Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[DElias]

I can see where the argument is going, and I do thank all of you for your responses. One problem arises with The Protoevangelium of James really being additional reading to the Bible. Anyone coming from the Protestant side of Christianity will not likely take the words outside of the Bible as evidence when examining Catholicism for themselves.

I’ve heard the both sides of the argument of Jesus having and not having half-siblings. After reading all that was just presented, I still do not see why Joseph and Mary would not have consummated their marriage. To simply say that Jesus was enough would still not explain why this would not have taken place. To say that there are areas of the Bible referencing how things start and continue does not show me such application to Mary. Also saying the proof lies in substantiating otherwise misses the idea that there still needs to be proof that she was. Again, I am quite open to explanations and am making a sincere attempt to really look at Catholic doctrine in my own journey of faith. The concept of perpetual virginity is a huge hurdle for any non-Catholic. Much of what I have been presented to me has been a very rough attempt at Boolean algebra though.

 

[Edward_H]

I can see where the argument is going, and I do thank all of you for your responses. One problem arises with The Protoevangelium of James really being additional reading to the Bible. Anyone coming from the Protestant side of Christianity will not likely take the words outside of the Bible as evidence when examining Catholicism for themselves.

I’ve heard the both sides of the argument of Jesus having and not having half-siblings. After reading all that was just presented, I still do not see why Joseph and Mary would not have consummated their marriage. To simply say that Jesus was enough would still not explain why this would not have taken place. To say that there are areas of the Bible referencing how things start and continue does not show me such application to Mary. Also saying the proof lies in substantiating otherwise misses the idea that there still needs to be proof that she was. Again, I am quite open to explanations and am making a sincere attempt to really look at Catholic doctrine in my own journey of faith. The concept of perpetual virginity is a huge hurdle for any non-Catholic. Much of what I have been presented to me has been a very rough attempt at Boolean algebra though.

I don’t know enough about the Jewish purity laws and procedures, etc. But it wouldn’t surprise me that Joseph would be reticent enter.

And of course, we’re not privy to the intimate and tender conversations that occurred between the Holy Couple.

 

[guanophore]

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

I agree. It is not scriptural to “sell” any ideas, especially those connected to the Gospel. Catholics carry a gospel that is not for sale, but free.

The reason we hold this belief is that we received this as part of the Deposit of Faith, the once for all Faith that was delivered to the Church by the Apostles. We are not at liberty to change what was handed down to us by the Apostles. If we change the Gospel, or reject parts of it, then we have embraced “a different Gospel”, about which the Apostles taught we would be accursed.

If you really love us all, then you will not want us to be accursed.

 

[DElias]

I don’t know enough about the Jewish purity laws and procedures, etc. But it wouldn’t surprise me that Joseph would be reticent enter.

I am going to a Messianic Jewish service tomorrow morning. Maybe I’ll find a little insight regarding this area then.

 

[guanophore]

I can see where the argument is going, and I do thank all of you for your responses. One problem arises with The Protoevangelium of James really being additional reading to the Bible. Anyone coming from the Protestant side of Christianity will not likely take the words outside of the Bible as evidence when examining Catholicism for themselves.

I hope you don’t think that this doctrine comes from such a book. We can see references to the state of Mary in the writings, but they are not the Source of it. Our Gospel was passed down to us from the Apostles.

There are many Protestants who embrace sacred Tradition. I agree with you, however, the more one has been contaminated with the heresy of Sola Scriptura, the less likely they are to received the whole Gospel. They are stuck with an abbreveated version of Christianity, and are quite content with it.

I’ve heard the both sides of the argument of Jesus having and not having half-siblings. After reading all that was just presented, I still do not see why Joseph and Mary would not have consummated their marriage. To simply say that Jesus was enough would still not explain why this would not have taken place. To say that there are areas of the Bible referencing how things start and continue does not show me such application to Mary. Also saying the proof lies in substantiating otherwise misses the idea that there still needs to be proof that she was. Again, I am quite open to explanations and am making a sincere attempt to really look at Catholic doctrine in my own journey of faith. The concept of perpetual virginity is a huge hurdle for any non-Catholic. Much of what I have been presented to me has been a very rough attempt at Boolean algebra though.

I agree with you. I think there are “huge hurdles” for fundamentalists with regard to all those aspects of the faith that are “mysteries”. A mystery is a reality that is beyond our comprehension, We can see the evidence of it in the natural world,but are unable to fathom it’s depths.

I think that fundamentalists are stuck with a serious problem of having to explain why Christians all over the world since the birth of the Church have embraced this Apostolic Teaching. Even all the Reformers accepted it. It has only been in the last 400 years, the further the offspring of the Reformers drifted from the One Faith, that this has been lost to them.

 

[rinnie]

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.

Here is where the trouble begins. Tradition. Protestants do not have it. So if it is not written in the bible they will not accept it.

Even though the bible itself tells us to accept what was given to you either written or by word of mouth. Thats Tradition and the teaching of Mary was believed and taught by the Apostles.

Now this is taught by the Apostles. If you read betwen the lines in scripture you will see that when the Blessed Mother is told she will have a child she is shocked though. Why would she ask the angel HOW, do you not agree she would know how a Child is conceived. But that is a clue that she made a vow of staying pure to God.

And then do you notice when the Angel tells her how it will happen, she is not like IT is quite the opposite she is quite contented with what the angel tells her. She repeats outloud what she has known all along. SHe is here for the Lord. SHe knew her purpose was to do his will.

Do you see my point. For us when we were told we were going to have a Son we would not be shocked, the Blessed Mother was. But now for us to be told it would be by the power of the Holy Spirit we would then be. Do you see for the Blessed Mother it was the opposite. That should in itself give you some insight.

 

[DElias]

Even though the bible itself tells us to accept what was given to you either written or by word of mouth. Thats Tradition and the teaching of Mary was believed and taught by the Apostles.

This seems to be the area that I will need to follow for now. I have actually been to visit 2 priests both of whom stated from the outset of the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity that it was just a concept with which they were raised, so they had faith in it. Neither could provide an explanation beyond that. Imagine how an outsider perceives that answer.

While this doesn’t necessarily constitute acceptance on my part, I think that it should be the next area on which to research and pray. By far, this is the area of the Catholic argument that makes the most sense. Thank you.

 

[jmcrae]

I can see where the argument is going, and I do thank all of you for your responses. One problem arises with The Protoevangelium of James really being additional reading to the Bible. Anyone coming from the Protestant side of Christianity will not likely take the words outside of the Bible as evidence when examining Catholicism for themselves.

While the ProtoEvangelium of James is not Scripture (because there are a number of problematic passages in it) what it does indicate is where the mind of the Church was. We see that although several passages in that work are dismissed and never heard from again in serious theology, we also see that over the period of the next couple of centuries, the Church is discerning the true role of Mary in the history of salvation - defining and declaring that she is the Theotokos, and taking seriously her Perpetual Virginity - and although we know that the ProtoEvangelium of James isn’t their primary source, it’s the one thing we have in writing that shows where their thinking would have been coming from.

I’ve heard the both sides of the argument of Jesus having and not having half-siblings. After reading all that was just presented, I still do not see why Joseph and Mary would not have consummated their marriage.

Have you ever met anyone who has experienced a miracle in their lives? Even something as insignificant as having their Rosary change to gold while they are praying is enough to cause people to quit their jobs, buy a bus, and take up the life of a traveling evangelist.

If a miracle that small can have that kind of an effect on someone’s life (since the amount of gold involved would still be worth less than a month’s wages for most people, and in any case, I’ve never heard of anyone actually selling their miraculous Rosary), imagine the effect it would have on an ordinary working man like Joseph, that his wife should conceive the Son of God, and that he should have the very Creator of the Universe running around underfoot in his home, day in and day out.

 

[DElias]

If a miracle that small can have that kind of an effect on someone’s life (since the amount of gold involved would still be worth less than a month’s wages for most people, and in any case, I’ve never heard of anyone actually selling their miraculous Rosary), imagine the effect it would have on an ordinary working man like Joseph, that his wife should conceive the Son of God, and that he should have the very Creator of the Universe running around underfoot in his home, day in and day out.

We would still only be making an assumption here upon the actions of Joseph and Mary.

I will, however, research and pray in regards to the oral history of Christianity.

 

[mtcatholicmom]

We Cathlolics believe that Mary is a “virgin” because she was a young unmarried woman…who conceived by the Holy Spirit. I can’t put it any more simply than that! We say A-men (we believe).

 

[DElias]

We Cathlolics believe that Mary is a “virgin” because she was a young unmarried woman…who conceived by the Holy Spirit. I can’t put it any more simply than that! We say A-men (we believe).

But she did eventually marry. Catholics and Protestants agree on this. This becomes the source of the debate.

 

[JonNC]

=DElias;7788221]I can see where the argument is going, and I do thank all of you for your responses. One problem arises with The Protoevangelium of James really being additional reading to the Bible. Anyone coming from the Protestant side of Christianity will not likely take the words outside of the Bible as evidence when examining Catholicism for themselves.

I don’t see why not. The Lutheran confessions regularly quote the ECF’s, and other non-scriptural sources, and often to support the teachings of the confessions. What we won’t do is use them exclusively for doctrine.
There are, perhaps, two issues here. One is the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the other is the requirement of said belief. I personally believe in her perpetual virginity, as is the testimony of the historic Church, and the Lutheran confessions. But I don’t believe it to be an article of faith.

I’ve heard the both sides of the argument of Jesus having and not having half-siblings. After reading all that was just presented, I still do not see why Joseph and Mary would not have consummated their marriage. To simply say that Jesus was enough would still not explain why this would not have taken place. To say that there are areas of the Bible referencing how things start and continue does not show me such application to Mary. Also saying the proof lies in substantiating otherwise misses the idea that there still needs to be proof that she was. Again, I am quite open to explanations and am making a sincere attempt to really look at Catholic doctrine in my own journey of faith. The concept of perpetual virginity is a huge hurdle for any non-Catholic. Much of what I have been presented to me has been a very rough attempt at Boolean algebra though.

The very nature of faith implies that there may not be “proof”.
The concept of sempre virgo was not a huge step for the Lutheran reformers, nor is it for me, because of the things I’ve mentioned above. While the concept is not explicit in scripture (which is why it ought not be doctrine), it is also not in contradiction of scripture, and is supported by the historic Church. That’s good enough for me.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can see where the argument is going, and I do thank all of you for your responses. One problem arises with The Protoevangelium of James really being additional reading to the Bible. Anyone coming from the Protestant side of Christianity will not likely take the words outside of the Bible as evidence when examining Catholicism for themselves.

I see some others have addressed this somewhat and I’ve been busy with honey dos and I have a 24 hour shift starting in the morning I have to get ready for. All I want to add is, the very writings of Origen and Hilary that I offered are not scriptures, however they are writings from the earliest Christians on how they practiced the faith, including what they taught. I often see some who disqualify all writings from the early Church fathers, especially if it supports Catholic beliefs. They disqualify them for opinions much more recent in our history. Who is more qualified to tell us how the faith was practiced in the beginning, modern day thinkers or the earliest Christians? Are they less Christian because they lived so many years ago?

As I said, John wrote twice that there were many other things Christ did, that are not written in scriptures. He said, 'if they were, he doubted the world itself could hold the books. Read all the Gospels in one sitting. How long would it take, a few hours, a couple of days, or even a couple of weeks? The Gospels represent 3 years of Christ’s ministry and Christ never wrote anything or is it recorded that he ever ordered anything scribed. We see time and time again, they were commanded to ‘preach’ the Gospel. There is an oral tradition in His Church that is completely overlooked by some Protestants.

I’ve heard the both sides of the argument of Jesus having and not having half-siblings. After reading all that was just presented, I still do not see why Joseph and Mary would not have consummated their marriage. To simply say that Jesus was enough would still not explain why this would not have taken place. To say that there are areas of the Bible referencing how things start and continue does not show me such application to Mary. Also saying the proof lies in substantiating otherwise misses the idea that there still needs to be proof that she was. Again, I am quite open to explanations and am making a sincere attempt to really look at Catholic doctrine in my own journey of faith. The concept of perpetual virginity is a huge hurdle for any non-Catholic. Much of what I have been presented to me has been a very rough attempt at Boolean algebra though.

But we can believe that the ark of the first covenant could not be touched by all men, or that all men could enter the holy of holies, but the ‘ark of the second covenant’ did not have to remain as pure?

I realize the hurdle you speak of, I jumped it in 1985 when I converted to Catholicism. There are many, many Protestant denominations, with just as many doctrines/teachings. How can anyone be sure they are following correct doctrines/teachings? No one converted me, this leap of faith truly was something He lead me to do.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Since your premise is flawed (via Biblical Teachings) you will probably not get what you are looking for. None of the Catholic faith is extrapolated from the Bible. On the contrary, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT had ever been written. The NT reflects our faith, but is not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source.

That being said, I don’t think most of the Marian doctrines can be “proved” with Scripture. No effort was made by the Apostles or their disciples to do so.

Mary and Joseph accepted that she was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, so Joseph would not have had relations with her, since she belonged particularly to God.

The term “overshadow” is translated from the Gk. NT:1982

episkiazo (ep-ee-skee-ad’-zo); to cast a shade upon, i.e. (by analogy) to envelope in a haze of brilliancy; figuratively, to invest with preternatural influence

This is also the reference used when a man “cast his cloak” over a woman (espousing herself to him). See Ruth 3:9 “spread your skirt over your maidservant”.

 

[guanophore]

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.

When the angel told Mary she was to be with child, she did not respond as one might who was already betrothed for marriage and expected shortly to bear a child in the natural way. There was no reason for her to think that, if she were to bear the Messiah, He should not come by natural means.

Instead, she asks “how shall this be, since I do not know a man?” ( I don’t have relations with a man = taken a vow of celibacy).

The angel then affirms that the conception will not take place after the manner of all married couples.

 

[guanophore]

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?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[guanophore]

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?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

When the angel told Mary she was to be with child, she did not respond as one might who was already betrothed for marriage and expected shortly to bear a child in the natural way. There was no reason for her to think that, if she were to bear the Messiah, He should not come by natural means.

Instead, she asks “how shall this be, since I do not know a man?” ( I don’t have relations with a man = taken a vow of celibacy).

The angel then affirms that the conception will not take place after the manner of all married couples.

I’m the mother of three, so I have a woman’s perspective I think.

If I, while engaged, had been told that I would bear the child of Almighty God, I can assure you that not only would I be overwhelmed with the honor, I would take it extremely seriously. Even without having had the experience of raising ‘more than one’ child, I would know that being responsible for ‘two’ is harder than being responsible for ‘one.’ I would know that, having been chosen by God to bear His child, I would feel that I could not ‘split’ myself between the experience of being mother and spouse of God (not God’s ‘concubine’, not his ‘vessel’ to be used and tossed aside, but His true spouse). . .and being the ‘wife and mother’ to others. It would not feel ‘right’, regardless of whether or not I (engaged) planned already on being the wife of someone. I would tell my fiance and quite honestly, if he then said, “well, all right but once the kid comes we’re gonna just get on with our lives and have our own kids”, I’d break off the engagement. But if this were a just and faithful man (like St. Joseph), he’d not only be humbled but thrilled for me AND the baby to come, HE wouldn’t want to ‘assert the marital right’! He’d be thinking that he needed to spend all of his time and effort caring for the baby and making sure I was able to give 100% of my attention to that baby!

 

[guanophore]

We would still only be making an assumption here upon the actions of Joseph and Mary.

I will, however, research and pray in regards to the oral history of Christianity.

There is an ancient depiction of James accompanying the Holy Family during the flight to Egypt. He was thought to be the son of Joseph from a former marriage.

 

[cecilia97]

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?

One of the same men called a “brother” of Christ is later identified as a son of another Mary, the wife of Clopas. Can you explain that?

philvaz.com/apologetics/a27.htm