Perpetual Virginity of Mary (For Catholics)

[rodogg]

Have seen a few posts on here regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, most of which was people arguing against it. As Catholics we believe this, and so I was sitting wondering about it, as in the past I have thought it unlikely. Reasons I thought it unlikely were for one the bible verses which mention Jesus' brothers (which I know now can mean cousins in the language of that time) and secondly I found it hard to imagine a married couple never having sex! Maybe that was just part of my lowly human nature. So anyway, sitting thinking about this, a thought crossed my mind.
It was this: Up until my conversion back to my Catholic faith (if that's the best way to put it) in around 2008, I was engaged in ALL manner of sins. I wasn't a good boy. After my conversion, and I don't mind admitting it, I still struggled for a long time with sexual sins, and found these the hardest to conquer. Thank God, I think I may have done so now, but I don't like to speak too soon. Anyway, since 2008 I've had times where I was in a state of grace, and times where I was not. And then I found Adoration. And the power of it I could not believe. Just one hour sitting before Jesus in the Eucharist would leave me on a high. No desire to sin, even repulsion at the thought of sin! As time went on, and I spent more and more time in Adoration, times would even come when all desire for sex would entirely leave me, and I mean even marital sex, which is holy. "No desire for sex?!", I hear you say. Yes, and this coming from someone who used to be a sinner in this area. How can that be? Well I have no explanation for it, but it seems the deeper we go in union with Christ, the more worldly desires and desires of the flesh we lose. Just look at the Saints and those in the religious life. So yes, one hour a day in Adoration and such a change in my life. So now think about Mary. She spent 30 YEARS with Jesus in her home. That's a lot longer than one hour. Also consider the perfection of Mary. She who gave birth to GOD made man. How much more than ME did Mary lose the desires of the world and of the flesh. And lastly, regarding Joseph and his needs; well he spent the same amount of time with Jesus, and so the same goes for him!

So that was my wee thought for today. Comments welcome!

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Have seen a few posts on here regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary, most of which was people arguing against it. As Catholics we believe this, and so I was sitting wondering about it, as in the past I have thought it unlikely. Reasons I thought it unlikely were for one the bible verses which mention Jesus' brothers (which I know now can mean cousins in the language of that time) and secondly I found it hard to imagine a married couple never having sex! Maybe that was just part of my lowly human nature. So anyway, sitting thinking about this, a thought crossed my mind.
It was this: Up until my conversion back to my Catholic faith (if that's the best way to put it) in around 2008, I was engaged in ALL manner of sins. I wasn't a good boy. After my conversion, and I don't mind admitting it, I still struggled for a long time with sexual sins, and found these the hardest to conquer. Thank God, I think I may have done so now, but I don't like to speak too soon. Anyway, since 2008 I've had times where I was in a state of grace, and times where I was not. And then I found Adoration. And the power of it I could not believe. Just one hour sitting before Jesus in the Eucharist would leave me on a high. No desire to sin, even repulsion at the thought of sin! As time went on, and I spent more and more time in Adoration, times would even come when all desire for sex would entirely leave me, and I mean even marital sex, which is holy. "No desire for sex?!", I hear you say. Yes, and this coming from someone who used to be a sinner in this area. How can that be? Well I have no explanation for it, but it seems the deeper we go in union with Christ, the more worldly desires and desires of the flesh we lose. Just look at the Saints and those in the religious life. So yes, one hour a day in Adoration and such a change in my life. So now think about Mary. She spent 30 YEARS with Jesus in her home. That's a lot longer than one hour. Also consider the perfection of Mary. She who gave birth to GOD made man. How much more than ME did Mary lose the desires of the world and of the flesh. And lastly, regarding Joseph and his needs; well he spent the same amount of time with Jesus, and so the same goes for him!

So that was my wee thought for today. Comments welcome!

Sex is holy. Even if one has committed sexual sins, one doesn't necessarily have to give up all sexual relations to be considered holy. There is still the possibility of marriage, which is honorable in ALL according to St. Paul in Hebrews 13. As for Mary, she is in a class by herself, and so we shouldn't even think of ourselves or think we have to give up sex because of this. But virginity is holy, too.
Everyone has different gift from God. We shouldn't look down on divorced people or people who err from the way in morality. There is hope for even the most wicked of sinners. All of us have sinned. We all need Christ's mercy to have real hope (Titus 3:15). According to Hebrews, Christ knows how we are tempted, and is sympathetic to all of us in our weaknesses.

 

[serpentslayer]

Mary only had to be a virgin until the Savior was born, in order that
the seed of the serpent (who is Adam) would have no part in the
Savior. This is the only requirement of Mary, so she certainly could,
and did have sexual relations with her husband. Those who say
otherwise are themselves deceived and hold on to worthless tradition
and doctrines.

 

[SantoSubito]

Mary only had to be a virgin until the Savior was born, in order that
the seed of the serpent (who is Adam) would have no part in the
Savior. This is the only requirement of Mary, so she certainly could,
and did have sexual relations with her husband. Those who say
otherwise are themselves deceived and hold on to worthless tradition
and doctrines.

Nay good sir, I would posit that thou art the one who art deceived on this matter of most holy religion.

 

[Maddog]

Thanks for sharing. Have you heard the tradition that Joseph was an older widower, and was betrothed to Mary for the business of looking after her rather than to have a family? His children from his previous marriage may well be the referred to 'brothers' of Jesus.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Mary only had to be a virgin until the Savior was born, in order that the seed of the serpent (who is Adam) would have no part in the Savior. This is the only requirement of Mary, so she certainly could, and did have sexual relations with her husband. Those who say otherwise are themselves deceived and hold on to worthless tradition and doctrines.

Nay good sir, I would posit that thou art the one who art deceived on this matter of most holy religion.

Mary would not have had to maintain her virginity after Jesus was born. The RCC teaches that she did, not that she "had to."

I don't know if all Catholic rites teach that she did. Rome does, but I think some Eastern rites do not, and I know that Anglicanism does not.

In truth, we honestly don't know. Yes, the gospels refer to Jesus having brothers. Yes, it is possible that this means "cousins," or they could be half-siblings, children of Joseph from a previous marriage, since Joseph was so much older than Mary, and may have been a widower. There is nothing in Scripture that says without a doubt, one way or another. So, if you accept "sola scriptura" and deny the authority of the pope, there is no way of knowing. She may have retained her virginity, she may not have.

The question I have is, So what? To those who believe she didn't, or those who believe she did, what difference does it make? The only problem I would have with it is if someone says that virginity is somehow the preferred status, even for married persons. Clearly, scripture teaches against this. Sex is completely appropriate, even commanded, for those who are married. God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. Unless we expect God to start immaculate conceptioning everyone, sex is pretty much required. And if we believe that sex is only for married couples (which I think pretty much every Christian will agree), then I'd say it follows that God commends married couples to have sex.

Sure, there may be cases where God calls a couple to be married and refrain from sex. It may be that Mary and Joseph are one such couple. You know what? That's between Mary, Joseph, and God. I honestly don't care about their sex life.

And honestly, anyone who is that caught up with the sex life of people who lived 2,000 years ago needs to get real. There are bigger things to worry about today, aren't there?

 

[rodogg]

I completely agree that there are bigger issues, really I do. This was just a thought that crossed mind of how my own life could show me an answer to the perpetual virginity of Mary. And I thought it was interesting! I'm the first to comment on threads arguing over small details about how there are bigger issues. That's why I posted this to Catholics, so there would be no arguing! (That wasn't a dig at you, btw! ) Maybe I shouldn't put every thought that crosses my mind down in writing though haha. It's not that I'm sitting thinking about the sex life of Joseph and Mary, just trying to come up with a possible answer to one of our doctrines!

 

[rodogg]

Thanks for sharing. Have you heard the tradition that Joseph was an older widower, and was betrothed to Mary for the business of looking after her rather than to have a family? His children from his previous marriage may well be the referred to 'brothers' of Jesus.

No I hadn't heard that one! I had heard that Joseph was a lot older than Mary though and that Mary was 16 when she gave birth to Jesus. But what you said makes very good sense in relation to this topic! Thanks for the information!

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

rodogg -- I hope you didn't get the sense that I was chastising you for bringing up the question of Mary's virginity. I have no problem with discussing theological questions, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I just draw the line at arguing over them as if it mattered, because ultimately, it doesn't matter. I think it's great to discuss these issues, because it causes us to think, and it brings us to Scripture, and to God. In order to consider different possible answers, we have to think about God, which is what we should be doing anyway ... thinking about God. But the minute we become dogmatic, pretending like our answer to such questions are salvific, that's where we run into trouble.

By all means, keep asking these questions ... as long as the answers are left open and variable, and at the end of it, we can say, "Well, when we all get to heaven, we can ask Jesus, and then we'll know." Because as long as different answers have equally valid theological bases, there's no point in arguing about which answer is "correct."

Does that make sense?

That said, how many angels do you think can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

rodogg -- I hope you didn't get the sense that I was chastising you for bringing up the question of Mary's virginity. I have no problem with discussing theological questions, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I just draw the line at arguing over them as if it mattered, because ultimately, it doesn't matter. I think it's great to discuss these issues, because it causes us to think, and it brings us to Scripture, and to God. In order to consider different possible answers, we have to think about God, which is what we should be doing anyway ... thinking about God. But the minute we become dogmatic, pretending like our answer to such questions are salvific, that's where we run into trouble.

By all means, keep asking these questions ... as long as the answers are left open and variable, and at the end of it, we can say, "Well, when we all get to heaven, we can ask Jesus, and then we'll know." Because as long as different answers have equally valid theological bases, there's no point in arguing about which answer is "correct."

Does that make sense?

That said, how many angels do you think can dance on the head of a pin?

No. That makes no sense, because Jesus Christ said of Himself, "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." He didn't say He was a way, a truth, and a life. Truth is something and well defined by the Church, which is the Pillar and Ground of the Truths (1 Tim. 3:15) against which the gates of hell (mouths of heretics) shall not prevail (Matt. 16:!8).
No serious minded sincere Christian will make a joke about angels on pinheads: As Scripture says, "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, as they gender strife(s)".

 

[rodogg]

rodogg -- I hope you didn't get the sense that I was chastising you for bringing up the question of Mary's virginity. I have no problem with discussing theological questions, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I just draw the line at arguing over them as if it mattered, because ultimately, it doesn't matter. I think it's great to discuss these issues, because it causes us to think, and it brings us to Scripture, and to God. In order to consider different possible answers, we have to think about God, which is what we should be doing anyway ... thinking about God. But the minute we become dogmatic, pretending like our answer to such questions are salvific, that's where we run into trouble.

By all means, keep asking these questions ... as long as the answers are left open and variable, and at the end of it, we can say, "Well, when we all get to heaven, we can ask Jesus, and then we'll know." Because as long as different answers have equally valid theological bases, there's no point in arguing about which answer is "correct."

Does that make sense?

That said, how many angels do you think can dance on the head of a pin?

No I agree totally with everything you said. No further comment needed really! I always do the whole, "Well at the end of the day, we won't REALLY know the answer of such and such a question untill we get to heaven". Doesn't mean we cant spend a little time considering things. And the above comment ^^^^ by OldOrthodoxChristian is a perfect example of why I'm wary about starting threads that I desire only to be places of thought and interested conversation..... Anyway, that'll be an end to this thread.

 

[Maddog]

While I can appreciate the overall sentiment behind GrungeDiva's argument that it doesn't really matter, I have to disagree. I think it kind of does matter, because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the perpetual virginity of St Mary is taught as dogma or a de fide doctrine in the Catholic Church. The upshot is, if they're wrong about it then it has huge implications for the credibility of the Church.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

While I can appreciate the overall sentiment behind GrungeDiva's argument that

it doesn't really matter, I have to disagree. I think it kind of does matter, because as far as I know

(correct me if I'm wrong) the perpetual virginity of St Mary is taught as dogma or a de fide doctrine in the

Catholic Church. The upshot is, if they're wrong about it then it has huge implications for the credibility of

the Church.

The Protestants, who teach sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) according to their private interpretations

have huge implications for their credibility if they are wrong. Where does Scripture anywhere say

"Scripture alone".


There are Scriptures that say that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1

Corinthians 11:2). Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not taught by Scripture.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington


PS Protestants are obsessed with Roman Catholicism, but haven't got a clue about Eastern Orthodoxy,

which is a wholly different (other) faith than both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The Protestants, who teach sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) according to their private interpretations

have huge implications for their credibility if they are wrong. Where does Scripture anywhere say

"Scripture alone".


There are Scriptures that say that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1

Corinthians 11:2). Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not taught by Scripture.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington


PS Protestants are obsessed with Roman Catholicism, but haven't got a clue about Eastern Orthodoxy,

which is a wholly different (other) faith than both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

the bible certainly implies that it is -the- standard for truth...for example the berean christians verified the truth of paul's apostolic teaching by comparing it to scripture...and luke called them 'more noble' for it

you cannot prove that the 'traditions' paul refers to in 1 corinthians 11:2 and 2 thessalonians 2:15 were not written down in the scriptures later on...given the dating of these two letters it is very likely that these teachings were written down as scripture later on by paul or another apostle...

anyway even if it could be shown that some of these 'traditions' never became part of scripture...that is still a long way from establishing that the 'traditions' paul refers to are identical to the traditions of -your- church

and from a protestant perspective roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxism are practically the same thing...separated only by a few minor nitpicking issues and the one -big- pride driven issue of who gets to be in charge...

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

and from a protestant perspective roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxism are practically the same thing...separated only by a few minor nitpicking issues and the one -big- pride driven issue of who gets to be in charge...

Well, I, for one, can not pretend to speak for all protestants. As an Anglican, however, I would say each catholic rite has its own uniqueness and beauty.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

While I can appreciate the overall sentiment behind GrungeDiva's argument that it doesn't really matter, I have to disagree. I think it kind of does matter, because as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) the perpetual virginity of St Mary is taught as dogma or a de fide doctrine in the Catholic Church. The upshot is, if they're wrong about it then it has huge implications for the credibility of the Church.

Since I am not Roman Catholic, perhaps I have no right to reply / respond to this. However, I personally don't get this. I've heard some say that if you can find one tiny error in anything any Pope says ex Cathedra, the entire Church comes crumbling down. That's ludicrous. That would be like saying if I ever make a typo, it means I've never used proper grammar, spelling, or punctuation at all. That's just silly. I understand the Catholic Church kind of encourages such "all or nothing" thinking, but it just doesn't work that way.

 

[SantoSubito]

Since I am not Roman Catholic, perhaps I have no right to reply / respond to this. However, I personally don't get this. I've heard some say that if you can find one tiny error in anything any Pope says ex Cathedra, the entire Church comes crumbling down. That's ludicrous. That would be like saying if I ever make a typo, it means I've never used proper grammar, spelling, or punctuation at all. That's just silly. I understand the Catholic Church kind of encourages such "all or nothing" thinking, but it just doesn't work that way.

Well most Protestant churches I know of don't claim to be without error, while the RCC does. That sets up all or nothing thinking as a necessity and in some ways it is exactly that. Just look at the beliefs of Catholics that have come to think the Church might be wrong on somethings. They want female priests, symbolic Eucharist, congregational polity, and basically a whole revision of Catholicism into more or less another Protestant church.

Or look at the liberal branches of Lutheranism and Anglicanism and how far astray theologically they have drifted. When you open up the option that the Church might be wrong on this theres no reason to think the Church isn't wrong about a bunch of other things as well.

It's very much like a house of cards, remove one piece and the whole thing could come tumbling down.

 

[Red33]

the bible certainly implies that it is -the- standard for truth...for example the berean christians verified the truth of paul's apostolic teaching by comparing it to scripture...and luke called them 'more noble' for it

you cannot prove that the 'traditions' paul refers to in 1 corinthians 11:2 and 2 thessalonians 2:15 were not written down in the scriptures later on...given the dating of these two letters it is very likely that these teachings were written down as scripture later on by paul or another apostle...

anyway even if it could be shown that some of these 'traditions' never became part of scripture...that is still a long way from establishing that the 'traditions' paul refers to are identical to the traditions of -your- church

and from a protestant perspective roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxism are practically the same thing...separated only by a few minor nitpicking issues and the one -big- pride driven issue of who gets to be in charge...

I studied this tooth and nail about the Bereans and this is a common understanding that falls short of what actually happened with the Bereans in (Acts 17). In (v.10,11) Paul went into the synagogue of the Jews and the Jews of Berea, with many honorable men and women who were Greek, believed (v.12) because they were prepared and of a more ready mind to receive the word, and that's the more noble part. When Paul had finished preaching to them of Christ, using the Old Testament scriptures, they were amazed and continued to search the OT scriptures because of what was revealed to them concerning Christ. This is how they came to believe. Now the interesting thing is that every day more and more were searching the scriptures that Paul had preached unto them concerning Christ, which they had never seen before in the OT scriptures and convinced themselves that the things that Paul preached concerning Christ were so and each day that passed more and more believed.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Well most Protestant churches I know of don't claim to be without error, while the RCC does. That sets up all or nothing thinking as a necessity and in some ways it is exactly that.

In some ways, I suppose. Not in all ways, however.

Just look at the beliefs of Catholics that have come to think the Church might be wrong on somethings. They want female priests, symbolic Eucharist, congregational polity, and basically a whole revision of Catholicism into more or less another Protestant church.

I have to say, I have met a handful of Catholics who want female priests, even more who want married priests (that is, among Roman Catholics, where such is denied ... marriage is allowed in non-Roman rites of Catholicism). I have NEVER met a Catholic who wanted symbolic Eucharist, congregational polity, or revision of Catholicism into anything resembling Protestantism. Of course, that doesn't mean such people don't exist, but I'm not convinced it's an epidemic.

It's very much like a house of cards, remove one piece and the whole thing could come tumbling down.

It can be a house of cards. If one's faith is only as strong as a card, then certainly, if one removes a piece, the whole thing does come tumbling down.

For those of us who have faith in things a little stronger, like a ROCK (Peter) or the LORD, we don't have to worry about losing everything when one piece falls away.

Thankfully, most Catholics I know, and even a lot of Protestants, have placed their faith in God, and not in something flimsy that will fall apart. Praise God.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

the bible certainly implies that it is -the- standard for truth...for example the berean christians verified the truth of paul's apostolic teaching by comparing it to scripture...and luke called them 'more noble' for it

you cannot prove that the 'traditions' paul refers to in 1 corinthians 11:2 and 2 thessalonians 2:15 were not written down in the scriptures later on...given the dating of these two letters it is very likely that these teachings were written down as scripture later on by paul or another apostle...

anyway even if it could be shown that some of these 'traditions' never became part of scripture...that is still a long way from establishing that the 'traditions' paul refers to are identical to the traditions of -your- church

and from a protestant perspective roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxism are practically the same thing...separated only by a few minor nitpicking issues and the one -big- pride driven issue of who gets to be in charge...

From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, Protestantistism and Catholicistism are the same thing, especially John 15:26 proves that. The differences are not significant. They both start from the same premise of private (Augustinian) interpretation of the Bible on personal (self) authority. You are nitpicking about 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, as you still have failed to prove sola Scriptura from the NT. If you can't prove it from the OT, you can't from the NT, as the complete Bible was the OT for many years. Everything in the NT must agree with the true meaning of the OT.
Protestantism teaches wrongly that the Bible is in charge. If that is true, the Bible is the Holy Spirit. And there can be no Holy Spirit by which to interpret the Bible. No man, then, can have the Holy Spirit, as the Bible "interpret itself", and doesn't need Protestant men to tell us what it means. The Bible would just come out and say the Truth on its own. In contradiction of the Bible in Acts 8:30-31. Indeed, the Bible cannot interpret itself. It's an inanimate object, and books and inanimate objects can't think, interpret, reason, or possess the Holy Spirit in a box. The Spirit must move on the believer so he/she interprets the Truth correctly (John 16:13).
In Erie Scott