What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[MrZetterlund]

“Mary-ever-virgin…”
I believe it because the Catholic Church teaches it, why do any of us need a better reason?

Well I heard my pastor say Jesus had a brother.

I don’t see why Mary would stay a virgin for ever.

 

[aspirant]

I don’t see why Mary would stay a virgin for ever.

In Judaism, dedication to the Word of God could take precedence. This is why Jews believed, for example, that Moses became celibate at Sinai. And within Christianity, we understand it as a participation in the vocation of all in the world to come, of which marriage is only a dim shadow.

 

[PJM]

=Tomster;6141541]The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was preserved from Original sin.

And yes it had to be that way.

***Allow me to play judge

Because it WAS FITTING, it DID have to “be that way”

Because God can ONLY be Perfect; Mary HAD to be Perfected.***

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well I heard my pastor say Jesus had a brother.

Well, my pastor says he doesn’t. Who is right and why?

I don’t see why Mary would stay a virgin for ever.

I don’t see why God had to be three persons in one Being.

 

[qui_est_ce]

***Allow me to play judge

Because it WAS FITTING, it DID have to “be that way”

Because God can ONLY be Perfect; Mary HAD to be Perfected.***

You got me thinking. It was only after the time of Jesus that it became common for women to consecrate themselves to the celibate life. We see frescoes of women receiving the veil in the catacombs. I wonder if the women were modeling Mary?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not only does Scripture say she never had a child other than Jesus, tradition and consistent teaching of all Christians (yes, that is the Catholics and the Orthodox too) was that she was a perpetual Virgin. Only in recent times have some people started to claim otherwise. They cannot bring Scripture to support themselves, because nowhere in Scripture is Mary stated as being mother of anyone other than Jesus. They cannot bring consistent ‘apostolic teaching’ to support themselves, because their teaching is man-made and new. All they can say is that they can’t understand why Mary should be ‘different’ from any sex-saturated ‘person’ of their own miserable chunk of society in AD 2010 who happens to have been indoctrinated with this man-made teaching!

 

[AliciaCL]

In respnse to RANDY CARSON’s point that Mary was a consecrated virgin. I myself believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity but what response can I give when a sceptic questions raises this problem with the consecrated virgin theory from the Protoevangelium of James: Mary lived in Nazareth, quite a distance for a consecrated virgin to do any work in the Temple in Jerusalem. Didn’t consecrated virgins essentially do caretaking/housekeeping of the Temple? She lived too far away to do that and the family’s visit to Jerusalem for Passover was a significant undertaking – which tends to support the unlikeliness that she was a consecrated virgin. What would a consecrated virgin do in Nazareth?

 

[MrZetterlund]

In respnse to RANDY CARSON’s point that Mary was a consecrated virgin. I myself believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity but what response can I give when a sceptic questions raises this problem with the consecrated virgin theory from the Protoevangelium of James: Mary lived in Nazareth, quite a distance for a consecrated virgin to do any work in the Temple in Jerusalem. Didn’t consecrated virgins essentially do caretaking/housekeeping of the Temple? She lived too far away to do that and the family’s visit to Jerusalem for Passover was a significant undertaking – which tends to support the unlikeliness that she was a consecrated virgin. What would a consecrated virgin do in Nazareth?

Actually, I doubt Nazareth was litterally the name of Jesus’ town. I think “Nazareth” is a synonym for the Hebrew word “nazarine” which meant “low and detestable.”
Meaning the town was called “low and detestable.”

 

[aspirant]

Mary lived in Nazareth

At the time of the annunciation, after her betrothal to Joseph, she lives in Nazareth. Scripture also tells us she had family living in Judea. In fact, one of them is doing Temple service right there in Luke 1.

 

[Radical]

Hi Aspirant, I am impressed with the quality of your posts…I’ll have to improve my effort

No, it implies no intention to have sex in the future. Apart from this, ignorance regarding the normal means of conception (ruled out by the phrasing of the question), or knowledge of infertility (which she wouldn’t have), no question of “how?” would naturally arise.

Two things in response:

First, it seems to me that your reasoning is that when Mary is told that she will give birth to the future king of the Jews/ the Messiah, then the only logical explanation to her response of “How? I am a virgin” is that by “virgin” she meant “committed to being a life-long virgin”. You say that it can’t mean:

i) How? I haven’t had sex yet. ……b/c the obvious answer (if she isn’t committed to being a life-long virgin) is that she will soon be having sex with Joseph.
ii) How? I’m still a virgin and don’t know that I can even have kids……b/c the obvious answer (if she isn’t committed to being a life-long virgin) is that God will work it out and ensure that she will be able to have this child.

There are indeed obvious answers to the questions set out at (i) and (ii), but I don’t know that they are so much more obvious to the obvious answer to Mary’s question (as interpreted by you). Presented in the same fashion, it would look like:

iii) How? I am committed to being a life-long virgin (which means I won’t have any kid)….when the obvious answer is that, God has just changed her plans and he will work it out.

If you want to elaborate (in order to eliminate the obvious answer set out at (iii) above) and say that what Mary was really asking should be expressed more completely as, “How can this be, when I am committed to being a life-long virgin….will I still be able to satisfy that commitment or is it ended?”….then you should acknowledge that the angel’s answer doesn’t really give a proper answer to that elaborated question. The angel’s answer is basically that “the Holy Spirit will make you pregnant and with God, nothing is impossible”….and it doesn’t explain if she is to still remain a life-long virgin or not. As such, the angel doesn’t answer the “elaborated” question and so we be should not infer it. Similarly, any inference that we draw (as to what Mary’s question meant) should be made with caution and should be made with the angel’s answer in mind…and it seems to me that the angel’s answer fits with the question that I have described at (ii) above as well as it fits with your interpretation of Mary’s question.

Second, it seems to me that you are expecting Mary to act in a perfectly logical fashion when confronted by an angel with news of her involvement in an upcoming miraculous event. That, I would suggest is too much to expect from such a young woman in that situation. I think that it is wrong to suggest that she wouldn’t be a bit flustered and that she couldn’t possibly ask a question that had an obvious answer.

For those reasons I think that the inference you draw is not nearly as sound as you make it out to be.

Not remotely. The examples clearly show that textual implication is a reasonable source of doctrine for most Christians.

The textual implication that you see is that Mary has committed herself to be a life-long virgin. The doctrine is that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The commitment, if it existed, would make the reality of PV more likely but the commitment to a thing and the actual thing itself (especially when accompanied by ideas of a birth that leaves the hymen unbroken) are two different things. (think of Peter’s commitment to stand by our Lord in contrast to what Peter actually managed to do)

Bless you.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Well I heard my pastor say Jesus had a brother.

Unfortunately, your pastor is not the rock that Christ builds His Church upon.

I don’t see why Mary would stay a virgin for ever.

That’s because Protestants don’t hear His dying words from the Cross; “Behold, your mother”.

Consequently, they don’t see the correlation between The Church and Mary.

Consequently, they don’t see Mary being espoused to God.

Protestants see Mary’s child-bearing relationship with the Holy Spirit as casual, not sacred.

 

[aspirant]

it seems to me that your reasoning is that when Mary is told that she will give birth to the future king of the Jews/ the Messiah, then the only logical explanation to her response of “How? I am a virgin” is that by “virgin” she meant “committed to being a life-long virgin”.

It would be more accurate regarding my own position to say that her words don’t make sense if she is planning to have sex with her betrothed husband.

iii) How? I am committed to being a life-long virgin (which means I won’t have any kid)….when the obvious answer is that, God has just changed her plans and he will work it out.

I’m not entirely sure what you are attempting to say here, so perhaps you could help me by clarifying. For the record, I do not think this is a sound elaboration of Mary’s objection. She is not saying that she will not have children, she is asking how she will conceive.

you should acknowledge that the angel’s answer doesn’t really give a proper answer

It does answer the question she asks.

The angel’s answer is basically that “the Holy Spirit will make you pregnant and with God, nothing is impossible”

Exactly.

The angel’s answer… doesn’t explain if she is to still remain a life-long virgin or not.

It doesn’t need to, because she didn’t ask that question.

it seems to me that you are expecting Mary to act in a perfectly logical fashion when confronted by an angel with news of her involvement in an upcoming miraculous event.

I believe that she asked the question she wanted to ask, which, not surprisingly, is also the question the angel answered. One’s behavior needn’t be “perfectly logical” in order to accomplish this small thing.

(think of Peter’s commitment to stand by our Lord in contrast to what Peter actually managed to do)

If anything, the actual circumstances of Mary’s life would make it far easier for her to remain a virgin than if she had not given birth to God’s Son.

 

[Radical]

Perhaps it will help to clarify this point. Tertullian is arguing in this passage that Jesus has human ancestry and family, contrary to the Marcionites who claimed Jesus had none. …If someone wants to interpret Tertullian’s wording to mean that he believed Jesus had brothers through Mary, it’s possible, though more than he explicitly says.

not much further…When Tertullian asks, “Have all sons brothers born for them?” Tertullian is indicating that the “brethern outside” are brothers of Jesus by birth. Do you actually believe that Tertullian didn’t believe that Mary had other children or are you simply trying to show that Tertullian didn’t explicitly say that Mary had other children?

At the same time, we should remember that Against Marcion was written in Tertullian’s semi-Montanist period, as Tertullian was already abandoning orthodoxy, which is why Jerome has no qualms about dismissing Helvidius’ appeal to it by saying “[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view]… Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.”

Yes, Jerome’s ad hominen lacked substance then and it still does now. The Catholics on this thread seem to think that there is some value in observing that earlier prominent figures accepted Mary’s PV. Why? What do the likes of Wesley, Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, or Zwingli reference in support of their acceptance? Of the works that they reference, what are we lacking today such that we are not in an equal position to decide for ourselves? Much is made of the consistent teaching of Mary’s PV for 2000 years. Forget that the PV isn’t found in the historical record for 180 years +/- after the birth of Christ. (making the 2000 year claim off by 150 years at best). It doesn’t matter if the doctrine was taught for 200 years or 2000 years, b/c by the time the Protevangelium of James is fabricated, all those with any first hand knowledge were long dead. As David G Hunter points out in *Marriage, celibacy and heresy in ancient Christianity * The ideas of Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Christ arose during the second century and remained in dispute well into the fourth century. (p 172) The doctrine of the Protevangelium of James was an oddity and a novelty in the second century (p 180). The doctrine of PV didn’t win the day b/c it could trace its roots back to Mary, Jesus and the apostles. So what if the doctrine of PV can be traced back to the 180 AD +/- in the Protevangelium of James…b/c if the doctrine was invented by the author of that forgery, then all you have is a long cherished myth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well I assume that the reason for needing more than “because the Catholic Church teaches it” is because not all accept the authority of the Catholic Church.
I for my part know that there are different ways to see this and that Scripture does not clearly state whether or not she was a virgin throughout all of her life.
I accept that others favor the other possibility, but I for my part do not believe in the PV of Mary.

God be gracious to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us. That Your way may be known on the earth, Your salvation among all nations.

In Him,
Janet

Janet-

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus and Wesley all believed that Mary remained ever-virgin. This wholesale denial of the ancient doctrine is a relatively modern phenomenon.

 

[shawn38]

She was pledged to be married, but Joseph was marrying her as a protector of her consecrated virginity…not as some young buck eager for the rut.

Shawn-

I can see that you’ve tried to respond, but I don’t really see anything in your post that counters anything I said.

Would you like to try again?

Could she have remained a virgin regardless of her marriage state? Yes! So there was no need to marry if to protect her “consecrated virginity.”

He was protecting her from the public disgrace of being an unwedded mother that happened to be a virgin. But who would have believed that?

Matt 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace.

What was the “public disgrace”? Being a Virgin? No!

 

[Randy_Carson]

no, your demonstration fails b/c you assume that three of the named brothers of Jesus, namely James, Joseph, and Judas are members of the 12…but it is a bad assumption. A rigorous analysis of the three synoptic gospels (Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8) would have disclosed that the brothers of Jesus are mentioned on a couple of occasions. On the one occasion (Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8) the 12 are mentioned, Jesus entered a house with his disciples after which Jesus’s mother and brothers arrive. It would seem that the 12 are in the house with Jesus and that Jesus’s brothers are outside with Mary. This, of course, would mean your effort to find (three of) Jesus’s four named brothers within the 12 was a waste of time.

How so?

The folks standing outside in Matthew 12 were not the disciples but cousins who had travelled with Mary to see Jesus who was not in his own hometown or region. How do we know this? Matthew 13:53 says, “he went away from there, and coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue.” So he did not return home until Matthew 13; prior to this, in Matthew 12, Luke 8:1 tells us that he was travelling through cities and villages.

So here’s the scene: Joseph had already died, and Jesus was off preaching and teaching. Having no other children, Mary asked some of her relatives to accompany her to see Jesus, and they stood outside waiting to see him in Matthew 12:46. But none of these kinfolk are mentioned by name, are they?

Later, in Matthew 13, Jesus had returned to his own neighborhood, but the people there would not accept him as a “prophet in his own hometown.” Thus, the people are not speaking of the “brothers of Jesus” as literally standing outside the place where Jesus was physically; they are asking rhetorical questions. “Who is this man? Where did he get this teaching? Isn’t he Joseph’s son? Isn’t Mary his mother? Don’t we know his “brothers” James, Joses, Simon and Jude? We KNOW this man…so, who does he think he is?”

The foks from Jesus’ hometown obviously take offense at Jesus because they are too familiar with him to accept him as anyone special. They know his cousins and kinfolk by name; apparently, one or two cousins were also among the 12.

On the other occasion (Matt 13 and Mark 6) Jesus’s home-town-folk ask, “Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son? Isn’t this the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” Now, if the home-town-folks are calling James, Joseph and Judas the brothers of Jesus b/c the are his disciples, then who are his sisters? Are they a group of 12 women that Jesus appointed as apostlettes? Why are these female disciples “here” with the home-town-folks?

As already explained, the neighbors of Jesus knew who his relatives were. Some of them were among the Twelve, but, of course, the female cousins were not. Isn’t it interesting that the male relatives or “brothers” are named in scripture but the female cousins were not? Could that be because these “brothers” would have been known to the readers of the gospel as leaders in the Church whereas the “sisters” or female cousins would have been less well-known in the Church? Just a thought…

As you might have noted by now, your proof has got real problems.

I think not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

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!

Tell your mom that you did not need her to be who you are. Go ahead, do it now. Be brave. Tell her your God believes you are right in saying that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One more thing…

Previously, I wrote:

James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

And you replied:

good

So, let me ask you this:

Is it your position that Mary was not only the mother of Jesus but also the mother of the Apostle James, as well?

 

[shawn38]

Tell your mom that you did not need her to be who you are. Go ahead, do it now. Be brave. Tell her your God believes you are right in saying that.

Is your point that you’re affixing salvation through Mary (ie co-redemptrix)?

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

From your first pope:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So no Mary and no saints!

 

[shawn38]

Not only does Scripture say she never had a child other than Jesus,

No it doesn’t!