Once prophecy was fulfilled, she didn't need to remain a virgin and once Jesus began His ministry and all the miracles and raising from the dead, He didn't need her virginity to prove who HE was.
John 10:22-26 22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.
Then why were all of the Reformers so adament about her perpetual virginity?
Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual VirginityChrist, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
John Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
The reality is that it is anti-Catholics who are obsessed with denying her perpetual virginity.
Once prophecy was fulfilled, she didn't need to remain a virgin and once Jesus began His ministry and all the miracles and raising from the dead, He didn't need her virginity to prove who HE was.
Has it occurred to you that she WANTED TO BE?
The Holy Family WAS NOT a normal family, they are the most ABNORMAL FAMILY in all of history. Ordinary urges, desires and priorities were pushed aside.
The Blessed Mother's reaction here is evidence of her intention to remain a virgin:
And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? (Luke 1:34)
When a normal young woman who is engaged to be married is told that she will have a child, her reaction is along the lines of, "of course, we will be married, have sex and I will conceive." The ONLY SCENARIOS under which the reaction is, "how shall this be done" are in cases of infertility or the woman does not intend to have sex.
“Which all gets back to the original question of WHY Catholics are so obsessed with her perpetual virginity.”
Part of the pagan Roman religion given a whitewash. Which also explains why that the “perpetual virginity of Mary” apostasy is not to be even hinted at in Scriptures.
Which all gets back to the original question of WHY Catholics are so obsessed with her perpetual virginity.
Perhaps it’s because they know their priests have a very difficult time staying virgins so they like to pretend someone made it???
Why are you so obsessed with the Freudian concept of obsession? Does your position require a resort to the discredited tactics of psychoanalysis?
metmom wrote:
“Which all gets back to the original question of WHY Catholics are so obsessed with her perpetual virginity. Once prophecy was fulfilled, she didn’t need to remain a virgin and once Jesus began His ministry and all the miracles and raising from the dead, He didn’t need her virginity to prove who HE was.”
I have watched with dismay this ongoing argument about the perpetual virginity of Mary, one side defending it as if the very foundations of the one Holy Christian and Apostolic Church depended on it, the other side attacking it as if the Vatican and all its errant teaching could be brought down along with this doctrine.
The basic facts are these: the early church fathers both believed and were not silent about their belief that Mary was perpetually virgin, meaning that even after she gave birth to Jesus she remained a virgin. Whether one likes it or not, that is the historical record.
The position of the reformers, and here I will speak chiefly for Luther and the Lutherans, was that the Holy Scriptures did not settle the question one way or the other. In other words, there are good, scripturally based (and by this, I mean solely on the basis of the vocabulary and the grammar as employed at the time the words were written) arguments both ways, but that neither was conclusive. That being the case, the reformers, who almost unanimously accepted the judgment of the early church (for they had - and this is critically important! - no Scriptural proof that it was not so, and there was no conflict with any other scripturally revealed doctrine) in simple respect of their forefathers in the faith and their greater nearness to the events in question.
However, and this is a big however, they also knew that this matter must be left as an adiaphoron, that is, an indifferent matter. By definition this means that they take the position that Scripture alone does not and cannot settle this issue (and this is, of course, true of many things), therefore it cannot be taught as doctrine nor rejected as that which is contrary to doctrine. This judgment remains the standard among confessional (i.e., genuine) Lutherans, many of whom still today believe she was perpetually virgin and many of whom do not. In other words, we are the opposite of obsessed with this. We take the position that if God chose not to make this clear, then we bow to His judgment, and leave it alone.
At the same time it is recognized that through the centuries heretical assaults on the divinity/humanity of the one Christ have been made, indirectly, by those who would sow doubt about the virgin birth and the very possibility of Mary’s being and remaining virgin. So, for the Lutheran, the question becomes, “Why is any person obsessed with this matter when the Scriptures do not settle the question?” You see, we really are stuck on Sola Scriptura and at the same time retain great respect for those who have come before us, as God would have us do.
So, the bottom line is that the Catholic insistence that Mary’s perpetual virginity be taught as doctrine is suspect for the reason that it is for reasons other than simply to defend true, scriptural Christology. The Protestant insistence that Mary could not have remained virgin for various sensible sounding -sounding! - reasons is suspect for the reason that is puts human reasoning above the testimony of Holy Scripture, in effect replacing the supposed authority of the Roman tradition/magisterium with the supposed authority of individual human opinion, whether based on reason, experience, or simply emotional preference.
On the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity, I freely admit that I do not know. And I am very familiar with the arguments both ways, both historically and textually.
One last matter, there is quite a difference in, let us say, believing Mary remained perpetually virgin and believing that she was without sin and thus - thus! - merited direct entrance into heaven (the assumption of Mary) without the necessity of death. The first is scripturally unverifiable, not in conflict with any other revealed doctrine, and certainly possible either way. The second is, in terms of Scripture, wholly without support or even implication, in conflict with direct scriptural testimony, and thus simply impossible to call Christian teaching. I insert this last paragraph just to illustrate the difference between what is truly an unverifiable, yet pious and essentially unharmful belief and one that is plainly at odds with God’s word and certainly harmful to faith.
Which all gets back to a very old and wise question, WHY is anyone so obsessed with Mary’s perpetual virginity either way? Let each examine carefully his/her reasoning and motivation.
Because it happens to be the historical truth and our Church is a truth-telling institution.