 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27th, 2008 11:39 pm |
|
I've looked through the archive here and don't see this question asked directly, so I apologize if it's already been discussed. My daughter asked me this question and I couldn't formulate a good, clear answer. If Jesus' birth had been virginal, but she had then had other children, what would change? Why is it important that she remained a virgin her whole life?
Thanks!
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2276 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 12:22 am |
|
I think the main thing to consider would be the impact on who we understand her firstborn Son to be:
• If Mary were not definitively a virgin, from beginning to end, how are we to know that his origin is from God and not man? That he is, in fact, God incarnate?
• If Jesus is one of several children, how is he different from them? How can we have any clear indication that his origin and birth are more significant than that of the others?
• How would the prophecy be fulfilled regarding his being born of a virgin? (Isaiah 7:14; the controversy about the Hebrew word ’almah notwithstanding, given that Matthew 1:23 quotes this verse as proof that Mary was, in fact, a virgin)
David
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 12:36 am |
|
My daughter is way too analytical for her own good. I don't think she'll see any necessity from those reasons, David. Jesus can still be special, even if Mary does have children after him. (I can hear her already.) Is there possibly more??
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
Talithacumi
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Eastern Ohio, USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Cheri | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic - Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 12:56 am |
|
Jill,
I'm not as well-read as the Davids and Rick, and I can't give a definitive answer... I can only surmise.
But for what it's worth... I think if Mary had had other children it would have really downplayed the Incarnation, in a sense. I mean, Jesus was the Ultimate Child. He was everything. Not to say that Mary wouldn't be able to love any other children that she might have had - I mean, we are her children by adoption and she loves us, but somehow I think it would have taken away from her gift of being the Mother of God. If she had had other children, just practically speaking, even... think of the psychological trauma. I mean, here's their Brother, the Perfect One. How could they live up to that? That's a pretty big shoe to fill. And they, not being perfect, would have a very hard time of it, I think, always being compared to Him. Wouldn't they have struggled with envy? I think it would have caused strife in the Family. I just think it would have been hard on them. And on Mary, really. How could she help but compare the other children to her Firstborn? Of course she would love them, but they would always know that they were different than He was. I'm sure she wouldn't intentionally make them feel that way, but I think they would anyway. Maybe they could deal with it, but...
Also, I think if Mary had had other children, she might not have been able to give Jesus the attention He deserved as the Son of God. As an otherwise childless virgin, she was able to give her undivided attention to Jesus - much like a priest gives his undivided attention to the Church, at least in the Latin rite... I know several priests who have admitted that if they were married they would feel divided between the Church they are called to serve and their family, and so they deal with being celibate because they know it's best. Even St. Paul alludes to how married women are concerned about their families, whereas single virgins are more inclined to give their full attention to th Lord. Of course, Mary was married to Joseph and she did have a Child, but the circumstances were a little different because Joseph was more like a brother and Jesus is the Lord of Whom St. Paul spoke of the virgins giving their attention to anyway.
Maybe God, in His wisdom, decided that it would be better for all for her to remain a virgin. I mean, I would think that if I had carried the Most Holy Son of God in my womb for nine months, He who is the Healer, the Purifier... wow, what a cleansing! Would I want to taint my purified womb with - well, something ordinary? I mean, it doesn't get any better than having Jesus as your Child! Why take something that's extraordinary in its pristine state (as in Mary's purified womb) and then make it ordinary? It would be sort of like if I would take a rare collection of old and uncirculated coins that had been kept in their original state and never used and then suddenly throwing them back into circulation. It would sort of ruin them, make them less valuable, taint them with ordinariness. No more wonder. No more originality. No more pristine rarity.
I'm probably not explaining it very well, and I'm sure there are far better answers out there, but this is the best I can do at the moment... I hope I'm making some kind of sense...
JMJ
- Cheri
____________________
“We do not want a Church that will move with the world; we want a Church that will move the world.”
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
Hi Cheri,
Your answer makes perfect sense to ME. But to my skeptical 17 yo dd.... If she can be satisfied, anyone can be satisfied. She's not home right now, but I'll run these answers past her and see if any lightbulbs come on.
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2276 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 01:33 am |
|
Analytical, eh? Very well, I underestimated her and gave a child’s answer instead of a young adult’s answer.
Let’s then consider this patristic argument: Mary knew that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he was God. This is biblical; the angel announced it her. If she lived for God (nothing is told of her that shows any other interest), then she lived for her divine Son. There would be no other children because Mary would have no need of them. She had, as it were, a heaven on earth, with God in her lap. (Isn’t heaven where we will neither marry nor be given in marriage?) Joseph, meanwhile, as a God-fearing and just man, would be in awe; respect for Mary’s Son would restrain him. (Some of the Fathers of the Church speak of Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit; this is reinforced by the words in Luke’s gospel, spoken by the angel, of how the incarnation would take place.) Ergo, Mary would remain a virgin. Ergo, she would not have had other children.
Again, there is not one word in the bible or from the Fathers of the Church to indicate that Mary was anything but a virgin or that she might have had other children. In fact, she quickly became known simply as “the virgin.” I don’t know of a single source stating otherwise until the Protestant Reformation 15 centuries after the fact. Surely there would have to be better evidence to prove your daughter’s supposition right? Speculation must have some ground, some positive evidence to back it up, or it is an idle daydream. What can she offer?
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 04:11 am |
|
Ah, now we're getting closer to what would satisfy her.
I don't think she wants to deny Mary's perpetual virginity. She's simply confused about why it's such a big deal. Several of the callers to Catholic Answers this afternoon asked questions about it and Tim Staples gave the answers we've all heard so many times. That's what prompted her to ask me why it's such a big deal, one way or the other.
I like your response, Dave. Let me see what she thinks....
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28th, 2008 06:58 am |
|
In any 'normal' marriage, the 'marital act' serves as both the act which consummates a marriage and makes it binding, and which unites the couple in cooperating with God's creation - procreation.
Typically (at least before the 60's) being married to someone is synonymous with having children with that same person.
With that in mind, it turns out that God and Mary were going to 'have a baby together'. Would not anyone aware of this detail automatically assume that God and Mary were in some way married?
From what we know of Joseph from the scriptures (which admittedly isn't much) does he seem to be the kind of guy that would defile God's marriage bed? ... I don't think so.
As to what would change if we were wrong on this issue?
Firstly, if were known to be so from the beginning of the Church, I would think it would demean the whole idea of Christian marriage.
Secondly, and in some ways more importantly if we were to be proven wrong on this now, after the fact of the Church's declarations on the subject, it would disprove the infallibility of the Church, and by extension every infallible teaching of the church since the Council of Jerusalem that we see in Acts 15. Is the Gospel of John the inspired inerrant word of God? The Church says yes, but if the Church is a know liar .... etc.
Regards Doc
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1479 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 03:41 am |
|
| To me the idea of Mary being a virgin and a perpetual virgin, is like the consecration of the altar and the vessels which are used during the Holy Eucharist. Those items are consecrated to the service of containing and offering the body of our Lord, and that means they are never to be used for any other purpose. The body of Mary was consecrated at her conception for this service to the Lord, to contain and then deliver the body of our Lord to the world. Would this help your daughter?
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1869 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 09:17 pm |
|
I agree with the excellent thoughts expressed. It is primarily a protection (as in much if not all of Mariology) of the miracle of the Virgin Birth and Incarnation. I think that's the main importance of it. It's not about Mary; it's about Jesus.
Beyond the "why's" of it; it is simply true, and I think we have more than enough in Scripture and early Tradition to confirm this, which is why most Protestants for several hundred years also accepted it, before it started to be widely questioned by the theological liberals and higher critics in the 18th century or so. We can be sure that whatever is proven to be true in Christianity, is a good thing, with a reason for it, from God, whether we fully understand what the reason is or not. Here are my papers on the topic:
Why Catholics Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Blog Group Discussion on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, With Protestants (Part II - includes the entire section on this subject from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, starting here)
Replies to Protestants' Alleged Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Dialogue on Supposed Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Round Two (+ Part Two / Part Three)
Dialogue on Supposed Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Round Three
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1185 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29th, 2008 10:46 pm |
|
This is one of my "favorite" issues when it comes to our "frank and mutual moments of bilateral dialogue over equally different opinions" between us and our separated brethern.
Jill, I'm afraid you're actually coming closer to the original source of Protestantism than anything Luther bothered to come up with. You've come up against the one thing the Church got stumped by like any loving parent: an adolescent mind full of hypothetical questions and a rapid-fire capacity to deliver them, one after another. When the good German bishops, abbots, his fellow monks and even his emperor, not to mention the Pope's heavy hitters sent all the way up to a very non-descript Rhine River town called Worms (of all names!) ran into Luther, they also ran into a guy, much like a teenager full of half-facts and full hypotheticals, couldn't handle them all -- and before you know it, the horses were out of the barn and we've been scratching our heads ever since at how to answer these questions--especially from those pesky evangelicals.
Those guys will stand on bonfire's worth of (wouldn't you know it, Catholic Bibles and Catechisms for the sport of it) and swear that Jesus' brother James was Jerusalem's "first bishop," and whatever else that had to happen because no way on earth would this lovely lady had remained permanently virgin to any up n' coming hot catch like St. Joseph. (After all, the man had a trade and presumably a steady income! And like any other regular red-blooded husband, he, well ... uh.)
Here's where the rules of fact and human nature meet the reality of faith and stretching one's ability to reason beyond the humdrum. After all, we are talking about things relating to God's immediate family both here and Up There. Don't be bashful and gently remind your daughter that we're dealing with Mary's son who walked on water, changed water into wine (at her command, no less! -- alas, my mom never gave any commands like that, but none of her sons were really divine. Only in her fondest wishes) and eventually rose from the dead following the most brutal kind of execution one could imagine. (But Nero's use of people he had crucified as lit torches in his Circus gardens located where St. Peter's Square is now was so brutal that even the normally jaded Romans--like so many Hollywood honchos--and took active umbrage! Pretty soon Nero found himself very unemployed without a golden toga, a fate very much unlike those enjoyed by your Hollywood "neighbors" out there in California.)
I'm not tryin to make light of this. But it might not hurt to use a very light touch when dealing with some very SERIOUS minded evangelicals when it comes to how we look at and revere Mary. Now, I'm NOT referring to your daughter, in this vein. Even a teen's barrage of hypotheticals is bound to be a lot fairer than a lot of the rapid fire mini-inquistions some Protestants tried to trap me with. Remember, we're the ones who messed up everything since Constantine made turned "pure Christianity" into "Roman Catholicism." (Hell, I'd still like to know why Jesus' cousin joined the Baptists even before the Roman Catholic Church got off the ground. For that I'd better check in with a Protestant historian Justo Gonzales rewrite.)
More seriously, I simply cannot imagine God ever envisioning anything but the simple logical necessity of having One Son. No complications, no "half-divine uncles or aunts," or even anything remotely close to the baloney cooked up by Dan Brown in his fictional fiction novel the Da Vinci Code. The Father wisely knew well in advance how much trouble we'd have and continue have just over Jesus, much less any other nonsense we could come up to really mess things up with.
If we're able to supremely get all confused and lost in round-about discussions over just one intended individual who was both "fully divine and fully human," try and imagine what history might've looked like if Protestants really pushed the notion of Jesus having siblings to its logical extensions. Chaos. One Lord, One Savior, One Redeemer -- no further confusion. I must hand it to the more hard core evangelicals who'll stick by this notion of Jesus having blood brothers and sisters even though it flies into more turbulence and a mountain range of reasons demonstrating how it could never have come to pass. But wishing our favorite opinions could be facts when there are no reasons sustaining these opnions as factual defies more than history, logic and common sense. It's a defiance of any true understanding of who, what and why Jesus came into the world.
Hopefully my home-spun theological discourse might've clarified some things, especially since you're still going to have to deal with a 17 year-old's questions. (If that doesn't work, Jill, as parents we can always rely on what our parents did when we hit them with our hypotheticals, simply sigh and ask if they don't mind if we could agree to agree on the need to keep things simple. Yes, for the Love of God, let's keep things simple! Somehow, I've yet to see how that never disarms them, especially when they see the bags under our eyes and our our furrows look like they've just had an appointment with a John Deere farm machine.  Then nothing rests like a satisfied but tired parent.
____________________
"This Old House's" motto is "Measure twice, cut once." My new motto is THINK at least twice or thrice, then you only have to write once, and maybe apologize nonce.
|
|
|
DaQuodJubes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Dan | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Former Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30th, 2008 03:25 pm |
|
Hi Jill,
This is how I would approach the question of why Mary's virginity is important after our Lord's birth. Ask "why is it important before His birth?" Even if Mary had previous children, Jesus, God and Man, could have been conceived by the Holy Spirit without a human father. So what purpose did her virginity serve?
Isaiah 7:14, "The Lord himself will give you a sign, a virgin shall conceive..."
Mary's virgin birth was a sign that demonstrated that Her Son was God and Man, the Messiah. Her remaining a virgin preserves that sign, as a incontrovertible proof, so to speak, of the same truth.
Dan
____________________
http://www.beatvsvir.blogspot.com
God in His omnipotence could not give more,
in His wisdom He knew not how to give more,
in His riches He had not more to give,
than the Eucharist. - St. Augustine
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 12:58 am |
|
JillD wrote: If Jesus' birth had been virginal, but she had then had other children, what would change? Why is it important that she remained a virgin her whole life?
Jill, let me suggest that you have her read the Protoevangelion of James, also called the "Infancy Gospel of James". This book, along with the oral tradition of the early Church, are the sources of our belief that Mary remained a virgin through her entire life. We do not consider it inspired scripture, but it is important in that it is a written record of the beliefs of the early Church.
According to this book, Mary was a consecrated temple virgin. For her to have had relations, even with her husband, would have been for her to break her vow of service to the temple. That would have been a sin, and a most serious one. Had she had relations with her husband and bore other children, the sin would not have been in the natural fruit of marriage, but in breaking the vow of temple service.
In salvation history, I don't think it would matter to me if Mary had been a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth but subsequently had other children. What would have mattered is that she did not honor her vow of chastity. I feel the same way about a priest who breaks his vow of celibacy, especially if he does it flagrantly and repeatedly. Vows to God are quite serious, and I cannot believe the woman chosen to be the Mother of God would have dishonored her vow.
That's why it matters.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Kim M.
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 415 |
| First Name: | Kim | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of God, Assembly again, PCA, ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 12:07 pm |
|
Jill, back when I assumed Mary had had other children after Jesus, I always would find it a bit puzzling as to why Jesus would've given Mary to John as his mother while Jesus was on the cross. I mean, if she had other natural children, why wouldn't they take care of her?
____________________
"A joyful heart is the health of the body, but a depressed spirit dries up the bones." Proverbs 17:22
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 857 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 1st, 2008 06:09 pm |
|
Thanks everybody. Again, I don't think my dd's difficulty is with whether or not Mary remained a virgin. I think that she probably thinks she did so remain. But we Catholics make a fairly big deal of it at certain times and in her teenage skepticism, she feels that all that concern is overblown. She doesn't understand why it matters - one way or the other.
I've run a lot of your answers past her. She remains, at least in her outer statements, unconvinced that it's a big deal. But I'm sure that in her deeper thoughts it's made an impression, not because of her, but because it's a doctrine of our LORD! And Truth always makes an impression.
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
Current time is 01:11 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
