Ever Virgin

[zach_dunn]

Hi, I have a question but I’ll start with the short story leading up to the question. I was talking to a friend about Mary’s virginity and I was having trouble showing that she was always a virgin. After talking about it for a while I ended with, “this is what the Church teaches” and I added some things as to why, like the use of the wrod “brother,” and “sister,” and all that stuff. After that she asked me “why is it so important that she was a virgin anyway?” I couldn’t give an answer, why? Because I myself don’t know, not that I don’t think it’s true or that it is important, I just don’t know why. I told her I’d get back to her when I figured out, that’s where you all come in . This brings me to my obvious question, why is it important that Mary remained a virgin? I know it’s silly, but I’d like a tangible answer if there is one. Also, I’m having trouble proving the “brethren” of the Lord are not is blood brothers and sisters. Could anyone help me with this too? Thanks in advance!

Pax,
Zach

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

read this?

catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

 

[mlchance]

If the Virgin Mary had other children, why are they not named in Scripture? Why is that no one in Scripture other than Jesus is referred to as Mary’s child? If Mary had other children, why did Jesus entrust her to a non-relative? Why is it such a big deal if Mary did remain a virgin?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[zach_dunn]

Thanks for the quick reply!!

 

[zach_dunn]

If the Virgin Mary had other children, why are they not named in Scripture? Why is that no one in Scripture other than Jesus is referred to as Mary’s child? If Mary had other children, why did Jesus entrust her to a non-relative? Why is it such a big deal if Mary did remain a virgin?

– Mark L. Chance.

First of all, the brethren of the Lord ARE mentioned in Scripture. Not that they are his actual brothers, but the Bible uses the word brother for them. Take Matthew 13:55 for example, I don’t believe they are his actual brothers, but they are mentioned in Scripture. Your post seems to imply that I believe that Jesus had brothers, I DON’T. And your post didn’t attempt to answer my main question, why is it important that Mary was a virgin forever? Please don’tanswer questions with questions, that’s what Protestants do, Catholics give answers. And to the other poster (sorry, I forgot your screenname), I’m not sure this will help becasue it relies heavily on the Protoevangelium of James, while I accept it as reasonable evidence for Mary’s virgintity, a Protestant will not. Also, the article didn’t answer the main question of why? Thanks for the replies!

Pax,
Zach

 

[mlchance]

First of all, the brethren of the Lord ARE mentioned in Scripture.

Yes, they are. I never said they weren’t. Quick: How many of those brothers and sisters are said to be children of Jesus’ mother?

And your post didn’t attempt to answer my main question, why is it important that Mary was a virgin forever?

Because it’s the truth.

Please don’tanswer questions with questions, that’s what Protestants do…

Protestants also bathe and drive cars. Are those activities off-limits as well?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[zach_dunn]

Yes, they are. I never said they weren’t. Quick: How many of those brothers and sisters are said to be children of Jesus’ mother?

Got me there, I didn’t read your post well enough, SORRY .

Because it’s the truth.

A Protestant is not going to accept this answer, I’m not trying to understand this, I want to know why it is important so that I may pass my knowledge on to people that want to know.

Protestants also bathe and drive cars. Are those activities off-limits as well?

No, I never said that. I’m just saying if you want to get through to people you should answer their questions instead of deflecting their qustion with more questions.

 

[mlchance]

My questions aren’t deflections. They go to the heart of the matter. Folks claim Mary had other children, but where is the evidence? No where. Not a single person in all of Scripture except Jesus is said to be a child of Mary.

The entire Mary-wasn’t-always-a-virgin “argument” stands or falls on the evidence, and there is no evidence.

On the other hand, there are plenty of hints in Scripture that Mary had no other children. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and was a common point of agreement among early Protestant leaders as well.

If one who denies Mary’s perpetual virginity doesn’t want to accept the combined evidence of the Bible and history in favor of embracing no evidence at all, there’s little that can be done for them outside of prayer.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[zach_dunn]

Ok, I understand that, I’ve always understood that, and I’ll continue to understand this, but you still haven’t answered my very first question. Why is it important that she remained a virgin? Why does she have to be a virgin? Why couldn’t she have children? What’s wrong with that belief??? that’s what I want to know.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. Please don’t give me the answer, it’s not true, I know it isn’t.

 

[mlchance]

First, let’s edit your post to number your questions:

1. Why is it important that she remained a virgin?
2. Why does she have to be a virgin?
3. Why couldn’t she have children?
4. What’s wrong with that belief???

In order:

1. Mary chose to remain a virgin. I don’t know why she did this. AFAIK, Scripture is silent on this point.
2. She had to be a virgin because that is what was foretold. However, she didn’t have to remain a virgin. She chose to do so.
3. Because she never had sex.
4. It’s wrong because it’s not true. You may not like that answer, but it’s the answer.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Scottgun]

I like letting two of my separated-brothers do my arguing:

Martin Luther:

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.(Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 [1539] )

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )

John Calvin:

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

(Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, 215; on Matthew 13:55)Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.(Pringle,* ibid*., vol. I, 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )

The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

(In Pringle, ibid., vol. I, 107; on Matthew 1:25)

As to why it is important, My own thought is that Marian teachings are really about Jesus and usually underscore His uniqueness. If He was the Messiah with brothers and then got crucified, the question would be, “Well He obviously wasn’t the Messiah. Maybe it’s one of his brothers.”

 

[Luke65]

The Bible never says that:

1. Mary had children other than Jesus.
2. Joseph had any children.
3. Joseph and Mary ever consummated their “marriage”.
4. Joseph and Mary ever got married.
5. Mary was a widow (even though Joseph is not present after Jesus was 12 years old).

Zach, you should read that Catholic Answers article and also this treatise by St. Jerome. They do answer your questions. Here’s an excerpt:

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
Against Helvidius.

1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disgusted at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learned to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue.

1. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.
   …
2. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.

 

[DD2007]

It doesn’t matter if Mary was always a virgin. As long as she was a virgin at the time of the birth of Christ, that’s all that matters.

 

[VociMike]

It doesn’t matter if Mary was always a virgin. As long as she was a virgin at the time of the birth of Christ, that’s all that matters.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It does matter if Mary was always a virgin. The reason it matters is, first and foremost, that God ordained that Mary should be ever-virgin, and secondly, that God chose to make it part of his revelation to his people. It matters to us because it matters to God.

To blow off things that God chose to bring about, and that he further chose to reveal to his people, is the height of arrogance.

Now for those who aren’t dismissive of God’s revelation, then they can begin to ponder why God felt this was something important, both important to bring about and important to tell us.

 

[VociMike]

Ok, I understand that, I’ve always understood that, and I’ll continue to understand this, but you still haven’t answered my very first question. Why is it important that she remained a virgin? Why does she have to be a virgin? Why couldn’t she have children? What’s wrong with that belief??? that’s what I want to know.

Pax,
Zach

P.S. Please don’t give me the answer, it’s not true, I know it isn’t.

Well, what would have been the consequences of Mary having other children? What would have been the consequences if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters?

Another question to consider: when is it considered proper for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers?

 

[Red_Meg]

Typing one-handed here, but—

When I studied the Pentateuch a few years ago, one thing that really jumped out at me were all the specificatiuons & requirements & care for the Ark of the Covenant. Had to be made to specific dimensions, with specific decorations, out of specific materials, and could only contain the sacred items. Nothing else. Even true essentials for desert wanderers like water or a tent couldn’t be stored in the Ark-- only the Sacred.

We understand Mary to be the New Ark of the New Covenant, since she carried God Himself within her. Surely it is only fitting that the womb that bore our Creator and Savior should be held apart, special, for only that purpose.

Margaret

 

[iNs1d3tRiP]

The reason why Mary had to remain a virgin is answered indirectly by St. Augustine and his theology on original sin.

Augustine views original sin as a direct consequence of the way in which we are conceived. This implies that sex, even used as a means of reproduction is still unclean and sinful in some way. For Mary to engage in sexual intercourse even after Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit she would not be free of sin.

The real question is “why is it important for Mary to be totally free of sin?”

I do not have a PhD in theology, and I’m not a Bishop from Rome and I do not have an incredibly concrete answer. However, I do believe that Mary must be totally free of sin because of the way in which she ascended into heaven. This is because Mary was never truly a “fallen” human because she was born with original sin removed before she was conceived.

I don’t know if my explanation is satisfactory but perhaps someone else would be able to elaborate or at least for it to put you in the right direction. If you are willing to debate matters such as this with others then you are much more brave than me.

 

[cdfost]

This was one of the things that had me confused about the Church for a while, too. Then I learned from a Jewish friend something interesting: if it is not explicitly stated in scripture it did not happen, and you cannot make a conclusion beyond what is in the text.

This, being applied to the belief of Mary as a Virgin (not knowing the touch of a man) one can deduct that Mary had Jesus, Joseph is no longer mentioned after the Nativity. This means that Joseph ceased to exist at that point, and there is no mention of siblings so they don’t exist either. The words for brothers and cousins are very close, so it could have been a mistranslation/interpretation.

 

[mlchance]

…if it is not explicitly stated in scripture it did not happen…

So, then, there’s no China?

…Joseph is no longer mentioned after the Nativity.

Yes, he is.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[thistle]

zach_dunn:
“A Protestant is not going to accept this answer.”

Why not? The founders of Protestantism not only believed that Mary was ever virgin but they declared so in writing.

Luther:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and **she remained a virgin after that. **

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

**Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him **. . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Zwingili:

  I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that **she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity**.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Bullinger (in 1575):

“The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

Even John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church stated:

“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”