What somewhat astounds me is that the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (MPV for short) is the number 1 most confusing Catholic doctrine to you; are really telling me that neither, say, Mary's Assumption or Immaculate Conception don't harbor any equal or greater difficulties to you?

I mean, comparatively, MPV has much more going for it on Protestant premises; it has greater support in the Father's than practically any other doctrine, even Christ's divinity. I know a number of modern Protestant commentators have accepted it on a grammatical-historical evaluation of the Bible's text alone. Luther accepted it; I've heard in fact that it was part of the Augsburg Confession. Also, practically every English divine who put pen to paper until around the 1800's accepted it. (And no, John Wesley was no exception; in fact, it, technically, is still Methodist teaching to this day) Even John Calvin thought it to be at least to be most probably true, even if he wasn't decided in favor of it himself (the evidence is ambiguous).

So, back to the point; can you explain why to me, exactly, MPV is such a stumbling block to you, especially compared to something like the Immaculate Conception?

RE: Jeremy Taylor

Of course I agree about informally referring to icons that way; I helped myself to such a use of language in my comment if you look back. I wouldn't have even have said anything about it, but it was a helpful segway to my real point, which was about how icons are actually used in Christian worship. I was also somewhat subtly trying to stave off at least some of the concerns about idolatry people might have, since the original language you used definetly is easier to misinterpret in that direction.

Overall, still mostly just a little thing...

By perfect charity, I suspect all that is meant in this concept is essentially that one has achieved the state of Christian Perfection, which, minimally, is the state of sanctification one is in when they are free from guilt of all mortal, but not necessarily all venial, sin. From there, one is in varying degrees of Christian Perfection inasmuch as they are free from venial sins and have conformed their hearts to the love of God.

The terminology comes from a mash-up of different biblical verses, stuff like 1 John 4:18 and Matthew 5:48, amongst a plethora of others. It is pretty much the central concept of Methodist theology, as elucidated in Wesley’s “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection”, but it is by no means original to Wesley; some version of the doctrine of Christian Perfection is part and parcel with the concept of theosis, which in my book is essential to Christianity.

The cathecism states:

IV. CHRISTIAN HOLINESS
2012 "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified."64
2013 "All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity."65 All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."66
In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ's gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.67
2014 S

Hi, I’m a relatively recently converted Catholic, lucky enough to have both been born and lived my whole life here in Texas. My interests are legion, but my main areas of study are in philosophy and theology. Before I became Catholic, I was and was raised as a Methodist (UMC specifically), and am well enough studied in Wesleyan theology to be a semi-expert for that particular brand of theology, at least for the purposes of this forum. I am philosophically best classed as a Thomist, but I have a great respect the Neo-Platonic tradition. My favorite philosophers include Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, Plato, Antonio Rosmini-Serbati, and Lady Mary Shepherd. I also have a great love of G.K. Chesterton, but am not a C.S. Lewis styled fan-boy of him, so please don't expect me to be that guy.

I'm also a great cook, so please, if anyone for some reason ends up talking about their patented Chili recipe that includes beans in it, don't be suprised when a mop of angry Texans ends up on your doorstep ready to inflict captical punishment; I warned you well in advance!