Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[GaryTaylor]

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

St Jerome has been considered by most the Greatest interpreter of Scripture to come along yet.

 

[dianaiad]

This is the thing that I have seen. Mormons and new age Protestants do not have the foundation to properly interpret scripture as it has been evidenced by the “I just don’t know” answers that we keep getting and the “You have to prove your position because we cannot defend ours” responses.

This should at least make you at least question your foundation. Which you have shown to us is very weak.

In other words, Rose, it’s our fault that we don’t believe as you do regarding this because…we don’t believe as you do about this?

 

[dianaiad]

We don’t need to go and pray about knowing it,

How?

we already know it, we pray that we can know it more fully and even enter into it. The Holy Spirit is the validity of our sources. We are constantly over our entire life’s course understanding that there is the calling to go further and deeper not only in our prayer life, but in the virtues, in the Sacramental life, in the life of the True Church, in …everything. A good example of someone who did this was Mother Theresa.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis,
The text says what it says - and you are reaching to infer she claimed perpetual virginity from a short question.

Please don’t put insults in my mouth I have not uttered

You’re absolutely correct. The text DOES say what it says:
**"How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"

---

It is YOU who keeps trying to apply a different meaning to it.

 

[elvisman]

In other words, Rose, it’s our fault that we don’t believe as you do regarding this because…we don’t believe as you do about this?

**I would say that you’re partially correct with that statement.

A fuller, more comprehensive statement would be:
"It’s your fault because you reject the traditions maintained by the Apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) because you have rejected the authority of Christ’s Church (Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Tim. 3:15)."

---

That pretty much says it in a nutshell.

 

[adrift]

My intention has been to challenge misuse of scripture and false logic. To be candid, Catholics could learn from this discussion and stick to arguments that support their assertation, stop trying to convince people with holy scripture.
Holy Scripture is clear and specific on the virgin birth
Holy Scripture is unclear on perpetual virginity
Holy Tradition is clear and specific on perpetual virginity

I have never debated Catholic Holy Tradition on this subject, as my goal is not to disuade Catholics in their belief. .

If this was your intention, than you have failed. I must say that I have been disappointed in your arguments. They have been based on fraud. There is an arrogance in telling another that they have false logic when one is using false logic. It is a fraud to quote a source in a way to make it sound that it supports you but does not You said that this was from the Wiki

Until’ used in its full contemporary English sense signifies that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth.

When it actually says

If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense—that is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth—then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple’s later sexual activity.

So you changed the meaning significantly.

 

[elvisman]

Now you are being mean, I rejected those examples because their sentence structure changed the meaning. My challenge is to give an example using the same sentence structure as Matt 1:25. And how can you ignore contemporay usage as not being an issue?

I will repeat my two unanswered questions:

Question 1: If perpetual virginity was true and important, why wasn’t it clearly stated in scripture? “Joseph did not know mary until the end of her days” would have solved all our problems here.

Question 2: Provide an example using this sentence structure, where the negative does not occur after the event. Again, ‘until now’ is excluded from the sentence structure.
“he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son”.
She/he (insert action), but did not (insert action) until (past event occured)

It’s mean to point out what you said?? HOW is that possible?

---

**As for samples – we keep supplying you with them but you keep rejecting them: **Psalm 110:1, 2 Samuel 6:23, Matt 22:44, Acts 2:34-35

 

[KathleenGee]

I am taking it out further…agree with St Jerome…even though it could be likely Joseph was a widower with children, I think not.

St. Joseph was a chaste man…who did not have carnal relations. He, as well was called to mission to be guardian and provider for Jesus and Mary. After they were bethrothed, he knew her…an arrangement?..she was a temple virgin. Jewish men were called at times to be personal guardians to these young women.

Sarah had only one child. St. Elizabeth had only one child, John the Baptist…they all had great missions…and yet Mary did not have the purity of intent these women had who did know carnal relations???

Purity of thought and mission. St. Joseph began to know Mary after they were bethrothed, but mission…He had an angel speak to him in a dream. He had an angel inspire to take the family and leave in haste to Egypt…and to return to Nazareth.

Think of Mary and Joseph at the Nativity with the shepherds, the angels rejoicing in heaven…Jesus always had the beatific vision. I cannot imagine a person wanting to seek carnal desires when day to day looking into the face of the Man God…that their relationship with Jesus, although handling Him as a mortal, also drew them to adore Him their every waking moment. I imagine the holy angels there and Jesus in deep prayer…as a little one.

I saw an old Catholic movie from Italy about a little boy who was an orphan and stayed at a Franciscan monastery. He went up into the forbidden attic and saw Jesus on the crucifix. Later the statue came to life…at the end of the movie, the friars looked in, and saw the little boy in the arms of Christ. I was 8 years old and cried all the way home.

Think what it would be like to see the God Man in your arms…you are living in a very different and most refined reality…

And I am in no ways denigrating the marital relationship.

I just think the very nature of Christ Himself and His great mission to be savior and redeemer, much awaited by the Jewish people…As Mary herself reflected upon as well in her Magnificat, atleast tells me that they lived a most hidden life…was entirely all encompassing…and having sex with a consecrated virgin was not. If it was OK for them to have sex…then it would have been OK for Mary not to have been virgin at birth.

You are either a consecrated, vowed virgin to God or you are not. To have other children who were sinful…we all sin…would be two different dynamics under one roof, attention most profoundly divided.

Pride wants to boast, but virtue wants to hide itself.

 

[adrift]

I am taking it out further…agree with St Jerome…even though it could be likely Joseph was a widower with children, I think not.

St. Joseph was a chaste man…who did not have carnal relations. He, as well was called to mission to be guardian and provider for Jesus and Mary. After they were bethrothed, he knew her…an arrangement?..she was a temple virgin. Jewish men were called at times to be personal guardians to these young women.

Sarah had only one child. St. Elizabeth had only one child, John the Baptist…they all had great missions…and yet Mary did not have the purity of intent these women had who did know carnal relations???

Purity of thought and mission. St. Joseph began to know Mary after they were bethrothed, but mission…He had an angel speak to him in a dream. He had an angel inspire to take the family and leave in haste to Egypt…and to return to Nazareth.

Think of Mary and Joseph at the Nativity with the shepherds, the angels rejoicing in heaven…Jesus always had the beatific vision. I cannot imagine a person wanting to seek carnal desires when day to day looking into the face of the Man God…that their relationship with Jesus, although handling Him as a mortal, also drew them to adore Him their every waking moment. I imagine the holy angels there and Jesus in deep prayer…as a little one.

I saw an old Catholic movie from Italy about a little boy who was an orphan and stayed at a Franciscan monastery. He went up into the forbidden attic and saw Jesus on the crucifix. Later the statue came to life…at the end of the movie, the friars looked in, and saw the little boy in the arms of Christ. I was 8 years old and cried all the way home.

Think what it would be like to see the God Man in your arms…you are living in a very different and most refined reality…

And I am in no ways denigrating the marital relationship.

I just think the very nature of Christ Himself and His great mission to be savior and redeemer, much awaited by the Jewish people…As Mary herself reflected upon as well in her Magnificat, atleast tells me that they lived a most hidden life…was entirely all encompassing…and having sex with a consecrated virgin was not. If it was OK for them to have sex…then it would have been OK for Mary not to have been virgin at birth.

You are either a consecrated, vowed virgin to God or you are not. To have other children who were sinful…we all sin…would be two different dynamics under one roof, attention most profoundly divided.

Pride wants to boast, but virtue wants to hide itself.

Well stated:thumbsup:

 

[Todd520]

It’s mean to point out what you said?? HOW is that possible?

---

As for samples – we keep supplying you with them but you keep rejecting them: Psalm 110:1, 2 Samuel 6:23, Matt 22:44, Acts 2:34-35

Elvis, I’m now embarrased for you, but here it goes in full detail.

Three of your examples are the same sentence, and it describes a future event
Psalm 110 “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
Matthew 22:44 “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET”’?
Acts 2:34-35**“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’

When Until is for a future event, we don’t know what happens next, it’s not clearly implied.
However, using my requested sentence structure does have clear implications:
**The boy sat at the table until he finished his homework. **
This is the requested equivalent sentence structure, and it clearly implies he left the table sometime after finishing his homework.

Now on to your remaining example
2 Samuel 6:23*: Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
Using ‘until someone died’ is a very special usage and clearly indicates it never happened. It would support the PV story if scriptures read:
“How can this be, since I will be a virgin until I die?”
“he had no union with her until the day she died”

But they don’t read this, they say something that is not clear or explicit about her PV

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic use of reason connected with every day reality.

Reflects on why Latin rite priests are not called to married life…my old priest friend has a great outreach on an international level…if he was married, he would not have been able to bring Christ to so many people on various continents and cultures…to revolve his life around just one person would suffocate him. He told me would have liked to marry but his vocation prevented it.

He also said in response to the married thing, to not take this life so seriously.

There are celibate Catholic people who suffer some baseline loneliness of not having their own families…but have a far greater amount of inherent intrinsic values…and when they see who they truly are, they realize in time they would have found married life a millstone.

It is about your calling, your mission in life.

Catholic spirituality all derives from the Eucharistic Lord. If you cannot be enfleshed to a spouse in this life, you can still be espoused in flesh to Jesus Christ, but a particular bond that is for the kingdom of Christ.

Jesus said there would be those who did not marry because they were for the kingdom.

And Mary also was the key to this mission of Christ, she a partaker in it. Without her humanity, we would not have the Man God.

 

[adrift]

Elvis, I’m now embarrased for you, but here it goes in full detail.

Your embarrassed for him???:ehh:

After your manufactured quote from wiki and your false definition, you should be embarrassed only for yourself.

 

[Stephen168]

Question 1: If perpetual virginity was true and important, why wasn’t it clearly stated in scripture?

Now one question, since we agree divine inspiration led to Matt 1:25, to clearly state Jesus had a virgin birth.

a 3rd Time

What do you think is the intent of Matthew’s verse?

And I ask again, what is your counter explanation for her question?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree Kathleen and so much emphasis was placed on Virginity and consecration to God, and with Mary being chosen by God? And the responsibility St Joseph took on? This was the Holy Family. I’m sure they had a deep respect for one another, but Mary was Full of Grace. We never hear in the Bible about any temptation of Mary, none. Now she was well respected by all and covered by Gods hand. And her desire was to fulfill this responsibility to God. And she did.

Priests and Sisters do the today, the Bible period with interaction on God, Jesus, angels and arc-angels? No they held fast to there commitment!

 

[Todd520]

a 3rd Time

Stephen,
Many things can be inferred from scripture, with an active mind.
Matt 1:25 clearly states a virgin birth, it does not clearly state perpetual virginity. I think ‘until’ infers something fairly explicit but you don’t like it.

I see your interpretation of Mary speaking with the Angel a huge stretch that the gospel writers could have clarified if it was important - ego it was not important.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think that Todd, you are very drawn to the married life that is very embellished in the Mormon faith.

I don’t think what you are grasping here is the spiritual life and its reality lived out in those who are particularly called to a religious vocation, a religious mission that is particularly purposeful, requiring celibacy.

The Catholic tradition is full of examples of the virtuous celibate life attainable by believers.

 

[Todd520]

I think that Todd, you are very drawn to the married life that is very embellished in the Mormon faith.

I don’t think what you are grasping here is the spiritual life and its reality lived out in those who are particularly called to a religious vocation, a religious mission that is particularly purposeful, requiring celibacy.

The Catholic tradition is full of examples of the virtuous celibate life attainable by believers.

Hi Kathleen, I agree that celibacy was/is purposeful and beneficial for the NUMEROUS examples of saints or priests with a religious vocation.

I also think there is a strong case for Mary’s perpetual virginity based on tradition and writings not part of the bible.

However, I will still call a spade “a spade” when I see erroneous use of scripture and logic

Catholic priests, nuns and laity have my utmost respect for what they do
(except Sister Agnes Rita, who beat me with a ruler)

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
Many things can be inferred from scripture, with an active mind.
Matt 1:25 clearly states a virgin birth, it does not clearly state perpetual virginity. I think ‘until’ infers something fairly explicit but you don’t like it.

I see your interpretation of Mary speaking with the Angel a huge stretch that the gospel writers could have clarified if it was important - ego it was not important.

You did not answer the question. why do you avoid it?

 

[KathleenGee]

I think Mary to have other children with a different spiritual constitution is a different vocation.

You can’t have two kinds under one roof…

If you do not experience the presence of God in the Eucharist, and the reasoning why we have a priesthood set aside, then it would be hard to believe Mary remaining in her vowed state.

It makes most sense to me.

But you and I are living out different spiritualities on different levels.

 

[Todd520]

You did not answer the question. why do you avoid it?

NO, I did answer your question - I said it doesn’t make sense to me and I wondered about alternative meanings in the original greek.

If you force me to speculate, i see a poor translation with two scenarios:

• the angel told Mary she was already pregnant. This fits perfectly with her question “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
• they excluded Mary’s vow to “remain a virgin until the day she died”

I do believe the bible is not translated clearly in many spots. The use of until in Matt 1:25 is another example I would like to see changed, to improve clarity of meaning.