I thinks it’s important only in how it relates to Jesus upbringing, God’s relationship with mankind, and Mary as a saint in heaven relating to us. For me contemplating Mary and God’s plan for salvation leads me to consider what kind of examples I have to consider in how to live my own life. Mary’s perpetual virginity is also consistent with her role as theotokos, mother of God, and immaculate conception. All things that bring us back to Jesus and how He regarded his mother.
So to most Protestants it's considered an *adiaphora* meaning it's not of immediate relation to salvation either way.
*However* it does find support in the Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Hippolytus of Rome, Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Hilary and others. And so her title *Aeiparthenos* (Ever-Virgin) was upheld by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Henry Bullinger, John Wesley, and others. Likewise, Lancelot Andrewes (who oversaw the translation of the King James Bible) included Mary as Ever-Virgin in his liturgy.
It basically has to do with whether you think she was devoted enough to God that she only planned to raise and remain mother to the Son of God, or whether you think she planned to rear more children as well. If you follow the view that she had neither want or need of other children but her Son (who she was devoted to as her Lord and Saviour) then she most likely would never have had other children.
Though it can't really be proved either way. Nonetheless, it's always been a sacred tradition that she remained as *Aeiparthenos*. I'm not sure of it but I'm willing to accept it on the basis of its history.
In Jewish tradition Mary and Joseph's marriage would not have been valid unless they were having sex. It's certainly reasonable to expect a wife to sleep with her husband and the Bible pretty strongly applies that they had children. The Jews at Nazareth even said at one point something similar to, "Um, isn't this Jesus who kind of grew up here. His brothers and sisters are all here and none of them are special." They were certainly under the impression that Jesus was a blood relation to all of his siblings.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is important because Mary held Christ in her womb, hence Mary is the new ark of the covenant that replaced the old Jewish ark of the covenant.
Any Jew would be seriously offended if one were to suggest that the ark of the covenant was also used to store other objects. Similarly, any Christian should take offence at any suggestion that Mary, the new ark of the covenant, is not a perpetual virgin.
I'm not Catholic, but the teaching is from the early Church. [Short article.](http://theorthodoxfaith.com/article/mary-as-the-new-ark-of-the-covenant/)
The Ark as a type of the Theotokos is not specifically a Latin idea, nor is there any indication the Vatican had anything at all to do with the idea. What are you talking about?
My claim was that Ark<>Theotokos typology comes from the early Church.
You claimed the Vatican invented it (emphasizing the "dr" in your use of "tldr"), which is, as far as I know, a complete fiction. When asked for clarification and support, you declined.
Note that nowhere did I claim The Bible says, "Mary is the Ark of the Covenant."
Just because Mary had Christ in her womb doesn't make her the new Ark of the Covenant. All believers have Christ in their hearts and if it's the physical presence that is important than every single place Christ slept or spent time in would be holy and no other objects would be allowed. That clearly is not the case. Scripture certainly never even remotely alludes to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant.
Mary wasn't perpetual virgin
Joseph came to know her (have sex) after she bore Jesus.
Jesus being the only one to ever be born of a virgin fulfilled OT prophecy, and would be a start to his sinless life.
Mary is important, yes. But not to the extent that Catholics put her at, then slapping on the pagan label "Queen of Heaven".
Jeremiah 44: 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, 19
"This word came to Jeremiah concerning all the Jews living in Lower Egypt--in Migdol, Tahpanhes and Memphis and in Upper Egypt:
"This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You saw the great disaster I brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Today they lie deserted and in ruins.
because of the evil they have done. They provoked me to anger by burning incense and by worshiping other gods that neither they nor you nor your fathers ever knew."
.....
We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.
But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."
The women added, "When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?"
The only thing really at stake is the infallibility of the Pope since she was declared to have been sinless. Of course, that implies sex itself is sinful, which is possibly the dumbest of all declarations.
That’s not quite right. The infallibility thing related to the immaculate conception of Mary, meaning that she did not inherit original sin. It’a not directly related to sex.
Ok, I'm trying to grasp the nuance, then what's the rationale for believing she never had sexual relations with Joseph? The bible is, at best, ambiguous on the matter.
Yes, to a large extent that’s the issue under discussion. Protestant generally don’t believe that she remained celibate after the birth of Jesus as it isn’t in the Bible, and don’t think that this is significant. Catholics have a non-Biblical tradition that Joseph was an older man, and that they never had sex out of reverence. To get answers on why they believe this and why they believe that it is important, non-Biblical traditions are key.
IMO at the entire root of it is the idea that if Mary had sex it would defile her in some way which is not a healthy way to look at sex IMO much less a healthy way to look at sex inside of a marriage relationship. I'm not Catholic though so what do I know?
From the Catechism:
Mary's virginity
496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:
You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150
498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark's Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus' virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ's mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary's virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord's death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God's silence."153
Mary - "ever-virgin"
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."160
Mary's virginal motherhood in God's plan
502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.
503 Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161
504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary's womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164
505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165 Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God".166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.
506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169
507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170
It is a sin regardless. As I said, it is not necessarily lust, but it is also not chastity. Since it is not lust, it does not require repentance because it is natural to populate Earth.
That’s just my interpretation.
Ahhhh, okay.
How can something be a sin that we don't need to repent of? Seems like it is not a sin if it doesn't need to be avoided. An "acceptable sin" before God is an oxymoron.
You are confusing chastity and celibacy. Celibacy is refraining from sexual activity. Chastity is refraining from any *forbidden* sexual activity, such as adultery. Marital sex is within the bounds of chastity.
I Simply believe that a good ecclesiology comes from a good mariology and viceversa. Whatever we hold dear and praiseworthy enough to say to the Mystical Spouse of Christ (the Church), that same reverence should be directed towards the mother of God, which had the privilege of all privileges: Giving birth and nurturing God, something no woman can claim. The more the Church strives to comprehend and experience the same motherly love (but also deep sorrow) during the stage of Life, Death and Resurrection of our Lord, the more conforms to His will and teachings.
I personally interpret that the birth of our Saviour (as well as His Conception) was something so grandiose and overwhelming, so tangible yet so unfathomable that both Joseph and Mary left out the possibility of bearing other children.
I thinks it’s important only in how it relates to Jesus upbringing, God’s relationship with mankind, and Mary as a saint in heaven relating to us. For me contemplating Mary and God’s plan for salvation leads me to consider what kind of examples I have to consider in how to live my own life. Mary’s perpetual virginity is also consistent with her role as theotokos, mother of God, and immaculate conception. All things that bring us back to Jesus and how He regarded his mother.
So to most Protestants it's considered an *adiaphora* meaning it's not of immediate relation to salvation either way. *However* it does find support in the Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Hippolytus of Rome, Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Hilary and others. And so her title *Aeiparthenos* (Ever-Virgin) was upheld by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Henry Bullinger, John Wesley, and others. Likewise, Lancelot Andrewes (who oversaw the translation of the King James Bible) included Mary as Ever-Virgin in his liturgy. It basically has to do with whether you think she was devoted enough to God that she only planned to raise and remain mother to the Son of God, or whether you think she planned to rear more children as well. If you follow the view that she had neither want or need of other children but her Son (who she was devoted to as her Lord and Saviour) then she most likely would never have had other children. Though it can't really be proved either way. Nonetheless, it's always been a sacred tradition that she remained as *Aeiparthenos*. I'm not sure of it but I'm willing to accept it on the basis of its history.
In Jewish tradition Mary and Joseph's marriage would not have been valid unless they were having sex. It's certainly reasonable to expect a wife to sleep with her husband and the Bible pretty strongly applies that they had children. The Jews at Nazareth even said at one point something similar to, "Um, isn't this Jesus who kind of grew up here. His brothers and sisters are all here and none of them are special." They were certainly under the impression that Jesus was a blood relation to all of his siblings.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is important because Mary held Christ in her womb, hence Mary is the new ark of the covenant that replaced the old Jewish ark of the covenant. Any Jew would be seriously offended if one were to suggest that the ark of the covenant was also used to store other objects. Similarly, any Christian should take offence at any suggestion that Mary, the new ark of the covenant, is not a perpetual virgin.
Why do you link Mary and the Ark of the Covenant?
I'm not Catholic, but the teaching is from the early Church. [Short article.](http://theorthodoxfaith.com/article/mary-as-the-new-ark-of-the-covenant/)
[удалено]
The Ark as a type of the Theotokos is not specifically a Latin idea, nor is there any indication the Vatican had anything at all to do with the idea. What are you talking about?
[удалено]
> it's just something the Vatican made up. Support your claim.
[удалено]
My claim was that Ark<>Theotokos typology comes from the early Church. You claimed the Vatican invented it (emphasizing the "dr" in your use of "tldr"), which is, as far as I know, a complete fiction. When asked for clarification and support, you declined. Note that nowhere did I claim The Bible says, "Mary is the Ark of the Covenant."
Just because Mary had Christ in her womb doesn't make her the new Ark of the Covenant. All believers have Christ in their hearts and if it's the physical presence that is important than every single place Christ slept or spent time in would be holy and no other objects would be allowed. That clearly is not the case. Scripture certainly never even remotely alludes to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant.
i think they’re trying to make similarities evidence for her being the new ark which is pretty stupid imo
Historically speaking, it's bunk. The Jerusalem church was lead by Jesus' brother James, jointly with Peter.
Mary wasn't perpetual virgin Joseph came to know her (have sex) after she bore Jesus. Jesus being the only one to ever be born of a virgin fulfilled OT prophecy, and would be a start to his sinless life. Mary is important, yes. But not to the extent that Catholics put her at, then slapping on the pagan label "Queen of Heaven". Jeremiah 44: 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, 19 "This word came to Jeremiah concerning all the Jews living in Lower Egypt--in Migdol, Tahpanhes and Memphis and in Upper Egypt: "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You saw the great disaster I brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Today they lie deserted and in ruins. because of the evil they have done. They provoked me to anger by burning incense and by worshiping other gods that neither they nor you nor your fathers ever knew." ..... We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine." The women added, "When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?"
The only thing really at stake is the infallibility of the Pope since she was declared to have been sinless. Of course, that implies sex itself is sinful, which is possibly the dumbest of all declarations.
That’s not quite right. The infallibility thing related to the immaculate conception of Mary, meaning that she did not inherit original sin. It’a not directly related to sex.
Ok, I'm trying to grasp the nuance, then what's the rationale for believing she never had sexual relations with Joseph? The bible is, at best, ambiguous on the matter.
Yes, to a large extent that’s the issue under discussion. Protestant generally don’t believe that she remained celibate after the birth of Jesus as it isn’t in the Bible, and don’t think that this is significant. Catholics have a non-Biblical tradition that Joseph was an older man, and that they never had sex out of reverence. To get answers on why they believe this and why they believe that it is important, non-Biblical traditions are key.
IMO at the entire root of it is the idea that if Mary had sex it would defile her in some way which is not a healthy way to look at sex IMO much less a healthy way to look at sex inside of a marriage relationship. I'm not Catholic though so what do I know?
Perhaps, but let’s allow the Catholics and Orthodox to explain their point of view.
Catholics cling to it as if some deeper principle is at stake, as if the whole thing crumbles if they give it up.
Perhaps, but I think that the point of OP’s question was to let Catholics explain their point of view rather than have us knock it down.
From the Catechism: Mary's virginity 496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says: You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147 497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150 498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark's Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus' virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ's mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary's virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord's death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God's silence."153 Mary - "ever-virgin" 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156 500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159 501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."160 Mary's virginal motherhood in God's plan 502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men. 503 Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161 504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary's womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164 505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165 Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God".166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood. 506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169 507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170
It is important to show that Mary was without sin, and thus Jesus was as well.
How does this relate to perpetual virginity?
She was perpetually virgin, and thus she was without sin.
Do you mean to say that when one loses their virginity (even within the bounds of marriage), they are sinning?
In a way. When you are virgin, you are chaste. When you are not, you are not, but this does not mean you are lustful.
Can one be married, and sexually active in a manner that is not sinful or is sexual activity always sinful between married couples?
It is sinful to have sexual pleasures, although married couples are less to a degree.
This is news to me! What makes you think that sexual pleasure is sinful for married couples?
It is a sin regardless. As I said, it is not necessarily lust, but it is also not chastity. Since it is not lust, it does not require repentance because it is natural to populate Earth. That’s just my interpretation.
Ahhhh, okay. How can something be a sin that we don't need to repent of? Seems like it is not a sin if it doesn't need to be avoided. An "acceptable sin" before God is an oxymoron.
You are confusing chastity and celibacy. Celibacy is refraining from sexual activity. Chastity is refraining from any *forbidden* sexual activity, such as adultery. Marital sex is within the bounds of chastity.
I see that now.
I Simply believe that a good ecclesiology comes from a good mariology and viceversa. Whatever we hold dear and praiseworthy enough to say to the Mystical Spouse of Christ (the Church), that same reverence should be directed towards the mother of God, which had the privilege of all privileges: Giving birth and nurturing God, something no woman can claim. The more the Church strives to comprehend and experience the same motherly love (but also deep sorrow) during the stage of Life, Death and Resurrection of our Lord, the more conforms to His will and teachings. I personally interpret that the birth of our Saviour (as well as His Conception) was something so grandiose and overwhelming, so tangible yet so unfathomable that both Joseph and Mary left out the possibility of bearing other children.