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

[Randy_Carson]

(Edited) I dismiss this one as one of another billion of baseless opinions.

Here is the scriptural evidence you requested:

In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question “How shall this be?” She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

Hope that helps:

:tiphat:

 

[JRKH]

I don’t understand the obsession with sex and Jesus’s MOM! For one thing, her SPOUSE was the Holy Spirit so having relations with Joseph would have been, in a sense, ADULTERY. Joseph was to protect her virginity, NOT take it from her.

Their marriage was so Jesus would have a human father, a legal human father.

If you had been asked to be THE MOTHER OF THE MESSIAH - to carry THE MESSIAH in YOUR WOMB, and to RAISE HIM from infancy to adulthood, you would want to CONCENTRATE all your energy on raising HIM.

In conversation with non-Catholics, it has been my experience that many do not so much have a problem with the idea of the PV per-se than with it’s being dogmatically declared.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

In conversation with non-Catholics, it has been my experience that many do not so much have a problem with the idea of the PV per-se than with it’s being dogmatically declared.

Peace
James

That simply means that they have a problem with infallibility and authority.

Most apologetics disagreements begin when someone puts the cart before the horse like that.

 

[TimothyH]

Adultery? So you are saying that Mary and Joseph weren’t married? That’s a new one to me…

Joseph was the earthly protector of Mary. Mary’s earthly marriage to Joseph fulfilled the law.

Mary’s spousal union was with the Holy Spirit.

-Tim-

 

[Evan]

I don’t understand the obsession with sex and Jesus’s MOM! For one thing, her SPOUSE was the Holy Spirit so having relations with Joseph would have been, in a sense, ADULTERY. Joseph was to protect her virginity, NOT take it from her.

Their marriage was so Jesus would have a human father, a legal human father.

If you had been asked to be THE MOTHER OF THE MESSIAH - to carry THE MESSIAH in YOUR WOMB, and to RAISE HIM from infancy to adulthood, you would want to CONCENTRATE all your energy on raising HIM.

We may say the HS is the spouse, but the HS is not the Father of Jesus. Jesus had 2 fathers: God the Father (who gave him his divinity) and Joseph (who gave him his legal standing). Jesus had no ‘birth dad’ to use the parlance of family life today. His human nature came through Mary.

Since Mary and Joseph were married, if Mary had ‘relations’ with the HS, then she committed adultery because she was already betrothed to Joseph. The adultery you speak of would not be if she had relations with Joseph, her legal spouse, but with the HS, her spiritual spouse.

I have relations with my wife, but I am a member of the church, the bride of Christ. And there is no adultery involved.

 

[Della]

We may say the HS is the spouse, but the HS is not the Father of Jesus. Jesus had 2 fathers: God the Father (who gave him his divinity) and Joseph (who gave him his legal standing). Jesus had no ‘birth dad’ to use the parlance of family life today. His human nature came through Mary.

Since Mary and Joseph were married, if Mary had ‘relations’ with the HS, then she committed adultery because she was already betrothed to Joseph. The adultery you speak of would not be if she had relations with Joseph, her legal spouse, but with the HS, her spiritual spouse.

I have relations with my wife, but I am a member of the church, the bride of Christ. And there is no adultery involved.

I’m afraid you’ve got things a bit convoluted here. Mary was pledged to God as a perpetual virgin before she became betrothed to Joseph. She and Joseph were never going to have sexual relations, rather, he was going to be her protector/guardian as he lived out his vow of virginity, as well. So, Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit was not an infringement on Joseph’s rights as a husband.

 

[57Bill]

Also - as a sort of P.S. on this…I once asked myself, if I were Joseph and knew what he knew when he married Mary…would I have sexual relations with the her??? My answer to myself was NOPE - no way am I having intimate relations with the one who, by miraculous intervention, bore the Son of the Living God…
Hence…Joseph being a righteous man…Mary remains a virgin…

Peace
James

More than a PS!!

I think it’s a good reasoning tool as well as Luke as many protestants like to think on their own, just give them this thought to chew on!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Here is the scriptural evidence you requested:

In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, “How shall this be since I know not man?” This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already “espoused,” according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to “divorce her quietly” (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question “How shall this be?” She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

Hope that helps:

:tiphat:

Thanks Randy for spelling it out for him.

 

[Evan]

I’m afraid you’ve got things a bit convoluted here. Mary was pledged to God as a perpetual virgin before she became betrothed to Joseph. She and Joseph were never going to have sexual relations, rather, he was going to be her protector/guardian as he lived out his vow of virginity, as well. So, Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit was not an infringement on Joseph’s rights as a husband.

Of course not, being overshadowed by the HS would not infringe M, J or even my rights.

But in a marriage, if you pledge to not have relations, that pledge is always subserviant to the marriage vow. In other words, both people in the marriage must agree, and that agreement can be withdrawn at any time.

I believe M and J made that promise to each other, but it was not under coercion of the HS, but from their dedication to each other and their mutual respect. The overshadowing of Mary with the graces of the HS, does not effect the Vow or Promise of M and J.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

To me, Mary’s perpetual virginity makes sense because, well I think it would have been hard on the other children. Big brother is perfect and literally God in the flesh. Those poor kids would be compared to him all the time. I couldn’t imagine how difficult that would be.

 

[TK421]

The need of having Mary’s perpetual virginity dogmatically declared is because of how it relates to Christ. Mary became a living tabernacle for our Lord, and although sexual relations with your spouse is in no way sinful, it was part of her role as Theotokos that the tabernacle would remain untouched and never conceive of another child, who would have been conceived with original sin.

It’s the same reason why she was dogmatically declared the Theotokos, and the need for this particular dogma is more direct and obvious than her perpetual virginity. By dogmatically declaring her the Theotokos, you are again dogmatically declaring the divinity of Christ. If she should be called Mary the Mother of Jesus, then that leaves Jesus’ divinity dubious. Certain Christian heretics also call Mary the Mother of Jesus, and as do the Muslims. But if you should call yourself Catholic, then the proper title is Theotokos, and by declaring that, you are declaring the divinity of our Lord.

Why is it dogma that she was assumed into Heaven became the Queen of Heaven? Because she is the mother of our Lord, and that, by default, makes her the Queen. By declaring Mary as the Queen of Heaven, you are declaring Christ the King.

If Marian dogmas only related to Mary, then it’s a theologically safe assumption that they wouldn’t have been dogmatically declared. They exist as linchpins that point towards the divinity of Christ, the perfection of Christ, and the reign of Christ in Heaven.

 

[Della]

Of course not, being overshadowed by the HS would not infringe M, J or even my rights.

But in a marriage, if you pledge to not have relations, that pledge is always subserviant to the marriage vow. In other words, both people in the marriage must agree, and that agreement can be withdrawn at any time.

I believe M and J made that promise to each other, but it was not under coercion of the HS, but from their dedication to each other and their mutual respect. The overshadowing of Mary with the graces of the HS, does not effect the Vow or Promise of M and J.

Of course, I didn’t say anything about the Holy Spirit coercing anyone, so I don’t understand why you would make that assumption. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t understand why it was necessary that the Ark of the Covenant not be touched by any human being, lest they die. I can understand that it was a pure vessel to hold symbols of Christ (as opposed to Mary, who actually contained the Son of God for 9 months), but why was it important that it be untouched? There isn’t anything inherently sinful or unclean about steadying the ark as it was about to fall out of a cart (even though it shouldn’t have been carried that way in the first place).

The Ark foreshadowed Mary.

No man was to touch the Ark. The Ark was holy, for God alone. Similarly, no man was to touch Mary. Mary was holy, for the Holy Spirit alone.

The Ark is a figure of Mary. The Ark is a type of Mary. The Ark points to Mary and teaches about Mary. Mary is the fulfillment of what the Ark foreshadowed.

-Tim-

 

[jmjconder]

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-

Please cite your source - since your initial reasoning on why Mary never had relations with Joseph is inaccurate.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The Ark foreshadowed Mary.

No man was to touch the Ark. The Ark was holy, for God alone. Similarly, no man was to touch Mary. Mary was holy, for the Holy Spirit alone.

The Ark is a figure of Mary. The Ark is a type of Mary. The Ark points to Mary and teaches about Mary. Mary is the fulfillment of what the Ark foreshadowed.

-Tim-

I know this. I was using this background to re-ask the original question about Mary in terms of the Ark.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The need of having Mary’s perpetual virginity dogmatically declared is because of how it relates to Christ. Mary became a living tabernacle for our Lord, and although sexual relations with your spouse is in no way sinful, it was part of her role as Theotokos that the tabernacle would remain untouched and never conceive of another child, who would have been conceived with original sin.

It’s the same reason why she was dogmatically declared the Theotokos, and the need for this particular dogma is more direct and obvious than her perpetual virginity. By dogmatically declaring her the Theotokos, you are again dogmatically declaring the divinity of Christ. If she should be called Mary the Mother of Jesus, then that leaves Jesus’ divinity dubious. Certain Christian heretics also call Mary the Mother of Jesus, and as do the Muslims. But if you should call yourself Catholic, then the proper title is Theotokos, and by declaring that, you are declaring the divinity of our Lord.

Why is it dogma that she was assumed into Heaven became the Queen of Heaven? Because she is the mother of our Lord, and that, by default, makes her the Queen. By declaring Mary as the Queen of Heaven, you are declaring Christ the King.

If Marian dogmas only related to Mary, then it’s a theologically safe assumption that they wouldn’t have been dogmatically declared. They exist as linchpins that point towards the divinity of Christ, the perfection of Christ, and the reign of Christ in Heaven.

That was perhaps the most excellent short summary of Marian dogmas that I have ever seen. Thanks!!!

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A number of posts have been removed as off topic.
Kindly remain on topic, which is, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity or this thread will be closed or removed.

 

[JoeT777]

Conceiving the Christ as a virgin I can see as important. Born without original sin and not knowing man she was a pure vessel to be the mother of Jesus. I’m not questioning the teaching but I don’t understand why is the perpetual virginity of Mary necessary or important? There isn’t anything inherently sinful or unclean about husband and wife having relations. I don’t see it as diminishing her in anyway. It’s what men and women were made by God to do.

Consider that Christ is fully and wholly God and fully and wholly man without being deprived of original justice; much like Adam, created with original justice - or you might say Adam was created without original sin. Christ’s two natures are inseparable and exist in perfect harmony in the One hypostasis of One Person, Jesus Christ. The birth of such a Person, Divine and human, must be born of woman without inheriting the effects of Adam’s sin. Mary the Immaculately conceived creature who gave birth to the New Covenant by way of her son. Had Mary had additional children they too would have been of the same human nature as the New Adam and also be New Covenants. their offspring would also have inherited be New Adam’s nature. The result would have been multiple claims to the throne of God’s Kingdom. But, we only know of One claimant. Consequently, by necessity of ascending to the Throne of God there can be only one Child born of Mary.

JoeT

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Consider that Christ is fully and wholly God and fully and wholly man without being deprived of original justice; much like Adam, created with original justice - or you might say Adam was created without original sin. Christ’s two natures are inseparable and exist in perfect harmony in the One hypostasis of One Person, Jesus Christ. The birth of such a Person, Divine and human, must be born of woman without inheriting the effects of Adam’s sin. Mary the Immaculately conceived creature who gave birth to the New Covenant by way of her son. Had Mary had additional children they too would have been of the same human nature as the New Adam and also be New Covenants. their offspring would also have inherited be New Adam’s nature. The result would have been multiple claims to the throne of God’s Kingdom. But, we only know of One claimant. Consequently, by necessity of ascending to the Throne of God there can be only one Child born of Mary.

JoeT

Thanks that’s the first explanation that seems logical to me.

 

[JoeT777]

Thanks that’s the first explanation that seems logical to me.

I believe that Mary took ascetic vows of chastity and I believe that Joseph either cooperated with those vows or was chaste himself. AmbroseSJ suggested the same thing. see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11216446#post11216446 And like some of the others there is an importance surrounding the typology associated with Mary. I agree with TimothyH and others who made this comparison. see TimothyH forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11216368&postcount=4. However the purpose of both history and the symbols is to lead us to ‘Real’ knowledge, in this case a real knowledge of the Second Person of the Trinity.

Christ is One Person with common and individual traits of all His Divinity and the common and individual traits of all His humanity. An individual and distinct rational being. Part of a human’s distinction is that his the individual person that gave Him birth and raises him. An individual’s nature can be in part said can only come from one mother. Therefore, the One and Only One Jesus Christ could have come from one and only one mother. Thus, it can’t be said that God would have chosen another mother for Himself (the logic here is that there is nothing special in this particular woman - it belittles Mary and Christ). Obviously, a Christ of a different mother would not be the One and Only One Jesus Christ; rather someone else; dare we say a ‘bother of a different mother’.

We normally don’t truly abide in something we don’t understand. Here in lies the Protestant dilemma. Without Mary, whose holiness they vehemently deny, one must divide the inseparable natures of Christ into Divine parts and human parts. Christ becomes little more than a magician hung on a cross as payment to a God for misunderstood transgressions . The only view of Christ is either human or Divine, never the whole Person that He. Consequently in denying Mary’s special role in our salvation we deny the Personification of that Salvation.

JoeT