Was Mary Forever Virgin?

[michel]

There is quite an interesting "Catholic Answers" page at :-http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp on this, comparing the beliefs of various different faiths;

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

The rest is worth a read.

 

[James the Persian]

The indication that Jesus was the only child of Mary is merely speculation. Also it was Jewish custom to have many children they can afford to have. Joseph and Mary didn't live a Christian lives before Jesus' ministry, and it is crazy for people to think so.

Please explain, then, why the Theotokos was entrusted to John on Christ's death. This is not pure speculation at all. You can find it clearly stated in the NT and its probably the biggest hint in the canonical Scripture that she had no other children. You appear to know something of Jewish customs of the time (though you are excluding whole sects if you ry to say that this attitude to marriage and children was universal) so you should realise that this incident shows that a. Joseph was already dead and b. she had no children but Christ. If Joseph had still been alive then she wouldn't have been entrusted to anyone else's care and had she had other children, they would have been expected to look after her and for Christ to entrust her to someone else who wasn't even a relative would have been an incredible insult to them.

James

 

[Smoke]

Christians' attitudes toward celibacy more or less determine what they think about the family of Jesus.

The West, more enthusiastic about celibacy than the East (at least in theory), wanted Joseph as well as Mary to be a lifelong celibate, and construed Jesus' "brothers and sisters" as cousins, whereas the East was content to see them as Joseph's children by a previous wife. But they agreed that they couldn't have been Mary's children. Epiphanius of Salamis (4th century) specifically condemns the heretics known as Antidicomarianites, who "as though harboring hostility against the Virgin and wishing to cheapen her reputation and stain people's minds ... have dared to say that the holy Mary after giving birth to Christ had sexual relations with a man, namely Joseph himself."

Early Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin continued to teach the perpetual virginity of Mary, but eventually the Protestants' complete rejection of celibacy had its inevitable effect: Protestants became unable to conceive of any higher calling for the Mother of God than that of housewife and mother, and concluded that of course she must have had more children.

There's really no way of knowing for certain just how many children Mary may have given birth to; I think the argument is really about what the home life of Mary should have been like.

But I've always found it amusing that Protestants deem it more likely that Mary was sexually abstinent before Jesus' birth, than after.

 

[James the Persian]

The West, more enthusiastic about celibacy than the East (at least in theory)

I'm not sure this is strictly true. Monasticism started in the east (the Egyptian Thebaid to be precise) and both we and the Oriental Orthodox have huge numbers of monastics, both male and female. In fact, one of the most notable trends in the Orthodox countries of the ex-Soviet Bloc in recent years has been the flowering of monasticism. Whereas in the west monasticism seems to be in a slow decline, in the east it is growing again. We still see the monastics as the protectors of the faith.

I don't think, then, that it is correct to say that the east was less enthusiastic about celibacy than he west, we just have never seen this as the preferred way of life for all. I would say that the distinction, historically, has been less due to an enthusiasm for celibacy than it has been due to a greater antipathy towards sex in the west. Bl. Augustine of Hippo, for instance, (whose works had almost no impact in the east but almost became the sole underpinning of western theology after the Schism) was markedly anti sex for any reason other than procreation, to the point that he actually posited that rape was a lesser sin than masturbation due to the possibility of conception in the former. Such an opinion would never have been accepted in the east.

You are quite correct that there is a difference in emphasis between east and west and this may well have influenced some RCs views of the Theotokos in a slightly different way to ours (and I think you are spot on with the Protestants). I'd just say that the difference in emphasis has less to do with holding up celibacy as the lofty ideal that both halves of Christendom always did, than it does with the western attitude that sex is somehow base and therefore not fitting for one so holy as the Theotokos. I'd say that, in contrast, the east has managed to hold onto the lofty ideal of celibacy without making that ideal dependent upon a view of sex as a necessary evil. Sex is not evil. Within marriage it is a great blessing even if not used for procreation. The opposing current of thought found in certain western theologians seems almost dualist (in the spirit good/matter bad sense) to me.

James

 

[Smoke]

I'm not sure this is strictly true. Monasticism started in the east (the Egyptian Thebaid to be precise) and both we and the Oriental Orthodox have huge numbers of monastics, both male and female. In fact, one of the most notable trends in the Orthodox countries of the ex-Soviet Bloc in recent years has been the flowering of monasticism. Whereas in the west monasticism seems to be in a slow decline, in the east it is growing again. We still see the monastics as the protectors of the faith.

I don't think, then, that it is correct to say that the east was less enthusiastic about celibacy than he west, we just have never seen this as the preferred way of life for all. I would say that the distinction, historically, has been less due to an enthusiasm for celibacy than it has been due to a greater antipathy towards sex in the west. Bl. Augustine of Hippo, for instance, (whose works had almost no impact in the east but almost became the sole underpinning of western theology after the Schism) was markedly anti sex for any reason other than procreation, to the point that he actually posited that rape was a lesser sin than masturbation due to the possibility of conception in the former. Such an opinion would never have been accepted in the east.

You are quite correct that there is a difference in emphasis between east and west and this may well have influenced some RCs views of the Theotokos in a slightly different way to ours (and I think you are spot on with the Protestants). I'd just say that the difference in emphasis has less to do with holding up celibacy as the lofty ideal that both halves of Christendom always did, than it does with the western attitude that sex is somehow base and therefore not fitting for one so holy as the Theotokos. I'd say that, in contrast, the east has managed to hold onto the lofty ideal of celibacy without making that ideal dependent upon a view of sex as a necessary evil. Sex is not evil. Within marriage it is a great blessing even if not used for procreation. The opposing current of thought found in certain western theologians seems almost dualist (in the spirit good/matter bad sense) to me.

I agree with your comments here. What I had in mind when I said the West -- meaning the pre-Reformation West -- was more enthusiastic about celibacy was just such attitudes about sex, as well as stricter requirements for clergy and academics. (Of course, those requirements were disregarded as often as not, hence the qualification "in theory.")

"Enthusiastic" was a poor way to express that.

 

[James the Persian]

I agree with your comments here. What I had in mind when I said the West -- meaning the pre-Reformation West -- was more enthusiastic about celibacy was just such attitudes about sex, as well as stricter requirements for clergy and academics. (Of course, those requirements were disregarded as often as not, hence the qualification "in theory.")

"Enthusiastic" was a poor way to express that.

I think another reason for our minor disagreement is down to your thinking of pre-Reformation west whereas I was thinking pre-Schism. Before we were divided the differences betwen us in terms of celibacy and monasticism were almost non-existent. In fact, monasticism was pretty much introduced into the west from the east by people like St. John Cassian (a Romanian who was a monk in the Holy Land and Egypt before founding a monastery in France) and so it was initially very eastern in flavour. One of the things you mention above is stricter requirements for clergy. The Roman Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy is really quite recent (from 11th century) and so is just on the cusp of being post-Schism. Before that time their requirements were the same as for us.

James

 

[Smoke]

I think another reason for our minor disagreement is down to your thinking of pre-Reformation west whereas I was thinking pre-Schism. Before we were divided the differences betwen us in terms of celibacy and monasticism were almost non-existent. In fact, monasticism was pretty much introduced into the west from the east by people like St. John Cassian (a Romanian who was a monk in the Holy Land and Egypt before founding a monastery in France) and so it was initially very eastern in flavour. One of the things you mention above is stricter requirements for clergy. The Roman Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy is really quite recent (from 11th century) and so is just on the cusp of being post-Schism. Before that time their requirements were the same as for us.

On thinking it over, I think I might as well have laid the Western/Catholic idea of the Holy Family at St. Jerome's door. Though it does seem a good fit with Western hangups about sex, I was probably a little carried away with the idea.

 

[florence]

In order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet, “A virgin will become pregnant and have a son, “….Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary before she give birth to her son,…” “But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son”, “And Joseph named him Jesus.” (Mt.1:22-23, 25)
A clear indication that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary assumed their normal sexual relationship as husband and wife and, as a matter of fact, got children of their own. There is no need to deny this because performing the inherent duties of husband and wife is not a sin nor is it a shameful thing and abhorrent in itself. In fact, in the Old Testament, a woman is considered cursed if she can not bear a child from her husband. Which is why, to admit to the fact that Joseph and Mary were having children of their own will never lessen nor blemished a bit the reputation of Mother Mary as the mother of Jesus.
In the first story of creation, God created man and woman in his image, blessed them and told them to “be fertile and multiply”. (Gen. 1:28a). God’s basic intent therefore is for married couple to multiply because children are part of God’s plan in marriage. Thus, when Joseph was about to break his engagement with Mary, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary to be your wife…”(Mt.2:20).
The basic truth therefore is that, to make come true what has been written, the Messiah will be born out of a virgin woman, but not necessarily a virgin forever. Thus, among others, Mt. 1:23, 25 of the above.
Likewise, in Zec. 12:10-11, the Lord said: The descendants of David and other people of Jerusalem “will look at the one they stabbed to death, and they will mourn for him like those who mourn for an only child. They will mourn bitterly, like those who have lost their first-born son.” MeaningJesus Christ as truly the only son of God anda first-bornson of Mary.

DOES MARY HAD CHILDREN OTHER THAN JESUS?

Consider the following:

Jesus performed his first miracle in Cana in Galilee; there he revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him.
After this, Jesus and his mother, brothers, and disciples went to Capernaum…(Jn.2:11-12).
…”Your mother and brothers are standing outside and want you, want to speak with you, want to see you.” (Mk.3:32/Mt.12:47/Lk.8:20)
When Jesus went back to his hometown (Nazareth), the people were amazed at his teaching. Amid questions like, ….“Where did he get all these? What wisdom is this that has given him? And how does he perform miracles?”. They also said: Isn’t he….. the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? And, Aren’t his sisters living here?” (Mk.6:3).

The time for the Festival of Shelters was near, so Jesus’ brothers said to him to come to Judea so that his followers will know what he is doing. That Jesus should do so if he wanted to be well known. “Since you are doing these things, let the whole world know about you”, they said. (Not even his brothers believed in him.)(Jn.7:2-5). (Very specific and precise statements on Jesus Christ and His brothers.) They gathered frequently to pray as a group, together with the women and with Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers. (Acts 1:14)

The answer therefore is positive. Jesus has had brothers and sisters. No amount of interpretation can point anywhere else. To claim otherwise is to be very unrealistic if not hypocritical. All of the above clearly refer and point out to Mary and her children. Every time ‘brothers of Jesus’ are mentioned they mostly refer to Mary as their mother.
The only escape from this truth is to assert that Jesus, the one they were talking about is not Jesus Christ the son of God, and the “Mary” they were talking about is not the actual Mary, the mother of the Messiah. But this is a far-fetched thing and unbelievable. To interpret them this way is to be unrealistic if not ridiculous because there is no sense to it. It will only lead to confusions and bring us no closer to Jesus Christ and his teachings. If indeed all of the above actually refer to Jesus other than Jesus Christ and to a woman named Mary, not the mother the Jesus, then it is not worthy and need not be even mentioned in the Bible because it serve no purpose but to confuse the believers. Nowhere in the New Testament can you find any attempt to misled believers from knowing the true identity of Jesus Christ. The Lord wanted us to believe him, believe in him and all about him and follow his teachings without need of such distractions. Besides, like among others, John 2:11 clearly refer to Jesus Christ when it said: “Jesus perform this miracle in Cana in Galilee; there he revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him.” Then followed in the next sentence, Jn. 2:12, which states: “After this, Jesus and his mother, brothers, (Here is a clear separation between Jesus’ mother and brothers and all others including his disciples) and his disciples went to Capernaum and stayed there together.” It is impossible to separate these two sentences to mean the ‘Jesus’ (Jesus Christ) of the first sentence is not the one referred to in the other. Likewise,the question, “Isn’t he the son of Mary, and the brothers of James……”? specifically refer to ‘Jesus (Christ) who went back to his hometown where the people were amazed at his teachings’. (Mk. 6:2-3) These and all the others only prove the contention that Joseph and Mary had no other children untenable. They are facts and not based on logic that to refute them is to refute the Bible itself. Besides, all of the above-stated brothers and sisters are mentioned with Mary as their mother or a word ‘mother’ in a singular form, meaning, Mary, the mother of Jesus. All of the above specifically referring to Jesus’ mother, brothers and sisters to the exclusion of all others in the group at a given time.
Moreover, when the Lord said “his brothers, sisters or mother are those who hear the word of God and obeyit” cannot be interpreted to mean anyone can be referred to as mother, brother or sister of Jesus Christ. The Lord must have said it only to emphasize that unless one does what God wants him to do, blood relationships is not an assurance ofacceptability to God. Just as when a woman in the crowd said to Jesus that, “How happy is the woman who bore and nursed you!” Jesus answered: “Rather, how happy are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”(Lk. 11:27-28). When Jesus ordered his disciples to go to the other side of the lake, one of them said: “Sir, first let me go back and bury my father,” “Follow me”, Jesus answered, “and let the dead bury their dead.” (Mt 8:18, 21-22). Men are such God’s mere creation and can only be God’s subject, slave, friend or children. For God is God and mortals are mortals. As a matter of fact, not even Jesus’ disciples were credited to become his brothers. In Jn.15:14, Jesus said to his disciples: “And you are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer because a servant does not know what his master is doing. Instead, I call you friends because I have told you everything I heard about my father.”
HOWEVER, notwithstanding the above, the incontrovertible facts always remain that Mothers are vast repositories of love for their children. Thus, such a mother should be dearly loved and respected that when she is gone, she should be enthroned on a pedestal in everyone’s heart, though certainly they are not to be idolized and worshipped as the source of divine grace and mercy. Like saints, mothers are not to be praised and honored equally or more than what we ought to to the Lord our God. The Lord said, “you are not fit to be my disciple unless you love me more than you love your father and mother.” (Mt. 10:37).

Hi
yes i agree to you.but it doesn't affect Mother Mary's grace and divinity.:yes:

 

[Damien Sid Malery]

Does it matter? She was a virgin at Christ's birth. What she did or didn't do after that has no bearing on Christ. Joseph was around 70 years old when he married Mary, and had kids of his own from a previous marriage. Whether Joseph had more kids once again does not matter.

HEAR HEAR!

 

[Inky]

Question of its truth or falsehood aside (there's no way we could know for sure now even if we took the Bible as one hundred percent true; there's just too much ambiguousness)--if Christianity is fine with sex between spouses, what's the problem with Mary and Joseph having sex? Wouldn't it be the natural and sacred thing to do, as a married couple?

I have a speculation. Early Christianity adopted much of the symbolism from Greek and Roman religion, mostly because the local pagans who adopted it tended to make analogies from their former gods. Maybe the eternal virgin concept was an extension of Diana?

 

[James the Persian]

Question of its truth or falsehood aside (there's no way we could know for sure now even if we took the Bible as one hundred percent true; there's just too much ambiguousness)--if Christianity is fine with sex between spouses, what's the problem with Mary and Joseph having sex? Wouldn't it be the natural and sacred thing to do, as a married couple?

Can you actually show that Joseph and Mary were married? I can see that they were betrothed (which was - and still is in the Orthodox Church - a separate ceremony from the marriage) but no sign of an actual wedding anywhere in the NT, can you? In Holy Tradition, in fact, there is a suggestion that the two remained no more than betrothed (which basically means married but without the privilege of having sex - that's still the case for us, too) as early Liturgies refer to her as an 'unwedded bride' and Joseph is called St. Joseph the Betrothed. I don't claim that there is proof one way or the other. I'm merely pointing out that you are assuming that marriage (which does include sex) would follow a betrothal (which does not) without any evidence at all. I think this comes from the common modern understanding of a betrothal being the same thing as a western engagement. In actual fact, though, it was an awful lot more formal and serious than that.

James

 

[Inky]

There's also no evidence that they didn't marry. Basically, like I said before, there is so much ambiguous wording in the Bible that we modern folks have no way of using it to work out literal details of the past, like who was married to whom and what they did about it.

 

[James the Persian]

There's also no evidence that they didn't marry. Basically, like I said before, there is so much ambiguous wording in the Bible that we modern folks have no way of using it to work out literal details of the past, like who was married to whom and what they did about it.

There is evidence. I offered two pieces of such evidence above, in fact. There's certainly no proof one way or the other but I acknowledged as much above also. As for the difficulty of interpreting the Bible, that's why we, the RCs and the Oriental Orthodox rely on Holy Tradition (and we agree with each other far more than we disagree as a result). Unfortunately, Protestants and some others no longer have this opportunity.

James

 

[Inky]

You're right, I misspoke--there is evidence, but not proof. The problem is that there is evidence on both sides. I personally prefer to not rely on tradition, so between us I guess it comes down to a difference of sources.