In talking about the meaning of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the whole nuptial side of Catholic Marian devotion, I wrote with the assumption that I was writing for a Catholic readership who took it for granted that Mary is, in fact, perpetually a virgin. However, as I survey the comboxes following that discussion, it is evident that a number of readers think that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not true and is, indeed, contrary to Scripture. So as a followup, permit me to review, over the next few blog entries, the evidence for the case that Mary was, as a matter of historical and biblical fact, perpetually a virgin. The case for this is, in fact, very strong.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 499) is straightforward concerning Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:
The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and Perpetual Virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”
In other words, the Church teaches that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. It’s as straightforward a teaching as it is a controversial one.
Cultural Difficulties
Why it’s controversial is actually a multifaceted matter. To be sure, it was not always so. For most of Christian history, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was a commonplace belief, even well into the Protestant Reformation. But in our hyper-sexualized culture— and, like it or not, this is the culture in which Christians and non-Christians are now submerged like fish in the sea—people find it extremely difficult to contemplate the possibility of a life of virginity as anything but one of unbearable deprivation. So before we ever get to discussing what Scripture says, we’ve got a gigantic cultural hostility to virginity to overcome.
Moreover, of course, our cultural biases aren’t confined to sex. Many card-carrying members of our consumer culture will wonder why anyone would choose to believe in something like Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Behind such thinking is the notion of the Catholic faith as a mere smorgasbord of “belief options” that are there to accessorize our fashion choices. And so, conventional wisdom says: If you’re one of those strange souls who “like” virginity, then you can choose to believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity because it “suits your lifestyle.” But if you’re not one of these odd ducks, then why bother believing it?
The answer is that the Catholic faith is not a product of consumer culture. It proposes certain truths to us, not because they suit our lifestyle, but because they’re true. Nobody prefers a universe in which it’s necessary to “take up your cross” (versus, say, a universe in which you just have to take up your TV remote) in order to find life eternal. It’s just that the universe Jesus describes happens to be the universe we live in, like it or not. In the same way, the Church tells us Mary is a perpetual virgin, not because it suits somebody’s lifestyle, but because she is a perpetual virgin and that has real implications for us.
Of course, we’re always free to deny the truth. But the problem with that approach is that the faith is not a cafeteria. It is a whole weave—an “ecological system,” if you will. The supernatural Catholic faith, like the natural world, is a complex web of truth, love, and power that is just as perfectly balanced as any wetland on the shore of Puget Sound. When one tries to remove some “pointless doctrine” from this supernatural ecosystem, one gets results similar to removing some “pointless” ozone layer from the atmosphere: a catastrophic upheaval and a whole series of unforeseen side effects. So when the Church proposes the dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, the questions we ought to start with are, “Is this teaching true and, if so, what is the point of it?”
Evangelical Difficulties
Of course, serious Christians recognize that sex belongs in the context of marriage. But that, for Evangelicals, is the problem. For Joseph and Mary were married. So what on earth would have kept them from marital relations? And given that Scripture says Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son” (Matt. 1:25); repeatedly refers to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” in passages like Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55–56; and records Paul speaking of James as “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19), the natural conclusion for the Evangelical reader is that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is a case in which the Church isn’t just filling in some scriptural silence with a flight of fancy, but is deliberately and directly contradicting Scripture—probably because of some pathological fascination with celibacy.
The Difficulty with the Evangelical Reading of Scripture
Educated Christians know that it’s not enough to show that some Church doctrine seems to be “contradicted” by Scripture. Apparent contradictions don’t cut the mustard: they must be real ones. The difficulty for the Evangelical critique here is that the supposed Scriptural evidence for “Mary’s other children” is another such apparent contradiction. For there is, in fact, no such evidence.
Every text adduced to “prove” Mary had other natural-born children encounters some fatal difficulty when we look closely. So, for instance, the attempt to find absolute, ironclad proof of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary in Matthew’s remark that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son” suffers from the fatal ambiguity of the word “until.” The whole value of the passage as an argument against Mary’s virginity depends on some supposed “rule” that “until” means “the same before, but different afterward.” But if we try to apply this “rule,” we wind up with strange results. Thus, Deuteronomy 1:31 tells Israel, “the Lord your God bore you, as a man bears his son, in all the way that you went until you came to this place.” Does the author really mean to say that God would henceforth not be carrying Israel? Likewise, Deuteronomy 9:7 says, “from the day you came out of the land of Egypt, until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the Lord.” Does the sacred author mean to imply that Israel magically stopped being rebellious after that? Or again, John the Baptist “was in the wilderness until the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Luke 1:80). Does Luke therefore mean to imply that once John appeared to Israel he never lived in the desert again? No. Similarly, neither is Matthew saying anything beyond “Mary conceived Jesus in virginity.” He is making no implications whatever about any sexual relations between Mary and Joseph.
In the same way, the texts concerning Jesus’ brothers and sisters were consistently read by the early Church with the understanding that the apostles had taught that Jesus was the only son of the Blessed Virgin. And once we get past our modern prejudice that “they simply can’t mean that,” we find to our surprise that they easily can.
Take James. Paul describes him as the “brother of the Lord,” but James himself does not. Why not? And even more oddly, Jude describes himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). If Jude is a sibling of Jesus, why does he talk in this weird way?
The answer comes from a close reading of the Gospels. Matthew and Mark name the following as “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph (or “Joses” depending on the manuscript), Simon, and Judas (i.e., “Jude”). But Matthew 27:56 says that at the cross were Mary Magdalene and “Mary the mother of James and Joseph,” whom he significantly calls “the other Mary” (Matt. 27:61) (i.e., the Mary who was not Mary the Mother of Jesus). John concurs with this, telling us that “standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25, emphasis added). In short, James, Jude and their brothers are the children of “the other Mary,” the wife of Clopas, not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. This is further supported in an almost accidental way by the early Church historian Eusebius, who routinely records the succession of bishops in the major Churches of antiquity. After recording his account of the martyrdom of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem (commonly referred to as “the brother of the Lord”), he tells us that James’ successor was none other than “Symeon, son of Clopas.” Why choose Symeon / Simon for the next bishop? Because James, the “brother of the Lord,” and Symeon /Simon were the sibling children of Clopas and the “other Mary,” and we are in all likelihood looking at a kind of dynastic succession.
Interestingly, this “other Mary” is described as the Blessed Virgin’s “sister.” Is it really possible that two siblings were both named Mary? Probably not. Rather it’s far more likely they were “sisters” in the same sense Jesus and the other Mary’s son, James, were “brothers.” That is, they were cousins or some other extended relation. And, indeed, we find Jewish culture could play fast and loose with the terms “brother” and “sister.” For instance, Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen. 11:27–31) is called Abraham’s ’âch (“brother”) in Genesis 14:14–16 (which is exactly how the translators of both the New International Version and the King James Version render it). And these English-speaking translators are simply following the example of the ancient Jewish translators of the Septuagint version of Genesis, who also rendered the Hebrew word as adelphos: the same Greek word that is also used to describe Jesus’ relatives.
So the biblical evidence for siblings of Jesus slips steadily away until all that is left is the school of criticism that argues that, since Jesus is called the “firstborn” (Luke 2:7), this implied other children for Mary. But in fact the term “firstborn” was used mainly to express the privileged position of the firstborn whether or not other children were born. That is why a Greek tomb at Tel el Yaoudieh bears this inscription for a mother who died in childbirth: “In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life.”
Beyond that, all the critic of Perpetual Virginity has left is just the gut sensation that “It’s weird for a normal married couple to practice celibacy.” And that might be an argument—if Joseph and Mary were a normal married couple and not the parents of the God of Israel. Of which more we will discuss over the next three weeks..
Comments
Post a Comment
[34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [Luke 1:34] Other than a consecrated Temple virgin who had already intetionally made a perpetual vow of chastity to God would ask this question?
Profound and economically precise. How sad we were as Protestants when we did not enjoy the beauty of what the Church has given us. Blessed be the Mother of our Lord. Blessed be the Mother our Lord has given us.
The head of the CDF doesn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, so why should we?
Steve, please provide your source. Did Archbishop Mueller actually say this or have you calumniously taken what he actually said out of context?
Even if it were so that someone could have made a grave error in speaking, that would not change established fact. People who are juvenile are often quick to condemn entrenched Tradition. However, can you honestly say that your walls are too well solidified? Are your teeth too well rooted in your gingivae? Yes, the more truth is told, and celebrated, the less we should really have to worry about erroneous comments. And the need for citations is all the more important when we consider a public error.
people find it extremely difficult to contemplate the possibility of a life of virginity as anything but one of unbearable deprivation. So before we ever get to discussing what Scripture says, we’ve got a gigantic cultural hostility to virginity to overcome.
Which is why we find it so easy to accept 2 men in a marital relationship, abortions for 14 year olds, “Polyamory; Married and Dating” the reality show, babies created in test tubes, 40% of children being born to unwed mothers…but think priestly celibacy is “weird”.
Steve,
Archbishop Mueller is talking about the actual “physical” act of giving birth. Did she feel pain? Was her hymen broken? His comments are on the virgin BIRTH, emphasis on BIRTH. He is isn’t saying anything at all about how she conceived Jesus, only on the actual birthing process.
On these matters, as far as I know, the Church has taken no real position.
Msgr. Nicola Bux, a CDF consultor, defended Archbishop Müller against charges of unorthodoxy. “The Church professes the real and perpetual virginity of Mary but does not go into the physical details; nor does it seem that the councils and the Church Fathers ever said otherwise,”
http://abyssum.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/bishop-mueller-the-new-head-of-the-cdf-must-have-done-something-right/
Regarding the word “until”, here is an everyday example.“I wish you well until we meet again”. This does not mean I wish you harm when I return, or wish you “something-else” when I return.
And similarly to Ben’s comment, the (in my humble and Irish opinion) the seriously cheesy “Irish Blessing” concludes with, “And until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand.”
But once we DO meet again, then—?? may He crush your head like the MST3K guys? may He drop you down a rabbit hole?? Of course not…
This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with any cultural prejudice or scriptural interpretation. You have done nothing but deflect from what the Catholic Church asserts. The Church asserts and expects people to believe AS DOGMA on pain of being in mortal sin and thereby deprived of the beatific vision that when Jesus was born, Mary’s hymen did not break or tear. Not only is this “miracle” posited as true without ANY way or proof of ANY man knowing, not even St. Joseph himself, but the Church demands, without fully explaining such to its flock or even potential converts, that belief that Mary’s hymen remained unbroken, even after childbirth, the Church declares belief in this to be necessary for salvation. THAT is the final CRUX of the issue Mr. Shea. The Church says that belief in an undetermined “miracle” that has absolutely no bearing on how an individual relates to God and His love is necessary in order for that person to be in a state of sanctifying grace. All your arguments here are complete straw men and shirk the true issue.
Eddie:
Yes. The PVoM is a dogma. We’ve already discussed that in previous weeks. What we are doing here is considering the historical evidence for that dogma. Instead of having hysterics about whether the Church has the right to say, “This is what Catholics believe” let’s try to remain calm and look at the historical and biblical evidence. Obviously, if the evidence is against the dogma, then it would not matter what the dogma means. But first the question is, “Is the evidence against the dogma?” I submit the evidence is in favor of the dogma. As to why the Church thinks it matters that Mary was a virgin, I suggest you go back to the beginning of the month and read the discussion of the significance of the PVoM.
Point 1: For clarity, I think it’s better to use an “until” example that’s used in the negative, e.g. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs” (Gen 49:10). When “He” comes, does the scepter depart from Judah? Nope.
Point 2: If Jesus actually had brothers, or better, if Mary actually had other children, wouldn’t we expect to know their names? Wouldn’t there be historical documentation of their no-doubt high-ranking profiles in the early Church?
As Catholics we would not think of Mary’s hymen at all. Would anyone you would considered ‘Blessed’ be thought of in this way? To contemplate bodily organs or tissues to someone so venerated by us does not enter the equation. To apply contemporary science to giving birth coupled with the ‘How can anyone married remain a virgin?’ argument is clearly being demonstrated by the author here in that in our world today we do not understand it. Mary was a Jew as was Joseph. We can see even today that the way some Jews celebrate their religion that they may abstain from sexual activity in the name of religious purity quicker than many other families of other backgrounds. That’s how I see it. It just takes a broader view than what modern media feeds you.
MK,
Actually, the Church has taken a position. It is that the Blessed Virgin was a virgin before, _during_, and after the conception of Our Lord. You might look up the term “clauso utero”. The teaching of the Church is and has been that she neither felt pain nor gave birth to Our Lord through the birth canal, but rather miraculously.
Mary was probably a virgin until she married Jesus.
LOL @ Terry Quinlin.
In some of the other “discussions” which have taken place in Shea’s related posts, there is a lot of finger-pointing to the Church Fathers and Tradition. Rightly so! For a better understanding, Cochini’s got a great exposition on verifying orthopraxis and orthodoxy using the Fathers and Tradition in Chapter Three of his book “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy”: http://books.google.com/books?id=Bc2ovrZ_BZkC&lpg=PP1&ots=9GutuuF1_b&dq=cochini the apostolic origins of priestly celibacy&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=cochini the apostolic origins of priestly celibacy&f=false
It’s a detailed discussion of St. Augustine’s maxim: “What is kept by the whole Church and was always maintained, without having been enacted by the councils, is very rightly considered as having been transmitted solely through apostolic authority.” (bottom of page 53)
I know this will probably not be enlightening for Bible-Fundamentalists, but Catholics should understand this principle better for their own sakes.
God bless,
Tele
I think it would be more convincing if examples of “until” were taken from contemporary Greek writings (koine) rather than the Hebrew Scriptures since Hebrew usage might differ.
And similarly to Ben’s and Margaret’s comment: “Happy trials to you, until we meet again. Bum-ba-dee-da.”
A solid defense. One place I think that could be critiqued - and I’m not claiming you’re wrong, just that it needs further analysis - is the “until” part of your argument. You’re analyzing it through English translation while the original is in Greek and you are claiming a parallel locution that was Old Testament Hebrew. I’m not sure such subtlty of language translates as precisely as you argue. Perhaps it does. Someone an expert on the original languages would have to confirm. Nonetheless, Blessed Mother was an eternal virgin. The brothers and sisters part of your argument is a slam dunk.
Mary was impregnated through the ear. You don’t really think He invented sex to have it himself, do you?
Taylor, can you point me toward a specific document where the Church has said that Jesus didn’t pass through the birth canal? I know there’s the thing from the Council of Trent:
“He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from everyday examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.”
This makes it pretty clear that he didn’t break her hymen, but it doesn’t mention anything about her birth canal. I always envisioned Jesus being born through Mary’s birth canal but passing right through her hymen (this would still be going forth without opening the door and penetrating without breaking or injuring), and I’ve never seen any formal teachings of the Church to contradict this. Are there any, and if so, where? Please know that I’m genuinely asking, not trying to pick a fight—I’ve heard the “Jesus wasn’t born through Mary’s birth canal” thing but have never seen a citation, and I don’t know if that’s because there isn’t one or because people just haven’t posted it. It’s hard to pick up tone on the Internet, but picture one of genuine curiosity, not belligerence. :)
Here is what might be called the traditional Catholic mystical understanding of the birth of the Savior: http://www.lifeofluisa.com/VirginBirth.htm
One thing has struck me, Mary conceived without sin is a tangible (i.e. real and material) sign of God’s love and fidelity to the whole human race. God does not abandon, as I believe, Mary. And as a sign, He never abandoned anyone (not even his people.)
The truth is God’s grace gave Mary a perpetual chaste, celibate, and virgin sanctified life, because God supplies all the graces which are sufficient and necessary. And as Christ is His only begotten Son, He becomes Mary’s completely fulfilled life and role though the maternal respect of Motherhood (He is the pearl of great price and she chose it.)
Mary had depended on God throughout her entire life (her forseen life, her life at birth, and her life thereafter.) And as a sign of hope for all, God gave and bestowed upon her all the graces which were in complete communion with Him (a sign, as well, that Christ is truly the Son of God.) Because, afterall, how would Christ ever been born?
God did not alienate man (and humanity.) Rather, He kept so close to man, that when a particular woman was born, God’s immediate act with which He stayed close to His people and all mankind, she became the mother of God.
Mary carries a sign of supernatural grace (and hope) of a perpetual un-breakable bond which God beckons to give every soul. She is in the full embrace of the Sacrament and does not depart. Because, God does not abandon His people nor any human being. Thus, as St. John the Apostle says, “God is love.”
God’s supernatural and extra-ordinary love is real and magnified through the presence of Mary (her magnification of His graces and love which He bestowed her. She is the telling sign of how real God is.) And thus, God gives the greatest of free-will as He shows through His spleandour in the spleandour of Mary.
Which means, God has us all intact and held with an un-breakable firm grasp that neither angel, nor demon, nor any man has any power (nor any authority) to break. And may God ensure every soul a great sign and supernatural grace (I hope and pray) to which no man may put asunder what God has joined together.
You are really stretching to try and find some substantiation for the prospect of Mary’s perpetual virginity. There is no evidence for it. It is born of the bias against sex that has dogged the church over the ages. This bias just cannot accept the idea that Mary would have sex with Joseph because there is a right wing fringe that considers all sex as “dirty.” They have to accept it in order to get more people born into the church but that is the limit of what they will go. That same fringe is behind the assertion that procreation is the only primary purpose of marriage. The “living tradition” of the faithfull is that there is two primary purposes of marriage. Procreation yes but sex also as an expression of love and the nurturing of the love of the spouses. Once we get that firmly established, and we will, then we can get to a more reasoned assessment of Mary’s virginity. And what in the world is wrong with Mary having sex with her husband?
Anon—this is not about dirty, actually, but about SACRED. If you read the OT you’ll note the extreme care and caution the Hebrews took with regards to things or people in close proximity to the divine—Moses had to veil his face because he was so luminous after his encounter with the Lord, the lavishness and precision with which the construction of the Ark and its trappings were spelled out, etc. Mary, the mother of God, the new Ark of the New Covenant, was likewise sacred. Joseph would no more have sought marital relations with her, even after the birth of the Holy Child, than he would have sought to use the Ark (were it still around) to store his carpentry tools.
Anon:
Thank you for the massive exercise in reading incomprehension and for regurgitating everything I was just pointing out about the reflexive and unthinking things said by unreflective post-moderns.
Dear Other Readers: I promise you I did not pay Anon to say all that just to illustrate me point.
In her book, The Life of Jesus Christ, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich was told by the Blessed Mother Herself, that she had an older sister named Mary Heli, after St. Jochim’s family, who went to live with St. Ann’s father, Eliud, a widower at about the age of 7.
Mary Heli was married three times, to Cleophas (also known as Alpheus), Sabas and Jonas. She is the mother of the Apostles Matthew, James the Less, Simon Zelotes and Jude Thaddeus.
About 20 years later, the Blessed Mother was miraculously conceived in the Temple following ridicule by a rabbi for being childless. In a dream, she was told by angels to name her child ‘Mary.’ She objected that she already had a daughter named Mary. The angels repeated: “Mary.”
The Blessed Mother also said that when she & Joseph had settled in the stable in Bethlehem, she knelt down in a profound bow to the Divine Child within her. A few minutes later, Jesus lay on the straw beneath her breast. She said He passed through her as light passes through glass.
Taken from ‘The Life of Jesus Christ’, Vol. 1, pp. 122-23, 127, 129, 132-38, 366
I respond to this article as an Evangelical and as a Christian and as a fellow brother in our common Faith.
That Faith is based on Christ Jesus, Almighty and perfect completely sinless, dying on the cross for our sins and for all mankind, and rising again from the dead. You and I share more than we differ on.
I am not fascinated by celibacy nor by people who are celibate, why write this in your well thought out piece? Not all Protestant Evangelicals are anti-Catholic.
You quoted correctly the passages which cause us to conclude that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to the Lord and mother of others after she married Joseph.
What is most important to us both? That Mary was a perpetual virgin or a virgin when she gave birth to Christ? In our different interpretations of scripture, we need now to agree on the most important aspects of all, and permit each-other to learn more of Christ together, as we both love and serve the same Lord.
If Jesus has brought us together to be of the same body, let’s try to accept each-other in the same Spirit.
Anon, I do believe that you are correct in your assessment of some of the right wing fringe, but *you* are making the stretch of associating their manias with something that towers above such pettiness.
.
What is sex anyhow but a foretaste of the love and communion which will take place in heaven. Won’t those who have loved the most here on this Earth experience the most exalted form of this love and communion in heaven? Mary and Joseph’s sacrifice, while significant, pales in comparison to the love and communion they experience now in heaven.
.
Mary’s virginity has nothing to do with *warped* feelings about sex. Mark has pointed out in the past that *virginity* is NOT a sacrament, while marriage IS. Marriage was and is highly exalted.
.
Look at how much confusion already reigns on this Earth, in all the crazy assertions people make about Jesus. The craziest one of all is that he didn’t even *exist*, according to some of the more virulent atheists.
.
Jesus’ *paternity*, is *set apart* or *highlighted* if you will, by Mary’s *virginity*. That’s the simple crux of the matter.
@Keith
I sympathize with and appreciate your sentiments, but I think you misunderstand the importance of this issue for Catholic Christians and the entire Christian Faith.
The misunderstanding is this: the Catholic Christian Faith goes far beyond what I think one would call “Mere Christianity”; it’s a qualitative difference from those traditions stemming from protestantism, not a quantitative difference, a difference in number of doctrines.
As Catholics, Our understandings of God, the Jews, the OT, the NT, Jesus the Christ, His Church, Church history, the writings of past Christians, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, etc. etc. etc. go beyond just describing the minimum number of ideas in which one must believe to be saved.
The Catholic Christian Faith is one gigantic ecosystem (hat-tip to Shea) of spirituality, teachings, culture, and practices that can’t be separated from one another without doing violence to the whole. In this, we think (or are supposed to think) like the ancient world out of which the Christian faith developed, and not like the reductionists who gave rise to protestantism.
This is one of the reasons there can be no substantial union between Catholics and non-Catholics of a protestant background: we don’t think the same about “the Faith,” so we can’t share “the Faith.” We’re supposed to be of “one mind and one heart,” and we’re not.
I do not intend to denigrate your faith in Jesus Christ nor that of any other non-Catholic, but you have to understand: doctrines like the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary are not mere icing on the doctrinal cake, so-to-speak: they have implications for the entire Faith. That’s why these doctrines are important, and that’s why assenting to, believing in, and loving them has implications for salvation.
God bless,
Tele
It seems from the tradition side of the coin, it’s a mixed bag:
The first mention that I can find comes from the Protoevangelum of James, a 2nd century document that Thomas Aquinas, a titan of Roman Catholic theology, dismissed as “apocryphal ravings” (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 9). The first church Father that would seem to affirm it was Origen, in around 248 AD. Which the Church has not embraced all his many viewpoints.
The church father Basil (Ca 350AD) commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).
Hegesippus (Ca 160AD)refers to Jude as “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a “cousin of the Lord” (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for “brother” and “cousin”. He chose “brother”, and added the words “according to the flesh”, to describe Jesus’ sibling named Jude.
Here’s Irenaeus, (Ca 180 AD. Watch the way he uses the phrase “yet virgin.”
“For as by one man’s disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead.428 And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as YET VIRGIN soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” ), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as YET A VIRGIN.” (Against heresies, book 3:ch21:v10)
Look forward to your viewpoints…
The fact that Mary had always remained a virgin is reflected in one of her appellations in the Litany of Loreto: “hortus conclusus” (the closed garden). This is a beatiful belief the importance of which goes far beyond the matter of mere sex.
@Hart Ponder,
Please keep in mind that the opinions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are not automatically infallible. What matters is the consensus, not individual interpretations, even those coming from the greatest theologians and/or saints.
Dear Brother Hieronymus:
Well put! Agreed. I find this conversation very helpful, thank you! (1Peter 3:15)
@Hart Ponder,
You’re very welcome. God bless!
Taylor,
I did look it up. Can’t find anything. Got a link?
Telemachus,
Well Done!
The continuous stream of insults hurled against the Blessed Virgin Mary, her perpetual virginity and her Immaculate Conception, by non-Catholics quite frankly makes me nauseous. In our American culture, which glorifies sexual deviancy to the exclusion of all else, even normal lifelong marital fidelity, the attacks have been at fever pitch for some time now.
@ Keith Prosser: Either God’s prophecies, as set forth in Isaiah, (the virgin shall conceive and bear a child…” and the statement of the BVM “how shall this be, for I do not know man?” are true, or you are accusing God of being a bald-faced liar. Let me say it again: either God’s word is true, or it is not true. It is not true (seamless, indisile matrix, as Mark Shea seems to be alluding) for some (Catholics), but pick-and-choose-as-you-will for others (Protestants).
Since the Catholic faith never changes its doctrines and dogmas, but the Protestants have 30,000 competing variants, I think I will stick with the Roman Catholic faith which has been handed down to us unchanged by the Apostles.
Another matter, which no one seems to be able to deal with: If the BVM was not conceived immaculate (without original sin), then how could she bear within her own body Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, who never had any sin in him, according to all of the scriptures? During the conception of Jesus Christ, the only human flesh-and-blood from which He took his form was that of the Virgin Mary. Are you saying that God-made-man was conceived from sin-tainted flesh?
During her pregnancy, her blood which would have been tainted with original sin would have flowed through the developing fetus, Jesus Christ. Yet scriptures unequivocally say that He never had anything to do with sin.
The discussion of the word “until” has been dealt with very convincingly by scholars who were quite familiar with the meaning of the words as used in the ancient languages. The general gist of this com-box thread has it right: “until” means up until the occurrence of a certain event, and does not speak to anything which occurs afterwards.
However, the contortions which people go through to say that after the birth of Jesus, the Virgin Mary had sexual relations and bore other children are a little revolting. In our sex-obsessed culture, they are basically saying that after the Holy Spirit was through with her, there was a line of other men waiting their turn. This is to me as a believing Catholic completely revolting, and it tells me a lot more about those who gratuitously posit such things, than it does about the Virgin Mary or our Catholic faith.
I often wonder why some people have such a hard time believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary or in the miracles in the Bible. God can do anything He wants in any way he wants at any time he wants. Who or what can limit God? No one and nothing. If you do not believe in an unlimited God, do you really believe in God at all?
@Keith, I think the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a statement about God. That is, He suffices in the fullness of grace. Consider if a lady were so close to the Lord that her total life not only was surrendered to Him, but as well, in the supreme bliss and joy of self-giving was being totally consecrated (and I mean given completely and in full) to and in communion with Him. What “other relations”, then, would she really need?
I guess, from what I see is that any disagreement with her perpetual virginity (which is to mean full co-operative will stemming and flowing grace given by God to show how Holy and Pure that relationship is in perfect and total love) [disagreement with her perpetual virginity] would be saying there is something lacking or unsufficient with an obvious sign of a grace-filled encounter with God - which is not isolated or simply inanimate.
Think how God brought forth the birth of His Son? He didn’t force her. Better, He had dispelled sin from her eyes so that when the Angel Gabriel made the Annunciation, she didn’t have any difficulty, as far as the inherit rebellious nature and habit of sin goes (nor did she feel nor have the tendency to think God’s will as some utilitive or discouraging purpose appearing to take away her free-will - unlike how the Pharisee’s treated woman in those days), to willfully do God’s will. Because, afterall, she was filled with grace.
The point is her perpetual virginity is the example and sign of God’s love to save all souls. He gives her a unique disposition to appear full of grace (i.e. no sin, no hindrance in full sight of free-will to which God loves and gives the person more, no belief that her free-will is being taken away, no rebellion against God.)
You know, the point is not that she was a virgin. Rather, she was filled with such grace and joy where no other relationship would, by and in itself, suffice more nor be equal to the Greater Glory of God (Who is love.) Which, as well, nothing could take away the “pearl of great price” that only God afforded her. He placed His very life in her arms, because, He knew Mary. He knew her beyond any person’s ability. He could fully entrust upon her the Salvation of all souls (His Only begotten Son.) He depended upon her, because, like the wise servant, He knew with great trust of His Grace and presence provided, she would fulfill her role as His mother.
So, when the Church goes at lengths, though not so much as to make pains to show something that’s not there, but rather, to show us what is clearly there upon the presence and reality of God (that He is love), Mary’s perpetual chaste, virgin, and entirely Sanctified Holy life (which God afforded this by the Sacrament of Christ’s blood and body before, at, during, and after the Crucifixion - hint: He was born both in body and blood through the supernatural act of grace.)
In fact, Mary was not exempted from the Sacrafice in so far as she was His mother in total and complete satisfaction of complete love for Him through His suffering, death, and rising. Because, she was in-separable (as a point of the ordinary fact and reality that she was His mother. And, as well, by the supernatural and extraordinary bond of love which God bestowed upon her and joined together - she couldn’t really escape His grasp as His mother and the infinite love she fully receieved which was more than sufficient; it was overflowing and greater than any other love.)
To say Mary didn’t have the grace and love as the Church describes, would in a work-around way say God wasn’t really presently there with Mary as her Son (and to say God would contradict Himself when He originally made Adam and Eve with out sin.) You would have to literally believe God’s life as her Son was in-sufficient and lacking that would had rendered her to something else. In fact His love was so much and overflowing, that His relationship wasn’t simply limited to Mary, that the Angel told Joseph to take Mary as His wife. Because, Mary’s maternal motherhood, filled with Grace and the total surrender of her love and self to God, was overflowing and inclusive to Joseph.
God did not simply look at Joseph’s betrothel without dignity. He broke through that betrothelment to bring Joseph closer to Him as a foster father by way of adoption through Mary. God gave Joseph such clarity and complete love, that he came to know Mary by the Sacramental bond of love through Christ being completely given to Joseph (which was also with Mary - together as the Holy Family.) St. Joseph did not need to be married once he became the adopting father of Jesus. Afterall, nothing when God is present and fully there to which he removes the impediment, disabling, and impairing nature of sin.
@Catharine, actually maternal blood does not at any time flow through a fetus. When an embryo’ heartbeat develops, it is circulating fetal blood. From the very beginning, the group of cells that becomes an embryo, then fetus, then eventually God willing, and infant, is self contained.
@Charlotte: I hate to disagree with you, but just two days ago I read an article in Sports Illustrated, The Boy They Couldn’t Kill. Granted, it’s not a medical journal, but the author, I’m sure, checked his facts.
In it, a pregnant woman, Sherika, was shot five times by her football-player ‘boyfriend’ and left for dead. I quote from the article:
“Four of the five bullets had found their mark. Three lodged in her flesh without serious harm. But one left a trail of destruction. It pierced her left side and passed through her abdomen, crossing her right chest, coming to rest near her right armpit. Along the way it tore her stomach and large intestine and made innumerable holes in her small intestine. It penetrated her liver, her diaphragm, her lung. It cut her pancreas in half. It severed the splenic artery and vein, opening such a fountain of blood that she eventually lost it all, and more. The tireless doctors at Carolinas Medical Center kept replacing the blood through intravenous lines, and she kept losing it. Six liters. One hundred fifty percent.
“The lethal bullet missed the boy, just as the four other shots did. It missed his mother’s uterus by an inch or two. But her blood was his blood. It flowed through the uterine artery to the placenta and gave him the nutrients and oxygen he needed to live. Now the blood was diverted. It was pooling in his mother’s chest. And the unborn child began to suffocate.”
Certainly there is a very long tradition since the third or 4th century CE of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I do not find the scriptural evidence decisive either for or against the idea.
The whole issue is rather peripheral to the central teachings of our faith which are about the identity and mission of Mary’s son.
The idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity can be very helpful for many in reinforcing their understanding of the Christian message and vocation.
I accept it as a pious belief that is helpful to many. I do not think it is a matter of fact. But I don’t think it matters.
Well, I only deliver babies for a living. How can I possibly argue with Sports Illustrated? I guess I stand corrected.
As I understand it, the Church teaches that a marriage is not valid unless it is consummated through sexual intercourse. Does this mean that Mary and Joseph’s marriage is invalid? I am not trying to make some “gotcha” point here- this has been perplexing me lately…
You are still misunderstanding, Mr. Shea and others. The virginity of Mary in the sense that Christ was not conceived through sex is indisputable. That Mary remained a virgin and never had sexual relations with St. Joseph and had no other children, while not indisputable in terms of scripture, can be reasonably believed and accepted. I do. But what I CANNOT accept is the specifically Catholic understanding of perpetual virginity. Catholics like you, Mr. Shea, assume outright that they fully understand what they are trying to prove, and assume that everyone who reads what they say already understands too and will accept their arguments as logical. To me, rather than engage in typical Catholic speculation on things completely unknowable, I stick to facts. Forget all the rhetorical embellisent, the long-winded defense of things your audience already accepts, and just state in plain, everyday language what it is that the Church proclaims to be true and says that individual salvation is predicated upon. The Church says Mary’s hymen never broke despite going through labor and the natural process of childbirth. Another commenter on here said “we as Catholics don’t think of Mary’s hymen” because we wouldn’t do that with someone we venerate so much. I say, you better start thinking of it that way if you truly want to convince those who don’t believe, because behind the reverence and cult, that is exactly what the Church claims. The Fathers certainly had no problem discussing the intricacies of this sort of thing. Not that I’m appealing to them to agree with this teaching so much as I am pointing out that their way of talking and analyzing issues of this nature lacked the taboo that seems to be associated with such today, and I don’t think most Catholic bloggers and commentators realize that. However, back to the real point. I can accept the virgin birth, I can accept Mary never having carnal relations and never having other children. I can accept her special status in relation to Christ and His special love for His mother. But I cannot accept that she physically bore Christ and gave birth to Him the way any other woman would and her not experience the same physical result. It is contrary to reason, though I am open to evidence and argument from the Church Fathers. However, I vehemently denounce and deny the position that one must believe that the hymen remained unbroken in order to attain salvation. It is that point, Mr. Shea, that upon discovery will offend and turn away many people because most everyone who can critically reason would agree that such a position is indefensible, illogical, and completely contrary to the reality and experience of God’s love and mercy within individual lives. The simple fact is that the Church cannot cling to what amounts to innovative doctrines and impose by fiat the requirement that one believe them on pain of loss of salvation. This is what I submit: Mary’s perpetual virginity is indisputable, but the specific Catholic understanding of what that perpetual virginity is, is quite disputable, and I and many others simply cannot accept it.
@Eddie
Interesting stuff. “Stick to the facts” is a high hurdle when talking about miracles. How is this any more difficult than Mary’s bodily assumption? Or transub…transubsti…you know that thing that happens at Mass?
“I vehemently denounce and deny the position that one must believe that the hymen remained unbroken in order to attain salvation. It is that point, Mr. Shea, that upon discovery will offend and turn away many people because most everyone who can critically reason would agree that such a position is indefensible, illogical, and completely contrary to the reality and experience of God’s love and mercy within individual lives. The simple fact is that the Church cannot cling to what amounts to innovative doctrines and impose by fiat the requirement that one believe them on pain of loss of salvation. This is what I submit: Mary’s perpetual virginity is indisputable, but the specific Catholic understanding of what that perpetual virginity is, is quite disputable, and I and many others simply cannot accept it.”
AMEN. This venerating of intact hymens is pre-scientific and ridiculous today. It confuses “virginity” as not having sexual intercourse with “virginity” as proof of not having had sexual intercourse. This “proof” was widely believed in the ancient world. We know today that there are many reasons and instances of women not having intact hymens who have never had intercourse before marriage. That belief has been responsible for much grief visited upon women over the millenia. This worshipping of hymens was huge not only among men but also among mothers-in-law who flaunted bloody sheets the day after the wedding in the old days. Isn’t it time to give up this old wives’ tale about hymens? After all, we have given up the earth as center of the universe and Catholicism did not evaporate.
Every time I read about this, I’m angry on behalf of myself, my sister and other women of my acquaintance, who are slandered as not having been virgins.
Should have added this: this fixation on hymens should be viewed as metaphorical or poetic - much like the Song of Songs. As Catholics there are lots of things in Scripture that we don’t take literally. It was written by men with the scientific knowledge of the time.
Eddie and Julia:
Here is the actual teaching of the Church in the Catechism, which focuses, not on obsessions over hymens, but on the main point: which is that Mary’s perpetual virginity is a) related to the Virgin Birth as an ongoing sign of the Bride and b) related to her role as divinely appointed mother to the faithful. The simple fact remains that the biblical and historical evidence points to the fact that Mary had no other children and that her virginity, like Christ’s, was seen as theologically significant from the get-go. Or more precisely, from before the get-go given that Isaiah was talking about it centuries before the birth of Christ. You can dwell on hymens if you like and strike a pose boldly defying something the Church isn’t spending much time talking about. But I don’t see why we need to. Accepting the Resurrection while boggling at the possibility that Mary’s virginity (and hymen) remained intact seems to me to be a massive act of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Anyway, here’s the actual Catechism on the PVoM.
Mary’s divine motherhood
495 Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”.144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).145
Mary’s virginity
496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”.146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:
You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.“150
498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark’s Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus’ virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the “connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ’s mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: “Mary’s virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord’s death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God’s silence.“153
Mary - “ever-virgin”
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.“155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: “The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love.“160
Mary’s virginal motherhood in God’s plan
502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.
503 Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. “He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures.“161
504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary’s womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.“162 From his conception, Christ’s humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God “gives him the Spirit without measure.“163 From “his fullness” as the head of redeemed humanity “we have all received, grace upon grace.“164
505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. “How can this be?“165 Participation in the divine life arises “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”.166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit’s gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary’s virginal motherhood.
506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt”, and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: “Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ.“169
507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: “the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.“170
“her virginity is the sign of her faith”
It’s a metaphor. I have no problem with miracles. I have a problem with the implication that women without intact hymens have had intercourse and are not virgins. And why link the physical aspects of childbirth with virginity? If it was a miraculous conception, who cares whether the birth was in the normal manner or not?
Answer: Intact hymens are at the very center of all of this.
Problem: very messy idea of what “virginity” means. Is it the absence of having “known” man? Or is it the ancient assumption of physical proof (intact hymen) of having not “known” man?
Hi Keith:
You write, “I respond to this article as an Evangelical and as a Christian and as a fellow brother in our common Faith. “
Hello, brother!
“That Faith is based on Christ Jesus, Almighty and perfect completely sinless, dying on the cross for our sins and for all mankind, and rising again from the dead. You and I share more than we differ on.”
Agreed.
“I am not fascinated by celibacy nor by people who are celibate, why write this in your well thought out piece? Not all Protestant Evangelicals are anti-Catholic.”
I agree. And if the shoe does not fit, then don’t wear it. But many Evangelicals (and indeed, even many Catholics) do think that the Church invented the Perpetual Virginity of Mary out of some strange obsession with celibacy, rather than entertaining the possibility that the record, in fact, shows she was a virgin.
“You quoted correctly the passages which cause us to conclude that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to the Lord and mother of others after she married Joseph. “
Yes. But I also showed that, in fact, there is no NT evidence that she is the mother of others. The others are the children of “the other Mary”, the wife of Clopas.
“What is most important to us both? That Mary was a perpetual virgin or a virgin when she gave birth to Christ? In our different interpretations of scripture, we need now to agree on the most important aspects of all, and permit each-other to learn more of Christ together, as we both love and serve the same Lord. “
Actually, what matters is not “which belief is most important?” but “which belief actually reflects the biblical record?” We take our cue from the traditions handed down from the apostles, not from ideas that happen to be most amenable to our views on what matters most. In the case of the perpetual virginity of Mary, what we find is a biblical record that clearly favors it, followed by a record of theological reflection that sees great significance in it. That modern Evangelical theology sees no significance in it is a commentary, not on the folly of two millennia of reflection on Mary in the apostolic Church, but on the Evangelical paucity of reflection on Mary that is only now barely beginning to be addressed in Evangelicalism.
“If Jesus has brought us together to be of the same body, let’s try to accept each-other in the same Spirit”
I do accept you. And I point out that what you are asking is that I jettison two millenia of profound and fruitful reflection on Mary in the apostolic communions in order to whittle the faith down to make Evangelicals feel comfortable. I think the wiser course is for Evangelicals to consider the possibility that the Church’s tradition of deep reflection on Mary is a feature, not a bug. She doesn’t bite and she’s not an idol. Be not afraid. Learn more about the Church’s teaching on Mary.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/why-believe-in-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary#ixzz27UtTvDmZ
Julia:
I am skeptical that one can find a dogmatic decree declaring “You must believe and profess that Mary’s hymen was intact.” Is that generally what the commentary of Fathers and theologians has assumed? Most likely. Because in ancient culture, the one goes hand in hand with the other. It is, you will recall, an incarnational faith that takes the body seriously and sees sacramental significance in bodily signs. As to how the Church would know this, the answer is “Exactly the same way it knows the Mary was perpetually a virgin: from Mary, the only possible source of this information. My point, however, is that what really matters here is not what Eddie is obsessing over. What matters is the meaning of the sign. And it is not “Women with broken hymens are not virgins and are bad.” What it is, is spelled out in the Catechism, if only Catholics would consider reading it.
PS I am a very orthodox Catholic. I am not pushing for women priests or any of the feminist agenda. My background is biology and science. I think this focus on questionable physical “proof of virginity” is counter-productive unless it allows for metaphor. Lots of progress in biological knowledge since the 1st century.
I think someone already alluded to this in a previous post, but if I can accept that Christ passed through the stone walls of a sealed tomb at the time of his Resurrection, why would I possibly need to entertain the base notion that Mary or Christ experienced or suffered any of the normal bodily aspects of labor and birth?
Besides I thought women labored in birth due to original sin. Mary, was conceived without sin, Christ was also sinless.
“What matters is the meaning of the sign. And it is not “Women with broken hymens are not virgins and are bad.””
How else are readers to take it if it is not a metaphor?
“why would I possibly need to entertain the base notion that Mary or Christ experienced or suffered any of the normal bodily aspects of labor and birth?”
How is normal reproductive biology “base”?
Julia:
I’m not sure what you mean by “metaphor”. The teaching is that Mary was perpetually a virgin. Virgins have intact hymens. It does not follow (and there is no teaching from the Church to the effect) that women without intact hymens are not virgins. They may be. They may not be. But that’s neither here nor there when it comes to Mary. What matters with Mary is the meaning of her virginity. If that’s what you mean by “metaphor” then we don’t disagree. But if you mean, “What matter is that Mary’s heart was pure and not whether she conceived Jesus as a virgin and remained a virgin all her life” then we disagree, because the Church says it *does* matter that she conceived Jesus as a virgin and remained a virgin all her life. If you mean “I have have a hard time beliieving that Mary’s hymen miraculous remained intact in childbirth” I repeat: this is a religion that teaches that baby was later beaten almost to death, crucified, and three days later walked out of his tomb in glory. An intact hymen seems like pretty small beer. And since the only possible source of that information is Mary and all the info we have suggests that the Church knew from her that she was perpetually a virgin, I conclude she was perpetually a virgin.
“Virgins have intact hymens. It does not follow (and there is no teaching from the Church to the effect) that women without intact hymens are not virgins. They may be. They may not be.”
“Virgins have intact hymens.” If that is true then why do you imply that some women with out intact hymens might be virgins? You contradict yourself.
This whole line of argument has got to go. It’s a symbol, a metaphor, poetic license.
I’ve argued this on-line with other deaf male bloggers. You are so used to the meme involving hymens that you don’t want to actually hear real facts.
Mary can be a perpetual virgin - if what you mean is that she never had intercourse. I’ll buy that. I might even buy that she gave birth to Jesus miraculously. But why the need to premise all this on an old wives’ tale about hymens? That makes us look silly.
Julia - Mary, the Immaculate Conception was conceived without sin and therefore, in my opinion, would have been exempt from the normal sorrows of childbith. I find it counter intuitive and base to think that, Christ or Mary, suffered the normal pangs of child birth.
[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. [Genesis 3:16]
Dismas: OK, she delivered without the usual pains. What does that have to do with virginity? There are a fair number of women who deliver without much pain who conceived in the normal way - had nothing to do with their hymen. Why would traverse of the birth canal have anything to do with virginity and how the child was conceived?
The big question: what does virginity mean?
“If that is true then why do you imply that some women with out intact hymens might be virgins? “
Because they might me. It is possible to sustain an injury to the hymen without engaging in sexual intercourse.
My point, however, remains. The basic tradition of the Church is that Mary remained a virgin. It is, as far as I can see, a very common tradition that one mark of this virginity is that she miraculous gave birth without harm to her hymen. I am not persuaded that this tradition is absolutely integral to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It may be, for all I know, but I’m not aware of any definitive teaching on the matter. If it is part of the de fide definition of the PVoM I have no big issue with it. All it means is that God chose a particularly dramatic way to underscore the real point: which is that Mary is a virgin. If it is not de fide, I suppose there’s room for speculation here, but I think it’s mostly a waste of time. What really seems to be be at issue is that our culture, for reasons mysterious to me, finds it easy to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and a virgin conceived, but extremely hard to believe that she gave birth with her hymen intact. Why *that* is so incredible is mysterious to me. Beyond that, is the assumption that such a sign somehow constitutes a denigration of any woman whose hymen is not intact is equally mysterious to me.
The bigger question is why would giving birth with the hymen intact be important to anybody. It’s like some of the truly odd things in the Golden Legend.
Why the whole fascination with hymens, anyway?
I have no problem with the fact that Mary never had intercourse. To most people that’s what virginity is about.
Julia:
Eddie and you are the only people to raise the issue. I didn’t discuss it all. It’s hardly cricket to raise the question, repeatedly demand a response, and then complain that the person answering you is “fascinated” with the topic. As I say, I am not convinced that the dogma requires we accept the notion that Mary’s hymen was miraculously preserved from damage in childbirth, but I see no particular reason to say it’s impossible, nor do I think it’s vital. I suppose a case can be made that such an event would be a sign of the undoing of the curse of the fall. But till I know, which I don’t, that the dogma requires we believe it (and I don’t have a burning interest in finding out, though you and Eddie might), I don’t know what the theological reflection on it might be. What I find frankly puzzling is the visceral hostility to the tradition. Given that there is nothing particularly impossible about, nor any message deriving from it beyond, “Really, Mary was perpetually a virgin” I don’t see the big deal. Eddie’s pose of defiance, as though he was standing up against something Really Awful, puzzles me deeply.
The point, I believe, is Mary had the fullness of grace (”...filled with grace, the Lord is with thee,...” upon the Annunciation in which the Angel Gabriel spoke to her) which God had placed upon her through her whole life in perpetual (un-interrupted and never ceasing) grace (God’s supernatural will to keep Mary free from the will of sin so that she may ably and willfully respond to do His will.) What I’m getting at is God made Mary free of sin possible to which the same gift is afforded through the Sacrament of the Church. Christ had “perpetually” gave the Apostles and all his faithful the same gift of adoption (as Mary had) by (I quote Jeff Cavins from a CD) “divine accomodation.” God afforded all souls the same salvation which Mary had. However, since all souls are not necessarily disposed freely and willfully (depending on the degree and nature of sin each person suffers) desiring to do God’s will, Christ employed the bread, wine, Tradition, water, and all who desired to do His will for the Salvation of souls. Thus, Mary was preserved (as Adam and Eve had been made fully, in the beginning, free from sin) unstained in the fullness of grace before the fall. To which and the same by which the great gift God gave Mary to be His begotten Son’s mother, He had to afford her that miracle to which He was able (by Divine Accomodation) to give her the greater and most possible freedom willingly to do His will (Mary gave her self fully to God and had a perpetual gift of His love and mercy for His Son to enter into the world and save all souls.)
So, as a result of God’s act and mercy, Mary had such closeness and the fullness of a relation to God her creator that nothing else could exhibit nor maintain the same satisfaction that she became His Mother (Mater Dei.) Why would she need to be married to Joseph? Why would Mary need to entertain the idea of having more chlidren? If Christ came through a supernatural communion through the Holy Spirit into life through birth - why, if by that remarkable grace that made Mary’s firstborn through an act not having to do with marital relations - why did the Angel have to tell Joseph to marry Mary and take her as his wife? Why did the adoption of Christ, in the manner which the Holy Spirit brought His life through Mary, had been given to Joseph (not in nor by marital relations) that Christ made Joseph a father through Mary (who was the immediate Mother of Christ?)
The whole event is all scriptural by the aide of Tradition Christ set down to the Apostles through the Church to employ what is in Scripture may always remain intact.
1) There is no reliable evidence.
2) The earliest references are late and sparse.
3) It’s the same old myth.
4) It is more likely to be a lie, than to be true.
5) We would never, ever, believe this today.
.
We have seen this incredible claim has no reliable evidence and no early Christian sources. There were claims of virgin births before Jesus, and Jesus’ virgin birth was probably invented to compete with those claims. It is far more likely to be a lie than true. And we would never believe anyone who claimed such a thing today.
Because of these reasons, I have no choice but to deny the virgin birth of Jesus — and all other claims of virgin births and divine fathers.
Rita: You write:
1) There is no reliable evidence.
Depends on what you mean by “reliable evidence”. Generally religious skeptics mean “evidence that can be reproduced in a lab” which essentially exclude all historical testimony.
2) The earliest references are late and sparse.
No. The earliest references are Matthew and Luke, half of the testimony given by eyewitnesses and those who knew them. And John bears oblique witness to the tradition when he alludes to the snotty remarks made about Jesus’ parentage by some of his critics.
3) It’s the same old myth.
Documentation please. This “myth” is placed firmly in the context of the historic record. Other legends happen in cloud cuckoo land. You need to do better than regurgitate Dan Brown.
4) It is more likely to be a lie, than to be true.
Using what heuristic? Most claims of miracle are false, therefore all are? Pretty rigorous.
5) We would never, ever, believe this today.
What you mean “we”, kemosabe?
.
“We have seen this incredible claim has no reliable evidence and no early Christian sources.”
Matthew and Luke are very early Christian sources, separated in time from the events by about the same span of time separating us from Watergate. Most of the eyewitnesses are still alive when the gospels are written. And there is plenty of opportunity to fix the record.
“There were claims of virgin births before Jesus, and Jesus’ virgin birth was probably invented to compete with those claims.”
There is zero evidence for this. In fact, the claims most resembling Jesus Virgin birth surround Mithra, which virtually all scholars say post date Christianity and are based on it. The Virgin birth happens in a Jewish, not a pagan, milieu and there is zero evidence that the New Testament has in view Osiris as competition for Jesus. What is obviously in view is the fulfilment of Jewish, not pagan, tradition.
It is far more likely to be a lie than true. And we would never believe anyone who claimed such a thing today.
Again, who is “we”? If you are saying, “My atheistic materialism closes my mind to the possibility of miracle, just say that. Stop pretending that you are privvy to some special knowledge. All you are privvy to is a philosophy that closes your mind.
“Because of these reasons, I have no choice but to deny the virgin birth of Jesus — and all other claims of virgin births and divine fathers.” Of course, you have a choice. But to exercise that choice, you have to first re-examine your philosophy. Go here to consider the lousy argument you have just offered which, once again, pad the case for the New Atheism by, in this case, shouting out materialist dogma in place of rational thought. Christians believe in following the evidence where it leads. Materialist dogmatist believe in ignoring any evidence that threatens their creedal commitments.
Now lets look at other examples of Virgin Births.
.
India has a number of messengers who were divinely conceived and two of them bore the name “Chrishna” or “Chrishna the Saviour” (note the similarity with Christ). Now Chrishna was born of a chaste virgin called Devaki, Who on account of her purity was selected to become the mother of God.
.
Buddha was considered and believed by his followers to have been begotten of God and born of a virgin whose name was Maya. Long before the Christian era, we read of how the divine power called the” Holy Ghost” descended upon virgin Maya. In ancient Chinese version of the story, the holy ghost is called Shing-Shin.
.
The Siamese (Taiwan), had a God and saviour who was Virgin Born whom they called Codom. In this very ancient story, the beautiful Virgin had been informed in advance that she was to become the mother of a great messenger of God, and one day while in her usual period of meditation and prayer, she was impregnated by divine sun beams. When the boy was born, he grew up in a remarkable manner, became a protégé of wisdom and performed miracles.
.
When the first Jesuit priest visited china, they wrote in their reports at finding a heathen religion of that country, of a story of a redeeming saviour who was born of a Virgin and divinely conceived. The God was said to have been born 3468 B.C (before Christ), his name was Lao-Tsze and was said to have been born of a virgin black in complexion and as beautiful as a Jasper.
.
In Egypt, long before the Christian era, and before any of its doctrine was conceived, the Egyptian people had several messengers of God, who were conceived through Immaculate Conception. Horus was known to all of ancient Egypt as having been born of the virgin Isis and his conception and birth was considered one of the three great mysteries or mystical doctrines of the Egyptian religion. To then every incident in connection with the conception and birth of Horus was pictured, sculptured, adored and worshiped as the incidents of the conception and birth of Jesus is among the Christians today. Another Egyptian God called Ra was also conceived by a Virgin.
.
Like Christ, Quetzalcoatl is born of a virgin, the goddess Coatlique, and is a great teacher of civilization. Also like Jesus, Quetzalcoatl strikes down the Prince of Darkness and Evil (Tezcatlipoca), who attempts to deceive mankind. The Aztec godman descends into the underworld, where he “gathers the bones of the human beings of the previous epochs,” while, in the apocryphal text [The Gospel of Nicodemus], Christ resurrects several kings and prophets of previous epochs out of the underworld. Quetzalcoatl’s blood is used to convey life to the humans whose bones he saved, while Christ’s blood delivers eternal life and saves humans from death.
.
Greco-Roman and Hellenistic literature is rich in the tradition of birth among the gods. The legend of Perseus, whose mother conceived him by Jupiter in the form of a golden shower seems to be the basic legend (cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book IV). The Greek Anthology has the following: ZEUS, turned to gold, piercing the brazen chamber of Danae, cut the knot of intact virginity. Stories of the creation of gods and goddesses by other gods and goddesses include the traditions of generation of Apollo by Zeus and Leto, of Theseus by Zeus and Maia, of Dionysus by Zeus and Semele, of Dionysus Zagreus by Zeus and Persephone, and of Persephone by Zeus and Demeter. The birth of gods by generation of a god with a mortal woman include the birth of Hercules by the union of Zeus and Alcmena and that of Pan by Hermes with a shepherdess.
Helios was a child of Zeus by Euryphaessa. He was also called “the son of Earth and starry Heaven,” and the son of Hyperion. Dionysus was dithyrambus, “he who entered life by a double door.” His first birth took place prematurely. His mother, Semele, died when Zeus appeared to her in a flash of lightening, and so Zeus opened his own flesh and enclosed the infant. In time, Dionysus was born “perfect” from Zeus’ thigh. Dionysus Zagreus was important in Orphic theology. In Protrepticus ii. 14 ff. by Clement of Alexandria, this child had the form of a bull. Zeus intended to make him the ruler of the universe but the jealous Titans lured the child away, tore him to pieces, cooked him and ate him. Athena preserved his heart, however, which Zeus swallowed. According to Boslooper, Clement omitted one part of the myth that forms a connection between his account and the Theban legend of Dionysus. Because Zeus swallowed the heart of Dionysus Zagreus, when Semele bore Dionysus the new god was Zagreus reborn.
.
Jesus Christ is another fictional “hero” with a virgin mother. As fiction, the Church can believe what ever it wants about her sexual experiences without worrying about facts and/or evidence.
.
Maybe Mary was a Komodo Dragon.
Rita:
Would you mind telling me where you cut and pasted this from? And where they cut and pasted it from? Because for a skeptic, you seem remarkably unskeptical. Do you really think the Christian story derives from Meso-American or Taiwanese tales? And do you really think Jesus never existed? Are you that gullible just because some website provides you with a little fodder to feed your prejudices?
To me there looks like there is a mystical significance to the Blessed Virgin Mary maintaining bodily integrity. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Her womb takes on the same role as the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple. The Holy of Holies and Mary’s womb would need to have their purity maintained by being separated from the sin of the world. When the high priest passed through the veil, didn’t the veil remain intact? Christ is the Eternal High Priest of the New Covenant. He of all persons should have been able to pass through the veil of Mary’s womb. When Christ died on the Cross, then the veil of the Temple was torn apart. When Christ was born His Hour had not yet come.
As a relatively brand new Catholic who was drawn to the Church from fundamentalism/evangelicalism by an almost miraculous, sudden understanding of the importance of our Blessed Mother, I find some of the discussion to be demeaning and/or disrespectful toward her. Considering the fact that we live out our lives, so-to-speak, at the foot of the cross, before the eyes of our Lord Jesus and our Blessed Mother, would we in a similar circumstance, e.g., in front or our own mother, or our priest’s mother, or the Queen of England, carry on about the intactness, or lack thereof, of their genitals? Like both St. Augustine and St. Jerome, I find this aspect of the discussion verging on the sacrilegious and as a reminder of how demeaning and disrespectful some of the pastors and believers of my Protestant experience were toward our Blessed Mother.
MS—are you trying to tell me you don’t feed your own prejudices?
.
My point is that if you look at other religions, past and present, there is almost always a mythical hero that is born of a virgin and sacrifices himself. Annual holidays, such as Christmas and Easter have been observed by different religions to worship their gods and astronomic patterns. Christ is just another version of the myth.
.
Look up “virgin births” and you will find numerous sites.
.
And no, I do not believe the Jesus Christ described as born of a virgin and “died for our sins” ever existed. I also don’t believe that Quetzalcoatl, Dionysus, Horus, or any of the other fictional “saviors” existed either.
.
But, as I’ve written before, Christ is a fictional character and if the Church (who edits and perpetuates this fiction) can make him an un-married virgin if it wants to.
This thread is the first I’d ever heard of the belief in Our Lady’s “clauso utero.” The authorities proposing it for belief strike me as weighty, and I’m inclined to assent. However, I find myself rather saddened at the thought. I’ve never been very drawn to Marian piety, and my wife, whose mother was constantly listening to EWTN rosary CD’s when my wife was a girl and getting REALLY into Marian devotions, is positively repelled by most devotions to Our Lady, whom she involuntarily thinks of as “Little Miss Perfect Who Never Sinned and Probably Looked Great in All Her Clothes,” even though she feels self-contemptuous and guilty about not being a pious rosary-praying, EWTN-loving Marian devotee like her mom, and is really ashamed of how involuntarily irritable she sometimes gets when I try to pray the rosary. Lately, the thought that at least the pangs of pregnancy and childbirth were something that my pregnant wife might have in common with the otherwise seemingly unapproachable Virgin seemed to be allowing us to make some progress on the Marian devotion front. I’m sad that this path looks like it’s closed off, too. Any devotional suggestions?
Rita:
I note that you did not answer my question, but merely fired off a tu quoque. If you are so incorrigibly ignorant as to maintain that Jesus never existed, then that’s not surprising. Continue your cutting and pasting. It’s easier than thinking.
@Catharine and @Francine. Actually, Charlotte is correct. A mother’s blood never flows through her fetus’ veins, nor does it ever intermingle with her child’s blood during her pregnancy. Exchange of nutrients and waste occur in the placenta, but the two bloodstreams NEVER touch and maternal blood NEVER enters the fetus. Fetal blood is pumped into the chorionic villi of the placenta, the chorionic villi are in turn SURROUNDED by maternal blood. Oxygen and nutrients diffuse across the placental barrier into the fetal blood, while wastes from the baby’s blood diffuse in the opposite direction to be picked up by the mother’s blood.
I would really not use a Sport’s Illustrated article as a source when arguing science, but even the quoted article does not ever say that maternal blood enters the fetus or that blood is shared between mother and child. It only says (correctly) that diverting maternal blood from the placenta critically endangers the life of the child. The “her blood was his blood” phrase is an example of good, dramatic writing—NOT meant to be taken literally.
Rita:
Your arguments about myth remind me of a similar argument against Christianity once propounded by C.S. Lewis to his friend J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien responded as follows (in paraphrase):
*
The story of Christ was the True Myth, a myth that works in the same way as the others, but a myth that really happened—a myth that existed in the realm of fact as well as in the realm of truth. In the same way that men unraveled the truth through the weaving of story, God revealed the Truth through the weaving of history….
*
Pagan myths were, in fact, God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using the images of their ‘mythopoeia’ to reveal fragments of His eternal truth. Yet, most astonishing of all, Tolkien maintained that Christianity was exactly the same except for the enormous difference that the poet who invented it was God Himself, and the images He used were real men and actual history.
*
Source: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/08/myth-as-truth-jrr-tolkien-and.html
***
Rita, many cultures have myths of the cosmos emerging from a primordial chaos. They didn’t know about the maelstrom of forces right after the Big Bang, but they were groping toward the truth. Many cultures had myths of a virgin birth, a resurrected hero, and so forth. They didn’t know about the Christ, but they were groping toward the Truth. Such “semina Verbi” (seeds of the Word) are exactly what we should expect to find in ancient myth and legend if mystics and poets all over the world were given glimpses of the numinous. I think your insight that many cultures have similar poems is wonderful. Consider praying that the Poet who writes with real men and women, not characters on a page, may reveal Himself to you. Your insight is wise; may Wisdom Incarnate make you wiser.
@Irenist, I find myself somehow pleasantly excoriated by your certain gift for paradox. You previously asked, any devotional suggestions? Certainly not by me, but I’d love to hear yours.
@Dismas:
I don’t think I’ll ever have the talent for paradox of the author of the phrase “pleasantly excoriated”!
As for devotions…hmm. I guess it depends on where you are on your journey, and where you are in your relationship with Jesus Christ and His Mother as actual people as opposed to abstractions. I recently read Sherry Weddell’s “Forming Intentional Disciples: The Path to Knowing and Following Jesus” and it left me hungry for more about how to build that relationship. For me, though, I’m not so creative. The Psalms help me a lot—the imagery is so graphic, it wrenches me right out of my own baloney into someplace else. I like the rosary, too (not that you’d guess it much from my other post), except that I don’t do well in “group rosary said aloud” settings, as keeping up with everyone else distracts me terribly. That said, one nice thing about the rosary for me is the way that praying the rote prayers while contemplating the mysteries doesn’t leave much room in your mind for tangential thoughts—instead of seeking a zen emptiness, the rosary fills your head instead.
*
One thing that always makes me feel closer to Christ when I’m sad is watching science documentaries—nature shows and shows about astronomy. Learning how galaxies and planets, orchids and primates came to be through the unfolding of the mathematical Logos through Whom the laws of nature were made is the closest I think I’ll get to sitting silently at the feet of the Tekton (Greek, “builder,” usually translated “carpenter” in Bibles, root of English “tectonics”), “whose strong hands were skilled at the plane and the lathe,” at work in Joseph’s workshop in Nazareth. The more I come to know the subtlety of His handiwork (Who but Him would’ve thought of quantum mechanics or natural selection?) the more I feel like I appreciate the Artist’s wryness, and want to draw closer. Is that at all helpful?
‘Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to?
You will never find the life for which you are looking.
When the gods created man
they alloted to him death,
but life they retained in their own keeping.
As for you, Gilgamesh,
fill your belly with good things;
day and night, night and day, dance and be merry,
feast and rejoice.
Let your clothes be fresh,
bathe yourself in water,
cherish the little child that holds your hand,
and make your wife happy in your embrace;
for this too is the lot of man.’
Irenist;
.
CS Lewis and Tolkien were wrong—one myth is as good as another, and by definition, all myths are fiction.
.
Why should my mythology be any less “the truth” than yours?
@Wisdom
Lovely Gilgamesh quotation.
You write, “by definition, all myths are fiction.”
Okay, let’s call them Stories then. Some stories are true. Some aren’t.
You write, “Why should my mythology be any less “the truth” than yours?”
Well, either there is an objective standard of truth or there isn’t. If you argue that nothing is really truer than anything else, your argument is self-refuting, since it too isn’t truer than anything else. If you argue that some things are true and others false, then we look to disciplines like philosophy, science, and history to help us figure out which stories are true.
Science tells us that we live in a universe that is remarkably fine-tuned for life, and a universe that we can understand with mathematics in a way that would be quite surprising for savannah primates if something else were not involved with our rationality besides the selection pressures in the ancestral ecosystem. This is no proof of God’s existence, but it is suggestive.
*
Arguments in that branch of philosophy called ontology or metaphysics convince at least me that there is a necessary Being whose essence is His existence, and how is pure actuality without any potentiality.
*
Arguments in ethics and epistemology convince me that it is difficult to defend objective ideas of Truth or the Good without recourse a Being who is the summum of both. Without such objective standards, of course, we’re back to self-refuting arguments.
*
History tells us that a number of ancient Romans, many of Jewish extraction, died rather than recant their belief that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead in the 30’s A.D. This belief arose at least as early as the 50’s A.D. (as attested by Paul’s epistles). If Peter, Paul, and company had been hucksters leading a cult, rather than witnesses to something extraordinary, it seems unlikely they would have died rather than recant their Story. On its own, this Story might be merely suggestive, like the fine-tuning of the universe for life, or its amenability to analysis with human-comprehensible mathematics. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Sagan said, and a crazed cult is far less extraordinary than a resurrection. But when combined with the metaphysical arguments for a God, the historical evidence begins to look a lot like what you would expect from the Author of our odd, subtle, wonderful world. In that case, although Gilgamesh is a magnificent tale, it is less the truth than the Christian tale because the Christian tale recounts a historical event: there was a first century Jew who claimed to be God, and rose from the dead. Make of it what you will.
As Rita pointed out before she was kicked off the blog, there is no real historical proof. A virgin birth, a death and resurrection, and miracles also require extraordinary proof if you are going to declare them historical events.
.
It’s much more believable that the New Testament is a modified form of the universal virgin-born sun god/hero myth than it is to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary or the resurrection of Jesus. I have no problem with the metaphysics, but the “history” of Jesus’ existence is not proven.
.
Personally, I prefer the Epic of Gilgamesh over the Christ myth. Gilgamesh is a better metaphor for the human condition. It’s much simpler and non-exclusive.
.
No shallow jerk is going to call you gullible or incorrigibly ignorant and ban you from the site if you suggest Gilgamesh is fictional.
Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled wrote the author of the book of Hebrews. Her husband given the opportunity too not marry her-did so anyway. We know they were married at least up until their son was 12 years of age. There was NO reason for Joseph to be celibate for 12 years as a married man. In his dream the angel told him to fear not in taking Mary as his WIFE although she was with child. Peter asked at the council of Jerusalem; Why tempt God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither their fathers nor them were able to bear? It is good for a man not to touch a woman; Never-the-less let every man have his own wife. The only intimacy lawful between a man and woman is through honorable MARRIAGE. There is a very clear mandate for abstinence from sex when married 1st Cor 7:5. Neither Joseph nor Mary were asked by God to show the piousness of their faith by marrying each other and remaining celibate throughout the entirety of their marriage. Too reason otherwise is putting a yoke on him and her that was not Heaven made.
How did Jesus have brothers and sisters if Mary was always a virgin?
This is just more of the same nonsense from The Church, made up junk without authentic biblical foundation. It is unbelievable how much of this kind of thing gets pronounced by otherwise intelligent people. How can a thinking man let his capacity for reason blind him to such bunk?
No one hereabouts seemed interested in answering my question about obstacles to Marian devotion. However, I did reread this just now, from our esteemed host, and found it very helpful. It really spoke to me on a second reading:
http://www.mark-shea.com/mother.html
Thanks as always, Mark.
Another reason I prefer the Gilgamesh story over the New Testament: The story is not uptight about the sexuality—it is a given that, as living beings, all creatures partake in sexual activity. In fact, Enkinu is civilized by Shamhat, a temple prostitute.
.
Why is important that Mary should be a perpetual virgin? Why do you insist supernatural beings lived on this planet over 2000 years ago, yet do no show up any other time in history or the present?
.
Irenist—Hispanics I know have a great devotion to Mary—many males have the middle name Maria. I think Marion devotion is harder in this country because it is dangerously close to goddess worship. As Rita mentioned above, there are many virgin goddesses in various mythologies that gave birth to gods and heroes central to great stories.
Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?
.
Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase “my mother’s sons” is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.
.
http://carm.org/did-mary-have-other-children
Rita,
Your last statement proves quite readily that you’re ready to move on. I wish you the best. Good luck to you and God bless you.
We think and believe that Jesus existed and there is supporting evidence for it as written within this column and within the comments, whether you believe this or not. If you want 21-century evidence as defined by science, then nobody’s going to be able to convince you into believing. Good luck and God bless you.
abimopectore—what’s all that about?
Wisdom,
Comments are being removed so context is being lost.
Islam supports the Virgin Birth of Jesus:
.
According to the Qur’an, Jesus was born miraculously by the will of God without a father. His mother is regarded as a chaste and virtuous woman and is said to have been a virgin. The Qur’an states clearly that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, but that neither Mary nor her son were divine. In the Qur’an, no other woman is given more attention than Mary and the Qur’an states that Mary was chosen above all women.
.
Mary is one of the most honored figures in Muslim history. Muslim women look upon her as an example and are known to visit both Muslim and Christian shrines. Muslim tradition, like Christian, honors her memory at Matariyyah near Cairo, and in Jerusalem. Muslims also visit the Bath of Mary in Jerusalem, where Muslim tradition recounts Mary once bathed, and this location was visited at times by women, who were seeking a cure for barrenness.[19] Some plants have also been named after Mary, such as Maryammiah, which, as tradition recounts, acquired its sweet scent when Mary wiped her forehead with its leaves. Another plant is Kaff Maryam, which was used by some Muslim women to help in pregnancy, and the water of this plant was given to women to drink while praying.
.
Yes, Mark Shea—this has been copied and pasted from Wikipedia:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Mary_in_Islam
.
Most Google searches bring up Wikipedia and, while it is not considered the most reliable source, it does have links to digitized documents.
.
To be exclusive, Catholic faith requires the miracle of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Adding the concept of the Immaculate Conception for Mary, and no other religion has such a “pure” female figure. Somehow, it makes Catholics “better” than everyone else because they believe this. I sure don’t understand why this is so, but there you have it.
.
The whole idea falls to pieces when people try to convince this happened in the physical plane. There may have been a historical person called Jesus, but the supernatural aspects of him and his “family” are fantasy fiction—no more or less. The stories may appeal to our sense of morality, and co-incidentally work well as social mores, but there is no reason they need to have “really happened” for them to express moral truths. That’s why they call it “theology.”
.
Irenist—you wrote that “some stories are true,” but you have to agree that not all stories that did not happen in real life are false. Jesus used parables, and they were “truths” in their way.
abimopectore—why are contents being removed? I thought this was a learning forum.
The denial of Mary’s perpetual virginity was condemned as heresy by the Lateran Council (A.D. 649). Popes who have explicitly taught the perpetual virginity of Mary are Siricius, John II, Leo IX, and Paul IV. Doctors of the Church who have written to affirm the doctrine are Ignatius of Antioch, Didymus, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Ephraem of Syria, Basil, John Chrysostom, Hilary of Tours, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, Catherine of Siena, and Teresa of Avila.
The virgin birth is prophetic. However, there is no evidence to support the Lord would deny Joseph & Mary due benevolence in marriage and all the benefits thereof following the birth of the Christ-child.
Casting Crowns:
Yes. There is evidence. That’s the point of this series of posts. Beware of reasoning which proceeds, “God always does what is best. I think this is best. Therefore God must have done this.” The historical evidence is all in favor of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It is only modern prejudice that ignores that evidence in order to say, “Surely God would not have…”
I know of a Catholic Church not gutted out by Vatican II reformers, (it’s amazing that some Catholic Churches were not reburbished interiorly to look like empty, whitewashed Masonic toombs) that has on the Holy Family side altar, “Perpetual Mother, Before, During and After” in Latin. It was always understood that Our Blessed Mother is Ever Virgin.
Mark Shea, Why aren’t you using this valuable space to teach what Sacred Tradition has handed on about Our Blessed Mother Ever Virgin? If your column does not care to correct or instruct, what is your intention? You are making it appear that it is merely optional ‘what Catholics believe’ and that we can make up our own minds about the Mother of God.
Joe:
What are you talking about? I’ve made clear that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a dogmatic teaching of the Church and am giving the evidence for why this is. Do you really think it also my job to net.nanny every single person who comes up with some gripe about that in the comboxes? How does saying, “This is the de fide teaching of the Church” equate to “we can make up own minds”? Thanks for making sure no good deed goes unpunished.
Mark Shea,——- Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Sep 24, 2012 11:25 AM (EST):
To Eddie: But first the question is, “Is the evidence against the dogma?”
____________________________
Mark, I don’t understand your reasoning. There never will be nor has there ever been ‘evidence against a dogma’. What provoked you into this line of thinking? Why would you give the impression of the possibility that Holy Mother the Church can err in Her teachings? This has never happened.
De fide means infallibly true and is binding upon all the faithful. Aren’t you saying just the opposite by questioning a dogma?
Joe:
When you are doing apologetics, you begin where your doubting audience is and answer their question. St. Thomas does exactly the same thing, beginning with extremely fundamental questions like “Does God exist?” and gives the strongest arguments he can for the heretical positions, in order to answer them. You are basically saying that the answer of the Catholic to the honest inquirer should always simply be, “Shut up. Don’t ask.” And you add to that the accusation that anyone who does attempt to help the unbeliever find answers to their questions is himself a heretic. That means that St. Thomas is a heretic for asking whether God exists. You may want to rethink that approach.
Mr. Shea,
A lot has been said over the past week on this column. I remain unconvinced as to perpetual virginity in the uterine sense, but I have enjoyed reading everyone’s comments. Thank you, Mr. Shea, for writing on real and provocative topics, and thank you for allowing people who disagree to post. I will do my best to keep an open mind. I am satisfied from what has been posted that the Church has made no pronouncement on the necessity of belief in the unbroken hymen. i am also satisfied that it really doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things. I always enjoy reading your columns and will continue to do so in the future. God bless you.
Mark Shea, Based on the example of Eddie’s response and others to the point of shamefully smearing Our Most Beautiful Mother, respectfully, you are in need to give a Catholic response. You have presented in this ‘Catholic’ media a marvelous presentation one would expect from a student protestant bible college defense of the Ever Lasting Virginity of Mary or a Sunday protestant minister’s sermon to his flock. Catholics have a responsibility to question merely sola-scriptural based reasonings. Catholics expect to pray according to a Catholic doctrine because faith is rooted in how and what Catholics pray. Catholics expect to hear which Council or which Pontiff certified these Scriptural interpretations. A Catholic doctrine is based not solely upon Sacred Scripture, but also upon Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. One cannot exist without the other. The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church. Clearly and most respectfully again, Mark Shea, you believe Catholics do not read their bibles and you want to enlighten them on your interpretation which could be correctly formed by a true Catholic conscience, but it’s not enough. A Catholic must ask where else in Tradition is a doctrine taught that binds all to believe; a Catholic must also search for the Councils certified by Popes and what are the Papal promulgations coming from the most infallible Holy Spirit that propose this doctrine of the thrice holy Spouse and the Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God.
Joe:
This was a post about how the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not contrary to Scripture, not a post about everything. I have written in the past about the inadequacy of sola scriptura, even authoring a book about it that has been in print since 1996. A blog is not the Summa. And if your target audience does not care about what Popes and Councils say due to a mistakene believe that they contradict Scripture, there is no point in appealing to them. You must first make clear that Scripture is not being contradicted—which was the point here.
Mark Shea, Sacred Scripture is only one source of revelation. How do the readers know your interpretations of Sacred Scripture are in accordance to Holy Mother the Church? Many things can be justified with scripture.
Sigh. Yes, Joe. I know Sacred Scripture is only one source of revelation. I have written multiple books pointing that out. However, here, in *this* series, I am writing to an audience (the disbeliever in th PVoM and in the authority of the Church) that does not accept that and that imagines Scripture to flatly contradict the Church’s tradition on this point. Therefore, my purpose here is to show that the Tradition does *not* contradict Scripture. Recall the words of Chesterton: “Would that all Christian apologists would remember that maxim; and write it up in large letters on the wall, before they nail any theses there. At the top of his fury, Thomas Aquinas understands, what so many defenders of orthodoxy will not understand. It is no good to tell an atheist that he is an atheist; or to charge a denier of immortality with the infamy of denying it; or to imagine that one can force an opponent to admit he is wrong, by proving that he is wrong on somebody else’s principles, but not on his own. After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds and not ours.”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.