Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[brightlights]

I'm fine with a distinction between orthodox doctrine and pious opinion.

It is my pious opinion, for example, that Peter was indeed pastor in Rome and that he was martyred there. But I would never exalt this belief to be a measure of orthodoxy.

My problem with the Roman Church is not that they confess PVM. My problem is that they reckon it as infallible doctrine. This exposes a problem in principle that I have with the infallibility of the church.

 

[Tangible]

That would be the same objection a Lutheran would have.

 

[truefiction1]

Paul in 1 Cor 7 says that it would be sinful for a wife or husband to withhold their conjugal rights from one another.

This statement is in need of correction, because Paul does not say that it is sinful for married couples to refrain from having any sexual relations: "I say this as a concession, not as a command." (1 Corinthians 7:6)

If neither Mary nor Joseph saw fit to have sexual relations following the birth of Christ (and we know that they saw fit not to because Theotokos is evervirgin) then that's that. They remain blameless in this regard.

 

[RC1970]

Here are some reasons not to accept PVM:

1. Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms it.
2. Scripture seems to clearly indicate that Jesus had siblings, which would strongly suggest that PVM is false.
3. It would be incredibly strange for a married, Jewish woman living in the first century to remain a virgin throughout her life.
4. A woman who never consummates a marriage by sex would not be married at all. Sex and marriage go hand in hand.
5. A "married" woman who remains a virgin throughout her life would likely be living in sin barring some extraordinary circumstances that necessitated her virginity.
6. There is archaeological evidence to suggest that James the Just is the brother of Jesus and son of Joseph, suggesting that Mary was James' mother.

Also, in Jewish thinking, children were considered a blessing from God. The more children, the greater the blessing. A lack of children would have been considered a curse.

Since Mary is said to have been "Blessed among women", it would be consistent to assume that she had many children.

There is absolutely nothing gained from her remaining a virgin.

 

[truefiction1]

Also, in Jewish thinking, children were considered a blessing from God. The more children, the greater the blessing. A lack of children would have been considered a curse.

Since Mary is said to have been "Blessed among women", it would be consistent to assume that she had many children.

There is absolutely nothing gained from her remaining a virgin.

This statement is also false, because while it is true that a complete lack of children was considered a curse, a woman with one child was considered "not" cursed. Thus, Theotokos is "blessed among women" even still, and also ever virgin.

 

[brightlights]

This statement is in need of correction, because Paul does not say that it is sinful for married couples to refrain from having any sexual relations: "I say this as a concession, not as a command." (1 Corinthians 7:6)

Taken within the context and flow of Paul's argument, what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7:6 is that people are free to marry (concession). But they are not commanded to marry. They are also perfectly free to remain single.

Yet Mary was not single. And it still stands that Paul's instructions for married people are to not withhold their conjugal rights from one another. This, for married folks, is indeed a command.

If neither Mary nor Joseph saw fit to have sexual relations following the birth of Christ (and we know that they saw fit not to because Theotokos is evervirgin) then that's that. They remain blameless in this regard.

If Joseph was not interested in sex with Mary then I suppose it's possible for there to be no sin in remaining married and celibate. But this idea is simply very strange and we have no good reason to accept it. It makes much more sense, both commonly and biblically, to suppose that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage wherein they had sex and other children.

 

[Blade]

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.

Well the word says different. Mary did have others.. I believe 4. So.. I am going to stick with His word.

 

[Tangible]

Also, in Jewish thinking, children were considered a blessing from God. The more children, the greater the blessing. A lack of children would have been considered a curse.

Since Mary is said to have been "Blessed among women", it would be consistent to assume that she had many children.

There is absolutely nothing gained from her remaining a virgin.

What truefiction1 said is valid. Also, one must consider the identity of the one child that Mary bore. Surely for that reason alone she is most blessed among women.

 

[Tangible]

"Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject [PVM], except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." - J. Calvin

 

[brightlights]

"Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject [PVM], except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." - J. Calvin

Where in Calvin is that quote located?

 

[Tangible]

Where in Calvin is that quote located?

John Calvin's Commentaries On The Harmony Of The Gospels Vol. 1 (Annotated Edition)

 

[RC1970]

"Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject [PVM], except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." - J. Calvin

Actually, this quote supports the point of the OP. Calvin did not think PVM was worthy dogma.

 

[brightlights]

John Calvin's Commentaries On The Harmony Of The Gospels Vol. 1 (Annotated Edition)

So Calvin appears not to take a position on PVM.

 

[truefiction1]

Well the word says different. Mary did have others.. I believe 4. So.. I am going to stick with His word.

Except that the Word doesn't say that Mary gave birth to any children other than Christ. So you are not sticking with His Word, but merely your own misconceptions.

 

[faroukfarouk]

So Calvin appears not to take a position on PVM.

What Calvin is saying is that PVM cannot be defended from Scripture.

Indeed, Matthew 1 describes the Lord Jesus as Mary's 'firstborn' Son.

 

[Tangible]

It appears to me that he saw no need to question PVM, and believed that as an established position, further discussion would be unfruitful since it does not impinge upon the Gospel.

 

[Tangible]

Actually, this quote supports the point of the OP. Calvin did not think PVM was worthy dogma.

Well, that's certainly one way to spin it.

 

[truefiction1]

Taken within the context and flow of Paul's argument, what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7:6 is that people are free to marry (concession). But they are not commanded to marry. They are also perfectly free to remain single.

Yet Mary was not single. And it still stands that Paul's instructions for married people are to not withhold their conjugal rights from one another. This, for married folks, is indeed a command..

Paul was addressing sex within marriage and giving sound advice about a married man or woman not refusing each other. But he gave the advice as a concession, not a command. Thus, it's not a sin for married people to live as celibates if that is their choice.

If Joseph was not interested in sex with Mary then I suppose it's possible for there to be no sin in remaining married and celibate. But this idea is simply very strange and we have no good reason to accept it. It makes much more sense, both commonly and biblically, to suppose that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage wherein they had sex and other children.

It may seem like a strange idea with no good reason to accept, but it's not unheard of for married people to agree to live together like brother and sister (without sexual relations). We have had married saints in the Church do this, So why wouldn't she who is the greatest of the Church's saints be in such a relationship with the very righteous Joseph?

 

[brightlights]

It appears to me that he saw no need to question PVM, and believed that as an established position, further discussion would be unfruitful since it does not impinge upon the Gospel.

That's not how I read it. Perhaps our biases are at play here.

He says that "no inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist", meaning that a position cannot be taken either way. And he goes on to say that the Evangelist is silent concerning what happened after Christ's birth. His conclusion, it seems to me, is that we should not inquire or concern ourselves about it inordinately either way.

 

[brightlights]

Check out Calvin's commentary on John 7:5 - that one is pretty interesting.