Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[Sammy-San]

Posted edited.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not between married couples as God intended.

So you believe all the other church fathers in the article I posted taught false doctrines on this topic?

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

The Roman Catholic Church is a church which believes in the historicity of Adam and Eve, AND accepts the science of human evolution, which, suffice to say, is a bit more complicated than that.
There likewise is more going on when it comes to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the historicity of Mary.

Here too, theology takes precedence over either history of science. The earliest writings on virginity was the ever-virginity of Scripture, and that in a nutshell is what the ever-virginity of Mary points us toward. Mary is everything good and pure that the nation and Torah of Israel represents that culminates in the Word, the fruit of her womb, Jesus himself.
For sure there are Catholics who have a more concrete literal reading of the dogma than that, just as there are Catholics that are pretty literal about the Genesis of mankind too.
Scripturally speaking, it is the Virgin birth that is most important to history, for this points to the miraculous nature of Christ. The dogma goes beyond scripture to give a fuller understanding of who Mary is, not just as poor Jewish girl without means in the times of the Roman Empire, but most importantly, as the Mother of God.
Catholic theologians recognize well enough that there is no real history behind the claim of perpetual virginity. They also understand that that is not what the dogma is all about. The purity and the goodness and the splendor of God's plan for his Chosen people culminates in Mary, Mother of God, and bears fruit in her womb in the child, Jesus.

 

[Stefo]

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.

We are called to purity - the purity like that of children. Children, as long as they are as innocent as they can be, are not sexual. It is in view of this that the Catholic Church, for one, exalts celibacy. Now, if a good nun or priest or a child can attain to a certain level of purity, we must try and think how much more pure (asexual) the Mother of God is. And while we are at it, we might ask ourselves why we would want to question it. If it is because we wish to justify a certain level of sexuality in our own lives, then we can simply resort to remembering that not all of us are called to celibacy. Having understood that, we can then decide to what extent we will be sexual - bearing in mind also what the Church taught in that respect and why. The Eastern Orthodox Church's position on sexuality for different types can also be instructive.

 

[KidMiracleman]

Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

 

[Mountainmike]

One matter I think all should consider is that of Luke 1:34
It comes as a surprise, when you notice the problem.
When she says "how can this happen?" because "not known man" has far deeper meaning than appears at first sight.

The background...

Mary is betrothed. In Jewish speak that is not engagement, the loose agreement as we understand it, they had no such thing.
"betrothed" is already past the point of no return legally, and thus married bar consumation , but describes the periood after marriage but before the marital house is established shortly after. Betrothal normally carries the inevitable expectation, of consumating the marriage and so children. The alternative "put her away privily" refers to divorce, not just amicable parting of ways as it would on our form of engagement. The point I make is that from betrothal on, the rest is legally automatic - ie all expected it would follow inevitably in perpetuity. Indeed it was a problem for Joseph to stop it. The normal expectation of inevitable consumation after betrothal matters in what Mary then says.


At the time of the dialogue, it is important to recognise Mary was not already pregnant, ( or if she was she did not know it) so was not wondering how it had already happened (past tense) , she was questioning how it could happen (future tense)
and there is the oddity in what she says.

Because if she expected hers would be a normal marriage, following betrothal, then it would be inevitable that relations would follow and expectation of a child, which would be no surprise.

So she would not question "how can this happen" that she would become pregnant. That would be obvious. So she would never say what she does in Luke 1:34 if it was intended that hers was to be a normal marriage.

So the only context in which "how can this be" can make sense, is if Mary has not consumated the marriage, but also expected she would not consumate it. Otherwise why would she question "how can this happen?"

In short , it is hard to interpret Luke 1:34 except in the context of not only being a virgin, but Mary expecting to remain a virgin.

How else can "how can this happen?" be a sensible question on her part.

It suprised me the first time someone explained that to me, but even now, I cannot find a hole in the argument. What Mary said had a meaning that is far from the obviousit seems to be at first reading, indeed the first meaning clearly cannot be right. Since it is obvious "How it can happen" because in a normal marriage she would expect she would "know man" and it is only a sensible question in the context of continued epected virginity after marriage.

I recommend all read Tim Staples book on Marian Doctrine "behold your mother"

Where he raises all the Marian doctrines, from theotokos, to immaculate conception, perpetual virginity and so on. Both the catholic standpoint and protestant defences, which dont stack up on deeper analysis, and all the early fathers comments.

Indeed...he considers the clear theological problems it causes if you dont believe in these doctrines: for example, to deny theotokos, is also to question the fundamental nature of Christ, and questioning theotokos is only possible if you adopt one of the early christological heresies.

he explains the problems if you do not adopt the Marian dogmas.

 

[PanDeVida]

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.

Brightlights, regardless if you are a male or female. Its common sense, to believe that Mary remained a Virgin throughout Her Marriage to Joseph, and here is why.

Scripture states that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary quietly because he did not want anything to do with Mary because he thought Mary had relations and becoming pregnant with another mans baby. Joseph being a righteous man did not want to even touch Mary.

Brightlights, Tell me, now that Joseph realized through a dream that Mary had conceived by the HOLY SPIRIT, do YOU think that Joseph would want to have sexual relation with Mary after he found out it was by the Holy Spirit aka God She conceived by???

Brightlights, if you believe that Joseph would want to have sex with Mary after KNOWING THIS TRUTH, then your Brightlights aren't so bright.

Bright Lights, Tell me, what Good Christian man here, would touch such a soul Virgin Mary after they knew Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit???

Or, What good Woman after knowing she conceived of the Holy Spirit aka God, would have another man touch Her in such away???

Joseph knew his role in the life of Jesus and Mary, that he was a protector and Guardian of the Holy Family.

Brightlights, if you have common sense you would find this to be TRUE.

 

[hooverbranch]

Brightlights, regardless if you are a male or female. Its common sense, to believe that Mary remained a Virgin throughout Her Marriage to Joseph, and here is why.

Scripture states that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary quietly because he did not want anything to do with Mary because he thought Mary had relations and becoming pregnant with another mans baby. Joseph being a righteous man did not want to even touch Mary.

Brightlights, Tell me, now that Joseph realized through a dream that Mary had conceived by the HOLY SPIRIT, do YOU think that Joseph would want to have sexual relation with Mary after he found out it was by the Holy Spirit aka God She conceived by???

Brightlights, if you believe that Joseph would want to have sex with Mary after KNOWING THIS TRUTH, then your Brightlights aren't so bright.

Bright Lights, Tell me, what Good Christian man here, would touch such a soul Virgin Mary after they knew Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit???

Or, What good Woman after knowing she conceived of the Holy Spirit aka God, would have another man touch Her in such away???

Joseph knew his role in the life of Jesus and Mary, that he was a protector and Guardian of the Holy Family.

Brightlights, if you have common sense you would find this to be TRUE.

Your common sense is debatable at best. First off it is not a set in stone fact that Mary and Joseph were married at the time of the immaculate conception. Although Mountainmike pointed out in the post before you that there was no idea of engagement in this time. The common practice was arranged marriage. Which is most likely what Mary and Joseph were arranged to be married. And it does not say Joseph was going ti divorce Mary, but send her away quietly. (Now I am not stating dogmaticly that they were not married because there is not enough evidence to emphatically say either way. I am just stating is is just as likely they were not as they were.)

Most importantly you ask which Christian would have sexual relations with their spouse knowing that the Holy Spirit created a child in Her. I would argue a spouse that realizes the Biblical design of marriage. 1 Cor 7. In fact the argument can be made that if Mary with held herself from Joseph, or the reverse, they may very well be in sin.

 

[DRobert]

Martin Luther and John Wesley supported the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[wilts43]

(1)It's not "Roman Christians" who believe this doctrine but Catholic & Orthodox. In other words, all Christians until the 16th century & the vast majority now.
(2)Protestant problems with Mary stem from a failure to use typology in biblical interpretation. The scriptures. Try this Catholic Bible 101
(3) In this instance Mary as "The Ark of the new & everlasting covenant" (Tabernacle of "The living Word of God" & "The living Manna") is more holy than the wooden one.
And yet God killed Uzzah for touching the wooden Ark.

 

[celticpiping]

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....]/QUOTE]

I never understood the desire to venerate Mary to a position so near to the Son of God, that she and other early believers become ( in the RCC) mind, intercessors on behalf of Christians.
Once a RCC person holds that "church tradition" enjoys equal weight & authority to the scriptures, all bets are off, imho..

 

[rstrats]

hooverbranch,
re: "First off it is not a set in stone fact that Mary and Joseph were married at the time of the immaculate conception."

That's a pretty safe assumption since the immaculate conception according to the teaching of the Catholic Church is the idea that Mary was born free from original sin.

 

[rstrats]

com7fy8,
re: "Except > Jesus knew He could trust John. His own brothers had not believed in Him."

I don't see where the account mentions John. What do you have in mind?

 

[rstrats]

zippy2006,
re: "The one that is most obvious to me is the fact that Jesus gives Mary to John in Jn 19:26.

I don't see where John 19:26 mentions John.

 

[rstrats]

Deleted.

 

[brightlights]

I don't speak for the RCC, but the ever-virginity of the Theotokos was revealed within the Church from the beginning, by the Power of God, and is still being revealed by the Power of God in the Church even as I type this.

If it is not revealed in the Scriptures how can it be said to be revealed in the church?

 

[brightlights]

We are called to purity - the purity like that of children. Children, as long as they are as innocent as they can be, are not sexual. It is in view of this that the Catholic Church, for one, exalts celibacy. Now, if a good nun or priest or a child can attain to a certain level of purity, we must try and think how much more pure (asexual) the Mother of God is. And while we are at it, we might ask ourselves why we would want to question it. If it is because we wish to justify a certain level of sexuality in our own lives, then we can simply resort to remembering that not all of us are called to celibacy. Having understood that, we can then decide to what extent we will be sexual - bearing in mind also what the Church taught in that respect and why. The Eastern Orthodox Church's position on sexuality for different types can also be instructive.

So sex is dirty and Mary was totally pure. Therefore she never had sex?

 

[FireDragon76]

Proper scripture interpretation requires historical knowledge within the culture at the time it was written. Many modern day evangelicals interpret scripture throught the lens
Of their own time and culture.

Yes, that's what I mean by talking about the Holy Family like it was some kind of 1950's nuclear family informed by Victorian values of domesticity. When in reality, Jesus family life would be more like a "nontraditional family", broken homes, single mothers, and the like. From the beginning of his earthly life, Jesus was on the margins of his society ("Does anything good come from Nazareth?"). People don't appreciate the bravery of Mary. She was OK with something that would basically mark her out as a curiosity, at best, or someone who could be put to death, at worst. The scandal, the freakishness, of the Incarnation is lost on the average Protestant. We have made the story of God being born into a barn too domenstic and sanitized (after all, most barns stink).

So I say, why not perpetually virgin? As Tertullian said, the fact it is absurd makes it all the more believable.

 

[Sine Nomine]

It's interesting to me that the posts here all argue from the perspective of a 'plain' or literal reading of the text in English or the original Greek. The theology of perpetual virginity, as I understand it, comes from the medieval period when literal sense was frequently strongly overshadowed and amplified by analogical and allegorical senses. Basically, the symbolic understanding is important. Christ was viewed much more mystically as both God and Man, Word and Flesh, and man as both Saint and Sinner things that are not possible from a strictly literal point of view. This extended to an understanding of a dual nature of the Eucharist, wine and blood, bread and body. And, to Mary as the human vessel capable of containing and bearing the person of God. She is called Theotokos, the God-bearer. How this is possible also only makes sense from a more anagogical perspective. Mary was also seen as the perfect Eve, the woman of heaven, as Christ is the perfect or true Adam, and King of Heaven.

In this line of thinking, Perpetual virginity makes sense regardless of whether she had physical relations with Joseph or bore other children after Jesus. How could a person worthy of bearing Christ become less pure. At some point Mary is also accorded a truly sinless state (also literally impossible if we believe that only God is good, that all have sinned, and so on), this makes sense anagogically if Mary is to serve as the token of the perfect women.

This theology is extremely satisfying and effective, pointing to a perfection of human beings in the likeness of Mary and Christ. But, modern people don't think anagogically much and prefer literalness. I think without this kind of medieval perspective, the RCC position comes under deserved scrutiny. But, with this perspective we would regain a richer sense of God's work to redeem our low estate.

 

[brightlights]

One of the best things that the Reformation did for Biblical exegesis was to discard all of the excesses of analogical interpretation and the "four senses of Scripture". I don't understand why you, @Sine Nomine, would want to return to that.