How could Mary remain "ever virgin"?

[Tantum_ergo]

However, I see enough people take their eyes off Christ to make me wonder sometimes if our devotion goes too far.

Well, I’d recommend you pick up a copy of St. Louis De Montfort’s book “True Devotion to Mary”.

He speaks also of ‘false’ devotees to Mary. One false devotion he mentions in particular, as those who ‘profess’ that they are devoted to Mary but then complain that people should be ‘focusing on Christ instead’. He calls them “scrupulous devotees” (pg 59, #94) and says that while their motive may be good, this scrupulosity is a subtle snare of Satan. “For the more we honor Mary, the more we honor Jesus Christ, because we honor Mary only that we may more perfectly honor Jesus, since we go to her only as the way by which we are to find the end that we are seeking, which is Jesus.”

Honoring Mary properly is not ‘taking anything away’ from Jesus-- it is **adding to ** the honor we give Jesus. And ‘subtracting’ the honor due to Mary, even if it is done with the intention of ‘giving that honor to Jesus alone’ is actually subtracting honor from Jesus.

God is eternal. He did not ‘come through’ Mary once, but for all time and beyond time. Those who mistakenly think that Mary was even “just” the Mother of God for 33 years, and ‘nothing else’ may think that they give her proper and appropriate honor, but they do not.

 

[FCEGM]

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.

The plan for the Blessed Mother in marrying St. Joseph was holy and not just natural and therefore not just naturally good. The holiness of Mary’s body having this special relationship to God the Son was to be respected by her husband, as her vocation was not to become anyone’s wife and mother, but to become the Mother of God. Marriage is good and special; Christian marriage is sacred by the grace of Christ, but it’s purpose in being sacred is to elevate Marriage to the level of being able to sanctify the participants. Mary was sanctified from conception in order to be a fitting dwelling place for God the Son Incarnate. Her special vocation thus precludes the good but lesser vocation of natural marriage and even the sanctified Christian marriage which is to provide the means of sanctifying the spouses. Mary, already sanctified, did not need this lesser means of sanctification, lesser, that is, in comparison with the graces of sanctification given her at her Conception and subsequent pregnancy. St. Joseph, however, was sanctified by his marriage to Mary, especially in sacrificing his personal needs in order to safeguard and support his Most Holy Wife. One does not profane (treat as ordinary) such holiness.

 

[Valke2]

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.

Hold on. We are discussing the merits of the use of the word “until”. Not belief in Jesus. In the verse discussed here the issue is that the man was blind “until” jesus cured him. THere’s nothing to indicated that the Jews thought the man was no longer blind. – either express as the poster stated, or implied.

 

[Valke2]

Originally Posted by tequilamac
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. End QUote

But how can giving birth to children, and thus fullfilling one of GOd’s commandments, be profanity. I understand the concern and you set it forth admirably. But if you are going to follow a God that assumed human form, and was human, then there are going to be human imperfections associated with his life. I’ve already heard it said how God subjected himself to diaper changes etc., in order to assume our human failings, or for humility, or for something else. How would having a mother who naturally gave birth to siblings be any different. Also, I’m not suggesting that Mary gave birth to other children, but that she could simply have had sexual relations with Jospeh.

Perhaps this teaching is something akin to what Jew’s call building a fence around Torah. We are commanded, for example, to remember the sabbath and keep it holy. That’s biblical. Spending money on Sabbath would violate that commandment, we are told. THat’s a rabbinical prohibition. In order to make sure we don’t spend money on sabbath, it is forbidden to carry money on sabbath. That’s “a fence around the Torah” – a law that is designed to make sure we don’t mistakenly violate another law.

Maybe the teaching about Mary’s prepetual virginity is similar, as it might be designed to prevent others from alleging that, if she didn’t remain a virgin, then she may have had children?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

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.

Then run with it, by all means. However, my post was simply by way of demonstrating that someone who doesn’t take Marian dogmata as given might not find such passages as crystallinely obvious as you do.

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.

Will do. But perhaps this answers your question: for one thing, I had been raised with the impression that Christ came so that He could plead on our behalf to God the Father, and that this was sufficient. Having Mary plead to Christ so that He can plead to the Father is a) an extra layer of bureaucracy, which all men rightly find abhorrent, b) an implied assertion that Christ’s perfect sacrifice and intercession aren’t quite perfect enough, or could use extra help, and c) subject to reductio ad absurdum–if Mary’s such an essential middleman, perhaps we fallen beings would do better to find an advocate who can plead to Mary for us, who can plead to Jesus, etc., etc.–better yet, get an advocate for the advocate for the advocate…

If you think my arguments incorrect, jump all over them. Maybe they are incorrect. But kindly spare me the “why would you not want …” business–it isn’t worthy of you. It presumes that the only reason I could possibly come to conclusions different from your own is willful blindness or obduracy in the face of the self-evident truth. Kindly grant that whatever I “want” or “don’t want” to believe, a man is capable of reaching the conclusions I’ve come to in good faith (whether rightly or wrongly).

 

[Le_Cracquere]

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.

History? NOOOOOOO! All right, all right. [deep breath] No, as I believe I remember conceding, such things did and do happen. The fact it’s not and never was common is something you may find deplorable (why, I’ve no idea), but observing this simple fact is scarcely a Rorschach test of my soul. Is it your contention that most marriages were perpetually celibate in certain times and places? When?

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 bless, and hope you’ve gotten a decent night’s rest since yr. post. However, though I admire your zeal, you might be misconstruing the situation: I’m not sharpening an axe for our Lord’s mother, and I’d like to think that my considered opinions on this subject aren’t some sort of devilish assault, protecting her from which would be “letting her down.” If that’s what they seem like, then I don’t see how civilised debate on this subject can ever be managed.

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

And to you as well, brother [sis?]. Rest assured, what I haven’t figured out would fill the Vatican archives and require several new wings. If I thought that Truth was in my keeping, why debate it in the first place? Nevertheless, though I concede my “mindset” isn’t top-shelf, a lot of the arguments here suggest that sex is indeed part of the problem–and I don’t mean mine, either.

 

[VociMike]

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.

But the Catholic faith is not a faith of empirical evidence, it is a faith of divine revelation. Her doctrines are not to be judged as a jury judges a capital case. That is how atheists approach Christianity, and that is why they reject it. It is not suitable for Christians to apply the same standard to their own faith. The Church does make absolute statements, because God has revealed absolute truths to the Church to be delivered to mankind.

But by way of evidence I will offer the fact that on the cross Jesus sent Mary to live with John “from that hour on”. That would have been not only impossible if Mary had other children (her other sons would have physically removed her from John’s house if necessary), it would also have been a great sin for Jesus to tear Mary away from her other children in such a time of sorrow and loss, and also to put Mary in the position of having to choose between leaving her children or disobeying Jesus.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

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

Very good post. Now, the Immaculate Conception is a whole other argument, and I won’t hijack this thread to debate it at length. In brief, it would have seemed fitting to wise men that our Lord be born in palace, yet He wasn’t. Instead he was born in a barn. He came to redeem the ghastliest sinners, rubbed elbows with the lowest thieves and lowlifes, and died a criminal’s death. He was holy, but you didn’t have to be sinless or ritually cleansed to approach Him, and even then only on high holy days. This Ark was considerably kindlier than His namesake and predecessor. Perhaps if anything’s “fitting,” it’s that He should be born of a human mother subject to human foibles and burdens–including those inherited from Eve.

Nevertheless, what you say is true: the argument from fittingness supports many doctrines. It can make an already strong argument stronger. But it alone can’t prove an argument. If you come to the debate already believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity, it might confirm you in it. But it’s a weak reed indeed for converting someone to that opinion.

 

[Fidelis]

Hold on. We are discussing the merits of the use of the word “until”. Not belief in Jesus. In the verse discussed here the issue is that the man was blind “until” jesus cured him. THere’s nothing to indicated that the Jews thought the man was no longer blind. – either express as the poster stated, or implied.

That’s exactly the point. Since they did not accept the fact that the man was, indeed, born blind, the miracle did not influence them to believe in Jesus.

The issue of the *passage *may be “that the man was blind “until” jesus cured him,” but the specific verse we are talking about involves the use of the word “until” as not indicating that something that didn’t happen up to that that time, didn’t happen afterwards. That is the issue being discussed and, yes, it is manifestly clear from the remainder of the chapter and the remainder of John’s Gospel that the Jews in question did not accept the miracle at all, i.e., that the man was born blind and that Jesus cured him.

Does anybody else here think that it is **not **clear these particular Jews did not believe the man was born blind??

 

[tequilamac]

Very good post. Now, the Immaculate Conception is a whole other argument, and I won’t hijack this thread to debate it at length. In brief, it would have seemed fitting to wise men that our Lord be born in palace, yet He wasn’t. Instead he was born in a barn. He came to redeem the ghastliest sinners, rubbed elbows with the lowest thieves and lowlifes, and died a criminal’s death. He was holy, but you didn’t have to be sinless or ritually cleansed to approach Him, and even then only on high holy days. This Ark was considerably kindlier than His namesake and predecessor. Perhaps if anything’s “fitting,” it’s that He should be born of a human mother subject to human foibles and burdens–including those inherited from Eve.

Nevertheless, what you say is true: the argument from fittingness supports many doctrines. It can make an already strong argument stronger. But it alone can’t prove an argument. If you come to the debate already believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity, it might confirm you in it. But it’s a weak reed indeed for converting someone to that opinion.

On the other hand, your argument makes more of a case for the perpetual virginity of Mary. We have to consider Original Sin and the dogma of inheritance. We have all inherited the stain of Original Sin through our first parents, Adam and Eve. Christ and His Mother both did not inherit the stain of our first parents. They were free both of Original Sin and personal sin. We have it from the Church Fathers that both were sinless. In which case, as the anti type of the Ark, as the antitype of the first Mother, perhaps the inheritance Christ and His Mother brings is the antitype of the inheritance wrought by the first parents.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

On the other hand, your argument makes more of a case for the perpetual virginity of Mary. We have to consider Original Sin and the dogma of inheritance. We have all inherited the stain of Original Sin through our first parents, Adam and Eve. Christ and His Mother both did not inherit the stain of our first parents. They were free both of Original Sin and personal sin. We have it from the Church Fathers that both were sinless. In which case, as the anti type of the Ark, as the antitype of the first Mother, perhaps the inheritance Christ and His Mother brings is the antitype of the inheritance wrought by the first parents.

Good post, and bonus points for creating a neat Eden/Sinai/Bethlehem dialectic! I’m not as certain as you, though (big surprise, I know). Once again, we’ve sort of come back to the starting point. Your post makes sense, assuming that anything less than perpetual virginity is a function of Original or personal sin. And it’s the validity of that assumption that’s the issue at hand.

 

[tequilamac]

Good post, and bonus points for creating a neat Eden/Sinai/Bethlehem dialectic! I’m not as certain as you, though (big surprise, I know). Once again, we’ve sort of come back to the starting point. Your post makes sense, assuming that anything less than perpetual virginity is a function of Original or personal sin. And it’s the validity of that assumption that’s the issue at hand.

Actually if you say that one of the key components of Original Sin was the first parents rejection of God as their only good and their tendency to look elsewhere, i.e. the serpent and tree, thereby attempting to determine their good for themselves, then the perpetual virginity of Mary again wins out if we say that Christ and Mary were the archtype of that action: that God was there only good and they looked no where else. The purpose behind vows of perpetual virginity among the Jews in those days are the same as vows taken to day in Catholicism- to devote oneself exclusively to God with no division no conflict in attention,m loyalty, purpose etc. To not look to one’s own good in anything but the service of God. Which again makes Mary and Jesus and Joseph the archtype of the first parents and the archtype of the inheritable action of the first parents.Then it would be exactly correct that Mary maintain perpetual virginity.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

But the Catholic faith is not a faith of empirical evidence, it is a faith of divine revelation. Her doctrines are not to be judged as a jury judges a capital case. That is how atheists approach Christianity, and that is why they reject it. It is not suitable for Christians to apply the same standard to their own faith. The Church does make absolute statements, because God has revealed absolute truths to the Church to be delivered to mankind.

But by way of evidence I will offer the fact that on the cross Jesus sent Mary to live with John “from that hour on”. That would have been not only impossible if Mary had other children (her other sons would have physically removed her from John’s house if necessary), it would also have been a great sin for Jesus to tear Mary away from her other children in such a time of sorrow and loss, and also to put Mary in the position of having to choose between leaving her children or disobeying Jesus.

Our faith certainly IS based on evidence. Faith fills in the holes where evidence is incomplete. Tradition is not on the same plane as scripture. The Catholic church admits to tradition being educated speculation. I accept that speculation and respect what those before me believe to be true. Thats the main reason I do not contradict what the church teaches. I put a little bit of faith with a lot of respect to make my understanding what the Church teaches.

However, scripture and tradition are not supposed to disagree either. I’m not suggesting that they do here. There is some question because the Bible was just not clear about Mary. Mary wasn’t the point of the Gospels. Therefore using the Gospels to say Mary was ever-virgin or mother to 3 other children is impossible.

Again, all I am saying is maybe (just maybe) the church should not have fallen into the trap. It seems they tried to distinguish Catholics from the popular anti-Mary movement within Protestantism. I think the church was very wise to leave it to “accepted tradition” for 1800 years.

IF Mary, the mother of Jesus did have other children, would they invalidate the miracle of her immaculate conception OR Christ’s conception of a virgin? The obvious answer is no. Thats why I say this tradition is not as important. If its true or mis-understood, it will not change history or the miracles of grace that gave us our salvation.

I do understand that one unmentioned disciple (believed to be John the Revelator) did take Mary into his home. It could also be that John was also “in the family”. But again, I hate getting this far into speculation period.

When I am in the presence of Jesus himself, I look forward to sitting at his feet and listening to every story he has to tell about his mom. Until that day, its just not worth getting bent out of shape over IMHO.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Actually if you say that one of the key components of Original Sin was the first parents rejection of God as their only good and their tendency to look elsewhere, i.e. the serpent and tree, thereby attempting to determine their good for themselves, then the perpetual virginity of Mary again wins out if we say that Christ and Mary were the archtype of that action: that God was there only good and they looked no where else. The purpose behind vows of perpetual virginity among the Jews in those days are the same as vows taken to day in Catholicism- to devote oneself exclusively to God with no division no conflict in attention,m loyalty, purpose etc. To not look to one’s own good in anything but the service of God. Which again makes Mary and Jesus and Joseph the archtype of the first parents and the archtype of the inheritable action of the first parents.Then it would be exactly correct that Mary maintain perpetual virginity.

Hmm. Perhaps, perhaps. It’s not a smoking gun–these OT analogies still have little evidential power–but I grant you it’s an elegant parallel. As I said to a similar post above: if one already believed Marian doctrines, it’s the sort of thing that could confirm them more deeply in one’s heart.

 

[tequilamac]

Hmm. Perhaps, perhaps. It’s not a smoking gun–these OT analogies still have little evidential power–but I grant you it’s an elegant parallel. As I said to a similar post above: if one already believed Marian doctrines, it’s the sort of thing that could confirm them more deeply in one’s heart.

Yes so it is. And another aspect of one who truly believes Marian doctrines is to admit when they have been defeated by another’s doubt. I’m stumped.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Yes so it is. And another aspect of one who truly believes Marian doctrines is to admit when they have been defeated by another’s doubt. I’m stumped.

No, please don’t get all stumped–this isn’t a lightsabre battle after all! Look at it this way: if I ever do come around to the Church’s position on Mary, I’ll be the stronger in believing it thanks to you.

 

[tequilamac]

No, please don’t get all stumped–this isn’t a lightsabre battle after all! Look at it this way: if I ever do come around to the Church’s position on Mary, I’ll be the stronger in believing it thanks to you.

:crying: :crying: okay.

Got to go decorate a tree.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by tequilamac
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. End QUote

But how can giving birth to children, and thus fullfilling one of GOd’s commandments, be profanity. I understand the concern and you set it forth admirably. But if you are going to follow a God that assumed human form, and was human, then there are going to be human imperfections associated with his life. I’ve already heard it said how God subjected himself to diaper changes etc., in order to assume our human failings, or for humility, or for something else. How would having a mother who naturally gave birth to siblings be any different. Also, I’m not suggesting that Mary gave birth to other children, but that she could simply have had sexual relations with Jospeh.

Perhaps this teaching is something akin to what Jew’s call building a fence around Torah. We are commanded, for example, to remember the sabbath and keep it holy. That’s biblical. Spending money on Sabbath would violate that commandment, we are told. THat’s a rabbinical prohibition. In order to make sure we don’t spend money on sabbath, it is forbidden to carry money on sabbath. That’s “a fence around the Torah” – a law that is designed to make sure we don’t mistakenly violate another law.

Maybe the teaching about Mary’s prepetual virginity is similar, as it might be designed to prevent others from alleging that, if she didn’t remain a virgin, then she may have had children?

uh no! With a billion Catholics you can get someone to say what you want to hear, however this accusation is not correct. Jesus was. Given your own writings it is difficult for me to understand your implied assertion that Mary & Joseph knowing about the intervention of God had some over riding need which simply could not be denied. I suspect if God sent Angels to see you and celibacy was requested you might have deeper ability?

 

[VociMike]

Our faith certainly IS based on evidence. Faith fills in the holes where evidence is incomplete. Tradition is not on the same plane as scripture. The Catholic church admits to tradition being educated speculation.

I quite disagree, and I believe the Church does as well. Our faith is not based on evidence, even though there is evidence to support it. As Christ said to Peter, “flesh and blood (that is, human comprehension of evidence) has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven”.

Faith does not fill in the holes of evidence. Evidence supports faith. “You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe.”

And Tradition most certainly is on the same plane as Scripture. And the Church most certainly does not “admit” that Sacred Tradition is educated speculation.

 

[Valke2]

uh no! With a billion Catholics you can get someone to say what you want to hear, however this accusation is not correct. Jesus was. Given your own writings it is difficult for me to understand your implied assertion that Mary & Joseph knowing about the intervention of God had some over riding need which simply could not be denied. I suspect if God sent Angels to see you and celibacy was requested you might have deeper ability?

Is there a verse in scripture where Mary is told to remain a virgin? Let me clarify my postiion regarding Mary. I have none. I’m simply engaging in this debate for the sake of debate. If there’s something in the christian bible that says Mary was told to remain a virgin, then that ends the debate for me. If an angle told her to remain celibate after the birth of Jesus, that’s good enough for me. I don’t mean to imply that Mary disobeyed God. It was just my understanding that the support for Mary remaining a virgin was pretty fuzy.