He's An Only Child -- A response to a Protestant argument against Mary's perpetual virginity

Envoy Magazine ^ | Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

If anything, it would help strengthen the bond of love between them and help them support each other in their family life. Isn't that why God created man and woman and the sexual bond within marriage?

No. God created them male and female and the sexual bond to "be fruitful and multiply" not "enjoy each others company".

Question. Why would Mary and Joseph need more children after Christ?

[RobbyS]

Mary and Joseph were observant Jews, not Christians. They went to the Temple on the proper occasions and followed Mosaic law.

If Mary and Joseph, knowing what they knew, were not Christians, then what were they? They had participated in truly extraordinary events that told them who this extraordinary child was, long before his public career.

They did not-- like modern Americans-- rank a family life among the single life.

What?

I meant to say that early Christians did not like modern Americans rank family life above the single life. It would not have seemed odd for them to have heard that Mary and Joseph lived such a life. Those Catholics who blithely talk about a married priesthood haven't a clue about the views of Christians of the early centuries about marriage and sex and the practices of married clergy. And of course celibacy was highly regarded. Those Christians would have understood the Shakers' celibate lifestyle perfectly,if not their theology.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It is possible to see the Church/Israel (they are the same) in this description. But even more aptly it applies to Mary. Israel did not literally give birth to Jesus the "man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod [and] ... taken up to God and to his throne".

Moreover, the reference to the seed of the woman in the last verse is a direct reference back to Genesus 3.15, which is clearly a prophecy about Mary and Jesus, and not God's people Israel and Jesus.

[RobbyS]

I'm not talking about the nativity stories. I freely accept the doctrine of the virgin birth. I'm talking about after the nativity, of which we have little information relating to the relationship between Mary and Joseph. Except for the nativity stories we would know nothing at all about the relationship of Mary and Joseph. The role of Joseph in this story is that of guardian of mother and child.

[Aquinasfan]

I can't argue with anything that you've posted. I just remember reading recently (I'm pretty sure that it was in Ott's book, although I can't find it), that the means of salvation for the invincibly ignorant is faith in "God," a belief in eternal reward or punishment, and service to the truth.

I'll keep hunting. Thanks for your posts. I'm learning.

[SoothingDave]

Also; let's presume for the sake of argument that Jesus didn't have any brothers and sisters. If God had Mary have a child without having relations with a man, He could surely prevent her from having a child even while she did have relations with a man. For all we know, Mary was not only a virgin but infertile, a not unheard of condition. After all, being Jesus's biological brother or sister would end up putting quite a psychological burden on said child, not to mention the safety issue as Jesus started His ministry and attracted the unfavorable attention of the authorities. The Apostles had a choice, but His siblings wouldn't have.

This is a unique perspective. Somehow you have taken the reality of Jesus being without maternal siblings and managed to preserve the important fact that she must have had sexual relations. Peculiar.

Zachariah doubting the Lord vs. Mary questioning him? The Lord had quite different plans for Mary than he had for Zachariah. Plus, they had different personalities and would respond in different ways to different treatments. Disciplining one and not disciplining the other could have had many factors; the proposition that she would remain a virgin would be the cause is stretching it quite a bit from my viewpoint.

I'm not sure you have understodd the argument. It is not that God failed to discipline her is used as an argument, but rather that her response ("How can this be?") makes no sense for a normal woman, about to be married. If an angel had told your wife on the eve of your wedding that she would conceive a child, would your wife say "How is this possible?" Wouldn't a normal woman assume that natural conception methods were being discussed, absent any other revelation?

So, my viewpoint on this. I don't posit anything as proof that they DID have sexual relations. I just figure that such is the natural (and God-approved) course of events for married couples, and thus figure in the absence of specific statements to the contrary that this is what they did.

I appreciate your measured viewpoint. But I think you need to give the last point a bit more thought. Can you explain her response?

SD

[SoothingDave]

I also note that, when the Apostle Paul penned these words, ... the example of Christ, Himself, would have been much harder to come by (being in the process of being written and all), so ... Paul's example might be the very best one available.

Today, however, I have no such excuse, for the example of Christ is readily available to me, so, I can simply cut out all of the middlemen and follow Christ, so purely as His example is penned in the holy scriptures.

You seem to miss that the "Example of Christ" was taught, first, by word of mouth. There is no reason to believe that there was little teaching available prior to the writing of the NT.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Catholic Golf: A failed drive may be anulled allowing a second shot without penalty.

Your papacy will introduce the sale of "anulligans"?

SD

[SoothingDave]

I'm pretty sure that this is a picture of Israel, not Mary.

It's a fairly strong anti-Marian bias that can fail to see a woman giving birth to a savior as Mary.

SD

[SoothingDave]

But Mary and Joseph had an experience that makes Paul's experience pale by comparison. I do not think it remarkable that that experience would make them forsake a normal life and make them devote themselves entirely to the mission of raising that remarkable child.

But they didn't forsake a normal life. Mary raised her child (or children, depending on how you interpret Scripture) at home. Joseph worked as a carpenter to support his family.

Are you forgetting the flight into Egypt? The birth of this child was not a normal event, and it brought the family into great peril.

SD

[RonF]

Are you forgetting the flight into Egypt? The birth of this child was not a normal event, and it brought the family into great peril.

Read your newspaper lately? Fleeing from war/unrest/government persecution on the basis of race or religion makes you what is called a refugee. There's millions of them all over the planet. It's not exactly normal, but I wouldn't call it unusual.

[RonF]

This is a unique perspective. Somehow you have taken the reality of Jesus being without maternal siblings and managed to preserve the important fact that she must have had sexual relations. Peculiar.

I'm referring to the argument that Mary and Joseph must not have had sexual relations because Mary had no other children. What I'm saying is that 1) there are authorities that believe that she did, but setting that aside, 2) there are plenty of infertile couples even now, in an era of modern science, so it's not much of a stretch that Mary was infertile. Or Joseph; even if he had fathered children previously, an injury or illness could have left him infertile at this point in his life. Lack of children is no proof of lack of sex.I'm not sure you have understodd the argument. It is not that God failed to discipline her is used as an argument, but rather that her response ("How can this be?") makes no sense for a normal woman, about to be married.

Because the full quote of Luke 1:34 (KJV) is: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'". Now, the way I read this is that Mary interpreted Gabriel's words to mean that she was going to get pregnant very soon, prior to her marriage, not that she was going to get pregnant in the normal course of events. "... seeing I know not a man" is present tense, not future tense. Unless there's something funky about the Greek I'm not aware of.

[SoothingDave]

Fleeing from war/unrest/government persecution on the basis of race or religion makes you what is called a refugee.

You are understating it a tad. The baby Jesus was the target of an asassination campaign by the local sovereign.

It's not exactly normal, but I wouldn't call it unusual.

My point exactly. They didn't have this baby and then resume their normal lives, him carpenting and her spitting out babies.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Lack of children is no proof of lack of sex

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't aware anyone had made such a claim. It is certainly a silly argument.

Because the full quote of Luke 1:34 (KJV) is: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'". Now, the way I read this is that Mary interpreted Gabriel's words to mean that she was going to get pregnant very soon, prior to her marriage, not that she was going to get pregnant in the normal course of events.

It is an assumption that Mary took the words that way. Nothing in the text claims any time frame for the pregnancy, nor for how far in advance of the marriage the visitation occurred. We don't know if it was a week before the wedding or a year.

If the angel had said "you ARE pregnant" then Mary would certainly have the response she did. But telling an engaged woman that she WILL conceive should not lead to mystification. Unless, of course, she was ignorant of the birds and bees, which I don't think is the case.

"... seeing I know not a man" is present tense, not future tense. Unless there's something funky about the Greek I'm not aware of.

Again, past tense would make more sense. "I have not known a man" If she thought she was to become pregnant at the moment or very soon.

Is she saying "I know not a man" like someone might say "I do not eat meat"?

SD

[Quester]

SD: It's a fairly strong anti-Marian bias that can fail to see a woman giving birth to a savior as Mary.

Not really. There are aspects of the sign/wonder which do not correlate to Mary.

OTOH, all of the aspects of the sign/wonder correlate well with Israel.

Aspects of the sign/wonder which argue persuasively for the interpretation of the sign as Israel ...

The woman's crown of twelve stars (per the twelve tribes of Israel) vs. 1

The dragon's persecution and homicidal pursuit of the woman (anti-semitism) vss. 13, 15

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hail Diana of the Ephesians.

[RonF]

Question. Why would Mary and Joseph need more children after Christ?

Who knows? Why wouldn't they? Why does anyone need children? Because Mary and Joseph had Jesus, that means that God has no plans for anyone else in the family line? What has this got to do with anything?

[Quester]

I am aware of the fact that Christianity was, historically, presented by oral means, ... actually from its founding to this time (for aome peoples of the world).

My point is that it should be readily understandable that the comprehensive view of JESUS we get through the scriptures (i.e. the OT plus Matthew - Revelations) was not wholly available to the early Christians, particularly those of the first century, during which time the writings of the NT did not exist, but rather, were actually in production.

Thus, the extent of a first century christian's view of Christ would easily (and most likely) be based on the testimony of one missionary/evangelist team, which, likely, would not supply the comprehensive picture of Christ we have today available in the scriptures.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

My biggest disagreement with the invincible ignorance crowd is that the Popes have spoken of it as an insuperable hindrance, or an obstacle to salvation, because it blocks knowledge of the things necessary by a necessity of means.

2) ... And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."[Note 3: Instit., 27:18.] ...
5) We by no means wish to conclude that a perverse will and unbridled conduct may not be joined with a knowledge of religion. Would to God that facts did not too abundantly prove the contrary! But We do maintain that the will cannot be upright nor the conduct good when the mind is shrouded in the darkness of crass ignorance. A man who walks with open eyes may, indeed, turn aside from the right path, but a blind man is in much more imminent danger of wandering away. Furthermore, there is always some hope for a reform of perverse conduct so long as the light of faith is not entirely extinguished; but if lack of faith is added to depraved morality because of ignorance, the evil hardly admits of remedy, and the road to ruin lies open.
-Pope St. Pius X, ACERBO NIMIS, 15 April 1905

Certainly, one can be ignorant of items like the condemnation of the validity of Anglican Orders and be saved (though it seems quite dangerous, on the other hand, to dispute this and deny it if one is aware of it, for that is wrestling with the verdict of St. Peter in the Pope). On the other hand, I think one cannot be ignorant of the moral law, the state of future rewards and punishments, the existence of the Trinity, or the Incarnation of Christ, and His Crucifixion and Resurrection.

It doesn't make much sense to me to speak of eternal life for those who don't know God, since they cannot love that which they are ignorant of.

The texts of Ven. Pope Pius IX is often adduced:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal torments.
-Bl. Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Para. 7, 10 August 1863

... but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.
-Bl. Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem, 9 December 1854

The clear point to be drawn here is that no one will be condemned and suffer eternal punishments (poena sensus) for being ignorant of truths of the Catholic Religion. But that does not mean these same people are on the right road! Being ignorant of the truths of Holy Religion does not relieve one of the guilt suffered for transgressing the moral law.

Among these figures the ark of Noah holds a conspicuous place. It was built by the command of God, in order that there might be no doubt that it was a symbol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter therein through Baptism, may be safe from danger of eternal death, while such as are outside the Church, like those who were not in the ark, are overwhelmed by their own crimes. (Catechism of the Council of Trent, On The 9th Article of the Creed)

Bl. Pius IX only holds out the possibility of salvation towards those who follow the natural law and are enlightened by divine light and grace - "The gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light." (Singulari quadem). And yet, he forcefully insists that:

... it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.
-Bl. Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Para. 7, 10 August 1863

The gifts being referred to can only mean enlightenment with the Catholic faith, because this alone, with Baptism, will put one into unity with the Church. The Decree of Trent on Justification is clear enough on this matter. Its impossible to understand how one is to make Acts of Faith, Hope, Love, and Contrition, as well as to vow to God to receive Baptism, if one is invincibly ignorant of the very nature of God. To whom are these Acts to then be directed?

[SoothingDave]

Aspects of the sign/wonder which argue persuasively for the interpretation of the sign as Israel ...

Let me first say that I am very open to the idea of the text, especially such as the Apocalypse being mutl-layered. If Isaiah can predict King Ahiz's baby and Jesus, then this can be about Israel and Mary.

Anyway.

The woman's crown of twelve stars (per the twelve tribes of Israel) vs. 1

Ahem. Who is (besides Jesus) the most favored, most excellently chosen, most worthy individual to ever come out of the entire Hebrew people?

Mary. She is the crown jewel of the race, the one chosen to bring about the Messiah. She is Queen of them all, made to bring about the King of all nations.

A crown with 12 stars you would deny her?

The dragon's persecution and homicidal pursuit of the woman (anti-semitism) vss. 13, 15

I thought we just talked about the flight to Egypt? Didn't the dragon try to persue the woman and kill her offspring?

Didn't Herod try to find the offspring and kill it?

Also, one could pesher that many today still persecute the woman, Mary, by various means.

SD