How could Mary remain "ever virgin"?

[tequilamac]

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?

Fact is this was answered nicely by Aquinas above. A lot depends on who you think Christ was and what that means?
Now I do not know about you and your mother, but most of us on this forum are not claiming to be Perfect Being, the Only Begotten Son of God.

 

[Fidelis]

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

Because the rest of the chapter says explicitly that they didn’t, and there is no indication anywhere else that they did. C’mon – at least be honest and acknowledge the plain content of the text.Does this address your point about the “until” argument only applying to the time of a persons death, or not?

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

. Why is it so important for us to know 2 + 2 = 4 —How about because it is true?

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?

Who said it would?

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.

Even a casual reading of the New Teatament makes it plain that these particular people that opposed Jesus at that time and place were more concerned about threats to their authority and security than just disproving his miracles. Denying his miracles were only the means to an end.

 

[VociMike]

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

You ask the wrong question. Catholics don’t believe that Mary remained a virgin in order to fit in with their theology. They believe that Mary remained a virgin because it has been revealed to the Church, and they conform their theology around those things which have been revealed to the Church.

But to offer one answer to your question, when is it appropriate for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers? One possibility would be if the first father died, but God has not died. Another possibility would be if the first father abandoned mother and child, but God never abandoned Mary and Jesus.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Fact is this was answered nicely by Aquinas above. A lot depends on who you think Christ was and what that means?

Far be it from me to dis the Angelic Doctor, but his and Augustine’s moving and eloquent statements have more poetry than logical rigour about them. Saying that Ezekiel’s passage refers to Mary is a bit of a stretch, and if Jesus’ sheer perfection made it unfitting for his mother to have more children, why should any mother anywhere have more children? The perfect One’s come and gone, after all.

Now I do not know about you and your mother, but most of us on this forum are not claiming to be Perfect Being, the Only Begotten Son of God.

Well, me either, friend. But in my defense, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[Boxerdog]

Go deep into history for a minute and look at the fact that the belief of Mary having children after Jesus is quite new.

John Calvin and Martin Luther believed that she remained a virgin.

 

[ltravis]

Saying that Ezekiel’s passage refers to Mary is a bit of a stretch

I am hardly a scholar, but even if I took Ezekial’s east gate reference literally, common sense alone ratifies Mary’s perpetual virginity to me. In the Old Testament, that was where God entered to assume his place before the people, and nobody else was permitted that entrance. In the case of Mary, by logical extension, she was the “gate” by which God entered to assume his place in the new covenant. We better darn well believe nobody else should be permitted to use that “gate” either. It doesn’t even take the wealth of supporting scriptural evidence of Mary as the ark to plainly see the connection.

LT

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Now I do not know about you and your mother, but most of us on this forum are not claiming to be Perfect Being, the Only Begotten Son of God.

It doesn’t seem quite like good internet etiquette to take a second whack at the same post, so forgive me in advance if I’m being gauche. Re-reading your answer, I’m not sure I really see a demurral in this statement (fair though it is on its own terms). Is it so, then, that a married woman who will have sexual relations with her husband is lowering herself–however infinitesimally–in spiritual distinction from the woman who won’t?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I am hardly a scholar, but even if I took Ezekial’s east gate reference literally, common sense alone ratifies Mary’s perpetual virginity to me. In the Old Testament, that was where God entered to assume his place before the people, and nobody else was permitted that entrance. In the case of Mary, by logical extension, she was the “gate” by which God entered to assume his place in the new covenant. We better darn well believe nobody else should be permitted to use that “gate” either. It doesn’t even take the wealth of supporting scriptural evidence of Mary as the ark to plainly see the connection.

LT

Well, I can’t claim an endowed seat in Hebrew, myself–worry not. However, I’d still replace “logical extension” in your argument above with “extremely iffy poetic analogy”: someone who wanted to prove a point could make that gate of Ezekiel’s out to be just about anything in the analogical sense–the line of Judah, the town of Bethlehem, the profession of carpentry, what have you. And its inviolability was merely one of its attributes among many–forgive me if I verge on disrespectfulness, but no one imagines that Mary was designed to withstand blows from a battering ram, or was built by hired workmen, or was (however many it was) cubits tall, yet that’s just as valid a use of analogy as is considering her a perpetual virgin on such evidence.

 

[FCEGM]

Both in scripture and theology, the argument from fittingness supports many doctrines. For example: Heb.2.10, “For it was fitting; that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.” and Heb.7.26: “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”

God is free to do anything in whatever manner He chooses, but the way He does things is always perfect and most fitting for what is to be accomplished. Thus, e.g., with the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary it was most fitting that His Son be conceived and born to a woman preserved from Original Sin. And it was fitting that the Mother of God be a virgin inviolate throughout her life. This fittingness was recognized quickly by the Fathers who so readily see her as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. For a fuller presentation on this and other topics relating to Marian theology, I highly recommend Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life, TAN Books.

And this article: bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

. . the virginal birth of Christ points to a miraculous conception (that His Father by Nature is God, not man) by the Holy Spirit (indicating the Trinity of Divine Persons); that Mary had no more children is just one indication that Christ Jesus is different in some essential way from all other humans. If she had had other children there would be absolutely no reason to think Jesus was any different from those siblings in His origin, i.e., that He was God the Son become Man. Thus the Perpetual Virginity safeguards the specialness of Jesus as born miraculously, which safeguards His special conception, which manifests His Eternal Pre-Existence.
So there IS a “logic” to the Incarnation of God as Man.

The Man Jesus is claimed to be a Divine Person, always having existed eternally with His Father, Who descended to become a man. His conception must manifest this (He cannot have a human father). Thus the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary and making from her flesh a Conceptus.

Mary’s virginity guarantees that He has no human father (St. Joseph being a foster father and guardian) but only a Divine Father. There is also the religious distinction between the sacred and the profane or ordinary. Something sacred is set apart from the ordinary only for Divine use or purpose. For example, one does not take the chalice used at Mass and use it for ordinary meals to drink soda from. Mary’s womb is the sacred “chalice” containing the Divine Humanity of God the Son; her womb is to be used only for that Divine purpose – because of the Holiness of God (God in the Judeo-Christian understanding is different from His Creation; and Holiness is the attribute of this difference). So there is a religious “logic” of the sacred as different from the profane, i.e., the creaturely element set apart only for Divine use or purpose, therefore never for ordinary use. It does not mean the ordinary is dirty or evil; the ordinary is good but not Divine. The sacred is taking something away from ordinary use and consecrating it for the Divine. That is why God would change the order of things for the unique Incarnation of His Divine Son.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

I’m always interested in assertions that the burden of proof ought to be shifted to one party or the other. I take it that the criterion here will be common experience. Common experience tells us that people who are married generally don’t remain virgins for their entire lives. Therefore, the burden ought to be on the party that claims against common experience. How this works exactly with things like life after death is puzzling, but that’s another topic I guess. Fine you burden-shifter! I accept.

 

[Damascus]

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?

I think your admission that it is not common today to have such a life is telling.

You need to spend more time reading history ouch and find out why Jewish people constantly made promises to God in very serious ways.

I think it needs another thread, because I see your position, and I DID, until I actually took the TIME to figure out this using reason and History and blah,

I actually Knocked. I am way too tierd to respond, yet will never let Mary down, I Love her too much to do that.

God speed brother, and stop thinking you have it all figured out, as sex is not the “problem” here, your mindset is.

“Set aside for God”

think about that and the words and translations of that and , pray and I will be back!

 

[ltravis]

Well, I can’t claim an endowed seat in Hebrew, myself–worry not. However, I’d still replace “logical extension” in your argument above with “extremely iffy poetic analogy”: someone who wanted to prove a point could make that gate of Ezekiel’s out to be just about anything in the analogical sense–the line of Judah, the town of Bethlehem, the profession of carpentry, what have you. And its inviolability was merely one of its attributes among many–forgive me if I verge on disrespectfulness, but no one imagines that Mary was designed to withstand blows from a battering ram, or was built by hired workmen, or was (however many it was) cubits tall, yet that’s just as valid a use of analogy as is considering her a perpetual virgin on such evidence.

I don’t think it is a vague as you are representing it. That whole part of Ezekial is about visions concerning the temple. In context, there really isn’t much doubt if you read the rest of the chapter. Then, even if you don’t accept it as Marian prophecy, the verse in question in no uncertain terms states the gate shall remain closed, and it very clearly states why: because the Lord entered by it. From there you don’t need prophecy to know Mary was also a “gate” by which God entered, and if the original gate clearly needed to remain shut, why not Mary? Again, I conclude that without the aid of prophecy at all.

If I might ask, why would you not want this to be true? Why would you not want a special heavenly mother to be on your side loving you and pleading for you to Christ? The church is the greatest loving family, complete with a mother. It really is beautiful and adds to the glory of God. Keep an open mind, please. Think about it.

LT

 

[tequilamac]

It doesn’t seem quite like good internet etiquette to take a second whack at the same post, so forgive me in advance if I’m being gauche. Re-reading your answer, I’m not sure I really see a demurral in this statement (fair though it is on its own terms). Is it so, then, that a married woman who will have sexual relations with her husband is lowering herself–however infinitesimally–in spiritual distinction from the woman who won’t?

No. But in your argument you are effectively doing something much worse and what Aquinas objected to in the main: lowering God and creating a derogatory basis for the absolute holiness and perfection of Christ. As I quoted in Aquinas above, once a person understands thoroughly the absolute holiness of Christ he can no longer make an argument against the perpetual virginity of the Mother.
This incidentally is one of the dividing lines between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants believe the division lies in how we see Mary. But the point of fact is we view Mary from the standpoint of how we view Christ which is substantially different from the Protestant view. Most of Aquinas’ arguments for the divinity of Christ and perpetual virginity of the Mother stemmed from heresies that tended to lower the purity and even at times eliminate the divine nature of Christ. The insistence on the perpetual virginity of Mary that is found in Catholicism is directly caused by and linked to our view of Christ’s full humanity and the incredible purity and perfection of his divinity.

 

[Valke2]

Because the rest of the chapter says explicitly that they didn’t, and there is no indication anywhere else that they did. C’mon – at least be honest and acknowledge the plain content of the text.Does this address your point about the “until” argument only applying to the time of a persons death, or not?.

I did not know the text and your citation was unclear. However, I just read it and there is nothing in there that suggests that the Jews in question did not believe that the person was once blind and that he could now see. And there is certainly no express statement to that effect, as you commented. SO I don’t see how that supports your tralnslation of “until”

 

[Valke2]

I don’t think it is a vague as you are representing it. That whole part of Ezekial is about visions concerning the temple. In context, there really isn’t much doubt if you read the rest of the chapter. Then, even if you don’t accept it as Marian prophecy, the verse in question in no uncertain terms states the gate shall remain closed, and it very clearly states why: because the Lord entered by it. From there you don’t need prophecy to know Mary was also a “gate” by which God entered, and if the original gate clearly needed to remain shut, why not Mary? Again, I conclude that without the aid of prophecy at all.

If all of Ezekial is aobut visions concerning the Temple then, “in context” one can easily conclude it has nothing to do with Mary. TO conclude “If the origional gate clearly needed to be shut, why not Mary” is a conclusion that is not apparent to me from the text. Only if you first take for granted that Mary remained a virgin, and, indeed, take for granted the story of Jesus, can you look at Eziekal and say it pertains to her. THere’s nothing in the text it self that makes this obvious.

 

[RobbyS]

Actually you are right. The “context” is provided by faith, which is faith in the Risen Lord and in His Gospel. These are the “spectacles” that enable to near-sighted to see the words of the Sacred Writings clearly.

 

[Fergal]

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.

 

[Fidelis]

I did not know the text and your citation was unclear. However, I just read it and **there is nothing in there that suggests that the Jews in question did not believe that the person was once blind and that he could now see. And there is certainly no express statement to that effect, as you commented. ** SO I don’t see how that supports your tralnslation of “until”

Actually, there is every indication that they did not believe it, because it does not even imply that they did. After the questioning of the blind man and his parents, they are clearly as obstinate in their disbelief in Jesus as before. They have clearly chosen to not believe in the miracle and to draw it’s clear implication – that Jesus may be the Messiah.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

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.

No but it would make him human!

Not all Catholics accept the churches teaching 100 percent. My mother in law for example is a very devout cradle Catholic and a former member of the sisterhood. Her and I both share some skepticism about the perpetual virginity. It does not mean I outright reject it either. I just believe there is not enough empirical evidence either way that we should be making absolute statements about it. Her perpetual virginity is certainly plausible. Its also possible that Mary, Joesph and Jesus all led atypical lives and until the start of his ministry. The Bible was not meant to be an autobiography of Mary, but of Christ’s short ministry and ascension sprinkled with a few anecdotes of his birth and childhood. Who knows what the “truth” is. IMHO it’s not that important and does not change a thing either way.

I do have a problem on the Catholic side of the debate when this issue becomes so important that some take their eyes off Christ and place it on Mary. She was EXTREMELY important and should be respected as the mother of God. However, I see enough people take their eyes off Christ to make me wonder sometimes if our devotion goes too far.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

No. But in your argument you are effectively doing something much worse and what Aquinas objected to in the main: lowering God and creating a derogatory basis for the absolute holiness and perfection of Christ. As I quoted in Aquinas above, once a person understands thoroughly the absolute holiness of Christ he can no longer make an argument against the perpetual virginity of the Mother.
This incidentally is one of the dividing lines between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants believe the division lies in how we see Mary. But the point of fact is we view Mary from the standpoint of how we view Christ which is substantially different from the Protestant view. Most of Aquinas’ arguments for the divinity of Christ and perpetual virginity of the Mother stemmed from heresies that tended to lower the purity and even at times eliminate the divine nature of Christ. The insistence on the perpetual virginity of Mary that is found in Catholicism is directly caused by and linked to our view of Christ’s full humanity and the incredible purity and perfection of his divinity.

I guess I must take that as an answer of sorts to my question. The fact is, I hadn’t the slightest intent of “lowering God and creating a derogatory basis for the absolute holiness and perfection of Christ.” Fact is, only someone who considers sex within marriage as something less than pure, holy, and fitting could so interpret it.