While I don't agree that Mary and Joseph had an ordinary marriage, I think your proposal gets at the truth from the wrong end of the telescope and is thus a way of understanding it that is beneficial to anyone.
I grew up in a very secular household and it took me a long time to understand and accept the perpetual virginity of Mary. As I did, I came to think of it almost exactly as you wrote -- we all live in God's eternity so there's a sense that anything about us is eternal. I don't think that any more.
There's no one person or thought that made me think, "ah, I have it now!" but the one that came closest to that was a theologian (I don't remember who, Jaruslav Pelikan, maybe?) who said that by being both a virgin and a mother, Mary is uniquely herself--she doesn't belong to any man. Not to her father, not to her husband, not to her son. Not because she was a proto-feminist who hates men and no one was good enough for her, but because she belongs to God alone, and so God gave her all those things in a way no other woman has ever had them. A greater way. Sex is a good thing, but it's a thing of Earthly life that will pass away, and Mary was given MORE. She had MORE marriage and motherhood than we do. Assume Plato was right for a minute, and all women experience just slivers of the forms of "marriage," "virginity," and "motherhood." She participates in all of them at the same time, and to a greater extent. God gives her more, and gives them forever.
On a practical level, Mary bore Christ inside her for nine months and then fed him with her body for months after--it makes no sense to me to think she was the human equivalent of a lead-lined vessel impervious to the holiness of God, and just popped Him out one day and went on with her life. You're an artist, you know how artworks and buildings can give people a sense of awe and peace and holiness. I think Mary's body must have been transformed like that, but in a unique way. I don't think Joseph was just a hanger-on who followed her around like a slave because she was too holy to touch, I think she and Joseph had a marriage that was MORE than what we are granted. He had more of marriage and fatherhood than we do. Sex within marriage is a fantastic gift but it's only a shadow of what is to come, and I think they got more of what is to come.
But however we understand it, the perpetual virginity of Mary was for all intents and purposes universal East and West for most of Christian history, and so I accept it. Again, while I think your proposal is only part of the truth, that part is all true and will benefit people who come to see it that way.
Yep. My perspective is Orthodox, where Mary is our Champion Leader, the first Christian, who believed before she saw. She is likened in hymn and doctrine to the burning bush, which held God but was not consumed by him and returned to its previous physical state after God left. Her birth-giving is likened to the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, which parted for them and then returned to its original state, never to be parted again. And she is the living Ark, which contained in her not the law (10 Commandments), but the Lawgiver; not the symbol of the priesthood (Aaron's rod), but the High Priest himself; not the bread that fed the Israelites (manna), but the actual Bread of Heaven. And like the Ark, she is not to be handled lightly. Finally, from the Liturgy of St. Basil:
All of creation rejoices in you, O Full of Grace,
The assembly of Angels and the race of men.
O Sanctified Temple and Rational Paradise! O Glory of Virgins!
From you, God was incarnate and became a child, our God before the ages.
He made your body into a throne, and your womb He made more spacious than the heavens.
All of creation rejoices in you, O Full of Grace! Glory to you!
Hard to imagine a woman whose body became the throne of God then entering into quotidian sexual activity.
Beautiful! Though I am from the Roman tradition I admire and love the beauty and mysticism of Orthodox theology and prayer. It's very sad that we've been separated for 1000 years...
Irish-Catholic here, which means Roman Catholic, of course. In all my time in St. Philip the Apostle School, I don’t remember being taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’ll admit there’s the tiniest possibility I didn’t pay full attention in theology class(es), and there’s a distinct possibility that a hungry boy, such as I was, also did not pay the strictest attention at mass each Sunday. Consequently, it was long after college that I first heard mention of it.
Well, you know, old dogs and new tricks. I still have a difficult time believing it. Joseph accepted his young wife had not been with another man. Okay, I get that. Christ’s conception was, indeed, a miracle. But I have a most difficult time believing the Lord God expected him to also go the rest of his life without “knowing” Mary.
It is difficult to accept, but all things are possible with God. There are numerous allusions to Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, with the greeting of Elizabeth being a paraphrase of the Old Testament, and many others I will not go into here. If she indeed was the new Ark, remember what happened to the unfortunate Israelite who attempted to steady the Ark when the bearers stumbled. He died when he touched it. Was it retribution, or solely that there was so much power that no human could bear it? Joseph may have sensed the same awe, and respected it. No matter what we believe, I think we can all agree that this was a unique and extraordinary family. We do know that Joseph did heed the warnings of the Angel without question (note what happened to Zechariah). Who knows what happened? Our opinions may diverge, but I believe there is ample arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity, and that is another great evidence of St Joseph's quality.
… and the Word clearly says that Joseph “knew” Mary after she had given birth to Jesus. Pretty unambiguous statement there.
How can there be any question? We each individually are to read the Lord’s word and understand it as best we can, without making up ideas that run clearly contrary to what His Word says.
For me, Trent Horn provides no plausible answer at all. How can all this ratiocination and endless reasoning do any more than create confusion amongst us lay people?
What he HAS succeeded in doing here is give me an explanation for why so many people are so very confused on this subject, and many other subjects, for that matter. The leaders of the church have created that confusion, and they continue to do so in what looks like an attempt, in a sense, to deify Mary, or at least make her into some kind of saint.
A simple reading and hearing of the Lord‘s Word by the laity themselves, something that for hundreds of years the Roman Catholic Church has tried so hard to prevent… that is all the Lord God Jesus Christ, the Creator and Savior of the world, asks… that we go to His Word with a humble heart, to read and find our own understanding of what He is telling us there.
Curtis, you were given a detailed explanation, with examples, of the reasons that certain words that appear in Scripture have been misinterpreted by some (not all) Protestants — misinterpretations that have produced the disagreement that is the subject of this discussion. You choose to dismiss the contents of the explanation seemingly on the grounds that you prefer an explanation that is simple to one that is complex. Does it matter to you whether the explanation you prefer is actually correct?
When I hear you say, of Mary, that it is wrong to “make her into some kind of saint”, it’s as though I’m hearing you say “It’s not like bearing the Son of God is some kind of big deal.” The Incarnation _is_ a big deal, Curtis; arguably the biggest deal ever. And that makes Mary a big deal. Acknowledging just how big a deal she is, is the first step toward wrapping your mind around her perpetual virginity.
Thank you both for your comments and constructive criticism regarding my earlier comments. I come from a very different background in faith, and at times that makes it hard for me to maintain a sensitivity to others in their faiths.
But more important, to me, undermining someone else’s life of faith can be a form of stealing, or even killing, or at least it can be an attempt at such. And it can be coming from a sense of superiority and conceit. In as much as I may have slipped into those kinds of errors, I sincerely apologize, and I thank both of you for standing strong and speaking out for what you believe. We are all in this together.
Thank you, Curtis, for your thoughtful reply. I can be abrasive when abrasiveness is not called for. Your reminder that we are not enemies is deeply appreciated!
Thanks Curtis. This is one of the reasons I like following the Klavans, and hearing from the kind of people that also follow the Klavans. We don’t always agree, but we are learning to search with love the mysteries of God together. Have a joy filled and blessed day.
I think what I am hearing you saying here, the underlying message of all this exploration, is that INDIVIDUAL HUMAN FREEDOM is that from which all else must extend or proceed.
We might go to others to help us in our search for what is true and good, for some guidance along the path that we ourselves, choose to follow in our lives, but we must never give up our own, individual search, going to the Lord’s Word with humility and drinking there from the fountain that He has provided for us.
I believe that this is, or will be, a foundational truth, a new revelation, in the Lord’s Second Coming, so often hinted at here on this Substack.
If you find it unconvincing, it is perfectly possible to say so without insulting Catholics (and Orthodox). ("A simple reading and hearing of the Lord‘s Word by the laity themselves, something that for hundreds of years the Roman Catholic Church has tried so hard to prevent") I think it makes sense, you don't. I think 2000 years of scholars reading the Bible in a variety of ancient languages understand it better than my impression of an English translation, you trust your translation to express it correctly and your "simple" reading or hearing of it as trustworthy. It would be better and more charitable to just leave it at that.
Drew, that’s brilliant! What a perfect explanation of how Mary can remain perpetually the virgin mother, and still have a complete union in marriage with Joseph. As a practicing Catholic I, for one, can accept this as non-paradoxical truth.
I’m not Catholic and am unfamiliar with the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’d be interested to know why it is a core(?) tenet of faith. Why is it important to believe she and Joseph didn’t have a normal marriage after the birth of Christ? My reading of the Gospels has never suggested that to me; in fact, it suggests otherwise. From Matthew 1:24-25:
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
That “till” means something obvious to me. How else can it be explained?
I have replied to so many comments here that I feel as if I'm arguing, but I'm not. I'm just happy to explain. This isn't a "Catholic" position, it is the historical position of the entire Church. It was written about as early as about 150 but is older than that, and was generally accepted by the 400s. All Christians believed this before the Great Schism, and both the Churches in union with Rome and the Eastern Churches still do. Many "Reformers" thought so -- Luther believed and taught it, Calvin (see below) specifically refused to say it wasn't true. Mary NOT being perpetually virgin is the new, and therefore unusual, position. As far as the word "until" goes, a better question might be why people for 1600 years all didn't think it means what most Protestants now think it does. They thought Matthew was clearly maintaining Jesus's divine origins by saying Jesus could not have been his son because Joseph didn't have sex with her at any time before Jesus's birth.
Here's what Calvin said about that quote: "This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."
Well, we will just have to disagree on that. You have your interpretation of that passage and the entire historic Church around the world has its. But the question of why they came to to that conclusion has an answer: It's because Matthew was not writing about Mary and Joseph's married life together, he was writing about Jesus's conception. As Calvin (writing far later than Jerome) says, "What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers." He means that this is how they wrote back then, whether we would write it that way or not. The Gospel writers didn't write about a lot of things we want to know. Acts ends without "the end" that we expect it to have.
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Gail. I’ll confess to not being terribly convinced by Jerome’s insistence that it’s all a misunderstanding based on how they wrote back then.
More to the point, I don’t understand why any church would be so invested in Mary remaining a virgin. The true significance of her virginity as the mother of Jesus is that He was not conceived with Joseph, which would have made Him merely human. After Jesus was born the need for Mary to continue as a virgin was moot. I think the “until” serves to establish the Divinity of Jesus’s true Father and also suggests that Mary went on to live fully as a wife to Joseph, bearing half siblings to Jesus. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm no expert on it so I can't tell you all the reasons the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have considered it important since the earliest days, only that they have considered it important since the earliest days. For my part, I don't understand why most Protestant and non-denominational Christians are so determined to think that once Jesus was born Mary was no one special, and that she and Joseph were just ordinary. It seems to me to be a misplaced fear of not honoring Jesus enough.
I can assure, as a bloke, Joseph would not have hung around if he wasn’t getting any. Especially as Jews could divorce over such things. It doesn’t matter if it’s today or 2000 years ago. Blokes are all the same.
For many years, the traditional answer was that St. Joseph was a widower and had children by his first wife. There are extra-biblical writings to that effect, some going back to about the year 150, and it's entirely possible. Today "extra-Biblical writings" aren't considered very important, but for many years Christians had no problem with them and many still call Mary's parents Anne and Joachim (which come from an extra-Biblical source), or praying the doxology from the Didache ("For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory..."). However, better understanding of the languages of the day tells us the more probable answer, and demonstrating it doesn't depend on texts outside Scripture.
At the time, people used the word "brother" to a number of close relatives (in-laws, half siblings, cousins, etc.) and even to close friends. This is nothing unusual--for example, in medieval and renaissance England, people used the word "cousin" to mean all sorts of relatives, and even in the 1800s people commonly referred to brothers- and sisters-in-law as brother and sister.
At the time, Greek and Aramaic didn't have a word that meant "cousin" specifically, they either used "brother" or specifically spelled out relationship (who was married to who, or the son of who, etc.). Although Greek did have a specific word for "cousin" in use at the time, Greek-speaking people in Israel and surrounding areas used the Greek "adelphos" in the same loose sense, so the Septuagint translation of the Bible uses "brother" that way (all the way through, not just in the Gospels--Abraham calls Lot "brother," for instance).
You can see it here in the Gospels: While Mark calls James and Joseph/Joses "brothers of Jesus," Matthew refers to their mother (Mary) as being at the cross WITH Mary... (along with other people named Mary!). Mathew wouldn't have written about "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" at all if she were the same person as Jesus's mother--it doesn't make sense.
Beyond that, if James (and Joseph/Joses) and Jesus had the same mother, Jesus would not have had to tell John to take care of Mary when he died--his brothers would have done that automatically.
In Orthodox Christianity, whose understandings about Mary can be traced to the first century, it is understood that St. James is not Mary's son, but is Joseph's. He was old and apparently widowed when he married the Theotokos (the God-carrier). Once you've carried God in the flesh, no other childbearing is necessary to prove your femininity.
Welcome to the fold! As a lifelong Catholic, and a survivor of 12 years of catholic education, mostly with nuns in the 60's who were short on explanations and long on rote obedience, the rosary made little sense to me, and never held my attention. Last year we attended a pre-Lenten retreat with a priest who had a fervent Marian focus, and spoke so movingly about the worth of the rosary that I prayed my first rosary in years that night, and haven't stopped since. It is an excellent contemplative tool, and may it lead you to even greater peace.
I would recommend that you and your son, and anyone else interested, make a trip (I hesitate to call it a pilgrimage) to Fatima and Lourdes. Things may surprise you there. Pope Saint John Paul II had a great devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and there are excellent writings further fleshing out her as Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is also our mother, and a truly loving one, who has visited periodically and sent lessons, always devoted to her Son.
I recommend a daily rosary, with the mysteries, for getting away for about 15 minutes and allowing her love to envelop you and with it, the love of her Son. She always emphasizes that her goal is to bring all of mankind to her Son.
Let this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, to paraphrase our favorite movie.
We no longer need an intercessory to reach God on our behalf. Jesus rent the veil between us and Our Holy Father. Now we are able to pray directly to God. It is good to pray in Jesus name to give us credentials that we believe in Christ.
Matthew 27:50-51 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
I attend a former Episcopal church that joined the Catholic Church in 2013. Despite being located in the US, many attendees hold royalist sentiments (some even ardent monarchists), and so a Requiem Mass was held for Queen Elizabeth II. In the homily, the priest noted that the Queen witnessed more for Christ in her messages to the people than any other head of state outside the Vatican. The priest also clarified that the Queen’s role had been “Marian”, that like Mary, she pointed to Jesus (look at most Orthodox icons of the Theotokos: Mary points our attention for Christ).
I have found that praying the Rosary’s Sorrowful Mysteries can be a powerful ritual for grief: I won’t promise that it will cure the pain, just that it can be a powerful experience.
We humans are “made for eternity yet stranded in time and weary of struggling with sin’ (Michael Card’s lyric). We long for certainty, for clear answers to our many questions. Yet, as Job realizes God, the Redeemer who is present, is the answer Himself. We also wrestle with mystery and paradox.
Here is a wry Catholic joke for you, Drew. When asked whether Catholics actually worship the Virgin Mary, a Catholic answered, “No, silly. We only worship statues of Mary.” 😂😇🤣
If I may, I'll take the joke one step further. The Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid tells the story of driving on to the campus of a catholic church, and there were statues of Mary, and the three children of Fatima...Lucia, Jucinta, and Francisco kneeling to Mary. Patrick Madrid's quip was....."What a great religion we have, even our stutues worship statues."
Mrs Dave has started praying the rosary. I’m still not sure what to think about it. I’m pretty sure we’re not meant to communicate with the dead. So much catholic stuff seems really wrong to me.
One might think of Mary as being the affection for truth within us, and we might pray that the tiny seed of the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself be conceived in us, in that beautiful, humbly feminine and fertile ground that is the affection for truth.
…no need to be real clever. The affection for truth is that part of our mind that wants so much to bring the truth of the Lord’s Word, the Lord Himself, to life in us, in our everyday mundane lives.
Vision trumps any narrative. So try to have it both ways and truth will make you tremble. If you lack wisdom, ask God. No power in beads, no power in idols. God is all powerful, has all truth and is a loving Father to us all. He will reveal what is expedient for you to know. Happy seeking.
It's unlikely that a comment box would contain my gratitude for this Letter piece and its subsequent comments from subscribers. The Word, Jesus the Christ, the Son of Man, the God of (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) 's begotten son and baptized as the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove - many waters cannot quench love - as this story of Jesus touched those at the start of His ministry and those to follow as an everlasting river of life.
Our discussions here seem to reflect that orthodoxy attempts to contain the eternal into the temporal, as we are still of the world. Whenever such a projection is made, some things are lost that remains a mystery. Jesus as fully man and fully God is the ultimate example.
Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of the Trinity touching mortal men in an extraordinary way.
- Moses and the burning bush - again, the human world overlapping with the divine and contrary concepts fusing together.
- Moses seeing the back of God.
- Isaiah's mouth touched with hot coal.
- Elijah taken in the whirlwind.
It's a beautiful depiction that Maria represents the new ark of the covenant and Jesus the new temple. Israel builds the temple, within it the holiest of holy behind a veil, which contains the ark, which contains the tables, which contains the covenant. It's thought provoking that Jesus is placed inside of Maria, but leave it to God to turn things inside out to reveal the truth of things. This is the opposite of the demonic, which is the reversal of things.
I cannot help but think of Stephen during Acts 6-7. In front of the Sanhedrin he lays out the history of Israel (similarly the rosary lays out the Gospel) and concludes that the Most High cannot be contained by human hands.
If the chosen people of God can defile, neglect and cleanse the temporal wonderings of God, then how more can God choose the sinful to inhabit and bring forth new life in the image of God? Bless those who carry the image and reflect the beatitudes. It is thematic that sinful beings are touched by the hot coals of God, becoming ambassadors and image bearers. Likewise, some are lifted in whirlwinds and some souls are withdrew like a hair from milk. Either view on Maria does not conflict with the core creed. This should be presented with honesty and with humility.
The complexity of the perpetual virginity leaves me torn. It is difficult to comprehend how much she could have comprehended. Living life in abundance implies both joy and sorrow. It's heart wrenching the artistic depictions of the grieving mother over a broken Jesus delivered post crucifixion. The perpetual issue dwarfs in comparison. Furthermore the issue established from documented persuasions could never out weight the authentic testimonies which do not address the matter. Therefore the struggle for each person's dogmatic construction comes from an internal conviction. Hence the perpetual virginity of Maria would most likely remain a mystery in perpetuity. One of those mysteries one cannot fathom once touched by the divine.
Your next-to-last sentence: "I only tell this story as an example of the ways in which orthodoxy and individuality can combine to create a profound vision greater than either one provides alone" reminds me that binocular vision consists of input from the slightly different perspective of your two eyes - giving greater and more accurate depth perception.
While I don't agree that Mary and Joseph had an ordinary marriage, I think your proposal gets at the truth from the wrong end of the telescope and is thus a way of understanding it that is beneficial to anyone.
I grew up in a very secular household and it took me a long time to understand and accept the perpetual virginity of Mary. As I did, I came to think of it almost exactly as you wrote -- we all live in God's eternity so there's a sense that anything about us is eternal. I don't think that any more.
There's no one person or thought that made me think, "ah, I have it now!" but the one that came closest to that was a theologian (I don't remember who, Jaruslav Pelikan, maybe?) who said that by being both a virgin and a mother, Mary is uniquely herself--she doesn't belong to any man. Not to her father, not to her husband, not to her son. Not because she was a proto-feminist who hates men and no one was good enough for her, but because she belongs to God alone, and so God gave her all those things in a way no other woman has ever had them. A greater way. Sex is a good thing, but it's a thing of Earthly life that will pass away, and Mary was given MORE. She had MORE marriage and motherhood than we do. Assume Plato was right for a minute, and all women experience just slivers of the forms of "marriage," "virginity," and "motherhood." She participates in all of them at the same time, and to a greater extent. God gives her more, and gives them forever.
On a practical level, Mary bore Christ inside her for nine months and then fed him with her body for months after--it makes no sense to me to think she was the human equivalent of a lead-lined vessel impervious to the holiness of God, and just popped Him out one day and went on with her life. You're an artist, you know how artworks and buildings can give people a sense of awe and peace and holiness. I think Mary's body must have been transformed like that, but in a unique way. I don't think Joseph was just a hanger-on who followed her around like a slave because she was too holy to touch, I think she and Joseph had a marriage that was MORE than what we are granted. He had more of marriage and fatherhood than we do. Sex within marriage is a fantastic gift but it's only a shadow of what is to come, and I think they got more of what is to come.
But however we understand it, the perpetual virginity of Mary was for all intents and purposes universal East and West for most of Christian history, and so I accept it. Again, while I think your proposal is only part of the truth, that part is all true and will benefit people who come to see it that way.
Yep. My perspective is Orthodox, where Mary is our Champion Leader, the first Christian, who believed before she saw. She is likened in hymn and doctrine to the burning bush, which held God but was not consumed by him and returned to its previous physical state after God left. Her birth-giving is likened to the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, which parted for them and then returned to its original state, never to be parted again. And she is the living Ark, which contained in her not the law (10 Commandments), but the Lawgiver; not the symbol of the priesthood (Aaron's rod), but the High Priest himself; not the bread that fed the Israelites (manna), but the actual Bread of Heaven. And like the Ark, she is not to be handled lightly. Finally, from the Liturgy of St. Basil:
All of creation rejoices in you, O Full of Grace,
The assembly of Angels and the race of men.
O Sanctified Temple and Rational Paradise! O Glory of Virgins!
From you, God was incarnate and became a child, our God before the ages.
He made your body into a throne, and your womb He made more spacious than the heavens.
All of creation rejoices in you, O Full of Grace! Glory to you!
Hard to imagine a woman whose body became the throne of God then entering into quotidian sexual activity.
Beautiful! Though I am from the Roman tradition I admire and love the beauty and mysticism of Orthodox theology and prayer. It's very sad that we've been separated for 1000 years...
Beautifully expressed.
Irish-Catholic here, which means Roman Catholic, of course. In all my time in St. Philip the Apostle School, I don’t remember being taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’ll admit there’s the tiniest possibility I didn’t pay full attention in theology class(es), and there’s a distinct possibility that a hungry boy, such as I was, also did not pay the strictest attention at mass each Sunday. Consequently, it was long after college that I first heard mention of it.
Well, you know, old dogs and new tricks. I still have a difficult time believing it. Joseph accepted his young wife had not been with another man. Okay, I get that. Christ’s conception was, indeed, a miracle. But I have a most difficult time believing the Lord God expected him to also go the rest of his life without “knowing” Mary.
It is difficult to accept, but all things are possible with God. There are numerous allusions to Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, with the greeting of Elizabeth being a paraphrase of the Old Testament, and many others I will not go into here. If she indeed was the new Ark, remember what happened to the unfortunate Israelite who attempted to steady the Ark when the bearers stumbled. He died when he touched it. Was it retribution, or solely that there was so much power that no human could bear it? Joseph may have sensed the same awe, and respected it. No matter what we believe, I think we can all agree that this was a unique and extraordinary family. We do know that Joseph did heed the warnings of the Angel without question (note what happened to Zechariah). Who knows what happened? Our opinions may diverge, but I believe there is ample arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity, and that is another great evidence of St Joseph's quality.
… and the Word clearly says that Joseph “knew” Mary after she had given birth to Jesus. Pretty unambiguous statement there.
How can there be any question? We each individually are to read the Lord’s word and understand it as best we can, without making up ideas that run clearly contrary to what His Word says.
Here's something you can read from Catholic Answers for a plausible answer to the question.
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/answering-objections-to-marys-perpetual-virginity
Steve:
For me, Trent Horn provides no plausible answer at all. How can all this ratiocination and endless reasoning do any more than create confusion amongst us lay people?
What he HAS succeeded in doing here is give me an explanation for why so many people are so very confused on this subject, and many other subjects, for that matter. The leaders of the church have created that confusion, and they continue to do so in what looks like an attempt, in a sense, to deify Mary, or at least make her into some kind of saint.
A simple reading and hearing of the Lord‘s Word by the laity themselves, something that for hundreds of years the Roman Catholic Church has tried so hard to prevent… that is all the Lord God Jesus Christ, the Creator and Savior of the world, asks… that we go to His Word with a humble heart, to read and find our own understanding of what He is telling us there.
Curtis, you were given a detailed explanation, with examples, of the reasons that certain words that appear in Scripture have been misinterpreted by some (not all) Protestants — misinterpretations that have produced the disagreement that is the subject of this discussion. You choose to dismiss the contents of the explanation seemingly on the grounds that you prefer an explanation that is simple to one that is complex. Does it matter to you whether the explanation you prefer is actually correct?
When I hear you say, of Mary, that it is wrong to “make her into some kind of saint”, it’s as though I’m hearing you say “It’s not like bearing the Son of God is some kind of big deal.” The Incarnation _is_ a big deal, Curtis; arguably the biggest deal ever. And that makes Mary a big deal. Acknowledging just how big a deal she is, is the first step toward wrapping your mind around her perpetual virginity.
To Gail and Christine here:
Thank you both for your comments and constructive criticism regarding my earlier comments. I come from a very different background in faith, and at times that makes it hard for me to maintain a sensitivity to others in their faiths.
But more important, to me, undermining someone else’s life of faith can be a form of stealing, or even killing, or at least it can be an attempt at such. And it can be coming from a sense of superiority and conceit. In as much as I may have slipped into those kinds of errors, I sincerely apologize, and I thank both of you for standing strong and speaking out for what you believe. We are all in this together.
Thank you, Curtis, for your thoughtful reply. I can be abrasive when abrasiveness is not called for. Your reminder that we are not enemies is deeply appreciated!
Thanks Curtis. This is one of the reasons I like following the Klavans, and hearing from the kind of people that also follow the Klavans. We don’t always agree, but we are learning to search with love the mysteries of God together. Have a joy filled and blessed day.
Yes, Steve….
I think what I am hearing you saying here, the underlying message of all this exploration, is that INDIVIDUAL HUMAN FREEDOM is that from which all else must extend or proceed.
We might go to others to help us in our search for what is true and good, for some guidance along the path that we ourselves, choose to follow in our lives, but we must never give up our own, individual search, going to the Lord’s Word with humility and drinking there from the fountain that He has provided for us.
I believe that this is, or will be, a foundational truth, a new revelation, in the Lord’s Second Coming, so often hinted at here on this Substack.
If you find it unconvincing, it is perfectly possible to say so without insulting Catholics (and Orthodox). ("A simple reading and hearing of the Lord‘s Word by the laity themselves, something that for hundreds of years the Roman Catholic Church has tried so hard to prevent") I think it makes sense, you don't. I think 2000 years of scholars reading the Bible in a variety of ancient languages understand it better than my impression of an English translation, you trust your translation to express it correctly and your "simple" reading or hearing of it as trustworthy. It would be better and more charitable to just leave it at that.
Drew, that’s brilliant! What a perfect explanation of how Mary can remain perpetually the virgin mother, and still have a complete union in marriage with Joseph. As a practicing Catholic I, for one, can accept this as non-paradoxical truth.
I’m not Catholic and am unfamiliar with the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’d be interested to know why it is a core(?) tenet of faith. Why is it important to believe she and Joseph didn’t have a normal marriage after the birth of Christ? My reading of the Gospels has never suggested that to me; in fact, it suggests otherwise. From Matthew 1:24-25:
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
That “till” means something obvious to me. How else can it be explained?
I have replied to so many comments here that I feel as if I'm arguing, but I'm not. I'm just happy to explain. This isn't a "Catholic" position, it is the historical position of the entire Church. It was written about as early as about 150 but is older than that, and was generally accepted by the 400s. All Christians believed this before the Great Schism, and both the Churches in union with Rome and the Eastern Churches still do. Many "Reformers" thought so -- Luther believed and taught it, Calvin (see below) specifically refused to say it wasn't true. Mary NOT being perpetually virgin is the new, and therefore unusual, position. As far as the word "until" goes, a better question might be why people for 1600 years all didn't think it means what most Protestants now think it does. They thought Matthew was clearly maintaining Jesus's divine origins by saying Jesus could not have been his son because Joseph didn't have sex with her at any time before Jesus's birth.
Here's what Calvin said about that quote: "This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."
I’m sorry Jerome but it seems pretty bleedin’ obvious to me. I still don’t quite understand how they came to this conclusion.
Well, we will just have to disagree on that. You have your interpretation of that passage and the entire historic Church around the world has its. But the question of why they came to to that conclusion has an answer: It's because Matthew was not writing about Mary and Joseph's married life together, he was writing about Jesus's conception. As Calvin (writing far later than Jerome) says, "What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers." He means that this is how they wrote back then, whether we would write it that way or not. The Gospel writers didn't write about a lot of things we want to know. Acts ends without "the end" that we expect it to have.
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Gail. I’ll confess to not being terribly convinced by Jerome’s insistence that it’s all a misunderstanding based on how they wrote back then.
More to the point, I don’t understand why any church would be so invested in Mary remaining a virgin. The true significance of her virginity as the mother of Jesus is that He was not conceived with Joseph, which would have made Him merely human. After Jesus was born the need for Mary to continue as a virgin was moot. I think the “until” serves to establish the Divinity of Jesus’s true Father and also suggests that Mary went on to live fully as a wife to Joseph, bearing half siblings to Jesus. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm no expert on it so I can't tell you all the reasons the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have considered it important since the earliest days, only that they have considered it important since the earliest days. For my part, I don't understand why most Protestant and non-denominational Christians are so determined to think that once Jesus was born Mary was no one special, and that she and Joseph were just ordinary. It seems to me to be a misplaced fear of not honoring Jesus enough.
I can assure, as a bloke, Joseph would not have hung around if he wasn’t getting any. Especially as Jews could divorce over such things. It doesn’t matter if it’s today or 2000 years ago. Blokes are all the same.
Well, that's a view, all right. Thanks for sharing.
"I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary."
To those who do hold to this, a small question. How did St. James happen?
For many years, the traditional answer was that St. Joseph was a widower and had children by his first wife. There are extra-biblical writings to that effect, some going back to about the year 150, and it's entirely possible. Today "extra-Biblical writings" aren't considered very important, but for many years Christians had no problem with them and many still call Mary's parents Anne and Joachim (which come from an extra-Biblical source), or praying the doxology from the Didache ("For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory..."). However, better understanding of the languages of the day tells us the more probable answer, and demonstrating it doesn't depend on texts outside Scripture.
At the time, people used the word "brother" to a number of close relatives (in-laws, half siblings, cousins, etc.) and even to close friends. This is nothing unusual--for example, in medieval and renaissance England, people used the word "cousin" to mean all sorts of relatives, and even in the 1800s people commonly referred to brothers- and sisters-in-law as brother and sister.
At the time, Greek and Aramaic didn't have a word that meant "cousin" specifically, they either used "brother" or specifically spelled out relationship (who was married to who, or the son of who, etc.). Although Greek did have a specific word for "cousin" in use at the time, Greek-speaking people in Israel and surrounding areas used the Greek "adelphos" in the same loose sense, so the Septuagint translation of the Bible uses "brother" that way (all the way through, not just in the Gospels--Abraham calls Lot "brother," for instance).
You can see it here in the Gospels: While Mark calls James and Joseph/Joses "brothers of Jesus," Matthew refers to their mother (Mary) as being at the cross WITH Mary... (along with other people named Mary!). Mathew wouldn't have written about "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" at all if she were the same person as Jesus's mother--it doesn't make sense.
Beyond that, if James (and Joseph/Joses) and Jesus had the same mother, Jesus would not have had to tell John to take care of Mary when he died--his brothers would have done that automatically.
OH OH! I may have learned something!
I'm Scared. HOLD ME! :-)
Ha ha ha ha!
In Orthodox Christianity, whose understandings about Mary can be traced to the first century, it is understood that St. James is not Mary's son, but is Joseph's. He was old and apparently widowed when he married the Theotokos (the God-carrier). Once you've carried God in the flesh, no other childbearing is necessary to prove your femininity.
Thank You.
Welcome to the fold! As a lifelong Catholic, and a survivor of 12 years of catholic education, mostly with nuns in the 60's who were short on explanations and long on rote obedience, the rosary made little sense to me, and never held my attention. Last year we attended a pre-Lenten retreat with a priest who had a fervent Marian focus, and spoke so movingly about the worth of the rosary that I prayed my first rosary in years that night, and haven't stopped since. It is an excellent contemplative tool, and may it lead you to even greater peace.
I would recommend that you and your son, and anyone else interested, make a trip (I hesitate to call it a pilgrimage) to Fatima and Lourdes. Things may surprise you there. Pope Saint John Paul II had a great devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and there are excellent writings further fleshing out her as Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is also our mother, and a truly loving one, who has visited periodically and sent lessons, always devoted to her Son.
I recommend a daily rosary, with the mysteries, for getting away for about 15 minutes and allowing her love to envelop you and with it, the love of her Son. She always emphasizes that her goal is to bring all of mankind to her Son.
Let this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, to paraphrase our favorite movie.
Well and beautifully said ❤️🙏😇
We no longer need an intercessory to reach God on our behalf. Jesus rent the veil between us and Our Holy Father. Now we are able to pray directly to God. It is good to pray in Jesus name to give us credentials that we believe in Christ.
Matthew 27:50-51 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
I attend a former Episcopal church that joined the Catholic Church in 2013. Despite being located in the US, many attendees hold royalist sentiments (some even ardent monarchists), and so a Requiem Mass was held for Queen Elizabeth II. In the homily, the priest noted that the Queen witnessed more for Christ in her messages to the people than any other head of state outside the Vatican. The priest also clarified that the Queen’s role had been “Marian”, that like Mary, she pointed to Jesus (look at most Orthodox icons of the Theotokos: Mary points our attention for Christ).
I have found that praying the Rosary’s Sorrowful Mysteries can be a powerful ritual for grief: I won’t promise that it will cure the pain, just that it can be a powerful experience.
We humans are “made for eternity yet stranded in time and weary of struggling with sin’ (Michael Card’s lyric). We long for certainty, for clear answers to our many questions. Yet, as Job realizes God, the Redeemer who is present, is the answer Himself. We also wrestle with mystery and paradox.
Here is a wry Catholic joke for you, Drew. When asked whether Catholics actually worship the Virgin Mary, a Catholic answered, “No, silly. We only worship statues of Mary.” 😂😇🤣
If I may, I'll take the joke one step further. The Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid tells the story of driving on to the campus of a catholic church, and there were statues of Mary, and the three children of Fatima...Lucia, Jucinta, and Francisco kneeling to Mary. Patrick Madrid's quip was....."What a great religion we have, even our stutues worship statues."
So good. I will definitely be sharing this with friends.
Ha ha ha!!!
Mrs Dave has started praying the rosary. I’m still not sure what to think about it. I’m pretty sure we’re not meant to communicate with the dead. So much catholic stuff seems really wrong to me.
Here’s a quick thought:
One might think of Mary as being the affection for truth within us, and we might pray that the tiny seed of the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself be conceived in us, in that beautiful, humbly feminine and fertile ground that is the affection for truth.
Me not that clever
…no need to be real clever. The affection for truth is that part of our mind that wants so much to bring the truth of the Lord’s Word, the Lord Himself, to life in us, in our everyday mundane lives.
Vision trumps any narrative. So try to have it both ways and truth will make you tremble. If you lack wisdom, ask God. No power in beads, no power in idols. God is all powerful, has all truth and is a loving Father to us all. He will reveal what is expedient for you to know. Happy seeking.
It's unlikely that a comment box would contain my gratitude for this Letter piece and its subsequent comments from subscribers. The Word, Jesus the Christ, the Son of Man, the God of (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) 's begotten son and baptized as the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove - many waters cannot quench love - as this story of Jesus touched those at the start of His ministry and those to follow as an everlasting river of life.
Our discussions here seem to reflect that orthodoxy attempts to contain the eternal into the temporal, as we are still of the world. Whenever such a projection is made, some things are lost that remains a mystery. Jesus as fully man and fully God is the ultimate example.
Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of the Trinity touching mortal men in an extraordinary way.
- Moses and the burning bush - again, the human world overlapping with the divine and contrary concepts fusing together.
- Moses seeing the back of God.
- Isaiah's mouth touched with hot coal.
- Elijah taken in the whirlwind.
It's a beautiful depiction that Maria represents the new ark of the covenant and Jesus the new temple. Israel builds the temple, within it the holiest of holy behind a veil, which contains the ark, which contains the tables, which contains the covenant. It's thought provoking that Jesus is placed inside of Maria, but leave it to God to turn things inside out to reveal the truth of things. This is the opposite of the demonic, which is the reversal of things.
I cannot help but think of Stephen during Acts 6-7. In front of the Sanhedrin he lays out the history of Israel (similarly the rosary lays out the Gospel) and concludes that the Most High cannot be contained by human hands.
If the chosen people of God can defile, neglect and cleanse the temporal wonderings of God, then how more can God choose the sinful to inhabit and bring forth new life in the image of God? Bless those who carry the image and reflect the beatitudes. It is thematic that sinful beings are touched by the hot coals of God, becoming ambassadors and image bearers. Likewise, some are lifted in whirlwinds and some souls are withdrew like a hair from milk. Either view on Maria does not conflict with the core creed. This should be presented with honesty and with humility.
The complexity of the perpetual virginity leaves me torn. It is difficult to comprehend how much she could have comprehended. Living life in abundance implies both joy and sorrow. It's heart wrenching the artistic depictions of the grieving mother over a broken Jesus delivered post crucifixion. The perpetual issue dwarfs in comparison. Furthermore the issue established from documented persuasions could never out weight the authentic testimonies which do not address the matter. Therefore the struggle for each person's dogmatic construction comes from an internal conviction. Hence the perpetual virginity of Maria would most likely remain a mystery in perpetuity. One of those mysteries one cannot fathom once touched by the divine.
Your next-to-last sentence: "I only tell this story as an example of the ways in which orthodoxy and individuality can combine to create a profound vision greater than either one provides alone" reminds me that binocular vision consists of input from the slightly different perspective of your two eyes - giving greater and more accurate depth perception.
Unfortunately this violates the law of non-contradiction, which even God can’t do, because half of a contradiction is a lie.