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

[Della]

Do you think he is correct with this assertion?

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

He was human. All humans are fallible.

Here I think he hits the mark

It is apparent you have little understanding of St. Paul and his mission to make your own assertions about his words. But, to answer your question, of course St. Paul was correct in everything he wrote. If the Church had any problems with his words, they would not have been included in the NT. Remember, it was the Church that decided which books were included–that is important.

If you want to discuss St. Paul’s words in this passage of I Cor. you should start a new thread. Having said that, your arguments against St. Paul are only meant to try to make your point regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. Casting doubts upon St. Paul is not going to do it, I can assure you. You may want to read a reliable Bible commentary on St. Paul’s writings, such as: Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary.

 

[YADA]

What’s your source for this?

The Essenes seem to be the only ones that took it up.

myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Jewish_Approaches/Celibacy.shtml

No - that is not true … did you not see my post regarding Numbers Chapter 30 … while it is true that for a majority of us - a life of chastity is not our vocation - it is and always has been a vocation for a certain percentage of the population - and - in the Jewish experience - a practice for which rules were written - long before the Essenes

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is apparent you have little understanding of St. Paul and his mission to make your own assertions about his words. But, to answer your question, of course St. Paul was correct in everything he wrote. If the Church had any problems with his words, they would not have been included in the NT. Remember, it was the Church that decided which books were included–that is important.

If you want to discuss St. Paul’s words in this passage of I Cor. you should start a new thread. Having said that, your arguments against St. Paul are only meant to try to make your point regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. Casting doubts upon St. Paul is not going to do it, I can assure you. You may want to read a reliable Bible commentary on St. Paul’s writings, such as: Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary.

I’ve been at many a mass where a woman was at the lectern. So the Church must have thought that maybe Paul’s views need a more nuanced approach. There seems to be a disconnect.

My only point was I don’t understand the value or importance placed on virginity. It would seem that as adult humans the ideal would be to seek out a mate. Until we are married it’s good to be chaste but once we are adults and can marry, it seems like we are shunning our God given gifts.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No - that is not true … did you not see my post regarding Numbers Chapter 30 … while it is true that for a majority of us - a life of chastity is not our vocation - it is and always has been a vocation for a certain percentage of the population - and - in the Jewish experience - a practice for which rules were written - long before the Essenes

What I took away from reading Numbers 30 is any oath that a woman took could be loosed by either her Husband or her Father. It doesn’t mention celibacy explicitly.Celibacy in Judaism seems to be not the ideal.

 

[YADA]

What I took away from reading Numbers 30 is any oath that a woman took could be loosed by either her Husband or her Father. It doesn’t mention celibacy explicitly.Celibacy in Judaism seems to be not the ideal.

Loosed yes - but only if done immediately …

And while it may cover any oath - the primary vow taken to the Lord was in service - and which meant taking a vow of celibacy

You want to down play this because it does not fit your preconceived notions - especially where those ‘notions’ collide with your views on Mary and Joseph …

All of the reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary … why should any Christian take your viewpoint - your opinion - your interpretation of Scriptures - a view point that is really less then 300 years old - over and above the previous 1700 years of Christian understanding, thought, belief and interpretation … ?

You want to use and twist the Scriptures - impose your understanding upon them [making yourself the arbiter of belief - a quasi pope] while at the same time decrying Christians who not only have read and studied the scriptures for themselves but studied the early Christian writings, archaeological records, non Christian early writings, etc … and then lambaste us for holding our faith in Communion with the temporal leadership of the Church Christ himself founded, the Church for which He established its first leadership and offices and ALSO the Church He promised to protect from the enemy -

Sorry - this Christian is not going to be persuaded by your lame interpretations …

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Loosed yes - but only if done immediately …

And while it may cover any oath - the primary vow taken to the Lord was in service - and which meant taking a vow of celibacy

What is your basis for this? It’s not generally practiced in Judaism. Most Rabbi’s marry.

 

[YADA]

What is your basis for this? It’s not generally practiced in Judaism. Most Rabbi’s marry.

The fact that ‘most’ rabbis marry is a factor how? Most people marry - some do not … many people engage in sexual intercourse but others go a life time without …

Numbers Chapter 30 clearly is referencing vows of chastity in service to the Lord … and it was important enough in the lives of the Hebrews that Moses codified it in Scriptures …

I know - you don’t see the word ‘chastity’ mentioned - just a “Vow unto the Lord” …

but lets look at this in context …

You tell me - just what promise could a young girl make to the Lord that would be so serious and perpetual that a Father might be moved to negate it upon becoming aware of it? What vow made to the Lord by one’s wife would cause her husband to say … No - no way, no how - not going to happen! … and - if her vow is forced to be broken - would come with a severe penalty meted out by God himself - in that her sin in breaking the vow becomes the husband’s or father’s? Think - use your head …

I vow unto the Lord to live in accordance with the 10 Commandments … um - no daughter [wife] that ain’t allowed - I tell you no!

I vow to be the best version of myself and to serve God with all my heart … um - no daughter [wife] that ain’t allowed - I tell you no!..

I vow unto the Lord to abstain from eating meat the rest of my life … um - um - no daughter [wife] that ain’t allowed - I tell you you will eat steak!

How about -

I vow to live only unto the Lord - to abstain from marriage [or sexual relations] - but to live a life totally focused and solely in service to God …

Now that Vow [in a culture where marriages were arranged and brought value to a household - where children were seen as a blessing and necessary for survival … now that is a Vow - that has impact … A vow that a young person could make rashly [and therefore would need to be negated] … but also a vow that - if made by a mature person - who understood all that the vow meant and by one who desired to dedicate their life in service to God …would come with serious consequences if broken - by either one making the vow - or the one compelling the vow to be broken

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Celibacy isn’t practiced in Judaism as a condition of service. The ones that are most “in service” are the clergy. Jewish clergy marry.

I don’t see where you are drawing a vow of celibacy from. It’s not part of the tradition of Judaism.

 

[Della]

I’ve been at many a mass where a woman was at the lectern. So the Church must have thought that maybe Paul’s views need a more nuanced approach. There seems to be a disconnect.

No. Women reading the readings of the day is not the same thing as preaching/teaching during the liturgy. St. Paul is talking about when the Church gathers for corporate worship, i.e. the Mass. I have taught outside the Mass and I write apologetics here. If your interpretation were correct, I could do neither of those things.

My only point was I don’t understand the value or importance placed on virginity. It would seem that as adult humans the ideal would be to seek out a mate. Until we are married it’s good to be chaste but once we are adults and can marry, it seems like we are shunning our God given gifts.

Again, no. We are not commanded to marry. It is a gift and a privilege to do so, as it is to offer one’s virginity to God. Both are of God, as Jesus and St. Paul clearly told us.

 

[Church_Militant]

No. Women reading the readings of the day is not the same thing as preaching/teaching during the liturgy. St. Paul is talking about when the Church gathers for corporate worship, i.e. the Mass. I have taught outside the Mass and I write apologetics here. If your interpretation were correct, I could do neither of those things.

Again, no. We are not commanded to marry. It is a gift and a privilege to do so, as it is to offer one’s virginity to God. Both are of God, as Jesus and St. Paul clearly told us.

Della is quite correct. And in fact it cannot happen since the Gospel must be read by either a deacon or priest and the homily must be delivered by either one as well. Since we know that there can be no women priests, then you are mistaken.

BTW…Della is very good at her apologetics around here, and her parish is lucky to have her.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve been at many a mass where a woman was at the lectern. So the Church must have thought that maybe Paul’s views need a more nuanced approach. There seems to be a disconnect.

Yes. A disconnect between the Bishop’s office and the pastor’s desk…

 

[YADA]

Celibacy isn’t practiced in Judaism as a condition of service. The ones that are most “in service” are the clergy. Jewish clergy marry.

I don’t see where you are drawing a vow of celibacy from. It’s not part of the tradition of Judaism.

What you fail to understand is that one can vow celibacy to the Lord whether is is required or not …

and celibacy was practiced in ancient times - as well as during the time Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist and Jesus walked the earth [you yourself acknowledged the Essenes - contemporary with Mary & Joseph]

See a discussion here from Anthony Opisso, M.D. - complete with sources:

Celibacy according to tradition

Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives <(Zohar Hadash> 2:1; 30, 105, 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the “Divine Presence”) in the Torah <(Zohar re Gn> 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the <Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya)>. It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: “He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood” (Rabbi Eliezer in 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also <Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) >section< Evenhar-Ezer> 1:1,3,4). According to 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: "Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. “Man”).

Nevertheless, “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned” <(Skulkhan Arukh EH> 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth” <(Sotah> 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul <(Yebamoth> 63b). He was an outstanding scholar <(Kiddushin> 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness <(Berakoth> 57b, B.T.).

Other celibates

Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu’im (lit. “chaste ones”) to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in “perfect purity” <(Kiddushin> 71a; 3:11; <Yer. yoma> 39a, 40a). Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5). Philo (<Apol. pro Judaeis> IX, 14-17), Josephus, <(Antiq>. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus ( IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea. Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. “Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth” (Philo, . 68; see also Philo, . 100).

For “the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light” <(Zohar> 11. 229b-230a). Because “if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions… it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation” (Philo, . 1.5). Conversely, “the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing… the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable” (Philo, <Q. Gen>.IV.245).

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Della is quite correct. And in fact it cannot happen since the Gospel must be read by either a deacon or priest and the homily must be delivered by either one as well. Since we know that there can be no women priests, then you are mistaken.

BTW…Della is very good at her apologetics around here, and her parish is lucky to have her.

Paul didn’t qualify this part of the Mass was ok and another wasn’t -

34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.i
35 But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

Woman should be silent. Pretty straight forward. Reading the first or second reading would qualify as speaking. Clearly the Church diverged from Paul’s instruction.

But the thread is about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. If you’d like to discuss it more I’d be happy to on another thread.

 

[kmcarl56]

I have not seen any reference to the Bible verses which state:

"Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue.

"And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! IS THIS NOT THE CARPENTER, THE SON OF MARY, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? AND ARE NOT HIS SISTERS HERE WITH US?’ So they were offended at Him.

"But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, AMONG HIS OWN RELATIVES, and in his own house.’ " (Mark 6:1-3, emphasis added, see also Matthew 13:54-57)

People in Nazareth did not accept Jesus’ words strictly in the light of Old Testament scripture. Instead, they thought that somebody they grew up knowing and the family they knew well could not possibly be closer to God than they were! They did not accept Jesus’ words at first. It wasn’t until his was near 30 years old that He began His teachings in Nazareth. He had an earthly family with Mary and Joseph until then. He was just a carpenter’s son, as far as anyone knew until then. He learned scripture and played with other children.

So why would Mary and Joseph, as husband and wife, think that God did not want them to have any other children? God did not *forbid *them to have other children. Rather, they would have followed tradition, as well as God’s commandment to procreate, and had many children.

In conclusion, Jesus DID have brothers and sisters — in fact, several of them! Including him, Mary gave birth to FIVE boys and at least TWO girls, for a family of SEVEN children!

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

What you fail to understand is that one can vow celibacy to the Lord whether is is required or not …

and celibacy was practiced in ancient times - as well as during the time Mary and Joseph and John the Baptist and Jesus walked the earth [you yourself acknowledged the Essenes - contemporary with Mary & Joseph]

See a discussion here from Anthony Opisso, M.D. - complete with sources:

I found the article on line -

ewtn.com/library/answers/talmud.htm

Skimming it I found something suspect - He sites the Zenun’im as Chaste ones

zenunim means fornication

biblesuite.com/hebrew/2183.htm

In Zoharistic Kabbalah, Eisheth Zenunim is one of the four angels of sacred prostitution, the mates of the archangel Samael.[citation needed] Her fellow succubi are Lilith, Naamah, and Agrat Bat Mahlat. She is found in the Zohar 1:5a-b as isheth zennanim or qodeshah. She eats the souls of the damned in Jewish mythology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisheth

bethcoleman.net/angelqueen.html

I’m not saying that all his references are suspect but until I can look into it, I tend to disregard it.

 

[TimothyH]

I have not seen any reference to the Bible verses which state:

"Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue.

"And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! IS THIS NOT THE CARPENTER, THE SON OF MARY, AND BROTHER OF JAMES, JOSES, JUDAS, AND SIMON? AND ARE NOT HIS SISTERS HERE WITH US?’ So they were offended at Him.

"But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, AMONG HIS OWN RELATIVES, and in his own house.’ " (Mark 6:1-3, emphasis added, see also Matthew 13:54-57)

People in Nazareth did not accept Jesus’ words strictly in the light of Old Testament scripture. Instead, they thought that somebody they grew up knowing and the family they knew well could not possibly be closer to God than they were! They did not accept Jesus’ words at first. It wasn’t until his was near 30 years old that He began His teachings in Nazareth. He had an earthly family with Mary and Joseph until then. He was just a carpenter’s son, as far as anyone knew until then. He learned scripture and played with other children.

So why would Mary and Joseph, as husband and wife, think that God did not want them to have any other children? God did not *forbid *them to have other children. Rather, they would have followed tradition, as well as God’s commandment to procreate, and had many children.

In conclusion, Jesus DID have brothers and sisters — in fact, several of them! Including him, Mary gave birth to FIVE boys and at least TWO girls, for a family of SEVEN children!

Your conclusion is faulty and shows the ignorance many have about the way Jewish families lived. I don’t mean ignorance as an insult, that you are an ignorant person, but just that many simply don’t know.

Many extended families lived together. Typically brothers would live together with their wives and children. Mothers and fathers would care for all of the children communally. This is how Mary and Joseph could loose Jesus in the caravan when he was twelve years old. They assumed that an aunt or uncle was taking care of Jesus. All the children were “brothers” and were cared for communally.

There was no word for cousin, nor aunt nor uncle, nor niece nor nephew.

Now the son of Paul’s sister heard of their ambush; so he went and entered the barracks and told Paul. (Acts 23:16)

Luke refers to Paul’s nephew as “the son of his sister”. Luke doesn’t use the word nephew because there was no such word. Some Bibles identify James and Joseph as Jesus’ brothers but they were most likely cousins - brother is used because of the way cousins lived closely together as “brothers” and because there was no word for cousin.

Lot was Abraham’s nephew but he is not referred to as such.

And Abram took Sar’ai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had gathered… (Genesis 12:5)

Later lot is referred to as Abraham’s “kinsman”.

Understanding how families lived helps us understand the scriptures. Many however, interpret the scriptures in light of modern life and this how they misinterpret the scriptures and get themselves into trouble. Jews in the first century lived much different lives than Americans and Western Europeans in the 21st century.

The correct conclusion is that Jesus had many cousins and that all of these would have been referred to as “brothers” as was the common practice in the ancient middle-east.

-Tim-

 

[YADA]

I found the article on line -

ewtn.com/library/answers/talmud.htm

Skimming it I found something suspect - He sites the Zenun’im as Chaste ones

zenunim means fornication

biblesuite.com/hebrew/2183.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisheth

bethcoleman.net/angelqueen.html

I’m not saying that all his references are suspect but until I can look into it, I tend to disregard it.

you can disregard everything and anything you desire to hold fast to your personal view point …

You admit that the Essene’s practice this - but ignore that they were contemporary to Mary and Joseph… You ignore that people yesterday, today and tomorrow live and will live - by choice - chaste and celibate lives - some for their entire life times. And many do this to serve in a singularly focused manner for the Lord.

You ignore that for 1700 years Christianity believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. You ignore that many people - who have studied the Scriptures, writings from antiquity - both Christian and non-Christian - recognize that there were/are celibate practices and who refer to Mary as being “ever Virgin” … because you are more intelligent - more enlightened - …

You ignore that references to brothers can have other meanings beyond mere blood relatives … and even if the brothers referred to in scripture were familial - that they have to be children of Mary - not step siblings [ie children of Joseph prior to his betrothal to Mary] … you know all of this without question - in opposition to all those Christians who came before - and not just Catholic Christians - but protestants like Calvin, Luther, et al …

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

you can disregard everything and anything you desire to hold fast to your personal view point …

You admit that the Essene’s practice this - but ignore that they were contemporary to Mary and Joseph… You ignore that people yesterday, today and tomorrow live and will live - by choice - chaste and celibate lives - some for their entire life times. And many do this to serve in a singularly focused manner for the Lord.

You ignore that for 1700 years Christianity believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. You ignore that many people - who have studied the Scriptures, writings from antiquity - both Christian and non-Christian - recognize that there were/are celibate practices and who refer to Mary as being “ever Virgin” … because you are more intelligent - more enlightened - …

You ignore that references to brothers can have other meanings beyond mere blood relatives … and even if the brothers referred to in scripture were familial - that they have to be children of Mary - not step siblings [ie children of Joseph prior to his betrothal to Mary] … you know all of this without question - in opposition to all those Christians who came before - and not just Catholic Christians - but protestants like Calvin, Luther, et al …

I’m not ignoring anything. I just get the importance that is placed on Virginity. Seeing that it wasn’t a mainstream practice of the Jewish people.

The Essenes disappeared. Their model was faulty.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul didn’t qualify this part of the Mass was ok and another wasn’t -

Woman should be silent. Pretty straight forward. Reading the first or second reading would qualify as speaking. Clearly the Church diverged from Paul’s instruction.

Correct. This disqualifies the Catholic Church from being the true Church that Jesus founded on Peter the Rock.

 

[JoeT777]

BTW…Della is very good at her apologetics around here, and her parish is lucky to have her.

I’ll second that! And I’ll carry the water bucket.

JoeT