Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[AndrewJMason]

Isaiah 7:14.
Case closed.

 

[brumano]

No, not saying the apostles were brothers. I think you know what I am implying. So what that his brothers were not there, neither were 10 of the disciples. And in John 7 we see that they did not believe in Him. The fact of using Jewish law does not help because even if they were “cousins” or “Step-brothers” from Joseph’s previous they would still be bound to care for Mary in the absence of her not having anymore children. And those “brothers” even if they were cousins would still have a Jewish obligation to care for Mary. And since those brothers that Catholics say were cousins were with Mary on many occasions, then we could expect that.

Can you point me to the old testament Jewish law that required this by the way?

It was as simple as this.
Jesus seeing Mary (whose soul is being pierced at the sight of her son dying) and John at the cross, was being a loving Son entrusting His mother to the disciple whom Jesus loved. His brothers were unbelievers at the time. Later in Acts, we learn that they came to Christ.

There is no mystical assigning of Mary to all believers, nor does this prove that Jesus did not have brothers.

Later in Acts we don’t see that they come to Christ, Acts doesn’t give us that information. Another reason that you can’t claim that you see it, is because of one of the other many problems from Jn.c’s 2 and 7 concerning the brothers; not only do you not have their names you don’t know how many there are. Brothers could mean a minimum of two up to? How many brothers and sisters do you people claim that the Lord had, as family that is?

God has assigned Mary not only to all believers but to all mankind; hence the two essential Marian Doctrines: Mary is the Mother of God and the Mother of us all. There is of course a mystical dimension to this, but that in no way discounts it from being true, because there is substantial scriptural basis for the doctrine.
Our belief above all in this is that Mary is the Ever Virgin Mother of God, not merely that Jesus has no brothers. Your doctrine of the temporary virgin Mary relies on indirect scripture references to brothers and sisters which in no way provide enough counter weight to the massive and positively revealled force of truth that we know comprehensively is invested by God Himself in Mary our Mother.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Bible mentions Jesus has brothers, and mentions them by name. The Bible also mentions Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins. So my question is why does the Catholic Church teach differently?

For the record, let me clarify. I do believe Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. I believe through the backing up of the scripture she was not a virgin afterwards. And Alex, where does the Bible does not say she remained a virgin her whole life?

Sorry . . . I normally don’t stay in these threads as the Eastern Catholicism section is my home and I’ve enough to do there .

No Christian until the 19th century ever affirmed that Mary was not Ever-Virgin. Luther and Calvin affirmed that she was and I understand that they were partial to “Scripture Alone” .

There was a fellow in 397 who said Mary was not a Virgin because it mentioned “until she gave birth to her first-born etc.”

St Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin (also someone who knew a thing or two about Scripture ), wrote a long letter against him and his way of interpreting scripture.

Jerome said that simply becuase it says “until” does not mean that she wasn’t a virgin after she gave birth to her first-born etc.

For example, when our Lord affirmed that He will be with us until the end of days - does this mean, Jerome asked, that when our Lord does come back, He will walk away from us?

Also, and I don’t mean to resolve this issue to anyone’s satisfaction, the term “brothers and sisters” cannot be taken to mean what we understand it to mean today.

I grew up speaking a language other than English and the term “brothers and sisters” always referred to either one’s brother, half-brother or cousins.

In addition, in the Eastern Church, there is a non-canonical (but perfectly orthodox) book called “Joseph the Carpenter” which did not make it in to the New Testament canon, but which was read by Christians in the early centuries nevertheless. This book talked about Joseph’s first marriage to Huldah and his six children with her - four boys and two girls, all of whom became Christian saints.

In the East, since time immemorial, we’ve always accepted that the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” were these children of Joseph by his previous marriage. It was never an issue.

And we venerate St James of Jerusalem as the “Brother of God.”

Alex

 

[brumano]

Exactly elvisman! Likewise, if Mary did have other children,I find it very strange not ONE NT writer remotely mentions them or their involvement or lack of involvement during Jesus earthly ministry?

Both exactly right and I think even moreso than we even notice, because after The Finding in The Temple we are told that the Lord returned to Nazareth with Mary and Joseph and that “He was subject to them” now even from this we would srongly feel that there should be some indication of the younger brothers and sisters; but again none is given.
Also when the Lord is carrying His cross up to Calvary, He meets His Mother but no sisters, unless the holy women who He does meet who were weeping for Him are thought of as His sisters; and He consoled them as if they were His own sisters. This also would explain why the names of the sisters are’nt given anywhere else.
When it comes to a lack of scriptural evidence for flesh and blood children of Mary, it’s not a matter of just a strange insufficiency of material, it’s more like an empty vacuum of nothingness.

 

[rinnie]

Exactly elvisman! Likewise, if Mary did have other children,I find it very strange not ONE NT writer remotely mentions them or their involvement or lack of involvement during Jesus earthly ministry?

Exactly what would be the purpose to hide it. I mean all protestants do agree on her being a Virgin before Christ and accept Christ as the Son of God. So what would be the purpose of the Blessed Mother to deny other Children if she had them.

I mean what would truly be the big deal. It would change nothing about Christ.

But the FACT is she made a vow to God and only GOd and she kept it, and she should not be lied about, and it is our duty to stick up for our Mother. And the RCC will defend the truth.

 

[bo_leggs]

Exactly what would be the purpose to hide it. I mean all protestants do agree on her being a Virgin before Christ and accept Christ as the Son of God. So what would be the purpose of the Blessed Mother to deny other Children if she had them.

I mean what would truly be the big deal. It would change nothing about Christ.

But the FACT is she made a vow to God and only GOd and she kept it, and she should not be lied about, and it is our duty to stick up for our Mother. And the RCC will defend the truth.

I heartily agree. and a couple of posts back there was this quote, “There was a fellow in 397 who said Mary was not a Virgin because it mentioned ‘until she gave birth to her first-born etc.’” I would say that Mary was a virgin until she died, but there are probably wacky Protestant evangelical “non-denominational” alleged Christians who would take that to mean that she lost her virginity after she died. You know what I mean? Yeah, you do. I just don’t know why it is so important to some Protestants to “prove” that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life, and I used to be a Protestant.

 

[DElias]

This is a concept that I have admittedly have had trouble understanding as a Protestant and even have Catholic friends who follow other beliefs of the Catholic church but admit to difficulty with this. My first thought comes from Matthew 1:20, “…Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife…” We know about the Jewish rule of marriage consummation from such verses as Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Jesus even restates this in Matthew.

I’m actually trying to grasp this as I am giving the teachings of Catholicism a try. This isn’t a challenge. I kind of want to know via Biblical teachings how Mary ended a virgin. I wholeheartedly agree that she had Jesus as one, but it seems that she would have fulfilled her marital duties as dictated by her faith which would not remotely take away from her role. If I could get a civilized answer, that would be terrific as I think there may be one person on here itching to do otherwise.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a concept that I have admittedly have had trouble understanding as a Protestant and even have Catholic friends who follow other beliefs of the Catholic church but admit to difficulty with this. My first thought comes from Matthew 1:20, “…Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife…” We know about the Jewish rule of marriage consummation from such verses as Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Jesus even restates this in Matthew.

I’m actually trying to grasp this as I am giving the teachings of Catholicism a try. This isn’t a challenge. I kind of want to know via Biblical teachings how Mary ended a virgin. I wholeheartedly agree that she had Jesus as one, but it seems that she would have fulfilled her marital duties as dictated by her faith which would not remotely take away from her role. If I could get a civilized answer, that would be terrific as I think there may be one person on here itching to do otherwise.

**Num 30:1 (30:2) And he said to the princes of the tribes of the children of Israel: This is the word that the Lord hath commanded:
Num 30:2 (30:3) If any man make a vow to the Lord, or bind himself by an oath: he shall not make his word void but shall fulfil all that he promised.
Num 30:3 (30:4) If a woman vow any thing, and bind herself by an oath, being in her father’s house, and but yet a girl in age: if her father knew the vow that she hath promised, and the oath wherewith she hath bound her soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound by the vow:
Num 30:4 (30:5) Whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfil in deed.
Num 30:5 (30:6) But if her father, immediately as soon as he heard it, gainsaid it, both her vows and her oaths shall be void, neither shall she be bound to what she promised, because her father hath gainsaid it.
Num 30:6 (30:7) If she have a husband, and shall vow any thing, and the word once going out of her mouth shall bind her soul by an oath,
Num 30:7 (30:8) The day that her husband shall hear it, and not gainsay it, she shall be bound to the vow, and shall give whatsoever she promised.
Num 30:8 (30:9) But if as soon as he heareth he gainsay it, and make her promises and the words wherewith she had bound her soul of no effect: the Lord will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (30:10) The widow, and she that is divorced, shall fulfil whatsoever they vow.
Num 30:10 (30:11) If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath,
Num 30:11 (30:12) If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised.
Num 30:12 (30:13) But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her.
Num 30:13 (30:14) If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it.
Num 30:14 (30:15) But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfil: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.
Num 30:15 (30:16) But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity.
Num 30:16 (30:17) These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house. **

 

[DElias]

Thank you. That is a step in the direction I was hoping to find, however, where is there such an oath given by Mary? What would restrict her from consummation after Christ’s birth? I can see the 2 dots. I just need to know how they’re connected.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you. That is a step in the direction I was hoping to find, however, where is there such an oath given by Mary? What would restrict her from consummation after Christ’s birth? I can see the 2 dots. I just need to know how they’re connected.

I understand and was only trying to show you that it was possible for a Jewish couple to be married without necessarily having an obligation, such as you described in your post.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you. That is a step in the direction I was hoping to find, however, where is there such an oath given by Mary? What would restrict her from consummation after Christ’s birth? I can see the 2 dots. I just need to know how they’re connected.

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

 

[DElias]

Origen

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Thank you again for your responses. I do appreciate them. While it seems likely that John was the disciple at the cross, some would argue James. Paul even referred to James as “the Lord’s brother” and there are allusions that he held him in higher esteem than others. If this was so, Jesus’ words at the cross for Mary and the disciple would take a little different overarching intent. Again, it really is my intent to learn and understand, and I appreciate your time. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Howdy folks. I love y’all, so don’t get offended.

But it is not scriptural to try and sell the idea that Mary is a virgin. Do you think they will change their thoughts on that?

thanks

Why do some, modern, non-Catholics Christians today, believe Mary isn’t a “virgin”? The early, non-Catholics Christians did believed that she was. Where in the Bible does it say she’s not? I’m guessing, if you’re open minded and actually read and research the information here that your opinion on this matter, will change.

 

[DElias]

I have and was quite an accomplished student at the top communication studies program in the United States. I’m not quite there yet.

 

[Jimmy_B]

The Bible mentions Jesus has brothers, and mentions them by name. The Bible also mentions Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins. So my question is why does the Catholic Church teach differently?

For the record, let me clarify. I do believe Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. I believe through the backing up of the scripture she was not a virgin afterwards. And Alex, where does the Bible does not say she remained a virgin her whole life?

This a common Protestant, anti-Catholic myth/lie . Here is the answer to your question, an article that I wrote a while back, titled - “Jesus did not have biological brothers”

 

[Edward_H]

I have and was quite an accomplished student at the top communication studies program in the United States. I’m not quite there yet.

Well, consider this, if you haven’t already. Assume that Mary and St Joseph realized deeply what they had been given…the Son of God. And realize their piety, their reverence for the Lord. Their awe, fueled by the real presence of the Son of God in their house. The responsibility they were given. Also appreciate - and deepen your appreciation - for the Jewish traditions of purity, etc…which is hard for us to appreciate today.

With all this as background. As a man, would you not hesitate to enter Mary in the marital act? Would you seek more children? Was the Son of God not enough for you?

Think of it deeply in human terms, and in particular in Jewish terms as well.

It’s bound to cause one to pause, no?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Howdy folks. I love y’all, so don’t get offended.

But it is not scriptural to try and sell the idea that Mary is a virgin. Do you think they will change their thoughts on that?

thanks

Here is the really short response to the alleged verse, taken out of context and misunderstood by many non-Catholics, regarding the so-called verse or, “protestant proof” that St. Mary wasn’t a virgin -
Let’s start by taking a look at the persons named “James” or the so-called “brothers of Jesus”. There exist only two people with the name “James” in the entire New Testament:

1. James the son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21)
   AND
2. The Apostle James, the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3).
   Moreover, James the son of Alphaeus had a mother named Mary, however it was not the Virgin Mary and it was one of the three other Mary’s described in the New Testament.
   Neither James’ is the biological son of St. Mary and Joseph! It’s right there in the Bible and in plain view for everyone to see…

 

[pablope]

Thank you. That is a step in the direction I was hoping to find, however, where is there such an oath given by Mary? What would restrict her from consummation after Christ’s birth? I can see the 2 dots. I just need to know how they’re connected.

Read the protoevangelum of James:

newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

 

[Holly3278]

Howdy folks. I love y’all, so don’t get offended.

But it is not scriptural to try and sell the idea that Mary is a virgin. Do you think they will change their thoughts on that?

thanks

Because she is a Virgin. And by the way, it is totally Scriptural to believe that Mary is a virgin.

After all, Jesus is always mentioned as the son of Mary, not a son of Mary.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you again for your responses. I do appreciate them. While it seems likely that John was the disciple at the cross, some would argue James. Paul even referred to James as “the Lord’s brother” and there are allusions that he held him in higher esteem than others. If this was so, Jesus’ words at the cross for Mary and the disciple would take a little different overarching intent. Again, it really is my intent to learn and understand, and I appreciate your time. What are your thoughts on this?

Have you ever heard anyone argue ‘it was James at the cross and not John?’ That’s the first time I heard that it was contested. You can see that in 354, Hilary believed it was John.

We see the perpetual virginity has been defended, in writing, by the early Church fathers since 248.

We know that Martin Luther, John Calvin and Huldreich Zwingli believed in the perpetual virginity. Now, if it can be shown, with writings predating the definition of the Bible canon and up through the reformation, that Christians believed Mary remained ever virgin, it seems the challenge rests with those who dispute Mary’s perpetual virginity. It’s been shown, through what God commanded of the people in Numbers 30, that a consummation, as viewed in today’s cultures, did not necessarily have to have taken place. It’s been discussed in this thread that the ‘brothers of Jesus’ were never referred to as ‘sons of Mary and Joseph’.

This is a sincere question, 'can anyone produce writings of when this belief was first challenged?'

Some Protestants consider it must be written in scriptures, specifically, or it is not a correct belief, yet John tells us, twice, that not everything Jesus did was written about and Jesus was the Word, our Light and our salvation. Now something is not written specifically about the mother of Christ and it’s a challenging point? Whether it’s for justification of one Church or denouncing another, it’s suspiciously biased to demand the belief be proven and not prove that the newer belief always existed as well.

Scriptures tell us that Christians were to hold to tradition, whether by word or epistle. This tells us that not everything was written down, specifically spelling out every detail to everyone’s satisfaction.

For those who have challenged the belief in this thread, please answer the following question, with documentation. If you’re going say ‘scriptures’, please show the documentation where that belief existed in the first 1600 years of Christianity. Prove to us that we are wrong, without relying on something that can, and is, interpreted many different ways.

When was it first recorded, believed and taught that Mary had other children?