Why Do Catholics Say That Mary Remained a Virgin!

[Clete]

The scripture couldn't be clearer on the issue of Jesus having brothers and sisters...

Matthew 13: 54 When He [Jesus] had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him.​

​

Mark 6 Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.​

​

Galatians 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.​

​

....and yet Catholics (and some others) hold that Mary remained a virgin "ante partum, in partu, et post partum" (i.e. before, during and after the birth of Christ). Pope Martin I put it in these words...

"The blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary conceived, without seed, by the Holy Spirit, and without loss of integrity brought him forth, and after his birth preserved her virginity inviolate."​

​

Why?

I understand the need for Mary to be a virgin before the birth of Christ but why after and where do the Catholics find the need to say anything at all about Mary's virginity remaining intact "in partu" or "during" Christ's birth?

For my whole life, since I was old enough to understand any of the Catholic doctrines surrounding Mary, I have thought that they are, by themselves, sufficient to falsify Catholic dogma and that if there were an equivalent teaching within the scripture, it would be sufficient to falsify the bible itself and thus the entire Christian faith whether Catholic or otherwise and yet there are hundreds of millions of Catholics and perhaps over a billion people who call themselves Christian who quite dogmatically believe that Mary remained a virgin and so I ask again - WHY? It cannot be defended biblically and so what is it that compels the belief?

Clete

 

[User Name]

I understand the need for Mary to be a virgin before the birth of Christ but why after and where do the Catholics find the need to say anything at all about Mary's virginity remaining intact "in partu" or "during" Christ's birth?

I'm sure there are many Catholic apologetics websites that answer this question. Why not look them up?

 

[Leatherneck]

The scripture couldn't be clearer on the issue of Jesus having brothers and sisters...

Matthew 13: 54 When He [Jesus] had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him.​

​

Mark 6 Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.​

​

Galatians 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.​

​

....and yet Catholics (and some others) hold that Mary remained a virgin "ante partum, in partu, et post partum" (i.e. before, during and after the birth of Christ). Pope Martin I put it in these words...

"The blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary conceived, without seed, by the Holy Spirit, and without loss of integrity brought him forth, and after his birth preserved her virginity inviolate."​

​

Why?

I understand the need for Mary to be a virgin before the birth of Christ but why after and where do the Catholics find the need to say anything at all about Mary's virginity remaining intact "in partu" or "during" Christ's birth?

For my whole life, since I was old enough to understand any of the Catholic doctrines surrounding Mary, I have thought that they are, by themselves, sufficient to falsify Catholic dogma and that if there were an equivalent teaching within the scripture, it would be sufficient to falsify the bible itself and thus the entire Christian faith whether Catholic or otherwise and yet there are hundreds of millions of Catholics and perhaps over a billion people who call themselves Christian who quite dogmatically believe that Mary remained a virgin and so I ask again - WHY? It cannot be defended biblically and so what is it that compels the belief?

Clete

Because they ignore scripture for their man made traditions.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm sure there are many Catholic apologetics websites that answer this question. Why not look them up?

Your contribution to this thread is just amazing. Thanks so much!

 

[User Name]

Your contribution to this thread is just amazing. Thanks so much!

You'd be surprised at how many answers you could find to your own questions if you just took the initiative to look for them.

 

[Right Divider]

You'd be surprised at how many answers you could find to your own questions if you just took the initiative to look for them.

Clete was asking a question for those here on TOL.
It's what the site is for; discussion among its members.

 

[User Name]

Clete was asking a question for those here on TOL.
It's what the site is for; discussion among its members.

I guess I could look up the answer to a question for you, but if you're really interested in knowing the answer, why not look it up for yourself?

 

[User Name]

The teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is one of the longest defined dogmas of the Church. It was taught by the earliest Church Fathers, including: Tertullian, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. And it was officially declared a dogma at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553 A.D. That declaration called Mary “ever-virgin.” A century later, a statement by Pope Martin I clarified that “ever-virgin” meant Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ’s birth. Of those three aspects of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the easiest part to see in Scripture is her virginal conception of Christ. Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt on that (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man.

Less apparent is Mary’s virginity during and after Christ’s birth. Understanding the reason for that first requires recognition that Mary’s virginity wasn’t just one attribute of hers among many. It’s central to her identity. It’s who she is. Not just biologically, but spiritually, interiorly. All her life, Mary possessed an integrity that every other human person since Adam and Eve has lacked. Because of that integrity, her body perfectly expressed her spirit. There was no tension between the two. Accordingly, since Mary’s soul was entirely consecrated to God, so too was her body. Her physical virginity was a perpetual sign of that consecration.

Mary’s virginity keeps the physical sign of an interior reality intact. Doing that took a miracle, but no more of a miracle than it took for Jesus, after his resurrection, to enter the room where His disciples awaited Him even though the door was locked (Jn 20:19). That’s also one of the reasons why Mary and Joseph refrained from normal marital relations. Her virginity was too central to her identity to do otherwise.

That centrality is foreshadowed in the two Old Testament “types” of Mary: The Virgin Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark’s holiness stemmed from the presence of God within it. That presence made it so sacred that anyone who touched it died instantly (2 Sam 6:6–7). Mary, like the Ark, had been set apart from everything else in creation. She contained the presence of God within her, closed to everyone and everything else in this respect.

Understanding Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Broadly defined, a dogma is a truth pertaining to faith or morals that has been revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by Tradition, defined by the Church, and which the faithful are bound to believe. The Church’s Magisterium—the pope and the bishops in union with hi

stpaulcenter.com

 

[Right Divider]

The teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is one of the longest defined dogmas of the Church. It was taught by the earliest Church Fathers, including: Tertullian, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. And it was officially declared a dogma at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553 A.D. That declaration called Mary “ever-virgin.” A century later, a statement by Pope Martin I clarified that “ever-virgin” meant Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ’s birth. Of those three aspects of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the easiest part to see in Scripture is her virginal conception of Christ. Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt on that (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man.

One does not lead to the other. Scripture defines and supports the virginal conception but NOT the "virginal motherhood". (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Less apparent is Mary’s virginity during and after Christ’s birth.

Much "less apparent" ... like not apparent at all.

 

[Idolater]

...That centrality is foreshadowed in the two Old Testament “types” of Mary: The Virgin Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark’s holiness stemmed from the presence of God within it. That presence made it so sacred that anyone who touched it died instantly (2 Sam 6:6–7). Mary, like the Ark, had been set apart from everything else in creation. She contained the presence of God within her, closed to everyone and everything else in this respect.

The Ark of the Covenant as a type of Mary was something I didn't know about before I got into Catholicism. One of the things to remember about the destruction by Titus of the temple in Jerusalem is that they pinched the Ark as well, and it along with the temple are lost to history after that. The liturgy of God under the Old Covenant ended, shortly after the liturgy under the New Covenant began; actually within a generation, just as Christ prophesied.

 

[Leatherneck]

The Ark of the Covenant as a type of Mary was something I didn't know about before I got into Catholicism. One of the things to remember about the destruction by Titus of the temple in Jerusalem is that they pinched the Ark as well, and it along with the temple are lost to history after that. The liturgy of God under the Old Covenant ended, shortly after the liturgy under the New Covenant began; actually within a generation, just as Christ prophesied.

The ark of the covenant was and is about Jesus not Mary.

 

[Clete]

I'm sure there are many Catholic apologetics websites that answer this question. Why not look them up?

Because this is TheologyOnline where people come to discuss and debate doctrinal issues. If you want to offer an answer to the question posed then do so. If you want to go elsewhere to find answers to doctrinal questions then be my guest.

 

[Clete]

Because they ignore scripture for their man made traditions.

Gee thanks, Leatherneck! That was so interesting and insightful that I can hardly contain myself! I'm in awe of your intellectual prowess, masterful command of the issues involved and artful use of the English language. What do all those other internet discussion forums do without you?

 

[Clete]

I guess I could look up the answer to a question for you, but if you're really interested in knowing the answer, why not look it up for yourself?

I know the answer you twit!

What I want is discussion, conversation and debate. I want an opportunity to sharpen iron against iron. A desire that has become increasingly impossible to fulfill on this website (or anywhere else for that matter). There are those who agree with me on most every issue, there are those who refuse to engage any argument whatsoever and there are those who are too stupid to understand how to pick up a intellectual conversation to begin with.

 

[Idolater]

...It cannot be defended biblically and so what is it that compels the belief?

The Bible is not inconsistent with her ever virginality, just so long as the Lord's siblings are the sons and daughters of St. Joseph from a prior marriage, like that he was a widower and had a family from his first wife.

It could also be---speculatively---that he was injured in his privates, that's not part of the tradition though; which is that he was confronted with the matter, just as it's retold in Scripture, when Mary became pregant with Christ, and the Angel set it out for him, just what he would be 'signing up' for if he proceeded with the marriage, and he said, "Yes. Good."

As far as the bishops know, this is Apostolic Sacred Tradition, meaning that the Apostles authorized and approved of the teaching. The Church grounds all her beliefs in the teachings of the Apostles. The Church is Apostolic because of this dependence upon them for all that we do and believe.

And that includes the faith that we have in the Scripture, that it is the Word of the Lord, we believe this because the Apostles approved the contents /canon of the Bible. We trust in Scripture because we trust that the Apostles authorized the Scripture, with the teaching authority that they were given by Christ; theirs is actually Christ's own teaching authority, so that Apostolicity for Catholicism is tantamount to of God.

We expect that the Scripture is consistent with the Apostolic Sacred Tradition, and that it doesn't conflict with it.

This is all given as far as I'm concerned as a Catholic.

 

[Right Divider]

The Bible is not inconsistent with her ever virginality, just so long as the Lord's siblings are the sons and daughters of St. Joseph from a prior marriage, like that he was a widower and had a family from his first wife.

THIS scripture certainly seems to imply that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were Mary's offspring and not from some supposed "prior marriage" of Joseph.

Mat 13:55-56 KJV Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (56) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

 

[Idolater]

THIS scripture certainly seems to imply that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were Mary's offspring and not from some supposed "prior marriage" of Joseph.

So you admit it's a circumstantial case.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Leatherneck]

So you admit it's a circumstantial case.

Thanks for playing.

What is circumstantial about the carpenters son ( Joseph’s son) ? Is not his mother called Mary ? Joseph and Mary had children together in spite of the lies of the RCC.

 

[Leatherneck]

Gee thanks, Leatherneck! That was so interesting and insightful that I can hardly contain myself! I'm in awe of your intellectual prowess, masterful command of the issues involved and artful use of the English language. What do all those other internet discussion forums do without you?

Clete, don’t like my post you are free to ignore them and move along.

 

[Idolater]

What is circumstantial about the carpenters son ( Joseph’s son) ? Is not his mother called Mary ?

Those don't conflict with Catholicism.

Joseph and Mary had children together in spite of the lies of the RCC.

You don't have evidence that confirms your view, nor that conflicts with Catholicism's view.

I know that you don't care either way, anonymous on the internet. irl, there might be some reasoning with you, but you're obstinate online.