Question about Catholic belief regarding Mary's perpetual virginity

[YADA]

From Numbers Chapter 30

When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered. "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, if 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 she has made remains valid. But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the LORD releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval. "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid.
But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it. The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, or any pledge to which such a woman binds herself, is valid. "If it is in her husband’s house that she makes a vow or binds herself under oath to a pledge, and her husband learns of it yet says nothing to express to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. But if on the day he learns of them her husband annuls them, then whatever she has expressly promised in her vow or in her pledge becomes null and void; since her husband has annulled them, the LORD releases her from them.
“Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to mortify herself, her husband can either allow to remain valid or render null and void. But if her husband, day after day, says nothing at all to her about them, he thereby allows as valid any vow or any pledge she has made; he has allowed them to remain valid, because on the day he learned of them he said nothing to her about them. If, however, he countermands them some time after he first learned of them, he is responsible for her guilt.” These are the statutes which the LORD prescribed through Moses concerning the relationship between a husband and his wife, as well as between a father and his daughter while she is still a maiden in her father’s house.

If a fatther or husband learns of a vow and fails to counter it on the day it is made they have to live with the vow …

This is jewish practice … it did and does happen in the jewish faith tradition …

 

[HashemEchad]

We can forget that Christianity is a very muscular faith tradition.

Yes, they showed their “muscle” in the Middle Ages quite a bit, esp. when it came to the Spanish Inquisition and other Inquisitions.

My mother’s family descended from Spanish Jews who felt that “muscle” quite a bit.

Getting back to the topic…

The fact is, there is no evidence anywhere that this in fact did happen to Mary. The Protestants don’t believe it, and they are also Christians. I realize they came along later however.

Some of you see my questions as an affront to the honor of Mary, but the way I see it, as a fellow Jewish woman, I am trying to restore her honor by showing what she herself would no doubt say if she were here. I seriously doubt she would want people seeing her this way, because she would have been well steeped in Jewish religious belief, custom and ways. I don’t hate her, as some Protestants seem to (though I think they are just annoyed at the Catholic veneration of her.)

I would think that if Mary stayed a virgin for the entire marriage, it would be at least hinted at in the NT somewhere, but its not. And like another poster (a Catholic), I too wonder if this arose out of the medieval church’s dislike for sex.

Also, are you aware that some ancient pagan pre-Christian religions often included enforced celibacy and virginity as part of their religious beliefs? And do you realize that in an effort to make the church less Jewish, the many Gentiles (from polytheistic backgrounds) who were coming into the church brought many beliefs and customs with them? Why do you think Christmas is kept on December 25th (the ancient Roman Saturnalia), when truthfully, no one is sure when Jesus was born?

 

[inJESUS]

The fact is, there is no evidence anywhere that this in fact did happen to Mary.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

uch:…

Yes, they showed their “muscle” in the Middle Ages quite a bit, esp. when it came to the Spanish Inquisition and other Inquisitions.

My mother’s family descended from Spanish Jews who felt that “muscle” quite a bit.

I believe the vast vast majority of this board is well aware of past events- what has this to do with the topic at hand? Why do you post your biography in the majority of your posts? :ehh:

The fact is, there is no evidence anywhere that this in fact did happen to Mary. The Protestants don’t believe it, and they are also Christians. I realize they came along later however.

The Catholic and Orthodox hold Mary’s virginity, there were gnostic groups that did the same- it is a very very very old tradition.

Some of you see my questions as an affront to the honor of Mary, but the way I see it, as a fellow Jewish woman, I am trying to restore her honor by showing what she herself would no doubt say if she were here.

:banghead: uch: :ehh:

Your on a Catholic board implying that Catholics have taken away Mary’s honor . And then you don’t see that as disrespectful or rude?

I seriously doubt she would want people seeing her this way, because she would have been well steeped in Jewish religious belief, custom and ways. I don’t hate her, as some Protestants seem to (though I think they are just annoyed at the Catholic veneration of her.)

When did she hire you as her public representative? For all we know (if you ignore 2000 years of tradition,) she was really Chinese and she was a math whiz but had horrible balance. If one ignores what the Apostlic Churches (Catholic&Orthodox) have maintained for 2000 years, than anything is possible with Mary.

I would think that if Mary stayed a virgin for the entire marriage, it would be at least hinted at in the NT somewhere, but its not. And like another poster (a Catholic), I too wonder if this arose out of the medieval church’s dislike for sex.

The tradition is much older than the medieval period, and even if the issue was seized upon for that express purpose, it does not reflect on the earlier tradition. I don’t see why the NT would exactly need to update us on the bedroom manners of Mary anyway.

Also, are you aware that some ancient pagan pre-Christian religions often included enforced celibacy and virginity as part of their religious beliefs? And do you realize that in an effort to make the church less Jewish, the many Gentiles (from polytheistic backgrounds) who were coming into the church brought many beliefs and customs with them? Why do you think Christmas is kept on December 25th (the ancient Roman Saturnalia), when truthfully, no one is sure when Jesus was born?

I’d say the vast majority of this board are well versed in other religions practicing celibacy and celebrating virginity. The custom of Jesus’ birthday falling on Dec. 25th is a lot less serious than the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I appalaud that you are confident in your faith- but your posts come off as insulting to Catholicism. Simply because you don’t believe in it, doesn’t mean others don’t either. You talk of it as if it’s a novel toy a child enjoys, these issues are important and real to a lot of people- and though I don’t hold these issues myself, I still understand and respect their love and faith.

 

[HashemEchad]

But the specific forum I’m posting this in is for non-Catholics. And this entire forum is designed for apologetical reasons, so Catholics can try to prove the validity of their faith, right?

This is why I asked my question, and why I said what I personally feel.

If Catholics did not want to hear what non-Catholics think about their religion, maybe they should not have started an apologetical forum?

 

[Monkey1976]

HashemEchad,
I’d like to add another item for consideration on the side of Mary’s perpetual virginity: The Protoevangelium of James. While not considered canonical Scripture, it provides documentation for early Christian belief on this subject.

Secondly, if vows of virginity were considered abnormal for Jews at that time, why would St. Paul have written so strongly in support of remaining chaste throughout one’s life in his first letter to the Corinthians? (cf. 1 Cor 7)

On a more mundane note, there’s the issue of Joseph being told by an angel that his betrothed was going to bear the Son of God. I can’t even imagine that the thought of having normal marital relations with Mary entered Joseph’s mind after learning that.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

But the specific forum I’m posting this in is for non-Catholics. And this entire forum is designed for apologetical reasons, so Catholics can try to prove the validity of their faith, right?

This is why I asked my question, and why I said what I personally feel.

If Catholics did not want to hear what non-Catholics think about their religion, maybe they should not have started an apologetical forum?

I apologize my post reads harshly. I’m not upset that it was questioned, I don’t even have a “horse in this race,” I am more or less B’nei Noah- it was the uncharitable manner in which you suggest that the Mary in Catholic tradition is somehow not honorable, because of the tradition that she was a virgin. That is not a question…

But this conversation won’t go anywhere, and is not worth anymore of our time.

 

[HashemEchad]

HashemEchad,
I’d like to add another item for consideration on the side of Mary’s perpetual virginity: The Protoevangelium of James. While not considered canonical Scripture, it provides documentation for early Christian belief on this subject.

Secondly, if vows of virginity were considered abnormal for Jews at that time, why would St. Paul have written so strongly in support of remaining chaste throughout one’s life in his first letter to the Corinthians? (cf. 1 Cor 7)

On a more mundane note, there’s the issue of Joseph being told by an angel that his betrothed was going to bear the Son of God. I can’t even imagine that the thought of having normal marital relations with Mary entered Joseph’s mind after learning that.

Thanks for that link, I appreciate it! (I kept trying to get the one another poster had given, and for some reason it won’t open up for me.)

Paul left Judaism to adopt Christianity, so his views would not have been in line with Jewish views at that point. Furthermore, many Biblical historians feel Paul had “issues” with women and marriage, and perhaps this may have colored his view on the matter. This does seem to be hinted at in at least one of his letters.

And while I agree that if in fact Mary had been made pregnant by God (chas’ve’sholom), it would make Joseph not want to come near here…but as the NT itself says, “he knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son”.

 

[Fuerza]

Thanks for that link, I appreciate it! (I kept trying to get the one another poster had given, and for some reason it won’t open up for me.)

Paul left Judaism to adopt Christianity, so his views would not have been in line with Jewish views at that point. Furthermore, many Biblical historians feel Paul had “issues” with women and marriage, and perhaps this may have colored his view on the matter. This does seem to be hinted at in at least one of his letters.

And while I agree that if in fact Mary had been made pregnant by God (chas’ve’sholom), it would make Joseph not want to come near here…but as the NT itself says, “he knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son”.

I for the most part like to stay out of debates with Non-Christians because I generally don’t find them very interesting, but you just keep repeating the same error. The meaning of the Greek word for “until” which is used in that passage has been explained countless times, and more than once in this thread alone. Please go back and read it so you can stop throwing out the same tired old argument. Thank you

 

[Cathdefender]

Yes, they showed their “muscle” in the Middle Ages quite a bit, esp. when it came to the Spanish Inquisition and other Inquisitions.

My mother’s family descended from Spanish Jews who felt that “muscle” quite a bit.

Getting back to the topic…

The fact is, there is no evidence anywhere that this in fact did happen to Mary. The Protestants don’t believe it, and they are also Christians. I realize they came along later however.

Some of you see my questions as an affront to the honor of Mary, but the way I see it, as a fellow Jewish woman, I am trying to restore her honor by showing what she herself would no doubt say if she were here. I seriously doubt she would want people seeing her this way, because she would have been well steeped in Jewish religious belief, custom and ways. I don’t hate her, as some Protestants seem to (though I think they are just annoyed at the Catholic veneration of her.)

I would think that if Mary stayed a virgin for the entire marriage, it would be at least hinted at in the NT somewhere, but its not. And like another poster (a Catholic), I too wonder if this arose out of the medieval church’s dislike for sex.

Also, are you aware that some ancient pagan pre-Christian religions often included enforced celibacy and virginity as part of their religious beliefs? And do you realize that in an effort to make the church less Jewish, the many Gentiles (from polytheistic backgrounds) who were coming into the church brought many beliefs and customs with them? Why do you think Christmas is kept on December 25th (the ancient Roman Saturnalia), when truthfully, no one is sure when Jesus was born?

You say you are trying to restore The Blessed Mother’s honor? Who are you that you feel you must do this? She doesn’t need you for this.
(And I knew the Spanish Inquisition would be brought up even though this post has nothing to do with it.

 

[HashemEchad]

I apologize my post reads harshly. I’m not upset that it was questioned, I don’t even have a “horse in this race,” I am more or less B’nei Noah- it was the uncharitable manner in which you suggest that the Mary in Catholic tradition is somehow not honorable, because of the tradition that she was a virgin. That is not a question…

But this conversation won’t go anywhere, and is not worth anymore of our time.

If Catholics want to believe Mary stayed a virgin forever, that is certainly their right.

All I was trying to show is that from a JEWISH perspective, legally and morally, it would not have been possible or desirable.

If Mary was not a Jewish woman, this would never have been an issue, but according to all reports, she was one.

 

[ralphinal]

If Catholics want to believe Mary stayed a virgin forever, that is certainly their right.

All I was trying to show is that from a JEWISH perspective, legally and morally, it would not have been possible or desirable.

If Mary was not a Jewish woman, this would never have been an issue, but according to all reports, she was one.

You keep saying not possible. Staying a virgin while married is within the relm of human abilities, so it would be possible.

Not normal, perhaps.

Not desirable? Maybe

Atypical? Certainly.

But possible none the less.

Again, this was beleived as early as the second century. The siblings of Jesus did not behave as younger siblings would, and do not forget that Jesus did not entrust the care of his mother to one of them, but to John.

I am a little confused by you lumping the Essenes into a heretical catagory. The Jewish websites where I have seen them discussed consider them an offshoot, but not heretical. In the First century, which was more heretical, the life of the essenes or the denial of the afterlife by the Saducees?

 

[ibkc]

And do you realize that in an effort to make the church less Jewish, the many Gentiles (from polytheistic backgrounds) who were coming into the church brought many beliefs and customs with them?

I’m not sure where you’re getting this “make the church less Jewish”, especially in the early days of Christianity. It sounds overly paranoid. Why do the attempts to establish a separate identity have to be parsed in such a negative way?

As for pagan Gentiles bringing pagan beliefs with them, now you sound like Jack Chick. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go. There is scriptural support for all Catholic beliefs. Whether you personally agree with the interpretations that lead to those beliefs is really irrelevant. I know a fair bit about pre-Christian pagan beliefs and practices, especially in Europe, and while it is true some practices were allowed by the church, I can tell you the overall mindset of pagan Europe and the mindset of Christianity is oceans apart.

Why do you think Christmas is kept on December 25th (the ancient Roman Saturnalia), when truthfully, no one is sure when Jesus was born?

Christmas is kept on the 25th because that is nine months after the traditional date of the Annunciation. Saturnalia was not celebrated on the 25th of December but on the 17th, although in the later empire the celebration had stretched out into a week. It was always finished by the 23rd. The Roman festival associated with December 25th was Sol Invictus, but this was a very late state festival, not created until 228. Honestly, HashemEchad, you’d be hard-pressed to find a day on the Roman calendar that was not the feast day of some deity somewhere in the empire.

 

[Cathdefender]

I’m not sure where you’re getting this “make the church less Jewish”, especially in the early days of Christianity. It sounds overly paranoid. Why do the attempts to establish a separate identity have to be parsed in such a negative way?

As for pagan Gentiles bringing pagan beliefs with them, now you sound like Jack Chick. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go. There is scriptural support for all Catholic beliefs. Whether you personally agree with the interpretations that lead to those beliefs is really irrelevant. I know a fair bit about pre-Christian pagan beliefs and practices, especially in Europe, and while it is true some practices were allowed by the church, I can tell you the overall mindset of pagan Europe and the mindset of Christianity is oceans apart.

Christmas is kept on the 25th because that is nine months after the traditional date of the Annunciation. Saturnalia was not celebrated on the 25th of December but on the 17th, although in the later empire the celebration had stretched out into a week. It was always finished by the 23rd. The Roman festival associated with December 25th was Sol Invictus, but this was a very late state festival, not created until 228. Honestly, HashemEchad, you’d be hard-pressed to find a day on the Roman calendar that was not the feast day of some deity somewhere in the empire.

 

[FCEGM]

I think you might find that this article helps your perspective:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

 

[HashemEchad]

It was a natural development that, as the church gained far more Gentile members than Jewish ones, that their customs (with which they were more familiar) would prevail. One of the hallmarks of this change was moving the Sabbath to Sunday.

The actual beginnings of this shift from a Jewish-oriented church to a Gentile-oriented one actually began with the Jerusalem Council, in Acts chapter 15.

 

[jmcrae]

The fact is, there is no evidence anywhere that this in fact did happen to Mary. The Protestants don’t believe it, and they are also Christians. I realize they came along later however.

The Protestant belief that Mary had other children didn’t arise until at least a century after the beginnings of Protestantism. In other words, the original Protestors continued to believe, for at least 100 years, that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

I would think that if Mary stayed a virgin for the entire marriage, it would be at least hinted at in the NT somewhere, but its not.

Well, there is the fact that, in the account of the Finding in the Temple, when Jesus was 12 years old, there is no mention of what Mary and Joseph did with His younger brothers and sisters while they ran back to Jerusalem to look for Him.

Why do you think Christmas is kept on December 25th (the ancient Roman Saturnalia), when truthfully, no one is sure when Jesus was born?

In the past few years, I’ve started to think that it was because December 25th is exactly nine months after March 25th, which has always been the traditional celebration of the Annunciation (Christ’s conception).

Christmas didn’t begin to be celebrated until after Christianity was legalized, in the early 300s, but the Annunciation is one of the earliest celebrations of the Church, along with Easter.

As a previous poster mentioned, any day of the year is likely to coincide with some other religion’s holy day - coincidence is not the same thing as cause.

In any case, Saturnalia took place on December 21 (Winter Solstice), and I think the ancients could tell the difference between December 21 and December 25 - not having any television to distract them, they were a sky-gazing people, and they could tell the difference between when the sun was at the Solstice, and when it was (more or less) four degrees beyond the Solstice.

 

[Lapell]

I want to start by saying I have nothing but the greatest respect for Mary, the mother of Jesus. Unlike her son, she never said or did anything to go against Torah or the Jewish people, and as far as we know, was basically a religious Jewish woman.

What I have trouble with (actually, a few things, but this one stands out in my mind because of what I know of Jewish Law) is the idea that she and Joseph never had normal marital relations even though they were married, even after Jesus was born.

In Jewish Law, this is not a valid marriage if it is never consummated. In fact in Jewish Law, if a man and woman do not have marital relations, the marriage is to be dissolved.

In Judaism, sex in the marriage bond is very sacred and very holy. It is one of the greatest mitzvot, and the evening of the Sabbath is one time when married couples are especially supposed to engage in marital relations. Sex is a joyful thing to us, something created by God Himself.

There is no such thing in Judaism as a married couple not having sex ever. So where did Catholicism get this concept from?

And also, doesn’t the idea that they never had sex seem to imply there is something wrong or dirty about marital relations? Is this why the RCC teaches also, that becoming a nun or priest is better than the marital state?

Hum! I haven’t read all the responses…
But right here, I think it has to do with who was the baby Mary was bearing.
It’s related to, like it or not, Jesus being the Son of God.
Didn’t you read in Matthew’s account of the Gospel how Joseph, who was a righteous (or just) man (apparently the hebrew word for it would be a “tsaddik”), didn’t want to denounce her but was considering repudiating her secretly.
(How could this express some “tsaddik-ishness” in itself, I don’t really understand, though, but I trust it is somehow…)
(Could he have succeeded in keeping this repudiation secret? I don’t see how he could have, though!)
And then one of God’s angels tells him to take Mary his spouse, because the baby in Mary’s womb comes from the Holy Spirit of God. And so Joseph then decides not to repudiate Mary, but to take her as his spouse.
And this is one of the things which the Gospel says and which is humanly hard to accept, of course, especially if this Mary were going to be the only one in the whole mankind to bear a child without human intervention (through either intercourse with a man or insemination (or something similar) )… There are people who believe this, and other who dismiss this as pure fantasy which can’t have happened…
Just as there are people who say: “No man can be God!!” and would probably add: “God can’t have become a man!!!” It’s such a unique think: never happened before, never will happen again…
I tell you: this means trouble for those who would affirm a thing like this. It either has to be a monstruous lie or an unfathomable truth. Both ways, it means great tensions, discomfort, angry response, “Please do not disturb!” responses, and things of the kind. Wouldn’t it?

 

[Lapell]

It’s the Blessed Mother to you, and enough of this nonsense trying to make an excuse here to discredit and dishonor the Blessed Mother. Did you live in those days? Were you there? You are Jewish , and anything you say will go against whatever the NT teaches. Why do you always have to say something is disgusting in our Catholic faith as you did with the miracle of Lanciano and now with relations with Joseph and the Blessed VIRGIN?
I can tell you what is filthy and disgusting in your religion, but I don’t because it is disrespectful. I feel you are being disrespectful. Enough is enough.

From a simply human point of view, could HashemEchad’s question not be a good question? Direct interventions of God are already quite something, but something in this one intervention is even more incredible here and so hard to fathom even about God, even when we say He is all-powerful !!

 

[ralphinal]

It was a natural development that, as the church gained far more Gentile members than Jewish ones, that their customs (with which they were more familiar) would prevail. One of the hallmarks of this change was moving the Sabbath to Sunday.

The actual beginnings of this shift from a Jewish-oriented church to a Gentile-oriented one actually began with the Jerusalem Council, in Acts chapter 15.

That is correct except that the shift from Saturday to Sunday worship was not related to the Gentilification of the Church. The early Church celebrated the Sabbath with the rest of Judaism then had a separate service on Sunday. Once we were banned from the Temple, the Saturday Sabbath was gone, and the Church only celebrated the day of the Ressurection.