I am honestly seeking some insight from modern-day Catholics on the WHY of the doctrine being so important.
I have discussed this with the Religion Mod (about making it Ecumenical) and he is aware that I am posting it as Ecumenical. No antagonism is allowed.
Hopefully, I can gain some insight.
Because Jesus is so important to Catholics.
I think this might be down your alley...
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli thought that the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was important too.
Google it.
While waiting for those more versed, let me take a shot at it.
Jesus was born pure and that could only have happened with Mary being pure.
You can’t extract the Virgin Birth without extracting the Life of Christ — they are the same and inextricably linked.
http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=417&id_rubrique=417
My friend also saw the virgin in Lourdes, and experienced personal miracles.
Her newly found deep faith and devotion to Jesus and Mary puts my cradle Catholic faith to shame. The church has a long history of Marianic visitations like the Virgen of Guadalupe, all around the world and she continues to evangelize. Only those who have some idea of the real version of our long church history understand most concepts. Most Catholics, like myself just understand things intuitively.
First, I don’t want to take the time starting an argument or getting bogged down in one in the religion forum.
So, I’ll just note that Catholics obviously don’t interpret Matthew 1:25 as necessarily meaning that Mary knew Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Someone else with the time or the will to do so could give a better explanation if they wish.
Also, are you asking why Catholics hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary or why the perpetual virginity of Mary is important to Catholics? If it’s the latter, then Matthew 1:25 and whether the doctrine is true or not is not really relevant to the question. But since you mentioned it, I’m guessing that you would like some explanation as to why Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, not just why it is important to Catholics.
If Joseph and Mary never had sexual intercourse, then their marriage was never consummated. Therefore, the marriage was invalid. On that basis, Joseph would not be Jesus’ stepfather and was just a friend.
My thought has always been that Middle Eastern cultures put a great emphasis on virginity (look at how nowadays they actually have operations to “recreate” it, as if a physical hymen actually is that important).
To the Biblical Christian this is not important in the least. The important point for us is that Jesus was born of God, who is Spirit. A spirit does not take a woman’s virginity, but He was born of the Holy Spirit who “overshadowed” Mary. Thus Jesus is divine. Other than that, Mary remaining “perpetually” virgin has always smacked of the thought that sex is unclean and unholy, whether in or out of marriage.
I know our Catholic brethren disagree with this. It seems very obvious to me, and is one of the reasons I am not Catholic.
Mormons believe God impregnated Mary as a physical being. I obviously have great issues with this.
I hate to “hit and run” but I won’t be around for the flames for awhile, I’ll check in later for the fires!
I’ve always believed small philosophical ideas have great impact on cultures. IMHO, this is one of those “small, huge, ideas”.
The problem with this perfecting of Mary, the ever-virgin, the sinless, the bodily assumed, outside of the lack of scriptural validation, is that a perfect, sinless Mary would have had the same, physical issues as far as the inherited sin nature, as Jesus would have had, if all the learned and elaborate speculations and intellectualizations regarding His birth were actually the case.
Accepting that He was born of a virgin and that virgin was Mary, who was regarded as special and unique among women and therefore capable of bearing the Christ Child is as far as I'll go.
Not to hijack, but I never understood why the notion that Jesus may have sex, something along the lines of The Da Vinci Code, is equally abhorrent. How could this dimmish what he was/is?
I suggest you read Scott Hahn’s book for insight.
Here is the description from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Hail-Holy-Queen-Mother-Word/dp/0385501692
Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God
A fresh and enlightening new perspective on Mary, Mother of God, and her central importance in the Christian faith, from the author of the highly successful The Lamb’s Supper.
In The Lamb’s Supper, Catholic scholar and apologist Scott Hahn explored the relationship between the Book of Revelation and the Roman Catholic Mass, deftly clarifying the most subtle of theological points with analogies and anecdotes from everyday life. In Hail, Holy Queen, he employs the same accessible, entertaining style to demonstrate Mary’s essential role in Christianity’s redemptive message.
Most Christians know that the life of Jesus is foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament. Through a close examination of the Bible, as well as the work of both Catholic and Protestant scholars and clergy, Hahn brings to light the small but significant details showing that just as Jesus is the “New Adam,” so Mary is the “New Eve.” He unveils the Marian mystery at the heart of the Book of Revelation and reveals how it is foretold in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis and in the story of King David’s monarchy, which speaks of a privileged place for the mother of the king.
Building on these scriptural and historical foundations, Hahn presents a new look at the Marian doctrines: Her Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and Coronation. As he guides modern-day readers through passages filled with mysteries and poetry, Hahn helps them rediscover the ancient art and science of reading the Scriptures and gain a more profound understanding of their truthfulness and relevance to faith and the practice of religion in the contemporary world.
Because there is something vestal about it?
Mary's Perpetual Virginity emphasizes the divinity and miraculous conception of Jesus. He was not an ordinary human child, and he was not biologically Joseph's child. Because of this, Mary was "off limits" to Joseph in sexual terms.
Remember for a moment that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, literally the vessel in which the flesh of the New Covenant was contained. What happened to Uzziah when he touched the ark of the old covenant without permission? He was instantly struck dead.
By the way, heos hou ("until") does not necessarily imply a reversal of the situation. Matthew is just emphasizing what happened before the birth of Jesus, because that's important to his discussion at that point.
We know that the Blessed Mother had no other biological children because Jesus consigned her to St. John's care before he died on the cross. Unless you want to take the (rather unlikely) view that Jesus had younger blood siblings who all died before he did, it would have been impossible and sinful for him to give Mary into St. John's care. It would have amounted to him doing exactly what he condemned the Pharisees for in Mt 15:5-6 -- absolving another Jew from his responsibility toward the commandments.
THAT is why it's so important.
WRT purity and marital sexuality:
Based solely on publically available information, it is my opinion that Michelle Duggar is just as sexually pure as any life-long virgin.
Just curious: why "firstborn son" rather than just "son" or "child" if she had no other children later?
I'm thinking that it might be a “hot button” because it is connected to something that Catholics revere (Mary) but is often misstated in attacks on them. Clearly Catholics do not worship Mary in the same manner that they worship Christ. They revere her, and her relationship to Christ, but they get ready to be attacked at the mention of Mary.
As a Mormon, we have similar “hot button” topics. We don't worship Joseph Smith, but we revere him as the first prophet of the restoration. But as soon as the topic comes up, we get ready for the claim that we worship JS, and don't even talk about Christ.
That is untrue, just as the statement that Catholics worship Mary in the same manner as God is untrue.
Doctrinally, I agree with you. There is nothing scriptural that seem to require Mary remaining a virgin after Christ's birth, but clearly Catholics teach that, and are sensitive when the topic comes up.
Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
Pope Siricius I
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
(see more church fathers at above link)
You can also check out:
Salza for more Church Fathers - http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III
Hahn’s site for more - http://www.salvationhistory.com/search/results/81ef5793412e6baa02ab6980d5ddd051/
Hopefully that will keep you busy. :)
God Bless
For the same reason that her perpetual virginity was so important to Calvin, Luther and Zwingli amongst many other protestants.
Because it’s the truth.
Did Paul not tell unmarried Christians that they were best off remaining celebate for the desire of the kingdom, allowing sex and marriage only because people couldn’t control their desires? Well, Catholics believe Mary was sinless, so if anyone should be chaste, should it not be Mary?
Some ancients, particularly in the East supposed that Jesus’ “brothers” were half-brothers, children of Joseph from before he married Mary. But no-where in antiquity had anyone ever challenged the claim that Mary was “ever-virgin.” Because those who knew Greek understood that “until” such and such did not mean necessarily that any status changed after such and such. And they understood that “firstborn” was a title that did not imply subsequent births. (How could it? The law refers to what must be done to firstborns; If “firstborn” necessarily meant that there were later births, how could one ever know that someone was firstborn, and not only born?)
They understood the wording, “Here is THE son of you” which Jesus told Mary about John.
But it’s also important because it establishes that nearness to God is a more glorious joy than sexual gratification, that such gratification is merely an earthly metaphor for closeness to God, an echo of the spiritual realm translated into the physical realm.