Matthew 1 and Mary's Vow

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Many Catholic teachers say that Mary’s vow in the Protoevangelium of James is alluded to in the Gospel of Luke

“How shall this be for I know not man”
This alludes to according to them the fact Mary did not intend on knowing a man.

However Matthew 1 seems to signify otherwise, for it says Mary was told not to do anything with her husband.

There is nothing in Matthew 1 that denies the virginity of Mary after Christs birth, but it seems to insinuate there was no vow.

Can anyone help me with determining if this would render the vow argument from Luke impossible or if there is something I am missing.

I am a Catholic and would like to believe she did take the vow but Matthew 1 seems to say another thing, that she was supposed to be given in a normal marriage but stopped.

 

[YADA]

Can you identify what you think is Mary being told what you indicate here:

not to do anything with her husband.

Because I see no instruction to Mary to not do anything with her husband - whatever “anything” could mean which would by necessity be consummation …

What I do see is information indicating that she was a virgin and remained so even as she conceived Jesus and Joseph was informed that was the case …

 

[Gorgias]

This alludes to according to them the fact Mary did not intend on knowing a man.

However Matthew 1 seems to signify otherwise, for it says Mary was told not to do anything with her husband.

Umm… pardon? How are you getting that from the text? That “Mary was told not to do anything with her husband”? That’s not in the text at all!

There is nothing in Matthew 1 that denies the virginity of Mary after Christs birth, but it seems to insinuate there was no vow.

It doesn’t do that, either. It merely points out that the paternity of Jesus isn’t human paternity.