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

[dianaiad]

oh those prepositions and word usages…it is no wonder we are exhorted not to change one word of Scripture!!!

Well, too late for that…

But if we haven’t, then ‘until’ means…well, ‘until.’

 

[dianaiad]

I suspect if Mary remained a virgin after her marriage it was because Joseph was an older man incapable of sex. Maybe that is the way God planned it. In that case the brothers and sisters of Jesus would be Joseph’s children from a previous marriage in which case it wouldn’t be unusual if they rejected the mission of Jesus. It is also possible that Matthew really had no knowledge of Mary and Joseph’s sex life after the marriage and he just assumed that sex was part of their marriage making the issue of his use of the word “until” irrelevant. Unless you take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible, it may be that Matthew was simple assuming too much. I don’t think we know. Seriously, I’m not sure the Early Church Fathers would have been in a position to know either and may have imposed their own biases on the topic. At any rate, it seems a rather unimportant issue in regards to our salvation unless we insist on making it important. For most Protestants and many Catholics I suspect it is a non-issue.

You have, I think, nailed it for Protestants…but I am coming to believe that for Catholics it very much is an ‘issue.’ It certainly seems to be here. I don’t quite know where to find out if it is what Mormons would term a ‘salvific’ matter; that is, if you don’t believe it your salvation is in jeopardy.

 

[Catholic20064]

You have, I think, nailed it for Protestants…but I am coming to believe that for Catholics it very much is an ‘issue.’ It certainly seems to be here. I don’t quite know where to find out if it is what Mormons would term a ‘salvific’ matter; that is, if you don’t believe it your salvation is in jeopardy.

I suspect that very few Catholics outside of the kind who would post on a forum like this even think about this issue very much. At least they wouldn’t get excited about it.

 

[ERose]

Have any of you ever considered this on St Joseph’s view? An angel appeared to him and told him that the babe in Mary’s womb was God’s and this babe is the Messiah and God’s true Son. What view would you have of this Woman, through whom salvation was entering the world? I would think that he would view her as sacred and wouldn’t touch her in any way except reverantly.

Also why would God protect her virginity so she can just throw it away? I don’t think so.

Also there is no proof whatsoever in scripture that she had other biological children. None.

 

[Catholic20064]

Have any of you ever considered this on St Joseph’s view? An angel appeared to him and told him that the babe in Mary’s womb was God’s and this babe is the Messiah and God’s true Son. What view would you have of this Woman, through whom salvation was entering the world? I would think that he would view her as sacred and wouldn’t touch her in any way except reverantly.

Also why would God protect her virginity so she can just throw it away? I don’t think so.

Also there is no proof whatsoever in scripture that she had other biological children. None.

I guess it might depend upon your view regarding sex within marriage. If you see it as a necessary evil perhaps you would think Joseph would abstain from it. I don’t think that was the Jewish attitude. If Mary remained a virgin it was likely because Joseph was beyond the age for sex.

 

[dianaiad]

I guess it might depend upon your view regarding sex within marriage. If you see it as a necessary evil perhaps you would think Joseph would abstain from it. I don’t think that was the Jewish attitude. If Mary remained a virgin it was likely because Joseph was beyond the age for sex.

We don’t have any information regarding Joseph’s age. We do know that the average life expectancy was, what…40? That’s not too old for sex.

As well, it’s difficult to believe that Mary’s family would espouse her to a man who could not give her children. I think there was a rule or something.

Remember, nobody around her knew that she was special until AFTER she was engaged to Joseph!!

 

[wanner47]

I guess it might depend upon your view regarding sex within marriage. If you see it as a necessary evil perhaps you would think Joseph would abstain from it. I don’t think that was the Jewish attitude. If Mary remained a virgin it was likely because Joseph was beyond the age for sex.

What is your hangup about Catholics thinking sex is a “necessary evil”? Can you provide *any *evidence to support this claim??

The poster you were quoted said that Joseph may have considered Mary holy, and sacred, and didn’t feel like he was entitled to take what essentially belonged to God. Again, this goes back to the typology of Mary as Ark of the New Covenant – any man who touched the covenant unworthily was instantly killed. This doesn’t mean anything about sex being a “necessary evil.”

As to my earlier comments about St. Paul, I happen to respect St. Paul’s opinion given it is in Holy Scripture. I doubt that God would have inspired him such, or that the ECFs would have included his “opinions” in the canon of Scripture, if it was thought that they weren’t worth listening to or following.

It was also Jesus’ opinion that celibacy was a good thing, given he was also celibate. Do you care anything about Jesus’ opinion, or should we disregard His too?

 

[adrift]

In all ways it remains…a change happens. The problem with translation is that we have to get concept to concept; “until” is a very specific concept in English. There’s no real getting around it as a coordinating conjunction and a boundary of action that reflects change. Therefore, if that’s not what was MEANT, then we have a much larger problem than might be first seen.

Please provide a standarized dictionary that uses your unique definition. In every dictionary I have consulted, not one of them define until as a change that happens. All the definitions speak of a specified time.

He’s and Only Child gives examples of where there is no change with the usage of until.

and what about Matthew 28:20
I am with you always until the end of the age.
What do you say the change is?

 

[dianaiad]

Please provide a standarized dictionary that uses your unique definition. In every dictionary I have consulted, not one of them define until as a change that happens. All the definitions speak of a specified time.

He’s and Only Child gives examples of where there is no change with the usage of until.

and what about Matthew 28:20
I am with you always until the end of the age.
What do you say the change is?

I read your link…I was struck by one of the examples “don’t give [your granny] any medicine until I get there” (quote from a doctor upon learning that she had reacted badly to medication)

The argument was that in this case, ‘until’ did not necessarily mean that granny would be given the medication after the doctor showed up…“in fact,” the author states, “she probably won’t be.”

Well, perhaps that is true, but the REASON the doctor was coming was to examine granny to see if her problem was related to the medication, and to make a decision regarding further dosage; this indicates CHANGE. That is, the course of action is “don’t give her any,” and the change is the examination. The doctor will then decide whether or not to resume the medication. You cannot assume that the medication either will, or will not, be resumed, because the examination is directly related to that.

I have never run into a case of the use of ‘until’ that did NOT signal a change of some sort. Feel free to find one…and I’ll show you what it is.

One thing…in the case of granny and the pills, the ‘change’ is a reassessment of whether she should take them; the event that ‘until’ refers to is directly related to the action taking place (or not taking place) before it.

However, in the case of Joseph ‘not knowing’ Mary before the birth of Jesus…what on earth has her giving birth got to do with whether Joseph should ‘know’ Mary as his wife? The two are unrelated. Jesus is not, after all, Joseph’s son. All the objections that are raised against Joseph ‘knowing’ Mary before His birth seem to have some logic; if Joseph DID ‘know’ Mary before Jesus’ birth, there would always be some controversy as to who, or Who, Jesus’ Father is. As it is, there is none. He is God’s Son.

Once Jesus is born, however, that problem no longer exists. Mary has given birth to Him…she is married to Joseph. There is NOTHING wrong, sinful or even inappropriate in Joseph and Mary living as fully married after that; in fact, not doing so would be going against their religion. So why would they?

The problem, here, is that while one cannot assume that Mary DID have sex with Joseph after Jesus’ birth, there is nothing in the NT to let us know that she did not…and things like this ‘until’ statement, implying as it does an event that affects the action of Joseph ‘not knowing’ Mary, mitigates towards a change in that state…and there can be only one alternative to Joseph’s not knwoing her, after all.

 

[Todd520]

One area of usage I haven’t seen mentioned is past vs future tense

Future tense - She refused to date him 'until hell freezes over’
Usage in future tense does not clearly indicate a change in state. Since the Granny & medicine example is future tense, it does imply a review of state instead of a change in state

**Past tense - She was chaste until her wedding night **
Usage in past tense clearly indicates a change in state. The discussion of ‘knowing Mary’ was past tense usage of until, clearly inicating a change in state.

Net, any more examples offered should use until in past tense.

 

[RebeccaJ]

**She was chaste until her wedding night **

:ehh:

 

[Catholic20064]

:ehh:

Doesn’t make sense does it. You can be chaste after your wedding night as long as you only have sex with your spouse.

 

[Zooey]

Mary was born immaculate, was perpetually a virgin, was assumed body and soul into heaven, is the Queen of Heaven. That’s my two cents.

Hello,

I’m afraid I am NOT a Biblical scholar and cannot contribute to the Bible verses “throw down” here as both sides in this discussion try to “prove” the unprovable.

Frankly I don’t see the purpose in trying to show that Mary had sex other than to validate our current cultural imperative that sex is the be all and end all of our corporeal existence.

We have become so sex obsessed that many can’t belief that any human might actually choose to live without it. It seems we are looking at the world of 2000 years ago through our MTV colored glasses. Chastity, until the last 50 years, was considered admirable and 'holy" in many cultures. it was not the unimaginable horror that it is portrayed as today.

Believe it or not Church history is filled with saints who lived a celibate life. Why do we have so much trouble imagining that Mary, chosen by G-d to give birth to the Son, the most perfect of women, would be incapable of forgoing carnal pleasure. Is it because we ourselves can not do so?

As I posited in my early post, the Eastern tradition of Joseph being an old man, a widower possibly with children, when he took Mary in, a young woman who had taken a vow of chastity, to protect her as his wife seems a very logical explanation for their relationship. Is it SO hard to even imagine that Joseph was not looking for a sexual relationship when he “married” Mary to “legitimize” her status in the Hebrew community. It would also explain why Joseph “disappeared” before Jesus’ ministry began. He was old and he died.

Personally I find the Eastern tradition greatly honors Joseph, a man who obeyed the call of G-d to care for Mary and her child, even without that seemingly now all important promise of sex. Can I “prove” this? of course not. Just throwing it out there.

Regards,
Bill Unland (not afraid to actually use my name…seems rare here for some reason)

As for my added 2 cents:
Once upon a time, many years ago, (back when Wild Poodles roamed the earth), I asked a learned Free Methodist clergyman what he thought of the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
He said: “It is the greatest protection that we have for the Virgin Birth of Christ. Not within my lifetime, but most likely within yours, we will see more & more Christians reject this, and when they do, they will soon reject the Virgin Birth of Christ. And soon after that, they will reject Christ Himself. When that happens, they will scarcely be Christian at all. I fear the day when all this occurs. It will be a sad day; but I am glad to know that our Catholic brethren will hold to the truth. At least I pray that they will; I see little hope for the rest of us otherwise”.

It would appear that the gentleman was right.

Yes, I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I always have. I pray that I may never waver from it. This teaching is truly a mighty bulwark against modernist liberal thought.

 

[ERose]

I guess it might depend upon your view regarding sex within marriage. If you see it as a necessary evil perhaps you would think Joseph would abstain from it. I don’t think that was the Jewish attitude. If Mary remained a virgin it was likely because Joseph was beyond the age for sex.

Why don’t you read the following. Much of our beliefs on Mary is due to this early document concerning her birth, early life and the birth of Jesus.

newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

Also obviously you do not have a fair understanding of Sacredness in early Jewish thought. Mary gave birth to the Son of God. In Joseph’s viewpoint that made her God’s (Holy Spirit) spouse and would have made her off limits. Joseph knew his responsibility and that was to guard and protect the God-child and his mother.

The other thing you must understand is that Mary being “Ever-Virgin” has been taught from the beginning. Questions about her being the mother of other children is a relatively new concept generated by the Bible-Only believers.

Also again there is no proof whatsoever that she had other biological children in the Bible. There just isn’t any there. I know that most protestants and evangelicals look at James “the brother of our Lord” as Jesus’ biological brother. Yet it shows in Scripture that James was the Son of Mary of Cleopas and his father was Alpheaus if I remember correctly. (Do not have my Bible with me)

Another example is found in the book of Acts 1:13-15; *And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty *

So it says that in that room was the 11 Apostles, Mary, some women, and Jesus’ brethren or brothers. The total of people in that room was 120 people. So if you subtract 12 (Apostles & Mary), may 25 (for the women, just a guess) that leaves 83 people that were Jesus’ brethren. Mary would have had to stay pregnant and bearing kids like a rabbit to accomplish such a feat!

The question was asked does it matter and my answer is yes. In the first Eve we have the genetic or physical mother of the human race. In the new Eve, which is Mary, you have the spiritual mother of the human race. She gave birth to Jesus (New Adam). So as the old Eve came forth from the old Adam and through them sin came into the world, so redemption would come into the world by the undoing of what was originally done. Jesus came forth from Mary to undo the works of the old Adam & Eve.

Anyway this thread show why Sacred Tradition is necessary. Because trying to intepret Scripture without a foundation (Sacred Tradition) produces heresy.

 

[Todd520]

Doesn’t make sense does it. You can be chaste after your wedding night as long as you only have sex with your spouse.

Yes, my example implied immoral acts - sorry

Future tense - Joseph made a covenant not to ‘know’ alcohol until his 21st birthday
Past tense - Joseph did not ‘know’ alcohol until his 21st birthday

Now it’s clear future tense use does not require a change of state but past tense use always carries a change of state.

 

[dianaiad]

As for my added 2 cents:
Once upon a time, many years ago, (back when Wild Poodles roamed the earth), I asked a learned Free Methodist clergyman what he thought of the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
He said: “It is the greatest protection that we have for the Virgin Birth of Christ. Not within my lifetime, but most likely within yours, we will see more & more Christians reject this, and when they do, they will soon reject the Virgin Birth of Christ. And soon after that, they will reject Christ Himself. When that happens, they will scarcely be Christian at all. I fear the day when all this occurs. It will be a sad day; but I am glad to know that our Catholic brethren will hold to the truth. At least I pray that they will; I see little hope for the rest of us otherwise”.

It would appear that the gentleman was right.

Yes, I believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I always have. I pray that I may never waver from it. This teaching is truly a mighty bulwark against modernist liberal thought.

Except of course that there are many, many, MANY Christians who manage this just fine…and have done for literally hundreds of years.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I sometimes wonder what difference it makes. It doesn’t change the fact that Christ was born of a virgin, died for my sins and rose from the dead either way.

At the end of the day of this argument, I think you’re right, Catholic20064.

 

[gcnuss]

As well, it’s difficult to believe that Mary’s family would espouse her to a man who could not give her children. I think there was a rule or something.

I think that in those days the woman was considered to be the cause of childlessness. A woman who did not have children was considered to be “barren,” that is, she did not provide fertile ground in which the man planted his “seed” to grow. The men were assumed to virile and fertile so the blame for childlessness was laid on the women.

 

[Catholic20064]

Except of course that there are many, many, MANY Christians who manage this just fine…and have done for literally hundreds of years.

I don’t know how rejecting the perpetual virginity of Mary has anything to do with accepting Mary’s virginity prior to the birth of Christ. The Bible is very explicit that Mary was a virgin at least up until the birth of Christ. The fundamentalist and conservative Christians I know who don’t care about Mary’s perpetual virginity are very adamant about Mary’s virginity up until the birth of Christ. They accept the Nicene Creed which teaches that Christ was born of a virgin.

 

[brumano]

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.

uh huh, nice try, you know we don’t believe in Mary as being Divine.