Question about the importance of Mary's virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter drblank1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PaulfromIowa:
Mary’s perpetual virginity is the traditional Christian belief. Why is it important to Catholics and Orthodox? We could also ask why the rejection of Marian perpetual virginity, and rejection of Marian devotion generally, is important to some Protestants.
This is simple yet profound PaulfromIowa. Hope you don’t mind but I am going to use this argument in the future.

If this is so UNimportant, why do you people spill so much ink trying to refute it?

Why not just a “yawn”?

Really good insight.

Thanks.
 
Padres1969. You mentioned . . . .
If I’m not mistaken consummation was a requirement of the stages of a marriage union in Ancient Judea.
You said you got this teaching from a Jesuit University (here) among other places.

I’m sorry but they taught you the wrong thing in this realm.

Marriage without consummation IS a real marriage.

Think about it.

Even in the synoptic text, the Angel refers to Mary as “your wife” to Joseph.

In my next post on this thread, I will try to put up a little information about ancient Hebrew marriage as it will concern this thread.
 
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?
I agree as to why Joseph abstain during the pregnancy. But the question is why would Mary being touched in a conjugal fashion would have defiled her in any way unlike being brushed against in a busy marketplace.

It seems from what I read here, Mary would have been far more sacred than the ark. Touching the ark meant immediate death. Mary would had to have been far more sacred and never to be touched in an way. The ark housed the ten commandments. Mary carried Jesus. Just trying to understand the logic. Not arguing. 🙂
 
"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.
Hi Susan.

I’m missing the part where Tertullian confirms relations between her and Joseph?

Christopher Reeve remained married after his accident. Not likely there was that sort of intimacy involved afterwards.
 
PaulfromIowa:

This is simple yet profound PaulfromIowa. Hope you don’t mind but I am going to use this argument in the future.

If this is so UNimportant, why do you people spill so much ink trying to refute it?

Why not just a “yawn”?

Really good insight.

Thanks.
I am only asking because my wife is Catholic and we share/talk/work through our differing doctrine. She no longer participates in Marian devotion but it was a question I posed to her recently and she didn’t know. Her family is Catholic too and they couldn’t give an informed answer as well. This was just to satisfy my own knowledge. Not to disprove or prove. 🙂
 
I am only asking because my wife is Catholic and we share/talk/work through our differing doctrine. She no longer participates in Marian devotion but it was a question I posed to her recently and she didn’t know. Her family is Catholic too and they couldn’t give an informed answer as well. This was just to satisfy my own knowledge. No to disprove or prove. 🙂
If you don’t want to answer that’s ok - but just wondering how do you guys go about worshiping? You attend Mass and she attends your Church as well?

Thanks
 
I agree as to why Joseph abstain during the pregnancy. But the question is why would Mary being touched in a conjugal fashion would have defiled her in any way unlike being brushed against in a busy marketplace.
Please answer your own question here drblank1 but insert into it BEFORE Jesus was born and tell me WHY Joseph would not have “known” Mary before Jesus was born.

This is important. And I think if you have the insight to see WHY this is the case, you will see WHY Joseph “knew Mary not” AFTER Jesus was born too.

But I want what YOU say on BEFORE Jesus was born so I get a better idea of how YOU are thinking this through. Then I can give an answer tailored to how you think instead of a canned internet link citation.
 
If you don’t want to answer that’s ok - but just wondering how do you guys go about worshiping? You attend Mass and she attends your Church as well?

Thanks
She goes to her mass, I go to worship. On special days like father’s/mother’s day, we go to the other’s church. Easter and Christmas, we go to both.
 
Please answer your own question here drblank1 but insert into it BEFORE Jesus was born and tell me WHY Joseph would not have “known” Mary before Jesus was born.

This is important. And I think if you have the insight to see WHY this is the case, you will see WHY Joseph “knew Mary not” AFTER Jesus was born too.

But I want what YOU say on BEFORE Jesus was born so I get a better idea of how YOU are thinking this through. Then I can give an answer tailored to how you think instead of a canned internet link citation.
I really appreciate not getting a “canned internet link citation”. But I agree and I think all of Christendom does as well, Joseph abstain because she was carrying Jesus.

So from a Catholic/Orthodox view, Mary is raised to be sacred above all earthly things because she carried Jesus? Just spit-balling here because you are making me answer my own question. 😛
 
I am posting a segment here from our local Catholic Men’s Bible Group study on ancient Hebrew Marriage . . . .

Ancient Jewish Marriage As Concerning Mary And Joseph

One thing that we often get wrong immediately concerning Mary’s Virginal Conception of Jesus is that Mary was an “unwed” mother. I have heard this incorrectly asserted many times.

Mary and Joseph when introduced to us in the Gospels ARE ALREADY MAN AND WIFE.

MATTHEW 1:18 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

Before an ancient Israelite marriage, you have an engagement time also called “shidukhin”. This was actually often arranged.

After this engagement period comes the marriage.

The actual marriage ceremony is termed “kiddushin”. (This is sometimes translated as “betrothed”)

Kiddushin begins the marriage but the husband and wife often did not live together immediately after kiddushin.

Then after a time period in which the husband goes away alone and prepares a place for his bride (which may be brief but often was several months and even up to a year away!), the husband then comes back and takes his bride into his home. This is often accompanied by a ceremony. This aspect of their marriage (the taking of the bride into the home of the groom) is called “nisuin”.

Let’s go to the Jewish website, “Frequently Asked Questions” for more details.

Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement, as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin.

jewfaq.org/marriage.htm
(Rambam = Rabbi Maimonides – A.D. 1135-1204)​

Well that’s just like what we do now right?

Not quite.

The ancient Hebrew marriage is ratified by kiddushin.

Then the husband (notice he is now the husband and not merely the fiancé) then goes and prepares his home.

Then the husband later comes back, gets his bride (again there is a Hebrew religious ceremony for this too—“nisuin”) and then he takes her into his home.

Contemporary Jews often do their marriage ceremonies different than the people of the ancient Israelite religion.

Jews today usually combine kiddushin and nisuin so that although it is still the same, it appears different from the ancient times two-ceremony motif.

Ancient Hebrews
  • Engagement (shidukhin)
  • Marriage (betrothal, kiddushin, erusin “sanctification”])
  • Husband takes the bride into his home later (nisuin “elevation”])
Contemporary Jews
  • Engagement
  • Marriage = Betrothal (kiddushin) AND Nisuin together
Although in ancient times there were two ceremonies, there was one marriage and that was kiddushin or betrothal (the husband and wife are now spouses or “espoused”).

Let’s review that again . . . .

The initial marriage ceremony is when the marriage takes place.

The Jews call this kiddushin (kid-oo-sheen) or betrothal (they are espoused to each other). The husband is the spouse of the wife and the wife is the spouse of the husband.

Betrothal is the actual marriage. After kiddushin, the couple is really and actually married.

Then the husband (notice NOT the mere fiancé anymore) goes off and prepares a place for him and his bride. This may take up to a year of time.

Then the husband then comes back and takes his WIFE (again notice she’s his wife, not his fiancé) into their home and their life together commences. This is called nisuin (“elevation”).

Ancient Hebrew couples are already married after betrothal or kiddushin!

According to the Rabbis . . .

**Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. **


This is all vital for understanding what the Gospels are telling us concerning Mary and Joseph.

If you don’t get this, you’ll have a hard time understanding deeper aspects of the Scripture texts about Mary and Joseph.

So as you read the passages concerning Mary and Joseph, keep in mind they are already MARRIED. They are betrothed. They have completed kiddushin. But they are not yet living in the same home. They have not yet carried out nisuin.​

Continued . . . . .
 
***Continued from last post of mine. . . . ***

Let’s look again at Matthew 1:18 and see what St. Matthew assumes you know (St. Matthew was writing to Jews).

Let’s begin by looking at the first half of Matthew 1:18.

MATTHEW 1:18a 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, . . . .

Q: What is St. Matthew telling us here?

A: That Mary and Joseph have completed kiddushin. That’s what “betrothed” means. They are MARRIED.

OK. Now look at the second half of Matthew 1:18 and see what St. Matthew is telling the reader.

MATTHEW 1:18b . . . . before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

Q: What is St. Matthew telling us here?

A: That Mary and Joseph have not yet embarked on nisuin or the formal bringing of the bride into his home.

Now read the whole verse and you will see St. Matthew telling us that Mary and Joseph are married, they are betrothed, and thus they have completed kiddushin.

But they have not yet begun living in the same home—they have not yet completed nisuin.

Yet the already-married Mary was found to be “with child” of the Holy Spirit, despite not yet coming into the home of Joseph.

MATTHEW 1:18 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

This is WHY the Angel later tells Joseph what?

Do not be afraid to take Mary, your wife (notice the angel of the Lord and St. Matthew both know Mary is Joseph’s “wife”), into your home. Do not be afraid to complete nisuin.

MATTHEW 1:20, 24-25 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; . . . . 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

The time frame when the ancient Jewish husband is betrothed (married), and goes and prepares a place for his bride, and then comes back to take her into his home later is variable.

It may be quick, but as stated earlier, it often took many months or even up to a year.

But a couple who has undergone kiddushin (betrothed) are still legally man and wife after the marriage ceremony or after kiddushin has been performed—still legally man and wife even before Nisuin or the formal taking of his wife into his home.

Again, Joseph and Mary are already man and wife.

SAINT AMBROSE But as no one puts away what he has not received; in that he was minded to put her away, he admits to have received her.
— Quote from Catena Aurea

ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS As her betrothed husband also he is admonished not to be afraid; . . . .
— Quote from Catena Aurea

**Incidentally, Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is His bride. **

At the end of the book of Revelation, when Jesus’ Church is completely in Heaven, this is termed “The Wedding Supper of the Lamb” (see Revelation 19:9).

Why? Because Jesus is the Lamb and Bridegroom and His Church is His bride.

Can you see bridegroom imagery here in John 14:1-3?

JOHN 14:1-3 1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

(This isn’t Sean Hannity that John 14:1-3 is talking about. This is almost certainly talking of Kiddushin and later Nisuin of the Bridegroom–Jesus to His bride–The Church.)

Jesus who is about to be betrayed, handed over and crucified, tells His Apostles He is going away but will come back to take His bride His Apostles and Church to heaven to live with them!

This may be alluding to Jesus and the Church having completed kiddushin when He goes away, and now Jesus tells the Apostles they will be part of nisuin at a later time! In a sense at the end of their earthly lives, but in a fuller sense eschatologically, at the end of time.​

Hope this helps.
 
drblank1:
But I agree and I think all of Christendom does as well, Joseph abstain because she was carrying Jesus.
“Carrying Jesus” won’t do (although it is partially correct, but an incomplete answer).

Why? Because there is nothing inherently wrong with a husband having relations with his wife. Even if she is pregnant.

And remember! The Angel from Heaven even told Joseph not to be afraid to “take Mary” presumably into his home (Nisuin).

MATTHEW 1:20, 24a 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him . . .

“Carrying Jesus” would be irrelevant if there is nothing special going on with Mary too.

When the Ark was built anyone could touch it.

What happened to the Ark that made THE ARK “consecrated” (not just what would eventually be IN the Ark, but THE ARK itself)?

(See Exodus 40:34 and Numbers 9:15).
 
drblank1:

“Carrying Jesus” won’t do (although it is partially correct, but an incomplete answer).

Why? Because there is nothing inherently wrong with a husband having relations with his wife. Even if she is pregnant.

And remember! The Angel from Heaven even told Joseph not to be afraid to “take Mary” presumably into his home (Nisuin).

MATTHEW 1:20, 24a 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him . . .

“Carrying Jesus” would be irrelevant if there is nothing special going on with Mary too.

When the Ark was built anyone could touch it.

What happened to the Ark that made THE ARK “consecrated” (not just what would eventually be IN the Ark, but THE ARK itself)?

(See Exodus 40:34 and Numbers 9:15).
A quick side note, most Protestants believe it was the Mercy Seat that made the ark special, not the tablets. I was just trying to guess the Orthodox/Catholic view. :o But I digress.

To answer your question, the presence of God fell on the Tent.
 
drblank1. You said (here) . . . .
You can only blaspheme a god/the divine.
Matthew 12:31 suggests blasphemy can go further to profaning the Sacred or consecrated.

MATTHEW 12:31 31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy (blasphēmia) will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

The CCC says what Matthew 12 implies saying . . . .

CCC 2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 **The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. **It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name.** It is in itself a grave sin**.79

St. John the Revelator extends “blasphemy” to holy things as well.

St. John extends “blasphemy” to falsely saying you are a Jew. Parenthetical addition mine . . .

REVELATION 2:9a 9 “‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander (blasphemy) of those who say that they are Jews and are not. . .

King Belshazzar almost certainly blasphemed against Sacred and Holy Vessels used in the Temple service (See Daniel 5).

How much MORE can you blaspheme against THE “Vessel” of the Lord?
 
drblank1. You said (here) . . . .

Matthew 12:31 suggests blasphemy can go further to profaning the Sacred or consecrated.

MATTHEW 12:31 31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy (blasphēmia) will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

The CCC says what Matthew 12 implies saying . . . .

CCC 2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 **The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. **It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name.** It is in itself a grave sin**.79

St. John the Revelator extends “blasphemy” to holy things as well.

St. John extends “blasphemy” to falsely saying you are a Jew. Parenthetical addition mine . . .

REVELATION 2:9a 9 “‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander (blasphemy) of those who say that they are Jews and are not. . .

King Belshazzar almost certainly blasphemed against Sacred and Holy Vessels used in the Temple service (See Daniel 5).

How much MORE can you blaspheme against THE “Vessel” of the Lord?
In your examples, the blasphemy was not against the objects but directed towards God through disrespect of the objects. You cannot blaspheme the object, only God.

CCC 2148 is summed up in one sentence: “Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and His holy name.”

But concluding my thoughts on your post, Catholic/Orthodox view Mary as so special that anyone who denies Mariology would be committing blasphemy against her? And thus, have sexual relations with someone so special would not be permitted?
 
To answer your question, the presence of God fell on the Tent.
That’s exactly right drblank1.

The language is parallel to . . . .The power of the Holy Spirit “OVERSHADOWS” the Ark.

We can all see WHO the power of the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” in the New Testament too.

The Blessed Virgin Mary.

LUKE 1:26-28, 35 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” . . . . 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

And just look at the reverence the Angel pays to the Virgin!

Angels are superior to humanity in general.

Yet when the Angel approaches the Blessed Virgin, Gabriel KNOWS something is different about this encounter.

**“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” **

The more you meditate on this, the easier it is to see St. Gabriel the Archangel venerating the Blessed Virgin here as St. Gabriel approaches Mary with the most careful reverence (outside of approaching God of course).

And contrast this angelic encounter with the way the angel from Heaven treats St. Peter, our first Pope and the one who was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

ACTS 12:5-10 5 So Peter was kept in prison; but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. 6 The very night when Herod was about to bring him out, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison; 7 and behold, an angel of the Lord appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. And he said to him, “Wrap your mantle around you and follow me.” 9 And he went out and followed him; he did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened to them of its own accord, and they went out and passed on through one street; and immediately the angel left him.

Just look at the difference.
  • The angel from Heaven greets Mary saying . . . "Hail Full of Grace."
  • **The angel from Heaven greets St. Peter by . . . . “STRIKING him on the side”! **
The angel tells St. Peter “Get up quickly!” And proceeds to order Peter around, then disappears after leading Peter out of jail.

Can you imagine the archangel Gabriel “striking” the Blessed Virgin Mary?

No way!

I’ve seen St. Thomas Aquinas bring out this point (sorry I can’t recall where), and Dr. Scott Hahn brings it out on his Mary series as well.

The way the Heavenly angel treats the Blessed Virgin Mary suggests HE (Gabriel) KNOWS there is something VERY SPECIAL about the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Do we?
 
drblank1:
In your examples, the blasphemy was not against the objects but directed towards God through disrespect of the objects. You cannot blaspheme the object, only God.
CCC 2148 is summed up in one sentence: “Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and His holy name.”
That is where the blasphemy stems from to be sure. And I don’t want to take away from what you are saying here. (You and I are in agreement in essence)

But that is WHY . . . . .
The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things.
CCC 2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.79
 
Maybe and I am not sure if this was asked? Would it actually contradict any Catholic teaching if Mary ever “knew” Joseph? Except for the perpetual virginity part?
 
Self correction:

I said . . . .
“Carrying Jesus” would be irrelevant if there is nothing special going on with Mary too.
I meant to say . . . .
“Carrying Jesus” would be incomplete here contextually if there is nothing special going on with Mary too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top