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.
Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son.
St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2: “This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.” Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it.
This was to emphasize that Jesus Christ was uniquely the Word Incarnate/Son of God.
Catholics refer to the Blessed Virgin as "Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son and Permanent Bride of the Holy Spirit." If Mary is the "permanent Bride of the Holy Spirit," it doesn't seem likely that she would also have been a bride in the merely carnal sense.
This is a Dogmatic belief of all of the Catholic faith, the Orthodox faith, many of the Lutheran and Anglican communities and has roots documented back to at least the second century Anno Domini.
Saint John Chrysostom defended perpetual virginity on a number of grounds, one of which was Jesus’ commands to his mother in Calvary: “Woman, behold your son!” and to his disciple “Behold, thy mother!” in John 19:26-27.
Since the second century these two statements of Jesus from the cross had been the basis of reasonings that Mary had no other children and “from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home” because after the deaths of Joseph and Jesus there was no one else to look after Mary, and she had to be entrusted to the disciple.
Luther, Zwingli and Bullinger all taught this as well as did John Wesley.
Of course it is not true; the Bible even says that Jesus had other human brothers, such as James, who at first didnt believe in Him, but later came to faith in Jesus.
Agree or disagree I think you can find your answer here:
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=102
Reaganaut poses an interesting question, and does so in a charitable and Christian fashion, but I think does so exactly backwards. The question could be just as well posed in the complementary manner “why do so many Protestants believe that Christ had a host of siblings”?
I’ll get back to the recast version of that question in a minute, but to reiterate what many have said on this forum, what the vast majority of Christians agree on is that Mary was conceived and born without original sin (the Immaculate Conception), and the Christ was conceived and born of Mary without the conventional requirement of human sexual congress (the Virgin Birth). Those are indicated or explicitly stated in scripture, are long-standing pillars of church tradition, and their denial would be massively consequential - they lead to something other than Christianity.
So if you told the average Catholic you didn’t accept the Virgin Birth as truth, he’d probably shake his head and mumble something like “must be a Unitarian” or the like, since in that case, you’re talking something other than Christianity.
But if you told the average Catholic you’re convinced Christ had true siblings, he’d simply say “we don’t believe that”, but would *not* dismiss your beliefs as corrosive to the mainstream of Christian teaching.
“White out” everything in scripture that supports the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth, and you have a very different belief system; get rid of everything in scripture that suggests Mary raised a thriving household of numerous tikes and, well, it doesn’t really change much of substance as regards religious belief or practice. After all, we don’t know anything about these presumed individuals or their activities as regards our Savior and Redeemer - we’re apparently to suppose they just kinda were there.
Now I believe, as Chesterton did, that small errors in theological matters over the span of historical millenia can lead to serious consequences in practice, so even though the existence or non-existence of those siblings doesn’t impact the *core* of Christianity, getting it wrong could, and probably would, distort the belief system (probably in unpredictable ways) over thousands of years. So the question isn’t unimportant - it’s just less important.
But back to my formulation of the question - why is the existence of true siblings of Christ important to many sincere Protestants? And I’d answer - not for reaganaut, as he is eloquent enough in these matters to deal with that himself - but in my impressions of speaking with many Protestants that it’s because that concept is indicative of the importance of “sola scriptura” to Protestants. If its in the Bible, you can bank on it; if not, forget it.
Of course the problem with that approach is that interpretation can lead to disagreement, ultimately manifest as a multiplication of denominational beliefs that makes loaves and fishes look tame by comparison. As pointed out by others here, heavy hitters in the Protestant line-up like Luther and Calvin had no problem with an ever-virgin Mary - whether it was due to an alternative interpretation of the relevant scripture, or residual Catholic belief or (more probably) a combination of both might be a matter of discussion. But clearly, if one’s approach is “sola scriptura”, one can hardly argue that the answer is unambiguous.
Good Catholics aspire to a true adherence to the truth of scripture (though we seldom know that scripture as well as our Protestant brethren), but we put substantial importance on tradition, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the Magisterium as well.
As others have pointed out on this thread, the perpetual virginity of Mary has been accepted as dogma for almost two millenia (if not officially declared so until recently) - that means little in the context of “sola scriptura”, but it carries a load of weight with us.
But the bottom line - and I don’t mean to imply reaganaut has any problem with this - I think we can disagree on both “sola scriptura” and the number of actual siblngs Christ had with little consequence if we keep a couple of things in mind: 1) the continual secularization of our society is the major domestic challenge to all of us - Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, observant Jews - so much so that I’d much prefer that the Protestant view of Christian belief form the cultural basis of our society, rather than the secular view; and 2) the challenge of militant Mohammadenism is the major non-domestic threat to the well-being of our democratic society and religious freedom.
If we stay focused on those, we can continue to enjoy well-meaning discussions on theological fine points.
As for some who have posted here that Catholics take issue with her having any type of relations as inferring that sex is a sin, I don't buy that. I think it gets back to the gulf between Protestants and Catholics regarding what it means to fully consecrate yourself to God. Catholic priests and nuns take vows of celibacy as we believe that this is how they can best serve God (the whole avoid worldly distractions bit). It would be logical to assume that the mother of God would do the same.
You noted that you are a historian and have studied this issue in depth. I have no doubt that you have done more research than I ever will. I do accept these teachings more as a matter of faith than having proven them to myself but here are a few biblical references that convince me that I am not just drinking the kool-aid.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV (see Section IV)
I’m a little late here but this seems logical to me. God would not have a one time use for Mary then discard her. She was with Jesus to the Cross and is with us today. “Behold your mother” was directed to John says it all.
It’s confusing. Catholics constantly remind us that it was THEIR church who gave us the Bible. We Prots read the Bible and take it as God’s Word. When we post scripture to back up a claim, it’s RCC’s that push it aside and tell us the Bible isn’t complete. That we don’t understand what is right there in black and white from the book THEIR church gave us. In other words, tradition and teachings trump God’s word.
It’s not a wonder the PTB in the Catholic church didn’t want the Bible in the hands of the masses. It’s obviously contradictory to what they teach and reading it would cause confusion. The masses would read for themselves and see where adding to scripture is NOT compatible to their own Bible. And they did and here we are!
Sometimes the only answer is because it’s been taught as tradition for a zillion years. Period. Error or not. “this is the way it’s always been done so we will keep on doing it” What else can they possibly say? The Bible is WRONG? Which is actually what they are skirting around everytime tradition vs. scripture comes up.
IMO
First, very simply, Catholics love Truth; manifested primarily in the Person of Jesus and all that He taught, and through His Body, the Church, which He left to guide us.
We believe Mary was a perpetual virgin because it is true. As Claud said earlier, the Church has always taught this.
As Campion pointed out, why would Mary, betrothed to Joseph, ask Gabriel how she would conceive, if she planned on having intercourse with Joseph? Is there any reasonable explanation, except that she intended to remain a virgin AFTER her wedding?
I think one of the most beautiful explanations is that the Church considers Mary the Ark of the New Covenant.
The Ark of the old covenant contained the 10 commandments (Word of God), Manna (bread from heaven), and Aaron's staff (priesthood symbol).
The Ark of the New Covenant- Mary- contained the living Word of God, the true Bread from Heaven, and the High Priest Himself.
No one was allowed to touch the Ark in the OT; and no one was allowed to touch (sexually) the Ark of the New Covenant.
The Church does not teach this because it considers sex to be dirty or sinful; on the contrary, the Church teaches that sex is holy and sacramental. To forgo sex for the greater glory of God and the furtherance of The Kingdom is, however, encouraged.
So while the perpetual virginity of Mary is not explicit in Scripture, Catholics do not believe that all truth is contained in Scripture. Jesus built a Church for us; and that Chuch existed before the New Testament scripture was written.
I hope that helps as an explanation, and I would ask you to return the favor-
As a non-Catholic Christian, why do you hold so closely that if it's not in Scripture, it can't be true?
Thanks, and God bless you!
The fact that there have been so many conflicting posts on this subject shows just how misunderstood the Catholic church is. I asked a young man who will be ordained a priest in December about your question and got this reply:
Mary’s virginity is important to us since it reflects the purity and dignity as well of Who she bore. There is a sacredness in Mary’s body since it was God who chose her—not just the soul but the WHOLE Mary, body and soul. No other human has the dignity given to her after being overshadow by the Holy Spirit. Also the Scripture was fulfilled having a Mother and Virgin. A miracle yet a mystery. The dignity of both vocations in God’s plan.
Who is the Virgin Mary ?
Answer: Mother of Jesus
How did she become His Mother ?
Via the Holy Spirit.
Who is the Holy Spirit ?
God, 3rd Person of the Trinity.
How does one become a mother ?
First she must give birth, and before giving birth she must have a spouse.
Who is Her Spouse?
The Holy Spirit (God).
Was She a Virgin, yes. (Isaiah)
Was that necessary ?
Obvious, I don’t think God is going to have the vessel of His Son’s birth in a vessel that is She Herself was not conceived Immaculately, and additionally free from sin, ALL sin, most obviously, flesh sins.
Therefore she is married to God.
God does not die.
God is Her Spouse, as well as Her Son.
She can not be subsequently married or get married AGAIN, (polygamy) if Her Spouse lives forever.
She is bound to Him.
St Joseph can not marry someone who is already married, nor can he have a relationship (relations) with another Man’s Spouse.
The Blessed Mother would therefore need to get divorced from God to marry St Joseph. And Jesus’ Law, no divorce, both Old & New Testament. You can not separate what God has joined (both Old & New Testament)
So that is why she remains Perpetually Virgin, because she can not have a second spouse.
God only had One Begotton Son, therefore, no OTHER Children(that is Begotton children).
Additional reference, nothing too do with the above, see Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda. By the way, Mary of Agreda, who died several hundred years ago, her body remains intact, not decomposed, INCORRUPT, visible in a glass coffin. If you have any doubt of her authenticity,(or any of the other Saints ) you must seriously get to the bottom of this INCORRUPT issue. Consider this when you think of an INCORRPUT person, what kept the worms, insects, maggots, and other flesh eating items away from her (and other INCORRPUT saints, who were buried in nothing more than wooden boxes, no modern day coffins with valves, embalming, etc, just simple wooden boxes.