Why do non-Catholics object to the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Question

I have fundamentalist relatives who are always quoting Matthew 13:55. It is clear to me that they are not quoting this verse out of love or concern, but rather to offend Our Lady, the Mother of Our Lord. Why should it matter if Mary is Ever Virgin. Does it take away from the Majesty of Our Lord? Does it harm Christian Faith? I just don't understand these constant attacks against Mother Mary.

Countless times I have explained to my fundamentalist relatives that the original term in the Scripture, "adelphoi" refers to any male relative, including cousins, nephews, uncles, et al.

It is also interesting to note that the Fathers of the Protestant Reformation, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, all believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Luther said: "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

Calvin said: "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

The_Cricket, had all of the Adelphoi been cousins of Jesus, then I agree, the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would have been used in Matthew 13:55. However, the point was that the "brothers" were male relatives, not exclusively cousins.

Christian 3412. You can thank the mistranslation to His Royal Highness, King James I. All english versions copied his translation errors.

It is also interesting to not that those in Matthew 13, who claimed to know Jesus' "brothers and sisters" were in fact denying Jesus' divinity. Think about that for a minute.

fix the typo, that is, interesting to "note"

Answer 1

It might be interesting for you to know that there is an Ayah (verse) in the Quran, stating that Maryam (Mary) was pure and not touched (meaning she was a virgin when she begat Jesus).

But you must accept that we humans have a lot of trouble believing strange things, especially when they happened in the far past, and when they pertain to delicate matters such as sex, virginity, etc.

I tend to say: Believe in that which makes you strong, and which makes you know yourself better. All the rest can be discarded.


In Love and Light.

Answer 2

The biggest reason that I object to the teaching you are asking about is that it detracts from the worship of God, the Father of Jesus. I have utmost respect for Mary, who was a spiritually minded woman, and set a wonderful example for Christian women today. However, I do not worship her.
There is no inconsistency with this doctrine in the Bible itself. Simply stated, the scriptures do not ever say that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth. Nor do they refer to her as "the mother of God".
When the angel Gabriel spoke to Joseph after he learned that she was pregnant, the account tells us that he then "took his wife home. But he had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus." - Matt. 1:24, 25 It does not state that he never had intercourse with her. That was not stated as a requirement in any scripture.
Matt. 13:55 is not the only scripture that refers to his "brothers", and interestingly, The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) admits regarding the Greek words a·del·phoi′ and a·del·phai′, used at Matthew 13:55, 56, that these “have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense.
Personally, I do not think that what the Fathers of the Protestant Reformation believed matters at all, since what truly matters is what the Bible teaches.

Answer 3

It's not that they object to the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, but that they object to her altogether -- except as the unavoidable means by which Jesus was born. They are extremely uncomfortable with mention of Mary in any other context, and truth be known they'd prefer to just shuttle her off to the side completely (except that she might make a brief appearance during the Christmas season -- somebody has to be in that creche with the baby).

To them she was a vessel, nothing more, certainly nothing special, just an ordinary human being aside from that one completely extraordinary event in her life. They work very hard at underscoring this.

All of this great effort to downplay Mary -- perpetual virginity quite aside -- has little to do with the fear that esteem, reverence and devotional affection for her will somehow take away from what is rightfully her Son's. That's just a handy hook upon which to hang objections and a smokescreen for the reality: They wish to do everything possible to distance themselves from the Catholic Church. And very little else is as visibly, distinctly Catholic as devotion to Mary.

That's why we hear certain objections over and over -- with "worshipping Mary", etc., topping the list. It's part of the Reformation, Puritan and Anabaptist legacy, a drop or two of which exists in most present-day fundamentalist and evangelical groups. As such, it's rather firmly entrenched.

Answer 4

I don't have any problem with people holding to that belief. What I do have a problem with is the Catholic Church's idea that not believing it makes someone a heretic. Whether or not Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus' birth is completely irrelevant to his saving sacrifice and gracious forgiveness of sin. I also wonder, if those brothers of Jesus are really his cousins, why are they always around their aunt Mary? Why aren't they with their own mother?

Answer 5

Actually, I agree with you regarding the proper understanding of "adelphoi." I offer an additional argument in your favor: Jesus "gave" Mary to the Apostle John, telling him that this was now his mother. In Jesus' time, if Mary had any adult sons or daughters, they would have been expected to care for her. Therefore, Jesus' action implies there were no other children to look after Mary.

However, to my understanding, Matthew 1:24-25 conclusively tells us that Mary and Joseph lived as a normal married couple, including having sexual relations, after she gave birth to Jesus: "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS."

In Biblical times, the phrase "know her" was a euphemism for having had sex with her. Clearly, Joseph was "aquainted with" Mary before they lived together as husband and wife, so this passage was not implying that he had only just met her.

EDIT: By the way, I reject Calvin's explanation that Matthew 1:25 doesn't imply Mary and Joseph lived as a normal couple after Jesus' birth. He was thinking like a Gentile when he wrote this, not like a Jew.

Answer 6

I am not interested in what Calvin or Luther had to say, or the myths inherent in the Catholic church.

Scripture says she had other children after Jesus; that Joseph had relations with her after Jesus was born.

Or are you prepared to claim Jesus' brothers and sisters were Saviours born of a virgin also?

.

Answer 7

Hello, Simply put, much has to do with the concept that her vagina and womb had been the pure, undefiled temple for God / Jesus. Some other man coming along after wards and having sex would essentially defile that temple. Cheers, Michael Kelly

Answer 8

because she had children............................ who were not immaculately conceived
Matthew 13
55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6
3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.


they didn't like him much according to the above =


MATTHEW 27
55And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:

56Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

1 The clear distinction is made between the two MArys.
2 the children are again identified as Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) PBUH

No one is attacking Mary they are merely correcting another Catholic heresy.

Mark 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Mark 16:1-3 (in Context) Mark 16

Answer 9

The Greek word that was translated as "brothers" is ἀδελφός, which DOES mean brother.

The Greek word that means "cousin" is ἀνέψιος.

Two completely different words.

If the men called Jesus' brothers in Matthew 13:55 had been COUSINS of Jesus, I'm pretty sure the second word would have been used, not the first.

But you can go on believing Mary stayed a virgin, if you'd like.

Answer 10

Personally I think that question can go both ways, does it affect your belief to see that Mary may not have stayed a virgin?

I mean, realistically, Mary was married to Joseph, so she would have been expected to provide for him in all wifely manners. Plus, it does refer to Jesus' brothers. granted that word can mean othe family, however our forefathers who translated the bible under heavy prayer and learning did think it most accurate to translate it "brother."

I just don't think stuff like that should truly skew someones faith so much. Its not that big a deal either way. As long as your core beliefs are Strong the rest are just opinions.