Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[Rascalking]

Perpetual or otherwise?

I believe Christ was concived of a virgin. I can’t proove it, and it’s something that no matter what anyone tells me, I won’t believe otherwise. It’s not worth debating because it’s faith, not fact.

Other than that, any other virginity of Mary issue is just an issue I have never thought about.

From what little I know about the issue, I think Mary did NOT have any other children aside from Our Lord and Savior.

Again, I don’t understand why people pay attention to the fact of if She was a virgin or not AFTER the conception of Christ. Who cares? Why do people debate this?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

As Alex has pointed out, where does it say that they were Mary’s children? Jesus was identified as the son of Mary, but everyone else are just brothers and sisters of Jesus, not children of Mary. See the difference?

 

[Nicea325]

I believe Christ was concived of a virgin. I can’t proove it, and it’s something that no matter what anyone tells me, I won’t believe otherwise. It’s not worth debating because it’s faith, not fact.

Other than that, any other virginity of Mary issue is just an issue I have never thought about.

From what little I know about the issue, I think Mary did NOT have any other children aside from Our Lord and Savior.

Again, I don’t understand why people pay attention to the fact of if She was a virgin or not AFTER the conception of Christ. Who cares? Why do people debate this?

I’ll tell you one reason why they debate it: Carnal in belief.

Ask the opponents if it is impossible for a woman today to remain an ever-virgin?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ll tell you one reason why they debate it: Carnal in belief.

Ask the opponents if it is impossible for a woman today to remain an ever-virgin?

Actually I believe the reason they challenge that idea is to prove Catholics wrong. If the Catholics are wrong, they are right, we are not the true Church, they hold the truth. Thats the whole reason for it. There’s really nothing in Protestant “doctrine” that is supported by “Mary is not an eternal virgin.” So what else could be the reason other than proving that the Catholics are wrong?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Again, I don’t understand why people pay attention to the fact of if She was a virgin or not AFTER the conception of Christ. Who cares? Why do people debate this?

What’s true is true.

We’re called to defend the Marian doctrines at all costs. You can’t let people talk down the Mother of God.

 

[Rascalking]

You can’t let people talk down the Mother of God.

I guess your right. Like I said, I never thought about it.

 

[Nicea325]

Actually I believe the reason they challenge that idea is to prove Catholics wrong. If the Catholics are wrong, they are right, we are not the true Church, they hold the truth. Thats the whole reason for it. There’s really nothing in Protestant “doctrine” that is supported by “Mary is not an eternal virgin.” So what else could be the reason other than proving that the Catholics are wrong?

And I would even add by saying that if the RCC is wrong,then which non-Catholic church out of thousands contains the full deposit of faith?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And I would even add by saying that if the RCC is wrong,then which non-Catholic church out of thousands contains the full deposit of faith?

Have you watched WWF/WWE growing up? Have you heard of Royal Rumble?

But most if not all of them believe that the fullness of faith is in the Bible anyway. They’d just either have to live with each other’s interpretation or resort to Royal Rumble.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I guess your right. Like I said, I never thought about it.

I think you’re already very informed about the Faith. Just keep doing what you’re doing! And keep your Bible, Catechism, (what ever you need) close!

 

[Rascalking]

Have you watched WWF/WWE growing up? Have you heard of Royal Rumble?

.

I LOVED the Royal Rumble when I was a kid! I used to invite friends over to watch the PPVs-they’d bring chips, soda or something (keep in mind, I was really young-I didn’t eat very well) and we would spend hours watching that stuff.

It’s a shame that it’s become so vulgar, because It was so much fun to watch when was a kid.

 

[mark_a]

Again, I don’t understand why people pay attention to the fact of if She was a virgin or not AFTER the conception of Christ. Who cares? Why do people debate this?

We are defending our respective teachers, whom we have chosen to believe.

It’s very tribal, don’t ya know.

 

[Rascalking]

We are defending our respective teachers, whom we have chosen to believe.

It’s very tribal, don’t ya know.

My friend, if I said anything against Catholic teaching, it’s out of my own ignorance of the subject-I never said Mary had kids other than Jesus, I never said she wasn’t a virgin her entire life. All I said was that I’ve never really thought of it.

 

[mark_a]

My friend, if I said anything against Catholic teaching, it’s out of my own ignorance of the subject-I never said Mary had kids other than Jesus, I never said she wasn’t a virgin her entire life. All I said was that I’ve never really thought of it.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Best wishes.

 

[edward_george]

Another thing to keep in mind is Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel when he told her she would be with child. Why would she respond “how can this be?” unless she had intended to not have marital relations when she did eventually get married? Surely she would have known the usual way that children are conceived, and her answer would have been along the lines of “Big deal” when the angel told her she would conceive and bear a son. But it is likely (based on extra-Biblical sources and the historical context) that she was consecrated to God from her youth, and thus had taken a vow of virginity.

-ACEGC

 

[ConstantineTG]

Another thing to keep in mind is Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel when he told her she would be with child. Why would she respond “how can this be?” unless she had intended to not have marital relations when she did eventually get married? Surely she would have known the usual way that children are conceived, and her answer would have been along the lines of “Big deal” when the angel told her she would conceive and bear a son. But it is likely (based on extra-Biblical sources and the historical context) that she was consecrated to God from her youth, and thus had taken a vow of virginity.

-ACEGC

From what I understand, the consecrated virgins of the temple were not expected to remain virgins all their lives. That is why they leave the temple at puberty, that is why at this point Mary was bethroed to Joseph.

 

[rick43235]

We’re called to defend the Marian doctrines at all costs. You can’t let people talk down the Mother of God.

How would suggesting that Mary had other children or that she did not remain a virgin her whole life be “talking down the Mother of God?”

I guess you can count me among those who just don’t see what the big deal is.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

How would suggesting that Mary had other children or that she did not remain a virgin her whole life be “talking down the Mother of God?”

I guess you can count me among those who just don’t see what the big deal is.

You don’t see ‘what the big deal is’ about Blessed Mary, conceived without sin, the Sacred Arc, Christ’s first and best disciple, our Mother, part of God’s Divine Plan, was the mother of Christ Jesus, and no one else?

 

[Erich]

How would suggesting that Mary had other children or that she did not remain a virgin her whole life be “talking down the Mother of God?”

I guess you can count me among those who just don’t see what the big deal is.

“The Glory of the Lord came into the house by the East Gate” (Ezekiel 43:4). In Herod’s day, the East Gate was the only gate to the Temple area; it opened onto the Garden of Gethsemane, the Kidron Valley, and the Mount of Olives.

“This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut” (Ezekiel 44:2). Many of the Church Fathers spoke of this East Gate as prefiguring the Incarnation, where the East Gate represented the womb of the Virgin Mary. And as the East Gate was shut in Ezekiel’s vision, so the Virgin Mary remained a virgin her entire life according to her vow and the vow of her parents.

Here’s a good explanation of why all this is a big deal.

 

[Erich]

As Alex has pointed out, where does it say that they were Mary’s children? Jesus was identified as the son of Mary, but everyone else are just brothers and sisters of Jesus, not children of Mary. See the difference?

Perhaps not… the OP hasn’t been on this thread since post #22

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How would suggesting that Mary had other children or that she did not remain a virgin her whole life be “talking down the Mother of God?”

I guess you can count me among those who just don’t see what the big deal is.

Well, first of all you have this as an oral tradition (predating even the canon of Scripture in AD 380, with the ‘Subtuum prayer’ in WRITTEN form by AD 250).

You have the fact that even the first of the Protestants (Martin Luther, John Calvin) themselves TAUGHT that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. The men who didn’t hesitate to point out where they thought Catholics (and Orthodox) ‘went wrong’ apparently thought that on this point they were quite correct. It was their later followers who chose to flout by then nearly 1600 years worth of oral (and Scriptural) tradition and come up with a completely ‘different’ (gospel of men) take. It is no coincidence that most of those who have embraced this ‘different’ gospel have a jaundiced view not only of Mary, but of themselves and their fellow Christians. Because the idea of a Mary who did not ‘conform’ to their man-made doctrine of ‘nothing special sinners’ threatened their entire man-made gospel at its core. By ‘changing’ the teaching on Mary, they changed the teaching on Jesus. By changing the role of His mother to a "she-had-no-choice-nothing-special-sinner-to-be-used-and-thrown-away’ they intend to postulate that all humans as just that–no choice, nothing special, used and thrown. IOW, they completely corrupt and distort Christ’s nature (since He took His human nature from His mother) and they corrupt and distort Christ’s salvation.

If humanity has ‘no choice’ in its actions and can be ‘used’ and thrown away, why did Christ BOTHER to suffer and die for us? If we can’t actively say ‘yes’ (and if we have ‘no choice’ in our ‘determination’ then we CANNOT say yes if ‘somebody’ has already determined we can only say ‘no’), then we can’t really be responsible either for our salvation or our damnation and there was no need for Christ to suffer for ciphers who can’t be responsible for their actions anyway.

So a ‘wrong interpretation’ of Mary will lead to a ‘wrong interpretation’ of Christ. . .certainly that is quite important!