What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[mpernot]

It leads one to wonder why Mary being an ever-virgin is not specifically mentioned in scripture.

It doesn’t matter that it is not explicitly mentioned. Everthing recorded in Scripture is truth, but not all truth is recorded in Scripture.

In addition, most of the protestant reformers (Martin Luther and John Calvin among them) held the belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m not sure why the relatively recent doubt on this truth is so prevalent except for the fact that it didn’t fit someone’s particular, man-made theology.

Also, Catholic Answers has put together a good article about the history of this truth:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

It may not explicitly answer your original question (I think others already have), but it does go a long way towards establishing this as a long-standing and widely-held belief.

 

[BrianH]

This is technically correct. God could have preserved Jesus from inheriting original sin from Mary if He had wanted to do it that way. However, it was more fitting for the Son of God to dwell within the womb of a woman preserved from the stain of original sin.

Look, you put out the good towels when guests come to visit your home, right? Use the "good china’ on special occasions? Well, it was right for Jesus to be born of a woman who did not know sin…but not because it HAD to be that way to protect Jesus.

Tomster, read this as well.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see fitting. Show me where it says what you say.

Where does the Bible say that everything we can know about Jesus, the Church or theology, etc., must be stated explicitly in the Bible?

But since you require some answer, I will offer the following:

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

 

[BrianH]

Where does the Bible say that everything we can know about Jesus, the Church or theology, etc., must be stated explicitly in the Bible?

But since you require some answer, I will offer the following:

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

I said show me and the next thing was the quote from
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception AND a link to the document
Where did you get I was referring to show me in the Bible? I do not require squat. Pay attention.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I said show me and the next thing was the quote from
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception AND a link to the document
Where did you get I was referring to show me in the Bible? I do not require squat. Pay attention.

My apologies, Brian. I normally post* my *comments beneath a quote that I am referencing (just as you see in this post) except on rare occasion when I will highlight the passage to follow with words such as “in the following:” or “as follows:”.

Since you did not designate what “show me” was referring to, I just naturally assumed that you, as a non-Catholic Christian, were asking for proof from - where else? The Bible.

 

[shawn38]

It’s also worth considering that if indeed Mary and Joseph DID have children together, that would have cast doubt on Jesus’ claim to have come from the Father.

Jesus will always have doubters regardless. We know scripture does not specifically mention that Mary remained a virgin. Her perpetual virginity is a tradition. So it can’t be said with certainty either way what is the truth.

Scholars on both sides have concluded: We do know that the continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question raised or answered conclusively by the New Testament. It also cannot be concluded beyond any doubt that the brothers and sisters identified are blood related or merely step brothers and sisters to Jesus.

Those favoring Perpetual Virginity:

        Verse Uncertainty + Verse Uncertainty = Certainty (Perpetual Virginity)

Those not:

        Verse Uncertainty + Verse Uncertainty = Uncertainty (we don't know for sure)

Perhaps it’s not addressed in the gospels because when it comes to salvation, it’s through Christ and not Mary.

It sure would have been nice had Luke, being a physician, mentioned that Mary had.

 

[piltdown_man]

We know scripture does not specifically mention that Mary remained a virgin. Her perpetual virginity is a tradition. So it can’t be said with certainty either way what is the truth.

If I can add my two cents (For whatever they are worth) to some of these great posts:

 I couldn’t help but notice that some in this forum have mentioned that traditional support  of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is less than reliable because traditional truths are not stated explicitly in the Bible.

For my Sola Scriptura friends I have two verses from the Gospel of John. The first, John 20:30 says this: “30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.” The second, John 21:25, says this: “25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” 2 Timothy 2:2 also supports the use of tradition as a means to pass knowledge.

I note these passages because they tell us that not everything Jesus and his Apostles taught may have made it into the Bible, but were nonetheless valid teachings worthy of being passed on through time. It’s also important to remember that the Christian Bible we know today was not collected as a complete body until long after that Apostles passed away (315 AD), yet early generational Christians, being that they were taught by the Apostles themselves, must have had an immediate, first hand accounts of seminal church knowledge and tradition that shouldn’t be ignored.

Specifically, the tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary may have been written of by St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117), an Early Church Father and student of John the Apostle. He wrote in his letter to the Ephesians: 19:1 “And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord – three mysteries to be cried aloud – the which were wrought in the silence of God.”

Origen of Alexandria (c.185–254), a renowned Early Father and theologian wrote this in his Commentary on Matthew: “On this subject [Perpetual Virginity of Mary], I have found a fine observation in a letter of the martyr Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch after Peter, who fought with the wild beasts during the persecution in Rome.” According to the author Fr. Luigi Gambero, as stated in his book Mary and the Fathers of the Church, “Origen not only has no doubts but seems directly to imply that this is a truth already recognized as an integral part of the deposit of faith.”

Summing up, I humbly think that a valid tradition that may be traced to St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Apostle, by Origen should not be dismissed too quickly by faithful Christians. That fact alone should make it significant.

Sorry for the Length of this post and God bless.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

From my reading, it seems the early posts didn’t address the point of the post — I read into the OP an emphasis on “after,” as in “after the birth of Christ.”

I understand the importance of Mary’s virginity before the birth of Jesus, but the question asks why her virginity even after must be perpetual. If this was answered, I apologize — it’s not easy to sort through a few thousand words to find a relevant bit when there’s so much reiteration.

Brevity preferred, please.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Unaccustomed as I am to brevity the significance of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (that is, after the birth of Jesus) is that it is a true teaching.

Therefore, those trying to speculate over whether it was ‘necessary’ attempt to make it appear as though the teaching’s truth is up for debate, and thus tries to destroy an attempt to maintain its truth from the start.

One can argue over whether it was ‘necessary’ but why? Do we argue over whether God should be One Person only? Or two Divine persons in One God instead of Three? Do we speculate as to why it is NECESSARY that God is a Triune God? No, we don’t. So we don’t ‘speculate’ on Mary’s PV either. . .because it is truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sad…so many Protestants do not know the reality of the communion of saints, the classical study of the ‘walk in perfection’…if they did, they would understand better the Heavenly Father creating Mary, conceived without sin…The Great Sign that appeared in the sky’…

There is a bigger world out there…the kingdom is within… The Christians since earliest times gathered centering on the Eucharist the breaking of Bread…who did Christ get his Body and Blood but from His mother…

She had to be sinless.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Unaccustomed as I am to brevity, the significance of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (that is, after the birth of Jesus) is that it is a true teaching.

Huh. It occurs to me that that is a very different sort of significance than expressed as far as “why Mary must have been a virgin to give birth to Christ.” That question has a meaty answer, well-reasoned and well-developed, but in comparison this answer falls flat.

I’m not saying it isn’t true, but when it comes to significance this seems closer to the level of “I ate pancakes for breakfast last Thursday” than the level of “to have given birth to the Godhead, the mother herself must have been born without original sin in order to more properly be a perfect vessel.”

I understand that it is the truth, but it doesn’t seem a major truth, frankly, even worth arguing over. Pick your battles, y’know?

 

[Muzhik]

I’m not saying it isn’t true, but when it comes to significance this seems closer to the level of “I ate pancakes for breakfast last Thursday” than the level of “to have given birth to the Godhead, the mother herself must have been born without original sin in order to more properly be a perfect vessel.”

It depends entirely on what you’re trying to learn or prove. “I ate pancakes for breakfast last Thursday” is not significant when you’re discussing (for example) quarterly sales figures. It’s VERY significant if you’re trying to determine the source and extent of an E. Coli outbreak.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Then what is the broader significance of believing this? What questions does this answer? (I don’t follow in the analogy because I think you see what I mean.)

Where is the point where understanding that Mary was perpetually virginal becomes vitally important as opposed to believing something else?

 

[wwolverine]

IN addition, one of the titles of Mary is “The Ark of the New Covenant.” If you’ll recall, the Ark of the Covenant was pure and spotless within and without. The Ark not only carried the Tablets of the Law (aka “The Ten Commandments”), but also a container holding the manna that fed the Israelites during their time in the desert, as well as Aaron’s rod. (In Numbers 17, each tribe of the Isaelites was to provide a staff or rod. G_D would cause one of them to sprout overnight, and that would be a sign that this was the tribe to serve as priests of the Lord. Aaron provided his staff for the tribe of Levi, and that staff “put forth buds, produced blossoms, and bore ripe almonds” [Numbers 17:8].) The Tablets represented the Law of G_D, the manna represented the Bread of Life, and the rod represented new life that brings good fruit. Touching the Ark for any reason without G_D’s permission brought instant death.

In Christ Jesus, we have a New Covenant, with the fulfillment of G_D’s Law, the Bread of everlasting life, and a new life that bears good fruit. Mary carried Jesus, which makes her the Ark of the New Covenant. It’s important to note that when Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth, she is retracing the route the original Ark took on its way to Jerusalem, even staying with Elizabeth for 3 months. (Zechariah and Elizabeth’s house is in the same neighborhood as the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. The Jews of the time would have known this, and the connection between Mary and the Ark would have been clear to them.)

Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the Ark of the Covenant was to remain pure and untouched, it is reasonable to say that Mary remained “untouched” throughout her life.

Why there are some Christians who dont understand tis is beyond my knowledge

May God Bless you.

 

[wwolverine]

But Mary’s parents were plagued with original sin and she was not. Your argument is not the one I believe the Catholic Church uses. They believe it was “fitting”. Not that it HAD to be that way.

I believe Mary was born to old parents, who were beyond childbearing age. Mary was a miracle child and hence I believe it was God’s plan to have it that way. She was without original sin.

 

[wwolverine]

Just my thoughts,

As some non Catholics say that Mother Mary had other children, what would it be like saying ’ Hey God is my real blood brother’ because His mother and mine are same? And than these children would have their children and so on.

Just my thoughts

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

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!

Like the way The Church is espoused to God through Jesus Christ, Mary is espoused to God through her sacred child-bearing relationship with the Holy Spirit. I believe the righteous Joseph recognised this and that’s why he wanted to secretly separate from her. I believe Joseph married Mary to make Jesus a descendant of David, but he still recognised the sacred relationship between Mary and God.

This is important for Catholics because it makes Mary, who personifies The Church, our Mother. And thus, it brings deeper meaning to His dying words from the Cross: “Behold, your mother”. Protestants don’t care too much for His dying words from the Cross.

 

[KathleenGee]

I also think living in a highly sexed, visual society as we do affects people in thinking she was.

It also took the Church how many years to finally declare Mary as Perpetual Virgin…It is like the Church didn’t concoct this Immaculate Conception…

Our Lady of Lourdes, who appeared to Bernadette near a garbage, when asked her name, said next to it, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’.

Knowing the story of Bernadette herself gives creedance…but the Church still did not declare Mary immaculately conceived after her verified appearance at Lourdes.

 

[Zooey]

St. Proclus, a Patriarch of Constantinople and disciple of St. John Chrysostom, writes: “Unless his Mother had remained a virgin her offspring would have been only a man, and the mystery of the birth would have disappeared. But if after her childbearing Mary remained a virgin, how shall he not be God and the mystery be unutterable?” (This discourse was placed as a preamble to the Acts of the Council of Ephesus) In the same spirit St. Thomas Aquinas says: “In order that the body of Christ might be shown to be a real body, he was born of a woman; but in order that his Godhead might be made clear he was born of a virgin.”

See Ezechiel 44:1-3

IN addition, one of the titles of Mary is “The Ark of the New Covenant.” If you’ll recall, the Ark of the Covenant was pure and spotless within and without. The Ark not only carried the Tablets of the Law (aka “The Ten Commandments”), but also a container holding the manna that fed the Israelites during their time in the desert, as well as Aaron’s rod. (In Numbers 17, each tribe of the Isaelites was to provide a staff or rod. G_D would cause one of them to sprout overnight, and that would be a sign that this was the tribe to serve as priests of the Lord. Aaron provided his staff for the tribe of Levi, and that staff “put forth buds, produced blossoms, and bore ripe almonds” [Numbers 17:8].) The Tablets represented the Law of G_D, the manna represented the Bread of Life, and the rod represented new life that brings good fruit. Touching the Ark for any reason without G_D’s permission brought instant death.

In Christ Jesus, we have a New Covenant, with the fulfillment of G_D’s Law, the Bread of everlasting life, and a new life that bears good fruit. Mary carried Jesus, which makes her the Ark of the New Covenant. It’s important to note that when Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth, she is retracing the route the original Ark took on its way to Jerusalem, even staying with Elizabeth for 3 months. (Zechariah and Elizabeth’s house is in the same neighborhood as the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. The Jews of the time would have known this, and the connection between Mary and the Ark would have been clear to them.)

Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the Ark of the Covenant was to remain pure and untouched, it is reasonable to say that Mary remained “untouched” throughout her life.

But the point is not about whether this teaching ‘relates’ to your personal and in fact modern opinions about the Virgin.

The point is, is the teaching true or not?

If it is true, then like any truth it is important to uphold.

If it is false, it is equally important to ‘reject’ it.

So it is important, and significant, that Catholics believe this, because it is true.

:yeah_me:

 

[rovimax]

I think it has to do with Jesus’s divinity. If Mary had a normal life then there will be more doubt about on Jesus’s divinity.