Mother mary's perpetual virginity

[mirandajb]

I know that this topic has been covered time and again but I just want to highlight that many Catholic Church leaders are not convinced that Mother Mary DID NOT have other biological children besides Jesus. The alarming thing is that they do not see the significance and importance of Mother Mary’s perpetual virginity vis-a-vis the Catholic Church’s teaching and keep asking the question - “What’s the big deal and why is Mother Mary’s perpetual virginity so important to the Catholic Church”. I am starting this thread so that I can share this link with them and also to introduce the Forum - so that they can “catch the fish themselves” instead of waiting for someone to feed them, as usual . God bless.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I just want to highlight that many Catholic Church leaders are not convinced that Mother Mary DID NOT have other biological children besides Jesus.

Would you be so kind as to cite even ONE such Catholic Church “leader” who holds this opinion?

 

[Fiasco]

Would you be so kind as to cite even ONE such Catholic Church “leader” who holds this opinion?

If Miranda means theologians and Scripture scholars (or “scholars”), theres probably a heap of em. Tragically!
i bet there`s the odd bishop as well. One or two in this country would be prime candidates.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Explained here.

 

[stewstew03]

Mirandajb,

There is a well-known and highly regarded ecumenical book on this subject by the title of Mary in the New Testament (Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, Karl Donfried, & John Reumann), which is written from a historical-critical point of view. Ultimately, the authors reached the following conclusion (quoted from page 72):

1. The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the New Testament.

1. Once it was raised in subsequent Church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the “brothers” (and “sisters”) to Jesus.

1. Once that attention has been focused, it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters, and hence as children of Mary.

1. The solution favored by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later church insights.

What I take from this is that those who choose not to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity cannot rely on scripture to support their claims, so must therefore rely on their own “tradition.” As a Catholic, I tend to be influenced not only by Scripture, but also Tradition. As St. Augustine writes:

“A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1).

See CA article here.

Hope this helps!

 

[benjohnson]

I think it’s pretty clear that the Biblical reference to Jesus’s brothers could very well mean either cousins, or perhaps Joseph’s children from a previous time. As I understand it, Aramaic had no separate word to distinguish cousin from brother.

As a Lutheran, I don’t see any value in trying to convince my Catholic friends that perhaps they are incorrect. In fact, I think it’s rather charming and hopeful to think that the human mother of God could have been blessed in such a way.

 

[EricFilmer]

…The alarming thing is that they do not see the significance and importance of Mother Mary’s perpetual virginity vis-a-vis the Catholic Church’s teaching and keep asking the question - “What’s the big deal and why is Mother Mary’s perpetual virginity so important to the Catholic Church”. I am starting this thread so that I can share this link with them and also to introduce the Forum…

I will respond to this question by quoting from an Orthodox catechism (of the Orthodox Church of Finland) rather than a Catholic one. Although there are plenty of Catholic books which address this topic, I think it is important to point out that the belief in Mary being ever-virgin is not simply a Catholic one, but has been historically taught among the Orthodox Churches as well.

“First among the saints and always to be praised is Mary, the Favored One, the ever Virgin Mother of God. (Luke 1:28, 48) In her, in St. John the Baptist and in the Apostle John, all of whom led celibate lives, as well as in their countless followers, virginity was restored to the honor which naturally belonged to it before the Fall. (Gen 2:25) Thus one alternative Christian way is monastic asceticism, which is for those who have received a calling to this way of life. (Mt 19:11-12; 1Cor 7:7)”

• Archbishop Paul of Finland, trans. Marita Nykanen and Esther Williams, The Faith We Hold (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY: 1980), 28. (emphasis added)

Objectively speaking, because the teaching concerning Mary being ever-virgin is both ancient and universally held among the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Churches, this counts as strong evidence which indicates that it is part of the apostolic Deposit of Faith and not a man-made doctrine.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There’s a rather concise yet compelling treatise on this subject by Fr. William Saunders, in his article Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters ? , which can be read in about 3 minutes.

Fr. Saunders is thorough, providing other proofs to go along with the explanation of the proper connotation of the Greek word “adelphos”, which is the word written in the original text of the Gospel.

Excerpt:

The problem emerges in understanding the meaning of the word adelphos, brother. In the original text of the Gospel, we find the Greek word adelphos meaning brother, used. However, does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, adelphos was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or stepbrother. The word also described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc.

For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:1416, the word adelphos was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an adelphos to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle. (In the New American translation, “kinsman” or “relative” will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the Gospel.) The same is true for the word sister.

Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, “the son of the brother of my father.” When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word adelphos was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek adelphos to signify all of these relations.

I share David Filmer’s sentiment in post # 2 : We need to be specific in identifying whomever is in error (substantiate our beef basically), so as not to inadvertently smear those who are not.

 

[DavidFilmer]

i bet there`s the odd bishop as well. One or two in this country would be prime candidates.

We might suspect that certain Bishops hold such an opinion privately, but I seriously doubt that any Bishop would express such an opinion publicly. It is overt heresy, and would cause a massive scandal.

Thus, I question the premise of the question, that “many Church leaders” hold such an opinion . I doubt that we can actually confirm that one Church leader holds such an opinion.

Of course, theologians will scrutinize various passages from the Bible, the ECFs, Councils, Encyclicals, and other various historical documents, and some theologians will conclude that certain pieces of information do not support the teaching (while others will disagree). But that’s not the same thing as saying they don’t believe it.

 

[hawkeye125646]

Exodus 13:2=12 Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Ezek. 44:1 . Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Luke 1:34 Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 . in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 19:25-27 the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary. it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

 

[gus]

Marys perpetual virginity is more about the divinity of Jesus than about Mary. There is no way Mary can be the Mother of God and not be a perpetual a virgin.
When. you take off your 21st century blinders and put yourself into the sandals of a Devout 1st century Jew its obvious that if Jesus was the son of God there is no way he could approach Mary. The penality for merely touching the Arc of covenent was death. Mary is the living Arc or vessal of God.
I would say this is not only important to Catholics but to any who claim to be Christain. Anyone who denies this is a tool of the Anti-Christ as stated in Johns letters.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Explained here.

Very nice explanation. I might have to use this someday.

 

[Della]

As gus and others pointed out, Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant because she conceived and bore the Son of God. That alone should be sufficient explanation, but to go further by supporting it with the Angel Gabriel words to Mary:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you…” Lk. 1:35a

This means Mary was consecrated to God in the same way the Tabernacle and the Temple when the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” them. God alone had any rights to her person, to which she agreed when she told the angel, “Let it be done unto me according to your word.” Joseph recognized this when he was troubled and “feared” taking Mary into his home as his wife. The Angel Gabriel answered his concern by affirming that Mary had been chosen by God to bear the Christ, therefore Joseph would accept her as his wife to guard and protect her and her Child.

Those who accept mere surface meanings or cling to the so-called “historical” (misusing historical setting in many cases) “critical” (criticizing/dismissing any and all references to the miraculous) “method” (one with extremely limited use/viablitiy) miss important connections between references because they are blind to accepting any but the most banal interpretation, such as the deporable “highly favored” instead of “full of grace” interpretation. Often those who do know little about bibical interpretation, but accept without question those answers that suit them instead of digging deeper for the truth. It’s as if they want to fit God into their own little boxes where they can control what he does. Why they want to do so is up to them to discern.

 

[stewstew03]

Those who accept mere surface meanings or cling to the so-called “historical” (misusing historical setting in many cases) “critical” (criticizing/dismissing any and all references to the miraculous) “method” (one with extremely limited use/viablitiy) miss important connections between references because they are blind to accepting any but the most banal interpretation, such as the deporable “highly favored” instead of “full of grace” interpretation. Often those who do know little about bibical interpretation, but accept without question those answers that suit them instead of digging deeper for the truth. It’s as if they want to fit God into their own little boxes where they can control what he does. Why they want to do so is up to them to discern.

Even so, those who rely on the historical-critical method fail to provide enough evidence by their own standards that Jesus had blood brothers.

I’ve also argued before that "highly favored’ does not diminish Mary’s standing.

 

[benjohnson]

Even so, those who rely on the historical-critical method fail to provide enough evidence by their own standards that Jesus had blood brothers.

I would certainly agree with that - the Bible is not clear that Jesus had brothers:

When Jesus was on the cross he said: “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”

If Jesus has brothers, then putting Mary in the care of a non-family-member would not be following Jewish practice.

…

What bugs me about this whole issue is how some people like to torment Catholics with it. I refuse to tolerate it.

I remember being in Mexico and seeing a poor women on a pilgrimage praying the rosary. Being an idiot agnostic (In my defense, I was only 12 years old) I thought that I was superior - I had no need for god, silly beads, or little remembrances of a long dead woman.

But that humble women, with her humble rosary, and her humble love for God and the Mother of God should be emulated regardless of the status of Mary’s virginity. Now - 28 years later, I would gladly love to learn to love God as she did.

 

[De_Montfort]

Exodus 13:2=12 Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Ezek. 44:1 . Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Luke 1:34 Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 . in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 19:25-27 the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary. it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Its sad that some even given all the Scriptural truth deny the fact. Like Della said it’s as if people want to fit God in their own little box. The proof is there, Mary is ever Virgin!

 

[Della]

Even so, those who rely on the historical-critical method fail to provide enough evidence by their own standards that Jesus had blood brothers.

The onus is on those who insist Mary had other children, isn’t it? After all, no where in the NT is Mary called the mother of anyone else, while the parents of the “brothers and sisters” are named.

I’ve also argued before that "highly favored’ does not diminish Mary’s standing.

Here I have to disagree. I think it does diminish Mary’s standing because it is a bad translation of a clear expression. Why else would anyone use the least viable translation than to cast doubt? IMHO, it shouldn’t have been used when it wasn’t necessary.

 

[Trebor135]

Explained here.

Intriguing exegesis. A few questions:

1. Ezekiel 43:4-7 (RSV)

[4] As the glory of the LORD entered the temple by the gate facing east,
[5] the Spirit lifted me up, and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the temple.
[6] While the man was standing beside me, I heard one speaking to me out of the temple;
[7] and he said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel for ever. And the house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they, nor their kings, by their harlotry, and by the dead bodies of their kings,

The use of the term “for ever” in the Old Testament does not necessarily imply “from now until the end of time”, but in some cases “for a very long period”.

a) From Genesis chapter 13:

[14] The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
[15] for all the land which you see I will give to you and to your descendants for ever.”

The Israelites have not dwelt in and maintained control over the Promised Land for all of the past three to four thousand years. Christians, apart from the John Hagee types, do not consider to be an article of faith the notion that the modern state of Israel constitutes a successor to the kingdom of David enjoying the full and unwavering support of God and therefore demanding ours.

b) From Exodus chapter 31:

[13] “Say to the people of Israel, `You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.
[14] You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
[15] Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.
[16] Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant.
[17] It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’”

God’s New Covenant people, the successor to the Israelite nation, have not kept the Sabbath since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. It was the Seventh-Day Adventists, an American sect, who revived the practice in the nineteenth century.

Can we be sure that “for ever” meant “from now until the end of time” rather than “for a very long period”?

1. Ezekiel 44:1-3 (RSV)

[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.”

Can we be certain that “the LORD, the God of Israel,” in v. 2 is the same as “the prince” in v. 3?

1. Did the Early Church Fathers point to the texts you cite in support of St. Mary’s perpetual virginity? Did these esteemed men interpret the passages in the same fashion?

 

[Cat_Herder]

God’s New Covenant people, the successor to the Israelite nation, have not kept the Sabbath since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:1-2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:4-5[/BIBLEDRB]
(The Law of Moses of course includes the Saturday Sabbath–see Exodus 31:15)
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:6-12[/BIBLEDRB]

So, Peter (the first Pope) considered, along with all of the Apostles, the question of whether Saturday Sabbath observance was binding on Christians. The answer is a clear and resounding no. If whatever source you’re using is ignoring the result of the Council of Jerusalem and in favor of going “by the Bible,” you can chuck your source out because it contradicts itself–the Council is right there in the Bible.

 

[stewstew03]

The onus is on those who insist Mary had other children, isn’t it? After all, no where in the NT is Mary called the mother of anyone else, while the parents of the “brothers and sisters” are named.

In most cases, yes, I think the burden is on the “other guy.”

Here I have to disagree. I think it does diminish Mary’s standing because it is a bad translation of a clear expression. Why else would anyone use the least viable translation than to cast doubt? IMHO, it shouldn’t have been used when it wasn’t necessary.

Even some Catholic translations have “favored one” or “highly favored one.”
It’s a distinction without a difference.