How could Mary remain "ever virgin"?

[ltravis]

Yes. I understand your concern that it does not sound right.

I am lost as to why its a struggle.

But, again- I dont mean to offend you. I am only responding the only way I can and that I know how to. I do not struggle with words, so its foreign to me to see that as a struggle.

Its almost as if I would be belittling the word struggle by doing so.

Thanks, Damascus. To be honest, I don’t know why I put myself through the struggle when I already know and am comfortable with the truth. Thanks for the offer to open a thread on Mariology but I think I am pretty clear on it all, and really love and and am facinated by it. I have read Steve Ray’s essay about her as the Ark and the new Eve and it is truly breathtaking. I don’t know how anyone could see that evidence and not believe and be transformed by it.

LT

 

[Damascus]

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

Thanks Catholic Answers!

This was copied and pasted from CA. I am much too tierd to do this without copy and paste now.

The whole business about Mary being a ‘problem’ never made sense to me as a Protestant.

Nothing I was “taught” against her held true in my heart. It seemed reactionary., and false.

Since then, I have devoted much time to her to “make up” for all the years of my heretical Protestant past to focus on her.

Its telling that even Muslims understand this. Its simple.

Its so obvious, yet its a telling thing about divisions and schisms and heresy really.

Think about that.

Where Mary is given proper honor, there is less schism and breakaway sects and cults.

Think about this everyone. How many denominations of Islam are there?

How many of Christians? LOL.

 

[tequilamac]

Actually the best answer I have ever read for this is actually one of the oldest. Unparalled in it’s clarity. From Aquinas:

"On the contrary, It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): “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.” Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): “What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this–‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it’–except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this–‘it shall be shut for evermore’–but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?”

I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ’s Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ’s perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring."

1. Mary as Mother is a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.
2. Christ was perfect- it was unnecessary for Mary to have more children. What for? We know Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of the One Perfect and the Only Begotten of the Father. Why would God have given Mary more children? To what purpose? cont

 

[tequilamac]

Actually the best answer I have ever read for this is actually one of the oldest. Unparalled in it’s clarity. From Aquinas:

"On the contrary, It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): “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.” Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): “What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this–‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it’–except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this–‘it shall be shut for evermore’–but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?”

I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ’s Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ’s perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring."

1. Mary as Mother is a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.
2. Christ was perfect- it was unnecessary for Mary to have more children. What for? We know Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of the One Perfect and the Only Begotten of the Father. Why would God have given Mary more children? To what purpose? cont

If first we stipulate that each person created by God is created with a purpose in mind, God’s purpose not ours, and that the purpose must in some manner give glory to God, we can then stipulate that God’s purpose in the creation of the Mary was to give birth to one perfect and only begotten Son of God. Once that was accomplished her purpose was accomplished and there would be nothing accomplished in Mary giving birth to other less perfect children.
Just as Elizabeth’s conception of John the Baptist gives glory and clarity to God’s power and mercy, and occurred for no other reason than that, so did Mary’s virginal birth of Jesus. both women fulfilled the purpose that God had in mind and in fact created them for.
Adding more children or arguing virginal birth simply adds an extreme element of the mundane to that which was meant for the glorification of God and God alone. Therefore Aquinas is quite correct when he says the very idea of siblings is derogatory to Christ and His Father.

 

[servus]

Well you have answered my question. I think that the Aquinas, and Augustine quotes make sense. I never doubted that Mary remained a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. But that word, “until” used in the way it is, plus the fact that she married Joseph just does not support her virginity after her marriage to Joseph, long after she gave birth to Christ. Why would she marry Joseph in the first place if she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity? What? Was this the first marraige ever in which they were not allowed to have sex?

I have a friend who is Catholic and i asked her why Catholics beleive Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. She never heard that before. I have read Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc and I think I have an adequate understanding of the Old Ark sufficient enough to understand, if there is evidence, whether Mary seems to be the anti-type of the Old Ark. My problem is, where is the evidence? Why do Catholics beleive Mary is the Ark, and how besides oral tradition to they show that she is the antiype of the type.

 

[tequilamac]

Well you have answered my question. I think that the Aquinas, and Augustine quotes make sense. I never doubted that Mary remained a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. But that word, “until” used in the way it is, plus the fact that she married Joseph just does not support her virginity after her marriage to Joseph, long after she gave birth to Christ. Why would she marry Joseph in the first place if she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity? What? Was this the first marraige ever in which they were not allowed to have sex?

I have a friend who is Catholic and i asked her why Catholics beleive Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. She never heard that before. I have read Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc and I think I have an adequate understanding of the Old Ark sufficient enough to understand, if there is evidence, whether Mary seems to be the anti-type of the Old Ark. My problem is, where is the evidence? Why do Catholics beleive Mary is the Ark, and how besides oral tradition to they show that she is the antiype of the type.

1, Mary was married to Joseph as the purpose God designed was for her to carry Christ. In her day, obviously she could not be pregnant out of wedlock. It was a real pregnancy, Christ was fully human, and she would have been stoned to death if she was not married to Joseph.
2. It was not uncommon in fact it was very common, for vows of perpetual virginity to be made in that day. There were many marriages of convenience in the time.
3. Noah’s Ark carried that which would people the world after the great flood.
The Ark of Covenenant contained within it that life giving word of God for the Jews.
Mary was the vessel that carried Christ to the world. Hence, she is the vessel, the Ark.

 

[matthew1624]

It seems to me the implications are obvious: that she had already taken a vow of perpetual virginity, and thus would not ever “know” man. Only then does her question make sense.

For if the marriage had been intended to be consummated in the normal way, there would not be a question of “how can this be.” Rather she would simply give praise to God for the promise of a son. But she–an engaged woman–was puzzled at how this could be accomplished.

You’ve hit the nail on the head JimG. Mary’s response is what really needs to be analyzed. In addition to what you’ve pointed out (re: Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity) we can also look at the words of the Archangel, “Behold, you will conceive in your womb…” Notice that he doesn’t say, “You have conceived” but that “you will…” I think this is further evidence of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity.

God Bless…

 

[Eireann]

CCC 500** Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159 **

56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and** Mary the mother of James and Joseph**, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the **other Mary **sitting over against the sepulchre. Douay Rheims

25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

*25 “Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2. * Source

 

[Fidelis]

Well you have answered my question. I think that the Aquinas, and Augustine quotes make sense. I never doubted that Mary remained a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. But that word, “until” used in the way it is, plus the fact that she married Joseph just does not support her virginity after her marriage to Joseph, long after she gave birth to Christ. Why would she marry Joseph in the first place if she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity? What? Was this the first marraige ever in which they were not allowed to have sex?

Tequilamac answered this quite nicely, I think.

I have a friend who is Catholic and i asked her why Catholics beleive Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. She never heard that before. I have read Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc and I think I have an adequate understanding of the Old Ark sufficient enough to understand, if there is evidence, whether Mary seems to be the anti-type of the Old Ark. My problem is, where is the evidence? Why do Catholics beleive Mary is the Ark, and how besides oral tradition to they show that she is the antiype of the type.

Here is your answer to this part (don’t worry, this article and it’s sidebar are short and easy reading:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5sb1.asp

After you’ve got a handle on this, maybe you can share this with your Catholic friend who, like many Catholics unfortunately, seems to have an impoverished understanding of the beauty and riches of her own Faith.

 

[Valke2]

The Scriptures were not originally written in English, so the assumptions we make in English when we use the word “until” don’t really apply to this particular passage.

The same word translated as “until” is used in a passage of the Old Testament describing David’s wife Michal, who remained without child “until” her death.

It’s the same “until” in both passages, and just refers to the period of time in question, without it being necessary for the situation to have changed after the end of the period of time in question.

The passage you are quoting doesn’t actually tell us either way, whether Mary and Joseph ever had sex together, or not - the point of the verse is that Joseph adopted Jesus without first consummating his marriage to Mary.

Whether it was ever consummated at all is left hanging - we Catholics believe and teach that it was not, and that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. But we don’t base this doctrine on this verse: we base it on the oral Tradition that was handed down by the supposed “brothers” of Jesus: the Apostles.

I’ve seen this argument raised countless times and it still rings forced. When taken in context, “until death” implies it never happened, obviously. “Until Jesus was born” implies something else entirely.

 

[Fidelis]

I’ve seen this argument raised countless times and it still rings forced. When taken in context, “until death” implies it never happened, obviously. “Until Jesus was born” implies something else entirely.

Perhaps because that is the only example you are familiar with.

Consider the story of the man born blind in John chapter 9. After Jesus heals the blind man, they grill him trying to get evidence that Jesus is a fraud. Even after talking to him they were not satisfied. Then comes this exchange:

18
Now the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight **until they summoned the parents **of the one who had gained his sight.
19
They asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How does he now see?”
20
His parents answered and said, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind.
21
We do not know how he sees now, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him, he is of age; he can speak for him self.”

So it says " the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight **until **they summoned the parents," but we know, in fact, from vv 39-41, that they didn’t believe it afterwards either (and it wasn’t because they had been killed in the meantime).

 

[Damascus]

Might I ask a question? Why is it so necessary in Catholic theology for Mary to have remained a virgin all of her life?

Good question.

I have one for you too. Why is it so necessary for you to think everyone needs sex?

 

[squeekster]

Good question.

Well, can you answer it?

I have one for you too. Why is it so necessary for you to think everyone needs sex?

Can you show me where I said that or even insinuated that everyone needs sex?

 

[Valke2]

Perhaps because that is the only example you are familiar with.

Consider the story of the man born blind in John chapter 9. After Jesus heals the blind man, they grill him trying to get evidence that Jesus is a fraud. Even after talking to him they were not satisfied. Then comes this exchange: So it says " the Jews did not believe that he had been blind and gained his sight **until **they summoned the parents," but we know, in fact, from vv 39-41, that they didn’t believe it afterwards either (and it wasn’t because they had been killed in the meantime).

How do we know that didn’t believe it afterwards? And why is it so important to Christian theology that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Putting aside the famous mistranslation argument, once Jesus was born, how would Mary engaging in sexual relations with her husband be contrary to anything Jesus taught?

Just as an aside, it’s a little odd to think that the jews would be so bent on disproving a medical miracle, as curing the blind would not have been a condition for being either the Messiah or God. And medical miracles were not unheard of in Jesus’ time.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How do we know that didn’t believe it afterwards?

We are taught they denied in fear

And why is it so important to Christian theology that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

It is based on the question of Mary’s place in our religion. The issue has no direct affect on Jesus

Putting aside the famous mistranslation argument, once Jesus was born, how would Mary engaging in sexual relations with her husband be contrary to anything Jesus taught?

Same as other no direct affect on Jesus. The issue for us is was Mary a special human? and we answer Yes. Did you know the Immaculate Conception is Mary not Jesus? We believe God cleansed from sin the fetus Mary in preparation of her future duties. We also believe she ascended in to heaven at her death, unlike regular people.

Just as an aside, it’s a little odd to think that the jews would be so bent on disproving a medical miracle, as curing the blind would not have been a condition for being either the Messiah or God. And medical miracles were not unheard of in Jesus’ time.

Early in the ministry Jesus sent such people to the Pharisees, and the Temple. We believe he did that to realign the Jews, and Judaism. As he a Jew wanted the Jews inline with God’s plan. This obviously did not reap the desired hopes

 

[ltravis]

And why is it so important to Christian theology that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

Why is it so important to Jewish (and Christian) theology that the original Ark of the Covenant not be opened?

I may not be saying this in the most correct way, but as Catholics we believe Mary is the fulfillment and perfection of the original ark as the dwelling place of God. Whether you agree or not, that is basis behind our understanding of God’s plan for her. To get really simple, though, it is important to us because when the truth is revealed, we are obliged to accept it.

LT

 

[tequilamac]

How do we know that didn’t believe it afterwards? And why is it so important to Christian theology that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Putting aside the famous mistranslation argument, once Jesus was born, how would Mary engaging in sexual relations with her husband be contrary to anything Jesus taught?

Just as an aside, it’s a little odd to think that the jews would be so bent on disproving a medical miracle, as curing the blind would not have been a condition for being either the Messiah or God. And medical miracles were not unheard of in Jesus’ time.

Valke- think about the Ark of the Covenant? Why was it so important that it not be opened and profaned by the mundane?
This is actually the primary reason why Christians uphold the perpetual virginity of Mary. To add the mundane which would be the addition of imperfect children to the Mother that had given birth to the Perfect being who was the only begotten son of God would be profanity. It is derogatory not to what Christ taught but to who Christ was. It is a lot like a Jew saying something like “God’s uncle smokes Cubans”. That would not fly at all in Israel. Similarly saying in Catholicism that Jesus the Son of God, the Perfect Christ and Redeemer had a brother named Joe Six Pack and Tom the Couch Potato married to Roseanne is simply unacceptable.

 

[CANman]

How do we know that didn’t believe it afterwards? And why is it so important to Christian theology that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Putting aside the famous mistranslation argument, once Jesus was born, how would Mary engaging in sexual relations with her husband be contrary to anything Jesus taught?

Tim Staples said that St. Joseph wouldn’t have dared to enter the Virgin Mary understanding that she, in essence, was the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Would anyone dare? Knowing that God came forth from that sacred womb?

 

[Damascus]

something like “God’s uncle smokes Cubans”.
]

With all due respect, we are God’s creation and some of us do smoke cubans. I dont anymore due to the cost and the fact that its not as trendy now and that I am getting to old to “Club it” now.

That would not fly at all in Israel.

Would not affect our Theology regarding Christ too much, but it would go contrary to reason.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Good question.

I have one for you too. Why is it so necessary for you to think everyone needs sex?

Not the most tactfully put question I’ve heard today, but a fair one. Sticking my nose in, I’d respond simply that everyone doesn’t, but that despite acknowledged exceptions, its perpetual absence from a marriage is uncommon in most cultures of most times, and calls for more corroboration than Catholics commonly offer. I don’t believe that means that the average non-Catholic is some sort of preoccupied sex fiend–unless considering sex as ordinarily part and parcel of marriage qualifies in your book.

The Catholic arguments on this thread have tended to run along the lines of “why do you think Mary wasn’t a virgin? Back that up!” I’d humbly submit that in the case of a married lady, the burden of proof ought to rest with whoever claims she was a virgin her entire life.

Now, if I were going to respond in tit-for-tat fashion, I’d ask “Why is it so necessary to think Mary a perpetual virgin? Would not having had sexual relations with her husband make her better and worthier than a woman who has had sexual relations with her husband?” This knee-jerk protectiveness toward the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity tends to strengthen the common accusation that Catholics see sex as essentially bad–why else be offended at the idea that a husband and wife may have engaged in it? Did having sex and bearing us, the people on this forum, somehow compromise our mothers’ virtue?