Accusation against the belief in Mary's ever-virginity...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

This protestant I know has accused the belief that Mary was ever virgin saying, "it would have been sinful to deny marital relations all one's life, and cause for divorce."

This does not sound to convincing to me, but is there any logic behind it?

-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), April 16, 2004

Answers

Bump this question over to "New Answers"!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 16, 2004.

While it could be sinful to "deny" one's spouse marital rights, this obviously has no bearing whatsoever on Joseph and Mary's relationship, which was one of mutual calling, mutual understanding and mutual acceptance from the beginning. Mary was a consecrated virgin, and as such was committed to a life of celibacy. What Protestants (and many Catholics for that matter) don't realize is that Mary and Joseph's marital celibacy was not unique. Consecrated virgins, while committed to celibacy, were not forbidden to marry. Couples entering into such marriages did so with a mutual desire and commitment to intense spiritual growth, and viewed their relationship, including their mutual commitment to celibacy, as a means to that ultimate end, while still enjoying the benefits of each other's companionship and, especially for the woman, the security of other benefits of shared life. Many Catholics are also unaware that the vocation of consecrated virgin has continued throughout the centuries, and is still an option today. I personally know several women who live this vocation, having been consecrated by the bishop.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 16, 2004.

Paul M.,

Are these women today who are consecrated virgins still married? I have heard that it was a Jewish custom of the day, but I didn't realize that still existed today.

Jacob R.,

The Eastern Orthodox Church has a feast day in addition to the Catholic ones that celebrates Mary's day when she became a consecrated virgin.

Let's take a look at the passage:

Luke 1 (KJV)

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Notice that in v.31 the angel said "thou shalt conceive," not "you have already conceived." This implies a future event that could have taken place after she was married. The angel does not indicate anything about the time frame, so it's possible that the angel could have been saying that after she was married to Joseph (assuming a normal marriage and sexual relations) that she would conceive.

Why then if this could be the case, does Mary respond with confusion? In v. 34 she asks, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Notice she says "shall," also implying a future event. If she was expecting to be married to Joseph in the way that Protestants contend, and have marital relations with Joseph, why would she even ask this question? She could have thought, "Ok, I'm going to have a son once I'm married to Joseph." But this is not the case. Her response indicates that she is expecting to never "know a man."

In another Protestant version, NIV, it is even more clear. v.34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" Here it uses the word "virgin," which indicates that she could be a consecrated virgin. Also think about this: what kind of sign would it be for a woman to have a child who would be married in the normal manner and have marital relations with her husband? If she was not a consecrated virgin, people might have thought that she and Joseph had relations before they were married and covered up their sin. But if she remained a virgin all her life, this is even more clear evidence of God's sign that He promised in Isaiah about the coming Messiah, that a virgin would have a son.

On a side note, some have proposed that the passage below refers to this idea of consecrated virgins being married, but not having sexual relations. See especially v. 36 & 37 where it talks about a man keeping his virgin. How could this use a form of possession if the man and woman were not somehow connected? Also, "keep his virgin" implies that the man keeps the woman in her state of virginity.

1 Corinthians 7 (KJV) 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.


Mary gave birth to Christ. That kind of makes all other duties irrelavent when we consider that Mary's duty was exclusively the naturing of Jesus. Jesus is the Salvation of the world. Mary and Joseph had to believe it and realized their role in the Salvation plan. It had to put aside all human selfishness for a higher call. That is what makes more sense than any Protestant assertion of Joseph and Mary's selfish apetite.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.


Hey, I have relatives who are celebate because of their religious convictions.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.



ok, im totally confused.

first, why would married adults choose celibacy based on "religious convictions" or otherwise? this isnt a rhetorical question. i would like to know what it is that brings people to this choice. its an odd way of living. (no one's being made fun of. but it IS unusual).

second- im always puzzled by the catholic Marian doctrine. does NOT the catholic church accept that mary and joe had other children? i have always been led to believe that yes, the church contends this is true. then she wasnt always a virgin, right? i could have sworn that back in grade school we were taught that she WAS a virgin at the time of the conception of jesus.

also-- at the time of the crucifixion, was joseph dead? theres no mention of HIM...

thanks

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), April 16, 2004.


"i could have sworn that back in grade school we were taught that she WAS a virgin at the time of the conception of jesus."

what i meant was "...WAS a virgin at LEAST at the time of the conception of jesus."

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), April 16, 2004.


joe? You know him personally, so you can address him by a nick name? ;)

Anyway, you might be interested in reading this article about Mary.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 16, 2004.


A few things to consider:

1. Scriptures do mention those with active libido and those with libido that is practically non-existent.

2. Yes, Jesus had brothers, sisters, and cousins. Scripture says nothing about those siblings being of His blood. There are texts that allude to the idea that Joseph had children from a previous marriage. Is it true? We would have to include such a rumor as being the truth, if Mary was pure.

3. Paul suggested marriage for those who just couldn't control their libido, yes?

I'll read your article, Bill.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.


jas said: does NOT the catholic church accept that mary and joe had other children?

The Church says that the references to Jesus' brothers in the Bible must refer either to:

1. Joseph's children from a previous marriage, ie. step brothers

or 2. Cousins of Jesus, since the Greek word at the time for "cousins" or "brothers" was the same word.

The important thing to remember is that Mary was a perpetual virgin as the Catholic Church teaches, and any alternative besides the above two would negate this claim. She was not just a virgin until Jesus' birth, but for her entire life. Read Bill's article that he referenced - it's really good at explaining this.

Also consider this. In Ezekiel 44:1-2, it talks about God passing through a gate.

Ezekiel 44 (KJV)

1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Thus, we see that when God passes through this gate, it must always remain shut after that. If we apply this principle to Mary's womb when Jesus (as God) passed through her, it must always remain shut after that, with no other children passing through.

rod said: Scriptures do mention those with active libido and those with libido that is practically non-existent.

Do you have a reference for this? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Perhaps the eunuchs of Matt. 19:12?

rod said: There are texts that allude to the idea that Joseph had children from a previous marriage.

Do you know what any of them are that you could share? I know of some that Protestants say indicate that Jesus did indeed have siblings, but I'm not aware of any that allude to the specific idea that they were Joseph's from a previous marriage. If you do know of any that would be very helpful!

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.



Yes, but I need to get back to you on that one. The problem will involve the status of that source. It involves the "other gospels".

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.


Here: http:// www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/josmarried.htm

Read it and burn it.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.


I gather that the general train of thought among Catholics that Jesus' brothers and sisters were most likely cousins (Fr. Mitch Pacwa does a great job explaining this). Orthodox, I also gather, tend to think of Jesus' brothers and sisters as Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 16, 2004.

Also read this article. It addresses the controversy over the word "brothers" of Jesus.

Brethren of the Lord

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.


Would there be something wrong with aligning one's faith to Orthodoxy?

...a serious question.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 16, 2004.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ