Perpetual virginity

OSV.com ^ | 03-09-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Perpetual virginity

3/9/2016

Question: I am a lifelong and devout Catholic and have always considered Mary to be ever virgin. But recently, I read in my Bible that Joseph had no relations with Mary “before” she bore a son (Mt 1:25). Now, I wonder if our belief does not contradict the Bible.— Eugene DeClue, Festus, Missouri

Answer: The Greek word “heos,” which your citation renders “before,” is more accurately translated “until,” which can be ambiguous without a wider context of time. It is true, in English, the usual sense of “until” is that I am doing or not doing something now “until” something changes, and then I start doing or not doing it. However, this is not always the case, even in Scripture.

If I say to you, “God bless you until we meet again.” I do not mean that after we meet again God’s blessing will cease or turn to curses. In this case, “until” is merely being used to refer to an indefinite period of time which may or may not ever occur. Surely, I hope we meet again, but it is possible we will not, so go with God’s blessings, whatever the case.

In Scripture, too, we encounter “until” being used merely to indicate an indefinite period whose conditions may or may not be met. Thus, we read, “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). Of course, this should not be taken to mean that she started having children after she died. If I say to you in English that Christ “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25), I do not mean his everlasting kingdom will actually end thereafter.

While “until” often suggests a future change of state, it does not necessarily mean that the change happens — or even can happen. Context is important. It is the same in Greek, where heos, or heos hou, require context to more fully understand what is being affirmed.

The teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not rise or fall on one word, rather, a body of evidence from other sources such as: Mary’s question to the angel as to how a betrothed virgin would conceive; Jesus entrusting Mary to the care of a non-blood relative at this death; and also the long witness of ancient Tradition.

[MHGinTN]

The DR Bible reads as follows:

Genesis 3:13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and the beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. God is speaking to Eve and the serpeant. The seed of Eve is Mary. The enmity spoken of first is between Eve and her seed, and satan and his seed. THEN God gives the more specific prophecy that one of Eve's seed offspring, Mary will bear a son Who will bruise satan's head.

Let's look at the way the Hebrew Torah relates this:

Genesis 3:13 And Hashem Elohim said unto the isha, What is this that thou hast done? And the isha said, The Nachash beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And Hashem Elohim said unto the Nachash, Because thou hast done this, thou art arur (cursed) above kol habehemah, and above every beast of the sadeh; upon thy gakhon (belly) shalt thou go, and aphar shalt thou eat all the days of thy life;
15 And I will put eivah (enmity,personal hostility [see Ezekiel 35:5]) between thee and HaIsha (see HaAlmah, Yeshayah 7:14), and between thy zera and her Zera; it shall bruise thy rosh, and thou shalt crush his akev (heel).

I would say the catholic version is a purposeful deception, to focus the action on Mary, ignoring that Mary is the seed of Eve, and implying Mary is empowered somehow by Her child, her seed crushing satan's head. The text refers 'her seed' as a descendant of EVE. That descendant came through Mary. BUT Jesus was not a 'seed of Mary', unless catholics now want to tell us that a gamete from Mary was used to make the zygotic Jesus!

[MHGinTN]

Meant to ping you ...

[af_vet_1981]

Do not conflated Mormonism, which denies sola scriptura, to those who hold to sola scriptura. Serious error in logic.

Both camps diverged from historical Christianity. The Mormons are both a logical and illogical devolution of Protestantism, as are the other denominations, sects, and cults that continue to spring up in the modern era.

[metmom]

Do not conflated Mormonism, which denies sola scriptura, to those who hold to sola scriptura. Serious error in logic.

Actually, Mormonism has more in common with Catholicism since BOTH deny sola Scriptura.

[Elsie]

It cannot be definitively proven from Scripture alone that Mary did have other children or that Mary did not have other children.

Or that Mary was a Perpetual virgin

[Elsie]

[A.D. 248]

I thought you meant EARLY church!

[kosciusko51]

Solely your opinion, not supported by facts. I am sure that Elsie can show that the Mormons rejected both Catholics and Protestant alike.

I posted a question in post 293 concerning the WHY this is so important to the Roman Catholic church. Perhaps you are willing to explain.

[Elsie]

You stopped too soon:

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

Even Mary???

[Elsie]

I note Mormonism also began in the 19th Century.

Mormonism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Joseph Smith, Jr. has strange doctrines regarding marriage (polygamy accepted in early days) believes in God the mother (who has conceived multitudes of spirit children) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a living, breathing Mormon, instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9)- good works, water baptism and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture

Catholicism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with sacred tradition) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Mary has strange doctrines regarding marriage (celibacy still practiced among its clergy) believes in the mother of God (who is the sinless Queen of Heaven) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a physically dead Catholic who was afterwards "canonized," instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9) - good works, the sacraments, Mary and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending hundreds of millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture teaches and practices bowing before and kissing statues WORSHIPS the consecrated communion wafer as God claims Mary is their life, sweetness, hope and most gracious advocate (as revealed in the Rosary) claims Mary was raised bodily into Heaven claims they get to Jesus by first going to Mary

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/catholicmormon.htm

[Elsie]

You have entered no proof, just a modern opinion, that as far as I can tell, did not originate until the progressive devolution of Protestantism in the 19th Century, the same century in which some Protestants devolved and originated Mormonism.

ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs.

http://mormon2catholic.wordpress.com/2006/01/28/catholics-make-good-mormons-but-do-mormons-make-good-catholics/

[Elsie]

However, there is historical precedent.

There you go again.

Alluding to something with NO evidence shown.

[Elsie]

Serious error in logic.

WWAD?

What would Alinsky Do?

[Elsie]

The Mormons are both a logical and illogical devolution of Protestantism,

There you go again; making a vague assertion with NO evidence being shown.

[Elsie]

Actually, Mormonism has more in common with Catholicism since BOTH deny sola Scriptura.

As I've just ...

Shown.

[af_vet_1981]

I have yet to hear on this thread why it is so critical to the faith of Roman Catholics that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I’ve seen some say that it was to fulfill an OT prophecy in an allegorical sense, but that seems suspect.

• Firstly, it is not just the faith of Roman Catholics; it is the faith of the one holy catholic apostolic church, and of Protestantism until it devolved in the modern era. The perpetual virginity of Mary asserts Mary's "real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to Jesus the Son of God made Man".[2][3] According to the doctrine, Mary was ever-virgin (Greek: ἀειπάρθενος aeiparthenos) for the whole of her life, making Jesus her only biological son, whose conception and birth are held to be miraculous.[2][3]
  
  By the fourth century, the doctrine was widely supported by the Church Fathers, and by the seventh century it had been affirmed in a number of ecumenical councils.[4][5][6] The doctrine is part of the teaching of Catholicism and Anglo-Catholics, as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, as expressed in their liturgies, in which they repeatedly refer to Mary as "ever virgin".[7][8][9] The Assyrian Church of the East, which is derived from Church of the East, also accept the perpetual virginity of Mary by titling her the "Ever Virgin", after the "Second Heaven".[10][11][12]
  
  Some early Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther supported the doctrine, and founding figures of Anglicanism such as Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer "followed the tradition that they had inherited by accepting Mary as 'ever virgin'".[13] Reformed teaching, however, largely abandoned it.[14][15] The doctrine of perpetual virginity is currently maintained by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians.[7][16][17][18] In addition, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.[19]

So, to you Roman Catholics, WHY is this a dogma of the Roman Catholic church? WHY do you believe your faith hangs in the balance over this doctrine? I ask in all earnestness.

Why is it important to you (assuming it is) that the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verse fourteen be not only translated, but believed as virgin instead of young woman ?

[kosciusko51]

What you have shown is the WHY of the belief, but not the WHY it is necessary to believe it.

Why is it important to you (assuming it is) that the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verse fourteen be not only translated, but believed as virgin instead of young woman ?

Because, unlike the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, it is clearly and explicitly documented in the Gospels (thanks be to God for giving us His scripture through the Apostles, and for giving the early church fathers the wisdom for recognizing them as such).

[ealgeone]

Paul when he visited James, brother of the Lord. Next question please.

[af_vet_1981]

Because, unlike the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, it is clearly and explicitly documented in the Gospels (thanks be to God for giving us His scripture through the Apostles, and for giving the early church fathers the wisdom for recognizing them as such).

Why is it necessary to believe it to be saved ?

[af_vet_1981]

Paul when he visited James, brother of the Lord. Next question please.

"Thank you for calling and sharing, now may we take our next caller please.

Brother Harold Camping

[kosciusko51]

Because Sola Scriptura. What say you?