Mary's Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zman084
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zman084

Guest
Hi,

I have an ex-Catholic friend (he’s not a protestant) who disbelieves the Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity because no married couple in their right mind would not perform the marital act; it’s unnatural not to. He says it doesn’t make any sense. How do I respond to him?

Zach
 
He dosn’t have a problem with a virgin conceiving, or that conception occured by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that the child concieved is the Word of God made flesh - God incarnate. That all makes sense to him? Right?
 
Zman084 said:
Hi,

I have an ex-Catholic friend (he’s not a protestant) who disbelieves the Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity because no married couple in their right mind would not perform the marital act; it’s unnatural not to. He says it doesn’t make any sense. How do I respond to him?

Zach
Click to expand...
he should make the aquaintance of heroic married couples who live for year in continence because of illness, injury or other grave reason, and learn the depth and intimacy marriage love is capable of even when its sexual expression is no longer possible. He should also consider that since the entire fact of the Incarnation is not natural, but supernatural, so is the graced marriage of Joseph and Mary.
 
Zman084 said:
Hi,

I have an ex-Catholic friend (he’s not a protestant) who disbelieves the Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity because no married couple in their right mind would not perform the marital act; it’s unnatural not to. He says it doesn’t make any sense. How do I respond to him?

Zach
Click to expand...
My wife and I live in continence due to my situation of having been married and divorced before (I wasn’t Catholic at that time). We have done so for years because we put God before ourselves. If ordinary people like us can do that does your friend really think that blessed people like Mary and Joseph could not?
 
Zman084 said:
Hi,

I have an ex-Catholic friend (he’s not a protestant) who disbelieves the Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity because no married couple in their right mind would not perform the marital act; it’s unnatural not to. He says it doesn’t make any sense. How do I respond to him?

Zach
Click to expand...
I’d agree with him…
Sex is gift from God…
 
It didn’t make sense to me at first, but from hanging out in these forums, I learned a few things that put it all in perspective for me.

In a nutshell:
  1. Joseph is a widower; he was married before, and had children from that marriage, ergo sex was not a big deal to him at that point.
  2. Mary was a virgin consecrated to God from the beginning; this choice of holy celibacy was not contradicted by marriage-- in Jewish tradition, one could be married without the marriage being consummated with the sex act.
  3. Joseph thought Mary was too young for him from the beginning; even if Mary did not become the mother of God, Joseph already showed indications that he would not have touched her anyway because he’d think it was weird.
I have a great respect for the vocation and ministry of matrimony, and I am a recovering sex addict, so the idea of Perpetual Virginity was a minor stumbling block for me for a while. And I don’t know about you, but the above three trivia bits helped me along greatly in my understanding and letting go of my personal hangups about the doctrine.

Hope this helps you too!
 
Wildgraywolf said:
He dosn’t have a problem with a virgin conceiving, or that conception occured by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that the child concieved is the Word of God made flesh - God incarnate. That all makes sense to him? Right?
Click to expand...
Right-O! That’s all very natural! 😃
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I’d agree with him…
Sex is gift from God…
Click to expand...
Sure, but bearing the Savior is an infinitely greater gift. If celibacy was good enough for Christ, why wasn’t it good enough for his mother?

There does seem to be an obsessive interest in Mary’s alleged sex life among a large segment of American Protestantism. Borders on creepy, IMHO.
 
VociMike said:
Sure, but bearing the Savior is an infinitely greater gift. If celibacy was good enough for Christ, why wasn’t it good enough for his mother?

There does seem to be an obsessive interest in Mary’s alleged sex life among a large segment of American Protestantism. Borders on creepy, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Good luck with this hard-boiled Protestant!
 
VociMike said:
Sure, but bearing the Savior is an infinitely greater gift. If celibacy was good enough for Christ, why wasn’t it good enough for his mother?

There does seem to be an obsessive interest in Mary’s alleged sex life among a large segment of American Protestantism. Borders on creepy, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Yup, I’ve always wondered why too… like saying sex is some biological imperative, like salmon - have sex, reproduce or die trying.

My father-in-law’s sister never dated, never married and remains to this day a virgin. She’s 77 years old and no one in the family has ever questioned her virginity only why she never married. My in-laws by the way are independent Baptists with the same hang-up on our Blessed Mother.

Go figure.
 
Wildgraywolf said:
Yup, I’ve always wondered why too… like saying sex is some biological imperative, like salmon - have sex, reproduce or die trying.

My father-in-law’s sister never dated, never married and remains to this day a virgin. She’s 77 years old and no one in the family has ever questioned her virginity only why she never married. My in-laws by the way are independent Baptists with the same hang-up on our Blessed Mother.

Go figure.
Click to expand...
Excellent point! 👍 Clearly, the denigration of the Mother of God is done only to justify remaining outside the One True Church. Human ego is responsible for this. I will not stand before Christ only to explain why I denigrated His mother, especially since her veneration is in Luke 1.

Christ’s peace.
 
Mommyof02green said:
These might help
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5sb1.asp
Click to expand...
I read this and I don’t see why it is conclusive. The Catholic argument made the case for the possibility of Mary being a virgin. It also acknowledges the Scriptures may suggest otherwise in several cases, and merely provide alternative interpretations. I understand the importance, but why the insistence on this particular conclusion? Why not acknowledge the Scripture does not clearly speak on this detail?

What is the church canon on the “brothers” of Jesus? Were they children of Joseph, cousins, or others?
 
jesusasks said:
I read this and I don’t see why it is conclusive. The Catholic argument made the case for the possibility of Mary being a virgin. It also acknowledges the Scriptures may suggest otherwise in several cases, and merely provide alternative interpretations. I understand the importance, but why the insistence on this particular conclusion? Why not acknowledge the Scripture does not clearly speak on this detail?
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument I will accept that scripture is not conclusive in this question. But Catholicism does not require that scripture be conclusive, because Catholicism does not obtain its teachings from scripture. Catholicism obtains its teachings from God, through the apostles, who at some point wrote the books of the New Testament, books that you acknowledge in another thread are not as clear as they could be on what Christians are to believe.

So, why do we believe that Mary was Ever-virgin? Not in the final analysis because the bible says so, but because the Church says so, and the Church received this knowledge from God and has guarded it and taught it without error due to the guidance and protection of God. Of course Catholicism finds support for its teachings in scripture, but that is not the same thing as her needing to look to scripture to know what she believes, for she already knew what she believed (what had been revealed to her by God through the apostles) before scripture (the New Testament) was ever written.
What is the church canon on the “brothers” of Jesus? Were they children of Joseph, cousins, or others?
Click to expand...
The Church makes no definitive statement on who they were, only that they were not children of Mary.
 
For some reason, non-catholics think of the Holy Family as being just like any other 21st century family. That’s their first mistake.

The Jews of the time lived their entire lives for God. Quite unlike people of today. It’s sad to say but God is hardly a second thought in the daily lives of most. When talking about the Holy Family you have go above the humanistic idea of sex and family.

For goodness sake, the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary which is traditional marriage speak also used elsewhere in the bible in the OT about a husband “overshadowing” his wife - meaning to be intimate with her. Joseph, whether widower or not, didn’t know this at the time and thought what any man would - that his betrothed had been with another man. It wasn’t until the angel came to him in a dream that he understood, telling him to take Mary as his wife and that “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” (Mt.1:20)

So, Joseph, being a righteous Jew, knew and understood what the angel was telling him - Mary was now the “spouse of the Holy Spirit.” He knew his place in this marriage - it was protector and “step-father” of the Child. He understood who this Child was - He was the Son of God. Mary’s womb was sanctified to carry the Son of God as we know from the angel’s greeting, “Hail, full of grace” - her womb was consecrated as the “Holy of Holies” and no man, no one other than the High Priest (Jesus) was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. Once something is consecrated to God it is to be used only for God - nothing else - it is sacred.

Therefore, Joseph, understanding this, would not have had relations with Mary and Mary having asked the angel Gabriel how she was to bear a son since she knew no man also understood her role. She wouldn’t have asked the question if she knew she was going to get pregnant by Joseph. She “responded with the obedience of faith, certain that with God, nothing is impossible.” She knew of the coming Messiah, all Jews did. She “espoused the divine will of salvation wholeheartedly, without a single stain of sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with Him and dependent on him, by God’s grace.” (CCC para 494)

Non-Catholics want to say that it makes no sense since they were married, they would’ve done what every married couple would’ve done. They seem to forget that they were NOT the average married couple and they knew this. Non-catholics need to start thinking along the lines of God, not man, thinking of holy not average. Mary herself said, “with God nothing is impossible.”
Non-catholics either seem to forget this or they deny it because it doesn’t make sense to their own minds and there inlies the problem - they think as man thinks not as God (not that anyone can, I’m just not sure how else to express the point).
 
VociMike said:
For the sake of argument I will accept that scripture is not conclusive in this question. But Catholicism does not require that scripture be conclusive, because Catholicism does not obtain its teachings from scripture. Catholicism obtains its teachings from God, through the apostles, who at some point wrote the books of the New Testament, books that you acknowledge in another thread are not as clear as they could be on what Christians are to believe.

So, why do we believe that Mary was Ever-virgin? Not in the final analysis because the bible says so, but because the Church says so, and the Church received this knowledge from God and has guarded it and taught it without error due to the guidance and protection of God. Of course Catholicism finds support for its teachings in scripture, but that is not the same thing as her needing to look to scripture to know what she believes, for she already knew what she believed (what had been revealed to her by God through the apostles) before scripture (the New Testament) was ever written.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your answer, this makes sense. It’s not really inconsistent with what other Christian beliefs hold. Some believe that Mary was a virgin in the common sense, but not in the sense that she wasn’t physically joined with the Holy Spirit. In the Catholic tradition, it’s based on the teachings handed down through apostles.
 
Zman084 said:
Hi,

I have an ex-Catholic friend (he’s not a protestant) who disbelieves the Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity because no married couple in their right mind would not perform the marital act; it’s unnatural not to. He says it doesn’t make any sense. How do I respond to him?

Zach
Click to expand...
Your friend is absolutely right! A sexless marriage is unnatural.

God created man and woman to be together, to get married, to have sex, to be fruitful. The culmination of marriage is for a couple to make love. It is unnatural to think about this any other way.

I have been made aware of stories, in Christianity of people watching the virgin couple consecrate their marriage to make sure that it actually happened. If a couple, after marriage, made love (and again, there was an audience there to witness that they did), then they were truly married.

Marriage exists for sex.

This all being said, Mary was married to Joseph, but, Her Husband was the Holy Spirit. She loved God SO much, that She promised Her life to Him. Gabriel proposed this idea to The Virgin and She said yes. The Holy Spirit was inside Her, He, in a very real, but not corporeal way, was intimate with Her. The two of them produced a beautiful Child together. It was a fruitful union.

As long as a husband is still living, the woman is married to that husband. If she divorces him and remarries, she becomes an adulteress and if he remarries, he becomes an adulterer. Our God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living. Since the Holy Spirit will not die and did not die, Mary’s first relationship was with the Holy Spirit. She was always the Wife of the Holy Spirit. She COULDN’T have sex with Joseph because She’d be breaking The Law. Her first Husband was still living.

I’m sure there was a mutual love, devotion, respect, and attraction between Mary and Joseph but sex wasn’t a part of this because it was an unnatural marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top