Mary's perpertual Viriginity, why does it matter?

[Kitty_Chan]

I disagree. Sex is nasty. You have to lower yourself to have sex. It’s part of our lower, sinful nature. That’s why we are trapped here.

Im so sorry you have such awful feelings for something God created within us.

You are confusing the perversion of it by satan. he makes it cheap and nasty. Dont forget he wants** all **of what God created to be nasty, not just sex.

God is love. Sex is not just an act, it can be a joining of the 2 of you in an intimate trusting way.

That is no way, shape or form is nasty.

 

[Contarini]

After reading that Edwin Id still say that Joesph did act well to Mary as he stayed with her. Even though he was well within his rights to leave her. Accepting Jesus as his to raise with Mary. A marriage based on such things is something for everyone to have as a example.

When they had trials, we dont read they almost broke up because it was to inconvient. We read they were faithful to the Lord and each other and their small baby.

This is what those feminists and others should remember. Why are they or anyone worried about what happened after? Bunch of gossips!

Or that, they even entertain such thoughts about 2 fine people. The start is what is important. This is the example Mary and Joesph were. In love and trusting God.

Kitty,

Your response is baffling. The “concern with what happened after” is a traditional Christian/Catholic one. Most feminists consider Catholicism and traditional Christianity generally to be misogynistic. My point is that some feminists point out that virginity can be seen as empowering to women. You have misunderstood my whole post, I think.

Ediwn

 

[notself]

Kitty,

Your response is baffling. The “concern with what happened after” is a traditional Christian/Catholic one. Most feminists consider Catholicism and traditional Christianity generally to be misogynistic.** My point is that some feminists point out that virginity can be seen as empowering to women. **You have misunderstood my whole post, I think.

Ediwn

Elizebeth I of England would agree with you. Protestant though she was.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Kitty,

Your response is baffling. The “concern with what happened after” is a traditional Christian/Catholic one. Most feminists consider Catholicism and traditional Christianity generally to be misogynistic. My point is that some feminists point out that virginity can be seen as empowering to women. You have misunderstood my whole post, I think.

Ediwn

Edwin, its not with you! sorry if I came across that way
feminists rub my fur the wrong way.

So I guess to be fair, if its a theory coming from them I immediately discount it. They love to get out the male pineta and hit it. Virginity being empowering? perhaps but why eliminate like I said in a previous post something God gave us? It comes from this view of dirty sex. We are what we are and need to accept ourselves. Once we do that and quit worring about what we want to be, then we can think about how God wants us to be.

Mary would have had to do that.

 

[bengal_fan]

Maybe being a perpetual virgin doesn"t
matter to some on this forum. But maybe it mattered
a whole lot to Mary.

lol, i’m sure you’re right. it would have mad a big difference to mary.

 

[ryanoneil]

Catholics: What does this teaching mean to you? What do you get out of it?

It’s a tough question if one seperates the aspect of Mary’s perpetual virginity from Mary as a whole. It’s hard to put into words, but its kind of like focussing on one piece of a puzzle. You don’t get the whole picture until all the pieces are put together. And often times one piece of a puzzle doesn’t seem important until it is missing.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[marlo]

Hi Delphinus

Its all goes down to protect the Deity of Christ and his Incarnation against any heresies, you see, The Lord as True God to be born as Man will need a mother, a sinless mother, He will take his humanity though Her flesh. The Lord will be in her womb for 9 months, by this time, the womb of Mary, is literary, the Holiest Place on Earth and the dwelling place of God. As a holy place can be, this should not be defiled; as prophets remove sandals when there is a presence of God, people dying touching the ark of the covenant, high priest dying if they perform the ritual wrong in the presence of God, what more if God himself was inside the womb of Mary. Her perpetual virginity doctrine is actually protecting the Incarnation of God.

It will be like a pagan mythology if Mary bore a child of God then bore another through Joseph, as if God has just chosen anybody out of random pick, then Christianity is no different to paganism

In addition to this, the church treats Mary as the most important creation; her perpetual virginity has also highlighted her as the new eve. The Catholic Church has worked hard to protect the salvation and the good news against these claims that was initially initiated by pagans.

Okay, so I know the thread title seems heretical, but it’s not, I promise!!

I was following a discussion on another thread about Mary’s perpetual viriginity, and like everything else on here, it got pretty heated.

At any rate, I posed a question no one really answered. It was posed at non-catholics, but I’d lik to hear the catholic answer…

“Why does it matter if Mary was ever-virgin or not? What difference does it make if she had other kids or not? What does this change about how you love and serve God?”

IMHO It doesn’t. The only thing vital to a catholic faith (in my eyes) is that we maintain Mary was SINLESS, and it’s entirely possible that Mary was sinless, yet conceived kids by Joseph. Now, I personally believe Mary was sinless and an ever virgin. The fact that she remained a virgin seems to be backed scripturally as well as through the church. I accept the teaching and find a great beauty in it.

Catholics: What does this teaching mean to you? What do you get out of it?

Protestants: Why does it matter to you SO much that she did have sex? What does this change? Forgive my accusation, but it rather seems it’s rejected so vehemently simply because you don’t want to agree with anything the RCC says…

 

[bengal_fan]

I disagree. Sex is nasty. You have to lower yourself to have sex. It’s part of our lower, sinful nature. That’s why we are trapped here.

i disagree completely. if it is so “nasty”, why was it given to us before the fall? we were told to be fruitful and multiply… unless the stork brought babies before we sinned, sex was present in perfection.

 

[bengal_fan]

Its all goes down to protect the Deity of Christ and his Incarnation against any heresies, you see, The Lord as True God to be born as Man will need a mother, a sinless mother,.

please explain why He would need a sinless mother. wouldn’t that then say that mary (to have been born sinless) would have to have come from a sinless mother? and her mother from a sinless mother… etc.?

He will take his humanity through Her flesh. The Lord will be in her womb for 9 months, by this time, the womb of Mary, is literally, the Holiest Place on Earth and the dwelling place of God. As a holy place can be, this should not be defiled; as prophets remove sandals when there is a presence of God, people dying touching the ark of the covenant, high priest dying if they perform the ritual wrong in the presence of God, what more if God himself was inside the womb of Mary. Her perpetual virginity doctrine is actually protecting the Incarnation of God…

but doesn’t He come and make His dwelling among us also? i am by no means sinless, but He consents to dwell within me. if this logic held true, then everytime we partake of the eucharist we should die because He is being attached to something sinful.

It will be like a pagan mythology if Mary bore a child of God then bore another through Joseph, as if God has just chosen anybody out of random pick, then Christianity is no different to paganism.

i don’t see the logical progression of your argument here. God, constantly in the OT and the NT chooses the ones least likely to be chosen. choosing a sinless person would actually be going against the characteristic of God found in the rest of scripture. this has nothing to do with becoming like the pagans.

In addition to this, the church treats Mary as the most important creation; her perpetual virginity has also highlighted her as the new eve. The Catholic Church has worked hard to protect the salvation and the good news against these claims that was initially initiated by pagans.

but eve was not a virgin. she actually had sex with adam. whether that happened before the fall or not doesn’t matter since it was commanded by God before the fall (the whole “be fruitful and multiply”). don’t get me wrong, i don’t have a problem with the doctrine, but i don’t see it as necessary, i don’t see it as a “slam dunk” when it comes to apologetics, and i especially don’t think it should be a binding doctrine (one required to believe for salvation).

 

[marlo]

as i said, the perpetual virginity upholds and protect the deity of christ and the incarnation. This is a long discussion, Our Lady and her being the new eve was long been defended by the church fathers, i suggest you to read some of their writings, but before that. I will give you the word of Proclus of Constantinople who states:

If the Mother had not remained a virgin, her child would have been a mere man, and His birth not wonderful. If, to the contrary, she remained a virgin after His birth, how will the Son not be God, and the mystery indescribable?

please explain why He would need a sinless mother. wouldn’t that then say that mary (to have been born sinless) would have to have come from a sinless mother? and her mother from a sinless mother… etc.?

but doesn’t He come and make His dwelling among us also? i am by no means sinless, but He consents to dwell within me. if this logic held true, then everytime we partake of the eucharist we should die because He is being attached to something sinful.

i don’t see the logical progression of your argument here. God, constantly in the OT and the NT chooses the ones least likely to be chosen. choosing a sinless person would actually be going against the characteristic of God found in the rest of scripture. this has nothing to do with becoming like the pagans.

but eve was not a virgin. she actually had sex with adam. whether that happened before the fall or not doesn’t matter since it was commanded by God before the fall (the whole “be fruitful and multiply”). don’t get me wrong, i don’t have a problem with the doctrine, but i don’t see it as necessary, i don’t see it as a “slam dunk” when it comes to apologetics, and i especially don’t think it should be a binding doctrine (one required to believe for salvation).

 

[bengal_fan]

as i said, the perpetual virginity upholds and protect the deity of christ and the incarnation. This is a long discussion, Our Lady and her being the new eve was long been defended by the church fathers, i suggest you to read some of their writings, but before that. I will give you the word of Proclus of Constantinople who states:

If the Mother had not remained a virgin, her child would have been a mere man, and His birth not wonderful. If, to the contrary, she remained a virgin after His birth, how will the Son not be God, and the mystery indescribable?

and as i said, the perpetual virginity does nothing for the deity of Christ and the incarnation. the virgin birth does that. that is why the virgin birth has been so vehemently defended since the beginning. i have read lots of the ECF. i would have to disagree with proclus on that statement and say that it is the virgin birth not the perpetual virginity that solidifies Jesus as God incarnate. i am not disputing mary as the new eve at all! i am merely saying that the perpetual virginity is not needed to support any of it (including her as the ark considering a man did open the ark from time to time, usually once a year. that man had to go through an extensive ritual so that he and he alone could enter… sounds a bit like marriage to me and maybe joseph is the fulfillment of that priestly position and could “enter” the ark because of his position as husband and in light of the ritual (marriage) that he went through to “prove” that position).

 

[bengal_fan]

of course, the perpetual virginity may be true and i would be just fine with that also. it is just not a necessary doctrine for salvation and shouldn’t be defined as such.

 

[jssaxon]

i disagree completely. if it is so “nasty”, why was it given to us before the fall? we were told to be fruitful and multiply… unless the stork brought babies before we sinned, sex was present in perfection.

Before the fall, humanity was united and fully part of the body of Christ in perfect harmony.We weren’t sexual.

 

[Tietjen]

Before the fall, humanity was united and fully part of the body of Christ in perfect harmony.We weren’t sexual.

Please jssaxon, how were we to be fruitful and multiply if no sexual relations took place. Keep in mind, that the pain experienced at delivery was brought into this world with the fall. That implies that women were intended to give birth so no explanations involving storks please.

 

[Tietjen]

I disagree. Sex is nasty. You have to lower yourself to have sex. It’s part of our lower, sinful nature. That’s why we are trapped here.

How old are you? Why is it in every thread where I encounter you, I find you opposing Church teaching? Do you call yourself a Catholic? Sex is a gift from God intended to be apart of a married couple’s life together. A unifying gift! Gifts from God are NOT “nasty.” Sex becomes “nasty” when man misuses it. “Trapped here?”

[stepping back on topic now]

 

[bengal_fan]

Before the fall, humanity was united and fully part of the body of Christ in perfect harmony.We weren’t sexual.

i don’t think you fully understand the teachings on the creation. yes, we were in perfect harmony with God and with each other and with all of creation. this means that everything was good (to quote God) and that means that the means of “being fruitful and multiplying” was considered good (this would be a sperm and egg combining… that happens through a man and woman having sex with each other). this was our participation in creation. just as, out of Himself, God created everything (God in perfect union with Himself), we, in perfect union with ourselves (now taking place through the sacrament of marriage) can create life out of ourselves. this method has been corrupted but that doesn’t mean that is also can’t be redeemed (just like us!).

 

[Kitty_Chan]

and as i said, the perpetual virginity does nothing for the deity of Christ and the incarnation. the virgin birth does that. that is why the virgin birth has been so vehemently defended since the beginning. i have read lots of the ECF. i would have to disagree with proclus on that statement and say that it is the virgin birth not the perpetual virginity that solidifies Jesus as God incarnate. i am not disputing mary as the new eve at all! i am merely saying that the perpetual virginity is not needed to support any of it (including her as the ark considering a man did open the ark from time to time, usually once a year. that man had to go through an extensive ritual so that he and he alone could enter… sounds a bit like marriage to me and maybe joseph is the fulfillment of that priestly position and could “enter” the ark because of his position as husband and in light of the ritual (marriage) that he went through to “prove” that position).

Well said! the feminists can ponder on that. Joesph was a extraordinary man as well and a perfect example of what a husband should be.

I bet the 3 of us discussing with jssaxon here probably have long marriages or examples of them. Im 27 yrs married, maybe thats why jssaxon has a different view.

 

[ralphinal]

Sex is like everything else that God gave us. When it was created, it was good. Man sinned. Man can now pervert sex. Like everything else, it is still “good” not inherently dirty, vile, evil, etc. When it is used as God intended it, between one man and one woman as a part of a sacrament showing the love between the two, it is beautiful. When it is used as the world says it should be used, it is evil.

Saying that Mary was a perpetual virgin does not make sex bad or show it to be evil. Like others have said, it has many deeply significant meanings.

 

[mark_a]

“Why does it matter if Mary was ever-virgin or not? What difference does it make if she had other kids or not? What does this change about how you love and serve God?”

Suppose the Church had taught from the beginning that Mary did have other children, would it matter if some Johnny-come-lately taught she were a perpetual virgin?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I wonder if they were not big on Mary having other children because then the brothers and sisters would share a common mother with Jesus.

Therefore, those siblings could claim they are half brothers and sisters of Christ.

And do I hear all the conspiricy theorists sit up

Or thats the reason they were called cousins, and anyway they rejected Jesus anyhow so even so, they were not thrilled to have Him as family. So, if they didnt want Him then, the descendents cant have Him now.

or is this talking about the elephant in the room??