Mary's Perpetual Virginity, What's the Big Deal?

[Roscoe_Turner]

The expressions, “he does well,” “he does better,” are completely univocal in this context.

1. So then the Apostle teaches that virginity, or voluntary continence, the young woman’s abstention from marriage, derives exclusively from a counsel, and given the appropriate circumstances, it is better than marriage.

Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
28 June 1982, page 5
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb81.htm

He’s stating the wording is ambiguous and specific to this case. You can’t be forced into celibacy or marriage.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you saying Pope JPII was anathema?

No, just making sure you appreciate the distinction between the work of a council and that of a theologian - even if he is the pope.

However, I took the time to read through many of the Pope’s Wednesday audiences on the subject at hand, and JP was NOT saying what you think he was saying. I provided a direct quote in support of my claim.

How can the First Pope be a red herring? He was married, it is relevant. Mandatory celibacy wasn’t enacted until the Second Lateran Council in 1139.

First, Peter *merely *smelled like a red herring…it was an occupational hazard.

Second, no one is forced to be celibate for the kingdom. It is a choice freely made by those who respond to God’s call to the priesthood.

So, referencing Peter’s marriage is, in fact, a distraction, a rabbit trail down which I will not run.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He’s stating the wording is ambiguous and specific to this case.

No, he is stating that if someone freely chooses celibacy without coercion, then celibacy or “continence for the kingdom” IS better than marriage.

My point made again.

You can’t be forced into celibacy or marriage

Not a valid marriage, anyway. And on this we agree.

Since no man or woman is FORCED into celibacy by the Catholic Church, I don’t see where this is a problem or relevant.

Celibacy, freely chosen, is…how did Blessed John Paul put it?..“better than marriage.”

Hope this helps.

:tiphat:

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, he is stating that if someone freely chooses celibacy without coercion, then celibacy or “continence for the kingdom” IS better than marriage.

My point made again.

Not a valid marriage, anyway. And on this we agree.

Since no man or woman is FORCED into celibacy by the Catholic Church, I don’t see where this is a problem or relevant.

Celibacy, freely chosen, is…how did Blessed John Paul put it?..“better than marriage.”

Hope this helps.

:tiphat:

No, you are misreading it. He’s saying if you are being forced into marriage, i.e. arranged marriage, it is better to be celibate. It’s a specific case. Generally he says it is univocal or ambiguous.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, just making sure you appreciate the distinction between the work of a council and that of a theologian - even if he is the pope.

However, I took the time to read through many of the Pope’s Wednesday audiences on the subject at hand, and JP was NOT saying what you think he was saying. I provided a direct quote in support of my claim.

First, Peter *merely *smelled like a red herring…it was an occupational hazard.

Second, no one is forced to be celibate for the kingdom. It is a choice freely made by those who respond to God’s call to the priesthood.

So, referencing Peter’s marriage is, in fact, a distraction, a rabbit trail down which I will not run.

Yet there he stands as the Rock, married. Mandatory doesn’t mean forced. It is a qualifier for seeking to be ordained. You can’t be married or get married if you want to be clergy after 1139.

 

[TimothyH]

Just a quick question. What is the basis for referring to Mary as the “spouse of the Holy Spirit”? It seems like an attempt to apply very human understanding to something that is totally spiritual and may be taking things a bit too literal. I see no place in sacred scripture to support this concept. Mary’s having additional children would in no way diminish or change anything concerning Christ. It appears only to be relevant to other related Marian dogma such as her intersession, assumption, and titles she has been given…

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb. That’s about as clear of an indication of a spousal union as can exist. Many have written about the spousal nature of Mary’s relationship to the Holy Spirit throughout Christian history.

-Tim-

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Except that, 200 years or so before Christ, a group of the most highly respected Hebrew teachers translated the term in this context to virgin.

You are not pitting only Hebrew vs. English in this case. You are pitting one group of ancient Hebrew scholars against more modern Hebrew scholars. For a number of reasons I believe that the more ancient scholars have an advantage.

One problem with your first line:
200 Years before the time of Jesus was LONG after the prophecies had been written. And your use of the term “more modern” is incorrect.
“More recent” would be a bit more accurate.
Regardless, it is the ORIGINAL Hebrew prophecy that matters, and NOT something that was translated at some later time. Further, the English language did not exist anywhere on Earth at the time of Jesus, or even 200 years before Him.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

One problem with your first line:
200 Years before the time of Jesus was LONG after the prophecies had been written. And your use of the term “more modern” is incorrect.
“More recent” would be a bit more accurate.
Regardless, it is the ORIGINAL Hebrew prophecy that matters, and NOT something that was translated at some later time. Further, the English language did not exist anywhere on Earth at the time of Jesus, or even 200 years before Him.

No, it is the INTENDED MEANING of the original Hebrew prophecy that matters, which necessarily entails translation given idioms, euphemisms, and changes in meaning.

The scholars c. 200BC had determined that the meaning was “virgin.” They were in a better position to understand the meaning, and were uncluttered by an agenda which includes discounting any support for Christianity.

The water is freshest nearest to the source.

But, since this is off-topic, I’ll repeat my plea to start a new thread to discuss this lest we incur the wrath of the moderators.

 

[adrift]

Read it, to me it’s clear. It’s better to marry as God intends, don’t get divorced except if she’s adulterous. It is the apostles who say it’s better not to marry if she is adulterous. Jesus says not everybody is cut out for marriage. If you aren’t cut out for marriage, stay chaste.

BTW It’s the same advice the Church gives Homosexuals.

I don’t have access to notes at the moment. You are using a poor translation. The Greek word used does not mean adultery. The translation is closer to meaning of an invalid marriage to begin with.

 

[zz912]

Yet there he stands as the Rock, married. Mandatory doesn’t mean forced. It is a qualifier for seeking to be ordained. You can’t be married or get married if you want to be clergy after 1139.

No, St. Peter was married at ONE TIME. We know this because the Gospels discuss his mother-in-law. But they (and the entire NT) never discuss his wife. It is pure speculation to assume that he was still married at the time that he was called by Jesus. It is just as likely, or even more likely, that his wife had passed away prior to this time.

 

[marymyheroine]

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. For her to have a child with the Holy Spirit and then have relations with another is adultery.

That an adulterer would be assumed into heaven and made Queen of Heaven and Earth is not possible. That our Lord and Savior would be the son of an adulterer is an absurdity.

It is necessary. If Mary had relations then Jesus is not the Christ and I am going to the Jews.

-Tim-

This makes COMPLETE sense to me!! Thank you!! I’ve tried to make it right in my own mind, and have explained several times to others of Mary being the living Tabernacle, as well as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, but this makes that even clearer! Thank you much!!

 

[PastGrandKnight]

No, it is the INTENDED MEANING of the original Hebrew prophecy that matters, which necessarily entails translation given idioms, euphemisms, and changes in meaning.

The scholars c. 200BC had determined that the meaning was “virgin.” They were in a better position to understand the meaning, and were uncluttered by an agenda which includes discounting any support for Christianity.

The water is freshest nearest to the source.

But, since this is off-topic, I’ll repeat my plea to start a new thread to discuss this lest we incur the wrath of the moderators.

First, I do not agree that this is off-topic. The topic is the virginity of the mother of the Messiah. My statements do not share your view that it is part of Hebrew prophecy.

As for “intended meaning”, you are making me laugh! Who are YOU to be able to determine NOW what the INTENDED meaning was…more than 2000 years ago?

Furthermore, who were the so-called “scholars” who decided THEY had the authority to make any changes of the original prophecies? They were not even alive when the original prophets did their writing.

What I believe is happening is that you…like other Christians…are looking to make the prophecies fit into your own narrow definition of them, vis-à-vis your “intended meaning” remark.

Sorry, but it does not work at this address. Have a nice day.

 

[adrift]

There are many replies and I didn’t have time this morning to get through them all, but I felt your question deserves a direct and simple response. Here is why it is important:

Man and women were created virgins, just as the angels were. Virginity is the highest of virtues. Through sin, man and women lost this virtue but God gave to us the sacrament of marriage so that even in our sinful state we could remain holy in his sight. Mary was given to Joseph, but the marriage was not recognized by God and so it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that she was conceived. Therefore, Mary was not truly married to Joseph as she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus teaches us that in the next life we do not marry and we are as the angels (virgins), just as he is and as Mary is.

So, Mary, who was full of grace, considered the New Eve, who is without sin, is a perpetual virgin, otherwise we are not redeemed because it was this virtue that was lost by the first Adam and Eve when they sinned (they fell from grace, and the consequence of this fall from grace is the loss of the virtue). So it is important to believe that Mary is a perpetual virgin, otherwise you believe that she, who is full of grace, fell from grace just as Eve did. If Eve fell from grace and brought death and suffering upon all, then how is it that Mary fell from grace and brought salvation to us? It is not possible, therefore, she must have remained a virgin forever, having never lost the highest of virtues.

There is so much wrong with this post.
Mary and Joseph were married from the time they entered into the first part of the marriage referred to as the betrothal. It is recognized by God. marriage occurs at the exchange of consent.’’

 

[FathersKnowBest]

First, I do not agree that this is off-topic. The topic is the virginity of the mother of the Messiah. My statements do not share your view that it is part of Hebrew prophecy.

As for “intended meaning”, you are making me laugh! Who are YOU to be able to determine NOW what the INTENDED meaning was…more than 2000 years ago?

That’s my point exactly. Neither I, nor you, nor any modern scholar, is better equipped to determine the intended meaning than were the scholars who were relied upon to translate the Septuagint.

Furthermore, who were the so-called “scholars” who decided THEY had the authority to make any changes of the original prophecies? They were not even alive when the original prophets did their writing.

We don’t know their names. We DO know, however, that the LXX was the common “vulgate” translation throughout Judea at the time of Christ. Thus, their expertise had received at the very least tacit approval.

What I believe is happening is that you…like other Christians…are looking to make the prophecies fit into your own narrow definition of them, vis-à-vis your “intended meaning” remark.

Sorry, but it does not work at this address. Have a nice day.

Not MY definition of the intended meaning, but the translators’.

 

[adrift]

Yet there he stands as the Rock, married. Mandatory doesn’t mean forced. It is a qualifier for seeking to be ordained. You can’t be married or get married if you want to be clergy after 1139.

You are speaking of the Latin rite only and even then there are acceptions. Peter is thought to have been a widower.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No, St. Peter was married at ONE TIME. We know this because the Gospels discuss his mother-in-law. But they (and the entire NT) never discuss his wife. It is pure speculation to assume that he was still married at the time that he was called by Jesus. It is just as likely, or even more likely, that his wife had passed away prior to this time.

Clement in Stramata says she was martyred in Rome.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

No, St. Peter was married at ONE TIME. We know this because the Gospels discuss his mother-in-law. But they (and the entire NT) never discuss his wife. It is pure speculation to assume that he was still married at the time that he was called by Jesus. It is just as likely, or even more likely, that his wife had passed away prior to this time.

No, that is not likely at all. Jesus cured Peter’s Mother-in-Law of a high fever. Would He have done that only to let her die shortly thereafter? VERY doubtful. And since you have no evidence either way, your suggestion loses credibility. Would Jesus cure the servant of a Roman centurion only to see HIM die shortly thereafter? Would He raise Lazarus from the dead only to see HIM die soon afterwards?
No, there is no valid reason to believe that Peter’s mother-in-law died within the given time frame. There was also no real reason for any of the Gospels to talk about her as the Gospel was not about her, but about Jesus.

I hope you understand my point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yet there he stands as the Rock, married. Mandatory doesn’t mean forced. It is a qualifier for seeking to be ordained. You can’t be married or get married if you want to be clergy after 1139.

Right.

And since no one is forced to become ordained, the Church does not force anyone to be celibate or “for the sake of the kingdom”.

Celibacy freely chosen is a superior vocation to the vocation of marriage.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest

Many people believe that the Catholic Church violates the Word of God because it forbids people to marry (cf. 1 Timothy 4:3) or that it is wrong for priests to remain celibate. To get a clearer picture of this issue, let’s examine what the Bible has to say about the subject of celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Why then does Paul recommend celibacy?

1 Corinthians 7:32-35
32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

From this passage, we can see Paul’s primary reason for advocating celibacy: he wants everyone to live in undivided devotion to the Lord, and in all of these verses, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus calls some men to the priesthood and offers them the gift of a celibate life to be lived in undivided devotion to God. Paul understands that not everyone is offered this gift and that not all to whom it is offered can or will accept it.

There are Catholic priests who are married; typically, these are men who were priests in the Anglican, Orthodox or other faith traditions and have converted to the Catholic faith after they were married in those churches. Under special circumstances, they may be ordained to serve as Catholic priests. Men who are already Catholic when they begin to discern their call to the priesthood must remain celibate.

The Catholic Church forbids no man to marry. However, she does desire that those who will represent Christ, who will stand in persona Christi (in the place of Christ) when administering the sacraments as priests, be like their Lord as fully as possible. This means that like Jesus, they are celibate men prepared to sacrifice their own lives in the service of God and others.

The calling and the gift is offered by God; those who choose to accept it do so freely. Here is an article, “Celibacy is a Gift”, that explains this more fully:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea5.asp

 

[TimothyH]

This makes COMPLETE sense to me!! Thank you!! I’ve tried to make it right in my own mind, and have explained several times to others of Mary being the living Tabernacle, as well as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, but this makes that even clearer! Thank you much!!

You just turned a pretty lousy day into something wonderful. Thanks for taking the time to post.

-Tim-