Issue with Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter CCCatholic17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CCCatholic17

Guest
What caused the church to decide that Mary was a perpetual virgin? From what I understand Mary’s physical virginity is reflective of her spiritual virginity. But, didn’t Thomas Aquinas argue that Mary’s sinlessness was a grace granted to her after her conception. Is the perpetual virginity dogma used to stress her exclusive love and dedication to Jesus? Is it because of her sixteenth appearance at Lourdes? Any clarification would help!

Blessings,
Heather
 
CCCatholic17 said:
What caused the church to decide that Mary was a perpetual virgin? From what I understand Mary’s physical virginity is reflective of her spiritual virginity. But, didn’t Thomas Aquinas argue that Mary’s sinlessness was a grace granted to her after her conception. Is the perpetual virginity dogma used to stress her exclusive love and dedication to Jesus? Is it because of her sixteenth appearance at Lourdes? Any clarification would help!

Blessings,
Heather
Click to expand...
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.
 
Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Explain, Why would Mary be engaged to marry Joseph if she had taked a vow of lifelong virginity.
 
The first few centuries of the Church already saw Mary as being a perpetual virgin. It did not spring up in the 19th century, as some people will tell you.

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?”
Origen,Commentary on John,I:6(A.D. 232),in ANF,X:300

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.”
Athanasius,Orations against the Arians,II:70(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:386-387
 
CCCatholic17 said:
What caused the church to decide that Mary was a perpetual virgin? From what I understand Mary’s physical virginity is reflective of her spiritual virginity. But, didn’t Thomas Aquinas argue that Mary’s sinlessness was a grace granted to her after her conception. Is the perpetual virginity dogma used to stress her exclusive love and dedication to Jesus? Is it because of her sixteenth appearance at Lourdes? Any clarification would help!

Blessings,
Heather
Click to expand...
Heather, this article should help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm
 
Explain, Why would Mary be engaged to marry Joseph if she had taked a vow of lifelong virginity.

A valid observation, and one that, I believe, renders the notion that Mary took a pre-Anunciation lifetime vow of virginity rather untenable.

It’s unthinkable that Joseph, a holy and just descendant of David, would enter marriage without the intent of having children, seeing that the Messiah had long been prophesied to come from the line of David. Not only were children seen as immense blessings from God (as opposed to our society’s attitude today), but the issue of continuing the family line - especially with regard to having sons - was thoroughly engrained in Jewish culture, going back to Abraham and God’s promise of blessing him and his descendants for all ages to come. Furthermore, it was of paramount religious importance to dedicate the firstborn son to the Lord (as Mary and Joseph did at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple).

Given the nature of Jewish society and the spiritual customs and expectations of Jewish men (especially those of the line of David), it would be utterly unorthodox for Joseph to enter into a marriage with a vow of virginity. There’s also no evidence whatsoever (aside from mystical texts) that Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin. And even if it was an accepted custom to be a consecrated Temple virgin, it certainly wasn’t a custom to be a consecrated Temple virgin looking to get married. Mary would not have vowed to violate God’s command, “be fruitful and multiply” in preparation for marriage. It’s unthinkable.

When the Blessed Mother says, “How can this be since I know not man?”, the popular response is that this is proof that she took a lifelong vow of virginity. But that doesn’t wash. If someone came to me and said, “next week, you’re going to enjoy a plate of caviar,” my response would be, “well how can that be? I don’t eat caviar!” Does that imply somehow I’ve promised never to eat caviar? Or that I will never eat caviar should the occasion arise? Hardly. Essentially, Mary is saying, “I haven’t been taken home yet, how do you plan on this pregnancy coming about?” Given the wedding custom of a yearlong betrothal followed by a taking-home ceremony (at which point the marriage would be consummated), it makes good sense that Gabriel came to Mary shortly before the taking-home, prior to any physical consummation with Joseph, to announce this good news. Mary’s thinking, “what gives? I don’t even sleep in the same house as Joseph!”

Now. That said. None of this means that Mary wasn’t a virgin her entire life. She most certainly was. The questions is, “When did this vow take place?” The common refrain is that Mary fully intended, from the age of reason, to remain a virgin her whole life. It’s theologically and historically more sound an explanation that:
  1. Mary and Joseph entered marriage with the intent of honoring God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”, but
  2. At their understanding of the gravity of becoming parents to the Messiah, they decided to dedicate their lives in serving His needs and bringing to fruition God’s plan of salvation within their chaste marriage. In planning to have other children, they could not dedicate themselves fully to God, who chose them for this very purpose. Here is a beautiful allusion to the celibate clergy, in which the priest, like Mary and Joseph, take a vow of virginity, dedicating his life in service to Christ.
 
Hey TM30, in your essay on Jewish tradition an dcustom you forgot to mention that it was customary for temple virgins to be betrothed to husband protectors. These honorable men (usaully older) vow to take care of these women and leave them intact.

hmmm! is it possible Joesph could have been just such a man!

Peace!
 
If Mary was betrothed and was expecting to enter into ordinary relations with Joseph, the passage in Luke makes absolutely no sense. The Angel tells her, “You will conceive and bear a son. . .” And she responds, “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

If she had been expecting to marry Joseph and bear children, she would have said, “Great, we’re going to have a boy, what else does God want us to do about this?” Remember, when Samson’s mother became pregnant she was told “let the child not drink strong drink, nor cut his hair”. When Hannah became pregnant with Samuel, she had promised the Lord to dedicate the child to Him if she became pregnant. Sarai, the only one to ‘laugh’ about a proposed pregnancy, was an old woman. . .not a young betrothed girl. Zechaniah, when told he would father a son, questioned the angel and was made MUTE–so why, if Mary was ‘questioning’ God through the angel, with ‘how can this be’, was SHE not stricken likewise?

Answer: Because with Mary, she had already vowed her virginity. She knew ‘how’ babies were born, and if she had been planning to marry and have relations, she would not have asked the angel and God, “how can this happen” as though she were ignorant of the facts of life. No, rather, she knew and trusted that God knew of her vow and her intent to be virgin --I know not man–but that she would trust in His word, and so ask, “do you want me then to renounce that vow?” You see, either Mary’s father, or Joseph himself as her betrothed, COULD have forced Mary to deny that vow. Fathers and husbands had that power. That’s why this was not a stupid Valley girl question but a reasonable one–How can this be? I’ve vowed myself to you as a perpetual virgin, but if You wish, I will allow myself to be released from this vow since I trust that your will should be done rather than mine, and your will is that I will conceive and bear a son.

And the Angel answers her, not with, “You are released from your vow”, but actually answers “How”, with “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most High will overshadow you”. Notice that this shows not only that Joseph will not be the father, but also indicates that Mary will not lose her own virginity.

Think about this. Is God the sort of person to take, from an engaged couple who planned to have normal sexual relations and children, the WOMAN involved, have His child with her, and then RELEASE her to the MAN as if NOTHING HAPPENED?

Here, you shall bear MY SON. . .but after that, I’ll have nothing further to do with you, and you can just go on with ‘your life’.
Jesus told us, “What God has joined together, let no one put asunder”. Does God not play by His own rules? Either His Spirit is the Spouse of Mary and Joseph a “foster father” or proxy who cares for the Virgin and the Child. . .or God is an adulterer who uses Mary, then permits her to commit acts of adultery by carrying on with Joseph despite the fact that Jesus is God’s son.

I cannot in good conscience nor in sober perusal of the Church’s evidence for the past 2000 years even countenance the latter view which makes God into a monster. Never!
 
There are some serious flaws to your article.
tm30 said:
It’s unthinkable that Joseph, a holy and just descendant of David, would enter marriage without the intent of having children, seeing that the Messiah had long been prophesied to come from the line of David. Not only were children seen as immense blessings from God (as opposed to our society’s attitude today), but the issue of continuing the family line - especially with regard to having sons - was thoroughly engrained in Jewish culture, going back to Abraham and God’s promise of blessing him and his descendants for all ages to come. Furthermore, it was of paramount religious importance to dedicate the firstborn son to the Lord (as Mary and Joseph did at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple). Given the nature of Jewish society and the spiritual customs and expectations of Jewish men (especially those of the line of David), it would be utterly unorthodox for Joseph to enter into a marriage with a vow of virginity. There’s also no evidence whatsoever (aside from mystical texts) that Mary was a consecrated Temple virgin. And even if it was an accepted custom to be a consecrated Temple virgin, it certainly wasn’t a custom to be a consecrated Temple virgin looking to get married. Mary would not have vowed to violate God’s command, “be fruitful and multiply” in preparation for marriage. It’s unthinkable.
Click to expand...
Unthinkable for whom? You? There were, and still are, people who dedicate themselves to God. Who are dedicated virgins. During the first century, some of these people formed communities, couples who lived in these communities married but remained celibate. If you look in the Book of Numbers, chapter 30, it establishes Laws of how to treat such women under a vow of virginity when taking them into your house as a wife. Joseph and Mary were each under a vow of celibacy.
 
tm30 said:
When the Blessed Mother says, “How can this be since I know not man?”, the popular response is that this is proof that she took a lifelong vow of virginity. But that doesn’t wash. If someone came to me and said, “next week, you’re going to enjoy a plate of caviar,” my response would be, “well how can that be? I don’t eat caviar!” Does that imply somehow I’ve promised never to eat caviar? Or that I will never eat caviar should the occasion arise? Hardly. Essentially, Mary is saying, “I haven’t been taken home yet, how do you plan on this pregnancy coming about?” Given the wedding custom of a yearlong betrothal followed by a taking-home ceremony (at which point the marriage would be consummated), it makes good sense that Gabriel came to Mary shortly before the taking-home, prior to any physical consummation with Joseph, to announce this good news. Mary’s thinking, “what gives? I don’t even sleep in the same house as Joseph!”
Click to expand...
First of all the words of Luke chapter 1, are how “shall” this be. How “shall” means an event in the future. The angel was speaking of an event in the future, not what was then happening. We know Mary was engaged to Joseph, their wedding was in the near future. When the angel told her she would conceive, Mary would have naturally assumed he meant after her wedding. To think otherwise would have meant the angel was telling her she would sin by fornicating, now that’s ridiculous. She would naturally think he meant after she and Joseph had married and had sex.
www.drbo.org:
Lk1:26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end
Click to expand...
Notice Luke 1:28-33 Gabriel tells Mary everything a woman who intended to have sexual relations would need to know.
Gabriel stops short of telling Mary that Joseph would not be the biological father, why did Gabriel not continue?
Had the angel continued on, and explained the true Father, there would have been no reason for her question.
Forcing her to ask “how” can only make any sense if Scripture wants you to know she was indeed planning on remaining a virgin.
 
The angel tells Mary eight things which shall in the future occur, six of the eight are truly remarkable, one is very noteworthy and one should be absolutely unremarkable since you’re planning to have sex after marriage.
Quote:

Here are the eight, you decide which should have been assumed, which would be noteworthy, and which are truly remarkable.
  1. You will conceive in your womb a child.
  2. The child shall be a boy
  3. You shall call Him “Jesus” (means “God with us)
  4. He shall be great
  5. He shall be called the “Son of the most high”. (A term used only for a great King.)
  6. The Lord shall give Him the throne of David, His father.
  7. He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
  8. His kingdom shall have no end.
    So, you’re Mary, have any questions? Which of the eight items above would a woman who is soon to be married and planning on having sex with her husband ask? Which items, if any could be assumed? Which would be news but not earth shattering? And which blow your mind? Which ones would YOU ask about?
    The only question a woman who was planning to have a normal sexual marriage would NOT ask is how she shall become pregnant. That’s the one question she does ask!
 
hmmm! is it possible Joesph could have been just such a man!
Click to expand...
Could be, but then we’d have to prove that Joseph was an old man, which, of course, comes from the Protevangelium of James (which is not scriptural).

Either way, if she were a Temple virgin, why wouldn’t Luke or Matthew mention that in discussing her betrothal to Joseph? That’s not a minor detail, especially seeing that (in Luke’s case), she was marrying a man from whom the Messiah could potentially come (the line of David). This was a time when Jewish society was impatiently anticipating the Messiah’s appearance. Herod’s paranoid reaction is evidence enough that expectations were that his appearance was imminent.

I find it difficult to base such a pivotal understanding of Mary’s virginity on an apocryphal work. We know for a fact that she remained a virgin her whole life, but that doesn’t preclude her from intending a conjugal marriage before Gabriel’s appearance. It doesn’t lessen her holiness one bit.

Further, if we’re assuming that Joseph was just her protector, why did he contemplate divorcing her? The Scriptures describe Joseph as a just man. Would a just man abandon Mary to isolation, or worse, execution? Joseph’s consternation has nothing to do with what the neighbors are going to say, and everything to do with Joseph’s understanding and knowledge of Scripture. When God’s presence “overshadowed” the tent which held the ark of the covenant, it was illegal for any man to approach or enter into the tent. If Joseph knew his scriptures, as a faithful Jew, he would have reasoned that, by virtue of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, he could not rightly have conjugal relations with her, and thus, the quandry and thoughts of divorcing her quietly (divorce was acceptable under various circumstances), and leaving her to God. Gabriel comes and says, “don’t be afraid”, and “you shall name him…” thereby reassuring Joseph he would have the paternal recognition as the father of Jesus by giving him the power to name him. Further, if the Incarnation took place just prior to the taking-home, there would be no suspicions of adultery or illicit relations (during the betrothal) among the people.
 
While the above posts are interesting, they don’t address the OP question:
CCCatholic17 said:
What caused the church to decide that Mary was a perpetual virgin?
Click to expand...
The Church didn’t “decide that Mary was a perpetual virgin,” as if another decision could’ve truly been made. The Blessed Virgin is ever-virgin, and Church teaching merely reflects this fact.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
tm30 said:
Further, if we’re assuming that Joseph was just her protector, why did he contemplate divorcing her? The Scriptures describe Joseph as a just man. Would a just man abandon Mary to isolation, or worse, execution? Joseph’s consternation has nothing to do with what the neighbors are going to say, and everything to do with Joseph’s understanding and knowledge of Scripture. When God’s presence “overshadowed” the tent which held the ark of the covenant, it was illegal for any man to approach or enter into the tent. If Joseph knew his scriptures, as a faithful Jew, he would have reasoned that, by virtue of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, he could not rightly have conjugal relations with her, and thus, the quandry and thoughts of divorcing her quietly (divorce was acceptable under various circumstances), and leaving her to God. Gabriel comes and says, “don’t be afraid”, and “you shall name him…” thereby reassuring Joseph he would have the paternal recognition as the father of Jesus by giving him the power to name him. Further, if the Incarnation took place just prior to the taking-home, there would be no suspicions of adultery or illicit relations (during the betrothal) among the people.
Click to expand...
Joseph was going to put her away quietly. In order to protect her.

To admit that she was pregnant and the child was not his was to risk having Mary stoned.
 
Joseph was going to put her away quietly. In order to protect her.
Click to expand...
Mary was going to carry a baby around in her belly for nine months around the little village of Nazareth and no one was going to notice? If you’re going to argue that it was for her protection, then divorcing her was the worst possible option. If his motive was purely her “protection”, he would have claimed the child as his own and quashed any notion of “adultery”. Assigning this kind of logic turns Joseph into the worst kind of coward. If, however, Joseph was conscious of the massive spiritual ramifications of being in the midst of the new ark of the covenant, the conflict becomes much MUCH deeper. Approaching the tent while the presence of God was upon it meant death. I submit that Joseph was not some mealy-mouthed whimp but a “just” and holy man who found himself between a massive rock and a hard place when he learned of Mary’s overshadowing by the Holy Spirit.
 
Tom -

After further review and research, I will agree with you that Mary had taken a vow of virginity. My previous position placed too much emphasis on the social norms of the day, and not on Mary’s singular holiness, her immaculate conception, and God’s preparing of her for the Incarnation. Although it is certainly debatable whether or not she took a vow, I will accede to the widely-accepted understanding that she did.
 
tm30 said:
Mary was going to carry a baby around in her belly for nine months around the little village of Nazareth and no one was going to notice? If you’re going to argue that it was for her protection, then divorcing her was the worst possible option. If his motive was purely her “protection”, he would have claimed the child as his own and quashed any notion of “adultery”. Assigning this kind of logic turns Joseph into the worst kind of coward. If, however, Joseph was conscious of the massive spiritual ramifications of being in the midst of the new ark of the covenant, the conflict becomes much MUCH deeper. Approaching the tent while the presence of God was upon it meant death. I submit that Joseph was not some mealy-mouthed whimp but a “just” and holy man who found himself between a massive rock and a hard place when he learned of Mary’s overshadowing by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Wow, you sure misconstrued my intentions. Joseph knew he couldn’t lie if he was asked if the baby was his. Joseph was a very brave man, and I never intended to make it out that he wasn’t.

I did not mean “divorce” when I said “put her away quietly”. In conveying a one hour talk to 2 paragraphs, I may have lost something in the translation, but Joseph would not have divorced her which would have been a public thing back then, opening Mary up to all sorts of potential punishments.

Sorry about the confusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top