Ever Virgin

[FCEGM]

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.

It’s important, Zach, because each doctrine of the Church is connected to the others. Thus contemplating the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reveals not so much her prerogatives and her glorious role in Salvation History, but more reveals Who it is Who was born to such a mother. God does nothing for no reason, thus the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has a great significance: pointing to the unique identity of her Son. Thus, we cannot isolate the Incarnation of Christ from other factors (i.e., His being born a Jew; His being born of a particular woman; that particular woman being a virgin before His birth and remaining a virgin after; that particular woman remaining virginal in the midst of a marriage.)

Ask yourself how would you would react if someone made unfounded claims against your mother. THAT’S how Catholics respond when the graces and prerogatives that God has bestowed on her because of her unique relationship with the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity - and as the ever-virgin Mother of God Incarnate - come under attack.

“Mary Most Holy is thus the ‘ever virgin.’ Her prerogative is the consequence of her divine motherhood which totally consecrated her to Christ’s mission of redemption.” (From a catechesis of Pope John Paul II on the Blessed Virgin Mary given August 28, 1996.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Could anyone help me with this too? Thanks in advance!

I put this together a few months back. Maybe it helps?

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY - Mary is the New Testament type of the Ark of the Covenant (see obvious parallels in chart here). The Ark was not to be touched (1 Chr 13:10).

Another way to see it is Mary’s response to the angel who told her she would bear a son. “How can I since I don’t know man?” she says. Well, since she was about to be married, the obvious answer to her would have been because she’d bear Joseph’s son. But if she had taken a vow of chastity then her question makes sense.

There are others who believe that the way Jesus entered the world (her womb) will never be crossed again by man:
Ezekiel 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.
The “brothers” mentioned in Scripture are not His fraternal brothers.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

Why doesn’t it matter? Who says?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Originally Posted by DD2007 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*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.

It matters very much since it is Christ’s Church who authority you undermine if you believe otherwise.

 

[zach_dunn]

Thanks for all the answers everyone!!

Zach

 

[mich2]

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.

My personal opinion as to why the perpetual virginity of Mary is important would be due to her role relative to us believers. She is our blessed mother, and therefore the spouse of God…She is Isreal, the Church.
In the old testament Israel is identified as being the son of God.
Exodus 4:22, God declares, **“Israel is my first-born son.” **. Jesus fulfills this role of Israel, which identifies the Church as being the body of Christ.
In the old testament, Israel is also identified as being the spouse of God.
**Is 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; ** Mary fulfills the role as spouse of God as scriptures read “your child will be called the son of God”.

The Church in the New Testament is identified as being both “the Body of Christ” and John in his second epistle calls the Church Lady, whereas in the book of Revelation, she is identified as giving birth to God’s son.

Andre

 

[Jennifer123]

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

I was going to say this but you beat me to it - thank you! Yes, it is my understanding that is has to do with Mary bearing the Word made Flesh - being the Ark of the New Covenant and the allegory to the Ark which contained the Word. Study that relationship and you’ll see why it was important that Mary stay a virgin.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zach,

Here’s an answer a Protestant might accept since it is from Scripture:

In the Old Testament, God gave instructions to the Israelites for the building of His dwelling. There were certain things in this Temple that were considered to be so Holy that they were off limits to EVERYONE except the High Priest. For example, in Numbers 4 God commands the Israelites:
“Only after Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sacred objects and all their utensils on breaking camp, shall the Kohathites enter to carry them. But they shall not touch the Sacred objects; if they do they will die…but the Kohathites shall not go in to look at the Sacred objects; if they do they will die.”

There are numerous other verses in Scripture with regards to the sacredness and untouchability of the Sacred items of the Dwelling place of God. Even Moses himself could not enter the Dwelling place of God when it was overshadowed with God’s presence (see Exodus 40:34ff).

Now, every Protestant will agree that God overshadowed Mary as He did the Ark. I don’t know how Protestants can deny, by that very fact, that Mary was set aside for God by God Himself.

So -why is it important that Mary is ever-Virgin? Because God especially and uniquely claimed her as His own. And by God’s own command, what He has marked as especially and uniquely Sacred cannot be touched by any man.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[walshy]

If a protestent belives in Our Lady’s eternal virginity then he comes to the truth and the truth is that the catholic church is the one true church.

 

[Tom]

The fact that Mary and Joseph had planned to remain celibate in their marriage is revealed in Luke chapter 1.
If read in context you’ll see if these two people had planned on a “normal” sexual relationship after their marriage.
We know Mary and Joseph were good pious Jews. We know their marriage was to be in the near future. We know Gabriel is telling Mary what shall occur in the future.
So here you are, as Mary, about to be wed to Joseph. You and Joseph are either planning on a normal sexual relationship or you’re not. When you’re visited by an angel of God. Let’s see which the Holy Spirit leads us to believe.

See Luke 1, 26 “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

Wow, Gabriel certainly tells Mary some awesome information.

1. You shall conceive in your womb.
2. You shall bring forth a son
3. You shall call his name JESUS
4. He shall be great
5. He shall be called the Son of the Highest
6. The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David
7. He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever
8. Of his kingdom there shall be no end.

As Mary you’d have a lot of questions. Let’s see what YOU would ask, first think you’re planning a normal sexual relationship in marriage.

1. Any question you shall conceive a child? If you’re planning a normal sexual relation there should be no question.
2. It shall be a son, great news! No question, but great news!
3. Jesus? O.K. I might ask about the name, it wasn’t uncommon name, but to be told by an angel what He would be named is a little unusual.
4. Wow, He shall be great. What do you mean “great”?
5. Son of the Highest? That’s a title reserved for kings!
6. The throne of David? This is to be the messiah we’ve been waiting for? Well, Joseph and I are both of the house of David. Now I have questions!!!
7. He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever? How can my son reign over the house of Jacob forever?
8. His kingdom will have no end? How shall this be?

If I were Mary, I would have asked a great many questions. The only thing I would never have questioned is how I shall become pregnant, Mary knew how children were conceived!

Now read the list again with the knowledge that you planned on celibacy in your marriage!
The first, last and ONLY question I’d have would be “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

So, what question does Mary ask?

See Luke 1:34 “Luke 1, 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

 

[Le_Cracquere]

The OP was asking how to answer a Protestant on these points, but too many responses seem to beg the question. Responding that “the Catholic Church has always believed this” cuts no ice for a Protestant. Responding “Luther/Zwingli/etc. believed this” cuts no ice for a Protestant (believe it or not, Protestants aren’t mini-Catholics who take early Protestant leaders’ opinions as magisterial).

Mary is the Ark of the Covenant? Don’t wish to be disrespectful, but it does not follow that she was contructed of acacia wood and contained two tablets of stone, that holding her aloft would have brought victory in war, or that a non-Levite who bumped into her would have died. Biblical typology can only take you so far, and it cannot decisively show that perpetual virginity was essential to Mary’s typological role as Ark.

And I’ll concede your biblical exegesis: the scriptures can be read around to leave doubt open that Jesus had (half-)brothers, and that Mary and Joseph were actually in a legitimate, consummated marriage. However, the burden is on the reader who wrings a peculiar conclusion from the text, and not on the reader who doesn’t. I can’t PROVE that Napoleon Bonaparte did not favor wearing big, floppy clown shoes. Certainly, none of his diaries or contemporary chronicles expressly say he didn’t. Just because he wasn’t wearing them in paintings doesn’t mean he didn’t like and wear them. Nonetheless, it takes a peculiar man with a peculiar set of preoccupations to derive Bonaparte’s clown-shoe fetish out of what wasn’t denied and what we can’t prove wasn’t seen. It takes an equally peculiar set of preoccupations to insist on Mary’s virginity based on what common-sense evidence to the contrary can be laboriously explained away.

 

[walshy]

See if someone disrspected your mother you would
be anoyed.
How much more anoyed do you think God will be when you disrespect
his mother and his spouse.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

See if someone disrspected your mother you would
be anoyed.
How much more anoyed do you think God will be when you disrespect
his mother and his spouse.

Highly annoyed, one supposes, which is why I’ll never willingly or knowingly do it. I wasn’t aware, though, that our Lord was married. To what “spouse” are you referring, and how did I insult her?

 

[walshy]

Our Lady.

 

[Axion]

The OP was asking how to answer a Protestant on these points, but too many responses seem to beg the question. Responding that “the Catholic Church has always believed this” cuts no ice for a Protestant. Responding “Luther/Zwingli/etc. believed this” cuts no ice for a Protestant (believe it or not, Protestants aren’t mini-Catholics who take early Protestant leaders’ opinions as magisterial).

Indeed. Yet a lot of Protestants take their pastor’s denomination leaders’ opinions as magisterial.

It takes an equally peculiar set of preoccupations to insist on Mary’s virginity based on what common-sense evidence to the contrary can be laboriously explained away.

Well.

1. It is an ancient TRADITION of trhe Christian Church. Catholics (as well as Orthodox and Coptic Christians) see no reason whatsoever to deny the Apostolic teaching that has come down through the Church from the earliest times. Were the early Christians mistaken? Then perhaps they were just as mistaken over which books make up the New Testament, and on the theology of the Trinity. The New Testament was put together only in 382 AD by the same Christians who say that Mary is Ever Virgin. Using the Testament they put together to second-guess them on this is not very logical.
2. If Mary had other children after Christ this would not only make Christ less unique, it would be having children with another father while the father of her first child was still alive! In other words, it would bring up issues of adultery or illegitimacy.
3. It would raise serious questions about the belief both Mary and Joseph had in God. If they truly believed that Mary’s womb was the sanctuary of the Holy of Holies, would they really then procede to sensual relations as if nothing had happened. Would Joseph or any believing Jew consider having sex in the sanctuary of the temple?

 

[Tom]

I’d like to hear a reasonable explanation for the question and statement the Blessed Virgin Mary makes in Luke 1:34.
We have a young woman, engaged and soon to be wed. We know she is a good pious Jew, versed in Scripture. When an angel of God visits her.
The question is, were she and Joseph planning on a “normal” sexual relationship in their marriage, or were they under a vow of celibacy, and Luke chapter 1, is showing us that vow? By the context of her conversation with Gabriel, the truth is revealed.
www.drbo.org:

Luke 1: 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Understanding Jewish custom, which at the time, the betrothal was not more than one year, to allow ample time for preparation and seasonal work, and Mary and Joseph were already betrothed. Their wedding was in the near future.
www.drbo.org:

Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail,
• full of grace,
• the Lord is with thee:
• blessed art thou among women.

Now some translations have “favored daughter” rather than full of grace. Either way it’s an extraordinary greeting.
www.drbo.org:

29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.

Similarly Zachary was troubled, however his was of doubt, whereas she was troubled by what Gabriel was calling her, full of grace (or favored daughter), the Lord is with her, and that she was blessed among women.
www.drbo.org:

30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

Again, she has found grace with God.
Then come the disclosures from Gabriel:
www.drbo.org:

Luke 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb

Should this fact have confused a woman who was engaged to be married? IF she were planning on a normal sexual relationship with her husband? This should have been absolutely no surprise to any woman who was engaged and was planning on having sex with her husband!
•
www.drbo.org:

and shalt bring forth a son

O.K. that’s news, worthy of a few questions
•
www.drbo.org:

and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

More news, again worthy of a question or two
•
www.drbo.org:

32 He shall be great

Big news, at least a few questions here
•
www.drbo.org:

and shall be called the Son of the most High

Wow, this title was reserved for kings! Would she have some questions!!!
•
www.drbo.org:

and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father

Oh My God!!! My son will be the king of Israel??? How? Would she have questions???
•
www.drbo.org:

and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever

Wait, what do you mean forever? How shall this possibly be done???
•
www.drbo.org:

33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end

What are you talking about Gabriel? How can his kingdom have no end?
So we have a woman about to be married, was she planning on a sexual relationship with her husband?
We can tell by her response to these remarkable revelations told to her by Gabriel.
Does she ask about her greetings?
About being a “favored daughter, or full of grace?
Does she ask about the “lord is with you” or about being “blessed among women?
Does she ask about the sex or the name of the child?
Does she question Gabriel about her son being “great”, or about him being called the son of the most high?
Does she question him being given the throne of David, the Davidic king?
Does she question how on earth her son can reign in the house of Jacob forever, or that his kingdom would have no end?
I mean these are some heavy revelations!
Actually the only thing a young woman about to be married and planning on having sexual relations with her husband WOULDN’T ask is how she shall, in the future, conceive!
So what does she ask?
BTW I started a new thread on this.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Indeed. Yet a lot of Protestants take their pastor’s denomination leaders’ opinions as magisterial.

Touche! Some do, I’m sure, but you might be surprised at the levels of disagreement that also take place.

Well.

1. It is an ancient TRADITION of trhe Christian Church. Catholics (as well as Orthodox and Coptic Christians) see no reason whatsoever to deny the Apostolic teaching that has come down through the Church from the earliest times. Were the early Christians mistaken? Then perhaps they were just as mistaken over which books make up the New Testament, and on the theology of the Trinity. The New Testament was put together only in 382 AD by the same Christians who say that Mary is Ever Virgin. Using the Testament they put together to second-guess them on this is not very logical.

Maybe. Once again, though, this issue of tradition is one that a Catholic has to establish with his interlocutor for such an argument to make sense. Part of the OP’s problems seemed to come from a tendency to take Catholic arguments for tradition as a given, or a known quantity.

1. If Mary had other children after Christ this would not only make Christ less unique, it would be having children with another father while the father of her first child was still alive! In other words, it would bring up issues of adultery or illegitimacy.
2. It would raise serious questions about the belief both Mary and Joseph had in God. If they truly believed that Mary’s womb was the sanctuary of the Holy of Holies, would they really then procede to sensual relations as if nothing had happened. Would Joseph or any believing Jew consider having sex in the sanctuary of the temple?

Well, Protestants would be surprised to hear that they consider Jesus less unique than Catholics do! In all seriousness, though, the very uniqueness of the Holy Family robs us of useful precedents and parallels. Ordinarily, it wouldn’t be very kosher for a married woman to have a child by a third party, whether or not she was having sex with her husband! But then, this was no ordinary family, and there’s the point: since one point of this triangle is the Lord God of Hosts, ordinary notions of fittingness, sexual possession, marital union, and propriety sort of go out the window regardless. The whole situation would look weird to the world and to our eyes, whether or not Joseph and Mary behaved as an ordinary married couple thereafter. In the face of such tenuous textual evidence that they might not have, I’ll go with Occam’s razor and guess they did. To the whole “sanctuary of the Temple” thing, I refer you to my thoughts above (such as they are) about the pitfalls of typology.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Our Lady.

Now that’s a new one on me. I am going to assume that you’ve received some mistaken instruction, and that Catholic doctrine doesn’t suggest that Mary is God’s wife to go along with being His mother. That’s bizarre stuff for someone who suggests that I’m the one who’s offered her an insult. If Catholicism really taught that, then I’ve been a fool for considering joining the Church, and it’s a cult to be set beside Mormonism, the JWs, and several cargo-based religions. I trust, though, that this isn’t so, and ask orthodox readers on this list to set my mind at ease on this point.

 

[mlchance]

…that Catholic doctrine doesn’t suggest that Mary is God’s wife to go along with being His mother.

God doesn’t have a wife. The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God (the Son). Through our baptism, we become brothers of Jesus and children of the Father. The mother of my brother is also my mother. Hence, the Virgin Mary is my mother.

Every Marian doctrine is only true in light of something that is true about Jesus Christ.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

God doesn’t have a wife. The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God (the Son). Through our baptism, we become brothers of Jesus and children of the Father. The mother of my brother is also my mother. Hence, the Virgin Mary is my mother.

Every Marian doctrine is only true in light of something that is true about Jesus Christ.

– Mark L. Chance.

That’s fair enough, whether one’s a Protestant or a Catholic. Didn’t want to go off half-cocked, but also needed to be sure that the prior post was mistaken.