The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos is Heretical

[Reuben_J]

Hi @Le_Cracquere. Thanks for your post. It gives me an idea of the other side of opinion on this subject.

To summarize, basically the argument here is:

(1) Why the needs for Mary to be a perpetual virgin?
or
(2) Why Mary does not need to be a perpetual virgin?

You’d notice I did not give any references to what the ECF or saints about this, because you probably would not be too impressed after all they are selected ‘Catholic saints’. If you do, then it good because I do not have to say anything, their belief already testified to (1).

You mentioned about Jesus being born in a stable and mixed with ‘tax-collectors’. Your point taken - that the person of Jesus is just that – a righteous holy man, as far as a man that he is.

I did write in a second post where I mentioned that God chose a virgin (a young girl), not a married woman or a widow. Obviously that’s something to think about because God would not do thing without a reason.

I agree that marriage is holy, that is a given, which is your argument, that Mary need not necessary be a perpetual virgin. In fact, it could be said, it is not, if Mary and Joseph did not consume their marriage.

But perhaps take a look here. Mary is God’s girl, not Joseph’s.

As far as Joseph is concerned, he had divorced her. By the Law of Moses, she is as good as being divorced for having a child that is not of Joseph’s, doesn’t matter whose.

But God intervened and asked Joseph to continue taking her as a wife. Who? God, did we say? From that point, Joseph was doing God’s plan. This probably is the main contention in this whole argument. Should or should not they consume the marriage like any ordinary married couple?

I say they should not. Mary cannot anymore bear Joseph’s children as she is already belonged to God. Joseph has to know this, at the point when the angel told him. He continued to take Mary as his betrothed only for the sake of God.

Again, why God chose a virgin? Why not just any women if she does not have to be perpetually virgin? She could be a married woman, a widow or even a prostitute; there were at least two righteous prostitutes in the Bible, OT and NT respectively.

Mary has to a virgin because when she said yes, it was to be a relationship with God. She was set aside specially for God, as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was a man but he is far from ordinary. In fact he is without sin. It therefore, should not be a surprise if Mary too can be specially prepared and made sacred for the purpose of conceiving God made flesh.

God bless.

 

[Elf01]

Again, why God chose a virgin? Why not just any women if she does not have to be perpetually virgin? She could be a married woman, a widow or even a prostitute; there were at least two righteous prostitutes in the Bible, OT and NT respectively.

I see Mary’s virginity up until the birth of Christ was important to leave no doubt about who the father of Jesus was. I suppose a widow after some time of being widowed and unmarried may have achieved that but not a prostitute or married woman.

I look at her virginity after as not being necessary, but fitting and I do agree that certainly her reaction at the annunciation and the OT references support it.

 

[2towers]

Something that never ceases to amaze me. Accepting the miracles of Christ and of God, except this one and that one…

 

[Kei]

I think the thing is that we hold a high Christology as Catholics and Orthodox, and many Bible alone people don’t know the Councils, etc., so have a lower Christology, misunderstand His Natures, etc.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

Again, why God chose a virgin? Why not just any women if she does not have to be perpetually virgin? She could be a married woman, a widow or even a prostitute; there were at least two righteous prostitutes in the Bible, OT and NT respectively.

I see Mary’s virginity up until the birth of Christ was important to leave no doubt about who the father of Jesus was. I suppose a widow after some time of being widowed and unmarried may have achieved that but not a prostitute or married woman.

I look at her virginity after as not being necessary, but fitting and I do agree that certainly her reaction at the annunciation and the OT references support it.

Why not any woman, if her function is only to give birth to Jesus? Why would the differences in their status affect that?

As for Jesus’ Father, most people did not know that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. So Mary’s virginity does not make sense. If the child is from God, only those who were informed would know, if they believed.

As for Jesus, his origin was a well-kept secret by Joseph taking Mary as his wife. Not sure if the virginity is for that reason unless it has a higher purpose.

God bless.

 

[MT1926]

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.

Let me see if I can help on this one.

We need to keep in mind that Joseph and Mary were under Jewish Law. So when they were Betrothed, it wasn’t an engagement, they were actually already married.

Well Jewish law also states…

After betrothal the parties were regarded as man and wife; and the act could be dissolved only by death or by a formal bill of divorce. If the woman proved unfaithful during the period of betrothal she was treated as an adulteress, and her punishment (that of stoning; Deut. xxii. 23, 24; Sanh. 66b) was considered to be much more severe than that (strangulation) inflicted upon the unfaithful married woman (Deut. xxii. 22; Sanh. 52b). The parties were not, however, entitled to conjugal rights, nor were they bound by the obligations of married life.

Even though none of us would call Mary an adulteress she did become pregnant by another (the Holy Spirit). Joseph did not know about the Holy Spirit yet which is why the scriptures tell us that Joseph decided to divorce her and send her away quietly. I believe him being a righteous man his reasoning to do this secretly, was him hoping the father of the child would take her away so she would not be stoned to death. Once the angel announced Mary was pregnant by the Spirit, Joseph followed the will of God and took Mary as his wife. However, the Jewish law at the time was also the will of God and the Law stated that if he took Mary into his house he was no longer entitled to conjugal rights.

Even if there wasn’t a law I believe Joseph would have never had relations with Mary, I don’t think it was in God’s plan, but regardless we actually have extra-Biblical evidence to show us a righteous man would not have had relations with a woman who became pregnant by another.

If you think it through once the Apostles learned that Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary having other Children, with Joseph, would have called this claim into question.

Hope this helps.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

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?

See my last post.

This line of argument always seems on the verge of implying that matrimony is downright unsacramental, a distasteful recourse for spiritual second-raters.

Keep in mind that New Covenant Matrimony is not the same as under the Old Covenant. Jesus elevated the status of marriage in the New Covenant to be a Sacrament.

Secondly, even if you do believe as much: our Lord was notorious for rubbing elbows with tax collectors, Gentiles, and the “unclean.”

Yes He was. He lowered Himself to our level to teach us the importance of loving all of our neighbors not just the ones that love us back.

He wasn’t too good to be born in a manger, in the middle of a stable.

The amount of insight we get from what we are being taught here could fill books. He is the Lamb of God. Bethlehem means house of bread. A manger is a food dish. The food dish contains the bread of life. The sheep eat out of the food dish. We are the sheep. The shepherds, who raise the perfect lamb sacrifices were the first to be told, etc…I could go on for hours.

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.

Teaching us humility. The first shall be last. etc…

In light of all that, insisting on a supernaturally sanctified vessel for Him to be born from seems a little wrongheaded to me.

Everything in the Bible has meaning and is done for a purpose. Why is it so hard to believe (wrongheaded) that Jesus is trying to teach us something with His mother. To think of her as just a vessel with no other significance seems like a waste of time, to me. If we aren’t suppose to draw meaning, for our own lives, out of the very few verses we have about Joseph, Mary and Jesus childhood then I think he should have just shown up at the age of 30 and started His mission. No one knowing who His family was would have probably made His mission that much easier don’t you think?

Just my two cents,

God Bless

 

[Elf01]

No one knowing who His family was would have probably made His mission that much easier don’t you think?

In terms of belief yes, but he had to be fully human.

 

[MT1926]

In terms of belief yes, but he had to be fully human.

I’m not sure I would have to think about this. I agree He chose to be fully human but not sure why God would “have” to do anything to accomplish His will.

Anyhow I guess my question would be how does no one knowing who His parents were, mean He would not be fully human?

The Bible could have easily told us He was born of a virgin and raised where ever and started His ministry at 30. End of His childhood story.

The point I was trying to make is that everything in the Bible has meaning. Some say Mary was nothing more than a vessel for Jesus, and the scripture that mentions her is of little importance in revealing anything to us. I say the fact that the Bible includes her should make us ask why? What is God trying to convey to us here?

When we ask this question it makes us dig a little deeper. When we dig a little deeper we soon discover that her name might not be mentioned often, however, the fact that it is mentioned at the most important times in Jesus life, should make us scratch our heads and go hmmm interesting. It sure seems like Jesus felt His momma was pretty important to include her in every one of His major events. His Incarnation, His birth, His first Miracle, His death.

I just think some of our separated brethren who don’t think much about Mary are giving up on an amazing story. Just the typology about her alone makes me say wow our God is amazing the way he makes sure everything flows together and tells us the greatest story ever told.

God Bless

 

[pacloc]

The reason that the Holy Virgin Mary was and remained a virgin was because being a virgin is God-like and Holy. God is a virgin and does not have sex, nor do the angels. Christianity has brought man back to holiness, and for those that can take the discipline of virginity, it has become the default way of Christian life. Obviously many of us don’t mature in the faith or don’t find the faith until we have already been married, but we still need to be convinced that the sexual relations are only blessed because of our weakness. They will not exist in Heaven, which is Holy. The need for a spouse and children has a bit of weakness and selfishness and an attachment to the earth instead of faith in Heavenly things. But it is not entirely bad and so God has blessed it and uses it for the growth of His Church.

The reason that there were miraculous births of old men and women in the Scriptures is to emphasize God’s choice and not sexual desire that brings about the birth. They were signs that would point to the Holy Virgin giving birth without any sexual desire, and at the age that normally a woman would have these desires. This emphasizes her great maturity and Holiness. To think she would regress and have sex with an 80 year old man just seems monstrous to most Orthodox Christians.

 

[nearlycatholic]

As a Protestant presently, I have to tell you that Mary is hardly even mentioned unless the Christmas story is being told. I can’t even remember ever hearing a sermon where she is really discussed. The majority of the time when I hear any mention is when someone will very snarkily make the charge against Catholics praying “to” Mary. Since I began studying your faith I have a new found love and respect for the Mother of my Savior. I am astonished at the neglect in my church and the ignorance of the very one that Scripture teaches is Blessed among women and full of grace. And it really chaffs me when I hear her name in a tone of disrespect. As far as perpetual virginity, I am not sure why Catholicism is so rigid in trying to make that point or a point at all. And I mean that with no disrespect. The bible mentions siblings of Jesus and the church, mine included says that they could and were most likely “cousins” or Joseph was much older and had children from a prior marriage (which pretty much would make him a pedophile if Mary was merely 14 or 15). What is so horrible about Mary having more children? Being a godly mother is one of God’s highest callings. Anyone who doesn’t see the blessedness of that office is a Catholic not worth their salt. Mary is a figure who I am most interested in learning more about. How can anyone not love this dear sweet godly woman?! As far as praying “to”, the way I understand your church is that people ask her to pray for them. Maybe that’s just semantics. Either way I’m not there yet. Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if all those there were aware of the hell going on here. I don’t believe in innate immortality and 1 Corinthians 15 pretty much explains when we become immortal. But I have every intention of continuing the study of the CC. All prayers appreciated!

 

[Kei]

I am glad you are seeing the respect due Mary.

Why are we so hung up on the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Well, as Catholics, we really care about truth. We believe it is true, hence we believe it.
But beyond that, Mary was a consecrated virgin according to tradition. If she were to not be a virgin, I think you can see the complications with her holiness by the grace of God.
St Joseph would not at all be like such! He would be more of a caretaker of Mary. There’s a reason a sexless marriage is called a “Josephite marriage”. In the past, a woman needed a man. Today, we have more excess resources and jobs that women can do.

But, did you know that in the early Church there was a special position for the relatives of Jesus, and that position persisted for a while? Who else can we trust on the nature of Jesus’ relatives than the Church?!

And now, there’s also the triple crown of Mary. It is for her virginity before, during, and after Jesus’ birth, from what I am told (I thought it was for her daughter ship of the father, mother of the Son, spouse of the Holy Spirit, but I was told it was about her perpetual virginity).

Why is it fitting for her to be a perpetual virgin? Quite simply, she had held Christ. Who then should defile this great tabernacle? Indeed, she needs not other children to be a very good mother: she is the mother of the faithful, the mother of Christ!

 

[MT1926]

What is so horrible about Mary having more children? Being a godly mother is one of God’s highest callings. Anyone who doesn’t see the blessedness of that office is a Catholic not worth their salt.

I don’t think anyone is saying it is horrible if she had more children. It’s just more fitting that she did not. For a number of reasons.

The post above yours @pacloc (Happy Birthday pacloc ) is an excellent response.

I gave a response up higher about Jewish law. The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos is Heretical - #46 by MT1926

Mary is a figure who I am most interested in learning more about.

I just started reading Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples, so far it is a pretty easy read, that might be a good place to start.

Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if all those there were aware of the hell going on here.

Actually, the Bible does seem to tell us that those in heaven are aware.

Luke 15:6-8
6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Hebrews 12:1
12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,

I think once we get to heaven and are given the beatific vision of God we will be able to finally see what is going on down here the way God sees it. It won’t look like hell anymore because we will be able to see the bigger picture and it will look like God’s perfect plan and perfect justice. Not only will we be able to see the “hell” we will be able to see the good that God has intended to come from it.

Just my 2 cents.

I’m going on retreat this weekend, I will keep you in my prayers during Adoration.

God Bless

 

[AdamP88]

Yeah. That helps. I get the thing about Mary being the “spouse” of God I suppose.

Jewish law at the time was also the will of God and the Law stated that if he took Mary into his house he was no longer entitled to conjugal rights.

Why was this the case do you know?

 

[MT1926]

Why was this the case do you know?

I’m not a Jewish lawyer so take what I say with a grain of salt.

From my reading I have found that in those days marriage was a contract,. The Jewish Encyclopedia goes on to say…

In order that there may be a breach of promise, there must be a contract cognizable by the law. Unlike the law in many modern systems of jurisprudence, mere mutual promises of a man and a woman to marry do not constitute such a contract in Jewish law, which requires a written agreement embodying the terms of the contract and specifying the amount of damages (“ḳenas”) payable by either party to the other upon its breach.

From my understanding if the wife breached the contract (Adultery) the husband could break the contract and send her away, most likely to be stoned. However, my thoughts are if she is stoned he won’t get compensated. So I read somewhere he had the option of taking her into his house as a servant. Which kind of makes sense because how could he have conjugal rights if the woman was stoned to death?

Him not being entitled to the conjugal rights was most likely in the law because it goes on to say…

These notes are drawn for a specific sum, to become due and payable upon the non-fulfilment of the contract, and are coupled with the condition that upon the consummation of the marriage the notes shall ipso facto become null and void.

If he consummated with the woman (who was now his servant) he would be breaking the law further, I guess, making her breach null and void bring her back up to the status of wife.

This is my understanding maybe others can clear it up better. However it is interpreted, I believe just the fact the law satates no conjugal rights would have kept Joseph from breaking this law.

Hope this helps,

God Bless