Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Brywan]

Why is knowing Mary’s Perpetual Virginity important to our faith?

It’s important because it is true.

 

[YADA]

In what would it defile Mary to have sexual relations with her husband after Jesus was born?

Before Jesus was born, it was important that Mary remained a virgin for the virgin birth of Christ, and that she was born without sin so that her body was in a proper state to give birth to the Son of God.

Mary and Joseph were married in the eyes of God. They would not be fornicating or committing adultery by having children together after Jesus. Sex between two people married to one other is not wrong. In fact, isn’t the very purpose of marriage to start a family and raise children together? Have children naturally, or adopt if you cannot conceive for whatever reason? Why did they get married at all? Why not just be friends?

Joseph was not God, so any children he might have had with Mary would not be Sons or Daughters of God. It do not see how it would be bad or offensive to Jesus if He had brothers and sisters.

I do not see why Mary would have to be forever a virgin to be worthy of respect and admiration. She gave birth to Jesus Christ! That right there is an honor above any other woman, and men cannot give birth at all.

Maybe the brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible were children of Joseph, or cousins or friends of his. But I do not understand why the Bible would say the word “until” if she didn’t have relations with her husband after Jesus was born. That is a strange word to use, or perhaps a different word to translate to modern English would have been a better choice?

The word “until” is only restrictive on the past - it has no restrictive action on future events … Scripturally there are various examples of the the use of the word ‘until’ that clearly illstrate this …they have been posted in numeorus threads on the topic - do a search …

Protestants always ask - What harm would it be for Mary and Joseph to have had children?, etc …

I have a few questions for you …Christians throughout the centuries have understood and held to the perpetual virginity of Mary … inncluding all of the early reformers … Thus when you ask - why its necessary and what does it change if Mary and Joseph did - you are not only challenging the Catholic belief but the origins of your own Christian traditions …

I want to know why it is so important to you to change/challenge this Christian belief …

Why is it so improtant to you that they [Mary & Joseph] had carnal relations and parented in the natural way other children?

Why is this important to your Christian faith?

Do you believe that you are superior in intellect over the Christians of earlier centuries?
Less superstitious? Less gullable? What is it?

Why is this important to you? Isi it because you just want to prove “Catholics” wrong?

 

[JoeT777]

You are using an inaccurate translation of Genesis 3:15. The line, “she shall crush your head,” should be translated “he shall crush your head.” As the authors of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary explain, “‘He’ refers to offspring, which is masc. in Hebrew. Christian tradition has sometimes referred it to Christ, but the literal reference is to the human descendants of Eve, who will regard snakes as enemies.” So it is Christ, not Mary, who “overthrows the damnable serpent.”

I think I’m in good company saying Genesis 3:15 is prophetic in nature.

She shall crush.Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. Ch. — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus… The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Sept. agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; …and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with S. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” … but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. H. Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, S. Aug. S. Greg. &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. S. Bern. ser. 2, on Missus est. “We crush,” says S. Greg. Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Rev. George Leo Haydock - veritasbible.com/drb/compare/lvb:haydock:topics/Genesis_3:15)

There is no contradiction between Romans 5:19 and John 1:29. To see this, simply read the entire verse: “For just as one man’s [Adam’s] trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s [Jesus Christ’s] act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.” (NRSV). If you read this verse in context, it becomes evident that Paul is contrasting Adam and Christ, sin and righteousness, death and life. Ironically, Mary is not even mentioned in Paul’s entire letter, let alone this passage.

The connection made isn’t to Mary. What was being contemplated was that the man Jesus Christ was also God. Paul said that every man is a sinner at birth because of Adam’s sine, i.e. original sin. If Christ is a man should he not be born with original sin (just like the rest of us)? The only way this can be difficulty can be overcome is to be both born of woman and His Soul and Divinity infused into the womb of Mary. This makes Mary’s womb a Tabernacle. The Tabernacle was pure and clean.

[T]he most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. (Cf. Ex 31:2) Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

In Jeremiah 31:22, the line, “a woman shall compass a man” is variably translated “a woman will play a man’s part,” (REB) “the woman must encompass the man with devotion,” (NAB) and “the Woman sets out to find her Husband again.” (NJB). In other words, the meaning of this Hebrew phrase is uncertain. Interestingly, the Septuagint has an entirely different text: “men will walk in salvation.” This verse cannot be honestly interpreted to validate the dogma of the “Immaculate Conception.”

Again, I find myself in most excellent company. St. Jerome, in “Against Jovinianus” (Book I), see Chapter 31 – 33 suggests the very same rendering of this verse. newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

But more important we are taught by the Magisterium:

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” (Jer 31:22) – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

JoeT

 

[jaedle]

She shall crush.Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. Ch. — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus… The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Sept. agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; …and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with S. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” … but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. H. Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, S. Aug. S. Greg. &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. S. Bern. ser. 2, on Missus est. “We crush,” says S. Greg. Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Rev. George Leo Haydock - veritasbible.com/drb/compare/lvb:haydock:topics/Genesis_3:15)

There is no ambiguity of the Hebrew text. Every major English translation from the Hebrew indicates “he” not “she.” The clear reading of this text is that the seed, not the woman, is the one who crushes the head of the serpent. Any other reading of this is blatant eisegesis.

The connection made isn’t to Mary. What was being contemplated was that the man Jesus Christ was also God. Paul said that every man is a sinner at birth because of Adam’s sine, i.e. original sin. If Christ is a man should he not be born with original sin (just like the rest of us)? The only way this can be difficulty can be overcome is to be both born of woman and His Soul and Divinity infused into the womb of Mary. This makes Mary’s womb a Tabernacle. The Tabernacle was pure and clean.

[T]he most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. (Cf. Ex 31:2) Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

The overall point you were making was in regards to Mary. Allow me to quote you in full:

Paul tells us why this is; “For as by the disobedience of one man [the original sin of Adam], many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19), any man born has original sin. Christ being both man and God can be considered a perfect sacrifice only without sin. “Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), the Paschal Lamb, the perfect sacrifice. These are two seeming diametrically opposed absolutes; one that all men are born with original sin, the stain of sin, the other that Christ was perfect without sin. But Christ is both man and God, perfect on both accounts. As a result, there can only be one solution to this apparent dichotomy, Christ was born of a women whose original sin had been removed. Furthermore, He would be born of a woman that hadn’t known sin because of His residence within her womb.

So here is your logic:

1. All men are born sinners.
2. Christ was a man.
3. Christ was not born a sinner.
4. Therefore, Mary was immaculately conceived.

The conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises.

If this is an essential doctrine (actually, dogma) of the faith, then why is this not at least even hinted at by Paul in this letter (or the rest of the New Testament for that matter)?

In Christ,

Jacob

 

[jaedle]

Again, I find myself in most excellent company. St. Jerome, in “Against Jovinianus” (Book I), see Chapter 31 – 33 suggests the very same rendering of this verse. newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

But more important we are taught by the Magisterium:

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind – words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” (Jer 31:22) – taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854

An appeal to authority cannot override the plain reading of the biblical texts that you provided.

In Christ,

Jacob

 

[MariaG]

In what would it defile Mary to have sexual relations with her husband after Jesus was born?

Before Jesus was born, it was important that Mary remained a virgin for the virgin birth of Christ, and that she was born without sin so that her body was in a proper state to give birth to the Son of God.

Mary and Joseph were married in the eyes of God. They would not be fornicating or committing adultery by having children together after Jesus. Sex between two people married to one other is not wrong. In fact, isn’t the very purpose of marriage to start a family and raise children together? Have children naturally, or adopt if you cannot conceive for whatever reason? Why did they get married at all? Why not just be friends?

Joseph was not God, so any children he might have had with Mary would not be Sons or Daughters of God. It do not see how it would be bad or offensive to Jesus if He had brothers and sisters.

I do not see why Mary would have to be forever a virgin to be worthy of respect and admiration. She gave birth to Jesus Christ! That right there is an honor above any other woman, and men cannot give birth at all.

Maybe the brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible were children of Joseph, or cousins or friends of his. But I do not understand why the Bible would say the word “until” if she didn’t have relations with her husband after Jesus was born. That is a strange word to use, or perhaps a different word to translate to modern English would have been a better choice?

It has less to with Mary and everything to do with Christ. You have to understand and read some of the Old Testament. The Ark of the old covenant carried the word of God. If anyone touched the Ark, they died.

Mary also carried the word. She is appropriately called the ark of the New Covenant.

There is much more of this. It is beautiful how we can see the constant nature of God through it.

Mary remain untouched by man because Christ is the Word. It has everything to do with Christ!

 

[JoeT777]

The overall point you were making was in regards to Mary. Allow me to quote you in full:

So here is your logic:

1. All men are born sinners.
2. Christ was a man.
3. Christ was not born a sinner.
4. Therefore, Mary was immaculately conceived.

The conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises.

If this is an essential doctrine (actually, dogma) of the faith, then why is this not at least even hinted at by Paul in this letter (or the rest of the New Testament for that matter)?

You shouldn’t be so worried about Paul’s sensibilities. However, you nicely outlined my point – but failed to fill in some critical points; by adding these omitted points, it makes good sense. I took great pains to establish that Mary was akin to Moses’ Tabernacle, and you took even greater pains to ignore it. Let’s rephrase your outline:

1. All men are born of women; all men are born sinners → Christ was a man.
2. Christ is God → Christ is not born a sinner.
3. God resides in the Tabernacle: God tells Moses to build a Tabernacle and “will dwell in the midst of them.” (Ex. 25:8)
4. Mary is the Mother of God

sequitur;

1. Mary was immaculate and remained so, likened to Moses’ Tabernacle: “Behold, I have called by name Beseleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Juda, and I have filled him with the spirit of God, with wisdom and understanding, and knowledge in all manner of work.” (Ex. 31:2-3)

JoeT

 

[LilyM]

In what would it defile Mary to have sexual relations with her husband after Jesus was born?

Before Jesus was born, it was important that Mary remained a virgin for the virgin birth of Christ, and that she was born without sin so that her body was in a proper state to give birth to the Son of God.

Mary and Joseph were married in the eyes of God. They would not be fornicating or committing adultery by having children together after Jesus. Sex between two people married to one other is not wrong. In fact, isn’t the very purpose of marriage to start a family and raise children together? Have children naturally, or adopt if you cannot conceive for whatever reason? Why did they get married at all? Why not just be friends?

Joseph was not God, so any children he might have had with Mary would not be Sons or Daughters of God. It do not see how it would be bad or offensive to Jesus if He had brothers and sisters.

I do not see why Mary would have to be forever a virgin to be worthy of respect and admiration. She gave birth to Jesus Christ! That right there is an honor above any other woman, and men cannot give birth at all.

Maybe the brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible were children of Joseph, or cousins or friends of his. But I do not understand why the Bible would say the word “until” if she didn’t have relations with her husband after Jesus was born. That is a strange word to use, or perhaps a different word to translate to modern English would have been a better choice?

Mary’s body, as has been repeatedly explained, was a sacred and set-apart place, consecrated to God. In containing Jesus it contained God. It thus became set apart to sacred rather than worldly purposes as the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies in the Temple were. Note the restrictions on people touching or entering these sacred precincts.

So it would indeed defile the temple and ark that was Mary’s body if anyone, Joseph included, apart from Jesus should have possession of her body in the fashion in the manner a man does when he consummates his marriage, or a child when it grows in its mothers’ womb.

It would defile her body in exactly the same manner as it would defile the Temple in Jerusalem if anyone but the High Priest ever entered the Holy of Holies. Pompey the Roman general made a point of doing so when he conquered Jerusalem as the supreme gesture of contempt for the Jewish faith.

It would defile her body in exactly the same manner as it would defile the Ark of the Covenant in the OT if humans ever touched it. Uzzah did so and was killed for so dishonouring it.

Does that mean the institution of marriage is dishonourable? Or that marital relations are dishonorable? Of course not. HOWEVER, just as even a husband and wife wouldn’t have dared have marital relations in the Holy of Holies of the Temple or in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, neither would Joseph and Mary have had marital relations full stop - Mary’s body being what it was.

 

[JoeT777]

Maybe the brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible were children of Joseph, or cousins or friends of his. But I do not understand why the Bible would say the word “until” if she didn’t have relations with her husband after Jesus was born. That is a strange word to use, or perhaps a different word to translate to modern English would have been a better choice?

Lets step through the gaggle of Christ’s brothers and see if we can spot blood kin, i.e. Christ’s siblings having the same mother.

1. St. Peter, ST. Andrew, St. Simon (called ‘Zelotes’) and St. Philip (4 Apostles):

St. Peter (a.k.a. Simon, or Cephas) and Andrew were siblings, sons of Jona (Johannes). Philip on the other hand came from the same town but not related by his parents; there may have been some distant family relationship. Knowing the lineage of these we can rightly say that these are not siblings of Jesus.

**2. St. James & St. John Zebedee(2 Apostles): **

St. James the Greater and St. John — sons of Zebedee and Salome, Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1 St. John knows the high-priest (John 18:16) and is given the care of Mother of Jesus John 19:27. St. James the Greater was at the Transfiguration Mark 9:1; Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28, and the Agony in Gethsemani , Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33. Martyred around 44 A.D., Acts 12:1-2. Their mother was Salome the daughter of the high priest and the pious women who ministered to and ministered Christ (cf. Matthew 27:55, sq.; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 8:2 sq.; 23:55-24:1). It’s Salome that wanted her sons to sit on the right hand of Christ’s throne. (Matthew 20:21).

None of these can be siblings of Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Greater newadvent.org/cathen/08279b.htm

3. Matthew , Jude and James The Less (3 Apostles):

Matthew and James, the sons of Alpheus — Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. James the Less is the one referred to as ‘brother of the Lord’ and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. This can be shown in Gal 1:19 where Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter. Peter is not available, he only saw the Bishop of Jerusalem, James the ‘Brother of the Lord’. This James can’t be both the sibling of Jesus and the son of Alpheus now can he?

Matthew, the son of Alpheus; Mark 2:14; Matthew 9:9 a Galilean who collected taxes at Capharnaum for Herod Antipas. These two are not siblings of Jesus.

Jude (a.k.a. Thaddeus ) — Jude 1:1. “Brother of James” called so because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church. Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13. Being the brother of James Jude can’t be the sibling of Jesus.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Matthew
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. James the Less

4. James and Joseph (or Joses):

James, Joseph (or Joses) sons of Cleopas — Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56 the sons of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25). “Maria Cleophæ” is generally translated “Mary the wife of Cleophas.” Consequently we can conclude that these two were not siblings of Jesus. SJ Prat, in his book Jesus Christ, suggests that this Mary is the second wife of Cleophas CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Brethren of the Lord

5. ST. Bartholomew, St. Thomas (2 Apostles):

St. Bartholomew many think he can be identified as Nathaniel the friend of Philip, John 1:43-51; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14. St. Thomas we know very little outside the Scriptures. We do know that he is the ‘show me’ Saint. These two Apostles are unrelated to Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Bartholomew
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nathanael

**6. Judas Iscariot (1 Apostle): **

Finally, we have Judas, the Apostle that betrayed our Lord. He was the only Apostle that wasn’t from Galilee. Being from the town of ‘Kerioth’ Judas can’t be a sibling of Jesus. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judas Iscariot .

The absence of somebody being called the “son(s) of Mary of Joseph” is now very conspicuous. It takes a long stretch of the imagination to create siblings of Christ.

Listed are 14 men all of whom are called ‘brethren of the Lord’ (Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5 ) i.e. in the same special way that The Twelve were referred to as ‘brothers’, yet we found that none of them are siblings of Jesus. By some accounts James the less, James the little, Joses , Jude and Simon, and unnamed male siblings along with unnamed sisters; the sum of which would make too large a brood for a single woman to bear. If everyone mentioned as ‘brethren’ or sister’ was a sibling this would make the Blessed Mary ubermom. Based on this same literal reading of the Gospels and the Epistles, we’d need to add St. Paul as ‘the brother of the Lord’ along with others referred to in Scripture as ‘brother’ of Jesus.

One last point, each year at Passover Joseph and Mary took Christ to the Temple according to Jewish custom. On one occasion, on retuning they discovered Jesus was not with them. If Mary had other children they would have been younger than Christ, why weren’t they mentioned? What did she do with the other children when she returned for Jesus? Luke 2:41 seqq.

JoeT