Mary & Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cruxis117
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Yes.
What I don’t get is why God…
That’s the problem right there. You are trying to conform God to your expecation of what He should and shouldn’t do based on your view of an ancient society which is vastly different from our modern society.

Very little in the Bible is truly understandable until one thinks like a first century Jew. It is one of the problems that modern Evangelicals have - forcing a document written by and for ancient Jews into a purely modern context.

-Tim-
 
FCEGM - Thanks for the article, never thought about the consecrated vessel analogy before. That helps. Still not sure I buy it completely (I’m trying!), but that helps.

ESMD - I believe Mary and Joseph were betrothed (engaged) when they were paid that little visit by the angel…so I’m guessing she wasn’t planning on being a consecrated virgin. Plus, I don’t think Judaeism (Mary was a Jew) has “consecrated virgins”.

Tantum: NOW it all makes sense! :rotfl: As a single dad of triplet teenagers, I can COMPLETELY see your point there! :eek:

Timothy: I believe our conscience, our ability for abstract thinking, and our innate moral code is put there by God (or, per Catholic teaching, the Holy Spirit). Or, perhaps it IS Him talking with us, guiding us through our lives. Through this voice, God (or the Holy Spirit) has saved my life several times, and has helped me save others lives many times. Since He has instilled that in me, YES I have to get my beliefs, especially my religious beliefs, to be congruent with my conscience.
 
FCEGM - thanks again for that article. I am struggling with some parts of my conversion to Catholicism (especially some of the more esoteric Church beliefs such as this) as I don’t want to be one of those “cafeteria catholics” who pick & choose what they want.

While I may not completely “buy it” all, the article you provided gave my linear-thinking brain a plausible explanation as to why God would indeed prohibit Mary and Joseph from being physically intimate.

Thanks!
 
No matter what the shreds of historical evidence gives us about Jesus having a brother (ie - Mary having other children), there is little doubt that Mary and Joseph were married.

What I don’t get is why God, after giving Mary the greatest gift imaginable in the form of a special visit from the Holy Spirit, would not bless Mary and Joseph’s marriage with sex.

Can anyone shed some light on this?
Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Research a little in the Bible about how special and holy the Ark of the Old Covenant was. No one was allowed to touch it. (One person touched it to prevent it from falling over, and was killed instantly.) The Ark contained the 10 Commandments (Jesus is the Word), it contained the manna from Heaven (Jesus is the true Manna), and it held Aaron’s staff representing the authority of the priesthood (Jesus is the true High Priest).

Mary held GOD HIMSELF in her womb. The more you ponder on the immenseness of that, you will start to understand how silly it would be to think that Joseph, as a faithful and devout Jew would EVER think to want to have sex with Mary.
 
Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Research a little in the Bible about how special and holy the Ark of the Old Covenant was. No one was allowed to touch it. (One person touched it to prevent it from falling over, and was killed instantly.) The Ark contained the 10 Commandments (Jesus is the Word), it contained the manna from Heaven (Jesus is the true Manna), and it held Aaron’s staff representing the authority of the priesthood (Jesus is the true High Priest).

Mary held GOD HIMSELF in her womb. The more you ponder on the immenseness of that, you will start to understand how silly it would be to think that Joseph, as a faithful and devout Jew would EVER think to want to have sex with Mary.
“Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant” - Is that Catholic doctrine??

The philosophy of your second paragraph is helpful…thank you.
 
“Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant” - Is that Catholic doctrine??

The philosophy of your second paragraph is helpful…thank you.
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
2676 This twofold movement of prayer to Mary has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria:

Hail Mary [or Rejoice, Mary]: the greeting of the angel Gabriel opens this prayer. It is God himself who, through his angel as intermediary, greets Mary. Our prayer dares to take up this greeting to Mary with the regard God had for the lowliness of his humble servant and to exult in the joy he finds in her. 30

Full of grace, the Lord is with thee: These two phrases of the angel’s greeting shed light on one another. Mary is full of grace because the Lord is with her. The grace with which she is filled is the presence of him who is the source of all grace. “Rejoice . . . O Daughter of Jerusalem . . . the Lord your God is in your midst.” 31 Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is “the dwelling of God . . . with men.” 32 Full of grace, Mary is wholly given over to him who has come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world.

Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. After the angel’s greeting, we make Elizabeth’s greeting our own. “Filled with the Holy Spirit,” Elizabeth is the first in the long succession of generations who have called Mary “blessed.” 33 “Blessed is she who believed…” 34 Mary is “blessed among women” because she believed in the fulfillment of the Lord’s word. Abraham. because of his faith, became a blessing for all the nations of the earth. 35 Mary, because of her faith, became the mother of believers, through whom all nations of the earth receive him who is God’s own blessing: Jesus, the “fruit of thy womb.”

Is it specific doctrine such as the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception? No. However, it is a good phrase, a good term, to describe who Mary is in relation to our great Lord Jesus. This shows that the Church is not ignorant of such a great connection within the Scriptures between our Lord and our Lady.
 
FCEGM - thanks again for that article. I am struggling with some parts of my conversion to Catholicism (especially some of the more esoteric Church beliefs such as this) as I don’t want to be one of those “cafeteria catholics” who pick & choose what they want.

While I may not completely “buy it” all, the article you provided gave my linear-thinking brain a plausible explanation as to why God would indeed prohibit Mary and Joseph from being physically intimate.

Thanks!
I’m happy I could be of some help; your desire to be faithful in all matters will carry you through. 👍
 
Speaking as a mother of three, I cannot imagine that if God had blessed me and overshadowed me (spousally in the Holy Spirit) and trusted me to bring up His Son, that I would then turn around and say, well golly sakes, now I got this here baby who is God and man, subject to everything from the usual infant diseases to being searched for by evil men to be killed, so that I and my husband Joseph have to flee to another COUNTRY to be safe and stay for years, and I have to raise this child up and watch over Him. . .

SO the BEST way to do that is to go around and have a bunch of OTHER babies who will then require my attention and divert it from my FIRST child.

Can you just SEE the sibling rivalry… .

“Mom, mom, Jesus won’t let me walk on water too, make Him let me. . .”

“Mom, tell Jesus to stop bringing everybody’s pets back from the dead. . .”

And Mary, as one child is about to fall off a steep cliff, another child is being chased by a wild bull, a third child is caught in a burning building. . .running, screaming. . .

to JESUS who just got a paper cut. . .

“Don’t cry, sweetheart, mommy will take care of you” (complete focus on this while the other children die. . .)
Who needs logic when hyperbole will do?
How about Jesus would make an awesome big brother:D
 
I have recently wondered about this question. If Mary and Joseph did not decide to consummate their marriage because of Christ, does that make their marriage invalid?

Marriages have been annulled due to non-consumation.
 
I have recently wondered about this question. If Mary and Joseph did not decide to consummate their marriage because of Christ, does that make their marriage invalid?

Marriages have been annulled due to non-consumation.
You’re trying to enforce Catholic Canon Law on pre-Pentecost first century Jews? It doesn’t work like that!
 
Surely Jewish law had similar rules?
I doubt it. Marriage is not a sacrament to Jews. It’s always been held that Joseph was a caretaker of Mary. She was a consecrated virgin, who had no plans of breaking that vow when she became betrothed to Joseph. Joseph was to simply be a caretaker of her after the passing of her parents.

CAF has innumerable threads on this, as well as tracts on catholic.com; and I’ve found the following page useful on this subject:
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III

A Christian marriage can be valid without being consummated.

Peace,
Phil
 
I’ve heard that reasoning before, I just don’t buy it. By saying she “was not free” to share sexual relations with her husband, you are implying God wouldn’t let her. Why would God prevent her from fully enjoying her marriage for the next 30+ years?
ESMD - I believe Mary and Joseph were betrothed (engaged) when they were paid that little visit by the angel…so I’m guessing she wasn’t planning on being a consecrated virgin.
Hi Boatswain, the theory that Mary was a consecrated virgin entails that she had been a consecrated virgin from a young age, and that Joseph had been selected as kind of a “caretaker husband” for her.
 
I have recently wondered about this question. If Mary and Joseph did not decide to consummate their marriage because of Christ, does that make their marriage invalid?

Marriages have been annulled due to non-consumation.
Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated;

So even unconsummated marriages are valid. But here is what you are thinking of:

Canon 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

This is not a declaration of nullity, it is an actual dissolution. Finally:

Canon 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

So, if there is no attempt by the concerned parties to prove the invalidity of their marriage, it is valid.
 
Hi Boatswain, the theory that Mary was a consecrated virgin entails that she had been a consecrated virgin from a young age, and that Joseph had been selected as kind of a “caretaker husband” for her.
I’ve recently read that (and I think I’ve read it before ages ago). It certainly helps make sense of the situation, although a part of me wonders if that theory wasn’t just “added on” sometime in the past 20 centuries to explain an anomaly.

Are you (or anyone else) aware of any early literature on Mary’s consecration (like Samuel’s)?

BTW - thanks to all of you. I hope you can tell that I’m not here trolling, but rather searching for answers.
 
I’ve recently read that (and I think I’ve read it before ages ago). It certainly helps make sense of the situation, although a part of me wonders if that theory wasn’t just “added on” sometime in the past 20 centuries to explain an anomaly.

Are you (or anyone else) aware of any early literature on Mary’s consecration (like Samuel’s)?

BTW - thanks to all of you. I hope you can tell that I’m not here trolling, but rather searching for answers.
Try the Protoevangelion of St. James. Peace!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top