Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[elvisman]

Yeah just for your argument’s sake, if the others that were called “brothers” were actually cousins, why wasn’t Elizabeth (J the B’s mother) called Mary’s sister?

No. the Greek word used for Elizabeth is "sugenis". This can mean cousin, distant relation, kinswoman, neighbor, fellow countryman, etc. She is never referred to as Mary’s cousin - except in bad translations.

Personally, I’ve given up on the entire argument. I 100% believe that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, I just don’t see why perpetual virgindom mattered after that point, and neither side is able to prove their argument, so there’s no point arguing it any further. Catholics and similar faiths will never change their belief that she may have had other children (or even sex for that matter) and I respect them for their strength of faith; Baptists and similar faiths will never change their belief or pray to her. At this point, you have to go on faith: either that Mary was a perpetual virgin or she wasn’t, and asking for proof 2000+ years later is a bit ridiculous.

The point is that there is not one, single, solitary shred of evidence that Mary ever had other children. Not one verse or phrase in the Bible states this. In short - it’s a man-made falsehood.

**That being said - it was only *after *the Reformation that this became an big issue - and it did NOT come from the Church. It was the bickering factions of Protestantism that eventually developed the myth that Mary had other children. Many of the Early Reformers believed that she WAS a perpetual virgin. **

The Church, being Christ in his fullness (Eph. 1:22-23) and the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) can only and MUST only perpetuate the truth in matter of the faith.

THAT’S why it is so important that we defend the truth about Mary.

 

[jrose90]

And I’ve already stated that I honestly admire you for defending your faith. I get the importance of holding your ground and continuing to believe. I don’t get why others challenge you on it though, expecting to find proof. If they don’t believe it already, nothing you say will change that probably [unless Mary herself comes down and explains how things were]. I didn’t mean that you should stop defending. I simply meant that it isn’t a good argument for a protestant to start. Sorry if I didn’t explain myself well enough.
Please, continue to defend your faith in her perpetual virgindom, for I admire you for the strength of faith. I just don’t think it wise for protestants to continue to harass you about it. It isn’t a “big deal” to THEM, even if it is to you, so they should stop.

 

[Zooey]

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.

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

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

 

[bo_leggs]

Hi Friend Pablope: With the help of a lot of people here on CAF I am gaining a good deal of perspective. While my initial questions don’t always get answered I get some great information along the way and I learn a lot about how people think in relation to the tenets of their faith. **I think it’s important to know what members of a faith actually think about these things. People on this web site are uncommonly well informed on the details of their faiths as compared to people I meet outside of it, so the opinions I get here mean a lot to me. **

Your friend
Sufjon

I have also noted this, and the fact that the most adamant defenders of the Faith seem to be converts. I am also a convert, Tiber Swim Team of 1967, and when I joined the Church I had a hunger to really learn what the Church taught AND WHY. To this end, I have continued to read on the Church and her teachings, including papal encyclicals and Council documents, and I listen to Catholic Answers on EWTN Radio everyday. And yes, I am also an adamant defender of the faith. I think that converts, because they are members of the Church through great effort, and many times at the expense of alienating family and friends, are much more prone to defending the Church and Her teachings. I, too, lost friends and alienated family members when I joined the Church, but I have gained much more than I lost. I am also glad that you are investigating the Faith, and wish you well in your effort. May God bless you richly.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Seems as though the OP didn’t really want to know WHY—just came on to give attitude and turn a deaf ear to answers.

However, this thread has lots of invaluable info for those who wish to see the truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What did Martin Luther actually have to say about Marys Virginity…

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother … (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ

Amazing

 

[Erich]

neither side is able to prove their argument

From Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant:

Luke’s Gospel makes a concerted effort to portray Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel tells Mary “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” Now, the Greek word for “overshadow” is episkiasei, which denotes a bright cloud of glory. It is the same cloud at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7. Luke 9:34), and it is known as the Shekinah Glory - the visible Presence of God in the Hebrew Scriptures - which dwelt in the Holy of Holies above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 24:15-16, 40:34-38, 1 Kings 8:10).

In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to “not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home” (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas “to overshadow” or “to lay one’s power over” a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and there is ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for “overshadow”, episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God’s Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God’s Presence overshadowed Mary’s womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.

Note the similarities between God’s presence overshadowing the temple (Ex 40:34-35) and God’s presence overshadowing Mary (Lk 1:35). In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament used by Jesus and the apostles), episkiasei is used in the Exodus passage, as it is used in Luke 1:35 as well:

Ark of the Covenant
"Then a cloud covered the
tent of the congregation,
and the glory of the Lord
(episkiasei) filled the tabernacle.
(Ex 40:34)
Mary
“The Holy Spirit will come
upon thee, and the power
of the Most High will
overshadow (episkiasei) thee”
(Lk 1:35)
It is clear, then, that the angel Gabriel drew a parallel between God’s presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary.
…
The parallels between Luke’s account of the Visitation between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant continue. Once such connection is seen by comparing 2 Samuel 6:15 with Luke 1:44:

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.” (2 Sam 6:15)

“For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)

James Akin has pointed out that the term used here is anephonesen, which means “shouts of joy”. It is not a commonly-used word; in fact, it is only used in the context of a liturgical celebration and even then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. Literally translated “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone”. Therefore, if this powerful witness is reserved only in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and the same word is used regarding Mary, then Mary must be the Ark of the New Covenant.

Ark of the Covenant
1) the Ark is on a journey (2 Sam 6:2)

2) David dances before the ark (2 Sam 6:14)

3) David asks, “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me”? (2 Sam 6:9)

4) The ark stayed in the house of Obededom for three months (2 Sa 6:11)
Mary
1) Mary is on a journey (Lk 1:39)

2) John leaps in the womb of Elizabeth (Lk 1:41)

3) Elizabeth asks, “how is it that the mother of my Lord should
come to me?” (Lk 1:43)

4) Mary stayed for 3 months (Lk 1:56)

With respect to the specific nature of the Old Covenant Ark, the similarities continue. Moses and the Israelites built the Ark of the Covenant to house the tablets of the Decalogue, otherwise known as the 10 Commandments. (Ex. 25:8-16). The Lord instructed His People to also place manna that He had given them in the desert on the Ark (Ex.16:32-35). Centuries later, when King Solomon built the Temple of Jerusalem, the priests brought the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple and placed it inside the Holy of Holies (3 Kgs. 8:3-7) (cf. Heb. 9:1-5).

**Ark of the  Covenant** 
		 **1)** carried word of God written on 		 	stone tablets	(Ex 25:8-16)

	 **2)** manna placed in it (Ez 16:32-35)

 **3)** shepherd's staff of Aaron (high priest)

 **4)** contained Aaron's rod	  	 
	  **Mary**

1) carried in her womb the Incarnate Word of God to be written on people’s hearts (Heb 8:10)

2) carried Jesus, the Bread of Life (Jn 6:58)

3) carried Jesus, the eternal High Priest

4) Jesus will “rule the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5)
(cont’d next post)

 

[Erich]

So, what does this have to do with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? Just as the Ark was a holy vessel which bore the Divine Presence, Mary was the holy living vessel chosen to bear the Lord God. The Ark was a created thing, just as Mary was a created being, for the purpose of carrying the presence of God. This explains also the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because only something “perfectly endowed with grace” (Greek kecharitomene, Luke 1:28) was fit to carry God, as the Ark was made only of the purest gold for God’s word (Ex 25:11-21).

Now, if God’s presence “overshadowed” Mary, why did Joseph refrain from intercourse at all? The answer is that even he recognized her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God’s presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter: “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Ex 40:34-35) Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz’zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark: “And when they came to Na’chon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz’zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God.” (2 Sam 6:6-7) Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, Catholics believe that Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: “This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.” (Ez 44:1-3)

 

[Erich]

jrose90:

neither side is able to prove their argument

I am inclined to ask at this point, “what further need have we of witnesses?”

Just because you can’t find the word “trinity” in the Bible doesn’t mean that the Trinity doesn’t exist. Similarly, just because you can’t find the phrase “Mary Ever-Virgin” in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s not true either.

 

[Jeninky]

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?

You know, I really don’t know why everything has to come back to Protestant bashing. This thread posing a valid question for those of us who came to this site searching for answers to questions in our hearts. I honestly do not think that this question was meant to offend anyone and I certainly do not mean to offend anyone with my posts either. My life has been so confusing in recent months and I have a lot of questions, not about my belief in God, but if I am practicing my faith the way that God would have me to. It seems like every time a protestant asks a question on this site, we are looked down on and in some cases treated with hostility. For me, that makes me feel that Protestants are not welcome here, and seriously makes me question why I would want to be associated with a religion that would try to make someone feel that way. Every Catholic says that the Catholic church is the true church, the only church. My Pastor (my very Pentecostal Pastor) teaches that the true Church of Christ goes beyond denomination and includes every man, woman, and child who accepts Jesus as their personal Savior. He teaches that there will be Catholics in Heaven, Pentecostals in Heaven, and members of any other denomination that you can name as long as they have accepted Jesus. Why does he teach that, “John 3:16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.” To me, that means anyone, regardless of denomination can be saved.

With that being said, why try to make some one feel like they are wrong for not believing the way you do? I guess that’s what we get for looking for answers on the internet.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

With that being said, why try to make some one feel like they are wrong for not believing the way you do? I guess that’s what we get for looking for answers on the internet.

Because the Truth is not a matter of consensus.

Speaking of bashing—why would you assume Catholics to take kindly to Mary-bashing?

 

[Erich]

It seems like every time a protestant asks a question on this site, we are looked down on and in some cases treated with hostility. For me, that makes me feel that Protestants are not welcome here, and seriously makes me question why I would want to be associated with a religion that would try to make someone feel that way.

I don’t think the “looking down upon” and “hostility” are always intentional… it’s just that questions posted on the Catholic Answers forum are (as expected) going to be answered from the Catholic perspective. In particular, I hope that – by the time you read to the end of this post – you do not count me among the “down-lookers” and the “hostiles”!

Every Catholic says that the Catholic church is the true church

That’s because Christ founded a visible church, not an invisible one. From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?:
Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house” (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

The visibility of the Church is no light matter. It underlies the ultimate source of Christian belief: Church or Bible? Its importance surpasses that of other divisive issues, such as the veneration of saints or confession.
…
Christ’s Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It’s almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn’t quite know what he was doing.
…
[O]nly a visible, authoritative Church could have set in place the pillars that would support Christian belief and practice through the ages. To those who cry “Prove it!” here are a few examples:

1. Codification of the Bible. The Bible did not codify itself, did not specify which books, among many, were to be seen as inspired. A visible, authoritative body, comprised of bishops, decided the content of the canon.

2. The worldwide councils. Christianity’s doctrinal parameters have been charted by the ecumenical councils, now numbering 21, each conducted under the authority of the visible, universal Church. Not once in those 21 sessions did an “invisible” group of bishops meet and deliberate.

3. The Lord’s day. The Christian Sunday replaced the Saturday sabbath of the Old Testament. The visible Church made this change.

4. Christmas and Easter. The Bible nowhere mentions the word “Christmas” or the date for Christmas. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was a decision of the Church. (The feast didn’t arise all by itself.) Much the same can be said for Easter as a feast separate from the other Sundays which commemorate the Resurrection. It was a visible Church, headed by a definitely locatable pope, that settled the dates of observance for the two key feasts.

5. The calendar. It is Christ’s visible Church, its reach extending into the secular realm, which has given us the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII.
The Catechism explains in much more detail how the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

the only church

Actually, anyone who told you that was incorrect. The Catholic Church distinguishes between “Churches” and “ecclesial communities” (see the answers to the fourth and fifth questions at this link).

In particular, the Orthodox (by virtue of their having maintained apostolic succession in the Sacrament of Holy Orders) are sister Churches, whereas those communities who trace their origins to the Reformation are not.

 

[Erich]

My Pastor (my very Pentecostal Pastor) teaches that the true Church of Christ goes beyond denomination and includes every man, woman, and child who accepts Jesus as their personal Savior. He teaches that there will be Catholics in Heaven, Pentecostals in Heaven, and members of any other denomination that you can name as long as they have accepted Jesus. Why does he teach that, “John 3:16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.” To me, that means anyone, regardless of denomination can be saved.

You should get no arguments from Catholics on this… as CCC 818 and CCC 819 put it,

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[ZxM]

has anyone asked why jesus left his mother’s care to his disciple and not to his brothers?

 

[Jeninky]

Because the Truth is not a matter of consensus.

Speaking of bashing—why would you assume Catholics to take kindly to Mary-bashing?

No, I don’t expect you to take kindly to it. But again, I honestly don’t think that was the intent of the question. When I first saw the title of the post, it made me want to know the answer as well, so I don’t think anyone was Mary bashing, just asking an honest question.

 

[Jeninky]

You should get no arguments from Catholics on this… as CCC 818 and CCC 819 put it,

Your right I shouldn’t but I have seen it, not just on this site either but on others and even personally stated to me when I “dared” to attend a Mass with a friend.

As to the Catholic Church being the true church, I do agree that it was the first church and I guess that is why after being brought up as a Protestant, I find myself wanting to know more about Catholicism (sp?) but I guess I have trouble thinking that it would be any truer of a church than the full body of Christ which crosses all denominations.

 

[larkin31]

No, I don’t expect you to take kindly to it. But again, I honestly don’t think that was the intent of the question. When I first saw the title of the post, it made me want to know the answer as well, so I don’t think anyone was Mary bashing, just asking an honest question.

It was a respectful question, and many honest Catholics ask it in the same way. And notice, too, that the argument for the position is quite convoluted. Those arguments for me, when I was a believer, always pushed me toward more liberal and flexible positions on the matter. The further abstract the reasoning became and the further from scripture, the less I believed in the truth of the dogma. The reasoning just seems more man-made than Jesus-made.

But, much of faith no longer makes sense to me, so…

 

[SonCatcher]

No, I don’t expect you to take kindly to it. But again, I honestly don’t think that was the intent of the question. When I first saw the title of the post, it made me want to know the answer as well, so I don’t think anyone was Mary bashing, just asking an honest question.

Unfortunately, after a few people did answer the question (including references to scripture and multiple Church documents), the OP started arguing the validity of the responses rather than accepting them as answers to his question. Nobody was trying to get him to give up his current belief (at least, most weren’t).

 

[SonCatcher]

has anyone asked why jesus left his mother’s care to his disciple and not to his brothers?

Probably

 

[GaryTaylor]

has anyone asked why jesus left his mother’s care to his disciple and not to his brothers?

Luther explains it very well, Jesus had no Brothers.

Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

And of course this is Catholic Bible teaching.