Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary an essential teaching?

[Peter_Dawson]

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 Lumen Gentium 57? 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?

Mary, of course, was celibate all of her life, and in that sense a virgin.

Platonizing that celibacy so that her genitals look untouched if looked-at by a microscope, so that the amniotic sac for Jesus retains its integrity, so that Jesus must leave Mary the same way Athena leaves Zeus in the myth, and something wonderful must happen to the afterbirth, too, is too much.

And it’s too much that we must contradict Scripture to achieve that result.

I do think that God was capable of having Jesus come out of Mary in a way which made Jesus look less like mortal man and more like a god.

But I don’t think that that was His intent.

 

[SFH]

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?

Perhaps I can answer that question with another question. What does it mean to say something is an essential teaching of the Catholic Faith (i.e., a dogma)? It means it’s something you must believe to be a Catholic. In other words, your claim to be a Catholic doesn’t hold any water if you don’t believe the things that Catholics believe. Now, if you went back to the Fathers of the Church and asked them whether the Blessed Virgin was a perpetual virgin, they would almost unanimously answer your question with a resounding YES. We identify ourselves as Catholics, they would say, and that’s one of the things we believe. Then, if you went to the Scholastics in the Middle Ages and you asked them the same question, they would answer (again unanimously) that the Blessed Mother was a perpetual virgin. You would get the same response from Catholics at the time of the Reformation.

So perhaps a better way of thinking of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother is not that it’s an essential teaching that you must believe to be saved (it is), but that it is also a belief that has been universally held by Catholics from the time of the Apostles. It is one of the distinctive beliefs (like the Real Presence) that distinguishes Catholics from other Christian denominations.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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.

Your logic is flawed. If Jesus and Peter (by the will of Jesus) could walk on water and yet remain corporeal, (by your own admission) even though that is not scientifically possible for a corporeal human being, then there is likewise no difficulty with the most Sacred Birth of Jesus to an ever Virgin mother, while remaining completely corporeal. You might also recall Jesus “passed through” the lynch mob that was about to cast him over the cliff, mysteriously, miraculously, and corporeally.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Your logic is flawed. If Jesus and Peter (by the will of Jesus) could walk on water and yet remain corporeal, (by your own admission) even though that is not scientifically possible for a corporeal human being, then there is likewise no difficulty with the most Sacred Birth of Jesus to an ever Virgin mother, while remaining completely corporeal. You might also recall Jesus “passed through” the lynch mob that was about to cast him over the cliff, mysteriously, miraculously, and corporeally.

I disagree. A chronically corporeal baby inside a chronically corporeal unbreachable womb is an insoluable logic problem. The insoluablity is itself “in and of” God. God can’t violate logic because logic itself is a component of “God-ness.” Read your first sentence. It, itself, purports to rely on logic.

 

[diggerdomer]

Mary, of course, was celibate all of her life, and in that sense a virgin.

Platonizing that celibacy so that her genitals look untouched if looked-at by a microscope, so that the amniotic sac for Jesus retains its integrity, so that Jesus must leave Mary the same way Athena leaves Zeus in the myth, and something wonderful must happen to the afterbirth, too, is too much.

And it’s too much that we must contradict Scripture to achieve that result.

I do think that God was capable of having Jesus come out of Mary in a way which made Jesus look less like mortal man and more like a god.

But I don’t think that that was His intent.

Why “of course”?

“Celibate” means “unmarried” and obviously Mary was not that.

The Bible says nothing about Mary’s virginity subsequent to Jesus’ conception, so again I’m curious to know what you base your “of course” statement upon. Thanks.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is a good link to read:

socdigest.org/articles/02feb09.html

I think the strongest argument supporting the belief in the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos is the simple fact that all true Churches teach this fact.

The Catholic Communion of Churches - Eastern and Western = 1.2 billion
Eastern Orthodox Communion of Churches = 300 million
Oriental Orthodox Communion of Churches = 75 million
Church of the East = 1 million

---

Total 1.576 billion out of 2.1 billion Christians

All these Churches have common beliefs that protestants do not - all are:

Apostolic - founded by the Apostles and their direct followers
True Bishops - can trace their ordination back to the Apostles
All believe in the intercessory prayer to, through, and with Saints and for the dead
All believe in the Real Presence of Christ when Holy Eucharist is consecrated
Only males can be priests and bishops, as Christ taught
St. Mary is believed to be Ever-Virgin and Mother of our Lord, God and Saviour

The only folks who contest and/or deny the above are protestants and non-Christians.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Why “of course”?

“Celibate” means “unmarried” and obviously Mary was not that.

The Bible says nothing about Mary’s virginity subsequent to Jesus’ conception, so again I’m curious to know what you base your “of course” statement upon. Thanks.

Custom defines words.

From the Free Dictionary (online)…

Historically, celibate means only “unmarried”; its use to mean “abstaining from sexual intercourse” is a 20th-century development. But the new sense of the word seems to have displaced the old, and the use of celibate to mean “unmarried” is now almost sure to invite misinterpretation in other than narrowly ecclesiastical contexts. Sixty-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejected the older use in the sentence He remained celibate [unmarried], although he engaged in sexual intercourse.

I was using it in the 20th century sense, not in the word’s antique sense.

 

[Cranch]

Mary, of course, was celibate all of her life, and in that sense a virgin.

Platonizing that celibacy so that her genitals look untouched if looked-at by a microscope, so that the amniotic sac for Jesus retains its integrity, so that Jesus must leave Mary the same way Athena leaves Zeus in the myth, and something wonderful must happen to the afterbirth, too, is too much.

Obviously, it is too much for you. As shown in [this article](http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm) on the subject, it was not too much for (among others):

St. Ignatius
St. Ephraim the Syrian
St. Gregory of Nazianz
St. Ambrose
St Gregory of Nyssa
Pope Siricius
St. Augustine
Pope St. Leo the Great
Pope Pelagius I
St. Proclus of Constantinople
St. John Damascene
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Bonaventure
Pope St. Martin I
Pope Pius IV
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
Pope John Paul II
Pope Benedict XVI

One example:

“Mary was therefore a virgin before the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin in giving birth and after the birth. This is the truth presented by the New Testament texts, and which was expressed both by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553, which speaks of Mary as ‘ever virgin’, and also by the Lateran Council in 649, which teaches that 'the mother of God…Mary…conceived [her Son] through the power of the Holy Spirit without human intervention, and in giving birth to him, her virginity remained incorrupted, and even after the birth her virginity remained intact.”

– Pope John Paul II, General Audience, Jan 28, 1987​

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Obviously, it is too much for you. As shown in [this article](http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/virginity(name removed by moderator)artu.htm) on the subject, it was not too much for (among others):

St. Ignatius
St. Ephraim the Syrian
St. Gregory of Nazianz
St. Ambrose
St Gregory of Nyssa
Pope Siricius
St. Augustine
Pope St. Leo the Great
Pope Pelagius I
St. Proclus of Constantinople
St. John Damascene
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Bonaventure
Pope St. Martin I
Pope Pius IV
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
Pope John Paul II
Pope Benedict XVI

One example:

“Mary was therefore a virgin before the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin in giving birth and after the birth. This is the truth presented by the New Testament texts, and which was expressed both by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 553, which speaks of Mary as ‘ever virgin’, and also by the Lateran Council in 649, which teaches that 'the mother of God…Mary…conceived [her Son] through the power of the Holy Spirit without human intervention, and in giving birth to him, her virginity remained incorrupted, and even after the birth her virginity remained intact.”

– Pope John Paul II, General Audience, Jan 28, 1987​

I’m aware of that.

But I am also aware that not one of those people answer why what Mary did was “in accordance with the dictate of the law of the Lord” when she made the sacrifice of the two birds, which should only be done to cleanse a new mother of the blood of childbirth, ostensibly an impossibility in Mary’s case if the doctrine is correct. And why Luke says that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy referring to the firstborn who “opens” the womb. And why Luke uses the same word for Mary giving birth, tikto, whose root, teko, means essentially to “break-water-forth” a baby, that he uses for Elizabeth giving birth. And why Wisdom 7:5-6 says that “all kings are born alike.”

In essence, what I see is a large number of intelligent and important Catholics who themselves respect the authority of Scripture who seem to squarely contradict Scripture.

The quote by JPII about New Testament texts supporting the doctrine seems perfectly incorrect.

 

[IrishJoe]

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

It is essential in catholicism as you cannot deny it being an infallible teaching

 

[Peter_Dawson]

It is essential in catholicism as you cannot deny it being an infallible teaching

In another thread here I pointed out that in the encyclical by Pius XII on the Assumption, which apparently functionally begins with a declaration of infallibility, Pius refers to Mary’s “dead body” not breaking down and rotting before her Assumption.

So, that Mary died is apparently infallible Church doctrine.(Edited)

I would say that the vast majority of those who would call me a “heretic” in the issue in this thread carefully deny that Mary died.

(Edited)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Peter Dawson:

I would say that the vast majority of those who would call me a “heretic” in the issue in this thread carefully deny that Mary died.

I firmly believe (as all of the Eastern Church does,) that the Blessed Virgin Mary died. I have not gone so far as to call you a heretic, but I will say that you are very wrong in your conceits regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, which strangely enough, seems to be the focus of all your troubles. I would recommend your praying the rosary daily for guidance (if going against Catholic teachings gives you any uneasiness.)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The same human pre-resurrection Jesus who could pass through crowds without anyone laying hands on Him is the same Jesus that could be born without violating Mary’s virginity.

If Jesus were born by Caeserean section would Mary still be a virgin? Of course.

Is any baby born by caeserean section a human like the rest of us?

Of course.

And Jesus is not like all of us other than Mary.

Jesus was not born of original sin–He suffers from no concupisence or tendency to sin like the rest of us.

Now I’m not saying that Jesus was born of Caeserean section.

All I’m saying is that if HUMAN saints can bilocate–don’t tell me that the Son of man can’t be born by going from one point to another without crossing the distance in a physical sense.

Jesus does it all the time in the Holy Eucharist.

Jesus doesn’t go THROUGH the bread and wine–He goes beneath them.

Don’t you think He could do the same thing in birth and become physically present at another point?

If they can do it on Star Trek–don’t you think that God could do it?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

It is essential in catholicism as you cannot deny it being an infallible teaching

After many of the folks here called me a “heretic” for denying the “in partu” component of Mary’s perpetual virginity, I pointed out that many of them deny that Mary “died,” which squarely conflicts with Paragraph 20 of Pius XII’s expressly infallible encyclical, Munificentissimus Deus, on the Assumption.

There were no good answers from any of my accusers.

So, are you saying that anyone here who denies that Mary “died” is a non-Catholic?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If you read paragraph 20 closely the Pope does not say as a matter of fact whether the Blessed virgin died–he states what the holy Fathers and Doctors preached and taught as fact.

Whether she died or not has not been defined by any pope.

I personally think that Jesus granted Mary the favor of experiencing death because she wanted to share in her Son’s example.

The so called fact or not of her dying has not been defined.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

If you read paragraph 20 closely the Pope does not say as a matter of fact whether the Blessed virgin died–he states what the holy Fathers and Doctors preached and taught as fact.

Whether she died or not has not been defined by any pope.

I personally think that Jesus granted Mary the favor of experiencing death because she wanted to share in her Son’s example.

The so called fact or not of her dying has not been defined.

You’re squirming, friend. You really are looking for excuses to ignore an expressly-infallible document. You naughty little non-Catholic!

 

[diggerdomer]

It is essential in catholicism as you cannot deny it being an infallible teaching

Yes you can. Whether or not it is taught infallibly is not essential. Believing the teaching is.

 

[eichenb2]

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 last question is very interesting. The only answer that I have ever been given was that “it was fitting”. In my opinion, that is not good enough. So, please, can someone answer this question? It seems, to me, that this may be the source of why Catholics seem to view celibacy as the ideal state and closer to holiness. It makes the whole conjugal thing seem kind of dirty.

 

[grannymh]

The last question is very interesting. The only answer that I have ever been given was that “it was fitting”. In my opinion, that is not good enough. So, please, can someone answer this question? It seems, to me, that this may be the source of why Catholics seem to view celibacy as the ideal state and closer to holiness. It makes the whole conjugal thing seem kind of dirty.

Catholic teaching from Catechism regarding Marriage.

**Paragraph 1604 **God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is Himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes.

There are beautiful insights into the reality and dignity of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Please start with paragraph 1601 at

www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

The last question is very interesting. The only answer that I have ever been given was that “it was fitting”. In my opinion, that is not good enough. So, please, can someone answer this question? It seems, to me, that this may be the source of why Catholics seem to view celibacy as the ideal state and closer to holiness. It makes the whole conjugal thing seem kind of dirty.

Celibacy needs to be practiced by all single people. Holiness is the real and universal vocation of every one of us. We try our best to be holy in whatever state we choose, marriage, single life, or consecrated life such as the priesthood or religious life. There are Catholics who view the consecrated life as somehow the ideal one. That is simply a personal opinion.