The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos is Heretical

  • Thread starter Thread starter MatthaiosX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed. There is a reason why a virgin was specially chosen. When the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary, it was like a proposal. Mary could have just refused.

Sometimes, perhaps out of familiarity, we use our human rationale even though the person we reason out is God.

What’s so special about a virgin, if it is not for its exclusiveness? God could just propose to any decent widow or a divorcee, after all she would not be expected to retain her virginity.

There is a reason why a virgin was chosen. She would be exclusively to bear God. That her son would be conceived by the Holy Spirit and she will be His spouse. That God would protect her from defilement. Even if we do not know of this fact, would we not respect God’s choice of a girl?

We certainly trust that Joseph being a holy Godly obedient man (as mentioned) would surely recognize what all these entailed. God would not make a mistake with people whom He chose.

God bless.
 
I’ve heard an argument that basically Mary being an ever-virgin would not only be unfair to St. Joseph, but would make their marriage invalid as it had not been consummated. This same person doesn’t, however, view her as sinless, nor considered that she is the Ark of the New Covenant.
 
Please study the Latin vulgate and the 15-30 other bible translations that use the word virgin…
then study the Hebrew context of a prophet saying only that a “young women” would give birth and ask your self if that is a great thing for a prophet to foretell…

Is it prophecy to say a young woman would be pregnant??! In Jewish culture the context would refer to virgin…

From a master in divinity of theology student…
 
Does saying “a young woman will give birth” make that prophecy special or could have any person predicted that young women can get pregnant??
 
For me, the overwhelming scriptural evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity was her response to Gabriel’s announcement.

Imagine for a moment what her reaction would have been if she were betrothed in what was to be an ordinary (i.e., sexual) marriage:

Gabriel: You shall conceive in your womb, and you shall bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus . . ."

Mary: Wow, that’s great news! I can’t wait to tell Joseph. He’ll be so glad to know that he’s going to have a son!

On the other hand, here is the response of a woman who knows that she is dedicated to virginity:

Gabriel: You shall conceive in your womb, and you shall bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus . . ."

Mary: How can this be? I do not have sexual relations with a man.

On the subject of “until”, I have the Audible app on my phone, and one of my “books” is a production reading of the entire NKJV Bible. My night-time routine includes tucking my phone under my pillow and listening to 20-25 minutes of Scripture before going to sleep. In have been through the historical books two or three times, and it is surprising how many times the word “until” is used in situations where it would be impossible for the person under discussion to resume the specified activity after the “until” conditions had been fulfilled. “Michal (Saul’s daughter / David’s wife) was childless until the day of her death” is only one of many such instances.

D
 
MatthaiosX said:
…
Can someone help me please understand why someone would even want to assert that she did not remain a perpetual virgin? This goes against everything that is sacred in my mind, I’m baffled.
Click to expand...
Because it’s very hard (or impossible really) for the intellect alone to affirm the supernatural.
In the virgin birth we are talking about something that transcends nature and so is not accessible by reason alone.
The modern mind insists on reductionist proof and gives less and less credence to the supernatural realities. Since the virgin birth cannot be demonstrated and goes against the purely natural order, it’s easy to be skeptical.
Same with the resurrection, same with the Eucharist.

We accept these realities because we give our adherence to Christ and the Church, not merely to our limited intellects.
 
Last edited:
MatthaiosX said:
However, I have encountered some modern-day Protestants who claim that the ever-virginity notion is heretical because it is not biblical.
Click to expand...
A protestant can’t even call any Doctrine heretical since they do not have any Orthodoxy, as Protestantism is just a plethora of heresys.
Second, Sola Scriptura is a concept created on the XVI century, having never being adopted by the Apostles and the Fathers; so the argument holds no weight.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the bible ever said that Mary had children. It only mentions that Jesus had brothers and that Joseph and Mary did not consummate their marriage while Jesus was born. Saint Jeremy clears up the confusion in one of his writings, but generally, the Protestants seem to be stubborn and continue holding this view even after being given good explanations why Mary is a virgin.
 
Actually it is. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is “almah,” and its inherent meaning is “young woman.” “Almah” can mean “virgin,” as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. If it meant literally just “young woman”, then every birth from then until present time would be a sign, since there have been millions of births by a “young woman”.

Anyway, honoring Mary is “a Catholic thing” and anything to do with Mary, other than dragging her out in a Nativity scene during Christmas and putting her statue back on the shelf on Dec. 26th is too much for a protestant. They also prefer to mis-interpret “Kecharitomene” as “highly favored one” instead of the proper translation “full of grace”.
 
MatthaiosX said:
I have encountered some modern-day Protestants who claim that the ever-virginity notion is heretical because it is not biblical.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Tell your modern-day Protestant friends that it is galactically stupid to equate “it’s not in the Bible” with “it’s heretical.”
 
Why? Because if they believe in the Trinity, that’s extra-biblical so they’re a heretic. If they believe that only things that are written in the bible are true, that’s extra-biblical, so they’re a heretic. If they believe in the bible, then there’s nowhere where it says that these are the true and only books to believe, so that’s extra-biblical, so they’re a heretic.
 
Protestants lack any authority to declare something heretical. Peter has the keys… protestants don’t.
 
Think, … Jesus was formed into what he is at his birth for nine months in Mary’s womb.

Jesus is God. If only we can imagine that God is being formed, dwelt, in a womb, and how holy that womb (person) must be. The perpetual virginity is not just about Mary but also about the person of Jesus himself.

In ancient days, the tablets were kept in the ark (of Covenant). It was regarded as so holy, that anyone who touched it would just drop dead.

It’s a matter of who God is. Would Mary be just a vessel, like what non-Catholics think she is, or is she a mother of God in the actual sense of the word? And is not God holy and everything and everywhere He dwells in?
Click to expand...
First off, Reuben, that seems to imply there’s something unholy about a married man and woman engaging in marital relations. What about it, pray tell, is inconsistent with holiness? This line of argument always seems on the verge of implying that matrimony is downright unsacramental, a distasteful recourse for spiritual second-raters.

Secondly, even if you do believe as much: our Lord was notorious for rubbing elbows with tax collectors, Gentiles, and the “unclean.” He wasn’t too good to be born in a manger, in the middle of a stable. Though He was the holiest of all, He never insisted on royal pomp or disdained the company of our fallen, all-too-fallible human flesh. In light of all that, insisting on a supernaturally sanctified vessel for Him to be born from seems a little wrongheaded to me.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for explaining but that still doesn’t really make sense to me. I get the bit about Mary being holy and her womb as the “new ark” being holy, but I don’t really see how it would have been “unholy” or disrespectful for them to have consummated their marriage. I mean, it wouldn’t change who Jesus was. Jesus had a human nature. He did all that we do. He took poops and urinated etc. I just don’t see how it’s necessary.
 
AdamP88 said:
Thanks for explaining but that still doesn’t really make sense to me. I get the bit about Mary being holy and her womb as the “new ark” being holy, but I don’t really see how it would have been “unholy” or disrespectful for them to have consummated their marriage. I mean, it wouldn’t change who Jesus was. Jesus had a human nature. He did all that we do. He took poops and urinated etc. I just don’t see how it’s necessary.
Click to expand...
Ezekiel 44:2
2. And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.
Click to expand...
“The Holy Virgin is herself both an honourable temple of God and a shrine made pure, and a golden altar of whole burnt offerings. By reason of her surpassing purity [she is] the Divine incense of oblation, and oil of the holy grace, and a precious vase bearing in itself the true nard; [yea and] the priestly diadem revealing the good pleasure of God, whom she alone approacheth holy in body and soul.
[She is] the door which looks eastward, and by the comings in and goings forth the whole earth is illuminated.” – St. Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 213-270 AD.)
Click to expand...
In St. Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion To Mary”, he speaks of Mary’s espousal to the Holy Spirit. In paragraph 5, he states:
"5. Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God and he has reserved the knowledge and possession of her for himself. She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility.

He called her “Woman” as if she were a stranger, although in his heart he esteemed and loved her above all men and angels. Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter.

She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe, not excluding his dwelling above the cherubim and seraphim.

No creature, however pure, may enter there without being specially privileged.”
Click to expand...
He again describes this espousal in paragraphs 20:
"20. God the Holy Spirit, who does not produce any divine person, became fruitful through Mary whom he espoused.

It was with her, in her and of her that he produced his masterpiece, God-made-man, and that he produces every day until the end of the world the members of the body of this adorable Head.

For this reason the more he finds Mary his dear and inseparable spouse in a soul the more powerful and effective he becomes in producing Jesus Christ in that soul and that soul in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Mark 10:8-9
  1. "and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
  2. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.“
Click to expand...
Joseph took Mary as his wife, but he did so with full knowledge that she had conceived a child by the power of the Holy Spirit. Being a righteous man, wouldn’t he have known that Mary truly belonged to God and he would not have had relations with her?
 
AveOTheotokos said:
Joseph took Mary as his wife, but he did so with full knowledge that she had conceived a child by the power of the Holy Spirit. Being a righteous man, wouldn’t he have known that Mary truly belonged to God and he would not have had relations with her?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. I haven’t asked him, so I don’t know – and I won’t speculate based on what I think I might have done…
 
“Spouse of the Holy Spirit”? I think the Protestant accusation that launched this thread is tough to support, but unless there’s some special context that the quote doesn’t account for, Montfort seems flatly heretical here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top