|
Do
You Reject the Catholic Church's Teaching that Jesus' Mother Mary
Remained a Virgin? |
Consider:
*
Do you reject the Catholic Church's teaching that Jesus' mother
Mary remained a virgin because Scripture says that "before
they came together, she was found with child" (Mt. 1:18)? If
so, you should understand that "before they came
together" may be taken to mean "before they lived
together" or "before the time of the celebration of
their nuptial rites". Also, you should consider that the
phraseology used doesn't of itself necessarily mean that a
particular event followed. For example, consider that "In
common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached
his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained
it." (DR)
*
Do you reject the Catholic Church's teaching that Jesus' mother
Mary remained a virgin because Scripture says that "He had no relations with her
until she bore a son" (Mt. 1:25, emphasis added)? If
so then, you should consider that Scripture may use this term
without implying that something occurred afterwards. For example,
consider the following passages (emphasis added)...
Mt.
28:20: And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the
age.
1
Cor. 15:25: For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
Lk.
2:36-37: There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow
until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.
As
St. Thomas Aquinas states, "as in
Psalm 123:2: 'Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, until He have
mercy on us'; from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes
are turned from God as soon as His mercy has been obtained. In
this sense those things are indicated 'of which we might doubt if
they had not been written down: while others are left out to be
supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that the
Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth,
that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her
afterwards' (Adversus Helvidium v)." Surely, this is
a way of speaking that doesn't necessarily imply that something
occurred afterward. When interpreting Scripture, it is clearly
essential to understand ways of speaking in order not to fall into
all means of serious error [e.g. taking Scripture to mean that
there is more than one God because 1 Cor. 8:6 says that "for us there
is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for
whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things
are and through whom we exist."].
*
Do you reject the Catholic Church's teaching that Jesus' mother
Mary remained a virgin because Scripture calls Jesus a
"firstborn" son? Do you seriously imagine that one must
wait for a second-born for there to be a firstborn? "From
the words, her first-born Son, some most erroneously suspect that
Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of
one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to
call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but
the first birth of the mother." (St. Jerome, Doctor of the
Church) Such terminology has to do with Jewish law and in no way requires
that a second birth follow! As St. Thomas Aquinas has said, "The
Scriptures are wont to designate as the first-born, not only a
child who is followed by others, but also the one that is born
first. 'Otherwise, if a child were not first-born unless followed
by others, the first-fruits would not be due as long as there was
no further produce' (Jerome, Adversus Helvidium x): which is
clearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits had to
be redeemed within a month (Numbers 18:16)."
*
Do you reject the Catholic Church's teaching that Jesus' mother
Mary remained a virgin because Scripture refers to certain persons
as Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters"? Do you not
realize that some ancient languages have no word for cousin (and
other relatives) so the terms "brothers" and
"sisters" may be used to refer to relatives other than
blood brothers and blood sisters? This can be further proven by
the fact that Scripture refers to James and Joseph (or Joses) as
the "brothers of the Lord" but also tells us that they
are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas (who is the 'sister' of
Jesus' mother Mary). (Note: See Jn. 19:25, Mt. 13:55, Mt. 27:56,
Mk.6:3, Mk. 15:47) As St. Isidore of Seville, Doctor of the Church
has said, "Those
who are here called the Lord's brethren, are the sons of a Mary,
His Mother's sister; she is the mother of this James and Joseph,
that is to say, Mary the wife of Cleophas and this is the Mary who
is called the mother of James the Less." As St. Thomas
Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the
history of the Church" has said, "Mary
who is called 'the mother of James and Joseph' is not to be taken
for the Mother of our Lord, who is not wont to be named in the
Gospels save under this designation of her dignity - 'the Mother
of Jesus.' This Mary is to be taken for the wife of Alphaeus,
whose son was James the less, known as the 'brother of the Lord'
(Galatians 1:19)." It should also be noted that the
term "brothers" is sometimes used in a spiritual sense
(e.g. Acts 1:15).
*
If you believe Jesus had siblings, why weren't they mentioned
in Lk. 2:41-51?
*
If you believe Jesus had siblings, explain why Christ entrusted
His mother - while hanging on the Cross - to St. John and not one
of his "brothers" or "sisters" (see Jn. 19:27).
*
How can you reject the Catholic Church's belief that Mary was
vowed to virginity prior to Christ's birth in light of her
response to the angel in Lk. 1:34 ("And Mary said to the
angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?")? If
Mary was betrothed and had not vowed virginity, why would
she respond this way upon being told that she was to bear a child?
As St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, says, "Mary
answered the announcing angel: 'How shall this be done, because I
know not man?' She would not have said this unless she had already
vowed her virginity to God." A woman about to be
married who had not vowed virginity would certainly not need to
ask how she will become pregnant (assuming she understood how
this process works, which Mary obviously does in light of her
answer).
*
Do you reject the Catholic Church's teaching that Mary remained a
virgin because Scripture refers to Mary as Joseph's wife? Does
this mean that if you had a son who got married, you would refuse
to call his new bride his "wife" since they had not yet
engaged in intimate relations? As St. Ambrose of Milan has said, "Neither does it make any difference that the
Scripture says: 'Joseph took his wife and went into Egypt'; for
any woman espoused to a man is given the name of wife. It is from
the time that marriage begins that the marital terminology is
employed. It is not the deflowering of virginity that makes a
marriage, but the marital contract. It is when the girl accepts
the yoke that marriage begins, not when she comes to know her
husband physically." (St. Ambrose of Milan, Doctor of the
Church, c. 391 A.D.)
*
How do you argue against Mary's perpetual virginity in light of
the fact that Scripture says of a mere material gate: "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" (Ezek. 44:2)?
"Who is this gate, if not Mary? Is it not closed because
she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered
this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and in
the manner of His birth did not break the seals of
virginity."
(St. Ambrose of Milan, Doctor of the Church, c. 391 A.D.) How can you imagine
that Scripture could speak this way of a mere piece of material
that the Lord entered through, and not also expect that the Lord's
own mother - the woman that He entered the world through and
received His own flesh from - would remain "shut" to
others? "The gate which was
shut (Ezech. 44,2) was her virginity. Through it the Lord God of
Israel entered; through it He advanced into this world from the
Virgin's womb. And, because her virginity was preserved intact,
the Virgin's gate has remained shut forever." {Rufinus,
5th century A.D.} *
How is it that Scripture recommends the practice of virginity (cf.
Mt.
19:12, 1 Cor. 7:8, 1 Cor. 7:32-38, Rv. 14:3-5), but
you believe that Christ's own mother was unable to accept it?
*
Why is it that you would (probably) be offended to think that some
person would later lay in Jesus' tomb (where Christ's lifeless
body had remained but a few days), yet not be troubled at the
thought that others rested in the womb of Mary - the very womb
that Christ Himself took flesh from? Do you make a mere burial
cave more holy than the very womb in which Jesus received life?
Closing
Quotations...
"A
Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remains." (St.
Peter Chrysologus, Doctor of the Church, c. 435 A.D.)
"The
Friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God
ever ceased to be a virgin." (St. Basil, Doctor of the
Church)
"For
as a virgin she conceived, as a virgin she gave birth, a virgin
she remained." (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, 5th century A.D.)
"And
to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman
remains undefiled." (St. Epiphanius of Salamis, c. 374
A.D.)
"[T]he
immaculate virginity...was unblemished before birth, during
the birth, and after the birth" (St. Sophronius of Jerusalem,
c. 634 A.D.)
"Heretics
called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual
virginity of Mary, and affirm that after Christ was born she was
joined as one with her husband." (St. Augustine, Doctor of
the Church, c. 428
A.D.)
"But
those who are said to be our Lord's brethren according to the
flesh, you must not imagine to be the children of the blessed
Mary, the mother of God, as Helvidius thinks, nor the children of
Joseph by another wife, as some say, but rather believe to be
their kinsfolk." (St. Bede the Venerable, Doctor of the
Church)
"Indeed,
her virginity was itself more beautiful and more pleasing, because
Christ, in His conception, did not Himself take away that which He
was preserving from violation by man; but, before He was conceived
He chose one already consecrated to God of Whom He would be
born." (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, 5th century A.D.)
"When
you hear of our Lord's brethren, you must understand the kindred
of Mary, not her offspring after our Lord's birth. For as the body
of our Lord once only lay in the sepulcher, and neither before,
nor after that once; so could not the womb of Mary have possibly
conceived any other mortal offspring." (St. Augustine, Doctor
of the Church)
"Christ,
in being born of a virgin who, before she knew Who was to be born
of her, had resolved to remain a virgin, chose rather to approve
holy virginity than to impose it. So, even in that woman in whom
He took upon himself the nature of a slave, He desired virginity
to be free." (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, 5th century A.D.)
"Thus
the Ever-Virgin remains after birth a Virgin still, never having
consorted with man... For how were it possible that she, who had
borne God, and had come to know that miracle from her experience
of subsequent events, should receive the embrace of a man? Perish
the thought!" (St. John Damascene, Doctor of the Church, c. 8th century A.D.)
"Lastly,
I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of
birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel's words, 'That
which is born in her...' (cf. Mt. 1). He then who gave so much heed to
a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had
heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles,
dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost,
the Mother of his Lord?" (St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church)
"You had good reason to be horrified at
the thought that another birth might issue forth from the same
virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh.
For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin
if He had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to
contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of
the Lord's body, that court of the Eternal King." (Pope St.
Siricius, 390 A.D.)
"If any one does not, in accord with the Holy Fathers,
acknowledge the holy and ever-virgin and Immaculate Mary as truly
the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and
without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit God the Word Himself, who
before all time was born [begotten] of God the Father, and without loss of
integrity brought him forth, and after His birth preserved her
virginity inviolate, let him be condemned." (Pope St. Martin I,
649 A.D.)
"Otherwise,
on account of the glorification of the most holy Mary, she could
not be known by Joseph until the birth; for she who had the Lord
of glory in her womb, how should she be known? If the face of
Moses talking with God was made glorious, so that the children of
Israel could not look thereon, how much more could not Mary be
known, or even looked upon, who bare the Lord of glory in her
womb? After the birth she was known of Joseph to the beholding of
her face, but not to be approached carnally." (Glossa)
"But
some suspect the brethren of the Lord to be sons of another wife,
following the idle fancies of apocryphal writers, who have coined
a certain woman called Esca. But we understand by the brethren of
the Lord, not the sons Joseph, but cousins of the Savior, sons of
a sister of Mary, aunt of Our Lord, who is said to be the mother
of James the Less, and Joseph, and Jude, whom in another place of
the Gospel we find called the brethren of the Lord. And that
cousins are called brethren, appears from every part of
Scripture." (St. Isidore of Seville, Doctor of the Church)
"Let us rejoice, brethren; let the nations exult and be
glad. It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who
consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of
womb and integral in her virginity, brought Him forth, made
visible for us, by whom, when He was invisible, she too was
created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant,
a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at
this O man? It was fitting for God to be born thus, when He
deigned to become man" (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, c. 5th century
A.D.)
"Some,
as Jerome says on Matthew 12:49,50, 'suppose that the brethren of
the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the
brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the
Savior, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister.' For 'Scripture
speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by
being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family,
by common affection.' Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so
called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by
relationship, as being blood-relations of His." (St. Thomas
Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the
history of the Church")
"From
this Helvidius strives to prove that no one can be called
firstborn who has not brothers, as he is called only-begotten who
is the only son of his parents. But we thus determine the matter.
Every only-begotten is firstborn, not every firstborn is
only-begotten. We say not that he is first-begotten whom others
follow, but before whom there is no one; (otherwise, supposing
there is no firstborn but who has brothers following him, there
are then no firstlings due to the priests as long as there are no
others begotten;) lest perchance when no birth follows afterward,
there should be an only-begotten and not a firstborn." (St.
Jerome, Doctor of the Church)
"That
the nuptial bond should be broken between those who, by mutual
consent, agree to abstain perpetually from the use of carnal
concupiscence - perish the thought! On the contrary, it will be
made the stronger by reason of the pledges they have entered into
between themselves, which will have to be kept by a special
endearment and concord, not by the voluptuous joinings of bodies
but by the voluntary affections of souls. For it was not
deceitfully that the angel said to Joseph, 'Fear not to take Mary,
your wife.' She is called a wife from the first plighting of their
troth, although he never had nor ever would have any carnal
knowledge of her." (St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, c. 419 A.D.)
"One-texters'
say that the Bible speaks of Our Lord as having brethren;
therefore, they conclude, He was not born of a virgin. But this
claim can be answered. When a preacher in a pulpit addresses his
congregation, 'My dear brethren', it does not mean that everyone
in the church has the same mother. Secondly, the word 'brother' is
used in Sacred Scripture in the wide sense, to cover not only
one's relatives but also one's friends; for example, Abraham calls
Lot is brother: 'Pray let us have no strife between us two,
between my shepherds and thine; are we not brethren?' (Gen. 13:8)
But Lot was not his brother. Thirdly, several who are mentioned as
brothers of Christ, such as James and Joseph, are indicated
elsewhere as the sons of another Mary, the sister of the mother of
Jesus and wife of Cleophas! 'And meanwhile his mother, and his
mother's sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen,
had taken their stand beside the Cross of Jesus' (Jn. 19:25).
Fourthly, James who is particularly mentioned as the brother of
Jesus: 'But did I not see any of the other apostles except James,
the Lord's brother' (Gal. 1:19), is regularly named, in the
enumeration of the Apostles, as the son of another father,
Alphaeus (Mt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18, Lk. 6:15)." (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
"Helvidius
is at much superfluous trouble to make this word know refer to
carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had
ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had
ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes
on to say, that the adverb 'until' denotes a fixed time when that
should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here
from the words, He knew her not until she had brought forth her
first-born Son, it is clear, he says, that after that he did know
her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from
Scripture. To all this we answer, that the word 'until' is to be
understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the
expression, knew her not, he has himself shown, that it must be
referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used
of acquaintance, as in that, The child Jesus tarried behind in
Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it (Luke 2:43). In like
manner 'until' often denotes in Scripture, as he has shown, a
fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, Even to
your old age l am He (Is 46:4). Will God then cease to be when
they are grown old? Also the Savior in the Gospel, Lo, I am with
you always, even to the end of this world (Matt 28:20). Will He
then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the
Apostle says, He must reign till He has put His enemies under His
feet (1 Cor 15:25). Be it understood then ... that that which if
it had not been written might have been doubted of, is expressly
declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding.
So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might
have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband
until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much
less was she known afterwards." (St. Jerome, Doctor of the
Church)
"It
is written (Ezekiel 44:2): 'This gate shall be shut, it shall not
be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the
God of Israel hath entered in by it.' Expounding these words,
Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): 'What means this
closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be
ever inviolate? What does it mean that no man shall pass through
it, save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this - The
Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it - except that the Holy
Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be
born of her? And what means this - it shall be shut for evermore -
but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth,
and a virgin after His Birth?' I answer that, Without any
hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to
assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known
by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this
is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead
the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every
respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the
Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose shrine
was the virginal womb (Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti [Office of
B.V.M., Antiphon to Benedictus]), wherein He had formed the
flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be
desecrated by intercourse with man. Thirdly, this is derogatory to
the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem
to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and
were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that
virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her. Fourthly,
it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in
Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the
angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost. We
must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a
virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she
remain a virgin ever afterwards." (St. Thomas Aquinas,
Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the history of
the Church")
|
