Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[elvisman]

Thanks for the reply Elvisman. I read the post you gave the link to, but I still have pretty much the same question. I understand that she was the Arc of the Covenant and that the Arc was not to be defiled by human hands. You have to understand that my background is different than yours, so this is what I’m struggling with. Someone like myself wouldn’t understand why sex (under mutual consent) defiles anyone. Now, understand that I am not refuting the claim that your church maintains on perpetual virginity. I have no problem believing that she was perpetually virgin. I am not here to argue that. What I don’t understand is how having sex with a man would have defiled her and why that is important. If the capacity to love another human being is a grace, how is one of the manners of it’s fulfillment a defilement? Is it not a blessing and even the consummation of a sacrament? How is the fulfillment of what you would ostensibly call a sacrament a defilement rather than a blessing? I have even been to many Christian weddings where the minister or priest mentioned being entered into the bonds of holy matrimony, not the bonds of defilement. In light of all of this, it seems rather curious to me how this would matter in the context of her holiness. I understand how the Virgin birth of Jesus is important to the story - Son of God, ect. Just trying to understand how perpetual virginity matters.

Thanks again for your help.

Your friend,
Sufjon

I can ask the same question about the Ark. Why was merely touching the Ark an act of defilement? Touching a box is not sinful in and of itself, yet when Uzza touched the Ark in 2 Sam. 6:7, he was struck dead. All he was trying to do is save it from falling.**

**The Prophecy in Ezek. 44:2 states, This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed. **
This is the will of God.

---

Mary had one purpose in this world: To give birth to the Messiah, the one who was to redeem the world. It was not to have children and raise a large family. It was not to have relations with a man. She had a huge role in salvation history to play. Her intent was not to have children and that is why she was puzzled at the angel Gabriel’s message that she was to bear a son.

**She said, “How can this be since I DO NOT know a man.”
She didn’t say, “How can this be since I HAVE NOT known a man?”

Mary wasn’t stupid - she knew how babies were born. She was puzzled because she had no intention of having children.

 

[rick43235]

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?

Sorry, but I just don’t see why this is so important.

 

[Reuben_J]

You have to understand that my background is different than yours, so this is what I’m struggling with. Someone like myself wouldn’t understand why sex (under mutual consent) defiles anyone. Now, understand that I am not refuting the claim that your church maintains on perpetual virginity. I have no problem believing that she was perpetually virgin. I am not here to argue that. What I don’t understand is how having sex with a man would have defiled her and why that is important. If the capacity to love another human being is a grace, how is one of the manners of it’s fulfillment a defilement? Is it not a blessing and even the consummation of a sacrament? How is the fulfillment of what you would ostensibly call a sacrament a defilement rather than a blessing? I have even been to many Christian weddings where the minister or priest mentioned being entered into the bonds of holy matrimony, not the bonds of defilement.

Mary is the chaste spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Joseph is not Jesus’ father.

Mary is set apart as the Mother of God.

There are OT Biblical verses that prophesized about Mary as mentioned by some posters here, notably by one Jlhargus, but I hope you get the picture.

edit.

 

[benidict]

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?

if the term brothers as you mentioned, meant actual brothers, then Jesus cannot be the messiah. to be the messiah, he had to keep the law perfectly. to give Mary to John, at the cross, would have been a violation of the law, and the custom of the Jews, if Jesus in fact had brothers. it would have been their responsibility to look after her. not John. also we could get in the typography of Mary in the o.t. she is represented in the ark of the covenant. it was a vessel that was pure and holy, and anyone other than a priest who attempted to handle it, would die. even the priest had to use two poles to carry it. also i believe Joseph knew full well who Mary had given birth to, and would have treated her as someone who was set apart by God. Peace

 

[benidict]

oh yes. where were Jesus “brothers” when he was missing from his parents for a few days. dont you think they would notice one was missing? Jesus was about 12 at this time. and i think one of his “brothers” would have said something right off the bat, like, " hey mom? have you seen Jesus? we cant seem to find him." this didnt happen. they went to look with other families thinking he might be there. probably relatives, with cousins. that would make more sense. not with his auntie not with the cousins… hmmm? no brothers mentioned. Peace

 

[benidict]

Well gentlemen. It seems like many of you are just going to insist that your priests are correct despite what the Bible says. These of course are the same guys who believe they cannot get married, which is also not scriptural. Jesus is the rock, not Peter and Peter had a wife or ex-wife, since he had a mother in law, but I’m only providing what scripture says.

The Bible is very clear but through the scriptures and through prophecy over and over again they he had literal brothers and sisters. If your priests want to try and make the argument that she didn’t then examine the evidence. It says nowhere in scripture she was a virgin, yet scripture says in many spots Jesus had brothers, and NAMED them. It also says Jesus had a relative or cousin by the name of John.

Looking at that with an open mind, and putting the Bible first above anything else, you too if you don’t let your pride get in the way will too make that conclusion. Again, it doesn’t mean you are not saved or going to heaven along with me, but simply says you are being swindled. Instead of being loyal to the works of Catholicism, how about being loyal to the grace of Christanity? And finally, we are saved on grace alone.

I’ll see you boys in heaven!

if the bible is so clear, then how come the protestants are so so fractured with so many groups? how come yall cant agree? im a former baptist, looking at things with an open mind, reading the Church Fathers, there is no other conclusion than that the early Church was Catholic, and is Catholic. pride? ive seen much more of that in fundamentalist circles. as Catholics we strive to serve, in one capacity or another. to be more conformed to the image of Christ. we have a clear line of succession from Christ till now. we have a clear set of teaching from Christ till now. Peace

 

[vera_dicere]

Perhaps this is part of tribal culture.

I have a friend from Camaroon who refers to his cousin as his brother and his nephew as his son.

---

Culture plays a huge part.

I have a friend, a female, who I call “bro” and “cous” [pronounced caarz] she refers to me, a female, as the same.

But neither of us are related, and neither of us are male.

 

[StrawberryJam]

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

No, and they have no reason to change their thoughts on it.
Your personal interpretation of scripture is not a valid reason on it’s own.
Can you base this idea of yours upon an unbroken tradition since the Messiah rose again from the dead?
If you can not, then I would reccomend you avoid sinning against your brothers and sisters in Christ by speaking this way. Catholics have every right to be offended by your theology.
I am offended by it.

 

[pablope]

Okay, this is something I am going to need an explanation on. I understand why the virgin birth of Jesus is important to Christians. From what I can tell, it establishes that He was God incarnate, rather than born through the union of a woman and a man. I get that. Can someone explain why it is important that Mary was a perpetual virgin? The phrase above about no reason to honor her otherwise is a great example of the thinking that perplexes me about western thought. How does the fact of whether or not a woman has sex diminish her holiness? What is it about that particular act that would cause the Mother of God to be something less in the eyes of some Christians (mainly Catholics from what I can tell). She’s still the Mother of God, right? So why is her sex life open to speculation or even relevant beyond the virgin birth? Let me further that a bit. Virgin birth aside (using virgin birth to establish the God aspect of Jesus) how is a discussion on the prior or subsequent sex life of Mary not disrespectful to Mary or any woman? My sense is that is none of our business. Can someone explain why we should be doing this? Son of God and Mother of God aspect aside, any woman who has to watch her son beaten, dragged through the streets and nailed up to die, just deserves some consideration and respect on that alone. I am looking at your faith from the outside in, so help me understand why this is important to you if you would please.

Thanks,
Your friend
Sufjon

Hi, Sufjon…how are you my friend…in my humble way, let me try…

• Can someone explain why it is important that Mary was a perpetual virgin?*

Mary had a vow of virginity, hence you can read in other posts in the annunciation accounts why she asked how when she had to relations with any man. This commitment was a sign of her grace, her humility, her commitment, her purity that is why she was chosen to bear the Christ. After Jesus birth, yes, she could have had relations but she chose not to, she kept her commitment to remain a virgin. I think this signifies her continued obedience to God, her continued grace and humility, that is why she is revered and honored by Catholics and the Eastern Churches. She set the example for us, remaining chaste in the eyes of God, keeping her vow and commitment…which we strive everyday to maintain.

I hope this helps.

pablo

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Well gentlemen. It seems like many of you are just going to insist that your priests are correct despite what the Bible says. These of course are the same guys who believe they cannot get married, which is also not scriptural. Jesus is the rock, not Peter and Peter had a wife or ex-wife, since he had a mother in law, but I’m only providing what scripture says.

The Bible is very clear but through the scriptures and through prophecy over and over again they he had literal brothers and sisters. If your priests want to try and make the argument that she didn’t then examine the evidence. It says nowhere in scripture she was a virgin, yet scripture says in many spots Jesus had brothers, and NAMED them. It also says Jesus had a relative or cousin by the name of John.

Looking at that with an open mind, and putting the Bible first above anything else, you too if you don’t let your pride get in the way will too make that conclusion. Again, it doesn’t mean you are not saved or going to heaven along with me, but simply says you are being swindled. Instead of being loyal to the works of Catholicism, how about being loyal to the grace of Christanity? And finally, we are saved on grace alone.

I’ll see you boys in heaven!

There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

Or in this case, WILL not.

 

[pablope]

Well gentlemen. It seems like many of you are just going to insist that your priests are correct despite what the Bible says. These of course are the same guys who believe they cannot get married…mean you are not saved or going to heaven along with me, but simply says you are being swindled. Instead of being loyal to the works of Catholicism, how about being loyal to the grace of Christanity? And finally, we are saved on grace alone.

I’ll see you boys in heaven!

But what is not told to you, or is glossed over is nothing unclean shall enter heaven…

Revelation 21:27 (King James Version)
27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Can you say, with absolute certainty, that you are perfect and undefiled that you can enter Heaven?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

For Sufi, I just wanted to point out that Catholics are not teaching that Mary would have been ‘defiled’ if she had had sex, as though her being a perpetual virgin (or indeed, any woman who remained a virgin all her life) would somehow be more ‘pure’ than a woman who was virgin, married validly one spouse, and had relations with that valid spouse. Both women would be equally pure. Lawful sex in a valid marriage does not ‘defile’ a woman.

But the question with Mary is more complex. True, she was validly married to Joseph–after she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Her ‘relations’ with God thus came ‘before’ the marriage ceremony with Joseph.

Now, God did not ‘stop’ being Jesus’ father. A woman who already has a child by ONE father does not validly go on to have children with another man, though, unless that first man, that father, has died. But God didn’t die.

To have Mary ‘have relations’ with Joseph would mean that her conception of Christ would be considered not only no ‘greater’ than any woman’s conception of any child, it would mean that God had pretty much ‘cuckolded’ Joseph. Much as the god Zeus disguised himself and begat ‘half gods’ on human women, you’re putting God in the position of the feudal ‘lord of the manor’ who would ‘take the virginity’ of his female serfs before sending them off to marry male serfs. This was considered his ‘right’ (droit de seigneur). To have God ‘impregnate’ Mary and then slough her off, “OK, I’ve used you, now go off and have a ‘normal’ life” turns God not into a loving husband/father but a rapist who takes a young woman away from her fiance and then sends her back demanding of that fiance to raise God’s child as his own but hey, now you can have YOUR fun too. Just go on with life but don’t forget to raise the Son of God perfectly while having your ‘other kids’.

Of course, Catholics do not believe that God could possibly act in such a way. This is yet another reason that we know that Mary remained virgin.

 

[cjforJesus]

Why do Catholics believe Mary is a virgin? Because it is the truth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

For Sufi, I just wanted to point out that Catholics are not teaching that Mary would have been ‘defiled’ if she had had sex, as though her being a perpetual virgin (or indeed, any woman who remained a virgin all her life) would somehow be more ‘pure’ than a woman who was virgin, married validly one spouse, and had relations with that valid spouse. Both women would be equally pure. Lawful sex in a valid marriage does not ‘defile’ a woman.

But the question with Mary is more complex. True, she was validly married to Joseph–after she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Her ‘relations’ with God thus came ‘before’ the marriage ceremony with Joseph.

Now, God did not ‘stop’ being Jesus’ father. A woman who already has a child by ONE father does not validly go on to have children with another man, though, unless that first man, that father, has died. But God didn’t die.

To have Mary ‘have relations’ with Joseph would mean that her conception of Christ would be considered not only no ‘greater’ than any woman’s conception of any child, it would mean that God had pretty much ‘cuckolded’ Joseph. Much as the god Zeus disguised himself and begat ‘half gods’ on human women, you’re putting God in the position of the feudal ‘lord of the manor’ who would ‘take the virginity’ of his female serfs before sending them off to marry male serfs. This was considered his ‘right’ (droit de seigneur). To have God ‘impregnate’ Mary and then slough her off, “OK, I’ve used you, now go off and have a ‘normal’ life” turns God not into a loving husband/father but a rapist who takes a young woman away from her fiance and then sends her back demanding of that fiance to raise God’s child as his own but hey, now you can have YOUR fun too. Just go on with life but don’t forget to raise the Son of God perfectly while having your ‘other kids’.

Of course, Catholics do not believe that God could possibly act in such a way. This is yet another reason that we know that Mary remained virgin.

Two thumbs up

 

[JonNC]

=WhoDatChristian;7327013]Well gentlemen. It seems like many of you are just going to insist that your priests are correct despite what the Bible says. These of course are the same guys who believe they cannot get married, which is also not scriptural. Jesus is the rock, not Peter and Peter had a wife or ex-wife, since he had a mother in law, but I’m only providing what scripture says.

Despite what the Bible says. I read through the entire thread, and I find nothing you’ve provided that is contrary to sempre virgo.
And I frankly find your comments about the discipline of priestly celibacy as a deflection from the topic. BTW, my dad was a pastor, and growing up seeing the demands placed on him by the parish he served, I quite understand the discipline.

The Bible is very clear but through the scriptures and through prophecy over and over again they he had literal brothers and sisters. If your priests want to try and make the argument that she didn’t then examine the evidence. It says nowhere in scripture she was a virgin, yet scripture says in many spots Jesus had brothers, and NAMED them. It also says Jesus had a relative or cousin by the name of John.

It is not clear, as has been stated over and over again.

Looking at that with an open mind, and putting the Bible first above anything else, you too if you don’t let your pride get in the way will too make that conclusion. Again, it doesn’t mean you are not saved or going to heaven along with me, but simply says you are being swindled. Instead of being loyal to the works of Catholicism, how about being loyal to the grace of Christanity? And finally, we are saved on grace alone.

I am sola scripturist in my view of hermeneutics, and I believe in sempre virgo. It has nothing to do with a loyalty to Catholicism, but a recognition that the Church Catholic, east and west, has accepted this pious belief about the Holy Theotokos since the early centuries of the Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=elvisman;7326599] Non-Catholics are fond of saying that it doesn’t matter if Jesus had uterine siblings. They say that Jesus could have been born from anybody and still been the Messiah - he could have even been born of a harlot.

---

Before you make this blanket assertion, you’d do well to supply a source. I am certainly not fond of saying anything this disrespectful to the Blessed mother of Christ!!!

Yes, Jesus could have had uterine siblings. He could have been born of a harlot. BUT in order to fulfill all righteousness, his coming had to be more glorious than the Old Testament type. He chose Mary out of ALL of the women in history to be his mother.

Indeed!

Jon

 

[Sufjon]

Thanks to Reuben J, Pablope, Tantrum ergo and Elvisman for your explanations and perspectives.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Erich]

It has nothing to do with a loyalty to Catholicism, but a recognition that the Church Catholic, east and west, has accepted this pious belief about the Holy Theotokos since the early centuries of the Church.

It seems we have here a modern-day example of “I’d rather drink blood with the Papists than mere juice with the Zwinglians!”

 

[mskejj]

Howdy Elvis,

Sure I can name Jesus brothers. Maybe if you read my original post, you would find the brothers named. I did you the courtesy of having them named, and one brother was named twice.

As far as Jesus and John the Baptist being cousins, scripture tells us. It’s not a surprise that you haven’t heard it before. It proves my point.

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.- Luke 1:36

As far as your last question, the scripture are not about Mary, but about Jesus. From Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, the entire Bible is about Christ, not Mary. Mary isn’t mentioned very often and after the early parts of Acts isn’t mentioned at all. But her sons are named. There is also not one verse that tells us that Mary remained a virgin; the evidence is quite the opposite.

Good luck in your studies.

Two of these four “brothers” of Jesus (James and Joseph) are sons of another Mary, who is significantly called “the other Mary” (Matt 27:61, 28:1) Compare Matt 27:56 with John 19:25-27. None of the brothers of Jesus is ever called “son of Mary.” Jesus entrust Mary to John, not another sibling. This is unthinkable, if Jesus had other brothers. The way Jesus’ “brothers” advise (John 7:3-4) and rebuke him (Mark 3:21) is inconsistent with actions of younger brothers. Acts 1:14 shows Mary praying with Jesus’s “brothers” but then she goes home with John (John19:27). Again, this is highly unlikely in the Jewish culture of her time. “Brother” can mean something other than “blood brother”. See:1Cor 15:6 when Jesus appears to 500 "brothers at once.

 

[rrlylee34]

Who Dat why pick such things that will only seek to divide us? Here is how I look at this and all subjects related to Christ. ( Mary is related to Christ ) Jesus was perfect in every way, in all things, as a jew, and in observance of Jewish Law. The ten commandments were the backbone of this law. Specificly the fourth commandment “Honor your father and mother.” The word in hebrew that has been translated to honor actually is closer to the word glorify. Now ask yourself this question. Jesus Christ, God made into man, how would he “glorify or honor” his mother and father “perfectly”? Meditate and pray on that. Our tradition in this catholic faith does predate the bible. We hold fast to the traditions handed down to us whether written down or by word of mouth as Paul said in II Thes 2:15. The church takes this seriously and before proclaiming this and all doctrine they examine all details pro and con before coming out with a definitive statement of doctrine. A great book that covers all things Mary is Hail Holy Queen by Dr Scott Hahn who is the Dean of Theology at Franciscan University at Stuebenville, Ohio. Dr Hahn is a convert to the catholic faith and was a Presbyterian Pastor, Professor, and most of all very anti-catholic. You can also read his conversion story in a book called Rome Sweet Home. I also had my doubts coming from a Pentecostal upbringing. But what I know is that our church which has an unbroken line of succession from the apostles has guarded and kept the christian faith for all of us. After all, for the first 1500 years after Christ left if you were christian you were Catholic. And that is historical fact. There is truth in the authority of church given to it by Jesus himself. Read, Pray, and Meditate on this Mary has been “PERFECTLY” honored and glorified by her son in following the fourth commandment “Perfectly”.