Perpetual Virginity and Common Sense

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_in_SD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A midwife would not have been able to predict that the offspring would be a son, or that he would be called Son of God. And a midwife would have been involved only after she was known to be pregnant. Now, a prophet might have given such a prediction. In this case, the angel Gabriel stated it as a fact.

An understandable reaction might have been, “Praise the Lord! I’m going to be the mother of the Messiah! Wait till Joseph hears this!” But she was puzzled as to how it could be, even though she was betrothed. And betrothal, in her world, meant all but married. She only had to move into Joseph’s house. She knew how babies came about; she knew she was betrothed to Joseph; yet she did not understand how such a thing could be?

I think it lends credence to the tradition that Mary was a consecrated virgin even before her betrothal to Joseph.
 
Robert in SD:
I was thinking about some common protestant objections to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity - e.g. “Why wouldn’t Joseph and Mary have marital relations after Jesus birth since, after all, they were married.”
Click to expand...
To me, the answer is: “Why wouldn’t the Israelites touch the Arch of the Covenant?”
 
40.png
Prodigal_Son:
I feel like too many people follow this logic: Dogma: “Mary was pure.” Assumption: “Sex is impure.” Conclusion: “Mary didn’t have sex.”

But that reasoning has a false assumption there. Sex is wonderful, and pure, and holy – and all the moreso if saints are having it! Certainly, there are many abuses of our sexual nature, but a married couple making love in a dignified way is not an abuse.

I must say, I do like Chip’s answer, though:

Now **there **is a real understanding of sex. It is an intimacy, and does not compare to the mystical intimacy of unity with God. I still don’t get why it couldn’t coexist with marital sexuality, but Chip certainly made a good point.
Click to expand...
I also like Chip’s point and would like to add that although Mary was (is) pure, Joseph, although holy, was not born free of the stain of original sin. It is not that the conjugal act is not pure or is sinful, but Joseph, not being pure from the moment of his conception, would never have entered the Ark of the New Covenant for the same reason the Israelites never would have touched the Ark of the Covenant.

There is another theory I heard about on Catholic Answers Live that Mary was consecrated to God at her birth and was to remain a virgin her entire life, which was a custom among some Jewish girls. Such girls, as they matured, would often enter into a type of contractual marriage with a man who would serve as her protector. Often, Joseph is depicted as a bit older than Mary and some believe he may have had children from a prior marriage, thereby eliminating his own need to biologically father children. It is presumed that he died when Christ was a teenager or young adult since there is no reference to Joseph once Jesus began his public ministry. This presumption is consistent with the idea that Joseph was a bit older than Mary (although it does not necessarily substantiate it). Furthermore, there is currently a vow some married couples make to live as brother and sister and refrain from the conjugal act so as to emulate Joseph and Mary.

Personally, I could never understand why anyone has a hard time understanding that a good and holy man, like Joseph, would be unable to keep any desire for intimacy with Mary in check for the sake of God. Remember, after learning Mary was with Child, Joseph initially looked for a way out of marrying her, until he was assured by the angel that Mary had conceived through the Holy Spirit. Certainly, that would have had some impact on him.
 
40.png
Angainor:
…I think any kind of divine awe of the situation would quickly wear off in favor of normal man’s love of his wive and family.
Click to expand...
If you are serious, I think your divine awe threshold needs to be readjusted.

It doesn’t say much about Joseph, the devout Jew, if after being visited by an angel and told that his betrothed was to bear the Messiah, he could so quickly have his “divine awe” wear off. Come to think of it, it wouldn’t say much about Mary (full of grace and blessed among women) either.

Maybe they popped Jesus in daycare, grabbed a couple of brews, sat down in front of Jerry Springer and the whole Messiah thing just slipped their mind. 😉

Lucky for us Jesus came 2000 years ago and not today. Timing is everything.
 
Semper Fi:
You are Lutheran. Are you aware that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of that, but only because Catholics have informed me of that.
 
40.png
OhioBob:
If you are serious, I think your divine awe threshold needs to be readjusted.

It doesn’t say much about Joseph, the devout Jew, if after being visited by an angel and told that his betrothed was to bear the Messiah, he could so quickly have his “divine awe” wear off. Come to think of it, it wouldn’t say much about Mary (full of grace and blessed among women) either.

Maybe they popped Jesus in daycare, grabbed a couple of brews, sat down in front of Jerry Springer and the whole Messiah thing just slipped their mind. 😉

Lucky for us Jesus came 2000 years ago and not today. Timing is everything.
Click to expand...
I think you need a threshold of your own readjusted if you immediately associate the normal God-given marital relations with “daycare, beer, and Jerry Springer”.
 
Robert in SD:
Hello all;

I was thinking about some common protestant objections to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity - e.g. “Why wouldn’t Joseph and Mary have marital relations after Jesus birth since, after all, they were married.”

I was trying to come up with a common sense response to include with other, more theological and scriptural apologetic arguments. What do you think about the following? (Note: I do not mean to be crass, so I apologize if I offend anyone’s sensitivities.)

For a man - there are certain physical requirements that are necesary to perform the marital act. Psychological, physical, and emotional barriers can impede that physical requirement. Hence modern medicine developed Viagra and the like to assist men in acheiving the appropriate physical condition required for the act. But, of cource, Viagra did not exist at the time of Christ’s birth.

My thinking is this… As a practical matter, gentlemen, if your wife was the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ - God Incarnate, the Second person of the Trinity capable of speaking all of creation into and out of existence - how physically capable would you be of performing the marital act with her? Given the enormity of her role as the Mother to Jesus, isn’t it just common sense to conclude that the marriage of Joseph and Mary was simply not a typical marriage in the conjugal sense?

Peace,
Click to expand...
This is a very good point that I have never thought of. Wow, thanks for pointing this out. It makes complete sense to me. I couldn’t do it given the situation. You know, if we digested what we read and tried to put ourselves in the other person’s shoes, we would clear up a lot of misconceptions we have.

God bless…
 
40.png
Magster:
Personally, I could never understand why anyone has a hard time understanding that a good and holy man, like Joseph, would be unable to keep any desire for intimacy with Mary in check for the sake of God.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find it hard to understand why it would even occur to Joseph not to have intimacy with his wife. Set aside the “desire to do so”, the “desire to do so” is only secondarily important.

I do not understand why Joseph would think it improper to fulfill the marriage in accordance with natural law.
 
40.png
Angainor:
Personally, I find it hard to understand why it would even occur to Joseph not to have intimacy with his wife. Set aside the “desire to do so”, the “desire to do so” is only secondarily important.

I do not understand why Joseph would think it improper to fulfill the marriage in accordance with natural law.
Click to expand...
Again, this is only a small-t tradition; but there has been a tradition that this may have been understood from the outset. That is, if Mary had taken a vow as a consecrated virgin, Joseph would have understood this from the very beginning and known that his role was to be her guardian and protector.
 
40.png
JimG:
Again, this is only a small-t tradition; but there has been a tradition that this may have been understood from the outset. That is, if Mary had taken a vow as a consecrated virgin, Joseph would have understood this from the very beginning and known that his role was to be her guardian and protector.
Click to expand...
PRECISELY!! You have to think of Mary and Joseph’s marriage within the confines of their society at the time - not in our terms today.

Joseph, being the righteous Jew that he was, understood that Mary, at a very young age, had been consecrated to the temple just as Samuel’s mother had done for him. Being a consecrated virgin meant that God was her spouse and her life was dedicated to Him and you did not defile a virgin of the temple of God! This was understood. This is not uncommon, even today. For the nuns; their spouse is Jesus. They are married to the Church and wear the wedding band to prove it.

According to tradition, Joseph was chosen by lot to be Mary’s guardian. Joseph knew his place to begin with since he had been visited by an angel of God and told that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit - thus Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. The word “overshadow” in the passage of Gabriel and Mary is typical marriage speak for the Jew of the time. It is used in the old testament (in one of the OT books where Ruth (?) talks about being overshadowed or having had her husband’s cloak over her. Someone clarify this, please) and means the same thing. When they used the word overshadow, it was to indicate a marital act. Mary knew that and so did Joseph.

Joseph, knowing Mary was the bride of the Holy Spirit would not have had marital relations with her - She is the Mother of God! He knew he was only to be Mary and Jesus’ guardian. He had an awesome charge!

So, there is no need to speculate on if Joseph was “gun shy”. No, he was not - he knew who he was living with and knew what God expected of him.
 
40.png
Angainor:
Yes, I am aware of that, but only because Catholics have informed me of that.
Click to expand...
And? You don’t believe Martin Luther said that Mary was ever virgin? You think Martin Luther was wrong?
 
40.png
Angainor:
Personally, I find it hard to understand why it would even occur to Joseph not to have intimacy with his wife. Set aside the “desire to do so”, the “desire to do so” is only secondarily important.

I do not understand why Joseph would think it improper to fulfill the marriage in accordance with natural law.
Click to expand...
Why is it so hard to grasp? The bible clearly states that he/she didn’t engage while she was pregnant. A normative mariiage, would engage in the act during the pregnancy. So since Joseph and Mary abstained during the pregnancey, then they obviously new something, significantly, more profound was at play here. Something that stay’d with them for the rest of their lives.

Chip
 
During the time Mary was pregnent they were engaged to be married. I have no problem with the fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth, this is clear in the bible. It is the afterward that is really in question.
 
40.png
MariaG:
And? You don’t believe Martin Luther said that Mary was ever virgin? You think Martin Luther was wrong?
Click to expand...
I have no reason to doubt you that Luther said that. Yes, if he did say that, I think he was wrong.
 
40.png
Angainor:
I have no reason to doubt you that Luther said that. Yes, if he did say that, I think he was wrong.
Click to expand...
as the cornerstone of Protestantism is subjectivism, you can perfectly admit that your “founding father” is wrong. and other Protestant can say that you are wrong… ad infinitum… to more than 40000 different protestant denominations… may be what you think has nothing to do with truth…
 
Here’s a thought. Knowing what we know about Karol Wojtyla, speculate for a moment that St. Joseph had switched places with JPII, can we imagine JPII engaging in marital relations with Mary? He would love her deeply without needing to have the marital relations.

There’s a tremendous thesis in the Theology of the Body that covers celibacy and matrimony. Both vocations are one in spirit expressed in two seemingly opposite ways. Everyone should investigate this and the answer is brilliant and edifying.

in XT.
 
Angianor:

What about Calvin? He reitterated the perpetual virginity. Do you not belive him also?

in XT.
 
I see it like this:

Mary was the first tabernacle, right? She held the body of Christ, just like those golden boxes do today. Now, a tabernacle is a tabernacle. You wouldn’t use a tabernacle to, say, hold clothing or as a spare box for helping your friends move. Why? Because a tabernacle is a tabernacle and has one purpose and one alone: to contain the blessed body of Jesus Christ!

If Joseph and Mary had sex, most likely she would have ended up pregnant again. Where does that leave her as the tabernbacle? She would have to hold something that wasn’t the body of Christ inside her. Our tabernacles don’t hold clothes and her tabernacle didn’t hold other children. Simple as that.

Although, I do find the whole idea of Joseph being intimidated interesting. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top