John 19 and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You’re right, you do assume. She did have a husband that the Catholic Church declares to be a Saint in accordance to its own standards. Where was the Saintly Joseph at, his wife was in obvious distress, correct? According to the assumptions here Joseph, or who ever he chose to see to her well being, would have had to of been there.

St. Joseph was surely dead by this time. If he were living, he would have been there too as you say, and we know he was a pious man. Jesus would have had no reason to give his mother to John in that case. It would be deeply perverse to give a man’s wife away to another man.

Regarding the examples from Matthew 12 and 13, you know well that “brother” in the Jewish idiom does not mean sibling, but kinsman. It is an idiom, not a metaphor. Calvin would refer you to Jerome on this point.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

Another thought…
If Mary was indeed “without sin” as is stated in the IC then wouldn’t her other children with Joseph been half sinless?

I don’t think so. You don’t inherit half of original sin from one parent and half from the other. You are either in sin or you’re not in sin.

 

[po18guy]

I take back my speculation above (that Mary might’ve had children other than our Lord):

We possess today what the Church has preserved at the price of blood and handed on to us - both written and oral. The scriptures, blessed and holy as they are, remain imperfect renderings of God’s revealed truth - missing facts, lacking in detail and having gaps. Speculation can be the devil’s tool and raises that cloud of doubt, discouragement and division. We must rely on the Church’s authority to properly pass the entirety of revealed truth on to us. If we reduce our faith to a matter of human language study, consulting dictionaries and dissecting man’s work (no matter Who inspired it) we will miss the Divine element in the message.

Christ chose to hand the Gospel message on orally. He wrote nothing and commanded the writing of nothing. We must always ask ourselves why that is. We must also ask if we, by our own works, are more privy to the truth than the Church that Christ founded. It is good to read the prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4). There, we see that Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada, from the scriptures. Luke wrote his Gospel only to confirm the oral apostolic teaching (Tradition) that Theophilus had already received. In a sense, the scriptures are made necessary by man’s doubt, yet they testify to the absolute truth of the oral tradition.

The truth of a matter is determined by the testimony of “two, or three witnesses” For that reason, the Gospel, as handed on via the oral Apostolic Tradition is borne witness to by three synoptic Gospel writers. Remember that all twelve Apostles handed the Gospel on. The scriptures we possess are not the entirety of God’s truth - their purpose is to bear witness to that entirety, which is to be found elsewhere in the Church that Christ founded.

Despite the ambiguity of one or two words or phrases in all of scripture, we are not a faith of exceptions, but of a cohesive whole - a seamless garment. The Church teaches that Mary had one child, being both fully human and fully divine. Going beyond this, adding our desires or suspicions to the story, risks being lead into the lie by a demon.

 

[po18guy]

You’re right, you do assume. She did have a husband that the Catholic Church declares to be a Saint in accordance to its own standards. Where was the Saintly Joseph at, his wife was in obvious distress, correct? According to the assumptions here Joseph, or who ever he chose to see to her well being, would have had to of been there.

(Mt:13:54-58) shows that there is siblings in the flesh, like any other person born into the world. Note that the declaration of Jesus’ family including bothers and sisters in the flesh are quotes of the people who lived in the town He lived in at the time, and you didn’t live there at the time and didn’t witness whether Jesus had siblings in the flesh or not. I do believe it is acceptable amongst all Christians to trust the scriptures first in such matters, correct? No great authoritive interpretation or metaphorical insight necessary here.

Then there is (Mt:12:46-50) where again it is mention about His mother and brethren, and what is astonishing when this one is referred to the “mother” referred to in the text is His Mother by flesh but the “brethren” mentioned in the same sentence is not. Even though it is obvious that the Lord was using the fact that mother and brother by flesh isn’t his mother and brother, it is those who do the Father’s will. And again this is a quote of people that wouldn’t see it any other way but that it was His mother by flesh and His siblings by flesh.

Using the bible, let’s name the “children of Mary.” If we are honest, we must stop at one. If we are curious, we read John 1:1-3. There, we see that Christ created all things. Thus, He conceived of, and created Mary specifically to be His mother. We likewise read Luke 1:26-34 and see that Mary, even though she was about to be married, and even though she was aware that “relations with man” produced children, was surprised to learn that she would bear a child. She had the audacity to question this fearsome angel (who was sent directly by God to her) just how this child bearing thing was supposed to happen. If we are intelligent, we ponder these things.

We read Luke 1:36 and see that Mary, created by Christ to be His own mother, declared herself to be the bond slave of her own son. Her Divine Son declared that a slave may serve only one Master. We see that Mary was with Jesus from virgin womb to virgin tomb. We can see that Jesus appointed a son for her from the cross. If we are interested in the truth, and not in polemics, we ponder these things.

Continuing on our intellectual journey, we read Genesis 11:27 and see that Abram had a nephew named Lot. Yet, in our reading of Genesis 13:8, we see that Abram called Lot one of his brothers. Scripture here informs our intellect that “brother” or “sister” had a different meaning back then than it does today.

 

[po18guy]

The bottom line is that Catholics, and especially the hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians, honor and venerate Mary simply because God honored her first - by creating her for a specific and singular purpose. The Lord gave her a crucial role in the redemption of mankind. To ignore that; to ignore her role and her obedience to God, is to make her common when the Lord did not make her common.

It is absolutely fine to not be Catholic or Orthodox. However, to willfully and ignorantly attack that which God has revealed to both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I believe is to do the devil’s work.

 

[Immacolata]

Using the bible, let’s name the “children of Mary.” If we are honest, we must stop at one. If we are curious, we read John 1:1-3. There, we see that Christ created all things. Thus, He conceived of, and created Mary specifically to be His mother. We likewise read Luke 1:26-34 and see that Mary, even though she was about to be married, and even though she was aware that “relations with man” produced children, was surprised to learn that she would bear a child. She had the audacity to question this fearsome angel (who was sent directly by God to her) just how this child bearing thing was supposed to happen. If we are intelligent, we ponder these things.

Indeed. She asked St. Gabriel how exactly she was to bear the Son of the Most High as she “knew not man.” If she was expecting to “know man,” would she not find reason in this and not question the angel, believing instead that she would simply consummate her relationship with Joseph and bear a child? I find that interesting to note as well.

Continuing on our intellectual journey, we read Genesis 11:27 and see that Abram had a nephew named Lot. Yet, in our reading of Genesis 13:8, we see that Abram called Lot one of his brothers. Scripture here informs our intellect that “brother” or “sister” had a different meaning back then than it does today.

It still means several things today: I have seen many people call people their “brother” or “sister” because of the intimacy they felt towards that person, it reminded them of how a brotherly-sisterly relationship would work. It, again, makes perfect sense that James (as well as the other named “brothers of Jesus”) would be considered a brother of Jesus if him and Jesus were particularly close.

Again,I don’t believe Mary had any other biological childrenJesus Christ was and still is her main focus.Mary is all about leading us to her son.We are all brothersand sisters in Christ through baptism. It makes no sense whatsoever that Mary would have other children.

I agree with you as well. I don’t find any reasoning for Our Immaculate Lady to bear any other children other than Our Lord. She was a special woman sent for a special purpose (to bear the second Person of the Holy Trinity), why would she have other children? Why would Joseph have children with her, knowing that her first Child was the Son of the Most High, to be called holy?

 

[adrift]

Perhaps this site would help you

God Caring For Widows

 

[adrift]

You’re right, you do assume.

:bowdown:

She did have a husband that the Catholic Church declares to be a Saint in accordance to its own standards. Where was the Saintly Joseph at, his wife was in obvious distress, correct? According to the assumptions here Joseph, or who ever he chose to see to her well being, would have had to of been there.

Others have answered you so I won’t repeat their good answers.

(Mt:13:54-58) shows that there is siblings in the flesh, like any other person born into the world. Note that the declaration of Jesus’ family including bothers and sisters in the flesh are quotes of the people who lived in the town He lived in at the time, and you didn’t live there at the time and didn’t witness whether Jesus had siblings in the flesh or not. I do believe it is acceptable amongst all Christians to trust the scriptures first in such matters, correct? No great authoritive interpretation or metaphorical insight necessary here.

Then there is (Mt:12:46-50) where again it is mention about His mother and brethren, and what is astonishing when this one is referred to the “mother” referred to in the text is His Mother by flesh but the “brethren” mentioned in the same sentence is not. Even though it is obvious that the Lord was using the fact that mother and brother by flesh isn’t his mother and brother, it is those who do the Father’s will. And again this is a quote of people that wouldn’t see it any other way but that it was His mother by flesh and His siblings by flesh.

Others have answered this as well the only thing I will answer is borrowed from another thread

I think the brothers and sisters term is quite easily accepted as the Greek translation of the Aramaic which did not distinguish between brother, half-brother, adopted brother, nephew, cousin, uncle etc.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

You’re right, you do assume. She did have a husband that the Catholic Church declares to be a Saint in accordance to its own standards. Where was the Saintly Joseph at, his wife was in obvious distress, correct? According to the assumptions here Joseph, or who ever he chose to see to her well being, would have had to of been there.

(Mt:13:54-58) shows that there is siblings in the flesh, like any other person born into the world. Note that the declaration of Jesus’ family including bothers and sisters in the flesh are quotes of the people who lived in the town He lived in at the time, and you didn’t live there at the time and didn’t witness whether Jesus had siblings in the flesh or not. I do believe it is acceptable amongst all Christians to trust the scriptures first in such matters, correct? No great authoritive interpretation or metaphorical insight necessary here.

Then there is (Mt:12:46-50) where again it is mention about His mother and brethren, and what is astonishing when this one is referred to the “mother” referred to in the text is His Mother by flesh but the “brethren” mentioned in the same sentence is not. Even though it is obvious that the Lord was using the fact that mother and brother by flesh isn’t his mother and brother, it is those who do the Father’s will. And again this is a quote of people that wouldn’t see it any other way but that it was His mother by flesh and His siblings by flesh.

Brethren and sisters literally could mean any close relatives, and they would all live in the same area. People back then usually didn’t take a plane to a far away country to start on their new job offer after college.

And, if you notice, it refers to Jesus, the son of Mary, or Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the NT many times, but never, ever refers to another as the son of Mary or “Mary, mother of”. If Christ had other brothers and sisters, they were likely by Joseph from a previous marriage. There is a tradition that he was actually much older than Mary and a widower.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no evidence that Christ had biological brothers and sisters. Nice try, though.

 

[godisgood77]

What about Matthew 1:24-25?

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Seems like literal interpretations are only in vogue when it’s convenient…

I submit to the teaching and wouldn’t try to persuade otherwise, but can make no sense of why we deem this is important and worthy of thousands of years of controversy. Not trying to be obstinate, but my goodness!!

 

[po18guy]

What about Matthew 1:24-25?

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Seems like literal interpretations are only in vogue when it’s convenient…

I submit to the teaching and wouldn’t try to persuade otherwise, but can make no sense of why we deem this is important and worthy of thousands of years of controversy. Not trying to be obstinate, but my goodness!!

Which bible is that?

 

[st_antony]

now all of you go and read ezekiel chapter 44(initial verses) and tell us what you think in connection to perpetual virginity

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

Brethren and sisters literally could mean any close relatives, and they would all live in the same area. People back then usually didn’t take a plane to a far away country to start on their new job offer after college.

And, if you notice, it refers to Jesus, the son of Mary, or Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the NT many times, but never, ever refers to another as the son of Mary or “Mary, mother of”. If Christ had other brothers and sisters, they were likely by Joseph from a previous marriage. There is a tradition that he was actually much older than Mary and a widower.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no evidence that Christ had biological brothers and sisters. Nice try, though.

Respectfully, there is one possible submition:

Matthew 13:55-56
New International Version (NIV)
55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

I’ve never understood why people get upset about the possibility of Mary having other children, but they do! I once made the mistake of suggesting after natural childbirth, the proof of virginity is gone. That was not well recieved, as you might guess. I respect the position of the Church, and I understand the perpetual virginity of Mary is a precious concept to many Catholics. For me, the focus of my faith is in Christ. Whether Jesus was an only child or had numerous siblings, it doesn’t change his message or sacrifice.

 

[godisgood77]

Which bible is that?

My mistake…I grabbed the New International Version

Here is the New American… Same comments apply

When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25
He had no relations with her until she bore a son,

 

[Jeanne_S]

The bottom line is that Catholics, and especially the hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians, honor and venerate Mary simply because God honored her first - by creating her for a specific and singular purpose. The Lord gave her a crucial role in the redemption of mankind. To ignore that; to ignore her role and her obedience to God, is to make her common when the Lord did not make her common.

It is absolutely fine to not be Catholic or Orthodox. However, to willfully and ignorantly attack that which God has revealed to both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I believe is to do the devil’s work.

Thank you for your cogent explainations!

 

[po18guy]

My mistake…I grabbed the New International Version

Here is the New American… Same comments apply

When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25
He had no relations with her until she bore a son,

Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Matthew clearly had this in mind when he wrote those verses, as without the fact of Mary’s virginity from conception to birth, Isaiah would not have been fulfilled.

And, as to this recent, man-made, anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox (even anti-Christian) construct of the Matthew 1:25 “until” argument, I have biblical proof that Jesus no longer loves His own:

John 13:1
King James Version (KJV)
13 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

From the bible, absolute proof that Jesus no longer loved them after that point. Case closed.

Blessed are those who do not artificially restrict their faith the the partial written record known as the bible. Blessed are those who have an authoritative Church to teach and guide. Blessed are those who have ears for hearing and listen to that Church.

 

[godisgood77]

Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Matthew clearly had this in mind when he wrote those verses, as without the fact of Mary’s virginity from conception to birth, Isaiah would not have been fulfilled.

And, as to this recent, man-made, anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox (even anti-Christian) construct of the Matthew 1:25 “until” argument, I have biblical proof that Jesus no longer loves His own:

John 13:1
King James Version (KJV)
13 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

From the bible, absolute proof that Jesus no longer loved them after that point. Case closed.

Blessed are those who do not artificially restrict their faith the the partial written record known as the bible. Blessed are those who have an authoritative Church to teach and guide. Blessed are those who have ears for hearing and listen to that Church.

What indicators are there that Matthew clearly had Isaiah in mind? And how does that point to perpetual virginity? And why is perpetual virginity important? Honest questions…

No idea what prompted diatribe starting in paragraph two …

 

[Augustine3]

This is not necessarily so, friend. She said “I do not know man” because she was still a virgin. Unless her words “do not” are a perfect present & future tense, as if she said “I do not know and will never know man”, we cannot assume things from this single prooftext.

All this about the vows of virginity, consecrated virgins, and Temple-residence of Mary come from an apocryphal book. Let’s never forget that.

This is a stretch to interpret these words as being a commitment to virginity after marriage… How are you getting that?

Why didn’t our Lady simply assume she would have sexual relations with St Joseph and Jesus would be conceived? Especially when we consider St Joseph was a descendant of David it would correlate with the angel’s message that Jesus would be the son of David…Wouldn’t it have been reasonable for Mary to assume this rather than ask “how can this be, I do not know man?”

According to the ancient custom Mary and Joseph were practically married, Check out this link. Given this, I find it very stranger Mary asking the question “How can this be, I do not know man”…

 

[po18guy]

What indicators are there that Matthew clearly had Isaiah in mind? And how does that point to perpetual virginity? And why is perpetual virginity important? Honest questions…

The entire Jewish mindset, after dozens of centuries of domination, oppression, exiles, persecution and outright slaughter, was their hope of the Messiah to deliver them. It still is. To imagine that a religious Jew does not think of the Messiah is like alleging that someone in a jail cell is not thinking about getting out of jail. Their incarceration defines them.

God has a plan for creation that has existed since before time began. Correct? OK, we see that God’s plan comes under attack, right? There are only two possible sources for these attacks:

1. God Himself (nonsense)
2. the devil

Realizing this can make many things much easier to grasp.

Please understand that attacks on Mary are demonic in origin. Why is this? They directly or indirectly attack the flesh that Jesus chose and created to become incarnate through. Attacks on Mary relate to attacks on Jesus and His divine act of creation - God’s plan.

If you do not think that Mary is important, do not take my word for it! Listen to the words of an exorcist Priest who routinely confronts demons face to face. From an interview with exorcist Fr. Pedro Barrajon:

Interviewer: Why doesn´t he (demon) want to reveal his name?

Fr. Barrajon: The name discloses his being. Franz Rosenzweig once said the name is not “sound and smoke”, as Goethe says, but “word and fire”. The name Jesus means “God saves”. Isaac, Jacob, all these names have a particular meaning. And it always discloses the person´s being. When I say my name, I´m also saying: I am here. No Demon ever wants to say its name.

Interviewer: And once it´s said it?

Fr. Barrajon: At the end, the priest says to the demon, “Go away! Disappear!” The demon usually answers, “No, I don´t want to.” It rebels and revolts. Sometimes it says “You have no power over me. You are nothing to me.” But after a while, its resistance weakens. This usually happens after the invocation of the Holy Mother, she´s very important for that. No demon ever dares to insult her during an exorcism. Never.

Interviewer: Does he have more respect for Mary than for God himself?

Fr. Barrajon: Apparently. Otherwise no holds are barred, and everyone is insulted: the priests, everyone present, the bishops, the Pope, even Jesus Christ. But never the Virgin Mary. It´s an enigma.

Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” The reign of evil began with the devil and a woman, and it ends with the devil and a woman. No matter how well-intentioned the attack on the woman is, it helps the devil.

 

[adrift]

My mistake…I grabbed the New International Version

Here is the New American… Same comments apply

When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.
25
He had no relations with her until she bore a son,

So what do you think this means? You do know that the definition of until is up to a period of time? It is only commenting on what happened before Jesus was born it does not comment on what happened after unless of course you think women have children after they are dead.
2 Sam. 6:23
Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death"

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
Christ chose to hand the Gospel message on orally. He wrote nothing and commanded the writing of nothing. We must always ask ourselves why that is. We must also ask if we, by our own works, are more privy to the truth than the Church that Christ founded.** It is good to read the prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4**). There, we see that Theophilus learned nothing - zip, zero, nada, from the scriptures. Luke wrote his Gospel only to confirm the oral apostolic teaching (Tradition) that Theophilus had already received. In a sense, the scriptures are made necessary by man’s doubt, yet they testify to the absolute truth of the oral tradition.
…

Just briefly digressing with you on the topic of Sola Scriptura. This is an excellent observation of yours.

I see that Luke’s words are "I too decided to write an orderly account for you, ". **He **decided to. He was not instructed by The Spirit, Jesus, or the Apostles to write (part of) the New Testament, nor did decide to write infallibly under the inspiration of the Spirit - all that he intended was “an orderly account”. Lastly, he wrote it for Theophilus personally.

The Sola Scriptura version of this would be “I am writing now the infallible Word of God for the Church, as commanded by Our Lord to his disciples”.

As you observe, his writing intends to support, not define, the oral tradition which has already been received.