Why do Catholics feel the need to keep Mary virgin forever?

Question

I have heard that some of Catholics believe that the children Mary and Hoseph had were from Joseph's previous mariage?

What kind of proof they have to support these claims that Mary remained virgin and Joseph had previous marriage?

LOL, edit: not Hoseph but Joseph

Answer 1

From our modern sensibility, it seems like there would be nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having a sexual relationship after Jesus was born. But Mary and Joseph were not 21st century Christian or secularist people. They were 1st century Jews, so you have to look at the situation like a 1st Century Jews.

To do this, you need to study up on the Old Testament and see where God's presence is physical and how people react to it. You look at Moses having to veil his face, you look at the elaborate purification that Jewish priests went through just to enter the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle once a year, you look at how just *touching* the Ark of the Covenant could kill a person who was not purified.

For Mary and Joseph, knowing that the Holy Spirit of God had come upon her and knowing that God's only begotten Son was living inside her, her womb had become the New Ark of the Covenant. Her womb had become the new Most Holy Place. I know that *we* don't think of her that way in our modern ideas, but that's how *they* would have thought as 1st Century Jews.

For that reason, Joseph, being a godly man, surely would have voluntarily maintained a commitment to celibacy throughout his marriage to Mary.

The Bible NEVER says that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, even thought he Bible does say that other couples did, (David and Bathsheba for one). Without a verse that says Mary and Joseph had sex, it's only an ASSUMPTION that Mary and Joseph had sex, and if you look at the situation for 1st Century Jews, it would be a ridiculous assumption. Joseph wasn't going to have sex with God's bride!

Some people throw out the verse that says Joseph didn't lay with Mary until Jesus was born, but that doesn't work. That sentence is only proof that Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father. "Until" means "up to the point of" but it doesn't mean that things automatically changed afterwards. It doesn't mean, "up to the point of but not after." Case in point -- the Bible says in 2 Sam 6:23, "Michale the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death." This doesn't mean she had children after her death, does it? Of course not.

Another thing people throw out as "proof" that Mary and Joseph had more kids is the "firstborn" title given to Jesus. First of all, only children are also first children. They're not second or middle or last-born children are they? An only child can only be a firstborn. Second, you have to think like a first century Jew again -- the firstborn son had a great responsibility to his family, so this is a title that was given to all male children who were born first to a couple, even if they had only sisters born after them and even if they had no siblings at all.

Finally, we have the brothers of Jesus. Their births are NOT recorded in Scripture. The Bible never says that Mary gave birth to any one of them. And when Jesus was "lost" at age 12 and Mary and Joseph hurried back on a dangerous journey to Jerusalem and then spent a whole day looking for Jesus, they had no younger kids in tow. Without birth control, how could they have possibly gone 12 years without having another baby if they were having sex? They should have at least had one nursing baby with them, possibly a toddler, too, even if they'd left the 10, 8, 6 and 4 year olds with relatives.

Obviously, these brothers were NOT younger than Jesus, because if they would have been, either their births would have been recorded OR Joseph would have returned to Jerusalem alone and left Mary and the little kids in the safety of the caravan when Jesus was "lost" OR they would have had the younger kids with them.

Which means, probably, that the brothers were all older than Jesus -- Joseph's children from a previous marriage that left him widowed, as the most ancient belief has always stated (Eastern Orthodox Christian teaching). Either that, or they were adopted/foster kids -- women died in childbirth rather frequently before 1800, so it's entirely possible that Joseph and Mary were taking in nephews or other relatives to raise when the kids were orphaned.

Regardless, though, the BIBLE does not say that Mary and Joseph had sex and the BIBLE does not say that Mary had any child other than Jesus, so people who say so are only speculating. And I think if you're going to speculate about what Mary and Joseph did, you have to look at it as 1st Century Jews instead of modern people. Furthermore, this theory that Mary and Joseph had sex & kids is fairly modern. Luther, Wesley and the other reformers believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, too.

Answer 2

I grew up with the belief that Catholics are indeed Christians since they believe Jesus is God and have the whole concept of the Trinity, baptism, and holy communion. Basically they have all the sacraments that Protestants do. When in college I asked this guy what religion he was (I was in San Antonio, TX - land of hispanics and thus a strong Catholic base). He told me he was Catholic. I said, "Oh! You're Christian then." He said, "No, I'm Catholic." I was apalled. Never before had I heard that and I thought he was nuts. Catholics have some questionable teachings but they are still Christians.

Answer 3

Untill 1854 Catholics could choose freely to believe or not to belive in the immaculate conception of Mary.
Pius IX declared the dogma about the virginity. Yes the same pope who called the Jew of Rome dogs, had their rights restricted and kidnapped a little Jewish boy he held as a pet.

Have a nice day

Answer 4

Well, I'm not Catholic but the term "Virgin Mary" as it applies to the mother of Jesus refers to the fact that Jesus was a miracle conception. Whether or not Mary was a virgin after that is not relevant.

Answer 5

none of the Catholics I have spoken to said that Joseph has other children.

Answer 6

I think it is due to the belief of the immaculate conception. From her conception (not Jesus ) Mary was free from the original sin to be the mother of Jesus and keeping her a virgin perpetuates that sinless life.

Answer 7

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her "not until")
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

Answer 8

It is a traditional belief, though scripturally unfounded in the Catholic Church. Most important though is have they accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I have many Catholic friends who Love the Lord. Some have recognized the erroneous teachings of Mary, some haven't yet. I leave that job to God and I just go on loving my bro's and sis's in Christ!

Answer 9

This is the kind of issue I have with the Catholic church. They change things around to fit to their religion. The same way as JWs.

But I do not have to be worried about their salvation because they accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and that is great.

Deeds condemn us, and that is why we need the great mercy and grace of God for our salvation.

Answer 10

One Sacred Tradition.
Two: The texts that talk about Jesus' Siblings uses the same word that could mean Cousins or Brothers or sisters.