How can I prove that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin?

[john_aurelius]

No, it is not enough to limit the virginity of the Blessed Virgin to when she gave birth to our Lord. The faith of the Church is that she was/is perpetually a virgin. What you present doesn’t threaten Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.*In fact, if we look at Hegesippus we see proof that St. James was not the biological son of St. Joseph (and thus not of Mary either), since St. Hegesippus describes St. James as a Levite, i.e., part of the Levitical priestly class, since only a Levite could enter the Holy Place in the Temple for which they also wore linen garments. If he was a Levite, it means that his father had to be a Levite. St. Joseph was not a Levite, however, but a Judahite of the House of David. Therefore, when the Fathers speak of James or Jude being “brothers” of Jesus “according to the flesh,” all it means is that they were blood relatives of Jesus (as opposed to His “ecclesial brothers,” like everyone else in the Church), not that they were Jesus’ literal siblings. This is most abundantly clear when it comes to St. James.

Some articles that should be helpful to you:

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/FallOfTheNewHelvidius.aspx

If the articles are correct then James, Jude and Joseph are sons of Joseph and Jesus’ aunt. (Mary’s sister) then James is still not a Levite.

Also, why would the gospels take notice of his sisters from Nazareth? Its a far stretch to say they were simply members of the faith as brethren is also used. Jesus is saying that his true family are those who do the will of God.

A lot of the exegesis on this thread is extraordinary.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/TheBibleAndMarysVirginity.aspx

 

[FCEGM]

If the articles are correct then James, Jude and Joseph are sons of Joseph and Jesus’ aunt. (Mary’s sister) then James is still not a Levite.

This article addresses the levitical status of James:

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/OhBrotherWhereArtThou.aspx

Also, why would the gospels take notice of his sisters from Nazareth? Its a far stretch to say they were simply members of the faith as brethren is also used. Jesus is saying that his true family are those who do the will of God.

No one is saying that they were merely “members of the faith as brethren.” They were the Lord’s true family relatives, but they are described in Scripture using ancient Jewish, tribal terminology. All that Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are saying is that, at Nazareth, Jesus had “brothers”, i.e., “male relatives” (among whom were James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), and “sisters”, i.e., “female relatives.” We can’t impose a modern sense of an American-style nuclear family on a 1st Century Mid-Eastern society.

This article on the theological reasons for our Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity might be helpful:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a82.htm

Also, John, since you are in theological studies, you might consider reading Garrigou-Lagrange’s book The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hello everyone,

Hey friends my name is Jose and I would like to know how to prove to my friends that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin.  God Bless You All  :)

If she did not remain a Virgen, we could not be calling her a Virgen today, could we?

if our Fathers called her a virgen after she died, this means she remained a virgen, it could not be anything else.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wisdom seerer,

Now, who could argue with that reasoning?

In my opinion, we havve three areas to consider:

1- The Apostolic Age - where we are introduced to Mary through the Scriputes

2- The Early Chruch Fathers - where Mary’s perpetual virginity is clearly stated:
The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by

•St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),
•Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
•Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
•St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 84),
•St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);
•St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),
•Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),
•Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),
•St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),
•St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),
•St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),
•St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).
St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

3- The official teachings of the Catholic Church on Mary’s perpetual virginity - beginning in 649 AD was defined under anathema in the third canon of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I

Here is an interesting reference: newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

The doubt and denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity pre-existed the Protestant Revolt by 900 years - so, at best all they can say is, “Me, too” when it comes to signing on to this heresy.

Ultimtely, it is a matter of either believing that Christ established a Church that would not teach any error or this enitre view of Divine Intervention 2000 years ago is truly delusional thinking and, like St. Paul says in 1Cor 15:12:20 - we are truly to be pitied for such foolish beliefs. (Paul’s context was the Resurrection - but, by extension we note Christ just did not die but lived on earth for about 33 years and during that time founded one Church - and this is one of the dogmas of His Church.)

It really is a package deal - not multiple choice or picking 'one from Column A and one from Column B or some type of doctrinal cafeteria where one can pick and choose from a wide variety of items. Christ demanded more than someone’s intellectual agreement that He was the Son of God - Christ demanded action! A major action for us today is to believe what His Church teaches.

God bless

If she did not remain a Virgen, we could not be calling her a Virgen today, could we?

if our Fathers called her a virgen after she died, this means she remained a virgen, it could not be anything else.

 

[john_aurelius]

This article addresses the levitical status of James:

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/Articles/OhBrotherWhereArtThou.aspx

No one is saying that they were merely “members of the faith as brethren.” They were the Lord’s true family relatives, but they are described in Scripture using ancient Jewish, tribal terminology. All that Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are saying is that, at Nazareth, Jesus had “brothers”, i.e., “male relatives” (among whom were James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), and “sisters”, i.e., “female relatives.” We can’t impose a modern sense of an American-style nuclear family on a 1st Century Mid-Eastern society.

This article on the theological reasons for our Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity might be helpful:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a82.htm

Also, John, since you are in theological studies, you might consider reading Garrigou-Lagrange’s book The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life.

The article on James claims that James was not of the Davidic line, yet the quote I posted earlier from Eusebius shows that Jude and his grandchildren were from the Davidic line. Perhaps Joseph had more than the two wives suggested.

There is also the fact to consider that the second temple period did not always follow Mosaic legislation in determining who were priests. Josephus (as well as Maccabees) relates how the High Priest during these times was chosen by the civil administration and were often not descendants of Aaron.

Further, the quote about James does not explicitly say that he was a levite, so this may well simply be an interpretation.

 

[john_aurelius]

Hi, Wisdom seerer,

Now, who could argue with that reasoning?

In my opinion, we havve three areas to consider:

1- The Apostolic Age - where we are introduced to Mary through the Scriputes

2- The Early Chruch Fathers - where Mary’s perpetual virginity is clearly stated:
The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by

•St. Irenaeus (III, 2124]; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),
•Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
•Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
•

God bless

I checked out these references and I’m supreised you think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is clearly stated. They only refer to Is.7:14 in connection with Christ’s birth and have nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Maybe just a case of wishful thinking, eh?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, John Aurelius,

You missed the third area to investigate - and there is no ‘wishful thinking’ here:

"3- The official teachings of the Catholic Church on Mary’s perpetual virginity - beginning in 649 AD was defined under anathema in the third canon of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I"

As I understand your post, you appear to be questioning Mary’s perpetual virginity. Check out the Lateran Council. Here is another post you may find of interest: [home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm](http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm)

Do you have a specific question about Mary’s perpetual virginity as an Article of Faith?

God bless

I checked out these references and I’m supreised you think that Mary’s perpetual virginity is clearly stated. They only refer to Is.7:14 in connection with Christ’s birth and have nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Maybe just a case of wishful thinking, eh?

 

[john_aurelius]

Hi, John Aurelius,

You missed the third area to investigate - and there is no ‘wishful thinking’ here:

"3- The official teachings of the Catholic Church on Mary’s perpetual virginity - beginning in 649 AD was defined under anathema in the third canon of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I"

As I understand your post, you appear to be questioning Mary’s perpetual virginity. Check out the Lateran Council. Here is another post you may find of interest: [home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm](http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm)

Do you have a specific question about Mary’s perpetual virginity as an Article of Faith?

God bless

When it comes to dogma, and pronouncements of the Church then I am a good son of the Church as it is my Mother as is Mary.

It wasn’t the effects of disfiguring Mary’s virginity that I was discussing in this thread but that Eusebius, and Hesgippus both refer to Jude’s Grandchildren being interrogated by Domitian as being from the line of David and Jude as Jesus brother according to the flesh (gk. kata sarka) which was opposed to what a previous poster had said, in trying to maintain that James and the others were of levitical lineage.

 

[leewis]

St. Bernadette Soubirous is the saint of Lourdes, France. Visionary and messenger of the Immaculate Conception, she told us the very words of the Virgin Mary, spoken in the native Basque tongue of Southern France and Northern Spain. She spoke words teaching of the merits of prayer, penance, poverty and church. In the first and most widely recognized Marian apparition of modern times, a personal message was delivered also to Bernadette—She would not find happiness in this world, but only in the next.

The devotion commonly known as that of the Miraculous Medal owes its origin to Zoe Labore, a member of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, known in religion as Sister Catherine [Note: She was subsequently canonized], to whom the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared three separate times in the year 1830, at the mother-house of the community at Paris. The first of these apparitions occurred 18 July, the second 27 November, and the third a short time later. On the second occasion, Sister Catherine records that the Blessed Virgin appeared as if standing on a globe, and bearing a globe in her hands. As if from rings set with precious stones dazzling rays of light were emitted from her fingers. These, she said, were symbols of the graces which would be bestowed on all who asked for them. Sister Catherine adds that around the figure appeared an oval frame bearing in golden letters the words “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee”; on the back appeared the letter M, surmounted by a cross, with a crossbar beneath it, and under all the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the former surrounded by a crown of thorns, and the latter pierced by a sword. The devotion commonly known as that of the Miraculous Medal owes its origin to Zoe Labore, a member of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, known in religion as Sister Catherine [Note: She was subsequently canonized], to whom the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared three separate times in the year 1830, at the mother-house of the community at Paris. The first of these apparitions occurred 18 July, the second 27 November, and the third a short time later. On the second occasion, Sister Catherine records that the Blessed Virgin appeared as if standing on a globe, and bearing a globe in her hands. As if from rings set with precious stones dazzling rays of light were emitted from her fingers. These, she said, were symbols of the graces which would be bestowed on all who asked for them. Sister Catherine adds that around the figure appeared an oval frame bearing in golden letters the words “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee”; on the back appeared the letter M, surmounted by a cross, with a crossbar beneath it, and under all the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the former surrounded by a crown of thorns, and the latter pierced by a sword.
Leewis

 

[bpbruno211]

Mary had a child, Jesus. Therefore she was not later a virgin.

bpbruno211

 

[Frankk]

Virginity is lost when a woman has sexual intercourse with a man. It has never been defined as related to childbirth. Plenty of women do not have children but are not virgins.

Of course, humanly speaking, women who have children aren’t virgins. But in this case we are talking about the supernatural, not the natural.

 

[FCEGM]

The article on James claims that James was not of the Davidic line, yet the quote I posted earlier from Eusebius shows that Jude and his grandchildren were from the Davidic line. Perhaps Joseph had more than the two wives suggested.

Eusebius was wrong about James and about who the father of the so-called “brothers of the Lord” were. He was one of the Greek fathers who subscribed to the Epiphanian view (the position that the “brothers” were the sons of St. Joseph by a previous marriage). Many Greek fathers held to this view because the Greek fathers did not associated with Jews (Jews and Greek Christians were bitter political enemies in the Eastern Roman Empire), and so the Greeks simply didn’t know that Jews used the term “brother” in a broader, tribal sense, so, claiming that the “brothers” were the children of St. Joseph by a previous marriage was simply the easiest pastoral explanation to give to their Gentile flocks - an easy and effective way to protect the Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

However, the earliest father to address the issue was not a Greek, but a Jew , St. Hegesippus, a native of the original, Jewish church of Jerusalem. Funny enough, St. Hegesippus is directly quoted (at length) by Eusebius (in his “Historia Ecclesia”) but Eusebius either ignores or simply doesn’t pay close attention to what St. Hegesippus has to say. Hegesippus says that one of the so-called “brothers” mentioned in Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3, namely St. Simon, was the son, not of St. Joseph, but of St. Joseph’s brother, Clopas. This would mean that the “brother” Simon was of the Davidic line, but not the son of St. Joseph. Likewise, this same Hegesippus says that the other “brother” Jude (or Judas) was also of the Davidic line. Yet, Hegesippus NEVER says that James or his sibling Joseph/Joses were of the Davidic line; he clearly describes James as a Levite. If we recognize that, in the Gospels, James (along with the “brother” Joseph/Joses) is presented as the son of Mary of Clopas; and if we recognize that this Clopas was the (Davidic) brother of St. Joseph, it suddenly makes sense that this Mary of Clopas was Clopas’ daughter, and her (unnamed) husband, the father of James and Joseph/Joses, would have been the Levite, from whom James inherited his Levitical status. One’s tribal affiliation came from one’s father, not from one’s mother.

The “brothers” Simon and Jude were of the Davidic line through their fathers (note: we don’t know how exactly Jude was related to the family, but presumedly through another male sibling or relative of St. Joseph, other than Clopas - again, since Davidic status could only come from the male line). Yet, the “brothers” James and Joseph/Joses were related to Jesus through their mother, who was the daughter of Clopas (St. Joseph’s sibling); but their father was a Levite, thus explaining why James is described as such by St. Hegesippus who also, once again, NEVER says that any of the so-called “brothers” are the sons of Joseph.

In the 4th Century, after the (incorrect) Epiphanian view was long established as a pastoral explanation among the Greek-speaking churches, St. Jerome (a Latin father) re-discovered the (2nd Century) claims of St. Hegesippus and re-popularized them. He did this in large part because, unlike the Greek fathers, Jerome spoke and appreciated Hebrew and Aramaic, and he happily associated with Jewish rabbis, whom he employed to help him in his Biblical translations. Jerome was thus privy to the fact that Jews used the term “brother” in a broader, tribal sense, in reference to any male relative. Jerome is clearly correct, since, as Scripture shows, the mother of the “brothers” James and Joseph/Joses was clearly still alive during the time of the Crucifixion / Resurrection. If St. Joseph (Jesus’ foster father) was their father, he must have been either polygamous (which unto itself contradicts the Epiphanian scenario) or divorced from this woman (the mother of James and Joseph/Joses) prior to his marriage to the Virgin. Yet, there is no implication of this nor any Tradition about such a thing! Therefore, the Epiphanian view cannot be reconciled with Scripture. There is no real historical basis to say that St. Joseph had any kids from a previous marriage. The idea was cooked up in the minds of Greek-speaking Gentiles (who were ignorant of Jewish culture and terminology) to explain to their Gentile flocks how Jesus could have “brothers” when His mother was a perpetual virgin.

There is also the fact to consider that the second temple period did not always follow Mosaic legislation in determining who were priests. Josephus (as well as Maccabees) relates how the High Priest during these times was chosen by the civil administration and were often not descendants of Aaron.

It is true that some priests were not tracable descendents of Aaron, but they were always STILL Levites. A non-levitical “priest:” would not have been tolerated. Such a thing was considered an abomination in Judaism since the days of King Jeroboam, who had ordained non-Levites to the priesthood and was condemned by God for doing so. One had to be a Levite to serve in the Temple.

Further, the quote about James does not explicitly say that he was a levite, so this may well simply be an interpretation.

The quote comes from a Jewish Church father (St. Hegesippus) who was writing for other Jewish Christians in Palestine. What he describes is clearly the role of a Levite, as his audience would readily appreciate. He would not have to directly state it. If you disagree, who other than Levitcal priests were permitted to enter into the Holy Place (the Court of the Priests) in the Temple? This would not have been possible for a regular Jew, as any ancient Jew or Christian would certainly know.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bpbruno211,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this an excellent source for discussing items of interest.

Your two sentence presentation may be enhanced if you read some of the previous posts on this thread. Chances are, you will find a lot of referenced material that may give you some insights into this matter.

Again, welcome to CAF.

God bless

Mary had a child, Jesus. Therefore she was not later a virgin.

bpbruno211

 

[john_aurelius]

It is true that some priests were not tracable descendents of Aaron, but they were always STILL Levites. A non-levitical “priest:” **would not have been tolerated. ** Such a thing was considered an abomination in Judaism since the days of King Jeroboam, who had ordained non-Levites to the priesthood and was condemned by God for doing so. One had to be a Levite to serve in the Temple.

The quote comes from a Jewish Church father (St. Hegesippus) who was writing for other Jewish Christians in Palestine. What he describes is clearly the role of a Levite, as his audience would readily appreciate. He would not have to directly state it. If you disagree, who other than Levitcal priests were permitted to enter into the Holy Place (the Court of the Priests) in the Temple? This would not have been possible for a regular Jew, as any ancient Jew or Christian would certainly know.

Which is why the Essenes would not recognise the Temple in Jerusalem as being valid. They had imperfect High priests, including one who had been mutilated.

Their views were not taken into account. The civil order was based on fear rather than legitimate OT regulations. Even though thats how things should have been done.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Frankk,

I think you have provided an excellent post

We need to see the Hand of God in every aspect of Mary’s life. When Luke introduces us to Mary we see immediately that she is very special - and the every-day laws of nature do not apply. God has never acted this way towards a human being - so, why would we think that other elements MUST follow a particular and pre-determined pattern as they do with other humans.

Mary conceived in a Most Unique Way - so, how she physically gave birth can be equally unique. But, this is us trying to undestand (and in some cases argue with) the Plan of God for Salvation. Mary had a unique role - there is no other Mother of God! God chose a very special path for her - so to argue that such-and-such had to happen or could not have happened is not taking into account God’s Plan for Mary. The Catholic Church has made certain realities about Mary as articles of faith - but, look, they all reflect back on Jesus.

God bless

Tom

Virginity is lost when a woman has sexual intercourse with a man. It has never been defined as related to childbirth. Plenty of women do not have children but are not virgins.

Of course, humanly speaking, women who have children aren’t virgins. But in this case we are talking about the supernatural, not the natural.

 

[panevino]

Mary had a child, Jesus. Therefore she was not later a virgin.

bpbruno211

Isa7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matt1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a** virgin **shall be with child, **and **shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

It’s a virgin birth not just conception.

 

[raymond_king]

Hello everyone,

Hey friends my name is Jose and I would like to know how to prove to my friends that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin.  God Bless You All  :)

The answer is beautiful in it’s question. Mary asks the angel how then be since I am a virgin? She was consecrated to God from Her birth. She took the vow of virginity. It would be very niave to think that she did not know the “birds and the bees”. I cannot remember the lines in leviticas in reference to the vow. but it is there in reference to a her father giving her permisson to enter into this stated vow. Ray

 

[Muze]

There aren’t any scriptures that suggest Mary had any children other than Jesus.

Actually, this is inaccurate, for the reason you suggest below. Jesus does have relatives that could be brothers and sisters, but not the text is not definitive. In order to say that Jesus didn’t have brothers and sisters, you have to take the less likely reading, although that reading is possible.

“Brother” in the Middle East meant any close male relative - not just siblings.

Most of the people named as “Brothers” of Jesus can be identified as children of other people.

To quote Anthony Opisso
Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship.

Except that most of this is conjecture, and not based in Scripture. God specifically told Joseph to take Mary home to be his wife. So, this assertion seems to contradict Scripture.

 

[raymond_king]

That raises a question…

Where do Catholics get the idea Mary is “ever virgin”.

I was raised Catholic and taught that from the beginning, but I’m not sure if I was ever taught where the supporting evidence stems from.

I know they say “it is fitting because…” but that is not evidence, it is an example of drawing conclusions based on human reason - which God’s logic often defies.

So, can anyone tell me where this dogma comes from. I don’t mean the huge leap from the Ark to Mary. That is one example of the human reasoning I just mentioned.

Thanks. I appreciate your help.

Ginger

Hi: Mary was vowed to Her virginity from her youth. I cannot remember the exact law from levitius as to this vow between her relationship and her father but i can assure you that this law was upheld in thier relgion. It would seem unliklely that she did not know “the birds and the bees” so that her anwer to the angel gabrial was a reference to this vow. what is of more interest is the wording Behold Mary. In that she saw all these events occuring within her soul. She said " iam the handmaid of the Lord" She waited until the shadow of the Spirit came upon Her. Ray

 

[raymond_king]

Actually, this is inaccurate, for the reason you suggest below. Jesus does have relatives that could be brothers and sisters, but not the text is not definitive. In order to say that Jesus didn’t have brothers and sisters, you have to take the less likely reading, although that reading is possible.

Except that most of this is conjecture, and not based in Scripture. God specifically told Joseph to take Mary home to be his wife. So, this assertion seems to contradict Scripture.

hi: seeing that Mary had taken the vow of virginity in her own religion why would you want to persue this option. She gave Herself to the lord. she new the 'birds and bees" and she said to the angel be it done unto me . her vow of virginity is therefore perpetual.