Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[faithfully]

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

And yet, you hear of couples into todays day and age, who go without sex for extended periods of time. Or were never able to consumate their marriage. Why so hard to believe that a HOLY couple would not be thinking about sex all the time. Why so hard to realize they might have bigger fish to fry?

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.

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.

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!

Seriously, I can’t imagine what it must be like to take care of the CHILD God. Not in a million would I risk another pregnancy. Can you imagine having morning sickness, and Jesus is running around like a child might?

We have such a habit of enforcing today’s ideals and “how it is”, on history. It makes sense that a woman with child MUST have a husband not to be ridiculed, stoned, or put out to pasture as a whore in the time of Jesus’s birth. She would need a “husband”. Her child would need a “father”.

I think more women are accepting of this… I can easily imagine a life without sex. Take it or leave it. I enjoy sex. But I don’t have to have it! Men on the other hand… Well, I just don’t know. But I ask ANYONE that thinks they had relations… Would YOU? Would you look at Mary and say she’s your wife, she owes you, or you’re entitled? Entitled to the Mother of God?

If it’s so hard, how about Mother Theresa, A women we can currently relate to. I’m willing to bet she was a virgin at death. Would you have tried to have sex with Mother Theresa? Even if you were married? Can you not comprehend the holyness? Can you not see that she’s not for MAN? Why so hard to see this with the MOTHER of GOD??? Just 'cause there was a right? Joseph was a holy man. He understood his mission. I just don’t see how he would be so sexually charged that he thought he had the right to have sex with the MOTHER of GOD! He KNEW who she was. He knew her role. Is it impossible to wrap your mind around “out of my league?” Like WAY OUT!?

I can see where a very common/secular man would try… but NOT a true holy man. Not a man that believed his wife, whom he did not have sex with, yet is pg, is the mother of God. A true holy man would hold her in honor… and would not think he was even worthy. He understands his true role of protector.

 

[ClamDigger]

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

It’s also not scriptural to teach that she did not remain a virgin her whole life. There is no passage in scripture that states that she didn’t. However, your “tradition” of Mary not being perpetually virginal is heretical and only dates to the past two-hundred years or so (and to a few heresies that were shot down by the Church), whereas our tradition that Mary is perpetually virginal comes from centuries upon centuries of Apostolic Tradition.

Let me pose you a question: Why would a young woman who is about to be married (most likely in an arranged marriage that has far more to do with financial security than with love, I might add) ask someone, who told her she was going to have a child, how said child would be conceived if she intended to live a normal married life? That doesn’t make sense. The betrothed Mary obviously intended to remain a virgin. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have asked the Angel Gabriel how she would conceive when she was going to be married in less than a year.

 

[MontChevalier]

Isaiah 7:14

14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and we will call him Immanuel.”

Case closed.

-MontChevalier

 

[ClamDigger]

Also, what I don’t get is why people seem to think that Mary and Joseph were some kind of love-struck teenage couple who fell in love and got engaged and then got married. They were not in love with each other and most likely had no say in their engagement and betrothal. At that time in Palestine, marriage was a financial matter and was arranged by the parents. It was not about love and the people who were arranged to be married a lot of times didn’t even know each other from a hill of beans. That was the reason for the betrothal period of one year, to allow the couple to meet each other and become friendly before actually being married. Mary didn’t choose to be married. She most likely hardly even had any say in it. She was forced to be by both her geographical location and her time period. At that time, an unmarried woman whose parents died was in great danger. She risked becoming a homeless beggar and starving to death on the streets because women generally couldn’t hold financially lucrative positions and definitely couldn’t inherit any sort of property at all.
Marriage was also formed (in that time and place) with the aim at developing a male heir to carry on the inheritance and family name, not necessarily at forming some loving family bond. Mary and Joseph already had a male heir in Jesus, and most Palestinians at that time only had one or two surviving children anyways, so there really would be no reason for them to even try to have other children because Mary had already fulfilled her culturally-expected role: to produce a male heir to carry on Joseph’s family name and to inherit his property.
Mary was married because it was*** practical ***for her to be married, not necessarily because she wanted to be.

 

[ANNE_2]

Everyone who has read the Bible will agree that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. With Joseph being the husband of Mary after conception.

Next we will agree that the New Testament was written after Jesus’s death and Resurrection.

We will also agree that there is no statement that Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus, or that Mary remarried and had children with another man.

The use of “brother, sister and brethren” would therefore be used as Jesus would use it.
And He did not use it to mean siblings.

These are direct quotes from Jesus -
Mt 5:22 Mt 7:3-4 Mt 12:49-50 Mt 23:8 Mk 3:35 Lk 8:21

These are statements from the Apostles, etc. - Acts 2:14 Acts 2:29
1 Cor 5:11 Eph 6:23 Phil 3:17 1 Thess 2:9 Heb 13:22-23
Jas 1:2 Jas 1:19 Jas 4:11
Peter 3:15.

Clearly the words 'brother, sister, or brethren" were not used as siblings unless the biological father was stated such as 'James the Son of Zebedee and John his brother, or ‘Simon/Peter son of John and Andrew his brother’ (Jn 1:40-43).

Acts - 1:14-16 states that Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. and the brethren numbered about 120.

 

[Zooey]

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.

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

 

[adrift]

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.

The virgin birth would you agree was extraordinary?
In the time of Mary there wasn’t such a thing as a career. If a woman were to remain unmarried, she would need some way of support. Mary asks the Angel how can she have a baby as she knows not man. I have never had a satisfactory answer to explain this question. Mary was “engaged” actually the first part of a marriage. If Joseph and she were to have a normal marriage, it was a strange question.

 

[rinnie]

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

Okay but here is the reason for that. In those days if a women was with Child and not married she would be stoned to death. Do you see what I am saying.

So she was not married in the sense of a true marriage between a Man and Wife it was because of the law.

It was told to me that Joseph was much older than Mary a widow. He had already raised his children and actually had children much older than even Mary.

Joseph knew he would not be around to raise Jesus. But the Holy Spirit came to him and told him it would be okay.

Now add that up with where was Joseph when Jesus was killed on the Cross. He had already passed because of his age. It does all add up.

And think back not much is said about Joseph in the bible. You always hear Mary Mother of Jesus not Joseph in the older years of Christ. Again it all adds up.

Joseph was a man of honor he would not marry a women and then leave her when her son was being crucified. And if Joseph was alive or Mary had other sons Jesus would not have left her to the Apostle John.

In Jewish custom the Eldest son would take care of the Mother. If Jesus had a real brother it would have been a slap in the face for that brother.

I know its difficult but you have to really dig deep into old Jewish Tradition. It takes alot of time. But if you study alot of things will add up for you.

 

[rinnie]

Everyone who has read the Bible will agree that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. With Joseph being the husband of Mary after conception.

Next we will agree that the New Testament was written after Jesus’s death and Resurrection.

We will also agree that there is no statement that Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus, or that Mary remarried and had children with another man.

The use of “brother, sister and brethren” would therefore be used as Jesus would use it.
And He did not use it to mean siblings.

These are direct quotes from Jesus -
Mt 5:22 Mt 7:3-4 Mt 12:49-50 Mt 23:8 Mk 3:35 Lk 8:21

These are statements from the Apostles, etc. - Acts 2:14 Acts 2:29
1 Cor 5:11 Eph 6:23 Phil 3:17 1 Thess 2:9 Heb 13:22-23
Jas 1:2 Jas 1:19 Jas 4:11
Peter 3:15.

Clearly the words 'brother, sister, or brethren" were not used as siblings unless the biological father was stated such as 'James the Son of Zebedee and John his brother, or ‘Simon/Peter son of John and Andrew his brother’ (Jn 1:40-43).

Acts - 1:14-16 states that Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. and the brethren numbered about 120.

You have a good point here. Why is it when Mary is talked about it is always Mary the Mother of Jesus. Why is it never said Mary the Mother of Jesus AND … It is never said.

And you are correct if brethren means that Mary gave birth she gave birth as you quoted to about 120. Even the about. If Mary had 120 there would be not about the exact number would be well known. Very good point. I missed that one.

 

[rinnie]

The virgin birth would you agree was extraordinary?
In the time of Mary there wasn’t such a thing as a career. If a woman were to remain unmarried, she would need some way of support. Mary asks the Angel how can she have a baby as she knows not man. I have never had a satisfactory answer to explain this question. Mary was “engaged” actually the first part of a marriage. If Joseph and she were to have a normal marriage, it was a strange question.

Another good point adrift if Joseph were alive he would be here to support Mary. Why was Mary left to John. Where were these brothers that people say Jesus had, and Sons that Mary had? Did they ALL leave their Mother and their Brother when he was being crucified on the Cross. See guys the protestant way is just not adding up at all. But the Sacred Tradition teachings are falling right into place.

As scripture show Mary was taken care of by all of the Apostles. She was with them until she fell asleep and was taken into heaven also.

IT all adds up.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

DElias,
When Mary’s birth was prophesied , her mother , St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother ( 1 Sam. 1:11 ) . Thus , Mary would serve the Lord in the Temple as women had for centuries ( 1 Sam. 2:22 ) . This life of continual, devoted service to the Lord in the Temple meant that Mary was vowed to a life Of perpetual virginity . When young women like Mary ( vowed to a life of virginity ) came to the age of 12 or 13 , because of ritual cleanliness issues , they were married to older men ( frequently widowers ) who would provide a home for them , But respect their religous obligation of virginity .When Mary was found to be with child , Joseph seemed to be in trouble because he would have defiled a Temple virgin , a woman sworn to a life of perpetual virginity . If this had been a normal marriage betrothal , with the expectation of a usual and customary married life , Mary’s condition would not have been as big a deal .Mary was expected to remain a virgin , even after she married Joseph , so the fact that she remained a virgin after her marriage was in keeping with her consecrated service . Mary did in fact keep her vow and performed her service by caring for the Lord in her home , as compared to the Temple .
OP ,
Protestants have a problem with Mary’s perpetual virginity in part because you have cut yourself off from two of the three sources of the faith , Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium ( you still have Sacred Scripture , but even that you have “edited” ) . For example , the Protoevangelium of James ( written @ 120AD ,not later as some have claimed here ) is one of the non-biblical sources we can reference. You do realize that this question of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is a fairly modern phenomenon . You do realize that not even your Reformers held this position . The Proto. of James was written in 120 AD, when there were still people living who had known Mary . James was writing about a very important person in the early Christian community who was actually known by some of his contemporaries . If James went off the reservation , it would have caused a kerfuffle.
Other posters,
I need your help regarding the author James , of the Protoevagelium of James . I think I read a long time ago that this James was a disciple of the Apostle John . Well ,since John was charged with caring for Mary , it would be natural for James to have acquired specific knowledge regarding Mary . Can anyone confirm or deny this and /or direct me to sources related to this question ? Thanks .

 

[ClamDigger]

I need your help regarding the author James , of the Protoevagelium of James . I think I read a long time ago that this James was a disciple of the Apostle John . Well ,since John was charged with caring for Mary , it would be natural for James to have acquired specific knowledge regarding Mary . Can anyone confirm or deny this and /or direct me to sources related to this question ? Thanks .

He is James the brother (son of Joseph, not of Mary) of Jesus, and he states that he was there with them when they were going to Bethlehem, hence the reason he knew all the details.

 

[Nelka]

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

Firstly, how do you sell an idea?

Secondly, she is a virgin.

End.

 

[rinnie]

Firstly, how do you sell an idea?

Secondly, she is a virgin.

End.

I agree, how does the Church change a teaching that came down from Tradition?

It amazes me how they think we can just change something because people don’t agree with it. This is the Catholic Church TRUTH does not change because someone does not like it, or finds it hard to accept.

This is probally the best one I heard yet, Do you think you guys will change it:banghead: When you think you heard it all!

 

[ClamDigger]

I agree, how does the Church change a teaching that came down from Tradition?

It amazes me how they think we can just change something because people don’t agree with it. This is the Catholic Church TRUTH does not change because someone does not like it, or finds it hard to accept.

This is probally the best one I heard yet, Do you think you guys will change it:banghead: When you think you heard it all!

Honestly, I don’t get what’s some people dislike or find hard to accept concerning this doctrine from a Christian perspective. I remember that I was absolutely shocked when I actually first heard anyone speak against it when I was around twelve or thirteen. I had never really thought of it even being a question that she was perpetually virginal until that time because I had never heard anyone question it. I mean, she’s the VIRGIN Mary! I just couldn’t understand how a “Christian” could question her purity. It made no sense to me then and it still makes no sense to me now…

 

[GTNJNightingale]

WHAT IN THE HECK does it matter if mary was a virgin her “WHOLE” life any way we dont call her the virgin mary based on wether or weather not she remained a virgin her whole life. we call her the virgin mary because she BORE A SON…our lord for that matter in HER VIRGINITY!!! Meaning she was a virgin when our lord was concieved in her womb.!!! THATS WHAT THE title or name VIRGIN MARY refers to! Weather she was a virgin after that or not really doesnt even matter. She still conieved a son out of her virgininty!!!
Lets not forget she was married to joseph blessed by god !!! If she wanted to have relations with that man she could do so and not be commiting a sin!!! Why does everyone care so much about the fact of did she have sex after or did she not have sex after…blah blah blah. It really isnt that important and thats why the bible doesnt make it real clear!!! It is none of our buisness if she had sex with her husband or not!!! What is important is that she was free from sin , had not known a man …(been a virgin) and carried our lord in her womb… That is what is important…hence the virgin mary!!! Can any of you do that! No i dont think so…TO FIDDLE OVER THESE LITTLE THING ARE SO PETTY AND FRANKLY DISRESPECTFULL! YOU DONT GO AROUND ASKING EVERYONE…DO YOU HAVE SEX WITH YOUR HUSBAND!!! BECAUSE IT ISNT OUR BUISNESS!!!

 

[GTNJNightingale]

I agree, how does the Church change a teaching that came down from Tradition?

It amazes me how they think we can just change something because people don’t agree with it. This is the Catholic Church TRUTH does not change because someone does not like it, or finds it hard to accept.

This is probally the best one I heard yet, Do you think you guys will change it:banghead: When you think you heard it all!

HELLO IT IS SCRIPTURE THAT MARY IS A VIRGIN…YOU DONT NEED TO BE EXTERAMLY FAMILIAR WITH SCRIPTURE TO KNOW THAT …IF YOU CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT … if you have ever heard the story of Jesus and his birth and his conception you should know that it is IN FACT SCRIPTURE THAT MARY WAS A VIRGIN!!! HERE ARE SOME trusty lil scripture verses for you

Mary’s virginity before the birth of Jesus is well attested to in Sacred Scripture. The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 states: “Behold a virgin shall conceive…a Son.” Likewise in the Gospel of St. Luke, the Angel Gabriel was sent by God “to a virgin…and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Lk 1:27). In the dialogue between the Angel Gabriel and Mary we have a further confirmation of Mary’s virginity before the birth of Jesus. Gabriel announces: “You will conceive in your womb and bear a Son” (Lk 1:31). Mary responds: “How will this be since I know not man?” (Lk 1:34). To “know” in this scriptural context is a reference to sexual intercourse. The Angel Gabriel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Lk 1:35).

“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.”

if thats not enough !!! then i sugest you get familliar with the bible

 

[DElias]

The primary question that was debated in the thread was Mary’s perpetual virginity. Protestants with limited contact to Catholicism, such as myself, wanted to better understand the argument for this. A number of people kindly replied giving me and others answers such as information on the oral history of the Catholic church. I don’t think that there were any doubts regarding Mary’s virginity at the conception and birth of Jesus.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Yes, but being that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, just like the Ark of the Old Covenant… only the high priest could touch the ark!

Joseph never “knew her” and no other offspring came from her womb.

 

[veilofveronica]

Hi there,
With respect to Jesus’s “Brothers”. I’ve heard that argument a few times, and it confused me, too. In Jesus’ time, people lived in large family groups. It wasn’t the nuclear family that there is today (and is often fading today!) with mom, dad, and the 2.5 kids. It was usually the mother and father, cousins, uncles, aunts, extended family, what have you. There’s also no word in ancient Hebrew for “cousin”, so all become brothers or sisters when directly translated. So Jesus’ “brothers” may well have been extended family. He also called many of his brethren brothers and sisters, and they weren’t necessarily blood related.

Another theory I read is that we must remember that Joseph was much older than Mary when they were betrothed and married. There are some Biblical scholars that suggest that (and the Church has not confirmed this, I’m not saying that this is “truth”, just an idea) Joseph may have had a spouse before Mary that may have passed away, and that he had other children from this prior marriage, therefore Jesus may have had stepbrothers and sisters. Or, it could have been his cousins living with him. We really don’t know.

The Catholic Church maintains that Mary was born preserved from original sin to become the “New Eve”, and that she did not have relations before or after Jesus, therefore she remained a perpetual Virgin.

I suggest you look at these sources here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=102

God Bless.