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

[elvisman]

the question for me is not, why can’t she? but did she?

consecrated virgin
elderly Jewish man
Jewish customs and traditions

all keep three ideas keep coming up, but yet I have found no evidence that Mary and Joseph where practicing any of this.

Lu 1:1 As a number of attempts have been made to put together in order an account of those events which took place among us,
Lu 1:2 As they were handed down to us by those who saw them from the first and were preachers of the word,
Lu 1:3 It seemed good to me, having made observation, with great care, of the direction of events in their order, to put the facts in writing for you, most noble Theophilus;
Lu 1:4 So that you might have certain knowledge of those things about which you were given teaching…

Lu 1:26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee, named Nazareth,
Lu 1:27 To a virgin who was to be married to a man named Joseph, of the family of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.

If Luke was being as thorough as he claims in the opening verses, Why does he not mention Mary being a Temple Virgin being betrothed to and elderly man who was assigned to be her protector?

Can these ideas be truly shown to have been taught and understood from the very beginning? or are they ideas created out of want and desire?

i’m still waiting for the proof.

Actually - these is pretty superficial questions - given the purpose and context of the NT.

Why doesn’t the Bible tell us which books should belong to it? Why did it take four centuries to declare the canon?

Why does the Bible not explicitly name the Holy Trinity?

Why don’t the Scriptures clearly tell us about the Hypostatic Union of Christ?

Don’t forget - the Gospels and Epistles of the NT were written to BELIEVERS - not unbelievers.

The facts about the lives of the key players in the NT were a foregone conclusion. they already KNEW these things and there was no need to rehash them - only the MESSAGE of the Gospels.

 

[dianaiad]

The arguments against are even more half-baked. Here is the situation. If you want to argue exclusively from the Bible you will not find conclusive evidence for her perpetual virginity. It is only inferred. You have to look at the whole Apostolic teaching to find understanding. Also the virginity of Mary has only truly been in question only recently in history. St. Jerome wrote a rebuttal to someone that challenged her chasity and i would recommend to you to read it: newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

But it is very obvious in your post that you do not have a very good foundation of knowledge and that is the reason why you are showing lack of understanding concerning Catholic teaching. I would recommend reading the CCC and other books and maybe participating in a RCIA class to help you gain that foundation.

Well…here’s the problem with that approach, Rose.

I don’t know about the standard Protestant approach, but Mormons won’t accept as an authoritative source of Christian doctrine anything written much past the end of the first century. The dividing line would be the death of the last apostle, when Catholics agree that public revelation ceased.

The claim is, you see, that this is when the church went off the doctrinal rails a bit, and started fooling around with doctrine.

It’s not that we have problems with extra biblical sources for doctrine…how can we, since we have an open canon?

It’s…OK, would you accept as a prooftext for why YOU must believe a doctrine to be true a quote from the Book of Mormon?

The thing is, I really do understand why CAtholics believe as they do about Mary…I have no problem at all with you using Holy Tradition to show why you believe something, and what you believe. The problem lies in when you use that to somehow show why WE should.

I’m getting there, though…at least, to some understanding of why Catholics believe as they do, though.

 

[cruisin]

Actually - these is pretty superficial questions - given the purpose and context of the NT.

Why doesn’t the Bible tell us which books should belong to it? Why did it take four centuries to declare the canon?

Why does the Bible not explicitly name the Holy Trinity?

Why don’t the Scriptures clearly tell us about the Hypostatic Union of Christ?

Don’t forget - the Gospels and Epistles of the NT were written to BELIEVERS - not unbelievers.

The facts about the lives of the key players in the NT were a foregone conclusion. they already KNEW these things and there was no need to rehash them - only the MESSAGE of the Gospels.

Then you really have no respect for me or my post, for to me these are not superficial questions.

If you really want me to convert ( this is obviously your desire), then answer my question. If you can’t then please don’t post.

you obviously make a lot of assumption, when reading between the lines of scripture of which your really have no evidence, just your own interpretations.

you also call Luke a liar, Please reread his first statement and why he wrote the letter. Please take the time to think about it, because you are obviously not thinking about what I’m asking and the point I’m trying to make.

I will probably not post, if you cannot give an intelligent and thought out response to my question, instead of the knee jerk, pompous reaction you gave above.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually - these is pretty superficial questions - given the purpose and context of the NT.

Actually, those are very good questions. From where I sit, the idea that Mary was a “Temple virgin,” that Joseph was an old man assigned to be her protecter, etc., are ideas that simply do not have any support in the NT. They are reasons in the wrong order: having decided THAT Mary was a perpetual virgin, you go back and try to find ways in which that would have been acceptable and possible: not “she was a Temple virgin and married an old man, therfore she remained virgin,” but rather “she was a perpetual virgin, therefore she MUST have been a consecrated Temple virgin marrying an old man for protection.” Backwards and circular.

From where I sit, it looks like church leaders decided that she was a perpetual virgin because they wanted her to be, and having decided that, then went back to find out ways in which she could have accomplished that.

To put this another way, the fact that the NT did NOT explicitly say that Joseph was a young man and that the writer didn’t finish the statement of Joseph not ‘knowing’ Mary until Christ was born" by saying 'and then they went on a wonderful honeymoon and had five more kids together) doesn’t mean that Joseph was an old codger and that he and Mary didn’t live a normal married life.

…as for quoting Jewish culture for ‘proof,’ that could backfire. After all, by the very same token I could prove that Jesus had a wife.

Why doesn’t the Bible tell us which books should belong to it? Why did it take four centuries to declare the canon?

I dunno, why is that, elvis?

Why does the Bible not explicitly name the Holy Trinity?

Oddly enough, that’s a question I ask rather frequently myself. Of course, the answer I came up with probably wouldn’t be welcome to you.

Why don’t the Scriptures clearly tell us about the Hypostatic Union of Christ?

Again, a question I frequently ask. Well, I asked it once, anyway…

Don’t forget - the Gospels and Epistles of the NT were written to BELIEVERS - not unbelievers.

So.

How do you think that unbelievers become believers?

The facts about the lives of the key players in the NT were a foregone conclusion. they already KNEW these things and there was no need to rehash them - only the MESSAGE of the Gospels.

Interesting position you take there, elvis: answering a question regarding evidence from the NT for your position with a “nya, nya, I don’t have to tell you…it’s a secret for the believers” is not exactly helpful.

 

[david_ruiz]

At least we are making headway.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dianaid,

I read your response regarding Jewish customs…but it is not completely certain Joseph was an old man or had children by a previous marriage and brothers was a term loosely held that included cousins…and there was no children at the Cross claiming to be Christ’s siblings.

What we are looking at is the tradition of faith passed on after the Apostles…there is this experience of faith and Spirit in the Catholic faith that is consistent…I read ancient texts and I recognize the same spirit of faith.

Really,-- you know, – the Scriptures really do not speak that much in detail of Mary and Joseph either. But it implies a very sanctified and hidden life full of virtue…Virtue hides itself where as pride promotes itself so to speak. This passing on of insights or understandings comes through the Holy Spirit. A priest told me from the Society of Mary that what we don’t know about Mary actually says alot about her; the other tradition was that she was an advisor to the apostles.

I will share with you an image of Mary passed down to St. Ambrose.

 

[Todd520]

ERose…agree…and people need to learn more of Jewish culture…It was custom first born were consecrated to God…as Mary. And once you are consecrated in Judeo-Catholic culture it is not broken except through loss of faith and vocation.

Hi Kathleen,
So you are saying that all jewish first born children were consecrated to God, and remained virgins for their whole lives, regardless of marriage?

Just want to make sure I’m understaning you because that’s alot of virgins (male and femaile) who can’t carry on the family name, and who will have no children to take care of them in their old age.

Would love to see a reference link for further info on this custom

 

[KathleenGee]

Todd,
Check out Exodus 13:2, ‘Whatever is first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both men and beast, are mine.’ Pidyon HaBen…In ancient times, the Jewish parents would pay the priest 5 shekels to remove the duty of their firstborn son to serve the temple…

 

[KathleenGee]

Dianaid,

Here is the ‘Treatise on Virgins’ composed by St. Ambrose. Here he is drawing on the theme of Mary’s modesty.

"She was humble of heart, grave in expression, sober in words…reserved and discreet in conversation…careful to wound no one…full of thoughtfulness and consideration for the aged in whose presence it was her custom to rise. Far from arousing envy among her companions, her manner towards them was free from suggesting pride or domination. As for assemblies of men, she was present at those where charity needed not to blush or modesty go veiled. No pride or harshness was ever traced in her expression, no undue freedom in her words, no lack of modesty in her bearing, no rudeness in her manner, no loudness in her walk…in a word, her bodily carriage was the counter part of her soul, the reflection of her innocence and sanctity.’

I really ‘saw’ her in my heart and soul when I read this. This was the tradition of an image people had of Mary that was passed down each generation…I would have to recheck to see when St. Ambrose was alive…I think it was around 300 AD or so. He was born in 347 AD.

I also have a spiritual reflection written by an unknown person about what it is like having a gentle spirit living the life of crucifixion from a home schooling magazine…it made me think of a Christian who shared something of Mary’s spirit. When we shared it at our group, it also deeply touched us.

It is images and sharings like these that affirm for us Mary’s perpetual virginity and special and unique place in Christ and the work of salvation.

 

[Catholic20064]

The arguments against are even more half-baked. Here is the situation. If you want to argue exclusively from the Bible you will not find conclusive evidence for her perpetual virginity. It is only inferred. You have to look at the whole Apostolic teaching to find understanding. Also the virginity of Mary has only truly been in question only recently in history. St. Jerome wrote a rebuttal to someone that challenged her chasity and i would recommend to you to read it: newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

But it is very obvious in your post that you do not have a very good foundation of knowledge and that is the reason why you are showing lack of understanding concerning Catholic teaching. I would recommend reading the CCC and other books and maybe participating in a RCIA class to help you gain that foundation.

I already went through a year of RCIA (just five years ago) and have read plenty. The whole idea of the perpetual virginity was explained and I accepted it. That doesn’t mean it is logical or that it has any scriptural support. A face value reading of the New Testament does everything but support the perpetual virginity of Mary unless you have already decided that that is the way it was. The Protoevangelium of James was rejected as scripture – there must have been a good reason to reject it. I just can’t find any justification in early sources to either accept or reject Mary’s perpetual virginity. About all you can do is accept it on faith because the arguments don’t wash. But is faith in the Marian doctrines required for our salvation? Seems a tough argument to go that far. I like the answer of one poster that says we are only required to believe in the Nicene Creed.

 

[Todd520]

Todd,
Check out Exodus 13:2, ‘Whatever is first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both men and beast, are mine.’ Pidyon HaBen…In ancient times, the Jewish parents would pay the priest 5 shekels to remove the duty of their firstborn son to serve the temple…

Hi Kathleen,
It sounds like the real custom was to pay 5 shekels to the temple with your first born. And if this did not happen at birth, the 5 sheckles could be paid before marriage to remove the duty?

If this is the custom, the covenant for Mary should not be considered as validation for perpetual virginity. It was acceptable and expected for families to buy out the obligation or temple family tax.

 

[MartinJordan]

When Jesus was 12 years old his parents thoght they lost him and upon finding him said that both of them were looking for him. Now if they had other kids i wonder under whom would they have left the “others” with when searching high and low? The bible does not say if others also joined in the search. Surely the rest would be too young to stay home alone. MJ

 

[elvisman]

Actually, those are very good questions. From where I sit, the idea that Mary was a “Temple virgin,” that Joseph was an old man assigned to be her protecter, etc., are ideas that simply do not have any support in the NT. They are reasons in the wrong order: having decided THAT Mary was a perpetual virgin, you go back and try to find ways in which that would have been acceptable and possible: not “she was a Temple virgin and married an old man, therfore she remained virgin,” but rather “she was a perpetual virgin, therefore she MUST have been a consecrated Temple virgin marrying an old man for protection.” Backwards and circular.

From where I sit, it looks like church leaders decided that she was a perpetual virgin because they wanted her to be, and having decided that, then went back to find out ways in which she could have accomplished that.

To put this another way, the fact that the NT did NOT explicitly say that Joseph was a young man and that the writer didn’t finish the statement of Joseph not ‘knowing’ Mary until Christ was born" by saying 'and then they went on a wonderful honeymoon and had five more kids together) doesn’t mean that Joseph was an old codger and that he and Mary didn’t live a normal married life.

…as for quoting Jewish culture for ‘proof,’ that could backfire. After all, by the very same token I could prove that Jesus had a wife.
First of all – you are displaying an abject** ignorance**** history of the Church – and history.**

**The idea that Mary was a consecrated virgin in the Temple is NOT a dogmatic position of the Church. It comes from the 2nd century document, the Protoevangelium of James. Your failure to understand the positions of the Church on Mary – and a number of other positions – stems from your lack of knowledge of the Church. **

Look – you are a Mormon, and you believe that Jesus appeared to the ancient native Americans. WHERE does the Bible claim this? WHERE does the Bible claim that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers?

In short - you are hardly one to point out where the Catholic Church fails to adhere to Sola Scriptura when your belief system doesn’t. This is NOT a knock on Mormonism but an indictment on your false reasoning.

 

[elvisman]

I dunno, why is that, elvis?

Oddly enough, that’s a question I ask rather frequently myself. Of course, the answer I came up with probably wouldn’t be welcome to you.

Again, a question I frequently ask. Well, I asked it once, anyway…
I was asking this in response to the notion that everything must be explicitly explained by Scripture. That is that problem with Protestantism and the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
**Again – it is the Church, with the Authority (Matt. 16:19, 15-18) given it by Christ that declares the truths of God. This is guaranteed by Jesus in John 16:12-15.

So.

How do you think that unbelievers become believers?

Interesting position you take there, elvis: answering a question regarding evidence from the NT for your position with a “nya, nya, I don’t have to tell you…it’s a secret for the believers” is not exactly helpful.
**That’s not my position at all. I was merely stating a fact about the mistakes 21st century people make when trying to interpret Scripture for themselves – to their own destruction (1 Pet. 3:16). **
The Gospels and epistles were written to CERTAIN individuals and communities of the time. They weren’t written to YOU and ME. WE benefit from them, in that they teach us about the lessons of Christ regarding our faith.
**As I stated before – they were written to CHRISTIAN communities and individuals who KNEW who Mary and the Apostles were. They *****weren’***t written to people who were completely ignorant of Christ.

**The message of the gospel was spread throughout the WORLD largely by MOUTH in the first 4 centuries. THAT’S why Paul states in 2 Thess. 2:15: **"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statementorby a letter of ours."

---

It is NOT by mere chance that “oral statement” comes BEFORE “letter” in this passage.

 

[elvisman]

Then you really have no respect for me or my post, for to me these are not superficial questions.

If you really want me to convert ( this is obviously your desire), then answer my question. If you can’t then please don’t post.

you obviously make a lot of assumption, when reading between the lines of scripture of which your really have no evidence, just your own interpretations.

you also call Luke a liar, Please reread his first statement and why he wrote the letter. Please take the time to think about it, because you are obviously not thinking about what I’m asking and the point I’m trying to make.

I will probably not post, if you cannot give an intelligent and thought out response to my question, instead of the knee jerk, pompous reaction you gave above.

Cruisin -
It was not my intent to insult you. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the position of Sola Scriptura that you were using to glean clear answers.
Sola Scriptura is not only NOT taught by Scripture - it is FLATLY rejected (2 Thess. 2:15).

As for your challenge about the Gospel of Luke - I really don’t get what you’re trying to prove. Luke 1:1-4 states:
***"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, ***
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received."

---

He is speaking to a BELIEVER - Theophilus ("…the teachings you HAVE received").
It PROVES my point that the Gospels and Epistles were not written to those who were ignorant of Christ. They speak to those who were being taught by the Apostles.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaid,

I read your response regarding Jewish customs…but it is not completely certain Joseph was an old man or had children by a previous marriage and brothers was a term loosely held that included cousins…and there was no children at the Cross claiming to be Christ’s siblings.

What we are looking at is the tradition of faith passed on after the Apostles…there is this experience of faith and Spirit in the Catholic faith that is consistent…I read ancient texts and I recognize the same spirit of faith.

Really,-- you know, – the Scriptures really do not speak that much in detail of Mary and Joseph either. But it implies a very sanctified and hidden life full of virtue…Virtue hides itself where as pride promotes itself so to speak. This passing on of insights or understandings comes through the Holy Spirit. A priest told me from the Society of Mary that what we don’t know about Mary actually says alot about her; the other tradition was that she was an advisor to the apostles.

I will share with you an image of Mary passed down to St. Ambrose.

I understand why you believe what you do about Mary, Kathleen. You have some beautiful beliefs about her, and Catholics do have a very long and rich tradition of teachings to glean things from. I very much understand the concept of religious Truth found in extra-biblical sources.

The problem is that…I can’t use Catholic tradition as a reason for me to believe, because, well…there is that apostasy thing to deal with.

Would you accept that there were two groups of people who came to the New World prior to the advent of Jesus, who lived long and eventful histories, and to whom Jesus appeared, personally–because I quoted the Book of Mormon at you?

It’s exactly the same thing, y’know.

So, while I honor your faith and your beliefs about who, and what, Mary was/is, in order to give me a reason to believe the same things, I have to have stuff from sources we both agree are valid. It’s not a case of being ‘sola scripturian,’ here; I would be fine with anything authoritative written before Catholics decided that public revelation ended.

 

[dianaiad]

Todd,
Check out Exodus 13:2, ‘Whatever is first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both men and beast, are mine.’ Pidyon HaBen…In ancient times, the Jewish parents would pay the priest 5 shekels to remove the duty of their firstborn son to serve the temple…

How do we know that Mary’s parents did not do this? From my understanding, it was far more unusual for those shekels NOT to be paid than that they were.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaid,

Here is the ‘Treatise on Virgins’ composed by St. Ambrose. Here he is drawing on the theme of Mary’s modesty.

"She was humble of heart, grave in expression, sober in words…reserved and discreet in conversation…careful to wound no one…full of thoughtfulness and consideration for the aged in whose presence it was her custom to rise. Far from arousing envy among her companions, her manner towards them was free from suggesting pride or domination. As for assemblies of men, she was present at those where charity needed not to blush or modesty go veiled. No pride or harshness was ever traced in her expression, no undue freedom in her words, no lack of modesty in her bearing, no rudeness in her manner, no loudness in her walk…in a word, her bodily carriage was the counter part of her soul, the reflection of her innocence and sanctity.’

I really ‘saw’ her in my heart and soul when I read this. This was the tradition of an image people had of Mary that was passed down each generation…I would have to recheck to see when St. Ambrose was alive…I think it was around 300 AD or so. He was born in 347 AD.

I also have a spiritual reflection written by an unknown person about what it is like having a gentle spirit living the life of crucifixion from a home schooling magazine…it made me think of a Christian who shared something of Mary’s spirit. When we shared it at our group, it also deeply touched us.

It is images and sharings like these that affirm for us Mary’s perpetual virginity and special and unique place in Christ and the work of salvation.

I believe that she probably was all those things Ambrose imbued her with, Kathleen,though I think she was probably also stubborn, determined, confident in herself and her role, and not a bit afraid to make waves when she had to. I think she was those things for the same reason Ambrose described her as the sort of perfect woman he envisioned—not so much because anybody actually knew her (Ambrose was, after all, three centuries behind her) but because it’s difficult to imagine God choosing a woman to bear His Son who was not the embodiment of all human…and feminine…virtues.

 

[dianaiad]

When Jesus was 12 years old his parents thoght they lost him and upon finding him said that both of them were looking for him. Now if they had other kids i wonder under whom would they have left the “others” with when searching high and low? The bible does not say if others also joined in the search. Surely the rest would be too young to stay home alone. MJ

Nice point…except of course that it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. The custom of the time would be that Mary and Joseph would take ONLY Jesus to the Temple at this time (the trip was, given Jesus’ age, specifically for Him), no matter how many other children they had. Mary had family…we know that. Joseph may have…and there you have it…grandparents to baby sit.

Good argument, though.

 

[Todd520]

When Jesus was 12 years old his parents thoght they lost him and upon finding him said that both of them were looking for him. Now if they had other kids i wonder under whom would they have left the “others” with when searching high and low? The bible does not say if others also joined in the search. Surely the rest would be too young to stay home alone. MJ

Jeez! maybe they knew their neighbors? I can’t imagine them not being liked by their peeps.
This is the lamest scriptural reference yet for PV