Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary an essential teaching?

[AmbroseSJ]

Peter Dawson:

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.

Firstly, I believe you meant Jesus not Mary “beamed-down” which is a horrid thing to say. You may as well say Jesus “levitated” over the water and “cast a spell” over the water at Cana. It is the vocabulary of infidelity. It is also irreverent and sarcastic about an event so sacred that it is actually completely hidden and unrevealed by any Scripture account.

The Church has always taught that Mary was ever Virgin. It is only in this age of apostasy and infidelity that we have people laughingly saying that Jesus “beamed down.” It is shocking and scandalous!

That self-described Catholics are saying this just adds insult to injury.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church has always taught that Mary was ever Virgin.

I think this teaching developed. Tertullian (ca. 200) didn’t agree with it. It became more explicitly taught and defended in the 4th-5th centuries with Jerome and Augustine.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think this teaching developed. Tertullian (ca. 200) didn’t agree with it. It became more explicitly taught and defended in the 4th-5th centuries with Jerome and Augustine.

That may be true, however, before those Fathers, there would have been very little reason to write on such a subject, however much it was already being taught by the Church. See the difference? The Fathers usually addressed matters that were in controversy. Aside from that, many things were believed that were not necessarily put into writing in those very early years. Anyway the Fathers you mentioned had no reservations about teaching something that already had a long tradition. Tertullian is obviously a hostile witness to some extent.

In other words, I have no difficulty believing something like the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary being always taught, whether there are specific writings to prove it or not.

But to address your argument that the teaching developed, beware. Development means that the kernel was already there and merely “developed.” Meaning that due to controversies or other causes, the Church made pronouncements which continued to develop with time. Development does not mean “appeared for the first time.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Firstly, I believe you meant Jesus not Mary “beamed-down” which is a horrid thing to say. You may as well say Jesus “levitated” over the water and “cast a spell” over the water at Cana. It is the vocabulary of infidelity. It is also irreverent and sarcastic about an event so sacred that it is actually completely hidden and unrevealed by any Scripture account.

The Church has always taught that Mary was ever Virgin. It is only in this age of apostasy and infidelity that we have people laughingly saying that Jesus “beamed down.” It is shocking and scandalous!

That self-described Catholics are saying this just adds insult to injury.

Hi, Ambrose.

Jesus, looking down, knows why I use that language.

Jesus is not just fully God, but also “fully man.” His humanity is more important than that silly in partu virginity, because for the sake of God’s perfect justice, the humanity which had to be nailed to the cross had to be OUR humanity.

None of us ever beamed down out of our mothers.

That’s not us.

So, note well…

Wisdom 7:5-6 says that all kings are born the same way.

And in Luke 2, we see the narrator’s assurance that Mary fulfilled the requirements of God’s law when she made the sacrifice to purify women who bleed in childbirth.

To make that sacrifice when she did not bleed would not have been in accord with God’s law.

Instead, it would have been abuse of a ritual.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Peter Dawson:

So, note well…

Wisdom 7:5-6 says that all kings are born the same way.

And in Luke 2, we see the narrator’s assurance that Mary fulfilled the requirements of God’s law when she made the sacrifice to purify women who bleed in childbirth.

To make that sacrifice when she did not bleed would not have been in accord with God’s law.

Instead, it would have been abuse of a ritual.

You have fully imbibed from the stagnant pool of the Protestant’s private judgment when reading Scriptures I see. Catholics believe that the Church teaches with Authority under Divine guidance. You are setting up impediments to the Church’s teachings that do not exist, other than in your own mind.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You have fully imbibed from the stagnant pool of the Protestant’s private judgment when reading Scriptures I see. Catholics believe that the Church teaches with Authority under Divine guidance. You are setting up impediments to the Church’s teachings that do not exist, other than in your own mind.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m a secret Protestant.

Does it make you feel good to implicitly look down on somebody like that? Whjy, if I’m “down,” then you must be “up”! Right?

Listen, friend, question your Catholic faith. Doing that teaches you the “why’s.” If you can’t answer the “why’s,” then maybe you don’t really understand anything about it. All you understand is, “Yes, sir! You’re inspired! So, whatever you’re saying, whatever it means, you must be right! And that makes me a good Catholic!”

But that’s not really a Catholic, because your beliefs don’t really have content!

Mostly, though, in all things, charity.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Peter Dawson:

But that’s not really a Catholic, because your beliefs don’t really have content!

Because I believe what the Church teaches with Divine Authority means that my Faith has no content, but to NOT believe what the Church teaches with Divine Authority means your faith has content?? IOW, to doubt is to have faith in your world.

No, that is wrong. Difficulties are another matter. If you have difficulties with Church teachings, you can try to resolve them through better research, humility and prayer. If one has no difficulties with a teaching, it is not because one’s Faith has no “content.”

To question the “Why’s” is not always good advice, as God’s ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. So when we are discussing something that was completely hidden (Scripturally) and yet made clear through the teaching authority of the Church, the only Why to ask is on what foundation does the Church teach this doctrine. If one decides her reasoning and logic is flawed, then he has set himself above the Sacred Teaching Authority of the Church, the Magisterium. That is not Catholic.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I mean no disrespect to the virgin Mary but let me ask this question:

Why is it so hard to believe that Mary could have remained virgin during the birth of Jesus?

Whenever a woman today has a Caeserean section we would still say that the baby was hers and was born of her.

Now I’m not saying that Jesus was born like that–all I’m saying is that there are many ways that Jesus could have been born without violating Mary’s virginity–the Holy Spirit is fully capable of accomplishing that.

Does what I’m saying make sense?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I mean no disrespect to the virgin Mary but let me ask this question:

Why is it so hard to believe that Mary could have remained virgin during the birth of Jesus?

Whenever a woman today has a Caeserean section we would still say that the baby was hers and was born of her.

Now I’m not saying that Jesus was born like that–all I’m saying is that there are many ways that Jesus could have been born without violating Mary’s virginity–the Holy Spirit is fully capable of accomplishing that.

Does what I’m saying make sense?

If Mary retained her physical integrity, then Jesus didn’t.

Suddenly, He is “not us.” He is not “fully man.” You can jump up and down and insist that He’s fully man, but that won’t change anything: He’s not.

Suddenly, Jesus’ coming out of Mary more closely resembles Athena coming out of Zeus’ forehead than a human birth.

Suddenly, Jesus coming out of Mary begins to violate a host of Bible predictions.

22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,
23 just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” Luke 2:22-23. Open what womb? The point of “in partu virginity” is that Mary’s womb never opened!

**24 and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. Luke 2:24. ** If I engage in this sacrifice, I am abusing a ritual, because the purpose of this sacrifice is to cleanse a woman of the blood of childbirth. If Mary never actually gave birth in the gooey, bloody way the rest of us are born, then she had no blood of which to be cleansed. She, too, would have been abusing a ritual, rather than acting “in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

Even the sense of the Greek term employed by Luke, here, tikto, is violated. Luke had two words to pick from to describe the actual birth, gennao and tikto. He chose the latter. The root of tikto is teko, which means, basically, to “liquid forth,” or “breaking-water forth” – giving birth to a babe in a flood of liquid.

It is the exact same word used by Luke to describe John’s birth.

Think: If a pope said, “Christ came into the world more like Athena from the head of Zeus, than like a human,” he’d be condemned by the ages.

But that, in essence, is precisely what in partu virginity entails.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

By your reasoning, Jesus is not fully man because of His Holy Transfiguration. He is also not fully man because he was able to walk on water. Your entire problem is centered around your misunderstanding of the Hypostatic Union. You seem to forget that Jesus was both perfect man and the Son of God forever joined in one person. Jesus was not just a plain ordinary man. If he was, your arguments would carry some weight. But as it is, it just shows your complete lack of understanding of the Hypostatic Union.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Because I believe what the Church teaches with Divine Authority means that my Faith has no content, but to NOT believe what the Church teaches with Divine Authority means your faith has content?? IOW, to doubt is to have faith in your world.

No, that is wrong. Difficulties are another matter. If you have difficulties with Church teachings, you can try to resolve them through better research, humility and prayer. If one has no difficulties with a teaching, it is not because one’s Faith has no “content.”

To question the “Why’s” is not always good advice, as God’s ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. So when we are discussing something that was completely hidden (Scripturally) and yet made clear through the teaching authority of the Church, the only Why to ask is on what foundation does the Church teach this doctrine. If one decides her reasoning and logic is flawed, then he has set himself above the Sacred Teaching Authority of the Church, the Magisterium. That is not Catholic.

Hi, Ambrose.

In the papacy of Liberius, the Arian Roman Emperor despised Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, because Athanasius risked life and limb calmly but publicly condemning the Emperor’s Arian beliefs.

At a particular point, Pope Liberius, tired of years of exile surrounded by Arian Roman soldiers, issued a document teaching one form of Arianism.

Athanasius condemned Pope Liberius. Jerome groaned something like, “The world went to bed Christian but awakened Arian.” The Roman Emperor laughed and coined the now-famous phrase, “It’s Athanasius against the world!”

The document was apparently later destroyed, but we have the opinion of Athanasius, who was later made a saint; the opinion of Jerome, who was later made a saint; the crowing of the Arian Roman Emperor; the subsequent destruction of the document; and the Church’s refusal, for the first time, to declare a pope a saint – all of the previous popes are saints – as testimony that Liberius did it – he taught Arianism.

We have one more proof: Liberius himself later condemned his own teaching.

So, before Liberius’ subsequent condemnation of Liberius’ own prior teaching, Athanasius set himself above “the Sacred Teaching of the Church, the Magisterium.”

Do you therefore agree with St. Athanasius, and condemn Pope Liberius?

Or, should Athanasius have followed Liberius out of Catholicism?

Tell me, my fellow Catholic: Did Jesus come into the world like Athena, without actually coming down a birth canal in the usual bloody, gooey way, but mytically, instead, beaming-down out of the body that held the child?

Or, Was Jesus born like a human?

 

[diggerdomer]

I mean no disrespect to the virgin Mary but let me ask this question:

Why is it so hard to believe that Mary could have remained virgin during the birth of Jesus?

Whenever a woman today has a Caeserean section we would still say that the baby was hers and was born of her.

Now I’m not saying that Jesus was born like that–all I’m saying is that there are many ways that Jesus could have been born without violating Mary’s virginity–the Holy Spirit is fully capable of accomplishing that.

Does what I’m saying make sense?

The perpetual virginity, the issue of the thread, means Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, not just at the birth of Jesus (which I for one can’t believe there are many ways to happen).

 

[rocketrob]

Hi, Ambrose.

At a particular point, Pope Liberius, tired of years of exile surrounded by Arian Roman soldiers, issued a document teaching one form of Arianism.

Peter,
I do not know the details of this example that you present, but I see enough to know that this is type of teaching NOT an example of the Magisterium of the Church. Ironically, the example does illustrate how the Magisterium of the Church ultimately condemned a heresy.

The Magisterium of the Church is NOT the statements of any individual Pope beaten down by political pressure. The Magisterium of the Church is the “living, teaching office of the Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” (CCC 85) The Magisterium of the Church includes all bishops in communion with each other, and any resulting statements regarding faith and morals cannot contradict the deposit of Faith handed onto them by Christ Himself.

“The Magisterium ensures the Church’s fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals.” (from the CCC glossary)

rocketrob

 

[Cranch]

If Mary retained her physical integrity, then Jesus didn’t.

Suddenly, He is “not us.” He is not “fully man.” You can jump up and down and insist that He’s fully man, but that won’t change anything: He’s not.

Suddenly, Jesus’ coming out of Mary more closely resembles Athena coming out of Zeus’ forehead than a human birth.

Tell me, my fellow Catholic: Did Jesus come into the world like Athena, without actually coming down a birth canal in the usual bloody, gooey way, but mytically, instead, beaming-down out of the body that held the child?

Or, Was Jesus born like a human?

Was Jesus conceived like a human? The answer is of course no. Has that fact prevented the Church from teaching Jesus is fully human as well as fully divine? Again, no. Then why would you pretend that the particular circumstances of Jesus’ birth would bear on his full humanity?

Is it your contention that the Blessed Mother was not a virgin before the birth of Jesus? Because a woman’s status as a non-virgin has nothing to do with the act of giving birth. For that matter, the lack of an intact hymen is no proof of a lack of virginity. It is simply that (other than the Virgin Mary) in giving birth, a woman’s prior loss of virginity is made manifest, knowing as we do how she (under normal circumstances) became pregnant. But we know that Mary did not become pregnant under normal circumstances.

Even so, what if perfect physical “intactness” was required to comport with the idea of “virginal integrity” spoken of in 57Lumen Gentium? Do you imagine that the God who created the world out of nothing and ordered nature to His will—as well as being the author of “super-natural” miracles—would be unable to preserve the virginity of the Blessed Mother if He wished to?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I regret to say that arguments against the Church’s Doctrine of the Virginal Birth smacks a little too much of Nestorianism. To find it INCONCEIVABLE that the Son of God, conceived as he was, by the power of the Holy Spirit, could not POSSIBLY have been born as the Church teaches, leans too deeply into the Nestorian territory of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus Christ, the man only, but not the Son of God, which strikes at the very heart of the Church’s teaching on the Theotokos, THE MOTHER OF GOD, not to mention the entire Incarnation and Hypostatic Union.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

By your reasoning, Jesus is not fully man because of His Holy Transfiguration. He is also not fully man because he was able to walk on water. Your entire problem is centered around your misunderstanding of the Hypostatic Union. You seem to forget that Jesus was both perfect man and the Son of God forever joined in one person. Jesus was not just a plain ordinary man. If he was, your arguments would carry some weight. But as it is, it just shows your complete lack of understanding of the Hypostatic Union.

I think that you already know the answer to this. There is no hint that Jesus became incorporeal in either story – that He “went mystical.”

Note that, for example, PETER walked on water WITH Jesus for a few seconds.

Did Peter become incorporeal?

No.

This leaves intact the doctrine that, in His substance, Jesus was always “fully man.”

Passing mystically out of Mary’s body, like Athena from Zeus, violates the “fully man” doctrine for a time.

So, in their misplaced zeal to focus-in on poor Mary’s genetive tract to platonize her virginity in an extraordinarily extreme fashion, radical Mariology has annihilated Jesus’ humanity in its substance for a time – at birth, in a way which violates Wisdom 7:5-6.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Interestingly, Ambrose, I regard myself as “more Catholic” than those who focus-in on the Blessed Mother’s genitals with their radical “in partu” doctrine. For the “in-partu-ites,” Jesus’ birth really is more like Athena coming from the head of Zeus! It really is!

 

[Evan]

I believe we teach that Jesus is still fully man, even after the resurrection. Yet he was able to pass through locked doors and to appear where he wished.

The prernatural gift of agility may have been his since he did not suffer from the effects of original sin.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I believe we teach that Jesus is still fully man, even after the resurrection. Yet he was able to pass through locked doors and to appear where he wished.

The prernatural gift of agility may have been his since he did not suffer from the effects of original sin.

There is a difference between the pre-resurrection Christ and the post-resurrection Christ.

That latter was not mortal.

Since you are and I am, that is not “us.”

Note well when He passed through doors: When it was too late to worry about whether the nails could pass through His flesh without harming Him, because they already had, and they harmed Him. I.e., when no mis-direction was possible.

Before His crucifixion – including at His birth – mis-direction was possible.

So, your argument is uninstructive.

 

[nohamaria]

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.

BR. Ambrose, I totally agree on all your
replies and arguments. God Bless you
and Bless all the posters who tried to
defend and explain the catholic church
teaching in this matter. However, our
dear posters the protestants, still unconvinced.
Therefore, I suggest to leave it to the Holy Spirit
to reveal it to them.
The above quote should be the final reply to them.

Peace and Good.

Nohamaria