Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[kenrockthefirst]

I (think I) understand the teaching of Mary's Immaculate Conception and Jesus' Virgin Birth in terms of His not being tainted with Original Sin -- is that the crux of it?

Help me out on this, though: what is the Church's teaching on the actual birth of Jesus? I believe I read somewhere that the Church teaches that Jesus was not delivered vaginally, didn't pass through the birth canal, and that Mary's hymen wasn't broken. Is that correct? Also, why was Mary's virginity [i]after[/i] Jesus birth important to maintain? I've read something to the effect that, hey, that's what the Church teaches, so deal with it. Is Mary's virginity something that's always been attested to or is it something that was kind of retrofitted on later in keeping with Church doctrine as it had developed? For example, Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph "[h]e had no relations with her [Mary] until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." Other translations use the word "knew," which in the biblical context always means sexual relations, and commentary from the USSCB states that "[u]ntil she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it."

Thoughts?

[jeffpugh]

I took part in a conversation about the former part of your question at a choir practice (during our 'break'). I believe the teaching is that Christ was not delivered vaginally, but he sort of passed through the flesh like light through glass or something... heh... that was a funny night...

[thessalonian]

I don't know if there is an official teaching in this regard. I do believe that the general thinking is that Mary's virginity remained intact physically as well as spiritually. That is part of the significance as I understand of Luke, a doctore, who would have had an interest in such a miracle writing about the story. He may even have examined the phenomena? I've heard this speculated. Whether Jesus was delivered vaginaly or some other way, it is my understanding that Mary's physical virginity was left intact.

[Resurrexi]

[quote][b]The Catechism of the Council of Trent; Part I, Article Three:[/b]
THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST TRANSCENDS
THE ORDER OF NATURE

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.

Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, 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;13 or not to depart from every-day 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 Spirit, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favored the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.*[/quote]

[quote][b]Douay-Rheims; St. Matthew, Ch. 1, Vs. 25 footnote:[/b]
25 "Till she brought forth her firstborn son"... From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.[/quote]

Edited March 9, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]Ezechiel 44:2[/b]
"And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/31044.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/31044.htm[/url][/quote]This prophecy of Ezekiel is very unique in the respect that Almighty God is entering through a gate, a physical barrier. All the other times in the Scriptures we see God acting in a visionary or mystical manner, but to pass through a gate is very human. It requires defined aspects, thus in short this foretells the Incarnation of our Blessed Lord. Naturally we could know that this gate is a metaphor since no where in the New Testament or writings of the Church Fathers that there is a gate fitting this description.

Therefore the gate must be the Blessed Mother being the “Gate of Heaven” that our Blessed Lord entered into the world. Then it says that it shall not be opened and no man shall pass through it, referring to that she is not to have any other children and that no man is to violate her perpetual virginity. Notice that twice it says that the gate shall be shut, so before and after the Blessed Mother is virginal and likewise she remains.

There is much more scriptural evidence and traditional evidence to the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother, but this is not the whole point of this discussion. But the phrase “until” is used often. For example we remember our Blessed Lord teaching us He will be with us “UNTILL” the end of the world. This is metaphorical and is not literal; otherwise our Savior would leave us to be orphans at the second coming. This is not the message of the gospel so indeed the writing you wrote is correct, this is to make sure to the reader that Saint Joseph is not the father of our Blessed Lord but only the “Foster Father.”

To explain this Saint Francis made an example: There is a farmer who owns a plot of land, one day a dove flies over dropping a seed into the land where the seed sprouts a beautiful flower. The farmer takes care of the flower and helps it grow. Although, who does the flower belong to? The farmer did not plant the flower but it does grow on his field and he does tend to it. The Blessed Virgin is the field and the Dove the Holy Spirit, so Saint Joseph being the husband to the Blessed Virgin he is the foster father and for this reason our Blessed Lord respected and honored Saint Joseph as his humanly father even though he is not.

The importance of the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother is to show us the importance and dignity of our Lord. It is also to show us that the interior soul is more important than the physical world, while our Lord was brought into a poor family and life the spiritual richness was great. Likewise we are taught that those things of the spirit are more important than those things of the flesh. It is to reaffirm in us a love of chaste life and purity of living, to always avoid sin and love God above all things. That also we may see that the Holy Family was completely and utterly devoted to Almighty God in virginity and purity.

Moreover, it one of the prophecies of the Christ of which all must be fulfilled otherwise we could believe in error. Because all of them are fulfilled it reaffirms the New Testament in the Old Testament.

[Mitchell_b55]

I have meditated frequently in this respect and it has appeared to me that the perpetual virginity makes the most sense when viewed in the light of the immaculate conception and the assumption. Why was Mary assumed into heaven? It appears to me that a complete retraction of original sin in the Blessed Virgin, by the will of the Father, at her conception remits any of the temporal punishments of sickness, death (assumption), and labourious child bearing. Perhpas I have misconcieved something, but it appears that these dogmas must not be isolated. It should also be remembered (as was sarcastically put above) that the Church has defined the perpetual virginity as a dogma of the faith and one cannot entertain doubts as to its veracity. One can speculate (as all theologians do) into the proper understanding of the dogma and the Church may clarify it in the light of Scripture and Tradition, through the power of Her magisterium, but one must begin with the fact of its veracity and then build upon it. I have read above many wonderful thoughts and meditations and I express a hope that more will proceed from this primary structure, but be wary of doubt. Remember that the Church is the authority and not the subjective tendency of the interpreter. I recommend St. Jerome's [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm"]The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius.[/url] and the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following.

[quote][b]Mary's Perpetual Virginity [/b]

In connection with the study of Mary during Our Lord's hidden life, we meet the questions of her perpetual virginity, of her Divine motherhood, and of her personal sanctity. Her spotless virginity has been sufficiently considered in the article on the Virgin Birth. The authorities there cited maintain that Mary remained a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to her Divine Son, as well as after the birth of Jesus. Mary's question (Luke 1:34), the angel's answer (Luke 1:35, 37), Joseph's way of behaving in his doubt (Matthew 1:19-25), Christ's words addressed to the Jews (John 8:19) show that Mary retained her virginity during the conception of her Divine Son. [65]

As to Mary's virginity after her childbirth, it is not denied by St. Matthew's expressions "before they came together" (1:18), "her firstborn son" (1:25), nor by the fact that the New Testament books repeatedly refer to the "brothers of Jesus". [66] The words "before they came together" mean probably, "before they lived in the same house", referring to the time when they were merely betrothed; but even if the words be understood of marital intercourse, they only state that the Incarnation took place before any such intercourse had intervened, without implying that it did occur after the Incarnation of the Son of God. [67]

The same must be said of the expression, "and he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son" (Matthew 1:25); the Evangelist tells us what did not happen before the birth of Jesus, without suggesting that it happened after his birth. [68] The name "firstborn" applies to Jesus whether his mother remained a virgin or gave birth to other children after Jesus; among the Jews it was a legal name [69], so that its occurrence in the Gospel cannot astonish us.

Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the more or less near relatives. [70] The Church insists that in His birth the Son of God did not lessen but consecrate the virginal integrity of His mother (Secret in Mass of Purification). The Fathers express themselves in similar language concerning this privilege of Mary. [71]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm"]Link Here[/url][/quote]

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1212487' date='Mar 12 2007, 08:29 AM']I have meditated frequently in this respect and it has appeared to me that the perpetual virginity makes the most sense when viewed in the light of the immaculate conception and the assumption. Why was Mary assumed into heaven? It appears to me that a complete retraction of original sin in the Blessed Virgin, by the will of the Father, at her conception remits any of the temporal punishments of sickness, death (assumption), and labourious child bearing. Perhpas I have misconcieved something, but it appears that these dogmas must not be isolated. It should also be remembered (as was sarcastically put above) that the Church has defined the perpetual virginity as a dogma of the faith and one cannot entertain doubts as to its veracity. One can speculate (as all theologians do) into the proper understanding of the dogma and the Church may clarify it in the light of Scripture and Tradition, through the power of Her magisterium, but one must begin with the fact of its veracity and then build upon it. I have read above many wonderful thoughts and meditations and I express a hope that more will proceed from this primary structure, but be wary of doubt. Remember that the Church is the authority and not the subjective tendency of the interpreter. I recommend St. Jerome's [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm"]The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius.[/url] and the Catholic Encyclopedia says the following.[/quote]

I didn't mean to be sarcastic (although I admit I probably was a little bit). Having said that, what I was getting at is encapsulated in your comment, "... the Church has defined the perpetual virginity as a dogma of the faith and one cannot entertain doubts as to its veracity." There seems to be some "wiggle room" in scripture for the potential interpretation that Mary had children via natural means after Jesus' birth. In that context, is it fair to say that as Church doctrine developed around the Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth (and, as you point out, Mary's assumption), a doctrine around Mary's Perpetual Virginity also developed in keeping with and informed by these doctrines and tradition? I really want to understand, so please just don't tell me, "that's the way it is so you have to believe it."

[jmjtina]

You are making the same inferences heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ but St. Jerome is a great defender who has some great stuff defending our Holy Mother. He shows, by many examples that the expression St. Matthew took was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word "until", only what is done without any regard for the future. Some examples he has is: God says (Isai 46,4) [i]I am until you grow old.[/i] Who dare infer that God should then cease to be? Also in the first book of Machabees (5, 54) [i]And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness and offered holocausts, ,because not one of them was slain until they had returned in peace.[/i] That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God said to his divine Son: [i]Sit on my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.[/i] Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Well, he'll sit there for all eternity! St. Jerome also proves by scripture example that an only begotton Son was also called a firstborn, or first begotten, because according to the law, the firstborn males were consecrated to God: [i]Sancitify unto me, says the Lord, every firstborn that openeth to the womb among the children of Isreal[/i] (Exod. 13, 2)

Hope that helps some.

[Mitchell_b55]

I apologise if I came across terse, but I am currently suffering from a bad case of shingles and I am in a rotten mood. I am sincerely regretful.

However, I am frequently assailed by people who believe themselves more qualified to interpret Scripture and Tradition than His Holiness and the Living Magisterium. I sensed (in my susceptible state) a resentment of the Churches authority, which was evidently not present (though try convincing someone who has pain periodically (and arbitrarily) shooting down his arm and spine + an overly abundant patch of blistered flesh on back that that is the case). As for your enquiry I am happy to see that we have people interested in pursuing such questions. I myself wish to pursue Holy Orders and degrees in Theology. I was unable to fully comment earlier (in fact, I have been MIA here on Phatmass for a while) since my schedule leaves no room for the internet. I hope that some of my thoughts will help you.

Now I began by offering ([i]supra[/i]) my beliefs concerning the interconnectedness of the Marian Dogmas. I believe that the [i]Immaculate Conception[/i] (CCC 490-493), which declares that '[t]he most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.'

If God had intended to implant such grace within a person, why would he violate that gift by punishing her with the effects of the sin which she was free of? Also, we can see in the Assumption (CCC 966) that '[f]inally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.'

When God punished Eve, what was one of the punishments? '[i]n sorrow shalt thou bring forth children,' God said, and that is why the Church teaches that Mary remained a virgin [i]ante partum[/i], [i]in partu[/i], [i]et post partum[/i]. Which renders into our vile tongue as [i]before birth[/i], [i]during birth[/i], and [i]after the birth[/i].

If conception 'By the power of the Holy Spirit' did not violate her virginal integrity, why should birth destroy it? In [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] 57 one reads that this miraculous birth did not violate that integrity, but sanctified it.

In [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] 59 one also reads that she remained a virgin for the remainder of her life until she was assumed into heaven. (N.B. that she did not lose her virginity after she was assumed, regardless of 'until')

It is important to remember that we do not achieve an understanding of truth by the intuition of our will or the shifting sands of our emotion, nor do we by means of reason ever attain the fullest truth. As Vatican II declared in [i]Dei Verbum[/i] 2 and 5 truth is determined by the obedience of faith. The [i]depositum fidei[/i] is composed of the Apostolic [i]paradosis[/i] (tradition) or the act, which has then been recorded by oral of written means, this is the composition of the Deposit of Faith, the Apostolic source of our Faith. The Trinitarian structure of Authority (the rule of certitude) is the completed by the Living (Authentic) Magisterium excercised by infallibale statements of the Bishop of Rome, the College of Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or in an Œcumenical Council that has been convoked and declared authoritative by that same Bishop. Therefore the statement that 'the Church says so,' has particular weight and is in itself non-negotiable. I was rather crude before and I apologise for that. In the Church's Tradition ([i]paradosis[/i]) and Tradition we see a seemless fusion of authority, interpreted by the Magisterium ([i]Dei Verbum[/i] 10).

It is a Reformation error that Tradition plays no part in the authority of the Church, but Vatican II asserted that 'that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, [i]wished to see confided to Sacred Scripture'[/i] ([i]Dei Verbum[/i] 11; cf. CCC 107) It does not confer upon scripture the identity of firmly, faithfully and without error, containing all truth. Therefore we must be careful, as Catholics, not to want a scriptural answer for everything, even though the rudiments and every teaching of the Church is implicitly contained in scripture, thus bestowing upon it a material sufficiency, if not a formal sufficiency that would require explicit justification for each and every action of Christian ethics and dogma.

Keep in mind that because of the Church's role in doctrine any academician who calls into question a declared dogma must be defective, by virtue of Christ's Divine authority bestowed upon His vicar happily established in Rome off the coat of the Mediterranean within the Leonine walls and likely seated in His pleasantly accomodated apartment in the Vatican Palace.

We are all familiar with Mary's virginity '[i]ante partum[/i]' so I will not delve into it. If anyone is coming up short in the memory banks recall Matthew i. 18-25. and Luke 1. 26-38.

Now concerning the doctrine '[i]in partu[/i]' the Church has always taught that Mary was preserved from any and all violation of biological virginity (as well as what this symbolises regarding her interior grace) this includes the opening of the womb, labour pains, and other unpleasant consequences childbirth involved in gestation. The process by which Christ was born can evidently not be determined, however it is certain that it was a 'miraculous birth' and was not infringed upon painful circumstance as the [i]The Nativity Story[/i] so eloquently put it in the sweat and dregs of a labouring mother. If anyone doubts the biological veracity of such a claim they have very little faith in miracles and might as well deny the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, and hey why not God. (I apologise I'm getting aggravated again). *Clearing throat and using the most acceptable form of hypocrisy... politeness* (cf. Bierce, Ambrose [i]The Devil's Dictionary[/i])

Pope S. Leo Magnus wrote that '[Christ] was born in a "new type of birth" in that undefiled virginity experienced no concupiscence, yet supplied the material for the flesh [...] The Lord Jesus Christ, born from a virgin’s womb, does not have a nature different from ours just because His birth was an unusual one.'

[u]In the Old Testament.[/u]

[i]Ezekiel xliv. 2.[/i] 'And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.'

This is sited by S. Ambrose at the Milanese Synod of 360 and I believe its significance has been aptly disserted above. ([i]supra[/i] Mr. Catholic Cat... [i]meow[/i]! [i]hiss[/i]! [i]hiss[/i]!)


[i]Isaiah lxvi. 7,8[/i] 'Before she was in labour, she brought forth; before her time came to be delivered, she brought forth a man child. Who hath ever heard such a thing? and who hath seen the like to this?'

I find this significant since it speaks of a woman brough forth, though she was not in labour.

[i]Canticle of Canticles iv. 12.[/i] 'My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up. '

In the Scriptures a woman's womb is frequently referred to as a garden, and the fruit of that garden, is the fruit of her womb. In fact, a man simply tends the garden (N.B. The archaism [i]husbandry [/i]refers to a gardener) and plants his 'seed.' It is often interpreted that the Canticle of Canticles is a song between husband and wife, Christ and his Church, and Christ and His [i]Mother[/i]. It would thus make sense that the gates to the garden, by which the Lord will enter will remain enclosed and shut.

I am becoming weary and I intend to go to bed, so I will conclude as quickly as I can. I apologise.

I'm sure that Mary's '[i]post partum[/i]' virginity is easily understood and that Joseph never knew her, nor did he know her after, he though he never knew her until, and all that jazz, it's easily arrived at and I don't intend to damage my tyres by running over a frequently beaten horse.

I'm sure I could go on and on and [INTERMISSION... 5 Minutes Later] and on and on, but I will not subject you to the slow and inhumanitarian torture of my simple humour, 'which even my most appreciate critics find tiresome'. I will, however, reiterate that you should read S. Jerome's article. ([i]supra[/i])

Also, try taking the Catechism and carefully masticating, humectating, and deglutiting the sections on Mary, you would be surprised at what you find in the way of digestable material and you might enjoy bobbing over to Mr. Solza's page @ [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV"]Scripture Catholic[/url].

Other sources of intrique can be found at the following sources:

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm"]Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D. on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm"]The 1907 Catholic Encyclopædia on the Virgin Birth of Christ[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm"]The 1907 Catholic Encyclopædia on Virginity[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KEY2MARY.htm"]James Akin on Mary (see appropriate paragraph)[/url]

There are hundreds of resources, the Phatmass Defence Directory is a place to go and also to PhatCatholics website. I am in the process of revamping my website, but if you would like to email me, please do so from the mail page @ [url="http://apologia.awardspace.com/"]Apologia pro fide sua[/url] or you might enjoy searching on my search engine which should provide some good sources, since it limits the search to a list of sites that I define (I will be adding more soon). For other resources, I have spent some time putting together the Resource page.

I would love to discuss this some more, but I need a glass of bourbon and a good book, so I can ignore my back for the time being.

Honoured to remain thy obedient servant in Christ,

Mitchell Bond, Petrus Scholasticus

Edited March 12, 2007 by petrus_scholasticus

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1212680' date='Mar 12 2007, 05:03 PM']I apologise if I came across terse, but I am currently suffering from a bad case of shingles and I am in a rotten mood. I am sincerely regretful.[/quote]

Thank you for your time and detailed explanation, I have learned a great deal and appreciate your effort. I'm sorry for you shingles - I myself have a bad cold and am grumpy enough, so I can only imagine how you feel - and will say a prayer for you.