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

[adrift]

She was not ‘married’ yet…remember, Jews had at that time (and still do, actually) two stages of this relationship. NOW, a Jewish wedding does both stages at the same time, but when Mary and Joseph were 'betrothed," the first stage (which COULD include sexual intercourse, but often did not, if the woman were too young…) during which the woman lived with her parents while the man took the time to make a home for her—and then the second part, when she left her parent’s home to live with her husband.
.

Betrothal was the first part of marriage. Remember Joseph was going to divorce Mary when the angel told him to take his WIFE into his home. You ignore that she didn’t say that Joseph and I don’t have sex but that she didn’t have sex with anyone.

You have talked about what can be assumed. If a woman is told before she is married, that she will have a child. A normal reaction is NOT to say I don’t have sex but of course I will have children I am getting married. It is a normal response of a married woman. Especially of that time period and that culture. Mary’s response is strange. You say it is not but you have not put forth a plausible reason why.

 

[adrift]

I’m repeating this challenge to posters

I have answered this. Your not following the definition of Until. No where in the definition does it have anything to do with change. So I will repeat my challenge to you, which you have ignored, show me a definition in a standard dictionary that defines until as a change. The only definition is that it defines a period of time up to an event and indicated nothing about after the event.

 

[adrift]

This discussion of until reminds me of a discussion I once had with someone who said that heaven and earth are the same because in the Our Father it says on earth like it is in heaven

 

[Todd520]

I have answered this. Your not following the definition of Until. No where in the definition does it have anything to do with change. So I will repeat my challenge to you, which you have ignored, show me a definition in a standard dictionary that defines until as a change. The only definition is that it defines a period of time up to an event and indicated nothing about after the event.

Then why can’t you give me usage examples that support your interpretation (using until with a past event)
I’m not even asking you to limit your examples to the bible

 

[kingal86]

I don’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. But I guess that’s because I see perpetual virginity as cruel (especially if masturbation is also considered a mortal sin), especially if it is imposed by someone else, and don’t see why it Mary being a perperual virgin is considered necessary or desirable after a miraculous virgin birth. I guess this is mainly the selfish, instinctual side of my mind thinking,

Though do Catholics willingly believe Mary took a chastity vow? And some Catholics speculate Joseph may have been an older widower, plus disputes between Catholics & Protestants over the words “brother”/“cousin”/“kinsman” in Greek & Aramaic etc?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Even if this is so, having something be ‘not uncommon’ doesn’t prove that Mary was one of these. That’s the problem with all of this; a whole lot of 'well, it could be…" and ‘this was not uncommon…’ evolved into an absolute 'yes, she was."

I just think that this is too far reaching a doctrine/dogma to be based on ‘not uncommon’ and 'it could be."

Listen I get you, I can’t imagine how I would view all this had I not been born into this and my parents been so strongly rooted in faith. I would probly be more skeptcal than most.

These teachings go back to 3rd century though. Hey, theres many who don’t believe we landed on the moon, never mind events that took place centurys ago. I see nothing wrong with being skeptical.

I lean more toward the Erasmus side of skeptism though. I feel that when your not certain, and the question becomes so complicated and fraught with conflict, that one ought to admitt that your not sure of the answer. Then we should follow the attitude of ancient skeptics and suspend judgement, while accepting the teaching of the church nondogmatically. To me thats solid skeptical philosophy.

 

[adrift]

Then why can’t you give me usage examples that support your interpretation (using until with a past event)
I’m not even asking you to limit your examples to the bible

I don’t think you get it. The only definition is that it defines a period of time up to an event and indicated nothing about after the event.
You are creating a strawman argument.

Any use of the word until defines the period of time up to the event.

I was here until you called.
Only indicated the time up to the call

I will be here until you call.
Only indicates the time up to the call

I am here until you call.

Only indicates the time up to the call

She was childless until the day of her death.
Only refers to the time up to her death.

He knew her not until the birth.
Only speaks to the time up to the birth as the definition indicates.

 

[Todd520]

I don’t think you get it. The only definition is that it defines a period of time up to an event and indicated nothing about after the event.
You are creating a strawman argument.

Any use of the word until defines the period of time up to the event.

I was here until you called. Implies you left after the call

I will be here until you call. Not relevant example - future event

I am here until you call. Not relevant example - future event

She was childless until the day of her death. Agreed, when used with death, the childless state does not change - still a weak example though

He knew her not until the birth. Cleaqrly implies he knew her after the birth

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. But I guess that’s because I see perpetual virginity as cruel (especially if masturbation is also considered a mortal sin), especially if it is imposed by someone else, and don’t see why it Mary being a perperual virgin is considered necessary or desirable after a miraculous virgin birth. I guess this is mainly the selfish, instinctual side of my mind thinking,

Though do Catholics willingly believe Mary took a chastity vow? And some Catholics speculate Joseph may have been an older widower, plus disputes between Catholics & Protestants over the words “brother”/“cousin”/“kinsman” in Greek & Aramaic etc?

Yes Mary was Full of Grace, nobody else in the Bible managed that, not even Mose’s. God sent and angel to Mary because he chose her above all to bear his Son. Thats how much he thought of Mary. Mary being unknown is a direct result of her humility. When we say Mary, Mary echos God. She deflects all attention to her Son. He in turn points to her. Mary chose her destiny through Free Will, her belief in God, and ultimately becoming the God Bearer. But all women of Jewish heritage took a vow of virginity. Whats more uncommon today was not as uncommon pre-post Christology. Joseph also remained consecreated to God. An this was not uncommon either. Priests do this today, the Elect of the Catholic following live this way.

My friend I have come to believe that the ancients had much more wisdom than us. We confuse our technology and knowledge with wisdom. When the Son of man returns do you think he’ll find Faith? Even the elect would be deceived in this time…Our Time.

In todays world, your thinking would be the norm. And for a good period I went against the grain and thought just like you. Unfortunatly life doesn’t allow us a mulligan. All that sexual society is today is temptation of the flesh. Satan’s greatest ability is remain unknown and disbelieved by man. As a result think about how many Souls are lost daily.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let me explain:

Mary alone found grace with God for herself and for every individual person. No patriarch or prophet or any other holy person of the Old Law could manage to find this grace.

It was Mary who gave existence and life to the author of all grace, and because of this she is called the “Mother of Grace”.

God the Father, from whom, as from its essential source, every perfect gift and every grace come down to us , gave her every grace when he gave her his Son. Thus, as St Bernard says, the will of God is manifested to her in Jesus and with Jesus.

God chose her to be the treasurer, the administrator and the dispenser of all his graces, so that all his graces and gifts pass through her hands. Such is the power that she has received from him that, according to St Bernardine, she gives the graces of the eternal Father, the virtues of Jesus Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit to whom she wills, as and when she wills, and as much as she wills.

As in the natural life a child must have a father and a mother, so in the supernatural life of grace a true child of the Church must have God for his Father and Mary for his mother. If he prides himself on having God for his Father but does not give to Mary the tender affection of a true child, he is an impostor and his father is the devil.

St Louis de Montfort The Secret of Mary

 

[david_ruiz]

Gosh - where to begin?
First of all - this is a direct allusion to Israel. Israel is the mother, the brethren are the people of Israel at the time. This is hermeneutics 101 . . .

The same is true for the Woman in Rev 12. She is Mary AND Israel. This is what is referred to as polyvalent symbolism - multiple prophecies in on type or symbol.

Psalm 69:8-" I am become a stranger unto my bretheren, and an alien unto MY Mother"s children". I agree on Revelations , that Mary is a past fulfillment , and Israel is a future fullfillment of that "women ".The same is true in Psalms prophecy concerning Jesus . Indeed you may say Israel is the “mother” of the Messiah symbolically , and Mary in reality .Mary ,in this scripture had children ,and scripture says they did not believe uptill after Calvary. And you who make so much of His mother unfortunately must downplay the obvious on this one .To me it speaks of both “mothers” of Jesus -Israel and Mary. One could ask why does He repeat himself, "estranged bretheren "and “alien children”. Are they one in the same , or are they two entities from Israel , one his fellow country men , the other his family, His mother’s children . Is not Mary Jesus 's mother ? Hopefully you understand my position, that because of other scriptures I read this scripture at face value , for what it says plainly …I understand your position and why. Thank-you

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, If your statement was true, then the translators should not have used “until” in their sentence. It must be a translation error into english

WOW - I am stunned.

I really thought that when I laid out the explanation in such a simplistic form that you would finally understand the lack of a linguistic dilemma here.

Boy, was I wrong . . .

 

[guanophore]

Both extra biblical sources of doctrine are great for proving WHAT beliefs are, but neither are any good for proving to non-believers that those beliefs are ‘true.’ First…get everyone to agree that those extra-biblical sources are appropriate sources, and then use them.

What Catholics must do, in speaking to Protestants about the virginity of Mary,(that is, in trying to prove it) is to use only those sources that all participants in the discussion accept. Using quotes from Holy Tradition is fine–to show why Catholics believe. It’s not so good for convincing those who dismiss Holy Tradition that they must believe, too.

This really jumped out at me, because I think this is the crux of why the Marian doctrines are such a point of contention. Those who have rejected the Apostolic Tradition wish to force those of us who have retained it into debate according to the truncated rules created by those who departed from the faith.

On the contrary, Catholics MUST NOT do this. If we do, then we are basically accepting the premise of what is for us “a different gospel”. The standard of Sola Scriptura constitutes a significant departure from that which was handed on to us from our Apostles, and therefore, we must reject it, or find ourselves accursed.

 

[elvisman]

adrift, the smart move is to side with Elvis and state HEOS was not translated correctly.

**Todd - it’s no small wonder that you cannot cpomprehend the explanations I have given you about the word heos (until).

You haver totally misrepresented my position, in that I NEVER told you that heos was not translated correctly.

Do you even READ the posts or do you make things up as you go along?

 

[adrift]

Originally Posted by adrift
I don’t think you get it. The only definition is that it defines a period of time up to an event and indicated nothing about after the event.
You are creating a strawman argument.

Any use of the word until defines the period of time up to the event.

I was here until you called. Implies you left after the call

I will be here until you call. Not relevant example - future event

I am here until you call. Not relevant example - future event

She was childless until the day of her death. Agreed, when used with death, the childless state does not change - still a weak example though

He knew her not until the birth. Cleaqrly implies he knew her after the birth

This is where you go wrong. The definition of “until” only says what happens up to a certian time. It does not say what happens afterwards
All of what you imply may or maynot be true. I may have left or I may have stayed it doesn’t really imply anthing. That you have decided that past events designate a change is not within the scope of the definition. The definition of “until” that you use is not in any dictionary. You made it up. Clearly you have not used the standarized meaning of the word. Until only meant the time before Jesus was born not after remember that until means up to the time that is the defintion.

 

[guanophore]

We don’t disagree. My fellow Catholics are the ones saying the Church imposes this doctrine as a test of faith. I don’t happen to think the Church’s authority rests on whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin, but many Catholics (and perhaps even the Catholic Church itself) seem to think it does.

This is a very strange statement. The church’s authority comes from Christ!

It rests on His authority, which was given to Him by His Father when He was raised from the dead. I have never heard such a strange idea as you propose. Did you make that up?

Why the Church would put itself out on a limb to defend what I consider an unnecessary doctrine is something I can't grasp.

I think you hit the nail on the head right here. This statement sums up many of the issues involved. First of all, the Church is not out on a limb by defending the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. On the contrary, those that reject this faith are the ones that go out on a limb.

Secondly, we are commanded to give a defense for the faith, to contend for it. This doctrine, along with all the others, were deposited ONCE FOR ALL to the Church, and we are not at liberty to depart from them.

And finally, it is not up to us to decide what doctrines are “unnecessary” to our salvation. It is God who decides what is necessary for us, and we are to receive it.

  It feeds into the misperception that even within married life the Catholic Church sees sex as more of a necessary evil than an uplifting union of a married man and woman.

No, this is a modern error. On the contrary, the Catholic Church upholds marriage as a sacrament, and the means by which the participants are made holy and get to heaven.

The Church upholds that all vows, such as Mary’s vow of celibacy and marriage vows, are sacred before God, and are to be protected and cherished.

 

[elvisman]

I’m repeating this challenge to posters

Actually, Todd – I was going to ignore your continuous insistence that “until”** has only one application but I changed my mind because of your stubbornness. I will, therefore repeat what I explained to Diana since you obviously missed it several pages back:**

I have illustrated – with the definitions of the Greek, “Heos” (until) - that the word can carry the following meanings:
While***, still, even to the point, since.***

Therefore, Matt. 1:25 can (and probably should) be read as one of the following:
1. He had no relations with her while (heos/until)** she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. **
2. He had no relations with her, even to the point (heos/until)** she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. **
3. He had no relations with her since (heos/until)** she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. **
4. He had no relations with her, still (heos/until)** she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.**

In short - you’re still playing word games with the original Greek. Your rendering of the Greek is limited to one meaning, while the actual Greek is not. In short, Todd - you are not only wrong because I have proven you wrong - you’re wrongs because thousands of years of linguistics have proven you wrong.

So much for your “challenge” . . .

CASE CLOSED.

 

[david_ruiz]

I question your interpretation.

It also says

Jesus was not clothed in sackcloth. This Psalm is about the falsely accused and this is what applies to Jesus not every statement made. What Gospel are you referring to?
The only thing I know is when Jesus says “they hated me without cause”

Please do question, that is what this is all about.The Gospel is John 2:17. This is where Jesus gets mad at the vendors, overturning tables in the temple, and said “make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And His disciples remembered that it was written , the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (from psalms 69:8,9- " I am become a stranger unto my bretheren ,and an alien unto my MOTHER’S children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me "…Yes, there are false accusations but also reproach .verse 21 -“In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink ,and “I wept and fasted " (verse10) There are many things here that were real ,not just symbolic .Yes, the sackcloth is a real and figurative in the bible . While He figuratively made sackcloth His garment (verse11,) He literally wept at Gethsemane (verse10) .Thank-you for reading “my” interpretation of this Psalm 69 ,that Mary is the mother of Jesus , who had other children , who reproached Jesus , The verse is simple, yet profoundly deep , and precise ,and double-edged.John 7:5-” For neither did His bretheren believe in Him”

 

[elvisman]

Psalm 69:8-" I am become a stranger unto my bretheren, and an alien unto MY Mother"s children". I agree on Revelations , that Mary is a past fulfillment , and Israel is a future fullfillment of that "women ".The same is true in Psalms prophecy concerning Jesus . Indeed you may say Israel is the “mother” of the Messiah symbolically , and Mary in reality .Mary ,in this scripture had children ,and scripture says they did not believe uptill after Calvary. And you who make so much of His mother unfortunately must downplay the obvious on this one .To me it speaks of both “mothers” of Jesus -Israel and Mary. One could ask why does He repeat himself, "estranged bretheren "and “alien children”. Are they one in the same , or are they two entities from Israel , one his fellow country men , the other his family, His mother’s children . Is not Mary Jesus 's mother ? Hopefully you understand my position, that because of other scriptures I read this scripture at face value , for what it says plainly …I understand your position and why. Thank-you

This is such an acrobatic twisting of Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) - I’m not even sure I know how to respond - or where to begin.

If nothing else your post is a textbook example of why Protestantism is so tragic because of its utter confusion of splintered belief systems.

There are protestants who:
Believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity - others that don’t.
Believe in the Trinity - others that don’t.
Believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist - others that don’t.
Believe in Baptismal Regeneration - others that don’t.
Believe in Sola Scriptura - others that don’t.
. . . and on and on and on . . .

---

**I have heard Protestant ministers (my brother-in-law, being one of them) who interpret Psalm 69:8-10 as speaking about Jesus being rejected by Israel. **

YOUR insistence that it speaks of Jesus’ siblings proves my point about the tragic confusion that is Protestantism.

 

[Todd520]

Therefore, Matt. 1:25 can (and probably should) be read as one of the following:

1. He had no relations with her while (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
2. He had no relations with her, even to the point (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
3. He had no relations with her since (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
4. He had no relations with her, still (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Thank you elvis for proving two points

• my challenge cannot be, well ‘challenged’ using UNTIL
• you’ve convinced me that heos was incorrectly translated for Matt 1:25. While your four examples still leave her PV in doubt, much less is implied vs ‘until’