Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[SeventyOne]

It's not Pan that says that, it's everyone who has been deceived by 19th century heretics. Before that, every church on the planet taught the PVM.

Joseph might have reasoned: Since Mary was inhabited by the Spirit, and by the Holy One conceived by the Spirit, she was, or at least her womb was, holy space. If she is holy space, he cannot have sex with her, since by the rules of Torah sex defiled both the man and the woman (Leviticus 15:18). Having sex with Mary during her pregnancy would have been like a leper or a menstruant entering the temple of God. It would have been like having sex in the temple court itself.

The idea that Mary loses her acquired temple sanctity once Jesus is delivered is odd, for in Judaism and Christianity holy things do not revert to common use once they’re taken out of sacred service. It may not be strictly necessary that the Virgin Mary remain the Perpetual Virgin Mary, but it is certainly fitting.
St. Matthew’s Gospel teaches that Mary has been a holy vessel. Having had “Emmanuel,” God incarnate, in her womb, could it be returned to common use? Unlikely. If the Ark of the Old Testament were recovered today, would anyone of any piety dare use it (say) as a trunk or footlocker? Neither is it likely that Joseph would have treated the New Ark of the Covenant in a common way. Or ask contemporary Orthodox Jews about the Wailing Wall. Though the Temple in Jerusalem was leveled by the Romans almost two thousand years ago in 70 C.E., Jews still gather there to pray at this one wall remaining; the site retains its sanctity.

In the world of St. Matthew’s Gospel the destruction of the temple is punishment for the murder of God’s Son; Jesus dies, and God flees the Holy of Holies through the rendered temple veil. Thus the Romans advance on Jerusalem a generation later, leveling the city and razing the temple. But Mary has done nothing deserving that sort of abandonment. Even if the Son departs her womb, she’s no “empty shell.”

Like the site of the temple for Jews, Christian vessels retain their sanctity: It simply would not be fitting for Catholics, or Orthodox, or (for that matter) Lutherans who have a high view of Holy Communion to (say) sell a worn-out chalice that has held the Blood of Christ at a parish rummage sale and have someone then use it to sip Cabernet while binge-watching the latest series on Netflix. Even after vessels, vestments, and sacramentals wear out, they retain their sanctity, and so require especial treatment and disposition. Mary’s womb having held God, then, it is simply not fitting that she and Joseph would have copulated in the normal way. Like temples and vessels, she retains her special sanctity.
On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: A Response to Peter Leithart – Catholic World Report

I guess I don't understand the "simply not fitting" part. Why would I asume that about Joseph. He was told in his dream, "do not fear to take Mary as your wife". If she was his wife in every sense of the word, then not consumating the marriage would be the part "not fitting", and it would also be him not taking her as his wife fully.

I think people assume too much when it comes to Mary and Joseph, and forgetting they were just simply humans like the rest of us.

 

[BukiRob]

I think the fact that this has disquieted you enough to "INTERNET SHOUT" at me while making some fantastical claims about primacy – and bungling the Tetragram in the process – is where I stop responding on this thread.

Open a thread on Controversial Theology and I may continue to contribute there, but not in Mariography & Hagiography.

It is you who are acting out here bro...

 

[Panevino]

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, 1 Timothy 4:1-3

Consider some denomination views of divorce,
Then consider Catholic recognition of the elevation of marriage.

 

[Panevino]

I

I guess I don't understand the "simply not fitting" part. Why would I asume that about Joseph. He was told in his dream, "do not fear to take Mary as your wife". If she was his wife in every sense of the word, then not consumating the marriage would be the part "not fitting", and it would also be him not taking her as his wife fully.

I think people assume too much when it comes to Mary and Joseph, and forgetting they were just simply humans like the rest of us.

Its not beyond a human to act when knowing that God the father is the father of their son , the son is divine, realize the son needs an earthly father and mother and then act accordingly, consecrated to the role alone.

 

[SeventyOne]

I

Its not beyond a human to act when knowing that God the father is the father of their son , the son is divine, realize the son needs an earthly father and mother and then act accordingly, consecrated to the role alone.

Maybe, but maybe not. There is no reason to assume that such a decision is even necessary. A couple can be a mother and father in their actions, while being husband and wife at the same time.

 

[kepha31]

Maybe, but maybe not. There is no reason to assume that such a decision is even necessary. A couple can be a mother and father in their actions, while being husband and wife at the same time.

An ordinary husband with an ordinary wife who had ordinary children, so what's to stop people from claiming Jesus was just as ordinary as His so called siblings? This heresy is spreading like a malignant cancer.

 

[Panevino]

Ther

Maybe, but maybe not. There is no reason to assume that such a decision is even necessary. A couple can be a mother and father in their actions, while being husband and wife at the same time.

there is a biblical idea of dedicating life to the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:11-12

But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

 

[kepha31]

Ther

there is a biblical idea of dedicating life to the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:11-12

But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Good point, Pan. Celibacy is not a disease but a calling.
Jesus points out 3 different kinds of eunuchs.
1) "eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb"
2) made eunuchs by men" refers to the Greek athletes who would castrate themselves because the parts made them vulnerable in various events.
3) "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." This is a calling by God. It doesn't mean castration as that disqualifies one from ordination. Strong's concordance includes in its definition "one who abstains from marriage". This is what celibacy means. It is not a disease. Paul is talking about #3.

1 Corinthians 7 Paul says marriage is good; celibacy, like he is, is better. He does not make a false dichotomy saying marriage is bad/celibacy is good. It's good/better. Both/and. Not "either/or".

Mary was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit because God would not become incarnate outside of marriage. She was married to God in a divine sense, not in a human sense. Joseph was a righteous man (Matthew 1:19), a caretaker and guardian, and did not disobey the Torah by violating the living Temple. What God makes holy, stays holy.
Mary the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”: Blasphemy or Biblical?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Good point, Pan. Celibacy is not a disease but a calling.
Jesus points out 3 different kinds of eunuchs.
1) "eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb"
2) made eunuchs by men" refers to the Greek athletes who would castrate themselves because the parts made them vulnerable in various events.
3) "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." This is a calling by God. It doesn't mean castration as that disqualifies one from ordination. Strong's concordance includes in its definition "one who abstains from marriage". This is what celibacy means. It is not a disease. Paul is talking about #3.

1 Corinthians 7 Paul says marriage is good; celibacy, like he is, is better. He does not make a false dichotomy saying marriage is bad/celibacy is good. It's good/better. Both/and. Not "either/or".

Mary was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit because God would not become incarnate outside of marriage. She was married to God in a divine sense, not in a human sense. Joseph was a righteous man (Matthew 1:19), a caretaker and guardian, and did not disobey the Torah by violating the living Temple. What God makes holy, stays holy.
Mary the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”: Blasphemy or Biblical?

Celibacy is certainly not a disease in Catholicism, as you correctly state. The obverse, sexual relations in the bond of marriage, is considered to be, at best, merely the means of procreating the human race, or, at worst, a sin, in Catholicism.

For sincere Catholics, the very thought of Mary and Joseph having a normal family life, is hideous in the extreme.

 

[Panevino]

Celibacy is certainly not a disease in Catholicism, as you correctly state. The obverse, sexual relations in the bond of marriage, is considered to be, at best, merely the means of procreating the human race, or, at worst, a sin, in Catholicism.

incorrect, read Humane vitae from Pope Paul VI if your interested.

For sincere Catholics, the very thought of Mary and Joseph having a normal family life, is hideous in the extreme.

By using the word hideous, it's pretty clear you misunderstand the view of sex, love and vocation in Catholicism

 

[bbbbbbb]

incorrect, read Humane vitae from Pope Paul VI if your interested.

By using the word hideous, it's pretty clear you misunderstand the view of sex, love and vocation in Catholicism

So, what would you say if, in actual fact, Mary and Joseph participated in normal human marital relations?

 

[Panevino]

So, what would you say if, in actual fact, Mary and Joseph participated in normal human marital relations?

The problem appears to be that you may not realize that the Catholic view revolves around who the Father is and the divinity of the Son is and not about sex and it's value. It is a vocation to look after /raise a Son that has God as His Father through a human mother.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The problem appears to be that you may not realize that the Catholic view revolves around who the Father is and the divinity of the Son is and not about sex and it's value. It is a vocation to look after /raise a Son that has God as His Father through a human mother.

You evaded my question, which was, "What would you say if, in actual fact, Mary and Joseph participated in normal human marital relations?"

 

[Panevino]

You evaded my question, which was, "What would you say if, in actual fact, Mary and Joseph participated in normal human marital relations?"

That it dismantles the vocation of being set apart for God the Father and his Son

 

[bbbbbbb]

That it dismantles the vocation of being set apart for God the Father and his Son

Thank you for answering my question. This "vocation" is never mentioned in scripture. Have you ever wondered why that is, if, in fact, it is so utterly crucial?

 

[kepha31]

Celibacy is certainly not a disease in Catholicism, as you correctly state. The obverse, sexual relations in the bond of marriage, is considered to be, at best, merely the means of procreating the human race, or, at worst, a sin, in Catholicism.

For sincere Catholics, the very thought of Mary and Joseph having a normal family life, is hideous in the extreme.

Is that why we use the title "Holy Family" to describe Jesus, Mary and Joseph? Your main problem is you have lost all sense of the sacred, and falsely equate the sacred with antipathy to sex. It's a non sequitur found in most of Protestantism.
The sacred hasn’t the slightest to do with some supposed antipathy to sex. If you want that, you have to go to ancient Gnostic views or Protestant Puritanism or Victorianism.

There is not a single passage in the Bible that states that “marital sex is evil / wicked / bad.” If you’re so sure that Catholicism is “anti-sex” then surely you could produce one or more such passages. But it can’t be done because they don’t exist. And you ought to know that already, since you say you’ve studied the Bible a lot.

Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Says US News and World Report

 

[kepha31]

Thank you for answering my question. This "vocation" is never mentioned in scripture. Have you ever wondered why that is, if, in fact, it is so utterly crucial?

Is it the word "vocation" that is not mentioned in Scripture or is it the principle you can't find? see John 1:39. Don't Protestant ministers have a vocation or is it just a job?

 

[HighCherub]

The Virgin Mary is a universal, orthodox dogma of Christianity- from Roman Catholic to Reformed Baptist. the entire spectrum of the traditional theology upholds it.
The poll results on this thread simply mean the unorthodox are desperate to unhinge it from it's foundation.

 

[kepha31]

The Virgin Mary is a universal, orthodox dogma of Christianity- from Roman Catholic to Reformed Baptist. the entire spectrum of the traditional theology upholds it.
The poll results on this thread simply mean the unorthodox are desperate to unhinge it from it's foundation.

The Virginity of Mary is not challenged, it's the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that has been thrown under the bus, in favor of false 19th century traditions of men because it is fashionable.
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli would not approve.

 

[HighCherub]

The Virginity of Mary is not challenged, it's the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that has been thrown under the bus, in favor of false 19th century traditions of men because it is fashionable.
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli would not approve.

Dispensationalists, and otherwise independent churches.

They're likely the reason Lutherans started talking to the RCC.

But Calvinism is literally like a gem brother- it remains as it originally was regardless of anything