Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Questions about content

The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has its origins in the apocryphal Gospel of James, written about 150 A.D.

No doctrine of the Catholic Church has origins in an apocryphal writing.
This statement is itself a statement of Catholic doctrine, which in this case is refuted by historical fact. The origin of the doctrine lies in its earliest documents.Wikipedia is a secular institution.Wetman 18:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Virgin's vow of chastity was not at first considered to have been upheld by the greater events of her life. In the 4th century, Jerome wrote in his twenty-second Epistle to St. Eustochium, "I tell you without hesitation, that though God is almighty, He cannot restore a virginity that has been lost."

This is a very vague statement that I am having some difficulty parsing; can you suggest its provenance so I can understand it more fully?
Nothing vague about Jerome's statement of natural fact. What's to parse? Catholic apologists like Trc are too delicate to actually state that the BVM's hymen miraculously remained intact. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the BVM is a matter of faith not of ordinary fact. Wetman 18:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Catholic doctrine attests that virginity is irreparably lost by sexual pleasure, voluntarily and completely experienced, though rape does not impair virginity.

Catholic doctrine of virginity is not wholly irrelevant in an entry "Perpetual Virginity of Mary." Wetman 18:21, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the paragraph that contains it? Trc | [msg] 07:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide the sources you are using to generate the above material? I wish for a more complete accounting. The sentence prior to Jerome, and the context of Jerome, need some checking. Trc | [msg] 19:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) (The letter of Jerome to Eustochium: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P583_110510 Google brings it up in 0.3 seconds.)

The hymn Te Deum laudamus, used by Catholics and many Protestants, contains the line "When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb" (Book of Common Prayer). Now I can't see what this has to do with the virginity of the BVM. That Jesus was conceived in her womb is not part of the question, is it? I haven't removed this. Perhaps it can be shown to be relevant. Wetman

James is concerned with the character and purity of Mary [3] and is the first literature to attest her perpetual virginity (James chs. 7 - 8). All the Bibles I can find only have 5 chapters in James. What version of the Bible contains 8 chapters?

Mary's perpetual virginity is also a doctrine of Islam, stated in the Qur'an.

It's a common muslim belief, but are you sure that it's stated in the Qur'an? If yes, please provide the verses. Surahs 3 (Al-Imran) and 19 (Maryam) report about her but do not seem to report to its perpetual virginity, I'd even understand the contrary - 19:22 speaks of the pain of giving birth. fr:Utilisateur:Lachaume

==History of the Doctrine== ("The factual accuracy of this article is disputed") If no earlier account of the perpetual virginity of the BVM than Gospel of James I ask what other facts are disputable. Wetman!.

The problems in the article were:

  • Some material re virgin birth was irrelevant. (Agreed. Only perpetual virginity is relevant in this entry)
  • An assertion about Mary's own relatives was trying to be a doubt about Mary but has no bearing. (I don't know what this refers to. Why not cut and paste it here for discussion)
  • An assertion about origin in apocrypha is not false so much as misleading; it is tradition and Scripture that are the source; the Protoevangelium is relevant to the subject, of course. (Yes, not "false" at all. As far as "misleading", please quote the Scripture you are referring to. Please also give the earliest reference you can find in Roman Catholic tradition to the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM. Enter this material inm the entry please)
  • Something about churches dedicated to Mary not having cemetaries to avoid suggestion of contamination is going to need substantiation to reappear in the article; I'm not familiar with that and at the least, it was unclear as to what was meant. (perfect nonense, I agree. out with it)
  • By far the largest problem was this strange section. The quote has nothing to do with the assertion. The assertion remains without support. The assertion is entirely vague. The document quoted supports the perpetual virginity of Mary, as does its author, Jerome. The last sentence is not irrelevant but seems a gratuitous attempt to distract the reader. (let's eliminate the sentence that offends you. post it here)
The Virgin's vow of chastity was not at first considered to have been upheld by the greater events of her life. In the 4th century, Jerome wrote in his twenty-second Epistle to St. Eustochium, "I tell you without hesitation, that though God is almighty, He cannot restore a virginity that has been lost." Catholic doctrine attests that virginity is irreparably lost by sexual pleasure, voluntarily and completely experienced, though rape does not impair virginity,

Trc | [msg] 10:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(my suggestions are appended in italics Wetman 13:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC))

  • Can someone please include verifiable primary source material that Calvin upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary? The only source that was linked to it was a sentence from someone that said he did without any evidence. That is not good enough. I know academics believe he did, but I have yet to see the primary evidence or anyone linking to it or quoting it.

The New Testament references Jesus' adelphoi, which can mean either "brothers" or "brethren".[22] Both forms are employed in the various books of the bible, with examples of the latter including the "one-hundred twenty brothers" of Acts 1:15, and the Septuagint rendering of Abraham and Lot. Lot was Abraham's uncle, but is referred to as "adelphos".[23] Because "brother" is the more common usage, and because Greek has another word for cousin (anepsios), many translations of the Bible render passages which describe relations to Jesus (such as Matthew 13:55) as his "brothers" or "brothers and sisters", rather than "brethren".[24] At times these passages are cited as a basis for believing that Mary and Joseph had marital relations following the birth of Jesus.[25] However, even if the adelphoi are understood as brothers, the view that Joseph was a widower who had children from a previous marriage remains consistent with the various New Testament passages.

If we suppose, that Joseph was really a widower and had children from previous marriage, in that case these children can't be Jesus' brothers and sisters because of the simple fact, that Joseph was not Jesus' father in terms of biology nor his supposed previous wife was not Jesus' mother of course. Than how could be these children Jesus' brothers and sisters?
They would have been his brethren, i.e. kinsfolk, or his brothers by marriage. Lostcaesar 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick comment, but I can't accept it. What you say is only supposition which is not supported by the Bible. What is more, this supposition does not remain consistent with the various New Testament passages. For example, let us see this two verses from the New Testament:
"13. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt"
(Matthew 2:13-14)
The Bible do not mention that Joseph would have other children at the time of this event. It should be noted, that the Angel speaks only about Jesus and Mary. The Angel don't say that take the young child and his mother, and your whole family or your children.
Perhaps that point of view could be mentioned in the section which discusses Protestant objections. It doesn't, however, render the claim that Joseph was a widower with other children inconsistent with various New Testament passages, as thw quote says. It is not even inconsistent with these. Just for example, perhaps the other children were older and would have been left with members of the extended family. After all, if Jesus was a hunted child, such that it was too risky for him to be in Israhel, then taking other children along would be putting them in unnecessary danger. Jesus and anyone with him was on Herod's bad side. A child too old to be subject to the prophecy was no threat and better left out of harms way by seperating him from the wanted child. Lostcaesar 07:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that point of view could be mentioned in the section which discusses Protestant objections - May I ask you why? In this section there are some other protestant objections too.
Furthermore if we suppose as you said that Joseph would have been left his children in Israel then in fact, leaving other children in Israel would rather be putting them in danger, because Herod could have been found them and would have been able to get knowledge of Jesus' residence. Thus your supposition can't be acceptable at all. Additionally this article's neutralitiy is strongly questionable.

[edit] Relevant scriptural citations

- *Ezekiel 44:2 ("This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.")

This verse in context is nothing to do with Mary's virginity or lack of it. The context of this verse is the physical gate of the temple in Ezekiel's vision. Could be restored if it really is a common reference taken as referring to the topic, but I suggest that it needs a citation if this is the case.

[edit] Old Testament references to young women and closed gates

Two references in the Old Testament

  • Ezekiel 44:2 ("This gate ... because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut")
  • Isaiah 7:14 ("a virgin shall conceive...")

These may or may not be "prophecies" for some believers, but they are irrelevant to the perpetual virginity of the BVM which is the subject here. Wetman 18:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What I would recommend is that you mention in the theological discussion section something about Christianizing the OT. That would be the place for it. Also, observe that this article discusses all aspects of her virginity, as its perpetuity is comprised of its parts. Trc | [msg] 22:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would not agree with this article discusses all aspects of her virginity, as its perpetuity is comprised of its parts unless you would agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary page should be merged in here. That page, together with Mary, the mother of Jesus, should cover the issue of her virginity up to the birth of Jesus, and this page what happened (or not) thereafter. I feel this page is now way beyond NPOV in any sense. --Henrygb 00:29, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, her perpetual virginity is comprised of three parts; the BVM page is about Mary generally in the Catholic spiritual sense, while Mary, the mother of Jesus entry is focus more on historicity issues. Doctrinal books treat the three aspects of virginity separately. Each entry will probably mention something about virginity, but this entry covers the three-fold doctrine (so to speak) in toto. As for balance, the doctrine is presented, and theological discussions are presented. The doctrine needs several sections to be expounded, but that's okay, the entry is for the doctrine. Trc | [msg] 00:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Under the guise of "removing editorial content, User Trc has removed this "The Protoevangelium of James, according to conservatives written ca. A.D. 125, according to other researchers some decades later" and redated the document. Wetman 04:22, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't find any corroboration of the 125 date, all info points to 150. Also, I don't see what "conservative" means. Whatever the date is, it is, but 150 appears to be a consensus. Trc | [msg] 04:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's get on point here. Is there a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church called the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Yes, there is. Is it true that it is generally believed by conservative Catholics and not by conservative Protestants, who are primarily the only two groups of creatures who would care about such a thing, at least enough to argue over it? Yes, it is. Does the article in question fairly state both the essentials of the doctrine and the objections to it? In my opinion, as originally posted at least, it did and it does. Does it answer the question as to whether or not this doctrine is true? No it doesn't, and it can't, as the truth of such a doctrinal assertion is well beyond the scope of Wikipedia or any other secular encyclopedia. It's hard to be NPOV in the articles when everyone has a POV, but let's try to save the POV for the discussion and leave it out of the article to the extent that we can. User:rlquall 23:05 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good example of "Jesus's brethren"

Matthew 12:46-50

46 As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

This story tells of how Jesus puts his followers before his own literal brothers. Seems like good Biblical evidence for Mary's relations with Joseph.

Citizen Premier 05:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh, these could just as easily have been cousins, or half brothers from Joseph's earlier marriage. If I'm not mistaken these alternate interpretations are already explained in the article, if you read it carefully. Wesley 06:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request: Cultural context of the doctrine

Could anyone address the development of this doctrine vis-a-vis the second-century cultural attitudes towards sex and purity? I don't know enough about Catholic doctrine to do it, but as an outsider, it seems like this doctrine, that clearly equates "sex" with "lack of moral purity", even within the bonds of marriage, must have some sort of cultural origins. Have any scholarly papers been written on this topic that could be referenced here? BucInExile 06:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the Old Testament references given, particularly the Ezekiel passage that is associated with Mary, you would come closer to the early attitude. Also if you examined Jewish attitudes towards the Temple, particularly the Holy of Holies. That's where God was most clearly present, and that space was set apart, with very limited access. Similarly, Mary's womb became a temple of God, consequently there would have been a natural inclination to keep her womb "set apart" for anyone who believed that Mary's firstborn son, Jesus, was God. I'm not positive, but I think that John Chrysostom's homilies take this approach when discussing Mary's virginity in the fourth century. Seeing it as a "sex is impure" issue seems to be projecting modern attitudes about sex back on the first and second centuries. Wesley 06:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I certainly don't want this to become an actual discussion of doctrine, but I would respectfully disagree with your last statement. The Ezekiel passage you mention, and the argument you put forward from Chrysostom, have no direct New Testament basis; there is no passage in the NT that discusses it. Therefore, I must conclude that these interpretations developed from some sort of second century cultural attitude, or perhaps the non-authoritative writings of an author that haven't been preserved, rather than anything preserved in NT Scripture. If Chrysostom's arguments accurately address the origin of the doctrine, then I would suggest this would be a valid section to be added to the article, perhaps under a "Origin of the Doctrine" heading. BucInExile 04:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protoevangelium of James teaches perpetual virginity?

Where does the Protoevangelium of James teach the doctrine of perpetual virginity? The article says 7-8, but the text of 7-8 reads as follows:

7. And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified thy name in all generations. In thee, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her.
8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran. (Roberts-Donaldson tr.)

Unless I've missed something, I can't find any clear statement of perpetual virginity, only statements of virginity at the time of the conception of Jesus. So, unless I have missed something, the statement in the article needs to be qualified to say that some people interpret the Protoevangelium of James as teaching the doctrine (or something along those lines), rather than asserting as a fact that it actually does. --MonkeeSage 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Chapters 19 and 20 describe Mary giving birth while remaining a virgin, and a midwife's confirmation of this after examining Mary. Chapter 9 has Joseph saying, "I have sons and am old, while she is young," which supplies the Orthodox explanation of Jesus' "brothers and sisters" mentioned in the canonical Gospels. If accepted, this effectively removes the Gospels' mention of Jesus' siblings as evidence that they were born to Mary. It also shows Joseph as an old man accepting responsibility for protecting Mary, instead of presenting them as a typical pair of young newlyweds. In these ways, this apocryphal gospel teaches Mary's perpetual virginity. Hope this helps. Wesley 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. But that still doesn't really provide any explicit statement about perpetual virginity: Joseph's statement is before he is betrothed to her, and the examination of the midwife only regards Jesus' birth, nothing is mentioned after Jesus' birth. I've seen some Roman Catholic apologists interpret the phrase "the virgin of the Lord" (τὴν παρθένον κυρίου) as a vocational title, i.e., Mary's "job" for her whole life. But that is an interpretation, not the necessary meaning of the expression, which may also be taken as a simple description ("the virgin who belonged to the Lord") or a statement of Mary's relationship with God ("the virgin in the care of the Lord"). So I still think that the article needs some sort of qualification, or an attribution of the interpretation. --MonkeeSage 06:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems explicit enough to me, when you consider that it isn't aimed at answering the exact question being posed by us today. As I said before, at the very least it supplies a narrative that harmonizes the different gospel accounts and adds more background information, that together supports the doctrine of perpetual virginity and removes potential obstacles found in the four Gospels. (And does this not by contradicting them but by suggesting another way to interpret them.) Wesley \

But if there has to be an attribution, the link already given at that point supplies this quote from Origen indicating that he at least understood it this way. "The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]). Anyone else want to weigh in on whether this is needed? Wesley 07:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That Joseph was old does not ensure perpetual virginity for Mary, indeed Annas thought that Joseph was still able to engage in the procreative act when he saw Mary pregnant. Also, the fact that Joseph had previous children does not show that he had no other children with Mary (I'm not saying that he did). And the text doesn't mention anything about what happened after the birth of Jesus. So we really only have two indirect lines of inference: the alleged vocational title "the Virgin of the Lord," and the mention of Joseph having other children already. But no direct assetion.
The Origen quote would be good, but I suggest the full quote:
They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. (Commentary on Matthew, §10.17)
Notice that Origen does not claim that proto. James teaches perpetual virginity, only the prior children of Joseph. He says that those who appeal to that fact wish to establish perpetual virginity, which he thinks is reasonable; but that is different from saying that proto. James teaches perpetual virginity. So I still request that we qualify the statement about proto. James to show that the text doesn't directly assert perpetual virginity, though some (many?) interpret it to teach that, or at least to be consistent with it. --MonkeeSage 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mother of GOD"

"...the mother of God..." (from the article). Isn't it supposed to be "mother of Jesus"? Should this be changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.209.137 (talk • contribs) .

See theotokos. In brief, Trinitarian Christians believe she was both (since they believe that Jesus is also the eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, fully man and fully God). It is not used to mean that God came into being at Jesus' birth, but to affirm that Jesus was "very God of very God", to use the Nicene expression, as well as "made man". » MonkeeSage « 11:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of issues...

How are statements like "The doctrine's historicity is questionable" helpful? Firstly, the claim itself expresses a particular viewpoint on the controversy. No matter how silly you believe a doctrine is, the statement clearly constitutes taking a particular 'side'. Something like "Several historians have claimed that the doctrine lacks a sound historical basis", followed by some references would be acceptable.

The stuff about the extent to which individuals do or don't subscribe to the doctrine appears irrelevant. It's the doctrine itself that is being described, not the response to it. If it is essential that the survey be mentioned, can the editor who added it please give a detailed reference so that readers can scrutinize it?

GuyIncognito 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right about that statement, so I removed it. I think it's also questionable whether the early Reformers actually doubted Mary's perpetual virginity, even if they disagreed with venerating her or with the celibacy of the priesthood. But, I'll gather more references before I tackle that. Wesley 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the title as well as (earlier) the phrase "The doctrine's historicity is questionable" to reflect that all I am saying is that the doctrine claims an historical basis, so therefore may be questioned by historical method - which is what the paragraph below has always done. The paragraph itself does not really do justice to the biblical material, which should come at the start (rather than the reformers' views) but let's leave that for another day.

[edit] Revision

I added the citebook template structure, with accompanying notes. I added various notes to the previously unreferenced article. I moved the material into a more fitting structure. I cleaned up redundancies in the prose. I removed unverifiable information. I added the image. Lastly, I added or fixed many internal links. In my view, the article still needs a comprehensive section on Islamic views, but the material on this previously was disorganized, conflicting, and unreferenced, so I could not include it in this version. Lostcaesar 09:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased?

There doesn't seem to be much here in the way of refutations or anything like that, which is usually common to religious articles... do other types of christians all belive the same as catholics or are there any who don't believe in perpetual virginity, and do they have any alternate readings of the quoted passages? Kuronue 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I can think of nothing relevant to be said. "Some, on the other hand, point out that virgins do not have babies"? If you're aware of any specific skeptical argument beyond a refutation of miracles in general, I'd love to see you add it here. It'd be enlightening. 216.52.69.217 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/Talk%7EPerpetual_virginity_of_Mary_5498.html"