.

  17. Marine Mom says:

    1 Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception
    2 Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity
    3 Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity in refusing at the same time to recognize her as the Mother of men
    4 Blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of our Immaculate Mother
    5 The offenses of those who outrage Her directly, in Her holy images.
    “Here then, My Daughter, is the reason why the Immaculate Heart of Mary [My Mother] causes Me to ask for this little act of reparation and by means of it, moves My Mercy to forgive those souls who had the misfortune of offending her. As for you, try without ceasing, with all your prayers and sacrifices to move Me to mercy toward those poor souls.”
    Spoken y Our Savior in 1930 to Sister Lucia

  18. tho says:

    Bring back the Inquisition, and throw that Father Martin in with them.

  19. Elizabeth D says:

    There is massive confusion today about “virginity” because this term does have extremely variable meanings, significances, and definitions down through history and today more than ever before. I think this confusion and its impact is underestimated. Symbolic or poetic meanings of virginity are very common today and not at all exclusive to “liberals”, for instance Karol Wojtyla speaks of “secondary virginity” in his book Love and Responsibility, and Fr Giussiani of Communion and Liberation apparently waxes eloquent about “virginity” from a poetic perspective that is not about literal sexual history. One finds the female nuptial spirituality claimed as being about “virginity” even though there’s no spiritual theology reason why it has to do with virginity in the literal sense. One can find ascribed to”virginity” everything positive about women, every kind of female virtue and good trait and good meaning is summed up in “virginity” as meaning the undamaged and perfect woman as she should be, usually including literal virginity. One finds virginity meant with varying degrees of literalness (for instance is a woman who is raped a virgin), the maximum literalness being that usually ascribed to Mary, ie “inviolata, integra, et casta est Maria”. The one clear thing is that a woman is diminished if she is not virgin, and it’s genuinely bad if she’s unmarried and not a virgin, so much so that if she isn’t literally a virgin then a metaphoric use of the term almost has to be invoked in order for a celibate woman to have some kind of positive meaning in the Church. This is actually significantly problematic, and this very free use of the term “virgin” is probably a contributing factor to the grave confusion that this bishop apparently decided is okay to display, but it’s understandable. Unmarried women who are not virgins signify unchastity and being soiled, regardless of their present virtue. With no other positive identity for celibate women apart from “virginity” that’s how it is. Is virginity about a state of women’s genital organs or is it not, there’s not a clear teaching about that and it does have something to do with a sensitivity toward women and the need to not be extremely reductionistic about women as able to be broken irreparably, since the subject of “virginity” has always been connected with women’s value or loss of value.

    [The Church’s teaching about Mary – about MARY – is absolutely clear. Moreover, Benedict XVI adds a note for reflection.

    Naturally we may not ascribe to God anything nonsensical or irrational, or anything that contradicts his creation. But here we are not dealing with the irrational or contradictory, but precisely with the positive— with God’s creative power, embracing the whole of being. In that sense these two moments— the virgin birth and the real resurrection from the tomb— are the cornerstones of faith. If God does not also have power over matter, then he simply is not God. But he does have this power, and through the conception and resurrection of Jesus Christ he has ushered in a new creation. So as the Creator he is also our Redeemer. Hence the conception and birth of Jesus from the Virgin Mary is a fundamental element of our faith and a radiant sign of hope.

    Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives (p. 57). Image. Kindle Edition. ]

  20. Longinus says:

    In 1984 an Anglican priest who denied the virgin birth was consecrated as a “bishop” in York Minster cathedral. The next day the Anglican archbishop of York preached a sermon defending the new bishop’s views. Later that evening lightening struck the roof of the cathedral and caused extensive damage to the roof and the interior. The London times wrote: “A bolt from heaven the very night after the Archbishop preached in defense of his Durham appointment before the assembled synod: It is hard not to be reminded of Elijah and the priests of Baal.”
    So, keep an eye on the cathedral of Porto. The Lord does not take kindly to those who insult His mother!

  21. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    Anathema sit

  22. Gaetano says:

    It’s disheartening when modern bishops advocate theological positions that even Luther – or even Calvin – would shudder to endorse.

  23. fmsb78 says:

    I was raised in a protestant household and even back then I was taught that Our Blessed Mother conceived, as a virgin, by the power of Holy Spirit and that she had more children later because protestants misunderstand that passage in the Gospel about the “brothers and sisters of Jesus”.

    Now this Bishop and Priest go even beyond protestant heresy. If they tell all like this to my mom, who is still protestant, she would be terribly scandalized. How bad is that?…

  24. Benedict Joseph says:

    The articulated views, now retracted for public consumption [you don’t want to shake up the groundling laity] , are undoubtedly their firmly held conviction and they are held by a large swath of the elite episcopal class. We have to abandon denial and come to terms with the fact that a staggering number of clergy barely qualify as theists, let alone Catholic. And sad to say, there is no small number of atheists. As bad as things appear to be, it is all quite worse. Things could not be as bad as they appear to be if they weren’t. There is a façade in place but not much behind it. And what is behind it is not edifying.
    Time to tank the rose colored glasses.

  25. Gab says:

    How much lower can these bishops/priests sink? Wonder what drove them to say such heresies.

  26. JGavin says:

    I am going to do that which I should do far more frequently which is say the rosary.

  27. JARay says:

    I wonder what these heretics make of the words of Jesus who said to some of those questioning him “Abraham, your father, rejoiced that he might see my day; he saw, and was glad. The Jews therefore said to him. ‘thou art not yet fifty and hast thou see Abraham’ Jesus replied Before ever Abraham was, I am” (John 8 vs 56-58) How does that accord with the saying of a man who was simply the natural son of Mary and Joseph? And we have still in the chapter 8 of St John vs 42 ” If God were your Father you would love me. For from God I proceeded and came; for I came, not of myself, but He sent me”
    In those two parts of St. John’s gospel, Jesus clearly proclaimed his Divinity and origin. He was born of a natural mother, Mary but she conceived by the power of The Holy Spirit. Mary was ever a virgin because by the power of God, all things are possible. Just as the Angel Gabriel told Our Lady.

  28. majuscule says:

    “In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will be preserved” …
    There is something sinister here…

    and

    Wonder what drove them to say such heresies.

    I realize we can choose to ignore the prophecies of Fatima…

    …but if they are true, what better place for the devil to try to work against God?

  29. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Maybe this explains the conversation that was going on, after Christmas Vigil Mass, out in the vestibule when the folks with little kids had gone home?

    There were a bunch of ladies chatting, and one of the younger women was insisting rather puzzledly that Mary couldn’t have been intact after childbirth, and the other ladies were saying she was wrong. So I jumped in to help with talking about that being why we call her “ever-virgin,” and some basic defenses of Mary being intact. I was afraid she would feel bad for not knowing, so I joked about how we really needed a CCD class for adults that was all about the sex and violence parts of theology and the Bible.

    But yeah, I had no idea how that came up, so I kinda hope it was the news story. It honestly made me want to cry, because it’s a terrible thing for an adult Catholic not to know, and it’s terrible to have to defend Mary right after a Christmas Vigil Mass. But it’s also a good thing, because what better time to learn and teach than at Christmas?

    I don’t know about y’all, but I really need some hot chocolate. St. Alphonsus Liguori praises the electuary niceness of cocoa in his Moral Theology, and he was a big Christmas songwriter who loved Mary; so he should be a good guide!

  30. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Sarah Hoyt (maiden name Almeida) is from somewhere around Porto, and the general impression I get from her, is that Catholic culture around there is kinda weird. Good stuff, bad stuff, valid cultural stuff, superstitious stuff, heretical stuff, atheist stuff, hearsay legends with alternate Bible interpretations… a whole bunch of everything, all in heaping helpings. Basically this is what you get when you have thousands of years of all sorts of historical stirring things up.

    So it would not surprise me if there are some freaking weird bishops, from time to time.

    OTOH, Portugal has always been chock full o’ saints, even before Fatima. Don’t forget that it’s St. Anthony of Padua’s home.

  31. MrsAnchor says:

    This should serve to merely show we’ll need to practice virtues with more intensity to bear the coming storm. How does one not reflect on Veronica going through angry spit flinging crowds to comfort our Lord? It took COURAGE and Grace… and very especially remember those that helped the early Catholic Christians being slaughtered at grave outcomes to themselves. The Old Testament is a treasure trove of info on the decay of Faith with the Jewish people and their subsequent perils.

  32. Hidden One says:

    Fr. Z’s update reminds us how easy it is to judge bishops too quickly and too harshly–and that reminder will remain valid no matter what His Excellency says in his homily.

  33. OssaSola says:

    Did the Bishop also deny that Our Lord could walk through walls ?

    Because He walked through walls.

    If He could do that, no problem passing in/out of the body of his Blessed Mother without her injury.

    Joyful Christmas, everyone!

  34. Nan says:

    On icons of the Theotokos, there’s a star on each shoulder and one on her head as a reminder of her perpetual state of virginity; before, during and after.

  35. SanSan says:

    Agreed OssaSola.
    Our Mother was born without sin. She would not have the “pangs”of birth or lose her virginity. Our Lord did pass through His mothers body, without injury or pain. (Read City of God, along with many other mystical locutions on the subject). All things are possible–for He is God after all).

  36. Elizabeth D says:

    Does not occur to me to argue about Mary, the teaching is clear and I thought the reported heresies about Mary were bizarre, I was responding to what the bishop etc were reported to have said which was obviously also discussing women other than Mary, and how confusion and varying definitions about that could be impacting how some are thinking of Mary. Grappling with the Catholic importance of virginity for women in general has been unavoidable in my personal spiritual life, an occasion both of suffering and growth, with (unsettlingly) no place to turn for clear or reassuring answers. I am glad if the reported heresy was not what this bishop said.

  37. Alaskamama says:

    Along these lines, our pastor preached an Immaculate Conception sermon putting forth the notion that Mary was not the only virgin whom God prepared to be the Mother of God, but Mary was the first of these immaculate virgins who said yes to bearing the Savior.
    Reparation. Reparation. Reparation.

  38. Grabski says:

    Theological but not biological truth

    The “Catholicism” of a 2+2=5 period…

  39. ChesterFrank says:

    The season opening was Black Friday and ends with the greatest shopping spectacular of the year, aka “the after Christmas sale.” A dumb quote from a cleric should shock me? These two seasons have been so trampled on already his shocking revelation gets barely a shrug. Do you think his energies might be better spent reminding seculars, merchants, the formers non-practicing and nones, governments that this is a religious day, and that those of other traditions should not trample or interfere with the religious observances of those practicing their religion?

  40. As I read Alaskamama’s comment at 1257, it occurs to me to give thanks to God for the simple orthodoxy of our priests here (in this part, anyway) of Portland in Oregon: not once in 20+ years, have I heard heresy preached during a sermon. But whatever the bishop said appears to have been mischaracterised, maybe; who knows. In any event, a happy and peaceful Christmas to Fr Zuhlsdorf and to everyone here!

  41. robtbrown says:

    To say that Virginity is not biological but moral comes straight from Karl Rahner.

    Cardinal Schönborn recently said that the Vatican no longer lives under a rock. He was confused. The rock has been lifted and under it is to corpse of Karl Rahner.

  42. Jann says:

    I was surprised to see Jean Galot’s name listed here as a dissenter to Catholic doctrine. I haven’t read his Mariological writings but he has many beautiful pages on the “miracle” of the virginal conception of Christ and the “involvement” of the Holy Spirt in it in his “Who Is Christ” — a book by the way which is twice recommended by Fr. Schall in his book “Another Sort of Learning”. Also, Galot in “The Person of Christ” is all about emphasizing Christ’s divinity.

    I would really have to read Galot’s words quoted in Most’s article in context to believe he (Galot) meant what he is being accused of having meant. I have heard/read, time and time again, Catholic scholars maligned by other Catholics who often have not read the original texts. In any event, I would not associate him with, nor mention his name in the same breath with Bp. Linda and Fr. Borges. (I have not read Mitterer.)

  43. Jann says:

    Good grief. I just googled “Jean Galot Mary’s virginity” and came upon this passage in someone’s blog where after mentioning Mitterer’s position seemingly about what constitutes virginity the blogger writes:

    “The same view seems to be advanced even by the “Venerable” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 205; and Jean Galot, S.J. openly argued for Mary’s painful delivery and the rupture of her hymen. Cf. Maria, la donna nell’opera di salvezza (Roma : Universit? Gregoriana Editrice, 1984), p. 159.”

    No where, no how does Ott on that page advance any such view as Mitterers’. Ott, as we all know only gives instances of various opinions. And I suspect the blogger has not actually read the source given for Galot’s “argument”.

    This is what I meant above.

  44. richiedel says:

    Virginity may be both physical and moral. Only when people describe what moral virginity is, such is usually illustrated with the counter example of the physical virgin who is constantly burning with lust, or something. Hey, here’s an idea: let’s suppose one – especially the Blessed Virgin Mary – can be a virgin both physically AND morally…

  45. mattg says:

    Trial balloon.

    These heretics want to test what they can get away with.

  46. Pingback: UPDATE – Portuguese Bishop “corrects” claims about the perpetual virginity of Mary | Fr. Z's Blog

  47. I’m closing the combox here. The update is posted HERE

  48. richiedel says:

    Good idea, Fr. Z.