Perpetual virginity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

godisgood77

Guest
Does Mary’s perpetual virginity add anything to her holiness? In other words, does marital relations detract from holiness according to the Church?
 
Offering up one’s sexual desires is certainly an amazing way to glorify God.

However, if anything, Mary’s perpetual virginity emphasises Christ’s holiness, not Mary’s.

For the womb that Christ inhabited to be used by any other mortal being would be blasphemous, and on par with Uzza the Israelite’s touching of the Ark of the Covenant
 
Thanks for this reminder… all Marian teaching is really a testament to God’s action; not the action of a human
 
Yes undeniably the virginity of Mary is part of one of his greatest titles of glory, without her virgnity she would be less glorious.
God has clearly promised a special crown to those who will remain a virgin because of him (read Revelation 14: 4). The apocalypse speaks two great crowns in heaven: that of the martyrs and that of the virgins. And the virgins are those who will live in the greatest intimacy of God.
According to many saints and father of the Church, Jesus particularly loved St John, because he was a virgin.
And finally in this life itself, Jesus has promised a reward a hundredfold in this life to those who have renounced women and children because of Him. St. Paul explained clearly how marriage is more of a concern for world affairs. And St. Augustine, St. Thomas also explains how the pleasures of conjugal love are an obstacle to the contemplation of God.

I have already made this remark here at CAF, the intrinsic excellence of virgnity on marriage is rarely taught today. Even when exceptionally it is recalled, it is always in a sense to relativize it.
 
Last edited:
All throughout the Bible virginity before marriage was the norm. In fact to defile that virginity before marriage could result in death. Kind of like adultery or harlotry. God’s people, Israel were called out to be separate from the world to be God’s firstborn. They were called to be holy, set apart. To put God first and his commandments.

It is fitting that Mary who is the embodiment of the best of Israel to be a virgin, holy and pure, not defiled in any way. That she should be set apart wholly for God and to be the Mother of God Incarnate. Her sanctuary, her holiness is for the explicit purpose of being that tabernacle that God specifically chose that brought Christ into the world and for no other. She is like the ark that housed the word of God, she housed the Word of God made flesh.

The early church fathers believed that the tabernacle that housed the Son of God allowed him to pass through her in such a way that her virginity was kept in tact, and that none else should pass through her. They point to passages like in Ezekiel where it says she is to be shut up and none else shall pass through her. Her virginity wasn’t just to save her self for marriage but was a sign from God - see Isaiah 7:14 - that was as high as the heavens. She is wholly dedicated to her Son, Immanuel.

The church fathers point is that should something so holy and pure that was made to house the Son of God be also used for common purposes? An analogy might be should the chalice that is used to hold the Blood of Christ also be used to drink root beer? There is nothing wrong with drinking root beer (nor with sex in marriage, sex means more children) , but there is something wrong with using things which have been consecrated, made holy and set apart for a special holy use, for common purposes.
 
Last edited:
She that is married - careth for the world -
And how she might please her husband.
She that is unmarried - careth how to please the Lord.
1st Cor. Chapter 7 😇
 
Jesus has promised us from this life, presently, happiness a hundredfold if we give up the joys of the world for him, including the joys of marriage (renoncement to women and children)
God has promised a special reward to Heaven for those who have sacrify the joys of marital love for him (Rev 14: 4)

Thus, logically, only a weak trust in God or a weakness of the will, can make that one does not wish to have a life of total renunciation including renunciation of the marriage.
I am not saying that everyone should remain virgin for life, but even if we are married, we should recognize that if we had had the gift of virgnity, that would be a great advantage for us in this present life, and later in Heaven
 
What is so sacred about never having performed a biological function that God directed us to perform to fill the Earth with his human creations? It is no wonder why Protestants question our beliefs. To imply that a married woman with children is somehow inferior to one who has never experienced sex is an insult to motherhood. We often call virginity a pure and holy state. Who came up with the silly idea that the sex act is not pure and holy? God Himself invented it.
 
I wouldnt say detract because marital relations are good. But there is a better state in life and that is of virginity and celibacy.

Council of Trent:
“If anyone says that the marital state is to be placed above the state of virginity or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy, than to be joined in matrimony:let him be anathema”
 
clarkgamble1 said:
**What is so sacred about never having performed a biological function that God directed us to perform to fill the Earth with his human creations? It is no wonder why Protestants question our beliefs.
Click to expand...
because she was the Mother of our God, when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her she was set apart in a sense with a vocation to be His mother. Her virginity is a magnification of His divinity and her vocation to Him as with Joseph

Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
To imply that a married woman with children is somehow inferior to one who has never experienced sex is an insult to motherhood.
Click to expand...
straw man it’s all bigger than this simplification
We often call virginity a pure and holy state.
Click to expand...
it is prior marriage and “for the sake of the kingdom” (ie Jesus and Paul)
Who came up with the silly idea that the sex act is not pure and holy?
Click to expand...
not the Catholic Church it teaches that it is holy and pure and that it should be reserved for love within a marriage. It would not be pure outside of marriage or in adultery.
God Himself invented it.**
Click to expand...
yes. Mary’s perpetual virginity is about the divinity of Jesus and who the Father is (ie God) not about avoiding sex as if it’s unholy. She is perpetual Virgin for Her calling to be mother of God the son and for God the Father.
 
Last edited:
I dont know if you caught it but reread the posts 3 or 4 up from mine. I like how it says 10 days later.
 
Last edited:
No one in this thread said that.

Virginity is like fasting from sweet foods, in a way.

Do we insult God’s creation of sugar cane by fasting from Skittles?
No, by doing that we say ‘lord, I like the pleasure of skittles, but I offer that pleasure to you for a greater cause’

Also, there’s no need to bold everything you say. we can read.
 
clarkgamble1 said:
What is so sacred about never having performed a biological function that God directed us to perform to fill the Earth with his human creations? It is no wonder why Protestants question our beliefs. To imply that a married woman with children is somehow inferior to one who has never experienced sex is an insult to motherhood. We often call virginity a pure and holy state. Who came up with the silly idea that the sex act is not pure and holy? God Himself invented it.
Click to expand...
No, realizing that it is a praiseworthy sacrifice to give up sexual relations freely and for the sake of the Kingdom of God is not an “insult to motherhood.”

No, the Church does not teach that all religious sisters are in some way spiritual superiors to their married sisters in Christ. Rather, celibacy presents an opportunity to devote oneself entirely to the Kingdom. It is that willingness to forego such a great gift from God for the Kingdom of God and a lifetime of using that sacrifice to serve God without distraction and without human reciprocation of one’s devotion that is praiseworthy!

If someone were to form a convent where the women joined and remained virgins simply so they could evade the work of motherhood and marriage in order to give themselves more time and resources to please themselves, after all, that would not be praiseworthy in the least. That would be a self-indulgent reason to forego marriage, and there would be nothing praiseworthy about it. The only good in foregoing one good is if a greater good is served in the process. That is the whole idea behind Josephite marriage! It isn’t just a “sexless” marriage! A sexless marriage that is sexless for no greater good has nothing praiseworthy about it!

Mary’s spouse was the Holy Spirit. St. Joseph took her into his home to be her human protector and provider, and the protector and provider for the Christ Child. He accepted this call and gave up his right to a typical marriage in order to do so, but he did so freely, having had the message of an angel and knowing what it was he was doing.
 
Last edited:
Council of Trent: “If anyone says that the marital state is to be placed above the state of virginity or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or in celibacy, than to be joined in matrimony let him be anathema”

So the Council would have all of us, if we desire a better, more perfect existence, to remain virgins and celibates, thereby effectively causing humankind to cease to exist? That is a direct consequence of following their advice. How could logical thinking Catholics ever have accepted this idea? Probably afraid of that “anathema” Those early councils should have had an equal mix of clergy and educated lay people on them. I think we would have seen some more sensible proclamations.
 
The early councils are still binding. The anathema still stands. This is a dogma of the Church. To purposely reject it or doubt it makes one a heretic.

Read Matthew 19:12 to find out all are not called to virginity and celibacy.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
“The early councils are still binding. The anathema still stands. This is a dogma of the Church. To purposely reject it or doubt it makes one a heretic.”
Click to expand...
Then I guess I’m a doubting heretic. Would you try to answer this last question? Without a vague and hard to understand bible quote?
So the Council would have all of us, if we desire a better, more perfect existence, to remain virgins and celibates, thereby effectively causing humankind to cease to exist?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top