Mary's Virginity

[Leopardz]

Hi. I know this question has come out again and again, but this time I want to ask something related to this topic again.

First of all, I’m a Catholic, and I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
I believe Mary is ever-virgin, I didn’t doubt that.
I also believe that Mary is without sin.
This is all according to Church’s teaching.

However, when it comes to the reason why Mary is ever-virgin,
I had a discussion without someone, and according to him, Mary is ever-virgin because she is pure.

The problem is I don’t agree with this reasoning at all. I’ve read CCC 499 - 507, maybe I was missing anything, but so far, to my understanding, it didn’t mention anything like that.

For me, to say Mary is ever-virgin because she has to remain pure, is to say intercourse within marriage is a sin.

Mary never sinned, I agree, but does that mean, if she had intercourse with Joseph while they’re married, then she sinned?

I think there are other reasons, like the one mentioned in CCC 499 - 507, but certainly not the reason that “not virgin means less pure”. Should she had intercourse with Joseph, she remained never sinned. Intercourse among married couple isn’t a sin.

I opened this thread to let someone correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Nita]

…For me, to say Mary is ever-virgin because she has to remain pure, is to say intercourse within marriage is a sin.

Mary never sinned, I agree, but does that mean, if she had intercourse with Joseph while they’re married, then she sinned?
…

No, it does not mean that she would have sinned if she had intercourse with Joseph while married to him.
(Unless of course either or both of them had taken solemn vows of virginity prior to marriage. But we have no sure knowledge of such vows.)

 

[po18guy]

In Genesis 1:28, we see that God told our first ancestors to be fruitful and multiply. In Luke 1:31, we see that God, through Gabriel, told Mary precisely how she was to be fruitful and multiply.

It is clear from scripture that Mary was not expecting to bear children. How is this? Consider: she, at the time of the annunciation, was betrothed (promised) to Joseph (Luke 1:27). It is clear that she was aware that “relations with man” produce children (Luke 1:34). OK so far? Knowing that she was going to be married, and knowing that sexual relations with a man produce children, why would she then have the temerity to ask Gabriel how on earth she would then bear a Son (Luke 1:34)? The implication is clear from her question to Gabriel that this marriage was not intended to produce offspring by natural means.

We must avoid thinking as man does and not as God does, especially in this case. We know that all that is created was created through the “Word made flesh” (John 1:1-3). Thus, Jesus first conceived of His own mother in His divine intellect, then caused her creation for the sole purpose that she would conceive of Him in her womb, and give Him the flesh that would redeem all who believe.

Her singular purpose is contained within her declaration that she was the handmaid/bond slave of her own Child (Luke 1:38). As well, Joseph was commanded in a vision (Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:24) to take Mary as his wife. Remember that he had already decided to “put her away privately” (Matthew 1:19) since she was pregnant before marriage.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

However, when it comes to the reason why Mary is ever-virgin,
I had a discussion without someone, and according to him, Mary is ever-virgin because she is pure.

She wasn’t a perpetual virgin because she was sinless, she was sinless because she was the Ark of the Covenant. It was also because she was the Ark of the Covenant that she was a perpetual virgin, as no man can touch the Ark without dying (unless properly ordained. A legal, civic, union is not a proper ordination.). Both effects stem from the same cause.

 

[Stumblesalot]

Hi. I know this question has come out again and again, but this time I want to ask something related to this topic again.

First of all, I’m a Catholic, and I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
I believe Mary is ever-virgin, I didn’t doubt that.
I also believe that Mary is without sin.
This is all according to Church’s teaching.

However, when it comes to the reason why Mary is ever-virgin,
I had a discussion without someone, and according to him, Mary is ever-virgin because she is pure.

The problem is I don’t agree with this reasoning at all. I’ve read CCC 499 - 507, maybe I was missing anything, but so far, to my understanding, it didn’t mention anything like that.

For me, to say Mary is ever-virgin because she has to remain pure, is to say intercourse within marriage is a sin.

Mary never sinned, I agree, but does that mean, if she had intercourse with Joseph while they’re married, then she sinned?

I think there are other reasons, like the one mentioned in CCC 499 - 507, but certainly not the reason that “not virgin means less pure”. Should she had intercourse with Joseph, she remained never sinned. Intercourse among married couple isn’t a sin.

I opened this thread to let someone correct me if I’m wrong.

Hi,

I’m hoping to gain some insight here too. While I do not wish to ‘hijack’ your original post, I have a couple of observations I would like clarification on. Firstly, as far as I am aware, Mary and Joseph were ‘betrothed’ to each other. This implies to me they were not actually married prior to the conception of Our Lord Jesus. However, if they were married then would any such marriage have been valid since the marriage was never actually consummated? It would make more sense to me if Mary and Joseph were ‘betrothed’ but never actually married, and that Our Lady became the wife of God the Father and Holy Spirit upon her consent for the will of God to be “done unto her” during the apparition of the angel Gabriel. Am I wrong? Could a more learned member please enlighten me?

God bless

 

[AthenaC]

I did a quick search for “perpetual virginity” in the Catholic Encyclopedia …

oce.catholic.com/index.php?search=perpetual+virginity&fulltext=Search

I read the answer earlier but I couldn’t find it again. In short, Mary was a virgin dedicated to the Temple, so she was always supposed to be a virgin. It was common practice to marry these virgins at 12 to an older widower to safeguard their virginity. So the expectation from the get-go was that no “marital relations” would happen. Which explains why we see Joseph portrayed traditionally as an old man.

So the nature of the scandal when Mary got pregnant was not just along the lines of “she’s not married and she’s pregnant” but was “Joseph clearly violated a Temple virgin.”

Make sense?

 

[stephe1987]

I thought Mary did take vows of virginity when she was a child in the temple, and she was married to Joseph so he could be her protector (not a spouse in the traditional sense).

But I think maybe that was apocryphal?

 

[jbarbaretta]

Hi,

I’m hoping to gain some insight here too. While I do not wish to ‘hijack’ your original post, I have a couple of observations I would like clarification on. Firstly, as far as I am aware, Mary and Joseph were ‘betrothed’ to each other. This implies to me they were not actually married prior to the conception of Our Lord Jesus. However, if they were married then would any such marriage have been valid since the marriage was never actually consummated? It would make more sense to me if Mary and Joseph were ‘betrothed’ but never actually married, and that Our Lady became the wife of God the Father and Holy Spirit upon her consent for the will of God to be “done unto her” during the apparition of the angel Gabriel. Am I wrong? Could a more learned member please enlighten me?

God bless

A betrothal in 1st century Judea was not an engagement. Joseph was her husband, by law. The law of the time did not require, in fact forbade, consummation of the marriage during the betrothal – although Joseph was legally her husband in all things except that one. The Jewish marriage had multiple parts with only the last involving taking the bride to the house of the bridegroom - often a year after they were initially “married”. This is why he determined to “put her away”/“divorce her” quietly. If they were were merely engaged, he could have just not followed through on the marriage.

 

[Stumblesalot]

A betrothal in 1st century Judea was not an engagement. Joseph was her husband, by law. The law of the time did not require, in fact forbade, consummation of the marriage during the betrothal – although Joseph was legally her husband in all things except that one. The Jewish marriage had multiple parts with only the last involving taking the bride to the house of the bridegroom - often a year after they were initially “married”. This is why he determined to “put her away”/“divorce her” quietly. If they were were merely engaged, he could have just not followed through on the marriage.

Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[po18guy]

I’m hoping to gain some insight here too. While I do not wish to ‘hijack’ your original post, I have a couple of observations I would like clarification on. Firstly, as far as I am aware, Mary and Joseph were ‘betrothed’ to each other. This implies to me they were not actually married prior to the conception of Our Lord Jesus. However, if they were married then would any such marriage have been valid since the marriage was never actually consummated? It would make more sense to me if Mary and Joseph were ‘betrothed’ but never actually married, and that Our Lady became the wife of God the Father and Holy Spirit upon her consent for the will of God to be “done unto her” during the apparition of the angel Gabriel. Am I wrong? Could a more learned member please enlighten me?

God bless

The marriage was commanded by God, through the angel’s message in Joseph’s dream. That which is commanded is valid solely by the source of its command. And, we must not think only in terms of fleshly consummation, but also in terms of spiritual or supernatural consummation.

 

[LilyM]

A betrothal in 1st century Judea was not an engagement. Joseph was her husband, by law. The law of the time did not require, in fact forbade, consummation of the marriage during the betrothal – although Joseph was legally her husband in all things except that one. The Jewish marriage had multiple parts with only the last involving taking the bride to the house of the bridegroom - often a year after they were initially “married”. This is why he determined to “put her away”/“divorce her” quietly. If they were were merely engaged, he could have just not followed through on the marriage.

I have read, though, that should a betrothed couple consummate their relationship
and have a child prior to marriage, the child would still be considered legitimate. Which implies that post-betrothal nookie wasn’t exactly the worst sin in the world.

The problem with Joseph and Mary being he knew that her child was not his.

 

[Todd_Easton]

You are to distinguish between the holy and the common…(Leviticus 10:10)

And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

Once the new (virgin) wooden box covered inside and out with gold was consecrated and became the Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament, it was no longer suitable to be used as a common (ordinary) wooden box, to carry even good things like drinking water or fire wood, etc. Once consecrated, to use the Ark of the Covenant as an ordinary wooden box would be a sacrilege. The case is similar with the Virgin Mary. When our holy Lord Jesus Christ was conceived in Mary’s womb, her womb became holy, no longer suitable to be used to produce common (ordinary) children.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:32-33)

Also, since the Virgin Mary was chosen to produce the royal heir to the throne of David and his reign was to be without end, producing other royal heirs by have other children would have expressed a lack of faith in the angel’s promise that Jesus’ reign would last forever.

 

[TimothyH]

You are to distinguish between the holy and the common…(Leviticus 10:10)

And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

Once the new (virgin) wooden box covered inside and out with gold was consecrated and became the Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament, it was no longer suitable to be used as a common (ordinary) wooden box, to carry even good things like drinking water or fire wood, etc. Once consecrated, to use the Ark of the Covenant as an ordinary wooden box would be a sacrilege. The case is similar with the Virgin Mary. When our holy Lord Jesus Christ was conceived in Mary’s womb, her womb became holy, no longer suitable to be used to produce common (ordinary) children.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:32-33)

Also, since the Virgin Mary was chosen to produce the royal heir to the throne of David and his reign was to be without end, producing other royal heirs by have other children would have expressed a lack of faith in the angel’s promise that Jesus’ reign would last forever.

This is very insightful for me Todd.

Abraham comes to mind, and his lack of trust in God’s promise that he would have a son and subsequent birth of Ishmael via Hagar.

I’m going to go back and reread the relevant chapters of Genesis in light of your wonderful post. Thank you!

-Tim-

 

[jbarbaretta]

I have read, though, that should a betrothed couple consummate their relationship
and have a child prior to marriage, the child would still be considered legitimate. Which implies that post-betrothal nookie wasn’t exactly the worst sin in the world.

The problem with Joseph and Mary being he knew that her child was not his.

Yes, of course the child is legitimate. They ARE married. A betrothal is not an engagement but a stage of being married - so the child would be legitimate. It was looked down upon, but did occur on occasion (is my understanding).

Something to think about - Joseph “being a just man decided to divorce her quietly…”. Justice would have demanded that she be publicly accused and stoned to death – if he believed that she was an adulteress. So, he obviously had quite the quandary. He knew the child wasn’t his, yet could not believe that she had cheated on him. (and, yes, he did know where babies came from).

I just finished a great book called Joseph of Nazareth that spends most of the first chapter discussing this in great detail. It is definitely worth a read if you have the chance.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

You are to distinguish between the holy and the common…(Leviticus 10:10)
And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)
Once the new (virgin) wooden box covered inside and out with gold was consecrated and became the Ark of the Covenant of the Old Testament, it was no longer suitable to be used as a common (ordinary) wooden box, to carry even good things like drinking water or fire wood, etc. Once consecrated, to use the Ark of the Covenant as an ordinary wooden box would be a sacrilege. The case is similar with the Virgin Mary. When our holy Lord Jesus Christ was conceived in Mary’s womb, her womb became holy, no longer suitable to be used to produce common (ordinary) children.
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:32-33)
Also, since the Virgin Mary was chosen to produce the royal heir to the throne of David and his reign was to be without end, producing other royal heirs by have other children would have expressed a lack of faith in the angel’s promise that Jesus’ reign would last forever.

Just like when a chalice is consecrated by a bishop it can no longer be used for ordinary means; it is only for the precious Blood. When Mary was conceived I like to believe the same thing happened to her; of course her fiat was her official acceptance of this.

 

[snarflemike]

Here’s what I think is an interesting way to think about it.

When is it proper for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers?

One answer would be when the first father dies. But of course God is not dead.

Another answer might be when the first father abandons mother and child. But of course God abandons no one, certainly not Mary and their son.

So why would it have been proper for Mary to have children with Joseph?

 

[MrSylvester]

Hi. I know this question has come out again and again, but this time I want to ask something related to this topic again.

First of all, I’m a Catholic, and I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
I believe Mary is ever-virgin, I didn’t doubt that.
I also believe that Mary is without sin.
This is all according to Church’s teaching.

However, when it comes to the reason why Mary is ever-virgin,
I had a discussion without someone, and according to him, Mary is ever-virgin because she is pure.

The problem is I don’t agree with this reasoning at all. I’ve read CCC 499 - 507, maybe I was missing anything, but so far, to my understanding, it didn’t mention anything like that.

For me, to say Mary is ever-virgin because she has to remain pure, is to say intercourse within marriage is a sin.

Mary never sinned, I agree, but does that mean, if she had intercourse with Joseph while they’re married, then she sinned?

I think there are other reasons, like the one mentioned in CCC 499 - 507, but certainly not the reason that “not virgin means less pure”. Should she had intercourse with Joseph, she remained never sinned. Intercourse among married couple isn’t a sin.

I opened this thread to let someone correct me if I’m wrong.

Intercourse in marriage is not a sin but Mary stayed a Virgin not because She had to remain pure but because She WANTED to. She made a vow at being a perpetual Virgin just to dedicate Her life completely to God. If She did have intercourse with Joseph, She’d have insulted God for dirtying their union with each other. God chose Her as His Mother because She was utterly dedicated to him and to sinners. She was more pure because She decided to abstain from all sexual activity even though She was FAR from being sterile; She remained pure by being a Virgin because instead of choosing to give Herself to an earthly man despite being married to Joseph who loved and respected Her, She gave Herself entirely to God, much like how a priest dedicates himself to God and Mary by celibacy, no, Priests are more like Mary as they follow Her example of total dedication to God and the Church.

So, where’s this proof that Mary took a vow of Virginity? Well, on November 21 of each year, we have a feast dedicated to Mary’s presentation at the temple where She became a temple virgin at the age of 3. When the Angel Gabriel told Her about becoming Mother of God, She asked him how this would be if She knew not man. If Mary didn’t mind having sexual intercourse with someone in order to bear a baby and married just to have a good family life, whywould She be concerned about having sex? Becuase having sex in roder to bear a Son means giving Herself completely to a man instead of God. Its not wrong of course but that was not what Mary wanted.