Question about the importance of Mary's virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter drblank1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wesrock said:
The Protevangelium of James, written in the second century, records the tradition that Mary had taken a vow of virginity. It is certainly not scripture, probably fictional in at least some respects, but the idea of Mary’s vow of virginity was present at the time, and that tradition in itself is preserved in both Catholic and Orthodox teaching, though not dogma.
Click to expand...
Is this why you have the beliefs you stated above? Do you agree The Protevangelium of James is a dubious writing at best?
 
drblank1 said:
Is this why you have the beliefs you stated above? Do you agree The Protevangelium of James is a dubious writing at best?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t the one who posted that i believed that Mary took a vow. I was just citing an early text. The tradition is also cited by many Church Fathers, too, though.

It’s certainly not the basis for my belief in her perpetual virginity on the whole.
 
drblank1 said:
Sorry, I am not trying to argue Joseph has sex with Mary after Jesus’ birth. I know no one is going to change their minds on this forum. 😉

I should have wrote, “Thus Joseph abstaining during her pregnancy”.

So do you believe it would had made the whole situation less sacred if she did have sex with Joseph?
Click to expand...
Was the Ark made less sacred when it was touched by Uzzah?
 
susanlo said:
Matthew 1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Luke 2:5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Matthew 13:55 “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?”

See also: Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, Luke 18:19-21, John 2:12, Acts 1:14, and Galatians 1:19 for references that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

All of these references seem to imply that Mary and Joseph had marital relations and were blessed with many children. To be married and not have children was shameful in Judaism (remember Rachel, Hannah, etc.).

I don’t know if there is indisputable evidence one way or another as to whether she remained a perpetual virgin. I have also wondered why it truly matters to us today. Whether she was or wasn’t a perpetual virgin does not change who Jesus is or what Jesus did for our salvation.
Click to expand...
Write a letter to the Pope…he can answer better than CAF.
 
drblank1 said:
Luther also went to his grave hating the Jews and believing the book of James did not belong in the Bible.

.
Click to expand...
True, unfortunately.

And he also died constantly speaking incredibly vulgar, I hear. Which is strange.
 
Wesrock said:
“And he never drank again until he died.” Did he drink after he died?

It establishes that Jesus was not conceived by conjugal union. No more. I’ll let Saint Jerome speak: newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Click to expand...
That is a weird phrase. Did you ever hear some speak with a phrase like that?

I would agree that Matthew 1:25 does not prove that Joseph and Mary absolutely had marital relations after Jesus was born, but it does “imply” it. That is the common usage of the phrase. If he meant that Joseph never consummated the marriage he would have left the phrase out.: ‘But he did not consummate their marriage …]. And he gave him the name Jesus.’ Or like your example he could have written ‘But he did not consummate their marriage until he died. And he gave him the name Jesus.’
Wesrock said:
I’m not sure what the first part establishes. Even if Mary took no vow of virginity in her youth, things can change once the shadow of the most high overshadows you and Hod dwells within you.

As for being first-born, that’s an official designation. There were certain expectations and Jewish connotations for the first-born. It does not imply a “second-born” or more.

Step-siblings or cousins. They most likely all grew up under one roof and in close quarters. None of whom Jesus entrusted his mother to at his death.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

For the understanding of the early church: quotes from the Fathers: ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=288174&language=en
Click to expand...
The Greek text uses adelphos and adelphai. These words mean specifically brother and sister. They do not mean relative which could include sibling or cousin. It is possible that they were step-brothers who were perceived as half-brothers by those in the community who believed Joseph to be Jesus’ father. But the Greek text could not be referring to cousins.
 
Vonsalza said:
Please remember that the notion “Mary had sex with Joseph and had other kids” is an innovation. Beyond modern evangelical interpretations, there is no literature extant that supports this view until well after the reformation. Catholics are just trying to stay true to the doctrine of the primitive Church on this matter.
Click to expand...
"Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: …And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.
Tertullian On Monogamy Chapter 8
newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm

Tertullian wrote from 197-220AD. About 1300 years before the reformation.

There were varying beliefs about this in the early centuries. By around 500AD the perpetual virginity was the only acceptable belief.
 
drblank1:
Why is it so important to Roman Catholicism that Mary remained a virgin her entire life?
Click to expand...
It is not just important to “Roman Catholicism”.

It’s important to Christianity as a whole.

But back to “Roman” Catholicism for a moment.

Part of the reason drblank1 is, it is a reflection upon who Jesus is.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is “set aside” for our Lord Jesus in a special way. (Is He “worth” it? Yes of course!)

Mary is the Lord’s bond-servant or “handmaiden”.

Now the issue arises then of . . . . “why” would God have Mary, marry Joseph at all?

But the answer in part would be so Mary would not be stoned as an unwed mother (being accused of being an adulteress).

Part of the answer would also include an appropriate example. Jesus is a son to both a mother and a father.

If you see the Blessed Virgin Mary as being consecrated to the Lord in this special way because . . . . because of the exceptional aspect of Jesus . . . . Mary’s Perpetual Virginity makes sense.

The other thing is, if Jesus is just one of many “kids” in the family, it would be virtually an insurmountable scandal to some people trying to accept Jesus’ Divinity.

Think about it.

You see seven or eight kids playing in the yard, WHY affirm Jesus as Divine? (He’s just “one of the kids” they’d think.)

The LACK of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity would be yet another obstacle to belief. And a big obstacle at that.

***Which leads us to . . . ***

As with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, all Marian doctrines have Chrsitologic implications (as Tim Staples likes to say).
  • All Marian Doctrines Have Christologic Implications
ALL of them.

All of these doctrines concerning Mary (Her Universal Motherhood including Mary as the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, the Glorious Assumption, Her Coronation, and Mary’s role as Mediatrix of all graces) imply something important about Jesus too!

I have a CD of the early Church Fathers.

I have spent many hours reading them.

It is amazing how the early heretics ATTACKED Marian doctrine as a way to attack our Lord Jesus (even THEY knew Marian doctrines had Christologic implications). (Don’t get me wrong. The early heretics attacked Jesus directly too, just as they do today as well).

So with these doctrines revealed from the get-go, (admittedly sometimes implicitly) we as Catholics strive to affirm the truth . . . ALL of the truth.

“Catholic” means “universal” but it ALSO means “to the whole”.

The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was handed down right from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

So we as Catholics affirm it. We affirm it as part of the package of core beliefs. We affirm it as part of the package of “Catholic” (“whole” package) beliefs.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
susanlo. You said:
These words (adelphos and adelphai) mean specifically brother and sister. They do not mean relative which could include sibling or cousin.
Click to expand...
That is not true.

(And none of the Early Church Fathers denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity)
 
susanlo said:
"Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: …And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.
Tertullian On Monogamy Chapter 8
newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm

Tertullian wrote from 197-220AD. About 1300 years before the reformation.

There were varying beliefs about this in the early centuries. By around 500AD the perpetual virginity was the only acceptable belief.
Click to expand...
That passage does not say she had relations with Joseph.😉
 
Wesrock said:
I wasn’t the one who posted that i believed that Mary took a vow. I was just citing an early text. The tradition is also cited by many Church Fathers, too, though.

It’s certainly not the basis for my belief in her perpetual virginity on the whole.
Click to expand...
So sorry.
 
Cathoholic said:
susanlo. You said:

That is not true.

(And none of the Early Church Fathers denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity)
Click to expand...
When were the terms adelphos or adelphai used to mean a non-sibling relative or cousin? (Besides the above references to Jesus’ adelphos and adelphai. ;))
 
Cathoholic said:
drblank1:

It is not just important to “Roman Catholicism”.

It’s important to Christianity as a whole.

But back to “Roman” Catholicism for a moment.

Part of the reason drblank1 is, it is a reflection upon who Jesus is.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is “set aside” for our Lord Jesus in a special way. (Is He “worth” it? Yes of course!)

Mary is the Lord’s bond-servant or “handmaiden”.

Now the issue arises then of . . . . “why” would God have Mary, marry Joseph at all?

But the answer in part would be so Mary would not be stoned as an unwed mother (being accused of being an adulteress).

Part of the answer would also include an appropriate example. Jesus is a son to both a mother and a father.

If you see the Blessed Virgin Mary as being consecrated to the Lord in this special way because . . . . because of the exceptional aspect of Jesus . . . . Mary’s Perpetual Virginity makes sense.

The other thing is, if Jesus is just one of many “kids” in the family, it would be virtually an insurmountable scandal to some people trying to accept Jesus’ Divinity.

Think about it.

You see seven or eight kids playing in the yard, WHY affirm Jesus as Divine? (He’s just “one of the kids” they’d think.)

The LACK of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity would be yet another obstacle to belief. And a big obstacle at that.

***Which leads us to . . . ***

As with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, all Marian doctrines have Chrsitologic implications (as Tim Staples likes to say).
  • All Marian Doctrines Have Christologic Implications
ALL of them.

All of these doctrines concerning Mary (Her Universal Motherhood including Mary as the Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception, the Glorious Assumption, Her Coronation, and Mary’s role as Mediatrix of all graces) imply something important about Jesus too!

I have a CD of the early Church Fathers.

I have spent many hours reading them.

It is amazing how the early heretics ATTACKED Marian doctrine as a way to attack our Lord Jesus (even THEY knew Marian doctrines had Christologic implications). (Don’t get me wrong. The early heretics attacked Jesus directly too, just as they do today as well).

So with these doctrines revealed from the get-go, (admittedly sometimes implicitly) we as Catholics strive to affirm the truth . . . ALL of the truth.

“Catholic” means “universal” but it ALSO means “to the whole”.

The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was handed down right from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

So we as Catholics affirm it. We affirm it as part of the package of core beliefs. We affirm it as part of the package of “Catholic” (“whole” package) beliefs.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. Gives me a bit more insight to the Roman Catholic thought.
 
Wesrock said:
Was the Ark made less sacred when it was touched by Uzzah?
Click to expand...
Yes. So if Mary was touched in any way as the ark was not to be touched, she would had been defiled? So Joseph assisted her in walking up a hill for instance, he would had defiled her?
 
Susanlo:
When were the terms adelphos or adelphai used to mean a non-sibling relative or cousin? (Besides the above references to Jesus’ adelphos and adelphai;))
Click to expand...
In John 19:25.

St. John the Evangelist refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as the “sister” (adelphe) of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

JOHN 19:25 25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister (adelphe), Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.

If you want to argue that they were biologic “sisters” other than a circular argument that the word “adelphe” is used, than I’m going to have to see some evidence.
 
Yes. So if Mary was touched in any way as the ark was not to be touched, she would had been defiled? So Joseph assisted her in walking up a hill for instance, he would had defiled her?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for Wesrock, but I think all Wesrock is trying to say, is that since the Blessed Virgin Mary is a fulfillment of the prefigurement of the Ark (and She IS), that Mary has been consecrated to an extraordinary degree to God.

Not that if a non-Levite would brush up against the Blessed Virgin Mary at a busy Jerusalem marketplace, he or she would fall over dead.

This “not touching” would be in the sense of the conjugal realm.

And the Bible SHOWS that consecration in that (conjugal) realm.

That’s WHY St. Joseph “knew her not, until she bore a son”.

WHY do you think Joseph “knew her not” at ANY TIME during their marriage?

After all. It’s not a “sin” or “dirty” for a man to have relations with his wife even if she is “with child”.

That’s the question St. Jerome asked the heretic Helvidius too.

WHY do you think Joseph “knew her not” at ANY TIME during their marriage?

What are you arguments for this?
 
susanlo said:
"Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: …And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.
Tertullian On Monogamy Chapter 8
newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm

Tertullian wrote from 197-220AD. About 1300 years before the reformation.

There were varying beliefs about this in the early centuries. By around 500AD the perpetual virginity was the only acceptable belief.
Click to expand...
:nope:

Re-read that Tertullian quote and let me know where he advocated what you’re thinking he advocated.

Same guy, same passage:

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? who is the first to recognise Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age.”
Tertullian,On Monogamy,8(A.D. 213),in ANF,IV:65

Check the bold parts particularly.
Would you like to try again?
 
NeuroTypical. You list yourself as LDS. Fair enough.

You said:
“But if you were Joseph and your Newlywed spouse housed and birthed the creator of the universe…would you feel ok have relations with her after that?”
Click to expand...
I don’t really know, but I’m guessing yes, probably?
Click to expand...
Do you REALLY think that? (or have you not thought it over much?)

Think about it.

You have the Temple in Salt Lake City. And it is “CONSECRATED” or has a “Dedication for a Holy Purpose”.

Not even just Mormons are allowed in certain places there.

Vendors off the streets would not be allowed to go into there and sell, say . . . “pronto pups”. They wouldn’t even be allowed in there.

Why? Because it would “PROFANE” (“make common”) a place that has a HOLY dedication that’s why.

You must be “Temple Worthy”.

If such is true for the Temple, a mere bldg., how much MORE true would that be for Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, concerning His “Consecrated” Blessed Mother?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top