Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

prodromos said:

It isn't a commandment.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is one of the 613 commandments.

bbbbbbb said:

You might find this interesting - http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=539984&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

Click to expand...

From the link that you provided:

Virgin Mary and Vow of Chastity
Question from Joseph A. Apicella on 5/4/2008:
Dear Father: I realized that it's Catholic teaching that the Virgin Mary took a vow of chastity after she found out she was pregnant, I had no idea that she had done so earlier. Vows of chastity are not favored in the Jewish faith as being contrary to the direct command of God to "be fruitful and multiply".

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 5/6/2008:
Vows of chastity are exceptions to the norm and when done for a higher purpose they are not contrary to the general, universal law to be fruitful and multiply. Our Lord Himself was celibate, after all, and all priests had to exercise abstinence while actively serving in their role as priests, during their appointed time.

This doesn't say anything. Whether Mary took a vow at all is not an official teaching of the Church, but a theologumen - a theological opinion. But if she did consecrate herself to God, it would have been before and not after she conceived the child, for she was expecting to conceive Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit after the angel left her. Father Echert is only explaining the meaning of the vow. He isn't concerned about when Mary took it. And I doubt he believes Mary took the vow after she became pregnant.

Anyway, Mary must have taken a vow of chastity before the angel appeared to her, since the angel told Joseph not to fear taking her into his home as his wife to only 'cohabit' (Mt. 1:20-21). Mary and Joseph were espoused before the angel appeared to Mary, so the couple would have agreed to a celibate marriage just before the first wedding ceremony (Kiddush) took place. This is what Mary must have meant to tell the angel when she said: "I have no relations with a man." She had consecrated herself to God as His virgin bride. She and Joseph had no intention of having a child. How could Joseph, then, be the father of the Messiah? Has God released her from her vow? These are the thoughts that must have run through Mary's mind, when she asked: "How can this be?". It makes no logical sense, in light of her question, that she had consecrated herself to God after the angel departed or after she conceived Jesus, perhaps several months later.


PAX

justinangel said:

Anyway, Mary must have taken a vow of chastity before the angel appeared to her, since the angel told Joseph not to fear taking her into his home as his wife to only 'cohabit' (Mt. 1:20-21). Mary and Joseph were espoused before the angel appeared to Mary, so the couple would have agreed to a celibate marriage just before the first wedding ceremony (Kiddush) took place. This is what Mary must have meant to tell the angel when she said: "I have no relations with a man." She had consecrated herself to God as His virgin bride. She and Joseph had no intention of having a child. How could Joseph, then, be the father of the Messiah? Has God released her from her vow? These are the thoughts that must have run through Mary's mind, when she asked: "How can this be?". It makes no logical sense, in light of her question, that she had consecrated herself to God after the angel departed or after she conceived Jesus, perhaps several months later.

Click to expand...

I've tried reading this paragraph several times and am still having a difficult time understanding where you are coming from.

• Joseph did not cohabitate with Mary. The angel said not to be afraid to take her home as his wife, aka to marry her.
• When Mary said, "I have had no relations with a man," she meant she was a virgin. Nothing more.

So where are you getting this idea that she and Joseph had taken this vow of celibacy? It would have been a sin for Joseph as a Jewish man to have done so!

Open Heart said:

I don't understand where this idea of Joseph and Mary taking a vow of celibacy PRIOR to the annunciation comes from. I've never heard anything about it before. It is totally foreign to Judaism, where it is a commandment to have children. "Be fruitful and multiply." To take such a vow would have been considered a sin for the man. Only a visitation from an Angel would have made the couple go against the norm.

Click to expand...

Apparently this is only an issue if Joseph had taken a vow, however that is not what is being claimed. Orthodox Tradition states that Mary had taken a vow of celibacy, and when she had come of age her betrothal to Joseph, a widower with grown children of his own, was arranged to provide for her as she was an only child and both her parents had died. Her entry into the temple as a young child is a major feast day in the Orthodox Church and I presumed it was also in the Catholic, though perhaps I am mistaken. Icons of the flight into Egypt often show Joseph and Mary accompanied by Joseph's son James, who later became the first bishop of Jerusalem. Salome, the mother of the brothers James and John is another of Joseph's children, which makes her bold request of Jesus to have her sons sit at His left and right hand all the more understandable. It is Jerome who introduces the new idea that Joseph was also celibate and much younger. All the oldest iconography depicts Joseph as a much older man.

Open Heart said:

When Mary said, "I have had no relations with a man," she meant she was a virgin. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

That is a really bad translation. There is no past tense in the text.

prodromos said:

It is Jerome who introduces the new idea that Joseph was also celibate and much younger. All the oldest iconography depicts Joseph as a much older man.

Click to expand...

I thought the Eastern Orthodox believed Joseph to be a widower?

topcare said:

The problem still remains that your all three putting modern interpretation and ideas onto a culture that is not yours (unless your 2000 plus years old).

Nothing says that the Blessed Virgin had more Children after Christ. It's not good Scripture but poor learning and a refusal to study history

Click to expand...

Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name JESUS."

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
   1. to become known
   • to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
     1. to understand
     2. to know
   • 3.Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
   • 4.to become acquainted with, to know

The only one that works is three,simple as that........

Open Heart said:

I thought the Eastern Orthodox believed Joseph to be a widower?

Click to expand...

I stated as much in the same post you just quoted.

n2thelight said:

Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name JESUS."

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
   1. to become known
   • to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
     1. to understand
     2. to know
   • 3.Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
   • 4.to become acquainted with, to know

The only one that works is three,simple as that........

Click to expand...

No one disputes that. What is disputed is the insistence by some that the word "until" necessitates a change in the circumstances whereas in Greek it doesn't (this is true even for English) and there are several examples of this throughout the scriptures where there is clearly no change in circumstances after the "until" clause.
Matthew 1:25 is simply an example of stating that Jesus' conception was not the result of sexual intercourse in very concise and economical use of the Greek language. That is the only message being conveyed by Matthew, and it makes no sense to require that the Gospel writer is implying something else which is completely extraneous to the Gospel message.

n2thelight said:

Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name JESUS."

Click to expand...

The argument is not about the word "knew." We all agree that knew means sexual intercourse.

The argument is about the word "till" and whether it means up until she had the her son and no further. "Till" does not always mean "and no further." For example, in Matthew 28:20 Jesus says, "And remember, I am with you each and every day until the end of the age." Well Jesus isn't with us just up to the end of the age and no further. Nor is he with us up to the end of the world and no further. He is with us for all eternity!!!!!! So getting back to Matthew 1:25, all "till" means there is that they did not have intercourse during the time of her pregnancy -- IOW Jesus conception was not the result of sex. It says not a word about afterwards. It could very well mean, as in Matthew 28:20, that they did not have intercourse even AFTER the pregnancy.

[QUOTL="Open Heart, post: 68372849, member: 356742"]Yes, it is one of the 613 commandments.[/QUOTE]

The 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Marriage, Divorce and Family

63. To be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) (CCA43).

The Mishnah (the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions) in Masechet Yevamot (65b) states: “Men are commanded to be fruitful and multiply but women are not.” However, some rabbis claim women are obligated to get married so that men can fulfill this command (Rabbeinu Nissim). Still there is a sefer that says the obligation to get married is tantamount to a command for that reason (Sefer Magen Avraham). Thus women are obligated to get married but not directly commanded to be fruitful and multiply. In principle, Mary fulfilled her obligation to get married, but her offspring weren't meant to be of human paternal lineage.

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8, 29

But what about Joseph? Would he have wed Mary if she told him at the outset that she intended to remain a virgin? There is no reason why he would not have if he loved her unconditionally and for spiritual reasons took a vow of continence with her. But as a result, the obligation to get married is tantamount to a command for that reason (Sefer Magen Avraham). Thus women are obligated to get married but not directly commanded to be fruitful and multiply. In principle, Mary fulfilled her obligation to get married, but her offspring weren't meant to be of human paternal lineage.

PAX

Open Heart said:

I've tried reading this paragraph several times and am still having a difficult time understanding where you are coming from.

• Joseph did not cohabitate with Mary. The angel said not to be afraid to take her home as his wife, aka to marry her.
• When Mary said, "I have had no relations with a man," she meant she was a virgin. Nothing more.

So where are you getting this idea that she and Joseph had taken this vow of celibacy? It would have been a sin for Joseph as a Jewish man to have done so!

Click to expand...

Was it a sin for John the Baptist or the apostle Paul to be celibate?
As for cohabitation and "having had no relations with a man", please see my posts above: 968 and 988.

P.S.
Are you really Hebrew and Catholic? You sound more Protestant.

PAX

If Mary had taken a vow of chastity, she wouldn't have been betrothed to Joseph in the first place. She would have known that marriage would have violated her vow. So, because she was betrothed, then obviously Mary never took a vow of chastity.

justinangel said:

63. To be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28) (CCA43).
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
The Mishnah (the first major written redaction of the Jewish oral traditions) in Masechet Yevamot (65b) states: “Men are commanded to be fruitful and multiply but women are not.” However, some rabbis claim women are obligated to get married so that men can fulfill this command (Rabbeinu Nissim). Still there is a sefer that says the obligation to get married is tantamount to a command for that reason (Sefer Magen Avraham). Thus women are obligated to get married but not directly commanded to be fruitful and multiply. In principle, Mary fulfilled her obligation to get married, but her offspring weren't meant to be of human paternal lineage.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is correct. For men, not seeking to have children is a sin, so any vow on Joseph's part would have been a sin. It is not a command for women, since women are considered to have a natural desire to have children. Good quote.

Standing Up said:

If Mary had taken a vow of chastity, she wouldn't have been betrothed to Joseph in the first place. She would have known that marriage would have violated her vow. So, because she was betrothed, then obviously Mary never took a vow of chastity.

Click to expand...

Exactly

justinangel said:

Are you really Hebrew and Catholic? You sound more Protestant.

Click to expand...

Yikes!!!!! LOL Yes, I am a Jew as well as a Catholic. Because I post to mostly Protestants, I try to keep them scriptural (I don't post ecumenical councils for instance) because that is what they consider authoritative. Catholics of course believe in the authority of scripture too, so it gives us common ground.

As a Jew, I am also Torah observant. Think of me as a Catholic Messianic Jew. I keep shabbat, I am kosher, and I observe the Jewish holidays. You get the picture. I do all of this with the blessings of Rome, and in addition to my Catholic obligations. So for example, I rest on Saturday for Sabbath, and go to Mass on Sunday.

justinangel said:

As for cohabitation and "having had no relations with a man", please see my posts above: 968 and 988.

Click to expand...

My problem with your posts is that they have way too much stuff that comes out of absolutely nowhere. They simply aren't in the text of scripture or in the Early Church Fathers.

Open Heart said:

My problem with your posts is that they have way too much stuff that comes out of absolutely nowhere. They simply aren't in the text of scripture or in the Early Church Fathers.

Click to expand...

Good observation. I have the very same problem. Usually after the second or third paragraph my eyes glaze over and my mind turns numb.

That is why I respond to your posts more frequently - they are short and to the point and don't bury the reader in unnecessary detail.

bbbbbbb said:

That is why I respond to your posts more frequently - they are short and to the point and don't bury the reader in unnecessary detail.

Click to expand...

Thank you! I enjoy your posts as well.

Open Heart said:

My problem with your posts is that they havAe way too much stuff that comes out of absolutely nowhere. They simply aren't in the text of scripture or in the Early Church Fathers.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, my posts are based on Scripture and Tradition, and I refer to exegetical resources at my disposal to draw inferences. Also, I do cite the Church Fathers and explicate their texts in light of the Catholic faith which I wish to explain for all our readers. Those objectors to whom I've replied simply give their opinions without any sound scriptural, historical, or exegetical support. As for scripture, your problem with Luke 1:34 is that Mary does not speak in the present perfect tense - which you will find in a couple of Protestant Bible versions to suit the Protestant persuasion. You are reading into the text based on your preconceptions and rigid interpretation of the Torah. The original Greek verb ginosko is in the simple present Active Indicative Mood. Further, Hebrew convert to the Catholic faith and exegete rabbinic scholar Brother Anthony Opisso informs us "that the angel does not use the phrase for marital union: “go in unto” (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or “come together” (Mt 1:20) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika) but not cohabiting with her" by fully consummating their marriage in the normal sense. As you know being Hebrew, at this time the couple were legally married (espoused), having celebrated the first wedding ceremony (Kiddushin) pending the second marriage ceremony of solemnization (Nisuin). Now here we may infer that Mary made a prior vow of chastity and Joseph chose to honour her oath for her sake and reverence for God, since the angel spoke to him after the Annunciation. Gabriel plainly instructed him to go ahead as planned, that is to formally solemnize the marriage and take his wife into his home. Joseph had no cause to fear, since Mary hadn't committed adultery and violated the marriage contract. Finally, since you are bent on focussing more on Scripture alone, there is no record of Mary having made a vow after the angel departed from her. The only verse which logically supports the opinions of many Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church is Luke 1:34 which I've lucidly and concisely tried to explain for the benefit of our readers. The conclusion I've reached doesn't depend on what others have claimed to have drawn as well. Nor does it come out of nowhere. Bald and unsupported statements such as yours, like Mary said she hadn't known a man, do arise out of a vacuum and serve no purpose other than accommodating one's personal religious conviction. These kinds of assertions are a far cry from objective reasoning and are purely subjective in nature. They are just as vain as the trite sarcastic and pathetically witty remarks made by Protestants in this thread.

Finally, I'll get back to you soon to show just how rigid your interpretation of the Torah is with regard to the ordinance of propagation. In ancient time there were exceptions to the norm. And I'm not only referring to some priests of the temple who never married for spiritual reasons.

PAX