What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Jean_1958]

From THE NEW CATHOLIC ANSWER BIBLE Q-1 “Did Mary Remain a Virgin?”

The Catholic Church has testified from the beginning to the historical reality that Mary, Jesus’s mother, remained a virgin all her life. Even the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all taught that Mary was “ever-virgin.” But if that is true, why does the Bible refer to the “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord (see Mk 6:3)?

In ancient Jewish culture, the terms “brother” and “sister” were applied not only to children of the same parents but also to other relatives. In Genesis 14:16, 29:15 and Leviticus 10:4, for example, we know from the context that these passages refer to a relative other than a brother, even though the Hebrew term for 'brother" is actually used.

In a similar way, soon after the mention of Jesus’s “brothers” and “sisters,” Mark’s gospel refers to Herod’s half-brother Philip as his"brother" (see 6:17). The first Christians also spoke of each other as “brothers,” even when they were biologically unrelated (see Acts 15:13).

Meanwhile, when some of these “brothers of the Lord” are named in other Biblical passages, they are identified as sons of a different Mary (see Mt 13:55-56; 27:56). So even though we may not know exactly how they are related to Jesus, we do know that they are not children of Mary’s womb.

Some Christians claim that the words “her firstborn son” (Lk 2:7), as applied to Jesus, imply that there must have been other children as well. But in biblical culture, “firstborn” was simply a legal term referring to the child who first “opens the womb” (Ex 13:2). If a child were termed “firstborn” only when other children followed, how could the law of Moses have required that the “firstborn” be consecrated soon after birth, before other children arrived (see Ex 13:2, 12, 15; Lk 2:21-24)?

Finally, when St. Matthew in his gospel says that Joseph “had no relations with [Mary] until she bore a son” (1:25), he does not necessarily imply that such relations followed afterward. In the same way, when Jesus says at the end of this same gospel, “I am with you always, until the end of the age” (28:20), he by no means implies thereby that after the end of the age, he will no longer be with us. Similar uses of the word “until” appear throughout Scripture.

 

[Smart30]

Whether you chose to believe Mary remained a Virgin or not, why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? It would not have been sinful for her to have relations with her husband and beget other children.

Salvation is through Chris alone! Mary is not a saviour and she recognized who is the saviour (Luke 1:47 greek - “theO tO sOtEri mou,” “God THE SAViour OF-ME.”

So why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? Would it cause the means to salvation to change? No!

I’m a Protestant and believe what scholars have come to as a conclusion… that the brothers/sisters of Jesus are halfs from Joseph’s prior marriage.

It’s none of our business talking about someone’s virginity, I have no problem with belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[Cusader911]

I’m a Protestant and believe what scholars have come to as a conclusion… that the brothers/sisters of Jesus are halfs from Joseph’s prior marriage.

It’s none of our business talking about someone’s virginity, I have no problem with belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

You may be a protestant - Mary and Joseph were Jews

THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY
Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.HTM

 

[Smart30]

You may be a protestant - Mary and Joseph were Jews

THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY
Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.HTM

I’m a Jew as well, your point is?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m a Protestant and believe what scholars have come to as a conclusion… that the brothers/sisters of Jesus are halfs from Joseph’s prior marriage.

It’s none of our business talking about someone’s virginity, I have no problem with belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I admit too that it goes against the natural call of discretion and dignity for us to speak so cavalierly and openly about a thing that is so personal to Mary. It seems irreverent and disrespectful to debate the matter in public. But as I am typing this I hear a thought that says that her perpetual virginity is a thing of public honor and can only bring both God and mother a greater honor and glory in making it widely known.

One thing I will say is that anyone who assumes that Mary is not perpetually virgin is assuming to limit God’s power and runs the risk of slander since clearly no skeptic can be in a position to be able to speak from a personal knowledge of evidence. The same discretion we should extend in our speech on this matter should also be given with respect to the benefit of the doubt without contrary evidence on the matter. I find it remarkable that non-Catholics can accept that God could perform the miracle of the Incarnation viz a virgin but not accept that God has the power to perform that same miracle in a way that did not reduce the mother’s prior dignity and purity. The same have no difficulty accepting that God can change hearts without cracking skulls open or splitting chests cavities wide.

If nothing else - the perpetual virginity compels us to the principal to think the best of others and to extend the benefit of the doubt.

James

 

[sablouwho]

reduce the mother’s prior **dignity **and purity.

(Not picking on you James–just noting something and using your quote as an example)

I have noticed that these words/concept are coming up, not just in the one post that I have quoted, but in several, by those who clearly believe in the PVM as literal fact.

I ask in earnest, how is dignity is affected by not remaining a virgin, this makes no sense to me. And it is not a sin to have relations with one’s husband, so how would this have been impure?

I just do not understand.

 

[CentralFLJames]

(Not picking on you James–just noting something and using your quote as an example)

I have noticed that these words/concept are coming up, not just in the one post that I have quoted, but in several, by those who clearly believe in the PVM as literal fact.

I ask in earnest, how is dignity is affected by not remaining a virgin, this makes no sense to me. And it is not a sin to have relations with one’s husband, so how would this have been impure?

I just do not understand.

I stated that with the full knowledge that somone might try to associate this with a puritanicalism or even Essene sort of view. But Mary is unique - tradition holds she had already consecrated herself to remaining a perpetual virgin dedicated to God. Even thought the vow was made to God it would have been unthinkable that God would have consummated the act in the human way to given an occasion for Mary to not reach the fulfillment of her oath (life long consecration). There are also ontological reasons in that God is spirit and not Human so marriage between heaven and earth or consummation of relations is not consummated in a physical way since that material act is beneath God’s nature. God essentially lifts Mary up to engage His superior nature viz the Holy Spirit and does not lower Himself (like a Greek god) to use use the instrumentality of physical facilities present in Mother but not in Father. God nullifies the need for the physical act but respects the finishing act of motherhood. It’s a mystery.

I don’t have a handy reference or a saintly writing I can point to but I believe I can say with confidence that a chaste virgin (and martyrdom) is/was seen theologically as the highest form of self denial and therefor most chaste/pure and most dignified. I don’t have the time to develop it any further than that except to point out that ALL of the Holy Family (save perhaps Joseph who may have been a chaste widower) elected to be chaste virgins. This can’t be mere coincidence. The triple example almost is itself proof that virginity is the highest ideal.

James

 

[Randy_Carson]

well for starters I would have no difficulty with the CC teaching the PV of M if they did not elevate her further than that…does the CC have any difficulty with me (and others) rejecting the PV of M?..and then there is the fact that it is a brick in the pedestal that the venerators have (wrongly) built to place Mary upon.

If I were seeking to convince you of the truth of Catholicism, I would not begin with the Marian doctrines. I would begin with the matter of authority, and work outward from there.

However, I’m wondering if you might flesh out a description of this “pedestal”?

What exactly do you think that Catholics think wrongly about Mary?

 

[Randy_Carson]

any way you cut it, the lack of an actual reference must be explained. You say that the passages that Jerome had in mind have been lost, but this is what Jerome said of Ignatius in On Illustrious Men:

Ignatius, third bishop of the church of Antioch after Peter the apostle, condemned to the wild beasts during the persecution of Trajan, was sent bound to Rome, and when he had come on his voyage as far as Smyrna, where Polycarp the pupil of John was bishop, he wrote one epistle To the Ephesians, another To the Magnesians, a third To the Trallians, a fourth To the Romans, and going thence, he wrote To the Philadelphians and To the Smyrneans and especially To Polycarp, commending to him the church at Antioch.

Isn’t that the exact list of letters that we have for Ignatius (in the middle recension)? Later on Jerome quotes Eusebius on Ignatius and Lightfoot maintains that Jerome had never seen the Epistles of Ignatius…but please, since we have what Jerome listed, show me the PV of M in Ignatius.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that since we have teh seven letters which represent everything that Ignatius ever wrote in the course of his entire life, we should be able to show the PVoM in one or more of them.

Do you honestly believe that these seven brief epistles represent the sum total of Ignatius’ writings? Or is it possible that Jerome would have been familiar with other writings of Ignatius that have not survived to our day?

Next, this is what Jerome said of Polycarp in On Illustrious Men:

Polycarp Bishop disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord…He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia.

Again we have that letter, so please show me the PV of M in that letter.

Whoa! Hold on…previously you appeared to deny that Polycarp was a disciple of any of the Apostles and you asked me to cite evidence that he was. Here, you provide a more convincing quote than I did…what gives?

well obviously Jerome’s view won the day…and those who would have attacked Jerome’s view would have been allied with Helvidius. Not surprisingly it seems that the victors ensured that the works of Helvidius et al did not survive. We don’t have an issue wrt what was the favoured view in Jerome’s day…our issue is what was believed by the apostles.

Ah…the old “Catholics re-wrote history” ploy. Why would any effort need to be made to eradicate Helvidius’ works? This is supply and demand at work…no one cared to read his tripe, so no one bothered to copy it by hand for posterity. Eventually, Amazon simply stopped carrying it and copies were no longer available on eBay.

As for the apostles, they were in a position to know with certainty whether Mary had any other children, and they provide no evidence or even a hint of the possibility that she did. Instead, the evidence of the New Testament points to the fact that she did not without exception.

 

[shalom_molahs]

If I were seeking to convince you of the truth of Catholicism, I would not begin with the Marian doctrines. I would begin with the matter of authority, and work outward from there.

However, I’m wondering if you might flesh out a description of this “pedestal”?

What exactly do you think that Catholics think wrongly about Mary?

God is the supreme authority in Truth re Mary. God reveals to us the Truth that Mary was a virgin when she was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus. God reveals to us His Truth that Mary was favored because she was chosen to give birth to the Blessed Jesus.

26 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

28 And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Luke 1:26-30
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWK.HTM

God tells us that Jesus was sinless and that all the rest of humanity has sin and so Mary had sin. However the Catholic church teaches that Mary was sinless and it only officially confirmed this teaching in 1854.

Is it true that the Catholic churches teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity isnt taught by God in His scriptures?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Is it true that the Catholic churches teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity isnt taught by God in His scriptures?

The scriptures prophesied “A Virgin shall be with child”. There is no prophesy that says The Virgin ever loses her virgnity as a result of having the child. And since the prophesy is special by being announced in the Old Testament scripture we can safely assume that regular and normal human conventions and norms need not necessarily apply (i.e. losing virginity at birth etc.); and we should neither add nor subtract from what was said in so assuming by conventional human norms. It would be wrong to assume that Mary lost her virginity due to childbirth since the way scripture reads it is almost presented as a title: “The Virgin”. A title given by God is for all time.

The Church recognizes that God’s word manifests itself to humanity in 5 ways.

1. As Divine Word given to an apostle and conveyed to The Church as Sacred Tradition
2. As Divine Word that is convey in written form by the prophets and Jesus’ apostoles that we call Sacred scripture (The Catholic Bible)
3. As Divine Word in the very life example of Jesus as “The Full Incarnate Living Word of God”
4. As Divine Word written into the hearts of all men so that all are always accountable to God through the natural conscience of right and wrong God gives us all (morality).
5. As Divine Word from the Holy Spirit to God’s Catholic Church through revelation which gives greater insight into #1 and #2 (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture) when the Church is in need of deeper insights for the current times in accord with Divine Providence.

That said #3, #4 and #5 are all referenced by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. We take it all together as "God’s Word’ since God can write on paper, on the wind, on the heart and on Creation itself.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are entrusted to the infallable interpretation of The Church and is the only divinely appointed teaching authority for the entire world.

I need to correct something that is wrongly implied in your question.
The Scriptures do not teach in and of themselves - only The Church is authorized to teach the proper interpretation and to discover the deeper secrets and mysteries as the Holy Spirit enlightens The Church. So, it is invalid for anyone to try to self-teach from a private and personal read of scripture without being first taught the principals and core tenants of faith and being introduced to the correct teachings that were handed down to us by word of mouth and by written word (sacred tradition and sacred tradition) by authorized men of God.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary teaching comes to us from The Church which used a deeper revelation of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture as it was enlightened by the Holy Spirit. It does not contradict a single word of sacred scripture.

James

 

[Radical]

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that since we have teh seven letters which represent everything that Ignatius ever wrote in the course of his entire life, we should be able to show the PVoM in one or more of them.

No, I am saying that we have the 7 letters that Jerome listed as the works of Ignatius. When he got to Tertullian, Jerome commented that Tertullian “wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most.” He made it clear that he wasn’t listing all of Tertullian’s works, but didn’t do so for Ignatius. Therefore, it is most likely that we have all the works of Ignatius that Jerome knew about.

Do you honestly believe that these seven brief epistles represent the sum total of Ignatius’ writings?

No…but they very likely represent the sum total that survived until the time of Jerome.

Or is it possible that Jerome would have been familiar with other writings of Ignatius that have not survived to our day?

If he would have been familiar with other works then it is most likely that he would have indicated that other works existed (beyond the 7 letters that he listed), but he didn’t. Further, given that he quotes from Eusebius quoting Ignatius (as opposed to quoting Ignatius directly) there is a question as to whether he had access to even those 7 letters that he listed.

Whoa! Hold on…previously you appeared to deny that Polycarp was a disciple of any of the Apostles and you asked me to cite evidence that he was. Here, you provide a more convincing quote than I did…what gives?

I object to your use of “fact” and “proof”. You often claim that something is a fact/is proven when it is anywhere from a good possibility to a poor possibility…and rarely, if ever, a certainty.

Ah…the old “Catholics re-wrote history” ploy.

Not re-wrote history…preserved the works they valued and did not preserve (or even destroyed) the works that they opposed.

As for the apostles, they were in a position to know with certainty whether Mary had any other children, and they provide no evidence or even a hint of the possibility that she did.

Just b/c you can explain away the scriptures’ use of “the Lord’s brethern” or of “the brother of the Lord” by saying that these terms could mean “cousins” doesn’t mean evidence or indication is absent. We are dealing with “likelihoods”…and if one is not possessed with a need to believe that Mary was an ever-virgin, then (IMHO) the greater likelihood is that she had other kids…based on what is said in the NT.

Instead, the evidence of the New Testament points to the fact that she did not without exception.

again, all I have seen as “evidence” is a questionable inference…(and on another thread) a real dodgy typology…and then 150 years of silence from the historical record broken by a spurious and dubious work rejected by popes and two doctors of the CC.

 

[Radical]

If I were seeking to convince you of the truth of Catholicism, I would not begin with the Marian doctrines. I would begin with the matter of authority, and work outward from there.

I think that would be a wise approach…unless one is possessed of an attitude that the CC is The Church created by God to carry his message to the world w/o error, I think that almost everyone that examined the historical record would conclude that the Marian doctrines were novelties introduced well after the apostles departed this world.

However, I’m wondering if you might flesh out a description of this “pedestal”?

What exactly do you think that Catholics think wrongly about Mary?

pretty well anything not expressly stated in scripture

 

[Good_Fella]

Whether you chose to believe Mary remained a Virgin or not, why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? ** It would not have been sinful for her to have relations with her husband** and beget other children.

Salvation is through Chris alone! Mary is not a saviour and she recognized who is the saviour (Luke 1:47 greek - “theO tO sOtEri mou,” “God THE SAViour OF-ME.”

So why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? Would it cause the means to salvation to change? No!

May I ask you a question? Do you think that Christ had to be a virgin in order to redeem mankind by his death on the cross? I fail to see what the merits of Christ’s death have to do with Mary’s virginity. So what’s with your declaration: Salvation is through Christ alone?

Legally, Mary belonged to Joseph as his wife. Morally, Mary belonged to the Most High God as the chaste spouse of the Holy Spirit, whose child she conceived in her womb. Have you ever asked yourself why the angel Gabriel never appeared to Mary after she had allegedly borne offspring by Joseph? Could it be that God had no desire to have a child with a woman whose marriage had already been consummated through marital relations, or with a woman who had intended to have her own children? God did not choose Mary to be a virgin mother of his Only-begotten Son only so that she could consecrate Jesus in the temple as a firstborn son. If Mary had other children of her own by Joseph, then morally speaking, Jesus would have been an illegitimate child, a son born out of wedlock. Mary was God’s bride and possession as the personification of Daughter Zion: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

If Mary hadn’t remained a virgin, then I find it hard to believe that God is righteous and perfect.

PAX :heaven:

 

[onenow1]

Using Aspirant’s quote:
Aramaic Translations
48. "Who gazed upon the willingness of His Mother,* …for, behold, as of now, Blessings of all the generations …shall be upon me.
*1:48 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: Or: He blessed her Motherhood

onenow1:

I was just wondering was it the willingness of all generations. What am I missing here, .am I to unerstand Mary was simply a vessel in the above translation ?And who is the me ? [/Quiote]

48 For he hath looked upon the humble condition of his hand maid; and lo, henceforth all generations will ascribe blessedness to me

Shawn:

We are all blessed, not her specifically, because she was the vessel which brought forth her’s and our savior.

Quote=onenow1, Indeed with Her consent.

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

God tells us that Jesus was sinless and that all the rest of humanity has sin and so Mary had sin.

Prove this assertion.

However the Catholic church teaches that Mary was sinless and it only officially confirmed this teaching in 1854.

Incorrect. The Catholic Church formally defined a long-held belief in 1854. The Immcaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary is implied directly in scripture.

Is it true that the Catholic churches teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity isnt taught by God in His scriptures?

No, it is not true. Thanks for asking.

 

[Dokimas]

It is significant to Orthodox Christians that the Panagia remained a Virgin after the birth of the God because it is the Truth!

It is because of her that God became Incarnate…because of her we have Christ to save us.

It is true that ultimately Salvation comes from Christ alone because of His Mother.

It is also true that since the beginning of the Church, Pentacost, Faithful Christians have asked the Theotokos to Save us. Christians have always done this because She Can save us.

Just look at the recorded Divine Liturgies and Liturgies of Hours used by Orthodox Christians since the time of the Apostles.

Iperagia Theotoke Soson Imas! Most Holy Mother of God Save us!

This is scary!!!

 

[Dokimas]

Prove this assertion.

• Heb 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

2Co 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Incorrect. The Catholic Church formally defined a long-held belief in 1854. The Immcaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary is implied directly in scripture. - Only reading the Bible through the presuppositional eyes of sacred tradition.

QUOTE]

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson;6204615:

Prove this assertion.

• Heb 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

2Co 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Not the assertion I’m concerned about.

Incorrect. The Catholic Church formally defined a long-held belief in 1854. The Immcaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary is implied directly in scripture.

Only reading the Bible through the presuppositional eyes of sacred tradition.

Sacred Tradition which existed before Sacred Scripture and which Scripture itself commands us to “hold fast”. Yes, we interpret the Scriptures within the framework of the living Tradition of the Church which penned the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dokimas]

Not the assertion I’m concerned about.

Sacred Tradition which existed before Sacred Scripture and which Scripture itself commands us to “hold fast”. Yes, we interpret the Scriptures within the framework of the living Tradition of the Church which penned the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

What did you ask for an assertion and then say you’re not concerned about it?​

The Sacred Scripture existed when they were ‘penned’ by their authors. That was the 1st century.