Perpetual Virginity alluded to at Annunciation

[Nicholas_II]

Hi

Can anyone tell me about the original text of the following passages and their significances in the context of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary

“The Holy Spirit Shall come upon you…”

Mary hadn’t conceived up until this point…?

“How shall this be since I know not man”

This seems to be that Mary is talking about the future. She finds it unlikely that she WILL conceive… because she knows not man.

Am I barking up the wrong tree with this? Do the original languages back this up? Or not?

best regards
Nichols

 

[Penitus]

I’ve often thought of it this way:

If you were engaged, and about to be married, and an angel told you that you’d give birth soon, you’d probably assume that your future husband was going to be the father.

But Mary does not respond in that way at all. She says (and here is the literal translation) “I know not man.” Protestants may argue that she speaks in present verb tense, thus supposedly implying that she will know man eventually (and hence destroying the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity).

However, May does speak in the present tense because she is describing her state, her vocation: she knows not man. Given the number of virgins in that time period (see Dead Sea Scrolls), we can be pretty sure that Mary took a vow of virginity.

Sorry, I wrote that in a hurry. I hope it answers your question.

 

[ryanoneil]

Hi

Can anyone tell me about the original text of the following passages and their significances in the context of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary

“The Holy Spirit Shall come upon you…”

Mary hadn’t conceived up until this point…?

“How shall this be since I know not man”

This seems to be that Mary is talking about the future. She finds it unlikely that she WILL conceive… because she knows not man.

Am I barking up the wrong tree with this? Do the original languages back this up? Or not?

best regards
Nichols

I don’t understand other languages but read an interesting answer to this. Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of life long 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.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

 

[boppaid]

I don’t understand other languages but read an interesting answer to this. Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of life long 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.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

I’m confused. Why would she be engaged to be married, then, if she took a vow of perpetual virginity? Of course she did not know man…she was not yet married when the angel came. But she was engaged to be married.

 

[ryanoneil]

I’m confused. Why would she be engaged to be married, then, if she took a vow of perpetual virginity? Of course she did not know man…she was not yet married when the angel came. But she was engaged to be married.

I don’t know. I think I’ll email him and see if he’ll respond. What I get out of the statement is: The angel says “You will conceive . . .” notice he says it will happen in the future. Mary says how can this be, since I have no relations with a man." She clearly understood how conception happens. Why is she confussed by the angels statement then? All she will have to do is get married and have sex, in the future, to conceive.

So if she is engaged and planning on having sex, then there is no reason for her to be confussed. (unless she is a consecrated Temple virgin) This is the first time I’ve heard this idea, so I hope he responds with more evidence.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Penitus]

I’m confused. Why would she be engaged to be married, then, if she took a vow of perpetual virginity? Of course she did not know man…she was not yet married when the angel came. But she was engaged to be married.

Many consecrated virgins were married. For more info, please check out the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[ryanoneil]

John Salza emailed me back with this:

Because her engagement and future marriage were to be entirely for the service of God and, after the Annunciation, the Incarnation. This was a rare, but not not unknown, type of arrangement during the time of Christ. Spouses would forgo the marital embrace in exchange for total consecration to God. This is why the betrothed Mary asked the angel Gabriel, “How can this be, since I do not know man?”

Peace,

Ryan

 

[mangy_dog]

Hi

Can anyone tell me about the original text of the following passages and their significances in the context of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary

“The Holy Spirit Shall come upon you…”

Mary hadn’t conceived up until this point…?

“How shall this be since I know not man”

This seems to be that Mary is talking about the future. She finds it unlikely that she WILL conceive… because she knows not man.

Am I barking up the wrong tree with this? Do the original languages back this up? Or not?

best regards
Nichols

Hello Nichols,

Mary’s words are multi-faceted. First of all, some would argue that she doubted the angel or God for that matter and therefore use this passage to indicate that Mary was not sinless because Zechariah did the same thing and was renedered mute until the birth of John the Baptist. Therefore, Mary’s comment to the angel was not only that she “knew not man” but that her vow of virginity was perpetual, she did not have the intention of knowing man. Not that she was ignorant of how a man and a woman become one flesh etc etc…she was testing to see if the angel understood her vow. Which is why the angel explained to her. And not to Zechariah who knew that nothing was impossible to God and doubted that at his age and his wife’s age could do anything to bring about the birth of the Baptist.

I hope I didn’t muddle that up

 

[adam_in_ohio]

Mary is comparied to the Ark of the covenit. The ark had to be pure. I think the gold had to be purfied 7 times. Only the livical priests could touch the ark. I can’t rember where but someone dies when the Jews were moving the Ark and it almost falls on the ground and he trys to stop it from falling. Then BAM he’s dead!
The Ark contained the Word of God in stone. Marry contained the Word made flesh. The Ark didn’t stop being the purest gold after so long. And the law about only the priest being aloud to touch it never lifted.
So Mary, being pure from sin and man before giving birth, why would it change after she gave birth to the Word made Flesh? Jesus the Christ!

 

[jimmy]

Hi

Can anyone tell me about the original text of the following passages and their significances in the context of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary

“The Holy Spirit Shall come upon you…”

Mary hadn’t conceived up until this point…?

“How shall this be since I know not man”

This seems to be that Mary is talking about the future. She finds it unlikely that she WILL conceive… because she knows not man.

Am I barking up the wrong tree with this? Do the original languages back this up? Or not?

best regards
Nichols

St. Augustine wrote about this same exact thing in a homily on virginity. He speaks about Mary making a vow of virginity and that it is seen in the statement ‘how shall this be since I know not man.’

“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,’ saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?’ and had not added, seeing I know not a man,’ certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” *Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401). *

 

[richardeekw]

Hi

Can anyone tell me about the original text of the following passages and their significances in the context of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary

“The Holy Spirit Shall come upon you…”

Mary hadn’t conceived up until this point…?

“How shall this be since I know not man”

This seems to be that Mary is talking about the future. She finds it unlikely that she WILL conceive… because she knows not man.

Am I barking up the wrong tree with this? Do the original languages back this up? Or not?

best regards
Nichols

Dear Nicholas

We must Let God Be God.
Can I ask you a question?

If you were Jesus (the God-Mad) and you are given the opportunity of creating you mother, how will you create her?
(Unless you have had a bad experience with your earthly mother; …)

I don’t have answers to your questions off-the-cuff; but go study a Catholic University, pay your dues, and learn to research for yourself.

Dr Scott Hahn’s works… Dr Sri (Dawn of the Messiah / Queen Mother) should have some answers to your concerns.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m confused. Why would she be engaged to be married, then, if she took a vow of perpetual virginity? Of course she did not know man…she was not yet married when the angel came. But she was engaged to be married.

The Jewish catacombs in Rome identify the names of couples who contracted celibate marriages. Such marriages went against Jewish norms, but they did uncommonly occur.

The clause " seeing I know not a man" must be taken in connection with the question “How shall this be?” If Mary intended to consummate her marriage by having relations with Joseph, she would not have asked the angel Gabriel that question. She would have understood the angel as alluding to a normal future event in her marriage.

You are an enclosed garden, my sister, my spouse; an enclosed garden, a fountain sealed. {Songs 4,12}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[boppaid]

Mary is comparied to the Ark of the covenit. The ark had to be pure. I think the gold had to be purfied 7 times. Only the livical priests could touch the ark. I can’t rember where but someone dies when the Jews were moving the Ark and it almost falls on the ground and he trys to stop it from falling. Then BAM he’s dead!
The Ark contained the Word of God in stone. Marry contained the Word made flesh. The Ark didn’t stop being the purest gold after so long. And the law about only the priest being aloud to touch it never lifted.
So Mary, being pure from sin and man before giving birth, why would it change after she gave birth to the Word made Flesh? Jesus the Christ!

I guess I am unclear as to why having relations with her husband would make her unworthy. Jesus had already passed through the womb, and there is nothing morally wrong w/ relations with your spouse…in fact it was something God had designed specifically for the sacrament of marriage. This just doesn’t make any sense to me. No matter how many times I try to wrap my head around it.

 

[ocean_soul1980]

Hello, I’ve been reading this post with interest, and finally decided to respond. I hope I’m still staying on topic here.

I’m a Protestant Christian, not Catholic, so although the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity isn’t a NEW concept to me, I’ve always wondered how Catholics support that claim.

The passage at what you guys call the “Annunciation” (of course we don’t talk about it at all) is interesting, but could be taken so many different ways.

Could someone please point me in the direction of more verses that support the claim, and also some books? I know Saint Augustine is a good one, but his books are REALLY hard to get through. I tried reading City of God, and couldn’t get very far. I can only read maybe six pages at a time, lol.

I really am genuinely interested in this. I know Martin Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, so I wonder why this doctrine hasn’t survived in the Protestant church.

 

[boppaid]

Can I ask you a question?

If you were Jesus (the God-Mad) and you are given the opportunity of creating you mother, how will you create her?
(Unless you have had a bad experience with your earthly mother; …)
.

I’ll tell you what. Even moreso, if I were God, and I was given the opportunity of creating my children, I would create THEM sinless (as I think most parents would). But God didn’t create us, his children, as sinless. It just doesn’t make sense to me that he would create Mary as sinless either. None of it just adds up for me. But I guess, it doesn’t really matter. I’ll find the answers someday when I am up there with God. And, boy!, will I be asking!

 

[bodhisagan]

IMHO I think we’re reaching a bit here. I’ve never had a problem with the word choice here, employing Occam’s Razor it seems much more contrived and convoluted to perceive Mary’s answer as evidence of never intending to have sex than it does to suggest linguistic strangeness (both in the sense of the document’s ancientness and it’s origins in Greek) in her choice of words in saying “I’m not sexually active, what are you telling me?”, assuming that the angel meant, “you will have a child soon”.

The Greek from what I can tell (in my limited ability to read the thing) reads “but said Mary to the Angel; How will be this, since I do not know - a man?” Luke 1:34

To throw a little more into the Fire -

MAtthew 1:25 and he did not know her until (εως) she bore a son.

As a Catholic I know this is all dogma, however I think there’s a lot of theology wrapped up in this. It seems to be attachment to perpetual virginity, much as we like to think that Mom never, you know…, did itwith Dad (that wretch!).

It seems so archaic to think that Mary’s fulfillment of her matrimonial duty would some how make her “unclean” in our eyes.

Sorry y’all, sex is pretty awesome, praise the Lord for that gift. Not something that is unclean.

The real meat of it is that the bible isn’t all that clear on this…why? Because it is almost moot - (who cares?), or, because it was assumed - through cultural cues that aren’t so clear to us today, that she did, or did not have “relations with that man”.

All the same, so I’m not accused of Cafe Catholicism - I can accept it, it just has little value to me; in my mind she could have been a dutiful sexually active wife who bore Joseph many sons and she’s still the bomb! I certainly think no less of my mom or wife for their sexual activity.

IMHO

Pax,

Steve

 

[andre]

Hello, I’ve been reading this post with interest, and finally decided to respond. I hope I’m still staying on topic here.

I’m a Protestant Christian, not Catholic, so although the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity isn’t a NEW concept to me, I’ve always wondered how Catholics support that claim.

The passage at what you guys call the “Annunciation” (of course we don’t talk about it at all) is interesting, but could be taken so many different ways.

Could someone please point me in the direction of more verses that support the claim, and also some books? I know Saint Augustine is a good one, but his books are REALLY hard to get through. I tried reading City of God, and couldn’t get very far. I can only read maybe six pages at a time, lol.

I really am genuinely interested in this. I know Martin Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, so I wonder why this doctrine hasn’t survived in the Protestant church.

Also John Calvin and Zwingle believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. (always virgin)

 

[richardeekw]

Hello, I’ve been reading this post with interest, and finally decided to respond. I hope I’m still staying on topic here.

I’m a Protestant Christian, not Catholic, so although the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity isn’t a NEW concept to me, I’ve always wondered how Catholics support that claim.

I wonder what you are “Protesting” against the Roman Catholic Church?
The Beauty and Richness of the Roman Catholic Church is that we have the Discernment and Teaching from the Apostles and the Magisterium and we do not have to be involved in “Speculative Theologies”

The passage at what you guys call the “Annunciation” (of course we don’t talk about it at all) is interesting, but could be taken so many different ways.

Could someone please point me in the direction of more verses that support the claim, and also some books? I know Saint Augustine is a good one, but his books are REALLY hard to get through. I tried reading City of God, and couldn’t get very far. I can only read maybe six pages at a time, lol.

I really am genuinely interested in this. I know Martin Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, so I wonder why this doctrine hasn’t survived in the Protestant church.

The basic difficulty with “Protestants” is the Question
“Where is it in the Bible?” - The Sola Scripturaa debate
Unless you are convinced that “The Bible is from “The Church””
Try this before going any further.

**Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church **
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html

 

[ocean_soul1980]

I guess the more accurate description of my Christianity would actually be nondenominational. I’m just a Christian. I do attend a branch of the Protestant Christian church (Baptist), but I’m not a member of that church.

I’m here because I recognize that the Catholic church is where it all began.

I do believe that if it’s not in the Bible, it shouldn’t be used, but I am open-minded enough to look into where all the rituals in the Catholic church came from, and when.

I’m the student here, not the teacher. I’m here to learn.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is just one of the beliefs the Catholic church holds to that I’m wondering about. There are many others, but I won’t discuss them here in this topic, since this is about Mary.

 

[Ginger2]

I think the more pertinent question comes Matthew 13:55 & 56

In verse 55, if they were referring to cousins or other relatives, why does v.56 refer to his sisters? It is not the same word that is used in Luke 1:36 where Elizabeth is called her cousin.

The word used in Matthew can mean either full blooded sister or a sister in the Lord.

If it means the latter, a sister in the Lord, then why is it repeated in v 56 when the Christian fellowship, whether male or female has already been addressed in v. 55?