Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is the situation. If a woman is a virin her hymen is intact and unbroken. Once the hymen is broken then she is no longer a virgin. When Mary conceived our Lord Jesus Christ she was a virgin with an intact hymen. If she gave birth (with or without pain) in a standard biological manner, then her hymen was broken when her son came through the birth canal and into the world. Thus, she was no longer a virgin with an intact hymen.

This posed a problem for some individuals who had determined that human intercourse of any type was sinful and that Mary, being utterly and eternally sinless, could not have lost her virginity. Thus, the logical conclusion for them was that Jesus was not born in a normal manner but came out of the side of Mary instead.

That is skating on very thin ice, indeed, as it provides fodder for all manner of heresies which reject the true humanity of Jesus Christ.

Now, it seems to me that you consider sexual intercourse, even in Christian marriage, to be sinful and that those who engage in it commit sin and lose their purity. Do you really believe this?

I don't see why Mary's Ever-Virginity implies having an unbroken hymen.

As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes that sexual relations are holy and good, but that marriage is not as exalted as consecrated virginity and chastity, of which the Mother of God is the model.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I don't see why Mary's Ever-Virginity implies having an unbroken hymen.

As I understand it, the Catholic Church believes that sexual relations are holy and good, but that marriage is not as exalted as consecrated virginity and chastity, of which the Mother of God is the model.

If what you say is true, do you think Mary would have sinned in any way had she lost her unbroken hymen (and her virginity as understood by some ECF's)? IOW, is her virginity a matter of sinlessness as opposed to the opposite?
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If what you say is true, do you think Mary would have sinned in any way had she lost her unbroken hymen (and her virginity as understood by some ECF's)? IOW, is her virginity a matter of sinlessness as opposed to the opposite?

I don't understand what you're asking. I don't see why the Christian dogma that Mary is Ever-Virgin and Immaculately Conceived implies that her hymen was not broken through giving birth.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Me neither. To me the issue is just that she is the Immaculate Conception, and is Ever-Virgin.

We have a problem of semantics here. There is a particular jargon which is unique to Catholicism. Among its many phrases there is "the Immaculate Conception". When you say that Mary is "the Immaculate Conception" it comes across to me as something on the order of President Obama is the Kenyan Birth. I think you probably mean that you believe that Mary was conceived immaculately, not necessarily that she is the actual conception itself. As well, Ever-Virgin can carry lots of meanings, including sinlessness. A lot of Catholics associate sinlessness with virginity and sin with sexual intercourse. One can, of course, be an extremely vile sinner and still be Ever-Virgin. Sin comes in many forms. Can one, however, be sinless and not be a virgin?
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We have a problem of semantics here. There is a particular jargon which is unique to Catholicism. Among its many phrases there is "the Immaculate Conception". When you say that Mary is "the Immaculate Conception" it comes across to me as something on the order of President Obama is the Kenyan Birth. I think you probably mean that you believe that Mary was conceived immaculately, not necessarily that she is the actual conception itself. As well, Ever-Virgin can carry lots of meanings, including sinlessness. A lot of Catholics associate sinlessness with virginity and sin with sexual intercourse. One can, of course, be an extremely vile sinner and still be Ever-Virgin. Sin comes in many forms. Can one, however, be sinless and not be a virgin?

I don't think that Mary could have been a sinner and still have been Ever-Virgin, in the sense we mean. When we say that Mary is Ever-Virgin, we don't just mean that she never had sex, it means that she was completely pure in every way.

As to the issue of whether one could be sinless and not be a virgin... yes, I think it's possible. But consecrated Virginity is higher.

And Catholics see sex as good and holy, and as a sacrament. I think are also realists who know that there is probably going to be some lust involved.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 21, 2015
1,919
1,045
✟25,183.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Whether Mary was a virgin or not, you can discuss this without using (what some would consider) vulgar terms. Regardless of which side is true, Mary was responsible in raising Jesus, and blessed as being an earthly vessel for His conception. I don't feel discussing 'hymens' is paying the respect she deserves.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Whether Mary was a virgin or not, you can discuss this without using (what some would consider) vulgar terms. Regardless of which side is true, Mary was responsible in raising Jesus, and blessed as being an earthly vessel for His conception. I don't feel discussing 'hymens' is paying the respect she deserves.

I've never understood the issue in exactly the way the fathers understood Mary's Perpetual Virginity. I understand Mary as the Holy of Holies, the Mother of God, the New Eve, the Ever-Virgin Queen and Mother of all Humankind.

I agree we should treat her with the utmost respect. But I don't think that means it's necessarily wrong to talk about her body parts relative to the birth of Christ, if there is a good reason, and if one is being reverent.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I've never understood the issue in exactly the way the fathers understood Mary's Perpetual Virginity. I understand Mary as the Holy of Holies, the Mother of God, the New Eve, the Ever-Virgin Queen and Mother of all Humankind.

I agree we should treat her with the utmost respect. But I don't think that means it's necessarily wrong to talk about her body parts relative to the birth of Christ, if there is a good reason, and if one is being reverent.

Thank you for the good post. I have tried to show great respect for Mary and have tried to avoid profanity, but was limited to medical terms when discussing the nature of her physical virginity. i am sorry that some are offended, but it is not because of a lack of reverence on my part. I appreciate your understanding.

Like you, I have been surprised with the actual writings of the ECF's on the issue. I think we all can agree that their understanding was very different than modern understanding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the good post. I have tried to show great respect for Mary and have tried to avoid profanity, but was limited to medical terms when discussing the nature of her physical virginity. i am sorry that some are offended, but it is not because of a lack of reverence on my part. I appreciate your understanding.

Like you, I have been surprised with the actual writings of the ECF's on the issue. I think we all can agree that their understanding was very different than modern understanding.

Thanks for your respectful post.

In the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott says that the Fathers and Schoolmen misinterpreted the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity because of inadequate scientific knowledge.

To me the main issue, as always, is to glorify the Queen Mother as Christ glorifies her.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Thanks for your respectful post.

In the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott says that the Fathers and Schoolmen misinterpreted the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity because of inadequate scientific knowledge.

To me the main issue, as always, is to glorify the Queen Mother as Christ glorifies her.

If what Ott says is true, then the historical basis for the dogma of Perpetual Virginity is eradicated. It would thus appear that the dogma did not actually appear in anything like its current form until the late Middle Ages at the earliest. This throws the whole dogma into question.

Concerning what Christ had to say about His mother, we do not have much to go on and what we have is perplexing. For example, in John 2 we have His comment to His mother at the wedding in Cana, as follows:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus *said to Him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus *said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother *said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” 6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He *said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter *called the bridegroom, 10 and *said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

Then there is this from Luke 11 -

27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

And this from Mark 3 (see also Matthew 11) -

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

In fact, the New Testament fails to begin to go to the extremes of veneration of Mary that the Catholic Church does, leaving one wondering why it is that the writers of the New Testament failed to do so.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If what Ott says is true, then the historical basis for the dogma of Perpetual Virginity is eradicated. It would thus appear that the dogma did not actually appear in anything like its current form until the late Middle Ages at the earliest. This throws the whole dogma into question.

Concerning what Christ had to say about His mother, we do not have much to go on and what we have is perplexing. For example, in John 2 we have His comment to His mother at the wedding in Cana, as follows:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus *said to Him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus *said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother *said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” 6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He *said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter *called the bridegroom, 10 and *said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

Then there is this from Luke 11 -

27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

And this from Mark 3 (see also Matthew 11) -

31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” 33 Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” 34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

In fact, the New Testament fails to begin to go to the extremes of veneration of Mary that the Catholic Church does, leaving one wondering why it is that the writers of the New Testament failed to do so.

I don't see that what Ott says calls the Perpetual Virginity of Mary into question. As far as the wedding feast at Cana--to take your first example-- I think that event shows the power of the mediation of the Blessed Virgin. It was the Ever-Virgin New Eve, not the New Adam, who knew that the hour had come to perform the first miracle.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I don't see that what Ott says calls the Perpetual Virginity of Mary into question. As far as the wedding feast at Cana--to take your first example-- I think that event shows the power of the mediation of the Blessed Virgin. It was the Ever-Virgin New Eve, not the New Adam, who knew that the hour had come to perform the first miracle.

Ott does not call the current understanding of the PV of Mary into question, but does completely obliterate that understanding as having been held by the ECF's. If the ECF's did not believe or understand the PV of Mary as we do now, then the argument that the Church has always believed it goes completely out the window and we are left with a pathetic line of argument that this dogma is a later revelation to the Church through its Magisterium and it does not matter if the dogma was never understood or believed in the first thirteen centuries of Catholic history.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ott does not call the current understanding of the PV of Mary into question, but does completely obliterate that understanding as having been held by the ECF's. If the ECF's did not believe or understand the PV of Mary as we do now, then the argument that the Church has always believed it goes completely out the window and we are left with a pathetic line of argument that this dogma is a later revelation to the Church through its Magisterium and it does not matter if the dogma was never understood or believed in the first thirteen centuries of Catholic history.

The Church fathers believed that the Mother of God never had sexual relations. Ott doesn't deny that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The Church fathers believed that the Mother of God never had sexual relations. Ott doesn't deny that.

I am not saying that he does say that. What he apparently does say is that the Church fathers understood the nature of virginity in different terms. Their understanding focussed on the hymen, which, for them, represented true virginity. If the hymen was broken for any reason, then a woman was no longer a virgin. Thus, if Jesus Christ was born in the natural manner, passing through the birth canal, Mary would have ceased to have been a virgin. As a result, they had to come up with some explanation as to how the incarnate Christ actually came into this world.

For the ECF's, virginity had virtually nothing to do with sexual relations. Thus, they did not frame their discussions of the PV of Mary in the terms which modern Catholics do.

If, indeed, Christ was born in the normal manner, Mary's virginity would have been lost in their view, so that whether or not she had marital relations with Joseph or whether or not Jesus' brothers and sisters were also Mary's children was nonessential to the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Why do you think that?

Because in their view virginity was lost for a number of reasons, not merely sexual relations. Birth was the obvious means by which Mary may have lost her virginity. Thus, for them, the conundrum was whether or not Mary actually remained a virgin after Jesus Christ came into the world.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because in their view virginity was lost for a number of reasons, not merely sexual relations. Birth was the obvious means by which Mary may have lost her virginity. Thus, for them, the conundrum was whether or not Mary actually remained a virgin after Jesus Christ came into the world.

I don't follow. Are you saying the fathers believed that the Mother of God had sexual relations?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,197.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I don't follow. Are you saying the fathers believed that the Mother of God had sexual relations?

No. I am not saying that. I am saying that sexual relations did not define virginity in their world. To be sure, they understood that sexual relations would definitely end virginity, but then so would many other acts, not the least of which was the act of childbirth. If Jesus Christ passed through Mary's birth canal and broke her hymen in the process, then her virginity was forever lost and it would be a moot point as to whether or not she had marital relations with Joseph.
 
Upvote 0