Do I have to affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary?

[Racer_X]

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not something that keeps me up at night wondering about. In fact, I’m rather uncomfortable with the question. If someone were to ask me about it, I’d rather answer, “I don’t know. It’s really none of my business. That’s between Mary, Joseph and God.”

But it is a dogma, right? Does that mean I am required to affirm it? I certainly don’t deny it. Who am I to say what Mary and Joseph didn’t do? (This should certainly be the attitude of all Protestants, btw.)

Now before you knee-jerk a “yes–dogma: have to believe it”, look over the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on dogma.

newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.
…
But while we should believe, at least implicitly, every truth attested by the word of God, we are free to admit that some are in themselves more important than others, more necessary than others, and that an explicit knowledge of some is necessary while an implicit faith in others is sufficient.

But what is implicit faith?

Am I okay to not have an opinion about Mary’s perpetual virginity?

 

[John_Mortell]

But what is implicit faith?

im·plic·it

1. 
   *]Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
   *]Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” (Patricia Hampl).
   *]Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust.
   
   Faith in Church dogma should always come before opinion.

 

[Hananiah]

Someone who either didn’t know about a particular dogma or didn’t understand it yet trusted the Church and gave divine and Catholic faith to everything he knew to be taught by the Church as true would have implicit faith. Clearly you understand the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, so implicit faith is out of the question for you. The Church teaches it as true, therefore you must give it divine and Catholic faith as if Jesus Christ Himself came down from heaven and told it to you.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes the Dogma must never be denied by a Catholic.

An answer to the question could be: I don’t know, I don’t fully understand it, but the Church teaches it, therefore it is true!

 

[campion]

Does a complete “Dogma List” exist somewhere? Sure would like to know what things I have to believe in, and those things I can believe.

 

[Charles]

Br. Rich SFO:

An answer to the question could be: I don’t know, I don’t fully understand it, but the Church teaches it, therefore it is true!

This is a very good way to handle an issue that you are not comfortable with. When you get questions like this, however, I would always encourage you to go back and study the dogma in question so that the next time it comes up you’ll be even better prepared.

I often get asked questions about my faith that I can’t answer satisfactorily, but I usually try to be ready for the next time it comes up!

 

[St_Veronica]

campion:

Does a complete “Dogma List” exist somewhere? Sure would like to know what things I have to believe in, and those things I can believe.

Dogmas of the Catholic Church

americancatholictruthsociety.com/dogma1.htm

SV

 

[ralphinal]

It has been said by Alex Jones as well as others, if I found out that my virgin fiance was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is no way that I would think about having relations with her later. I am not nearly worthy enough.

 

[MountainMan]

Racer -

Several others have posted good advice about addressing difficult questions. I hope my (name removed by moderator)ut provides further assistance.

When I wonder about the perpetual virginity of Mary, I think about her comment to Gabriel: “How can this be? I do not know man” (Luke 1:34). She knew that she was betrothed to Joseph when Gabriel appeared to her. Why would she doubt that he and she might have children? I believe it was because she had made a vow of viriginity early in her life. Hope this helps, and that you KEEP THE FAITH!!!

Chuck

 

[Melonie]

St Veronica, thank you for that link. I’ve been looking for a nice summary of Church dogma for some time.

 

[Racer_X]

MountainMan:

Racer -

Several others have posted good advice about addressing difficult questions. I hope my (name removed by moderator)ut provides further assistance.

Thanks, MountainMan. But keep in mind that I am not questioning her perpetual virginity. I am refraining from the asking the question at all (or would if it were not a dogma of the Church).

Please understand that it is out of the deepest respect for our Mother that I would abstain from an opinion about what seems to me a very private matter.

I am sure there are very good reasons in support of the belief about her perpetual virginity, but they are out of place in this discussion. I am more interested in why it is necessary to have an opinion about her virginity at all.

 

[Racer_X]

Hananiah:

Someone who either didn’t know about a particular dogma or didn’t understand it yet trusted the Church and gave divine and Catholic faith to everything he knew to be taught by the Church as true would have implicit faith. Clearly you understand the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, so implicit faith is out of the question for you. The Church teaches it as true, therefore you must give it divine and Catholic faith as if Jesus Christ Himself came down from heaven and told it to you.

This clears up the implicit faith vs. explicit faith distinction. Thank you.

However, on further reflection perhaps I do not understand the dogma well enough to be excluded from implicit faith. I understand what the dogma says but I am baffled as to its significance and where it fits in with the rest of the deposit of faith.

We have these Catholic beliefs about God, His relationship to us, origin of creation, the Incarnation of God, the Sacraments, and then–seemingly quite out of place to me–there is a statement about the very private relationship between a particular woman and her husband. How does that fit?

Here are the Marian dogmas from the site given by SV:

1. 
   *]Mary is truly the Mother of God.
   *]Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.
   *]Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.
   *]Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.
   *]After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.
   *]Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
   
   The first four are obviously of Christological significance. The sixth is a historical event of which the early Church was aware and, in light of the Book of Revelation, has an explicit scriptural basis–John saw her in heaven with his own eyes. But why #5?
   
   I am not calling into question whether the dogma is true or not but why it is a dogma at all. It is certainly a divinely revealed truth that Bathsheba was not a virgin, yet this is not dogma. Bathsheba’s relations with her first husband and David have no theological, soteriological, nor ecclesiological significance. Why does that of our Lord’s Mother?
   
   Please understand that my discomfort with this dogma stems from the deepest respect of our Mother.

 

[martino]

Ok so you dont seem to question that fact that Mary was ever-virgin, only why does the Catholic Church find such significance in that particular fact.

God equipped Mary to be the Mother of God, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, the mother of the Church and a leader in the battle against evil. He preserved her from sin to enable her to fullfill these roles perfectly. Just as Mary was kept spiritually intact (Immaculate conception) her body was also kept intact as it was not subject to corruption or decay after death (the Assumption). As the “new Ark of the covenant” Mary’s body was to reflect a perfect purity and intactness, which is why God chose to preserve her virginity when she gave birth to Jesus. It gives us a complete picture of the unique role Mary would play in God’s savign plan and to reflect this she was kept totally pure and completely intact in both spirit and body.

I dont know if this will help you at all, but remember sometimes we cannot question why God does certain things, but as long as He does them we accept them with all our hearts.

 

[patg]

I have thought along these lines also … and I neither affirm nor deny the dogma. I believe it is totally irrelevant to my relationship with God and the greatest commandments - Love God, Love your neighbor.

I can’t imagine how believing this affects my spiritual relationship with God so to me it is just one of those theological details that don’t really matter. An interesting thing for theologians to debate and write about maybe but not a significant item. The bible clearly states Jesus had brothers and sisters and yet the church uses a lot of convoluted arguments to convince us otherwise - and why should it matter in the slightest?

Pat

 

[darcee]

Only my opinion,

Mary remaining a virgin removes any possible claim of any person being the child of the mother of God other then Christ.

-D

 

[Racer_X]

patg:

The bible clearly states Jesus had brothers and sisters and yet the church uses a lot of convoluted arguments to convince us otherwise - and why should it matter in the slightest?

I disagree with this point. The question of whether Jesus had siblings is a public *historical *question. The thing about such historical questions is that there is no predicting what kind of significance they might have for someone, somewhere, now or in the future. We must be careful to correct historical facts that we know to be false.

However, I would have a hard time believing that Mary’s virginity was ever public knowledge. It is an inference. Although the Bible is unfortunately unclear on Jesus being the only-child of Mary, the number of Jesus’ siblings would have been a known fact in the early Church. They did not have to conclude it; it was a given. Mary’s virginity on the other hand has to be arrived at through reasoning. I don’t see the need to pursue that reasoning.

 

[martino]

patg:

I have thought along these lines also … and I neither affirm nor deny the dogma. I believe it is totally irrelevant to my relationship with God and the greatest commandments - Love God, Love your neighbor.

I can’t imagine how believing this affects my spiritual relationship with God so to me it is just one of those theological details that don’t really matter. An interesting thing for theologians to debate and write about maybe but not a significant item. The bible clearly states Jesus had brothers and sisters and yet the church uses a lot of convoluted arguments to convince us otherwise - and why should it matter in the slightest?

Pat

Pat if nothing matters except for “Love your God, Love your neighbor” why is the bible so thick? Based on this logic the sacracments dont matter, same sex marriage doesnt matter, contraception doesnt matter, Christ’s divinity doesnt matter, Christ’s humanity doesnt matter, Christianity in general doesnt matter because other faiths teach love God and neighbor. What is it that keeps you a Christian to begin with?

 

[Funky_Cedars]

Racer X:

…Please understand that it is out of the deepest respect for our Mother that I would abstain from an opinion about what seems to me a very private matter…why it is necessary to have an opinion about her virginity at all.

first, regards it being a private matter, if Mom didn’t want us talking about it, i’m sure she’d have mentioned that and Daddy would have shut us up a long time ago. it also doubtful that He would have moved us to a dogmatic understanding of Mom’s virginal status if He knew the subject was disturbing to her. there’s some serious love going on between those two, they aren’t about hurting each other.
i’m certain the reason Daddy, without offending Mom, has given us this understanding is to further highlight just how significant the Incarnation is. everything about it, everything, is extraordinary.
if it didn’t lead us to a greater appreciation of how completely Jesus loves us, it likely would have been kept a private issue. since it enhances our relationship with Him, however, it has been given to us as a precious gift. as such, we ought to cherish it, not avoid it.
anywho, thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

 

[Funky_Cedars]

patg:

…The bible clearly states Jesus had brothers and sisters…

but it never refers to them as the ‘sons of joseph’ or, perhaps more significantly, as the ‘sons and daughters of mary’. this leads to the capacity to doubt that lineage and to understand ‘brother and sister’ in a way it is used elsewhere in the bible.
and to show how Daddy has used a phrase elsewhere to help figure out His meaning in another place hardly seems to be ‘using convoluted arguments’, sorry you see it that way.
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

 

[Della]

patg:

I have thought along these lines also … and I neither affirm nor deny the dogma. I believe it is totally irrelevant to my relationship with God and the greatest commandments - Love God, Love your neighbor.

I can’t imagine how believing this affects my spiritual relationship with God so to me it is just one of those theological details that don’t really matter. An interesting thing for theologians to debate and write about maybe but not a significant item. The bible clearly states Jesus had brothers and sisters and yet the church uses a lot of convoluted arguments to convince us otherwise - and why should it matter in the slightest?

Pat

The Church hasn’t put forward “convoluted” arguments, it put forward what is true–that the terms brother and sister referred to the members of one’s family group not just to immediate family members such as blood brothers and sisters.

Also, cite the verse that states that any of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were MARY’S children. There isn’t one. Whenever Mary is mentioned as having any children she is called “the mother of Jesus” or “the mother of the Lord”. The brothers and sisters mentioned as Jesus’ brothers and sisters were children of close relations of Mary’s and Joseph’s but they were not the children of Mary and Joseph.