perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[pocohombre]

Remember the soup that this was all hatched in. You had some viewing sex as “carnal” at best, and some that marriage was second class, and some that Joseph was perpetual virgin also. Human tendency is towards this sentimentality, iconicizing, enshrining grace works. Perhaps that is why Moses body was God’s to bury and the Ark has “disappeared”. We have enough things in surety to keep us enthralled with His grace works, in truth and spirit. I would not put a soul into bondage or obeisence to a doctrine that was not required of saints for 1800 years (1900 for Assumption)…Happy new year for sure everybody.

 

[batman1973]

Under normal circumstances - yes…but we do not have normal circumstances here…

Place yourself in Joseph’s sandals…

Consider carefully what he knew and when he knew it.
Consider how that would effect how he viewed Mary - who she was and what her relation was to God - and consequently his relationship in all of this.

It is my firm belief that if one does this, one will come to the conclusion that Joseph, a righteous man would not have sexual relations with Mary - viewing here as consecrated to God.

To me all of quibbling over - giving Mary to John - or whether the translations should be brtohers/cousins/kinsmen or whatever - - is secondary.

Bottom line is that Joseph would not believe it right to have relations with Mary…

Peace
James

Except scripture disagress with you.

 

[Avdima]

Matthew records,

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Now, a good question is, why doesn’t Joseph have relations with a woman who he has just taken as his wife? She is pregnant? She is newly pregnant and I do not believe that married couples commonly abstain from sexual relations for the entire duration of pregnancy. So why does it say that Joseph knew her not? Hmm…

Of course he waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus to have relations with her, it does not say he never did not have relations with his wife. So Matthew is stating that Joseph did come to know Mary later on,

 

[Auntie_A]

We live in an age where virginity is ignored, devalued, derided: “Are you kidding? A virgin? Ha!” It is automatic for too many to dismiss the idea that a person could live their life as a virgin or even in chastity chosen after losing virginity.

We live in a jaded age.

So of course we would run this old rag through the ringer again, long after great minds have already discussed, researched, and dismissed it.

We are enlightened.

So of course we cannot see the beauty of Mary’s life, the amazing miracle of Christ’s birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity.

We are logical and scientific.

So we spend our time “debunking myths” such as the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother and ignore other more recent lies that lead our minds away from God…

May I ask some different questions:

What is the outcome in believing in the perpetual virginity of Our Lady?

What is the outcome in believing she had other children, or that Joseph had other children?

What are the fruits of these beliefs?

Why is there such a need to question this longheld belief, but not a need to debunk our society’s short term beliefs and myths about sexuality, psychology, faith.

I can see the fruits of a society which questions the purity of The Holy Family, but does not question the purity of their own minds and their flimsy sources of “belief”.

Give me the story as it has been told for many years, before Joseph Smith had his hallucinations, Joseph Campbell wrote his myth books that encourage relativism, and before Hugh Hefner, Masters and Johnson, Kinsey, Jerry Springer and Dan Brown became “scholars”.

 

[YADA]

Actually that is explained in scripture. His family rejected what He was teaching until after the crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus taught blatantly that only those who were doing the will of His Father were brother, sister, mother. He would not have given her over to James because James was not a believer at the time, and hence not one that Jesus considered brother even though related.

You are reading too much or not enough into the passage …

MATTHEW 12:46
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. 47 [Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”] 48 But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Mary is the quintessential relative … the first Christian as it were … Mary said the the Angel -

Luke 1:38 Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

Can you show me a greater example of one doing the will of the heavenly Father then Mary’s “yes”?

 

[Kliska]

Legally? After a wedding ceremony but before the wedding night, EVERY couple is legally married.

So you consider them married only in technicality.

Morally? No, why would it be immoral to abstain from sex?

In the Jewish frame of reference consummation and even procreation are God-ordained and commanded if 2 people are married, one of our Jewish posters can correct me if I’m wrong. Also, the two shall become one flesh.

What is the RCC’s teaching on consummation and marriage? They teach that two people are actually married in the eyes of God even if they can consummate but don’t? Paul says not to abstain for long periods. I don’t see anything at all sinful or wrong with sleeping with one’s wife.

 

[JRKH]

Except scripture disagress with you.

Yes - some will say this…but Holy Mother Church does not - and Scripture tells us to “listen to the Church” where there are disagreements.

Peace
James

 

[YADA]

Of course he waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus to have relations with her, it does not say he never did not have relations with his wife. So Matthew is stating that Joseph did come to know Mary later on,

Til … and Until … are only controlling and restrictive on what happens before … they are silent on what happens after …

I can say “I won’t go to work until next Monday” … if I die on Sunday will I go to work on Monday? No … what if I just break my leg on Sunday? probably Not … what if I just decide I am not going to work on Monday or any other day in the future? Am I obligated to go to work on Monday because I said I would “not go to work until Monday”? Of course not - the word ‘until’ only impacts what happens until Monday arrives … the future - beyond Monday - is not the focus of the declaration - is not really a consideration - only a matter of conjecture …

Moses’ burial place in scripture was said to be ‘unknown until the present time’ … was it known at the time that was written? No … Is it known now? no …

A woman in scripture was said not to have had children until her death … does not mean that she had a child after her death?

 

[aidanbradypop]

I’m not following you here…could you clarify your question? The passage reads:

55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.

Correct. But it FITS both Tradition and logic. Therefore, it is the most probable explanation of **all **the known facts, IMO.

Some verses that could be a stubbling block.

1 CORINTHIANS
9:4-6

This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

ST. PAUL GALATIANS 1:18-19

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

ACTS 1:12-14 (following Jesus’ Ascension)
“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet . . . When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Mathew, James son of Alpheus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.”

 

[YADA]

So you consider them married only in technicality.

In the Jewish frame of reference consummation and even procreation are God-ordained and commanded if 2 people are married, one of our Jewish posters can correct me if I’m wrong. Also, the two shall become one flesh.

What is the RCC’s teaching on consummation and marriage? They teach that two people are actually married in the eyes of God even if they can consummate but don’t? Paul says not to abstain for long periods. I don’t see anything at all sinful or wrong with sleeping with one’s wife.

And yet even in the Jewish tradition there were consecrated virgins and those who took upon themselves to live chaste lives - it is described in the book of Numbers … and daughters in their fathers homes could make a vow [consecrate themselves] in service to God - an unless their fathers immediately repudiated their daughter’s vow - they had to live by that vow or be guilty of the sin if they compelled their … similarly wives could make that same vow and their husbands were bound unless they immediately repudiated their wife’s vow - they had to live by that vow or be guilty of the sin if they compelled their wife to break it … Widows could make the vow on their own.

Common - to take a vow of living chastely in service to God? perhaps not … but far more common the being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceiving a child while a virgin - which I believe has only happened once - in all of human history … people living lives without having sexual relations has happened in every society and in every age

 

[Kliska]

And yet even in the Jewish tradition there were consecrated virgins and those who took upon themselves to live chaste lives - it is described in the book of Numbers … and daughters in their fathers homes could make a vow [consecrate themselves] in service to God - an unless their fathers immediately repudiated their daughter’s vow - they had to live by that vow or be guilty of the sin if they compelled their … similarly wives could make that same vow and their husbands were bound unless they immediately repudiated their wife’s vow - they had to live by that vow or be guilty of the sin if they compelled their wife to break it … Widows could make the vow on their own.

Common - to take a vow of living chastely in service to God? perhaps not … but far more common the being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceiving a child while a virgin - which I believe has only happened once - in all of human history … people living lives without having sexual relations has happened in every society and in every age

It is my understanding that those were unmarried females in Jewish teaching; ie the virgins.

 

[YADA]

It is my understanding that those were unmarried females in Jewish teaching; ie the virgins.

But Numbers specifically lists wives … so what you “understand” does not match … specifically the passages states that if a wife makes a vow unto God and her husband upon first learning of the vow does not contradict it - he becomes bound and cannot make her later break that vow … and it also discusses the vows of widows … who like men could make vows and there was not secondary acceptance [like a young girl’s father or the wife’s husband] who could contradict the vow …

Thus a Virgin can take a vow to serve God but so can a wife, a widow … and to break that vow was a serious sin

Numbers 30:4 “When a woman makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, while still in her father’s house in her youth, 5 and her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge to which she bound herself remains valid. 6 But if on the day he learns of it her father opposes her, then any vow or any pledge to which she bound herself becomes invalid; and the LORD will release her from it, since her father opposed her. 7 “If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself,
8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her on the day he learns it, then the vows or the pledges to which she bound herself remain valid. 9 But if on the day her husband learns of it he opposes her, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD will release her from it. 10 (The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, however, any pledge to which such a woman binds herself, is valid.) 11 “If it is in her husband’s housethat she makes a vow or binds herself under oath to a pledge, 12 and her husband learns of it yet says nothing to her to oppose her, then all her vows remain valid or any pledge to which she has bound herself. 13 But if on the day he learns of them her husband annuls them, then whatever she has expressly promised in her vows or in her pledge becomes invalid; since her husband has annulled them, the LORD will release her from them. 14 “Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to humble herself, her husband may either confirm or annul. 15 But if her husband, day after day, says nothing at all to her, he thereby confirms all her vows or all the pledges incumbent upon her; he has confirmed them, because on the day he learned of them he said nothing to her. 16 If, however, he annuls them some time after he first learned of them, he will be responsible for her guilt. 17 These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses concerning a husband and his wife, as well as a father and his daughter while she is still in her youth in her father’s house.

 

[sennincatholic]

But Numbers specifically lists wives … so what you “understand” does not match … specifically the passages states that if a wife makes a vow unto God and her husband upon first learning of the vow does not contradict it - he becomes bound and cannot make her later break that vow … and it also discusses the vows of widows … who like men could make vows and there was not secondary acceptance [like a young girl’s father or the wife’s husband] who could contradict the vow …

Thus a Virgin can take a vow to serve God but so can a wife, a widow … and to break that vow was a serious sin

good!

 

[Kliska]

But Numbers specifically lists wives … so what you “understand” does not match … specifically the passages states that if a wife makes a vow unto God and her husband upon first learning of the vow does not contradict it - he becomes bound and cannot make her later break that vow … and it also discusses the vows of widows … who like men could make vows and there was not secondary acceptance [like a young girl’s father or the wife’s husband] who could contradict the vow …

Thus a Virgin can take a vow to serve God but so can a wife, a widow … and to break that vow was a serious sin

Again, I understand this to mean that the unmarried young ones would be virgin while the married and widowed would not be or else they wouldn’t be considered married.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Lutherans have fallen away from Martin Luther

Indeed, but to be fair, some of his views I am happy that the majority of Lutherans reject. Dude was wrong about some things, there I said it. Do I need to turn in my L card?

That being said, I think he’s as right about Mary’s virginity, not that it really matters all that much to me what Marys sex life (or lack thereof) was like. This is a point of contention between my pastor and I, he is adamant that Mary had other children. I guess that means that my pastor is NOT my pope right?

 

[YADA]

Again, I understand this to mean that the unmarried young ones would be virgin while the married and widowed would not be or else they wouldn’t be considered married.

You make no sense … a widowed person who makes a vow to serve God does not become a virgin - but from the moment of her vow lives a chaste life … they do not enter into sexual relations from that point

similarly - a young girl - virgin - who makes the same vow - would live a chaste life from that point on - even if a marriage was arranged for her [to provide for support and care ] … she would remain a virgin

Similarly a woman who marries could take the vow before her marriage was consummated either having made the vow while still in her fathers house - or in her husbands house - she would remain a Virgin … if she took the vow after consummation - then she would live -as does the widow - a chaste life from that time …

That - as noted - may not be the most common life to choose - but it is a life people have chosen for themselves in every age and in every society …

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

It is my understanding that those were unmarried females in Jewish teaching; ie the virgins.

Paul says regarding this:1cor7:34 “There is difference also between a wife and a virgin.The unmarried woman careth for the things of The Lord,that she may be holy both in body and in spirit,but she that is married careth for the things of the world,how she may please her husband”

 

[aidanbradypop]

Indeed, but to be fair, some of his views I am happy that the majority of Lutherans reject. Dude was wrong about some things, there I said it. Do I need to turn in my L card?

That being said, I think he’s as right about Mary’s virginity, not that it really matters all that much to me what Marys sex life (or lack thereof) was like. This is a point of contention between my pastor and I, he is adamant that Mary had other children. I guess that means that my pastor is NOT my pope right?

If I am correct, Lutherans are not bond to the PV of Mary. Anglicans can believe or not believe as there is no doctrine on the matter.

Personally, I know many Anglo-Catholics that believe in the PV of Mary and many Episcopalians that do not believe it or have no opinion either way

 

[YADA]

If I am correct, Lutherans are not bond to the PV of Mary. Anglicans can believe or not believe as there is no doctrine on the matter.

Personally, I know many Anglo-Catholics that believe in the PV of Mary and many Episcopalians that do not believe it or have no opinion either way

And then there is Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong who denies the virgin birth [perpetual - bolderdash!] -

And who wrote a book “Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of Women by a Male Dominated Church” … its probable that Jesus was the result of Mary;s being raped by a roman soldier … …is this one of the fruits of Protestantism or what

 

[Randy_Carson]

Except scripture disagress with you.

Not one word of scripture disagrees with what JRKH wrote.

Feel free to attempt to prove us wrong, of course.