How could Mary remain "ever virgin"?

[Fidelis]

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 angel 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 fuzzy.

Ooooh, so your position is one from Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone? If that’s the case, there’s no discussing the matter, since it has been proven time and again that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, and unrational. Thanks for playing.

 

[Cranch]

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.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood you, but this is wrong. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[Valke2]

Ooooh, so your position is one from Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone? If that’s the case, there’s no discussing the matter, since it has been proven time and again that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, unhistorical, and unrational. Thanks for playing.

No. I had thought Texas roofer said Mary was told by an angel to remain celibate. Are you saying that the bible by itself is an irrational document? That it is also of no historical value? So then that leaves story. If it is story, used to convey ultimate truths, or at least ultimate questions, then a debate on Mary’s celibacy after Jesus is of no value, unless to believe so conveys an important biblical truth.

 

[jmcrae]

No. I had thought Texas roofer said Mary was told by an angel to remain celibate.

No - it is Mary who reminds Gabriel of her vow of perpetual virginity, which she took at the age of three, when she says, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” - meaning that she was not expecting to have children from Joseph.

If you do a word study on the “brothers” of Jesus, you find that their fathers were Alphaeus, Levi, and Zebedee, meaning either that Mary had relations with those three men (but not Joseph) or else that the term “brother” is not to be taken literally - it is probably intended to be understood as “near kinsman” or “close friend” - we have similar usages in our own culture, where children of our step parents, people who attend church with us, and people who live in cloistered communities in our neighborhoods are considered to be our “brothers and sisters” despite there being no blood relationship - and children of our close friends referring to us as “Aunty” and “Uncle,” again with there being no blood relationship.

 

[Damascus]

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.

Mary was not told to do a dang thing- there is the beauty of Mary. She wanted to do every dang thing she did.

She accepted. She chose.

She was not ordered around.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

No. I had thought Texas roofer said Mary was told by an angel to remain celibate. Are you saying that the bible by itself is an irrational document? That it is also of no historical value? So then that leaves story. If it is story, used to convey ultimate truths, or at least ultimate questions, then a debate on Mary’s celibacy after Jesus is of no value, unless to believe so conveys an important biblical truth.

Sorry about the misunderstanding

Joseph and Mary were Jews and were married knowing that Mary was pregnant via the Holy Spirit? So it is reasonable to assume she and Joseph respected the request of god, which was to mother a human form of god. It is reasonable to believe this request took complete precedent over other duties. Remember shortly after Jesus’ birth they received Wiseman, and fled to Egypt in the night. It is also likely Joseph and Mary were daily obligated (and reminded) to the unusual situation. It is not reasonable for us to expect her (remember this is a first century woman) to dictate to the Apostles direct statements of her virginity. Yet before divine revelation (about Mary) we know Mary was specifically assigned to John upon Jesus death, which would not be custom at that time, so why? Well if she was a virgin then no other children, as would normally receive her, and assuming Joseph was gone (because Joseph was not present) she would be assigned to Joseph’s next oldest living brother. She would have to be subservient to Joseph’s brother who may not be Christian! So even before divine revelation we knew the history supported the tradition of an ever virgin Mary.

So to clarify my position is Mary (with Joseph’s support) remained celibate because it was expected.

 

[Fidelis]

No. I had thought Texas roofer said Mary was told by an angel to remain celibate. **Are you saying that the bible by itself is an irrational document? That it is also of no historical value? So then that leaves story. **If it is story, used to convey ultimate truths, or at least ultimate questions, then a debate on Mary’s celibacy after Jesus is of no value, unless to believe so conveys an important biblical truth.

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is: be careful of falling into the trap of fundamentalists who say they don’t believe anything unless it is expressly stated in the Bible.

The Bible, especially the Gospels and Acts, is history, but it is not a blow by blow account of everything that happened in the first century, AD. Neither was it ever meant to be an exhaustive catechism of everything that Christians need to believe. The Church has always gotten it’s teaching from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church). The concept of Sola Scriptura and it’s corrollary, private interpretation, are 16th century inventions. To really and truly know what Christians should believe now, you need to find out what the Church has *always *taught and believed from the very beginning.

 

[Lonely_Angel]

Hmmm…my bible puts it a diffrent way…:

“When the Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” Matt 1:24-25

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Maybe I’ve misunderstood you, but this is wrong. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I read an excellent book from a Catholic professor/theologian concerning this and many other areas of confusion in the church. He did quote the CCC and explained in the book that some traditions like Mary were revealed later. He did not say to dismiss them and neither do I. His point was that traditions can not directly contradict scripture as scripture is at the top of what he referred to as the hierarchy of truth.

For me, the waters are pretty murky on the ever-virgin teaching. There is scripture that seems to support and some that seems to contradict. I don’t suggest anything other than I have reservations about it.

 

[VociMike]

His point was that traditions can not directly contradict scripture as scripture is at the top of what he referred to as the hierarchy of truth.

What was at the top of the heirarchy of truth for the first three or four centuries when there was no canon of scripture?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I read an excellent book from a Catholic professor/theologian concerning this and many other areas of confusion in the church. He did quote the CCC and explained in the book that some traditions like Mary were revealed later. He did not say to dismiss them and neither do I. His point was that traditions can not directly contradict scripture ***as scripture is at the top ***of what he referred to as the hierarchy of truth.

For me, the waters are pretty murky on the ever-virgin teaching. There is scripture that seems to support and some that seems to contradict. I don’t suggest anything other than I have reservations about it.

I think you had a mis understanding, either he was not Catholic or he did not teach this as Church teaching. It could be an opinion but not likely of a Catholic scholar.

 

[Valke2]

No - it is Mary who reminds Gabriel of her vow of perpetual virginity, which she took at the age of three, when she says, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” - meaning that she was not expecting to have children from Joseph.

Was marry married to Joseph when she spoke with Gabriel? My understanding was that she was engaged/betrothed at the time. In which case, it would be exepected that she was still a virgin.

 

[LRThunder]

Was marry married to Joseph when she spoke with Gabriel?

I think she was betrothed…not quite married, at least not living in the same house as Joseph.

 

[jmcrae]

Was marry married to Joseph when she spoke with Gabriel? My understanding was that she was engaged/betrothed at the time. In which case, it would be exepected that she was still a virgin.

Being engaged back in those days had a greater sense of permanency than it does today, and they could have had sexual relations during that period, had they so chosen, since they had already made vows of permanent fidelity to each other. That’s why nobody other than Joseph was particularly surprised by Mary’s pregnancy.

 

[Valke2]

Being engaged back in those days had a greater sense of permanency than it does today, and they could have had sexual relations during that period, had they so chosen, since they had already made vows of permanent fidelity to each other. That’s why nobody other than Joseph was particularly surprised by Mary’s pregnancy.

I don’t really think that’s correct. I agree it had a greater sense of permanency, but it would have been a big no-no to engage in sexual relations before the marriage. It is not as if the betrothed lived together. But in any event, that Gabriel spoke to her and she replied “but I’m a virgin” before she was actually married, can’t be used to show that she intended to stay a virgin after marriage.

 

[mlchance]

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

Because it’s the truth. The truth is all that is necessary.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[tequilamac]

I read an excellent book from a Catholic professor/theologian concerning this and many other areas of confusion in the church. He did quote the CCC and explained in the book that some traditions like Mary were revealed later. He did not say to dismiss them and neither do I. His point was that traditions can not directly contradict scripture as scripture is at the top of what he referred to as the hierarchy of truth.

For me, the waters are pretty murky on the ever-virgin teaching. There is scripture that seems to support and some that seems to contradict. I don’t suggest anything other than I have reservations about it.

Not all Catholic theologians are created equal.

The traditions surrounding Mary’s perpetual virginity began before the canon of the Scripture.

…further, though writers like Tertullian circa 160AD), Hevidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary, their more orthodox contemporaries affirmed it. newadvent.org/cathen/15459a.htm

A. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

So I have no idea what your theologian is talking about. Actually the arguments for and against Mary’s perpetual virginity predate the formulation of the Canon of Scripture, and obviously well before anyone truly had access to a written version of the Scriptures. The traditions of Mary’s perpetual virginity traveled word of mouth at the same time the Gospels traveled word of mouth. So while your theologian may be a great theologian, his understanding of Church history stinks.

 

[Damascus]

I think that word until is in there on purpose to mess with Protestants/non Catholics to see if they are so Pharasie they will let a word make them fall off true Christian thought.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

I think you had a mis understanding, either he was not Catholic or he did not teach this as Church teaching. It could be an opinion but not likely of a Catholic scholar.

As I lent the book to my mother in law, I don’t have it to look at. However from memory, the author is a professor of theology at a franscican university and came highly recommended by pro-Catholic websites. I’m pretty sure his credentials are not the problem.

I don’t really think that’s correct. I agree it had a greater sense of permanency, but it would have been a big no-no to engage in sexual relations before the marriage. It is not as if the betrothed lived together. But in any event, that Gabriel spoke to her and she replied “but I’m a virgin” before she was actually married, can’t be used to show that she intended to stay a virgin after marriage.

Actually it is correct. Marriage/Dating/Engagement has evolved a great deal in 2000 years. The traditions for Jewish weddings we would recognize were developed in the 1600’s with our modern wedding an invention of the victorian era. It causes a lot of confusion when people try to use modern customs to understand the Bible.

A betrothal happened one of three ways. The couple had intercourse, a contract was drafted (called shtar) or money/ring/etc was given in the presence of two witnesses. Any or all three were acceptable and binding. Our tradition of an engagement ring can be traced to the last custom. There was no such thing as pre-marital sex according to Jewish tradition. That idea is new as we no longer consider two teenagers in heat as betrothed/binded together (married) if they have sex. Adultery was what David did when he took another man’s wife. Adultery was not “sex outside marriage” as we now understand it to be. There was no such thing unless the woman was betothed/married to another man.

The marriage ceremony was a transfer or property or rights from the father’s house to the groom. Also interesting to note the only response by the bride was taking the ring or symbol of consecration. The last part of matrimony came when the couple set up their own house.

The first wedding of Adam and Eve had no ceremony. They became one flesh. Later Jewish weddings began to involve ceremonies and customs reflecting the bride being special and set-aside for her husband. To this day, a Jewish wedding does not even require the presence of a rabbi or clergy. In both Christian and Jewish tradition, a marriage can not be considered valid until it has been consecrated. This is something to be seriously considered with Joseph and Mary being considered husband and wife. But then again, I probably just opened a can of worms so I retract that statement

It would be really interesting IMHO if the church took this stance on pre-marital sex. Guess what…no such thing, youre married! Maybe, just maybe our kids would think a little more before they let their hormones get the better of them.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Not all Catholic theologians are created equal.

The traditions surrounding Mary’s perpetual virginity began before the canon of the Scripture.

Boy I wish people would read before responding. The book I read DID NOT question the doctrine. Only explained its origins and how it came to be part of the official church teaching in the 1800’s. In fact, he considered the teaching to be one of the few “infallible” teachings from the pope. My personal questions are being misunderstood as dismissing church teaching on the matter. I do not. I would be lying to say I don’t have some doubt. But that does not make me anything but human. Jesus cut Thomas some slack. I think its safe to say the rest of us will be given some grace for our misunderstandings as well. It would be nice to see some of that spirit in this conversation!