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

[TimothyH]

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

***Unite, then, Venerable Brethren, your prayers with Ours, and at your exhortation let all Christian peoples add their prayers also, invoking the powerful and ever-acceptable intercession of the Blessed Virgin. You know well the intimate and wonderful relations existing between her and the Holy Spirit, so that She is justly called his spouse. **

• Pope Leo XIII, Divinum illud, May 9,1897*

…and many, many others.

-Tim-

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I was raised Protestant, so pardon my confusion: from the foregoing, it appears to be Catholic dogma that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was deliberately unconsummated, and hence, in fact, fraudulent. I’m honestly puzzled why this position is somehow perceived as more respectful to Christ’s mother than the contrary. If anything, it seems far more respectful to the Blessed Mother to assume that her marriage was legitimate, and not a sham! Can anyone help clear up this seeming contradiction in Catholic teaching?

 

[JoeT777]

The ‘Law’ permitted Joseph to allow Mary to keep her ascetic vow. It still remains speculation whether or not Joseph and Mary were ascetic in the proper sense.

Mary is the Lord’s spouse. The flesh of the two becomes one flesh. [Cf. Ephesians 5:31-32]. The soul of anybody joined to the word of God is a supernatural marriage, the spiritual substance becomes one. [Cf. St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book XXII] Mary vowed to join God receiving the Incarnate Word within her, literally and figuratively encompassing the Word of God, the Lord’s son. Her oath of fidelity made her the handmaiden of the Lord, i.e. the spousal like relationship with God.

Not all vows in antiquity were deep commitments; nevertheless, failure to succeed meant spiritual ruin. Asceticism was practiced hundreds of years before Christ and still practiced today.

The spouse of the Lord desires her union with the Lord with a humble love for her groom:

Do not consider me that I am brown, because the sun hath altered my color: the sons of my mother have fought against me, they have made me the keeper in the vineyards: my vineyard I have not kept. shew me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou liest in the midday, lest I begin to wander after the flocks of thy companions. If thou know not thyself, O fairest among women, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids beside the tents of the shepherds. To my company of horsemen, in Pharao’s chariots, have I likened thee, O my love. Thy cheeks are beautiful as the turtledove’s, thy neck as jewels. We will make thee chains of gold, inlaid with silver. [Canticles 1:5-10]

According to Susanna Elm, author of Virgins of God. The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. . . asceticism was not unusual. Sometimes the ascetic made vows of physical prowess, suffering training as an athlete suffers building strength. Others made vows of abstinence, or limiting food or drink, not unlike fasting. One obvious biblical example is Christ’s fasting for 40 days and 40 nights.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficialities: ‘Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. . . . Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty…whether you are short or tall’ (c. Matthew 25:1-13; Aprociphal Acts of Paul 8.105- 09, Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity)

Mary lived out her vows in the customs of Judaism vowing to dedicate her life to God. Those who practiced a divinely inspired asceticism usually take a solemn vow; “He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa). Such a vow espouses Mary to God, a vow that not even the Sanhedrin can break. Only a husband of a young woman had a right to cause her to break the vow. There is a proviso; the husband must object on the spot of hearing his bride has made a solemn vow to God. If the husband fails to speak-out at the appropriate time, the husband must stand aside allowing the woman to fulfill her word. Mary is, as the substance of the vow dictates, the spouse of God, and her earthly husband’s role is to assist or join her in a similar vow. The Gospels of Luke and Matthew, as well as The Protoevangelium of James, indicate St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had both made such vows. Joseph acted as support for his earthly wife “Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. . . Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.” [Matthew 1:18-19] The indication that Joseph was a “just man” had cultural meaning related to the vows ascetics. Unlike some of us today who believe vows are meant to broken, being a “just man” implied that Joseph followed the law of Moses impeccably.

We see that the husband’s right to veto goes back to Moses. Joseph was a just man, sanctified; not wanting Mary to be ‘put away’, consequently, Joseph withheld his veto.

If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. If she vowed and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.

But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity. These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house. [Numbers 30:11-17]

Mary’s response to Gabriel’s annunciation was a humble vow of fidelity, consistent with Temple rites of marriage. Thus, we hold the New Eve bore God’s eternal new Adam in the form of a sacrificial lamb. She carried Him across the dark seas of sin to the shores of our redemption. The Ever-Virgin Mary is the Ark of everlasting life, the mother of our Salvation, and the Queen of Heaven.

JoeT

 

[Le_Cracquere]

So with enough contortions and historiography, one can indeed divest marriage of what ordinary men take to be one of its sine qua non properties. Given current events, I’m not sure that’s comforting.

But if it’s so, all that’s an argument for Mary & Joseph’s not getting married in the first place: if she was “the spouse of the Holy Ghost” in the senses you claim, then of course Joseph would’ve been wrong to lay a hand on her. But he would’ve been no less wrong to consent to a marriage ceremony, live in the same house as she did, and go around letting people refer to him as her husband, or her his wife.

In the end, there’s no suggesting that Joseph & Mary weren’t really husband and wife that doesn’t end up besmirching them on other grounds. (This assumes that the common Protestant assumption somehow “besmirches” them in the first place–that, as Catholics seem to believe, ordinary, legitimate marriage is for spiritual second-raters and somehow unworthy of Mary)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

So with enough contortions and historiography, one can indeed divest marriage of what ordinary men take to be one of its sine qua non properties. Given current events, I’m not sure that’s comforting.

But if it’s so, all that’s an argument for Mary & Joseph’s not getting married in the first place: if she was “the spouse of the Holy Ghost” in the senses you claim, then of course Joseph would’ve been wrong to lay a hand on her. But he would’ve been no less wrong to consent to a marriage ceremony, live in the same house as she did, and go around letting people refer to him as her husband, or her his wife.

In the end, there’s no suggesting that Joseph & Mary weren’t really husband and wife that doesn’t end up besmirching them on other grounds. (This assumes that the common Protestant assumption somehow “besmirches” them in the first place–that, as Catholics seem to believe, ordinary, legitimate marriage is for spiritual second-raters and somehow unworthy of Mary)

You have somehow entirely missed the point of JoeT777’s excellent post which defends the marriage of the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph under Mosaic Law.

But you have also jumped to a wrong conclusion. The fact that Mary and Joseph had a unique marriage, by the Will of God, in fulfillment of the prophecies, does not somehow denigrate a regular consummated marriage. In fact their marriage actually raises the dignity of the married state, and offers us an example of how God must always come first, even in the married state.

The Protestant view of these things is mercurial and ever changing. But there was a time when even the Reformers would not have objected to these things.

 

[jmjconder]

**I have had questions about my statement below and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and why it is a “big deal” for Catholics.

…and “their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation.”

**

The Four Marian Teachings of Mary are Dogma’s of the Catholic Church. This is the definition of Dogma from Father John Hardon.

DOGMA. Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover,*** their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation.***

They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)

 

[EphelDuath]

I was raised Protestant, so pardon my confusion: from the foregoing, it appears to be Catholic dogma that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was deliberately unconsummated, and hence, in fact, fraudulent. I’m honestly puzzled why this position is somehow perceived as more respectful to Christ’s mother than the contrary. If anything, it seems far more respectful to the Blessed Mother to assume that her marriage was legitimate, and not a sham! Can anyone help clear up this seeming contradiction in Catholic teaching?

Explain to me how an unconsummated marriage is a sham. If two very elderly people marry but are unable to have intercourse, would that be a sham as well?

 

[Evan]

So with enough contortions and historiography, one can indeed divest marriage of what ordinary men take to be one of its sine qua non properties. Given current events, I’m not sure that’s comforting.

I would replace ordinary in your post with** modern** men. It is not unheard of for people to marry with the understanding that their marriage remain unconsummated.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_marriage

The Blessed Louis and Zélie Martin professed to enter a spiritual marriage, but consummated a year later when directed by their confessor to do so.[1] Of their nine children the five who survived to adulthood all became nuns, including Saint Thérèse de Lisieux.

Occasionally, spiritual marriages may also be entered later in life, with the renunciation of sexual relations after raising a family to fully dedicate oneself to God. In October 2001 John Paul II beatified a married couple, Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocchi, who bore four children, but later in life lived separately and committed to a Josephite marriage

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Here it is proved that Mary did not remain a virgin.

No argument holds against the canonical Mary having begot James & Joses, these are of the number of the brothers & sisters of Jesus, the only mediator between God & man, the Son of God, the very essence of God

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature (Colossians 1.15)

Jesus is not God, Jesus is the concept of God. God is an object, existence himself, Jesus is a concept, the essence of existence. Jesus is begot of God’s original introspection.
Don’t you see?

 

[jmjconder]

Here it is proved that Mary did not remain a virgin.

No argument holds against the canonical Mary having begot James & Joses, these are of the number of the brothers & sisters of Jesus, the only mediator between God & man, the Son of God, the very essence of God

Jesus is not God, Jesus is the concept of God. God is an object, existence himself, Jesus is a concept, the essence of existence. Jesus is begot of God’s original introspection.
Don’t you see?

Your link is from a banned CAF person.

 

[EphelDuath]

Here it is proved that Mary did not remain a virgin.

No argument holds against the canonical Mary having begot James & Joses, these are of the number of the brothers & sisters of Jesus, the only mediator between God & man, the Son of God, the very essence of God

“Mary mother of James and John” is a different figure from the Blessed Virgin (note how many people named Mary there are in the New Testament; Mary & Martha, Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of God, Mary wife of Zebedee, etc.).

Calling one your “firstborn” does not mean you had a second-born, because the firstborn had special rights in Hebrew law. The ambiguity is a result of the difficulty in translating the Greek into English; in the original Greek, it is much more grammatically clear that Mary did not necessarily have children or relations with man after the birth of Jesus.

And yes, James is called the “brother of the Lord”, but note that the Greek word used there can indicate any level of familial relations, including cousin.

Jesus is not God, Jesus is the concept of God. God is an object, existence himself, Jesus is a concept, the essence of existence. Jesus is begot of God’s original introspection.
Don’t you see?

Sorry, I will go with the infallible Church established by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 and 1 Timothy 3:15 on this one. Jesus Christ is the Son, and fully God.

God bless

 

[davidv]

Here it is proved that Mary did not remain a virgin.

No argument holds against the canonical Mary having begot James & Joses, these are of the number of the brothers & sisters of Jesus, the only mediator between God & man, the Son of God, the very essence of God

Jesus is not God, Jesus is the concept of God. God is an object, existence himself, Jesus is a concept, the essence of existence. Jesus is begot of God’s original introspection.
Don’t you see?

No I don’t see. Lies blind one to the truth.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

No I don’t see. Lies blind one to the truth.

Thou sayest it.

 

[EphelDuath]

Sheshbazzar, do you believe in Matthew 16:18-19 and 1 Timothy 3:15?

 

[Sheshbazzar]

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no Jesus the Christ. (Matthew 16.16-20)

Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me [by saying God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit]. (Luke 22.28-34)

Twelve apostles, twelve tribes. They, the 144000 = 12 * 2 * 6000, shall judge the twelve tribes.
They are the two witnesses, the two olive trees. Two, because

in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established

No, Peter isn’t the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Peter that did not repent, it is not even Judas Iscariot. The Catholic religion is an offspring of Babylon, that great city.

 

[EphelDuath]

No, Peter isn’t the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Peter that did not repent, it is not even Judas Iscariot. The Catholic religion is an offspring of Babylon, that great city.

So Peter (which literally means “rock”) isn’t the rock that Christ built His Church on, against which the forces of hell will not prevail?

I’m sorry, but your false interpretations of the Bible cannot save you, only Jesus can! So I would strongly recommend looking for your personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Church that He founded (Mt. 16:18-19), succeeding directly from the apostles that Jesus appointed (cf. Acts 1). I also encourage you to disparage personal interpretation of scripture which is strongly condemned by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3, and follow the Church which the Apostle Paul calls the bulwark and pillar of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

God bless!

 

[zz912]

*Exodus 25:16 **In the ark you are to put the covenant which I will give you. **

21 This cover you shall then place on top of the ark. In the ark itself you are to put the covenant which I will give you. 22 There I will meet you and there, from above the cover, between the two cherubim on the ark of the covenant, I will tell you all that I command you regarding the Israelites.*

The Ark contains the covenant of the Lord. Mary contained the Lord Himself, who IS the the New Covenant.

*Numbers 4:5 In breaking camp, Aaron and his sons shall go in and take down the screening curtain and cover the ark of the covenant with it.

15 Only after Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sacred objects and all their utensils on breaking camp, can the Kohathites enter to carry them. But they shall not touch the sacred objects; if they do they will die. These, then, are the objects in the tent of meeting that the Kohathites shall carry. 16 Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, shall be in charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the established grain offering, and the anointing oil. He shall be in charge of the whole tabernacle with all the sacred objects and utensils that are in it. 17 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 18 Do not let the group of Kohathite clans perish from among the Levites. 19 That they may live and not die when they approach the most sacred objects, this is what you shall do for them: Aaron and his sons shall go in and assign to each of them his task and what he must carry; 20** but the Kohathites shall not go in to look upon the sacred objects even for an instant, or they will die**.*

Note the care that is taken, and how holy objects that are reserved to God are handled, and must be respected, and not to be touched.

2 Sam 6:1 David again assembled all the picked men of Israel, thirty thousand in number. 2 Then David and all the people who were with him set out for Baala of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which bears the name “the LORD of hosts enthroned above the cherubim.” 3 They transported the ark of God on a new cart and took it away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the cart, 4
with Ahio walking before it, 5 while David and all the house of Israel danced before the LORD with all their might, with singing, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals. 6 As they reached the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were tipping it. 7 Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there in God’s presence. 8 David was angry because the LORD’s wrath had broken out against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been called Perez-uzzah even to this day. 9 David became frightened of the LORD that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” 10 So David was unwilling to take the ark of the LORD with him into the City of David. David deposited it instead at the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 11 The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household. 12 When it was reported to King David that the LORD had blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that he possessed because of the ark of God, David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom into the City of David with joy. 13 As soon as the bearers of the ark of the LORD had advanced six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. 14 Then David came dancing before the LORD with abandon, girt with a linen ephod. 15 David and all the house of Israel were bringing up the ark of the LORD with shouts of joy and sound of horn. 16 As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal, daughter of Saul, looked down from her window, and when she saw King David jumping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart. 17 They brought in the ark of the LORD and set it in its place within the tent which David had pitched for it. Then David sacrificed burnt offerings and communion offerings before the LORD.

Notice, the activities done in the presence of the Ark is done “before the Lord”. And also, notice how David is incorrectly bringing up the Ark in a cart, when it was declared that it was to always be carried by the poles by Kohathites.

We should carefully study the Old Covenant (OT), to better understand the New Covenant (NT).

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

*Exodus 25:16 **In the ark you are to put the covenant which I will give you. ***

21 This cover you shall then place on top of the ark. In the ark itself you are to put the covenant which I will give you. 22 There I will meet you and there, from above the cover, between the two cherubim on the ark of the covenant, I will tell you all that I command you regarding the Israelites.

The Ark contains the covenant of the Lord. Mary contained the Lord Himself, who IS the the New Covenant.

Numbers 4:5 In breaking camp, Aaron and his sons shall go in and take down the screening curtain and cover the ark of the covenant with it.

15 Only after Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sacred objects and all their utensils on breaking camp, can the Kohathites enter to carry them. But they shall not touch the sacred objects; if they do they will die. These, then, are the objects in the tent of meeting that the Kohathites shall carry. 16 Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, shall be in charge of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, the established grain offering, and the anointing oil. He shall be in charge of the whole tabernacle with all the sacred objects and utensils that are in it. 17 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 18 Do not let the group of Kohathite clans perish from among the Levites. 19 That they may live and not die when they approach the most sacred objects, this is what you shall do for them: Aaron and his sons shall go in and assign to each of them his task and what he must carry; 20** but the Kohathites shall not go in to look upon the sacred objects even for an instant, or they will die**.

Note the care that is taken, and how holy objects that are reserved to God are handled, and must be respected, and not to be touched.

2 Sam 6:1 David again assembled all the picked men of Israel, thirty thousand in number. 2 Then David and all the people who were with him set out for Baala of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which bears the name “the LORD of hosts enthroned above the cherubim.” 3 They transported the ark of God on a new cart and took it away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the cart, 4
with Ahio walking before it, 5 while David and all the house of Israel danced before the LORD with all their might, with singing, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals. 6 As they reached the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were tipping it. 7 Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there in God’s presence. 8 David was angry because the LORD’s wrath had broken out against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been called Perez-uzzah even to this day. 9 David became frightened of the LORD that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” 10 So David was unwilling to take the ark of the LORD with him into the City of David. David deposited it instead at the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 11 The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite for three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household. 12 When it was reported to King David that the LORD had blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that he possessed because of the ark of God, David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom into the City of David with joy. 13 As soon as the bearers of the ark of the LORD had advanced six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. 14 Then David came dancing before the LORD with abandon, girt with a linen ephod. 15 David and all the house of Israel were bringing up the ark of the LORD with shouts of joy and sound of horn. 16 As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal, daughter of Saul, looked down from her window, and when she saw King David jumping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart. 17 They brought in the ark of the LORD and set it in its place within the tent which David had pitched for it. Then David sacrificed burnt offerings and communion offerings before the LORD.

Notice, the activities done in the presence of the Ark is done “before the Lord”. And also, notice how David is incorrectly bringing up the Ark in a cart, when it was declared that it was to always be carried by the poles by Kohathites.

We should carefully study the Old Covenant (OT), to better understand the New Covenant (NT).

By that logic anyone that touched Jesus or Mary would have dropped dead which we know wasn’t the case.

 

[Della]

By that logic anyone that touched Jesus or Mary would have dropped dead which we know wasn’t the case.

No it doesn’t lead to that conclusion. In the case of the Ark of the Covenant and Mary’s virginity it signifies that they were set aside for God–overshadowed by the divine. Only certain men, priests appointed by God, were allowed to touch the Ark because of this, which foreshadowed no man having contact with Mary’s virginity. This ensured that Jesus’ claim to having been engendered by God could not be challenged. If she had had other children it could easily be claimed that they were Joseph’s children, as well.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No it doesn’t lead to that conclusion. In the case of the Ark of the Covenant and Mary’s virginity it signifies that they were set aside for God–overshadowed by the divine. Only certain men, priests appointed by God, were allowed to touch the Ark because of this, which foreshadowed no man having contact with Mary’s virginity. This ensured that Jesus’ claim to having been engendered by God could not be challenged. If she had had other children it could easily be claimed that they were Joseph’s children, as well.

It what the arc contained that gave it power. Not the box itself.