Replies

Both Mary and Joseph did such a wonderful, obedient thing. It must have been quite a scandal, they were probably talked about, etc., yet they obeyed God. After Jesus was born, why wouldn’t God let them go on to have a normal marriage and more children? Children were so important in that culture, especially sons. What would be gained by requiring Mary to remain a virgin, and she and Joseph to have a sexless marriage with no more children? Would it make Mary any less holy if she had a normal marriage and more children? I don’t get why some people are so insistent that she remained a virgin her whole life.

Ps. 69:8 is part of a a Messianic prophecy, (Ps. 69:9; Jn. 2:17) and is one of many evidences against this unnecessary, if not salvific, teaching of perpetual virginity, which requires a degree of special pleading if it is defended as being from Scripture, rather than oral Tradition. I think that Joseph showed the greater virtue is Mary remained a virgin, and while linguists can argue (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?108759-Greek-quot-until-quot-In-Matt-1-25) whether heōs (“till” in Mt. 1:25 http://www.justforcatholics.org/a105.htm) or "adelphos" ("brethren in Mt.12:42) warrants either side, and against the normal denotation, but among other things perpetual virginity in marriage is contrary to the description of marriage that Jesus affirmed, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5) for you have “leave” without “cleave” in becoming one flesh (which oneness spiritually is also intercourse: Jn. 17:23) as well as being contrary to the apostolic instructions regarding celibacy within marriage. (1Cor. 7:5) In no place do we see anyone maintaining perpetual virginity in marriage, providing both were able, and Scripture says nothing about Mary being an exception, which is contrary to how exceptions in basic things are treated, and thus the virgin birth is clearly stated, as well as the sinless life of Christ. But autocracy allows men to teach for doctrines the traditions of men. If defending the above or any RC teaching, Catholics actually have much liberty to interpret the Bible to do so, however, this is not a salvific issue, and so i do not see it needing more extended debate.

Lets see, where did some html get in there?

Ps. 69:8 is part of a Messianic prophecy, (Ps. 69:9; Jn. 2:17) and is one of many evidences against this unnecessary, if not salvific, teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which requires a degree of special pleading if it is defended as being from Scripture, rather than oral Tradition. I think that Joseph showed the greater virtue is Mary remained a virgin, and while linguists can argue whether “heos” (“till” in Mt. 1:25) or "adelphos" ("brethren in Mt.12:42) warrants either side, and against the normal denotation, but among other things perpetual virginity in marriage is contrary to the description of marriage that Jesus affirmed, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:5) for you have “leave” without “cleave” in becoming one flesh (which oneness spiritually is also intercourse: Jn. 17:23) as well as being contrary to the apostolic instructions regarding celibacy within marriage. (1Cor. 7:5)

In no place do we see anyone maintaining perpetual virginity in marriage, providing both were able, and Scripture says nothing about Mary being an exception, which is contrary to how exceptions in basic things are treated, and thus the virgin birth is clearly stated, as well as the sinless life of Christ. But autocracy allows men to teach for doctrines the extra-Biblical traditions of men.

If defending the Marian perpetual virginity (MPV) or any RC teaching, Catholics actually have much liberty to interpret the Bible to do so, however, beyond what is officially stated and using private interpretation, yet MPV is not a salvific issue, and so i do not see it needing more extended debate.