# Catholic Teaching: Perpetual Virginity of Mary



## blhowes (May 26, 2010)

Tonight I was flipping through the TV stations, and came across a catholic channel. Normally, I'd just go to the next channel, but instead stopped to listen for a minute or so. The person being interviewed was an author who was talking about his book about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and how Protestants react to their teaching that Jesus didn't have any brothers or sisters. He thought it strange the strong objections he's encountered.

It seems clear from the scriptures that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I was just wondering why this teaching is so important to catholics. What is it about Mary having other children besides Jesus that is so difficult for them to accept? Is there some reason why (according to them) its important to them that Mary didn't have any other children?


----------



## AThornquist (May 26, 2010)

There are in fact a few Protestants - even Reformed people - who hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. For the Catholics, Mary is practically a part of the Trinity or even a separate God altogether. The Qur'an even indicates an understanding that Mary is part of the Trinity, which is significant when we consider that the writer is referring to the beliefs he saw practiced by so-called Christians in his day. (See Surah 5:116) There are a few threads on the PB that refer to this issue, though the arguments that are pro-perpetual virginity are frustrating to me; the impression I walk away with is that an old doctrine of the Catholic religion stuck to the shirts of a few Protestants and they place this cling-on theology onto Scripture. By the words of the Bible itself, it is more than reasonable to see that Mary ceased virginity in the confines of her marriage with Joseph after Jesus was born.


----------



## jwithnell (May 26, 2010)

From what I understand, the Catholics cannot see Christ born in perfection unless Mary herself was perfect. The immaculate conception from their viewpoint is for Mary and she had to continue in this "perfection" throughout her life. I suspect the viewpoint has its basis in gnosticism that would certainly prefer a "spiritual" Mary to one touched in anyway by the physical world. This would have been possible at the time the Qur'an was written, since various gnostic sects would certainly have still been around.


----------



## MW (May 26, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> the impression I walk away with is that an old doctrine of the Catholic religion stuck to the shirts of a few Protestants and they place this cling-on theology onto Scripture.


 
Those Protestants who believe the teaching insist that it is not dogma but a part of tradition, like believing Paul wrote Hebrews; so it is out of place to call it "cling-on theology."


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 26, 2010)

Yes, there is a reason. The Romanists buy into asceticism, which teaches that lawful human pleasure is less holy than abstinence from such pleasure. Therefore, they think the suggestion that Mary the Mother of Jesus had marital intercourse to be denigrating to her.


----------



## Philip (May 26, 2010)

It is tied up with the Medieval teaching that Mary had no sin. Many theologians during the Middle Ages held to the view that all sexual relations, even within marriage, are sinful. Augustine expressed something of this when he maintained that sexual relations are not sinful in marriage, but that the passions associated with them are. It is the result of a weird mix of heresy (immaculate conception), some holdovers from stoicism (Augustine's view that passionate emotion is sinful), if not necessarily gnosticism.

The reformation was the beginning of the change. With a rethinking of Medieval Theology came a rethinking of social and moral teachings, including an emphasis on the sanctity and innate goodness of marriage and its pleasures. That, added to a proper understanding of Mary's role, meant that the perpetual virginity wasn't a necessary or useful doctrine.


----------



## dudley (May 27, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Yes, there is a reason. The Romanists buy into asceticism, which teaches that lawful human pleasure is less holy than abstinence from such pleasure. Therefore, they think the suggestion that Mary the Mother of Jesus had marital intercourse to be denigrating to her.


As a Protestant I believe Mary should be honored as her role in the incarnation is unique and wonderful, but she was a sinner in need of her son as much as we are. I did not always think this way, however. 
I am a former Roman Catholic and at one time accepted the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, the immaculate conception, and the assumption. I now totally reject those teachings and have renounced Roman Catholicism. I concur completely with Riley that 
“The Romanists buy into asceticism, which teaches that lawful human pleasure is less holy than abstinence from such pleasure. Therefore, they think the suggestion that Mary the Mother of Jesus had marital intercourse to be denigrating to her.”


----------



## Cato (May 27, 2010)

I do not want to seem obtuse here but Catholicism has within it the seed to knowing Christ then they fall short in continuum. I once heard a very well known PCA preacher tell the congregation that Presbyterians are just Reformed Catholics.....I beg to differ.


----------



## blhowes (May 27, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> There are in fact a few Protestants - even Reformed people - who hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. For the Catholics, Mary is practically a part of the Trinity or even a separate God altogether. The Qur'an even indicates an understanding that Mary is part of the Trinity, which is significant when we consider that the writer is referring to the beliefs he saw practiced by so-called Christians in his day. (See Surah 5:116) There are a few threads on the PB that refer to this issue, though the arguments that are pro-perpetual virginity are frustrating to me; the impression I walk away with is that an old doctrine of the Catholic religion stuck to the shirts of a few Protestants and they place this cling-on theology onto Scripture. By the words of the Bible itself, it is more than reasonable to see that Mary ceased virginity in the confines of her marriage with Joseph after Jesus was born.


So, those reformed and catholics who hold to this view, would they take the position that the sisters and brothers mentioned in the Bible were adopted or something?


----------



## ubermadchen (May 27, 2010)

blhowes said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > There are in fact a few Protestants - even Reformed people - who hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. For the Catholics, Mary is practically a part of the Trinity or even a separate God altogether. The Qur'an even indicates an understanding that Mary is part of the Trinity, which is significant when we consider that the writer is referring to the beliefs he saw practiced by so-called Christians in his day. (See Surah 5:116) There are a few threads on the PB that refer to this issue, though the arguments that are pro-perpetual virginity are frustrating to me; the impression I walk away with is that an old doctrine of the Catholic religion stuck to the shirts of a few Protestants and they place this cling-on theology onto Scripture. By the words of the Bible itself, it is more than reasonable to see that Mary ceased virginity in the confines of her marriage with Joseph after Jesus was born.
> ...


 
I used to be a Catholic as well and I was told that brothers and sisters could also be translated as "cousins."


----------



## blhowes (May 27, 2010)

ubermadchen said:


> I used to be a Catholic as well and I was told that brothers and sisters could also be translated as "cousins."



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

Calling all Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Pig Latin experts: Is this true? Can it also be translated cousins? Is that the best, most natural, translation? 

Would it also be true here?
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


----------



## Cato (May 27, 2010)

Aggg, Catholic World view again. This takes some explaining if you haven't been immersed in it but /i will attempt it. Mary is a symbol for Catholics. She is like Mother Church. She is the symbol of God's final victory in humanity. In her bodily Assumption she becomes the symbol of what we all will be when we are made perfect. She is one of us and she is what we will be. By viewing Mary we see a child turned woman, turned mother, wife & saint. She was the 1st to say yes to Christ & she was perfect in her behavior & parenting (she did loose him once though) but she stayed with him through His life & He was dutiful to her. She is the only one, besides our Lord ---& while I think of it Elijah (2Ki 2:11), to be resurrected bodily & so therefore is a symbol for what we will be. There is so much more to RC Marian thinking I can relate but the bottom line is she had to be the "Perfect Virgin" to do it all (According to RC Belief)


----------



## blhowes (May 27, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Aggg, Catholic World view again. This takes some explaining if you haven't been immersed in it but /i will attempt it. Mary is a symbol for Catholics. She is like Mother Church. She is the symbol of God's final victory in humanity. In her bodily Assumption she becomes the symbol of what we all will be when we are made perfect. She is one of us and she is what we will be. By viewing Mary we see a child turned woman, turned mother, wife & saint. She was the 1st to say yes to Christ & she was perfect in her behavior & parenting (she did loose him once though) but she stayed with him through His life & He was dutiful to her. She is the only one, besides our Lord ---& while I think of it Elijah (2Ki 2:11), to be resurrected bodily & so therefore is a symbol for what we will be. There is so much more to RC Marian thinking I can relate but the bottom line is she had to be the "Perfect Virgin" to do it all (According to RC Belief)


Mary is (to me) a fascinating Bible character to think about. What a privilege is was for her to be the vessel through which God became a man (I hope that's worded correctly). It would be so fascinating to hear her tell what it was like for her giving birth to Jesus, raising him, realizing who Jesus is, then watching him go to the cross! What a story she could tell. I'd bet she'd have a word or two to say about the RC's view of her as well.


----------



## dannyhyde (May 27, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > the impression I walk away with is that an old doctrine of the Catholic religion stuck to the shirts of a few Protestants and they place this cling-on theology onto Scripture.
> ...


 
Rev. Winzer is right. The perpetual virginity is not "cling-on-theology" from Catholicism. I personally think she did not remain a virgin, for exegetical reasons as well as the fact that being a married virgin would have made her a bad wife. Nevertheless, it is fascinating that Heinrich Bullinger made the perpetual virginity a confessional issue, saying,

We also teach and believe that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, of the seed of Abraham and David (Matt. i. 25); not by the means of any man, as Ebion affirmed, but that he was most purely conceived by the Holy Spirit, _and born of Mary, who was always a virgin_ [Latin text reads: _et natum ex Maria *semper virgine*_], even as the history of the Gospel does declare. (Second Helvetic Confession, ch. 11.4)​


----------



## Cato (May 27, 2010)

Bob, the thing I love about her is that upon receiving the sacred word, Mary does not contemplate, she acts immediately: she " went as quickly as she could to a town in the hill country (Luke 1;39). there is no mention of planning,companionship, means of travel or encountered difficulties. Like Abraham she moves with the action, toward the action of her cousin's need. The events themselves will be her teacher & guide. She does not need to figure it out & plan accordingly; the plan will be given by God through lifes encounters.

Mary is obedient to God. She offers no refusial or hesitation as Moses did, no false humility to Elizabeth's cry, "Of all women you are the most blessed...Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the lord would be fulfilled" The woman knew her boundaries, her Center and her gift. Her dignity is not earned or attained. It is.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2010)

blhowes said:


> Is this true? Can it also be translated cousins? Is that the best, most natural, translation?



John Calvin: "The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."



blhowes said:


> Would it also be true here?
> Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


 
John Calvin: "Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was “Oblias” and “The Just,” and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother’s side: but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defence offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars. (Galatians 2:9.) It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus."


----------



## blhowes (May 28, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> > Is this true? Can it also be translated cousins? Is that the best, most natural, translation?
> ...


Interesting. I checked several different commentaries, some agreed with John Calvin, some didn't. I gather that more is involved than just looking at the Greek words to come to a conclusion about the correct interpretation of the words brothers and sisters. How does one decide?

Gill
And his brethren; not strictly so, but either the sons of Joseph by a former wife; or Mary's, or Joseph's brothers or sisters sons, and so cousins to Christ; it being usual with the Jews to call such, and even more distant relations, brethren:

Matthew Henry
These brethren, it is probable, were Joseph's children by a former wife; or whatever their relation was to him, they seem to have been brought up with him in the same family.

Wesley
His brethren - Our kinsmen. They were the sons of Mary, sister to the virgin, and wife of Cleophas or Alpheus.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary
His brethren, James ... - The fair interpretation of this passage is, that these were the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary. The people in the neighborhood thought so, and spoke of them as such.

Barnes
His brethren, James ... - The fair interpretation of this passage is, that these were the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary. The people in the neighborhood thought so, and spoke of them as such.

Clark
Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh? It seems odd that this should be doubted; but, through an unaccountable prejudice, Papists and Protestants are determined to maintain as a doctrine, that on which the Scriptures are totally silent, viz. the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord.​


----------



## Cato (May 28, 2010)

The point is, you will never really know.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 28, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Bob, the thing I love about her is that upon receiving the sacred word, Mary does not contemplate, she acts immediately: she " went as quickly as she could to a town in the hill country (Luke 1;39). there is no mention of planning,companionship, means of travel or encountered difficulties. Like Abraham she moves with the action, toward the action of her cousin's need. The events themselves will be her teacher & guide. She does not need to figure it out & plan accordingly; the plan will be given by God through lifes encounters.
> 
> Mary is obedient to God. She offers no refusial or hesitation as Moses did, no false humility to Elizabeth's cry, "Of all women you are the most blessed...Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the lord would be fulfilled" The woman knew her boundaries, her Center and her gift. Her dignity is not earned or attained. It is.


 
I have always been struck by the difference between Mary and Sarah's reaction to the divine will.


----------



## Cato (May 28, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Cato The Elder said:
> 
> 
> > Bob, the thing I love about her is that upon receiving the sacred word, Mary does not contemplate, she acts immediately: she " went as quickly as she could to a town in the hill country (Luke 1;39). there is no mention of planning,companionship, means of travel or encountered difficulties. Like Abraham she moves with the action, toward the action of her cousin's need. The events themselves will be her teacher & guide. She does not need to figure it out & plan accordingly; the plan will be given by God through lifes encounters.
> ...


 
I agree, also note the differences between Abraham & Moses

---------- Post added at 09:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------

What did I do wrong.... Sorry Backwoods, was trying to select your quote & respond.


----------



## dudley (May 29, 2010)

I agree with Pastor Danny Hyde and I also I personally think she did not remain a virgin, for exegetical reasons as well as the fact that being a married virgin would have made her a bad wife. 

However the Virginity of Mary goes even further in the Roman catholic heresy. The roman catholic lie of the role of Mary that she was a perpetual virgin declares that Mary was kept from sin, which denies the gospel that “all have sinned” and that Christ died for all mankind. If God could keep Mary, then he could have kept Eve and all human beings from sin, thus eliminating the need for Christ to die.
As Protestants we should continue to affirm Catholic Christology. Again terribly false! Catholicism’s Christology is heretical. (Hunt Newsletter)
It denies Christ’s exclusive role as mediator between God and man, making Mary “co-mediatrix”, 
It denies the exclusivity of His redemptive work, making Mary “co-redemptrix” (Vatican II credits Mary with a perpetual “salvific role; she continues to obtain by her constant intercession the graces we need for eternal salvation”); and 
It denies the sufficiency of His redemptive work, declaring that the redeemed must, in addition to Christ’s suffering for them upon the cross, suffer for their own sins here and/or in purgatory, etc. A great deal more heresy is involved in Catholic Christology, such as presenting Him as perpetually an infant or child subject to His mother, but lack of space prevents further detail. The “Christ” of Roman Catholicism is just as false as its “Mary” - as much “another Jesus” as that of Mormonism or any other cult. Let’s admit it! 
Jesus Christ plainly taught that Mary was on the same plane with all other Christians who would do the will of God.


----------

