Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[Jonathan Mathews]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it. But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in Scripture and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

It doesn't matter because it's not written, and it's not written because it doesn't matter.

 

[Archivist]

The first time I saw this thread I read the title as "Why Believe in Professional Virginity." Needless to say I was a bit confused until I reread it.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not between married couples as God intended.

What do you think was the cause of Augustine's theology? Guilt from sin? Gnosticism?

 

[CrystalDragon]

Cousins and other close relatives were called brothers back then. It's also used in a spiritual sense as in Christians are the brothers and sisters of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I know there's the spiritual meaning and such, but the way it was phrased seems biological to me.

 

[Hank77]

What do you think was the cause of Augustine's theology? Guilt from sin? Gnosticism?

I really don't know. I could take a guess that it was because of the pagan culture all around them at the time. Temple prostitution, young boys and men used a paramours, it was an over sexual environment. The Catholic church being in it's early stages of development and new believers coming out of this type of cultural may have made him overly aggressive in his teachings in order to clean things up.

 

[daleksteve]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it. But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in Scripture and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

its just catholic nonsense. Jesus had siblings, the new testement tells us us this.

The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55-56 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. Another verse in theEpistle to the Galatians 1:19 mentions seeing James, "the Lord's brother"

 

[thecolorsblend]

I dont believe by not Celebrating Mary we (Protestants) do not appreciate the amazing circumstances in how God the Father brought about Jesus. We fully realize the implications of Mary being a Virgin for Jesus. We fully realize hiw important it was for Jesus to be unblemished and without Sin. What we can not recognize is that anyone other than God can be perfect. Mary was not God in Flesh. Mary was a faithful servant who was chosen as the vessel to bring forth the Savior.

We know through scripture and Church history that Jesus had brothers.

In brief, we know no such thing.

If you want a deeper commentary on why exactly it's highly improbable that these "brothers" of Our Lord are literal brothers the way we define such a thing today,
St. Jude and the “Brothers” of Jesus – Shameless Popery and Did Mary Have Other Children? – Shameless Popery explain exactly why using the same scriptures you all have access to.

 

[Tigger45]

Its a fair reminder that not only the RC teach the PVM but also the Orthodox traditions.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Mary knew she was imperfect and needed a Savior.

The Catholic Church agrees. She did need a savior. And she has one.

And a child of God is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit . . .

The Holy Spirit's indwelling of believers is kinda sorta totally different from the Incarnation.

...

I'm skipping the rest because it's pretty obvious you either didn't read my post or else that you completely missed the point. Please reread it and try to stay on topic if you reply again. Thanks!

 

[Sammy-San]

I really don't know. I could take a guess that it was because of the pagan culture all around them at the time. Temple prostitution, young boys and men used a paramours, it was an over sexual environment. The Catholic church being in it's early stages of development and new believers coming out of this type of cultural may have made him overly aggressive in his teachings in order to clean things up.

why did you mention temple prostitution? Didn't that occur everywhere in society and not just in temples?

 

[Hank77]

The Catholic Church agrees. She did need a savior. And she has one.

Was Mary Incarnate as Jesus was? If so, why would she need a savior?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Oddly enough, Sacred Scripture gives no direct indication that she ever lost her virginity.

Separately, Our Lady's womb was the dwelling place of Our Lord. Cyril of Alexandria described her as a temple of God.

I should also say that Origen, Hilary of Poitiers and St. Athanasius all thought Our Lady was ever-virgin. Where did they get that idea?

1 Cor. 7 points to celibacy as the ideal so it's not like the Catholic Church is inventing something out of whole cloth. There's nothing "medieval" about that.

The reality is that God clearly took the Incarnation very seriously. One quibble I have with Protestantism is that many of them don't have a complete appreciation for how miraculous the Incarnation really is. The steps required to effectuate Our Lord's birth free of the stain of sin are rather extensive and I think Protestants deny (perhaps unwittingly) the beauty, scope and grandeur of God's plan in allowing Our Lord to be born without a sin nature. These required special circumstances for Our Lady and thus the Catholic Church recognizes and celebrates her and the special circumstances which allowed her to give birth to Our Lord.

I believe it's cuase we want to ensure the focus is still God.... Ik a friend that becuase of this uh...celebration of mary thing believes she is higher then God now. Ik many that have this mindset now. I'm not protestant but my religion is similar in that the focus is God.

 

[brightlights]

Also, see the following:


Source:
Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Thanks for this list. Does this about sum it up? I don't find this very compelling. Are you convinced by this?

 

[hooverbranch]

I really don't know. I could take a guess that it was because of the pagan culture all around them at the time. Temple prostitution, young boys and men used a paramours, it was an over sexual environment. The Catholic church being in it's early stages of development and new believers coming out of this type of cultural may have made him overly aggressive in his teachings in order to clean things up.

And things like that happen even today. We have extreme positions on things in pretty much every denomination of the church today trying to combat or not be like another.
Take Legalism (the idea that certain things that are not called sins in the Bible are not only black and white sins but may even have implications on ones salvation) Legalism is a direct response to sections of the church abusing things like alcohol, tobacco, etc. It was "we dont want to look like them so lets go to the other extreme". This example can be seen in tons of areas Charismatic vs cessationism, calvinism vs arminism, etc. So that could absolutley be a plausible reason for Augustines opinions on sex.

I bet if we were all honest with ourselves all of our churches lean towards at least one extreme that is a direct response to another.

 

[brightlights]

Oddly enough, Sacred Scripture gives no direct indication that she ever lost her virginity.

Well. Yes and no. Scripture speaks of the brothers of Jesus in a few places. The simplest way to interpret this is that Jesus had actual brothers. I know that Roman believers have their ways of getting around this. But you must admit that, unless we assume perpetual virginity, those explanations are much more complicated. Furthermore these explanations would be begging the question.

I should also say that Origen, Hilary of Poitiers and St. Athanasius all thought Our Lady was ever-virgin. Where did they get that idea?

I really don't know. Not from Scripture, though.

1 Cor. 7 points to celibacy as the ideal so it's not like the Catholic Church is inventing something out of whole cloth. There's nothing "medieval" about that.

Does it? In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says that marriage and celibacy are both good. I'm not convinced that he is exalting celibacy above marriage in that passage.

The reality is that God clearly took the Incarnation very seriously. One quibble I have with Protestantism is that many of them don't have a complete appreciation for how miraculous the Incarnation really is. The steps required to effectuate Our Lord's birth free of the stain of sin are rather extensive and I think Protestants deny (perhaps unwittingly) the beauty, scope and grandeur of God's plan in allowing Our Lord to be born without a sin nature. These required special circumstances for Our Lady and thus the Catholic Church recognizes and celebrates her and the special circumstances which allowed her to give birth to Our Lord.

I don't see how the doctrine of perpetual virginity adds anything to the doctrine of the incarnation. Could you connect those dots for me?

 

[brightlights]

What is your view on what these theologians said? Heretical?

Church Fathers & Doctors

I don't think I would say "heretical". But they were wrong.

 

[brightlights]

Jesus isn't named directly in the Old Testament. But he is mentioned a lot of times in it indirectly through prototypes and other subtle references.

I agree with this because the New Testament makes this explicit claim many times.

The same is true for the Virgin Mary.

The NT never makes any explicit OT connection to Mary except the prophesy in Isaiah 7. So I wouldn't go as far as you do with making other OT connections.

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't think I would say "heretical". But they were wrong.

So heresy and false doctrine arent synonymous?

 

[Hank77]

why did you mention temple prostitution? Didn't that occur everywhere in society and not just in temples?

Yes. The reason I point at temples is because those temples were dedicated to gods whom they worshiped. They had a pagan view of god/gods and sexual immorality was a part of those religions.
Just as some of the Gnostics thought that sexual immorality with their bodies did not count against them, believing that matter (the flesh body) was sinful and only spirit was accountable to God. Some of them didn't believe that Jesus was God come in the flesh but was a normal man filled with God's Spirit. John's definition of an antichrist.
So the church was really challenged when trying to teach these people the truth of Christianity.

 

[frettr00]

Doesn't it say that Jesus had several brothers and sisters (and I mean that in the biological sense)?

Those were children of Mary the wife of Clopas, a different Mary than the mother of Jesus.