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

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lax16

Guest
I know there are scriptural passages that can lead one to believe that Mary and Joseph had other childen as husband and wife.
There are references that point to her Perpetual Virginity as well.
  1. Numbers 30 shows that a vow of abstinence, even in marriage, was not unheard of in the Old Testament.
  2. St. Jerome argued for the well-known and commonly held belief in Mary’s virginity in St. Jerome’s “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary” vs Heluidius (380 A.D.)
  3. Church approved apparitions always speak of Mary as the Virgin (for example, the Virgin of Guadalupe).
What do you think?
 
Holy Mother Church teaches that Holy Mother Mary was a perpetual virgin, good enough for me.👍
 
kimbaichan said:
Holy Mother Church teaches that Holy Mother Mary was a perpetual virgin, good enough for me.👍
Click to expand...
I agree. What exactly is the point in arguing about it. You believe the Church teachings or you don’t. You ARE Catholic or you are not. Personally I like the Orthodox tradition wherein Joseph was a widower, probably with other children, when he married Mary. When looked at in this way it is far easier to accept Mary’s vow of chastity and Joseph’s acceptance of same within their marriage. Also explains the other references to possible other children in the Holy Family. To my knowledge this does not contradict any Roman Rite tradition or teaching.

I am new to this board and I am amazed at some of the discussions I have found here. No reference to this discussion at all it just came into my mind while typing this so please no offense intended to the OP.

Is it just me or do others tire of threads led by atheists, agnostics, and others not in the Church trying to disprove this or that tenant of the Catholic Church. Why exactly? Quite frankly I don’t see the point. This IS a Catholic board and most of us here DO believe. Some will never believe, and I get the really strong impression that they are running away from their own guilt and doubt by trying to “convince” believers that their beliefs are either delusional or unintelligent. In so doing they hope to convince themselves in their supreme arrogance that THEY have it right and they are not choosing hell like the little voice in the back of their heads is telling them that they are. I stop reading when I get to the guys throwing game theory and mathematical equations into discussions of theology and faith. Intellectual arrogance in it’s highest form. Argument for entertainment. Faith can never be “proven” by some equation of probability theory.

Don’t believe! It’s OK with me. We can tell you what the Church teaches. None of us can change that. Accept the teachings and proudly call yourself Catholic. Reject them and call yourself whatever you want.

It’s my belief, my delusion if YOU want to call it that, it’s OK with me. I’m happy. I hope you all are all happy too, whatever path you have chosen.

Sorry about the rant. Probably doesn’t belong here.

Regards, and my apology to the OP…way off topic I fear.

Bill Unland
 
Anrando said:
I agree. What exactly is the point in arguing about it. You believe the Church teachings or you don’t. You ARE Catholic or you are not. Personally I like the Orthodox tradition wherein Joseph was a widower, probably with other children, when he married Mary. When looked at in this way it is far easier to accept Mary’s vow of chastity and Joseph’s acceptance of same within their marriage. Also explains the other references to possible other children in the Holy Family.

I am new to this board and I am amazed at some of the discussions I have found here. No reference to this discussion at all it just came into my mind while typing this so please no offense intended to the OP.

Is it just me or do others tire of threads led by atheists, agnostics, and others not in the Church trying to disprove this or that tenant of the Catholic Church. Why exactly? Quite frankly I don’t see the point. This IS a Catholic board and most of us here DO believe. Some will never believe, and I get the really strong impression that they are running away from their own guilt and doubt by trying to “convince” believers that their beliefs are either delusional or unintelligent, and in so doing convince themselves in their arrogance that THEY have it right and they are not choosing hell like the little voice in the back of their heads is telling them that they are. I stop reading when I get to the guys throwing game theory and mathematical equations into discussions of theology and faith. intellectual arrogance in it’s highest form. Argument for entertainment.

Don’t believe! It’s OK with me. We can tell you what the Church teaches. None of us can change that. Accept the teachings and proudly call yourself Catholic. Reject them and call yourself whatever you want.

It’s my belief, my delusion if YOU want to call it that, it’s OK with me. I’m happy. I hope you all are all happy too, whatever path you have choosen.

Sorry about the rant. Probably doesn’t belong here.

Regards, and my apology to the OP.

Bill Unland
Click to expand...
Anrando - Point well taken! And no apology needed.

Actually, the discussion came up on another thread where a Catholic quoted scripture and stated that they believe Mary went on to have other children.

I posted these three “arguments” for the perpetual virginity of Mary and realized it was completely off topic on that thread.
So…here they are again. I was hoping some non-Catholics would join in the discussion as well.
(I found the argument from St. Jerome vs. Heluidius very interesting and the apparitions as well.)

Sometimes I take for granted certain teachings of the Church until someone jumps in with a different position.
 
I may take a slightly different approach…I think Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus…do I think she remained so for life. I’m not sure. I don’t think it impacts her importance or decreases her divinity or that of Jesus in anyway.
 
Lutheranteach said:
I may take a slightly different approach…I think Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus…do I think she remained so for life. I’m not sure. I don’t think it impacts her importance or decreases her divinity or that of Jesus in anyway.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting position, Catholics believe that Mary was perpetually virgin but not divine.
 
I think the bible leans towards her not being a perpetual virgin
I think her being human and marrie leans towards her not being a perpetual virgin

I respect that CC Tradition says she was a perpetual virigin (easier to respect it from outside the CC)
 
Todd520 said:
I think the bible leans towards her not being a perpetual virgin
I think her being human and marrie leans towards her not being a perpetual virgin

I respect that CC Tradition says she was a perpetual virigin (easier to respect it from outside the CC)
Click to expand...
the bible never says mary has another child and she was a virgin when she gave birth to jesus.

So my best guess is that she is a virgin for all of her life (i think thats what perpetual virgin means)

but do you have verses to say otherwise
 
From the first apparition of the Blessed Mother to Juan Diego:

She said: “Juanito, the most humble of my sons, where are you going?” He replied: “My Lady and Child, I have to reach your church in Mexico, Tlatilolco, to pursue things divine, taught and given to us by our priests, delegates of Our Lord.” She then spoke to him: “Know and understand well, you the most humble of my son, that **I am the ever virgin **Holy Mary, Mother of the True God for whom we live, of the Creator of all things, Lord of heaven and the earth. I wish that a temple be erected here quickly, so I may therein exhibit and give all my love, compassion, help, and protection, because I am your merciful mother, to you, and to all the inhabitants on this land and all the rest who love me, invoke and confide in me; listen there to their lamentations, and remedy all their miseries, afflictions and sorrows. And to accomplish what my clemency pretends, go to the palace of the bishop of Mexico, and you will say to him that I manifest my great desire, that here on this plain a temple be built to me; you will accurately relate all you have seen and admired, and what you have heard. Be assured that I will be most grateful and will reward you, because I will make you happy and worthy of recompense for the effort and fatigue in what you will obtain of what I have entrusted. Behold, you have heard my mandate, my humble son; go and put forth all your effort.”

From the second apparition:
“Hark, my son the least, you must understand that I have many servants and messengers, to whom I must entrust the delivery of my message, and carry my wish, but it is of precise detail that you yourself solicit and assist and that through your mediation my wish be complied. I earnestly implore, my son the least, and with sternness I command that you again go tomorrow and see the bishop. You go in my name, and make known my wish in its entirety that he has to start the erection of a temple which I ask of him. And again tell him that I, in person, the ever-virgin Holy Mary, Mother of God, sent you.”

I have read that the image has been examined and is considered to be authentic. It is still in existence today.
 
Todd520 said:
I think the bible leans towards her not being a perpetual virgin
I think her being human and marrie leans towards her not being a perpetual virgin

I respect that CC Tradition says she was a perpetual virigin (easier to respect it from outside the CC)
Click to expand...
Hi Todd - have your read Numbers 30 in the Old Testament?
While it is not about the Blessed Mother, it does discuss the vow of abstinence in marrieage.
 
lax16 said:
I know there are scriptural passages that can lead one to believe that Mary and Joseph had other childen as husband and wife.
There are references that point to her Perpetual Virginity as well.
Click to expand...
Very true.

I used to be a lot more hardcore towards the perpetual virgin position. Now…I really don’t care. It’s not a dividing issue for me. So long as people are respectful of the subject, I say let it be.
 
lax16 said:
Hi Todd - have your read Numbers 30 in the Old Testament?
While it is not about the Blessed Mother, it does discuss the vow of abstinence in marrieage.
Click to expand...
Lax, I just read Numbers 30 for the first time, and may have missed it’s relevance.

Are you indirectly referring to “James the Just”. I believe the Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel, has the prime focus of asserting the virginity of Mary both prior to and during the birth of Jesus. I don’t know much about it but it sounds like the experts question it’s authenticity, and I guess it is not holy scripture.

Since Mary’s wedding was planned before her pregnancy, it appears to me she was no longer committed to lifelong service as a consecrated virgin in the Temple in Jerusalem. I believe her vow of celibacy would no longer apply since it contradicts the purpose of matrimony.
 
lax16 said:
I know there are scriptural passages that can lead one to believe that Mary and Joseph had other childen as husband and wife.
There are references that point to her Perpetual Virginity as well.
  1. Numbers 30 shows that a vow of abstinence, even in marriage, was not unheard of in the Old Testament.
  2. St. Jerome argued for the well-known and commonly held belief in Mary’s virginity in St. Jerome’s “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary” vs Heluidius (380 A.D.)
  3. Church approved apparitions always speak of Mary as the Virgin (for example, the Virgin of Guadalupe).
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Here we go again!!

When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was a virgin.

From there we know nothing for sure but Matthew 1:25,26 makes it clear that she was a virgin up til the birth of Jesus and then there was most probably a change.
 
Dokimas said:
Here we go again!!
When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was a virgin.
Click to expand...
Genesis 3; 14 Then the LORD God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures; On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life. 15** I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;** He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” 16 To the woman he said: "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master."
Code: 
 Isaiah 66: 7 **Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like?** 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; **Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God.** 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her,
Mary remained a perpetual virgin before giving birth, during giving birth and after giving birth to Jesus according to the prophets. The enmity that God placed between the serpent and the woman in the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) is an eternal force that keeps satan from ever tainting the woman with sin as he did the first Eve and first Adam. The second Adam (Jesus) is the offspring of the second Eve (blessed Virgin Mary) who God placed enmity between satan and Mary and her offspring Jesus.

We also find that Isaiah’s prophecy revealing that Mary was so seperated from sin that the birth pains of original sin never came upon her, thus “immaculate conception”. We do find later that these birth pains come upon her according to Simeons prophecy that a sword will pierce her heart, which later the birth pains came upon her at the foot of the Cross when she gives birth to the rest of her offspring;

Revelations 12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.13 When **the dragon **saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it **pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.**14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year. 15 The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current. 16 **But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood **that the dragon spewed out of its mouth. 17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

If one has eyes and hears to see and hear what the spirit says, let him see and hear

Peace be with you
Click to expand...
 
Todd520 said:
Lax, I just read Numbers 30 for the first time, and may have missed it’s relevance.

Are you indirectly referring to “James the Just”. I believe the Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel, has the prime focus of asserting the virginity of Mary both prior to and during the birth of Jesus. I don’t know much about it but it sounds like the experts question it’s authenticity, and I guess it is not holy scripture.

Since Mary’s wedding was planned before her pregnancy, it appears to me she was no longer committed to lifelong service as a consecrated virgin in the Temple in Jerusalem. I believe her vow of celibacy would no longer apply since it contradicts the purpose of matrimony.
Click to expand...
Some hold the belief that she was married to Joseph only so he could act as her protector, and that her vow of virginity was maintained. I don’t know that there is offical church teaching on this, but I know I’ve read about it before. And as others have mentioned, there are cases of celibate marriages throughout history. The protoevangelium of James is not part of the canon of scripture, but that does not mean it isn’t an accurate portrayal of history. We have many documents from history (some are secular accounts as well)that are know to be accurate that are not part of scripture.
 
lax16 said:
I know there are scriptural passages that can lead one to believe that Mary and Joseph had other childen as husband and wife.
There are references that point to her Perpetual Virginity as well.
  1. Numbers 30 shows that a vow of abstinence, even in marriage, was not unheard of in the Old Testament.
  2. St. Jerome argued for the well-known and commonly held belief in Mary’s virginity in St. Jerome’s “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary” vs Heluidius (380 A.D.)
  3. Church approved apparitions always speak of Mary as the Virgin (for example, the Virgin of Guadalupe).
What do you think?
Click to expand...
To answer your question, No.
 
I don’t know whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. What I don’t understand is why it makes all that much difference.

Matt. 1:24-25 suggests to me that she may not have been. After all, she was married, and the normal assumption is that marriage involves conjugal relations. I believe you can easily obtain an annulment today (both from chuch and state) if a marriage is not consummated.

Then, of course, there are references to siblings of Jesus. These are not conclusive, but it would have been helpful if the Bible had identified them more fully - as to who their father was, etc.
Code: 
It's always has confounded me a bit that both genealogies of Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke, trace Jesus through Joseph rather than Mary. This may be off-thread a bit, but not altogether. And, by the way, those genealogies differ considerably, making many scholars raise the question of contradictions in scripture????

Actually - and I hope I don't offend anyone - I rather hope Mary and Joseph had a warm and romantic marriage, and this normally would involve the deep love and joyful intimacy expressed through normal conjugal relations. I guess I see that as a positive and in no way demeaning to either one.
 
Roy- one of the geneologies traces through Joseph, one through Mary. Also the “Joseph geneology” clearly states that Joseph was only presumed to be the father of Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top