Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary an essential teaching?

[Catholic20064]

I am a recent convert to Catholicism. My wife is an ex-Catholic. Recently, she has asked me questions about the perpetual virginity of Mary. She believes Mary was a virgin up until the birth of Mary, but doesn’t see any reason to believe she remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. The scriptural evidence on this seems thin and Catholic Answers appeals to the Protoevangelium of James as evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Is there any earlier evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity? Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary an essential teaching of the Catholic faith which must be believed in order to be saved? How would it change faith if we learned that Mary’s virginity ended after the birth of Jesus?

 

[jpjd]

The perpetual virginity of Mary underscores her unique role.

The virgin birth shows Mary’s complete obedience to God with her fiat (“let it be done to me according to your word”); and her perpetual virginity shows her complete consecration to God.

We could go off-topic and discuss how references in the New Testament to Jesus’ “brothers” is a translation issue. The “brothers” referred to the NT were actually likely Jesus’ kinfolk (cousins) or even “brothers in the faith”. I can give you passages in the NT that refer to 125 and 500 “brothers”-- surely no mother ever had that many sons. The fact remains that nowhere in the Bible does it state that anyone other than Jesus was the son of Mary.

 

[FCEGM]

I am a recent convert to Catholicism. My wife is an ex-Catholic. Recently, she has asked me questions about the perpetual virginity of Mary. She believes Mary was a virgin up until the birth of Mary, but doesn’t see any reason to believe she remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. The scriptural evidence on this seems thin and Catholic Answers appeals to the Protoevangelium of James as evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Is there any earlier evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity? Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary an essential teaching of the Catholic faith which must be believed in order to be saved? How would it change faith if we learned that Mary’s virginity ended after the birth of Jesus?

Briefly, God is free to do anything in whatever manner He chooses, but the way He does things is always perfect and most fitting for what is to be accomplished. Thus, e.g., with the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary it was most fitting that His Son be conceived and born to a woman preserved from Original Sin. And thus it was fitting that the Mother of God be a virgin inviolate throughout her life. This fittingness was recognized quickly by the Fathers who so readily see her as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. For a fuller presentation on this which will help you see the depth of theology regarding the Blessed Virgin and her prerogatives, I highly recommend Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life, TAN Books.

Further, one cannot isolate the Incarnation of Christ from other factors (i.e., His being born a Jew; His being born of a particular woman; that particular woman being a virgin before His birth and remaining a virgin after; that particular woman remaining virginal in the midst of a marriage). Marital intimacy is certainly not a desecration of any woman, nor is birth a desecration of any woman’s womb, but it would be a desecration to impregnate in the ordinary way for ordinary purposes a womb consecrated to God. Especially in Mary’s case God Himself consecrates her womb (as opposed to a human man consecrating a virgin to God). So the desecration violating what is holy would be unjust to God’s honor, to say the least. Contemplating the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reveals not so much her prerogatives and her glorious role in Salvation History, but more reveals Who it is Who was born to such a mother.

“Mary Most Holy is thus the “ever virgin.” Her prerogative is the consequence of her divine motherhood which totally consecrated her to Christ’s mission of redemption.” (From a catechesis of Pope John Paul II on the Blessed Virgin Mary given August 28, 1996.)

An article of interest:

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

 

[Evan]

I would not call it an essential teaching. I would call it a revealed truth. The essential teachings are those that are required for salvation.

God could have become man without a mother.
Or… from a loose woman
Or… from the greatest sinner

But he chose to be born of a virgin. It was not essential, it was fitting.

 

[Catholic20064]

I would not call it an essential teaching. I would call it a revealed truth. The essential teachings are those that are required for salvation.

God could have become man without a mother.
Or… from a loose woman
Or… from the greatest sinner

But he chose to be born of a virgin. It was not essential, it was fitting.

I was told when I was baptized that I had to believe all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be saved. I guess I assumed at the time that if I denied the perpetual virginity of Mary I would be damned.

 

[FK04US]

I was told when I was baptized that I** had to believe all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be saved**. I guess I assumed at the time that if I denied the perpetual virginity of Mary I would be damned.

You have to believe all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be a member of the Catholic Church, but not to be saved necesarily. That is God business. We do not earn our salvation by accepting teachings. Salvation is given by God, through his grace we are saved. The Church allows us to live more gracefully and get closer to God. That is my understanding of our faith.

 

[JimG]

All the Marian teachings are mainly about the identity of Jesus.

Mary gave birth to only one Person, and the Person she bore was the second Person of the Trinity, God himself.

Apologists spend a lot of time explaining Mary’s title as Mother of God.

If Mary had other biological children, we would have to be explaining as well about the Brothers of God.

 

[Sr_Lorraine]

It’s helpful to think of this question also from the perspective of Mary’s own vocation.
God called her to the most unique vocation any woman has ever received–to be the Mother of God in a virginal way. Luke tells us–not once, but twice–that Mary “reflected on these things in her heart.” Totally united to God, fully grace, free from all sin, Mary was totally available and corresponded fully to her vocation.
She must have understood that by giving her the vocation to be Jesus’ mother, that was enough for her. She was totally consecrated to God in this most special way. Fully attuned to grace, she realized that God was calling her to virginity for her whole life. That is not to denigrate married love in any way, but simply because of her unique vocation. Mary united in herself the two vocations, to marriage and to virginity.
There is a mystery about this and after reflecting on it a lot, I think we’ll never fully understand it. But for Mary to have had other children after Jesus would, in a certain way, havae gone against her vocation to be the virginal Mother of God.

 

[Evan]

I was told when I was baptized that I had to believe all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be saved. I guess I assumed at the time that if I denied the perpetual virginity of Mary I would be damned.

One can doubt (ie not have complete understanding) the teachings of the church, but one cannot deny them and be Catholic.

That doubt is what leads to the profession of Theologian. For example: I can doubt the clear reading of creation found in Genesis. But in reflection of this creation account over the years, the Church, informed by the reflections of theologians, has found parts of the account are not open to denial: That all mankind decended from a single man and woman.

To deny this is to deny the authority of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth.
I can still doubt it’s truth, but I cannot deny it, nor teach my doubt.

A 1000 doubts do not add up to 1 denial. When you doubt, you recognize the limits of your understanding and admit the Church is correct but you have not yet fathomed the fullness of it’s teaching.

Augustine said he would not accept the bible except that the Church says it is inerrant. The contradictions would lead to doubt, but, with the Church teaching that it is inerrant, one must accept that, in some way, every part, every word is true. I still do not understand how it can all be true, but I know it is via faith, not via intellegence or study.

 

[nohamaria]

Briefly, God is free to do anything in whatever manner He chooses, but the way He does things is always perfect and most fitting for what is to be accomplished. Thus, e.g., with the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary it was most fitting that His Son be conceived and born to a woman preserved from Original Sin. And thus it was fitting that the Mother of God be a virgin inviolate throughout her life. This fittingness was recognized quickly by the Fathers who so readily see her as the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. For a fuller presentation on this which will help you see the depth of theology regarding the Blessed Virgin and her prerogatives, I highly recommend Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life, TAN Books.

Further, one cannot isolate the Incarnation of Christ from other factors (i.e., His being born a Jew; His being born of a particular woman; that particular woman being a virgin before His birth and remaining a virgin after; that particular woman remaining virginal in the midst of a marriage). Marital intimacy is certainly not a desecration of any woman, nor is birth a desecration of any woman’s womb, but it would be a desecration to impregnate in the ordinary way for ordinary purposes a womb consecrated to God. Especially in Mary’s case God Himself consecrates her womb (as opposed to a human man consecrating a virgin to God). So the desecration violating what is holy would be unjust to God’s honor, to say the least. Contemplating the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reveals not so much her prerogatives and her glorious role in Salvation History, but more reveals Who it is Who was born to such a mother.

“Mary Most Holy is thus the “ever virgin.” Her prerogative is the consequence of her divine motherhood which totally consecrated her to Christ’s mission of redemption.” (From a catechesis of Pope John Paul II on the Blessed Virgin Mary given August 28, 1996.)

An article of interest:

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

It is the most convincing and true teaching about
The Virgin Mary. God bless you for the clarification.

However , I feel that God’s Good Intention is to lead us
to spiritual life which is Eternal . Thus , for this reason,
The conception of Mother Mary, Her permanent virginity,
and the incarnation, the Life , teaching, and role of salvation of
the Christ, are totally accomplished by The intercession and
influence of The Holy Spirit.
Our bodies are dust and to dust they return,
but our souls are eternal.

Peace and Good

Nohamaria

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I recommend Mark Shea’s Mary, Mother of the Son- you can see it advertised in the banners at the top or bottom of the forum. The meanings of the Marian dogmas are explored in the second volume.

 

[rocketrob]

Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary an essential teaching of the Catholic faith which must be believed in order to be saved?

There are a couple of ideas expressed in this statement that are not exactly correct:

1.) As a former protestant, I used to wrestle with the idea of why Mary HAD to remain ever virgin. This is not the correct way to approach this question. The correct way to look at this issue is that Catholic teaching simply affirms the fact that she DID remain ever virgin. As Alan Schreck states in his book Catholic & Christian, “…the belief that Mary was ever-virgin is very ancient…Even the protestant reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin and Huldreich Zwingli affirmed their belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”

2.) While Marian teachings are important, they are NOT essential to salvation. From Schreck’s book: “…Catholics believe that there is a ‘hierarchy’ or order of Christian truths. In other words, not all Christian truths are equally central to the basic gospel message…The principle of the ‘hierarchy’ of truths points out two extremes that must be avoided in Christian teaching about Mary. On the one hand, Marian doctrines must not be presented as equal in importance to the fundamental Christian truths about the nature of God and redemption…On the other hand, Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation must not be ignored nor neglected.”

rocketrob

 

[Crumpy]

I have the chance to comment on this question, which comes up from time to time.

Matthew’s gospel, for example, quotes Isaiah that “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” (a slight paraphrase of Mt 1:23).

Jewish commentators object that the meaning of Isaiah is that a “young woman” is implied, rather than a virgin. So that kicked around a lot.

But the larger quotation from Isaiah is actually this:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. (NAB)

Therefore, I put the emphasis on the first clause, in answering the question in this thread, that Mary’s virginity is a SIGN. This says that a virgin shall conceive (which is not difficult to imagine) AND BEAR a son (which is unusual for a virgin to bear a son - why would she still be a virgin? – because as it says, it is a sign from God).

(From my experience in reading Jewish commentaries, I think the ancient Rabbis and modern scholars would look around the Middle East, for myths that involve virgin births, for example. This has been done, and there are other notable claims for virgin births. This genre of writing, to me, is simply a way of saying this would be an important and notable birth.)

This is a sign that is not simply pointing to Mary, it is a sign pointing to Jesus.

(Now, why did Isaiah write that, in the first place. I haven’t studied very closely myself. If this did not pertain to Mary, then what other woman and child did it refer to, and was the prophecy fulfilled in some other birth? was there ever another son who was named Emmanuel? Evidently it was not a problem to the person who wrote the gospel of Matthew and was not a problem to his listeners).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Evan:

A 1000 doubts do not add up to 1 denial. When you doubt, you recognize the limits of your understanding and admit the Church is correct but you have not yet fathomed the fullness of it’s teaching.

I always liked John Henry Newman’s way of saying it; A thousand difficulties do not add up to 1 doubt. But the explanation is no different from yours. Difficulties that can not be explained sufficiently, are not impediments to our Faith, just difficulties. A doubt is more serious. There is no Faith, and the intellect requires some sort of proof before it will proceed.

 

[FCEGM]

It is the most convincing and true teaching about
The Virgin Mary. God bless you for the clarification.

Thank you, nohamaria.

However , I feel that God’s Good Intention is to lead us
to spiritual life which is Eternal . Thus , for this reason,
The conception of Mother Mary, Her permanent virginity,
and the incarnation, the Life , teaching, and role of salvation of
the Christ, are totally accomplished by The intercession and
influence of The Holy Spirit.
Our bodies are dust and to dust they return,
but our souls are eternal.

We have to keep in mind, though, that we are not beings only of spirit, but also of body, and that our bodies are good and will be raised to participate with our souls (we pray!) in the glory of Heaven following the pattern of Our Lord’s Resurrection and Ascencion.

 

[Cranch]

I have never heard much discussion of how Mary must have felt after becoming pregnant and giving birth to Jesus (perhaps this is touched on in some of the books mentioned in this thread). She was of course profoundly aware of the miracle worked by God through her. After she experienced that, I do not find it hard to visualize her consecrating herself and her virginity to God in the same holy manner as countless pious nuns have done since without the benefit of Our Lady’s miraculous experience.

 

[Robbinson]

There are many reasons (as well articulated in the earlier responses) why it might be “fitting” for Mary to have remained a virgin, but that certainly need not have been the case. To that point, Scott Han flushes this out nicely (the theory) in several of his books.

We could equally say that it might have been fitting (or more fitting) if Jesus came from a pure line - but he didn’t he came through Rahab (a harlet). God does not think as we do.

My perspective is that Mary may have been, or may not have been a perpetual virgin. Scripture does not clearly state either way (although the referenes to brothers (which may be brethern, as noted) is interesting.

In any event - this bears no basis on salvation as scripture is clear that salvation comes from hearing and accepting the gospel (that Jesus Christ died for ours sins, was resurrected and will return). We have faith, we repent of our sins and we are saved. The Church adds the need for water baptism (and to a lesser extent, other sacraments, confession, last rights, etc). Baptism was clearly a direct command of Jesus - so I think its academic (a believer will be drawn to baptism when saved).

There is not command or intimation in scripture that we must believe anything else (including that Mary remained a perpetual virgin). I understand the Catholic Church teaching on this - I’m glad to read hear that some on this Board, at least, do not believe that “belief” is necessary for salvation within the Catholic Church.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[diggerdomer]

There are a couple of ideas expressed in this statement that are not exactly correct:

1.) As a former protestant, I used to wrestle with the idea of why Mary HAD to remain ever virgin. This is not the correct way to approach this question. The correct way to look at this issue is that Catholic teaching simply affirms the fact that she DID remain ever virgin. As Alan Schreck states in his book Catholic & Christian, “…the belief that Mary was ever-virgin is very ancient…Even the protestant reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin and Huldreich Zwingli affirmed their belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”

2.) While Marian teachings are important, they are NOT essential to salvation. From Schreck’s book: “…Catholics believe that there is a ‘hierarchy’ or order of Christian truths. In other words, not all Christian truths are equally central to the basic gospel message…The principle of the ‘hierarchy’ of truths points out two extremes that must be avoided in Christian teaching about Mary. On the one hand, Marian doctrines must not be presented as equal in importance to the fundamental Christian truths about the nature of God and redemption…On the other hand, Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation must not be ignored nor neglected.”

rocketrob

Intriguing and good response.

This is a tough question. The perpetual virginity of Mary is clearly Catholic doctrine. I think the challenge is how to understand/interpret this teaching today. Is this simply a biological statement? I hope and think not. So what does it mean, really, that is essential? That’s where faith and mystery come in. imho

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Robbinson:

There is not command or intimation in scripture that we must believe anything else (including that Mary remained a perpetual virgin). I understand the Catholic Church teaching on this - I’m glad to read hear that some on this Board, at least, do not believe that “belief” is necessary for salvation within the Catholic Church.

Catholics DO believe this however. Bible-only type believers have many issues of non-belief, and we as Catholics believe that that is not necessarily an impediment to their salvation. However for those souls who search for God’s Truth in all its fullness, we have the Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I am a recent convert to Catholicism. My wife is an ex-Catholic. Recently, she has asked me questions about the perpetual virginity of Mary. She believes Mary was a virgin up until the birth of Mary, but doesn’t see any reason to believe she remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. The scriptural evidence on this seems thin and Catholic Answers appeals to the Protoevangelium of James as evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Is there any earlier evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity? Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary an essential teaching of the Catholic faith which must be believed in order to be saved? How would it change faith if we learned that Mary’s virginity ended after the birth of Jesus?

The best explanation I have seen for Mary’s virginity after parturition (after giving birth) is that Mary and Joseph saw the Annunciaion, her “Be it done unto me according to Thy Will,” and her pregnancy and the birth of the Son of God Himself as a relationship in the nature of marriage – the most special, most sacred marital relationship in the history of history. They felt that sex between Mary and Joseph might have been a compromising of that relationship.

In fact, we see a continuation of the relationship between Mary and the Godhead in Scripture, as Jesus matures.

That is the answer to the easy question.

The more difficult question is Mary’s “in partu” virginity: The Church teaches that there was no breach of Mary’s physical integrity, in giving birth.

In other words, somehow Mary “beamed-down” out of Mary’s womb.

I, personally, believe that this teaching squarely wars with the plain meaning of inspired Scripture.