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

[Randy_Carson]

Some have been saying that viriginity is inharently better than marriage and by extension sex within marriage.

So did the Council of Trent, Session 24:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Anyone who says that virginity is not better than marriage, let him be anathema.

They are using 1 Cor as a source to back this up. I find their reasoning lacking.

Well, perhaps you will listen to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom

1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."115

1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.116

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119​

I offered that quote to point out that St. Paul acknowledges that Jesus didn’t speak to virgins.

Yes, he did, and the Catechism shows that I was right in quoting Jesus. Perhaps you don’t know what a eunuch is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Roscoe-

Your arguments concerning “until” in Matthew 1:25 have been completely disproved by evidence I have given you from scripture, the Early Church Fathers, the Protestant Reformers, modern Protestant scholars, and the extensive research done by John Pacheco on heos hou (until). Matthew 1:25 simply cannot be used as a proof text against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

To help you understand celibacy, I have given you scriptural support for the vocation, a canon from the Council of Trent, and several paragraphs from the Catechism. In short, celibacy is a gift from God that some are called to accept if they can, and it is considered to be more virtuous than the vocation of marriage.

Please let me know if you have any more questions.

 

[Cathoholic]

Some have been saying that virginity is inherently better than marriage . . .

That’d be me Roscoe (Cathoholic). Because that’s what the Church teaches too.

I was talking about virginity being higher in the “objective order”. Virginity is a higher state than non-virginity. That doesn’t mean everyone is called to that state.

My point was, if you can see the intrinsic value of virginity for the sake of the kingdom, then you will likely be able to see WHY the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Perpetual Virgin much easier.

If you cannot see this value, then it is going to be a tougher situation for you to see the title of this thread: “Mary’s Perpetual Virginity—What’s the Big Deal?”

If you cannot see the inherent value of virginity, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be impossible for you to see “Mary’s Perpetual Virginity—What’s the Big Deal?”

It just makes it tougher that’s all.

 

[Cathoholic]

Consider the Prophet Ezekiel’s Closed Gate Prophecy that Fr. John Morris alluded to.

Here is the verse (and here is the mind of the Church on this prophecy afterward).

EZEKIEL 44:1-3 1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. 3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.”

Back in the 300’s St. Ambrose thought this was pretty clear already.

“Who is this gate, if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” - Saint Ambrose of Milan (ca AD 390)

St. Augustine matter of factly talks about Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity in the context of Ezekiel’s closed gate prophecy too in the 400’s A.D.

“It is written: ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? **What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? **And what is this - ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.” - **Saint Augustine (ca AD 430) **

This has been standard Catholic catechesis too. Let’s go back to the 1500’s to see this discussed in the context of the Virginal Birth of Jesus . . .

ROMAN CATECHISM ** The mysteries of this admirable Conception and Nativity** being, therefore, so great and so numerous, it accorded with the plan of divine Providence to signify them by many types and prophecies. Hence the holy Fathers understood many things which we meet in the Sacred Scriptures to refer to these mysteries, particularly that gate of the sanctuary which Ezechiel saw closed; the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, which became a great mountain and filled the universe, of which we read in Daniel; the rod of Aaron, which alone budded of all the rods of the princes of Israel; and the bush which Moses saw burr without being consumed.’
—From The Roman Catechism Article III

Q: Concerning The Closed Gate Temple Prophecy of Ezekiel: WHO is the prophet Ezekiel talking about (WHO is “the Lord" and WHO is “the Gate”)?

(Hint: The Gate of the Temple in its fullest sense isn’t a mere building in Jerusalem as other men have traversed that gate and building)

Q: Is Jesus special enough to have dwelling place completely reserved for Him (that no other man can ever venture)?

(Hint: After all, you already think that the reason the Ark was so special is because of what was contained within it–I think the Ark was special after the Holy Spirit overshadowed it but I won’t dispute this thought of yours in detail here)

Q: Is this type of situation utterly holy and sacred and thus deserved to be talked about with great reverence and reservation, and not explicitly and profanely? Roscoe, I am not accusing YOU of talking about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity “explicitly and profanely” incidentally. I am just saying there are good reasons for Scripture and the Fathers to treat this subject delicately and not treat it “clinically”.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

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-

It is significant to note that there was NO Hebrew prophecy of a Virgin Birth.
Shocking? Here’s a Hebrew lesson for you…
There are two distinctly different Hebrew words: Alma and Betulah. One translates as “Virgin” while the other translates as “young woman”. The word used by Isaiah was the one that translates as “young woman”.
It is important to note, however, that young women… in those days… kept their virginity until they got married. To do otherwise would bring shame and disgrace to the entire family. So while the original Hebrew did not call for a Virgin Birth, that possibility is not precluded. However, it has no bearing on my faith in Jesus. My faith in Him is based not on His Mother, but on what He taught to the people of His time.
Now, you might think that what I’m saying is blasphemy, but it’s not. ALL prophecies surrounding the Messiah came from the Old Testament…which can never be changed! They were written in Hebrew. Therefore, it is important to have the correct translation in order to capture the true meaning behind the prophecies.
And how would I know any of this? I did spend a year at Hebrew school during my youth, and still remember some of the things I was taught. Torahs are not printed in English, Spanish, French, German, Greek, or Latin. They are all written in Hebrew, and are identical to the Torah scrolls from the time of Jesus. When they are read in Hebrew services, it is always done in Hebrew…NOT English or any other language.
Food for thought.

 

[geekborj]

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.

As the others have answered: It is not necessary. But as it is also a fact that she indeed remained a virgin perpetually. This fact is also reasonable. It follows from the fact that if Mary already have known God in Christ, why would she ever want to be non-virgin? How could THAT make her more happy? Being virgin perpetually is a taste of heaven where happiness resides on the beatific vision of God ALONE and no other. God is ALL, literally. What will be the point of becoming non-virgin or having offsprings besides the Son of God? Can the Mother of God be happier by having an additional role?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

So did the Council of Trent, Session 24:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Anyone who says that virginity is not better than marriage, let him be anathema.

Well, perhaps you will listen to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom

1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."115

1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.116

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119​

Yes, he did, and the Catechism shows that I was right in quoting Jesus. Perhaps you don’t know what a eunuch is.

I’m not arguing against the perpetual Virginity of Mary. I’m only asking why it matters.

Although unlikely to change celibacy for the clergy in the Catholic Church isn’t dogmatic but a matter of tradition. The Orthodox Churches in full communion with Rome allow marriage.

Even Pope Francis says “It is a matter of discipline, not of faith. It can change.” in “On the Heavens and the Earth”

Marriage is a sacrament. Celibacy is not. It is part of Holy Orders but isn’t a sacrament in itself.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

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.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It is significant to note that there was NO Hebrew prophecy of a Virgin Birth.
Shocking? Here’s a Hebrew lesson for you…
There are two distinctly different Hebrew words: Alma and Betulah. One translates as “Virgin” while the other translates as “young woman”. The word used by Isaiah was the one that translates as “young woman”.
It is important to note, however, that young women… in those days… kept their virginity until they got married. To do otherwise would bring shame and disgrace to the entire family. So while the original Hebrew did not call for a Virgin Birth, that possibility is not precluded. However, it has no bearing on my faith in Jesus. My faith in Him is based not on His Mother, but on what He taught to the people of His time.
Now, you might think that what I’m saying is blasphemy, but it’s not. ALL prophecies surrounding the Messiah came from the Old Testament…which can never be changed! They were written in Hebrew. Therefore, it is important to have the correct translation in order to capture the true meaning behind the prophecies.
And how would I know any of this? I did spend a year at Hebrew school during my youth, and still remember some of the things I was taught. Torahs are not printed in English, Spanish, French, German, Greek, or Latin. They are all written in Hebrew, and are identical to the Torah scrolls from the time of Jesus. When they are read in Hebrew services, it is always done in Hebrew…NOT English or any other language.
Food for thought.

That’s interesting but off-topic.
And, while alma may or may not translate directly to virgin (kind of like our English word maiden, which at various times in our culture is understood to mean virgin even though it wouldn’t translate directly), you have to remember that many Jewish rabbis, including those who first translated the scriptures (not just the Torah,since this was not part of the Torah) into Greek, understood this to mean parthenos, the Greek word for virgin.

If you wish to discuss this further, start a thread & post a link to it. Thanks.

 

[frjohnmorris]

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.

The perpetual virginity if important because her womb was made sacred because it carried God in the flesh. It was special and reserved for God Himself. It is an ancient Christian teaching of all Christians before the Protestant Reformation.
No there is nothing inherently sinful or unclean about husband and wife having relations. On the contrary, sexual relations within the context of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are sacred and blessed by God. Remember the first miracle that Our Lord did was at the Marriage at Cana.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m not arguing against the perpetual Virginity of Mary. I’m only asking why it matters.

From Sacra Virginitas by PP XII:

"8. However, since there are some who, straying from the right path in this matter, so exalt marriage as to rank it ahead of virginity and thus depreciate chastity consecrated to God and clerical celibacy, Our apostolic duty demands that We now in a particular manner declare and uphold the Church’s teaching on the sublime state of virginity, and so defend Catholic truth against these errors. "

Pope Pius XII on the Holiness of Virginity

 

[zz912]

It is significant to note that there was NO Hebrew prophecy of a Virgin Birth.
Shocking? Here’s a Hebrew lesson for you…
There are two distinctly different Hebrew words: Alma and Betulah. One translates as “Virgin” while the other translates as “young woman”. The word used by Isaiah was the one that translates as “young woman”.
It is important to note, however, that young women… in those days… kept their virginity until they got married. To do otherwise would bring shame and disgrace to the entire family. So while the original Hebrew did not call for a Virgin Birth, that possibility is not precluded. However, it has no bearing on my faith in Jesus. My faith in Him is based not on His Mother, but on what He taught to the people of His time.

So Isaiah was making a prophesy that a “young woman” would give birth…um, that’s not really anything surprising or special. Young women give birth all the time. Especially so in Isaiah’s time, when people married much earlier. I would suggest that the large % of young women in that time did give birth. This claim that Isaiah is making a prophesy about a young woman giving birth is nonsense.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The perpetual virginity if important because her womb was made sacred because it carried God in the flesh. It was special and reserved for God Himself. It is an ancient Christian teaching of all Christians before the Protestant Reformation.
No there is nothing inherently sinful or unclean about husband and wife having relations. On the contrary, sexual relations within the context of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are sacred and blessed by God. Remember the first miracle that Our Lord did was at the Marriage at Cana.

Our mouths (and hands) hold the Eucharist as well. We use them for other purposes.

 

[believerdoc]

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-

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…

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

From Sacra Virginitas by PP XII:

"8. However, since there are some who, straying from the right path in this matter, so exalt marriage as to rank it ahead of virginity and thus depreciate chastity consecrated to God and clerical celibacy, Our apostolic duty demands that We now in a particular manner declare and uphold the Church’s teaching on the sublime state of virginity, and so defend Catholic truth against these errors. "

Pope Pius XII on the Holiness of Virginity

Pope JPII in Theology of the Body

In Christ’s words on continence for the kingdom of heaven there is no reference to the inferiority of marriage with regard to the body, or in other words with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming one flesh. “The two will become one flesh” (Gn 2:24). Christ’s words recorded in Matthew 19:11-12 (as also the words of Paul in 1 Cor 7) give no reason to assert the inferiority of marriage, nor the superiority of virginity or celibacy inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal union in the body. Christ’s words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority, nor with prejudice against conjugal union of the body, but only for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

As a footnote St. Peter the first Pope was married.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

That’s interesting but off-topic.
And, while alma may or may not translate directly to virgin (kind of like our English word maiden, which at various times in our culture is understood to mean virgin even though it wouldn’t translate directly), you have to remember that many Jewish rabbis, including those who first translated the scriptures (not just the Torah,since this was not part of the Torah) into Greek, understood this to mean parthenos, the Greek word for virgin.

If you wish to discuss this further, start a thread & post a link to it. Thanks.

The prophecies of the Messiah were all written in Hebrew. Thus, if you do not have the correct translation of Hebrew into English, you do not have the correct prophecy. Any translations into Greek are NOT the original Hebrew, and that is where the problem exists. The Jewish people of 1000 years before the time of Jesus would not have been using Greek. Therefore, the translation is…in this case, incorrect.

More significant: I believe that the reason for the use of “young woman” was to distinguish between the mother of John the Baptist and Mary. Elizabeth was “past the age” of childbearing, and yet she bore a child. Some people even thought John was the Messiah until he answered them directly that he was not. The Messiah was his cousin, Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope JPII in Theology of the Body

In Christ’s words on continence for the kingdom of heaven there is no reference to the inferiority of marriage with regard to the body, or in other words with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming one flesh. “The two will become one flesh” (Gn 2:24). Christ’s words recorded in Matthew 19:11-12 (as also the words of Paul in 1 Cor 7) give no reason to assert the inferiority of marriage, nor the superiority of virginity or celibacy inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal union in the body. Christ’s words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority, nor with prejudice against conjugal union of the body, but only for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

You do know that John Paul was not speaking infallibly, right? And that Trent was?

As a footnote St. Peter the first Pope was married.

Sure, but this is a red herring.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope JPII in Theology of the Body

In Christ’s words on continence for the kingdom of heaven there is no reference to the inferiority of marriage with regard to the body, or in other words with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming one flesh. “The two will become one flesh” (Gn 2:24). Christ’s words recorded in Matthew 19:11-12 (as also the words of Paul in 1 Cor 7) give no reason to assert the inferiority of marriage, nor the superiority of virginity or celibacy inasmuch as by their nature virginity and celibacy consist in abstinence from the conjugal union in the body. Christ’s words on this point are quite clear. He proposes to his disciples the ideal of continence and the call to it, not by reason of inferiority, nor with prejudice against conjugal union of the body, but only for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Voluntary Continence Derives From a Counsel, Not From a Command
Pope John Paul II
GENERAL AUDIENCE OF WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE [1982]

On Wednesday, 23 June, Pope John Paul resumed his catechesis on the value of voluntary continence, basing his audience message on St. Paul’s treatment of the theme of virginity or celibacy.

1. The one who had sought advice could have been a young man who found himself faced with the decision to take a wife, or perhaps a newlywed who in the face of the current asceticism existing in Corinth was reflecting on the direction to give to his marriage. It could have even been a father, or the guardian of a girl, who had posed the question of her marriage. In any case, it would deal directly with the decision that derives from their rights as guardians. Paul is writing at a time when decisions in general belonged more to parents and guardians than to the young people themselves. Therefore, in answering in this way the question that was addressed to him, he tried to explain very precisely that the decision about continence, that is, about the life of virginity, must be voluntary, and that only such continence is better than marriage. The expressions, “he does well,” “he does better,” are completely univocal in this context.
2. 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

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You do know that John Paul was not speaking infallibly, right? And that Trent was?

Sure, but this is a red herring.

Are you saying Pope JPII was anathema?

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.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The prophecies of the Messiah were all written in Hebrew. Thus, if you do not have the correct translation of Hebrew into English, you do not have the correct prophecy. Any translations into Greek are NOT the original Hebrew, and that is where the problem exists. The Jewish people of 1000 years before the time of Jesus would not have been using Greek. Therefore, the translation is…in this case, incorrect.

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.