Question about the importance of Mary's virginity

[James248]

Non-Catholics often have difficulty accepting Mary’s designation as “Mother of God.” But the Person whom she bore was the Second Person of the Trinity, so the title is apt. If Jesus had biological siblings, I suppose there would also be controversy over referring to them as “brothers of God” and “sisters of God.”

At root, every Marian doctrine has Jesus at its core, seeking to preserve the idea of Who Jesus is.

Usually when I get into these types of arguments I ask them, “Do you believe Jesus is God?” If they answer “Yes,” I will ask, “Then why do you have a problem with me saying that Mary is the Mother of God if you believe Jesus is God?”

 

[truetofaith]

Well … if I felt that way, then being allegedly “married” to her in the first place would seem like an unworthy sham. If all this were true, then pretending to be her husband would be at least as unseemly as consummating the non-marriage. No offense meant, but why pose to all & sundry as the ostensible profaner of the allegedly dedicated temple?

St. Joseph knew about Mary and he must have taken a vow of celibacy before he married her.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

St. Joseph knew about Mary and he must have taken a vow of celibacy before he married her.

If you’ve taken a vow of celibacy, then you’re unqualified to marry anyone, and you’ve no business pretending to do so. That idea seems like a non-starter.

 

[truetofaith]

If you’ve taken a vow of celibacy, then you’re unqualified to marry anyone, and you’ve no business pretending to do so. That idea seems like a non-starter.

Blessed Mother also took a vow of celibacy…hey, this was all planned by God…right!

 

[Le_Cracquere]

If so, then she had equally little business marrying anyone. None of this smells right.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

If so, then she had equally little business marrying anyone. None of this smells right.

Perception meant a lot in 1st century Judea. A husbandless woman with child looked no bueno!!

Matthew 1:19-21King James Version (KJV)

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

This is the most extraordinary family to ever exist. So to say extraordinary happenings within their relationship took place is, well, somewhat expected…

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Perception meant a lot in 1st century Judea. A husbandless woman with child looked no bueno!!

Granted … but Jesus’ example didn’t exactly entail being a stickler for public perception.

This is the most extraordinary family to ever exist. So to say extraordinary happenings within their relationship took place is, well, somewhat expected…

Very true! However, this point would apply with equal force to the possibility that Joseph & Mary went on to have children of their own. No real precedents, so very hard to say what counts as “unfitting.”

 

[James248]

Very true! However, this point would apply with equal force to the possibility that Joseph & Mary went on to have children of their own. No real precedents, so very hard to say what counts as “unfitting.”

Or even more stunning, the possibility that Joseph refrained from relations with his wife.

 

[Cathoholic]

Le Cracquere.

I’ve read the last several posts of yours.

You have talked a lot about . . . well . . . . you.

You and your feelings.

You have not cited any verse as authoritative. You just keep citing . . . you.

You have discussed a lot about your feelings and what you think about the sense of the sacred (or lack of it) and no Scripture.

(“Well … if I felt that way,. . . ).

(. . . would seem like an unworthy sham.)

( . . . pretending to be her husband would be at least as unseemly . . . )

(“That idea seems like a non-starter.”)

(“she had equally little business marrying anyone”)

(“None of this smells right.”)

(“Jesus’ example didn’t exactly entail being a stickler” . . . )

Now please give me some Scripture and I think we can build upon all of this.

 

[Cathoholic]

Le Cracquere. You said:

If all this were true, then pretending to be her husband . . . .

St. Joseph was ALREADY Mary’s husband when the Archangel Gabriel came to her. You DO know that don’t you?

(The angel from Heaven that appeared to Joseph in St. Matthew’s Gospel explicitly referred to Mary as Joseph’s “wife”.)

There is no “pretending” here.

No offense meant, but why pose . . . as the ostensible profaner of the allegedly dedicated temple?

Because if the Ark of the (Old) Covenant is “allegedly dedicated” (and it was), . . . . . HOW MUCH MORE would the Ark of the (New) Covenant where and WHO FROM JESUS HIMSELF (who is GOD ALMIGHTY Himself in the flesh) took His sacred flesh from . . . . be “dedicated”?

---

You also said . . . . .

If you’ve taken a vow of celibacy, then you’re unqualified to marry anyone . . . .

WHERE is THAT in Scripture?

Where is it in Scripture that “if you have taken a vow of celibacy, that you are not qualified to marry anyone?”

Have you not read the posts here on this?

Have you not read Numbers 30 where it discusses this?

(The Dead Sea scrolls also discuss this concept)

Jesus is the spotless bridegroom. Jesus is virginal. Many of the “presbyteroi” follow Jesus “wherever He goes” (in this context).

REVELATION 14:1-5 1 Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps, 3 and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

Literally “they are virgins”(The NIV brings this out nicely).

REVELATION 14:4a (NIV) It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins;

Keeping in mind Jesus is explicitly taught as being the bridegroom in Ephesians 5:21-33 (and elsewhere) . . . . do you think Jesus was “UNQUALIFIED” to be the bridegroom of the Church because He is a virgin?

---

Joseph “knew her not” before Jesus was born.

Do you think Mary and Joseph’s marriage was a “sham” during that time too?

Or only when you say it’s a “sham”?

 

[Cathoholic]

From a news article from the National Catholic Register . . . .

. . . . On May 29-30, 1930, Jesus explained to Sister Lucia the reasons for this reparation to Our Lady.

“My daughter,” he said, “the motive is simple: There are five ways in which people offend and blaspheme against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” . . . .

ncregister.com/site/article/5_saturdays_1_salvation/blank.htm

Here are the five offenses . . . . .

• Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
• Blasphemies against her Perpetual Virginity.
• Blasphemies against her Divine Maternity and at the same time the refusal to recognize her as the Mother of all mankind,
• Blasphemies of those who seek openly to foster in the hearts of children indifference or contempt and even hatred for this Immaculate Mother.
• The offenses of those who directly outrage Her in her holy images.

 

[Cathoholic]

The bullet-point list in my last post I copied and pasted from here.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Or even more stunning, the possibility that Joseph refrained from relations with his wife.

Possible; I’m not saying the Catholic interpretation is internally inconsistent. It doesn’t seem like the more inherently plausible option, though.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Le Cracquere.

I’ve read the last several posts of yours.

You have talked a lot about . . . well . . . . you.

You and your feelings.

You have not cited any verse as authoritative. You just keep citing . . . you.

You have discussed a lot about your feelings and what you think about the sense of the sacred (or lack of it) and no Scripture.

(“Well … if I felt that way,. . . ).

(. . . would seem like an unworthy sham.)

( . . . pretending to be her husband would be at least as unseemly . . . )

(“That idea seems like a non-starter.”)

(“she had equally little business marrying anyone”)

(“None of this smells right.”)

(“Jesus’ example didn’t exactly entail being a stickler” . . . )

Now please give me some Scripture and I think we can build upon all of this.

As I thought was well established, the Scriptural evidence is indirect and leaves plenty of room for all sorts of inferences. I didn’t think even the sternest Marian thought the Catholic doctrines were self-evident from the Gospels, absent a good bit of hermeneutics and other second-order (though perfectly valid) arguments.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

From a news article from the National Catholic Register . . . .

ncregister.com/site/article/5_saturdays_1_salvation/blank.htm

Here are the five offenses . . . . .

• Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
• Blasphemies against her Perpetual Virginity.
• Blasphemies against her Divine Maternity and at the same time the refusal to recognize her as the Mother of all mankind,
• Blasphemies of those who seek openly to foster in the hearts of children indifference or contempt and even hatred for this Immaculate Mother.
• The offenses of those who directly outrage Her in her holy images.

I am concerned to hear it. I hope it doesn’t count as blasphemy that someone unused to such teachings might find them difficult or unsatisfactory … or express how someone might, in good faith, find them unconvincing at first (or even second) glance?

 

[Cathoholic]

Le Cracquere:

Possible; I’m not saying the Catholic interpretation is internally inconsistent. It doesn’t seem like the more inherently plausible option, though.

WHY would the Catholic interpretation not be “plausible” Le Cracquere?

A marriage without conjugal relations was stated in Scripture (Joseph “knew her not”) concerning BEFORE Jesus was born.

(Nothing is said explicitly about “after Jesus was born”.)

THAT is “plausible” to you at least isn’t it Le Cracquere?

And what about the encounter the Blessed Virgin Mary had with the Archangel Gabriel in Luke 1?

Think about it.

You have a young married woman.

And an angel from Heaven appears to her and tells her she will have a son, etc.

And HOW does she respond?

With this:

“HOW CAN THIS BE??”

This response would NOT make sense for any typical married woman.

Why?

Go through it yourself and it becomes obvious why.

If your newly married sister and her husband and you, were sitting around the kitchen table over a cup of coffee and you told her you think she was going to have a son . . .

. . . . she might reply . . . .

. . . well she might reply a lot of ways.

She might say . . . .

“Great. I’d love to have a son.”

Or she might say . . . .

“No. I think we are going to have a daughter first.”

Or she might say . . . .

“Well I’m really hoping for twins. One of each a boy AND a girl.”

She might reply a lot of ways.

But if you told a newly married woman she was going have a son . . . how WOULDN’T she respond?

She would NOT respond by asking . . . “HOW can this come about?”

She would not respond by asking HOW this could occur . . . . UNLESS . . . .

. . . . UNLESS she had taken a vow of virginity (and her and her husband ALREADY KNEW that and were planning on living out their vow of virginity).

If she had taken such a vow (and it is implicitly evident Mary and Joseph DID take such a vow), the answer . . . .

** . . . . “HOW can this be”?? . . . . **

. . . .makes perfect sense.

The Catholic interpretation in my opinion is the ONLY plausible option that I can think of.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

If she had taken such a vow (and it is implicitly evident Mary and Joseph DID take such a vow), the answer . . . .

** . . . . “HOW can this be”?? . . . . **

. . . .makes perfect sense.

The Catholic interpretation in my opinion is the ONLY plausible option that I can think of.

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy::tiphat:

 

[YADA]

What is the source that reveals that Mary took this vow? Is there anywhere else in all of Judaism where people would vow to remain chaste throughout their life? I am not aware of this being part of a Jewish custom. I do think it was a practice in some of the other religions in ancient Rome.

Joseph could not have “married” a perpetual virgin, because they could not be married if they did not consummate the marriage. They could have been perpetual platonic unwed roommates with a very unique arrangement.

Yes - in Judaism and Christianity there have always been people who dedicated themselves in service to God and offered up their lives taking up chastity forsaking carnal relations remaining virgins - You can read about the vows in the Book of Numbers - which being a part of the Pentateuch is in the earliest Hebrew writings. The Essene’s were a sect that practiced Chastity - you can read of their rules in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Teacher of Righteousness preached penitence, poverty, humility, love of one’s neighbor, and chastity. However, sticking with Books found in the Bible -

Numbers Chapter 30 -

1
So Moses instructed the Israelites exactly as the LORD had commanded him. 2
Moses said to the heads of the Israelite tribes, “This is what the LORD has commanded:
3 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge,* he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered.a

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 house* that 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.

 

[friardchips]

Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church as a divine institution whose task it was to profess, affirm and proclaim the truth.

the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is true. Mary remained and remains a virgin. that is the reality that God created. that is why it is important for the Church to teach it.

it seems to me that we should all want to profess, affirm and proclaim the truth.

Good post! Well said.

The four DOGMAS are Mary’s Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception and The Assumption.

Dogmas are divinely-revealed doctrines. They’re infallible and irrefutable, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church and all she believes, in good faith.

 

[YADA]

"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.

And why do you think [or seem to] that this means Tertullian is not saying Mary was ever Virgin

Continence - that Tertullian is addressing here - means self-restraint or abstinence, especially in regard to sexual activity; temperance; moderation. Not the ability to control bodily fluids … Virgin marrying and representing both Monogamy and Continence