Why does Mary's Perpetual Virginity Matter?

[FCEGM]

seriously though, with regards to mary’s reply to the angel, “how shall this be since I know not a man.” she simply means she has’nt current carnal knowledge of a man. not only that there does’nt seem to be much sense in treating her as mysteriously connect to God as husband if God instructed her earthly husband to take her as wife. . . …

And how would she and her Child be protected within their culture if not by marriage to an upright man?

Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before the birth of her Son. Why not? There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if he was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before?

It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus. Because he refused to do this he was saying in essence that he did not accept Jesus as his biological son though he would accept him as his legal son. By refusing to consummate his marriage with Mary he was in conformity with the Jewish Law. By not having intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he is acknowledging in principle that he was also forbidden to have intercourse with her thereafter. A woman found to be with child that is not her husband’s is forbidden forever more to him and to the man who impregnated her. (In fact, a woman caught in adultery is likewise penalized.) Under Jewish, because Mary was found to be with child before she had consummated her marriage to Joseph she was forever forbidden to him. He could keep her as his wife but he was not allowed intimate relations with her. Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been stoned to death under the Law. Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he would have been stoned to death also.

The Perpetual Virginity of the Holy Virgin is in no way an implication that sex and marriage are anything less than what God designed them to be. Contrary to the usual either-or thinking found in Protestantism, Catholicism has always said that it’s both/and, and this is seen in the Church’s teaching re the Virgin Mary.

In her person she mirrors the two truths of the sacredness of marriage and the goodness of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom. And St. Joseph, too, was part of this equation. He with Mary reflects these truths. The self-sacrifice of rightful joys for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God - especially with God’s own Son in their midst! - is a theme found in both Testaments.

cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

 

[VociMike]

why didnt she say how shall this b since I’ll never know a man?
is it possible that in the encounter with angel the conception was understood to be imediately impending but that the consumation of her marriage was a long way off in the future.

You’re just postulating something that isn’t in the text. I don’t think you’re allowed to do that by your own rules.

Once again, if you go up to an engaged woman and say “you will conceive a child” the last thing she is going to say is “how can this be, for I have no husband?”

 

[palmas85]

hey, a protestant here. I ve been reading up on catholocism lately. I hav’nt seen anything that makes me want to convert yet. there’s been some good and some that I cant force to make sense. this question matters to me because it’s a point of challenge to the teaching accuracy and therefore authority of he catholic church. I think I can probably weigh in on the perpetual virginity of Mary. In Romans 7 the apostle paul forbids spousal neglect in the area of conjugal duty. in other words for mary to obstain indefinately from sex with joseph, would in the paul’s mind be a matter of neglect and infidelity and be a setup for temptation. not only that, it would be a direct disobedience of joseph to the angel who told him to take mary as his wife. as I understand it, in the pentetuchal culture of the day this would have meant nothing less than the breaking of the hymen through sex in a ritual wedding with both the families as whitnesses of the obvious sign on the bedclothes–Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to fulfil this command. of course, by then the sign of first-time sex would have been removed through the birthing process. in light of catholic teaching on the importance of sex and procreation in the definition of marriage and the theological significance of marriage, I don’t understand how the catholic church would believe mary obstained from sex without record of direct testimony to the effect from people who knew her–especially since marriage is holy and sex in marriage is holy in the sight of God. Her abstenence within marriage would seem to point to sin rather than otherwise. God is not her husband. the conception of Christ was not sexual. it would seem her fidelity to God would be demonstrated in part by a proper relationship with the human husband God provided her.

however, In unenlightened human thinking, virginity helps to elevate her to a place of authority as mother over God the Son and ultimately unites her with Christ as a comparable authority over the church. her perpetual virginity contributes to a popular conception of her as near but not quite deity. it puts her above sainthood. for an insider’s way of putting it, I recomend checking the catachism of the catholic church.

hopefully there’s a good rebuttle coming because I’m tired of having conversations with catholics who can’t reasonably expain or defend catholic dogma.

Many of the oldest traditions indicate that Joseph was an older man, more than likely a widower with grown children. With that in mind it would seem possible maybe even probable that he never engaged in sexual relations with Mary at all. Whether or not that is the case I doubt we will ever know. I have always felt that possibly the brothers of Jesus spoken of were in fact the grown children of Joseph. An extended family as it were.

Of course some early stories also spoke of Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus who was not divine but fully human. And there are the stories that Mary was not a Virgin at all and that Christ was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier.

Many people early in the churches history tried to either explain what happened or denigrate what happened. At this point in history we will probably never know with full certainty as to all the whys and wherefores of Jesus family and early life…

However, I believe that the perpetual virginity of Mary was indeed a fact and I really don’t need scriptural references to prove it. I know that many sola scriptura types do require such proof, but I don’t. The Church says it was so, and I accept that.

Just call me ignorant and ill informed I guess.

 

[frnate]

Ok folks, this has come up several times recently, and I don’t have a good comeback. It’s not just Protestants, either, it’s Joe Blow in the pew. And they don’t care that it’s a dogma.

I know all the arguments about Mary being perpetually virgin, but don’t know what to say when someone comments that it doesn’t matter if she had other children or not.

Please, help me defend my Mother!

For us it is a “matter” of fact

If it does not matter to them if our Mother had other children or not then any fuss they kick up about the issue is merely a cowardly last ditch effort to attack an opponent by attacking that opponent’s Mother. (Which, in this case, is also the attacker’s Mother tho they may deny her.)

Peace,
+N

 

[BlestOne]

seriously though, with regards to mary’s reply to the angel, “how shall this be since I know not a man.” she simply means she has’nt current carnal knowledge of a man. not only that there does’nt seem to be much sense in treating her as mysteriously connect to God as husband if God instructed her earthly husband to take her as wife. the incarnation was not a sexual union of God and woman. it was a unique work in the womb of a woman. God maintains his seperation as creator. by the way, the properties of sane reason apply to theology. contradictions are contradictions regardless of spiritual or natural context.

How does this make sense? Remember that she was betrothed to Joseph at this time. If this is what she meant, surely she would know that she would be married soon. No… I think we have to look at historical context here. At that time, as there is now, there were consecrated virgins. And yes some did get married to men, especially older men so that they would be taken care of. It is extremely likely she really did mean… how is this possible, I have taken a vow and I will remain a virgin…And yes, historically, Joseph being a good Jewish man would understand the significance of not touching that which was reserved for God. Also… a devout Jewish man of that time would not have touched a woman that had been with another man. So even if he thought that she had conceived normally (as he probably thought at first) he would never have touched her after that time. A divorce would be his option but if the reason was that she conceived not by him, she would have been stoned to death… he did not wish to see her die, that is why he was going to choose to leave quietly… until God sent him a message to marry her.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Catholic here. I just have to say that my arguments have no power to convert you or enlighten you in any way. But, I thought I would respond anyway.

In Romans 7 the apostle paul forbids spousal neglect in the area of conjugal duty. in other words for mary to obstain indefinately from sex with joseph, would in the paul’s mind be a matter of neglect and infidelity and be a setup for temptation.

That’s a fair statement to make.

not only that, it would be a direct disobedience of joseph to the angel who told him to take mary as his wife. as I understand it, in the pentetuchal culture of the day…

This is where your reasoning falls apart. You assume that Joseph and Mary were the normal Jewish couple. Furthermore, you forget that Joseph pitied Mary’s situation and did not wish to have her stoned, which the law called for. He pitied her and wished to have the matter settled quietly before the Lord appeared to him in a dream. (See Matthew, Chapter 1)

Can you assume then that if Joseph *in his righteousness (Matthew 1:19) *decided not to follow the law and divorce her quietly (presumedly to preserve her from shame) that he would care to show a stain on his bedsheets? Furthermore, Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. It’s unclear how long they stayed in Bethlehem, but there would be no need to show bedsheets if his wife gave birth to a child.

I don’t understand how the catholic church would believe mary obstained from sex without record of direct testimony to the effect from people who knew her–especially since marriage is holy and sex in marriage is holy in the sight of God.

Because the Catholic Church gets its information from more than just the Bible. The Bible was a book written within the context of history. Other sources, such as writings of early Church fathers testify to this. The early Church fathers would certainly have known if James (or anyone else) was really a brother of Jesus.

Her abstenence within marriage would seem to point to sin rather than otherwise.

It would seem to us in the 21st century. But look at the link above for what those in the 4th century thought.

however, In unenlightened human thinking, virginity helps to elevate her to a place of authority as mother over God the Son and ultimately unites her with Christ as a comparable authority over the church.

I would be careful what you call unenlightened human thinking! Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 19 when his disciples asked him if it is better for a man and woman not to marry:

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

The word eunuch is more than just a snipped male, and I think that Jesus was not saying that men have snipped themselves. Could not Joseph then have “made himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?” Afterall since Joseph (and maybe even Mary) was of the house of David, it is fair to say that if a second son was born of Joseph and Mary, the second son would have a higher claim to the throne because he would have been an heir from both his mother’s side and his father’s side.

When you get a moment, look at the definition of the word eunuch and pay attention to the word history:

The word eunuch does not derive, as one might think, from the operation that produced a eunuch but rather from one of his functions. Eunuch goes back to the Greek word eunoukhos, “a castrated person employed to take charge of the women of a harem and act as chamberlain.” The Greek word is derived from eunhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/emacr.gif, “bed,” and ekhein, “to keep.” A eunuch, of course, was ideally suited to guard the bedchamber of women.

hopefully there’s a good rebuttle coming because I’m tired of having conversations with catholics who can’t reasonably expain or defend catholic dogma.

I hope I reasonably explained it. You must really want to be a Catholic if you are so eager to learn!

 

[DVina]

to the properties of sane reason apply to theology. contradictions are contradictions regardless of spiritual or natural context.

This sounds to me like you don’t believe in miracles. Many things we take on faith, like the Incarnation, transubstantiation, the Resurrection and descent of the Spirit go against “sane reason”. On Pentecost the Apostles were even accused of insanity.

Thanks everyone for your comments. I do suggest anyone who has not read at least excerpts from the Protevangelium do so. You may gain new insight into Mary’s life.

On digyboatman’s comment I also want to comment on the nature of the virgin birth, that it was miraculous also, NOT a natural birth, allowing Mary to maintain her physical virginity. I once heard Fr. Groeschel liken the way Jesus emerged from the womb to how he emerged from the tomb. Being sinless, Mary was not subject to the pain of childbirth.

 

[YADA]

Dingyboatman,

I think you read scripture from our “overly sexed” world of today [and even today people live lives of celebacy within and without the married state]

In the Hebrew texts we have an accounting of how both an unmarried and a married woman can dedicate themselves to a life of celibacy and service to God…If that practice was unheard of in Jewish thought, religion social practice why does it occur in the Sacred Writings?

From Numbers Chapter 30:

Moses then gave the Israelites these instructions, just as the LORD had ordered him. 2 Moses said to the heads of the Israelite tribes, "This is what the LORD has commanded:

1 When a** man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered.**
4 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, 5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. 6 But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the LORD releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval. 7 "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, 8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. 9 But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it. 10 **The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, or any pledge to which such a woman binds herself, is valid. **11 2 "If it is in her husband’s house that she makes a vow or binds herself under oath to a pledge, 12 and her husband learns of it yet says nothing to express to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. 13 But if on the day he learns of them her husband annuls them, then whatever she has expressly promised in her vow or in her pledge becomes null and void; since her husband has annulled them, the LORD releases her from them. 14 “Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to mortify herself, her husband can either allow to remain valid or render null and void. 15 But if her husband, day after day, says nothing at all to her about them, he thereby allows as valid any vow or any pledge she has made; he has allowed them to remain valid, because on the day he learned of them he said nothing to her about them. 16 3 If, however, he countermands them some time after he first learned of them, he is responsible for her guilt.” 17 These are the statutes which the LORD prescribed through Moses concerning the relationship between a husband and his wife, as well as between a father and his daughter while she is still a maiden in her father’s house.

Basically, if a woman was unmarried and therefore living under her father’s roof, she could dedicate herself to the Lord, if her father did not immediately oppose her decision then he was bound to honor her wishes. If he forced the daughter to dishonor her vow, the sin became the fathers.

Similarly; if a married woman made a vow unto the Lord and her husband sis not immediately oppose the decision, the husband had to honor the vow. If he forced his wife to break the vow the sin was his…

Men were also able to consecrate themselves in the service of God.

Consecrated Virgins could be married and as women needed households and protection, they were sometimes married with that understanding…

So in Jewish tradition, the practice of consecrated virgins was allowed and provided for [even if married] and St Paul would not have seen Mary’s refusal to have sexual relations a wrong of any kind. Joseph would not have expected any.

 

[Mannyfit75]

why didnt she say how shall this b since I’ll never know a man?

Let us compare this passage and the passage in Genesis.

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? Luke 1:34

5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them: Genesis 19:5

Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: 7 Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. 8 I have two daughters who as yet have not known man. Genesis 1:6-8

In Jewish culture of the time, to know means to imply sexual contact. Mary know how babies are made. When she ask the Angel, How shall this be done, because I know not man? She have made a consecration to the Lord not to have sex. The Angel responded that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her, and she will conceived a bear a son.

Overshadowing is use so many times in the OT especially when it deals with the Ark.

In the same way, Exodus 40:34,35 speaks of the holy cloud as overshadowing the place of the Ark, encompassing it, and filling it with the Divine presence so that the glory of the Lord becomes manifest.

Again consider the parallels in OT and NT

**Luke 1:3 (Mary arose and went into the hill country toa cityof Judah)

2 Samuel 6:9 (how can the Ark of the Lord come to me!)

Luke1:43 (and why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?)

2 Samuel 6:11 (The Ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom three months.)

Luke 1:56 Mary remained with her (Elizabeth) about three months**

Coincidence? I don’t think so. I think the Gospel writer Luke is well aware on the connection here between the Ark of the Old Covenant and the New Ark of the Covenant. Luke himself know that Jesus is God, and that Mary is his Mother. The parallel between the Ark, and Mary is very similiar. The Jews in the OT honor and venerate it, likewise, the majority of Christians venerate Mary.

The purity of the Ark is very sacred because the Ark contains God’s own words. Mary on the other hand carried Jesus the Word made flesh. She carried in her something greater than the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus Christ my friend is the New Covenant.

 

[brianwalden]

Why does Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Matter?
Because it’s the truth and the Church is in the business of teaching the truth to all people.

I like to think of it from the mindset of Mary and Joseph. Mary was visited by Gabriel directly and Joseph received messages from angels in his dreams. They both knew what was going on even if they weren’t able to fully comprehend the mystery at that time. I think they would have made the connection between the ark of the covenant and Mary. Mary is the living tabernacle who brings the Word of God to the world. Being devout Jews whose faith was centered around the Temple in Jerusalem, they would have seen this relationship. It would have been obvious to them that they had a special role to play and that they weren’t in a normal marriage.

 

[guanophore]

this question matters to me because it’s a point of challenge to the tehing accuracy and therefore authority of he catholic church.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I think that the problems people have with the Marian doctrines are really problems with the teaching authority of the Church. I thank CAF, and these threads, for bringing me to this understanding.

in light of catholic teaching on the importance of sex and procreation in the definition of marriage and the theological significance of marriage, I don’t understand how the catholic church would believe mary obstained from sex without record of direct testimony to the effect from people who knew her–especially since marriage is holy and sex in marriage is holy in the sight of God. Her abstenence within marriage would seem to point to sin rather than otherwise. God is not her husband. the conception of Christ was not sexual. it would seem her fidelity to God would be demonstrated in part by a proper relationship with the human husband God provided her.

her perpetual virginity contributes to a popular conception of her as near but not quite deity. it puts her above sainthood. for an insider’s way of putting it, I recomend checking the catachism of the catholic church.

This is why Mary is called “Our Life, Our Sweetness, and our Hope”. She has inherited, as one of Christ’s firstfruits, the promises He has made for all of us. Jesus wants all of us to die, and have our lives hidden in Him. He became human so that we can partake of His divinity.

hopefully there’s a good rebuttle coming because I’m tired of having conversations with catholics who can’t reasonably expain or defend catholic dogma.

Well, I am new to this thread, but I can say that the Marian doctrines are not very well “reasonably” explained. They are all based on faith, and on what we believe about Christ.

 

[guanophore]

why didnt she say how shall this b since I’ll never know a man?
is it possible that in the encounter with angel the conception was understood to be imediately impending but that the consumation of her marriage was a long way off in the future. how is it possible that joseph could take her as fully wife without knowing her if the definition of marriage includes sexual union in genesis. it seems like explaining the sensability (defending) of the doctrine of her perpetual virginity in the context of scripture requires hermeneutical gymnastics while the alternative is plain as day.
1pet 3:15

Plain as day it may seem, but if it departs from the truth that we have received from the Apostles, then we reject it. Rejecting the teachings about Mary is really more about rejecting the authority appointed by Christ, th,e Apostles, whom he sent forth saying “he who hears you, hears me,” He who rejects you rejects me, and Him who sent Me." The concern here is rejection of the divine revelation.

 

[MilesJesu]

dingyboatman,

It is a good sign that you are willing to read about Catholicism. My hope is that in the future, your efforts will be more fruitful and rewarding. In an effort to at least address your question on this forum, please allow me to offer a humble attempt on addressing your concerns.

Your specific question regarding Romans 7, you state that:
“the apostle paul forbids spousal neglect in the area of conjugal duty. in other words for mary to obstain indefinately from sex with joseph, would in the paul’s mind be a matter of neglect and infidelity and be a setup for temptation. not only that, it would be a direct disobedience of joseph to the angel who told him to take mary as his wife.”
I believe Romans 7 refers to spousal chasity/fidelity and not “conjugal duty.”

ASV: "Rom 7:2 For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. 3 So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.

HCSB: “Rom 7:2 For example, a married woman is legally bound to her husband while he lives. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law regarding the husband. 3 So then, if she gives herself to another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law. Then, if she gives herself to another man, she is not an adulteress.”

I believe you are referring to 1 Cor 7 instead. In this passage, Paul states:

HCSB:

1Co 7:2-5 "But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. 3 “A husband **should **fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. 4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another–except when you agree, for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

The context of conjugal duty is related to self-control. Although this is a very valid point, it needs to be understood in the broader context of the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is not to obtain “conjugal rights.” But rather for a couple to be fruitful and to bond together and resemble the image of Christ and the Church (Eph 5). Recall Genesis when woman is made to be a “helper”. A helper for what? It is not primarily for “conjugal rights” but rather for helping man achieve his end and vice versa. Our end is to be united to Christ and the Holy Trinity.

It is primarily in this light that marriage needs to be understood in order to unpack the significance of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. For instance, one of the early posters referenced Num 30:6-7 :"Num 30:6 “If a woman marries while her vows or the rash commitment she herself made are binding, 7 and her husband hears about it and says nothing to her when he finds out, her vows are binding, and the obligations she put herself under are binding.”

Vows of celibacy are not unheard of in the context of the OT nor the NT. In the same discussion of “conjugal rights”, Paul goes on to say: “1Co 7:29 And I say this, brothers: the time is limited, so from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none,” Why? So they can focus on the things of the Lord.

You also stated:
"Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to fulfil this command…especially since marriage is holy and sex in marriage is holy in the sight of God. Her abstenence within marriage would seem to point to sin rather than otherwise. God is not her husband. the conception of Christ was not sexual. it would seem her fidelity to God would be demonstrated in part by a proper relationship with the human husband God provided her."**Why did Joseph wait **until after Jesus was born? Did he not take Mary to be his wife **before **the birth of Christ? How you answer this question will shed some light on your position that might allow me to better answer your concerns as we proceed to your remaining questions.

Peace,

MilesJesu