I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus. What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?

I am asking this question because the entire comment thread in which I asked the question appears to have gone missing, including references to Aquinas (*Summa Theologica* q. 35 a. 6 ), Ludwig Ott (*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* bk. 3, pt. 3, ch. 2, §5, 2.), Pohle (*Mariology* pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, Theses II), and others. Wikipedia lists St. Lucia of Syracuse (283-304) as the patron saint of of the blind within Roman Catholicism. She is venerated, along with St. Agnes (patron saint of virgins) among Roman Catholics, Anglican, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox churches. She is one of only 8 women explicitly commemorated by Roman Catholics in the Canon of the Mass. There is, within the tradition regarding St. Lucia, the possibility that she was assigned to defilement within a brothel by the Governor of Syracuse. Paschasius ordered her to burn a sacrifice to the emperor's image. When she refused, Paschasius sentenced her to be defiled in a brothel; a particularly heinous crime against someone who had dedicated her chastity to God. In a question regarding the Catholic tradition that Mary (Jesus' mother) did not suffer pain in childbirth (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7451/where-does-the-catholic-tradition-that-mary-did-not-have-pain-giving-birth-to-je?noredirect=1#comment225832_7451) , included in the comments of a particular answer, came the assertion that, even if Lucia was raped and even if she had survived and produced a child from this violation, she would still be honored by name in the Catholic Mass as a martyred virgin even though her bodily integrity was ruined . This was explained as because an intact hymen is accidental to virginity while the commitment of the will is essential to virginity. In other words the taking of sexual liberty by force and against one's will does nothing to impinge upon one's state of virginity even though it may change the state of one's bodily integrity. Therefore the state of one's bodily integrity has nothing to say, directly, to one's virginal condition. The reference to St. Lucia came about as the bodily integrity of Mary (i.e. no ruptured hymen in childbirth) was indicated as integral to her "perpetual virginity" which is in turn linked to her sinlessness which is in turn linked to her painless childbirth. It seems to me, however, that if an intact hymen is accidental to virginity then a ruptured hymen must surely be accidental to the birth of a virginally conceived child. If St. Lucia would still retain her virginal status in the eyes of the Catholic Church regardless of the state of her bodily integrity following rape, why is it so important for Mary's bodily integrity to remain intact as regards her "perpetual" virginity during childbirth?

Roman Catholics believe that the virgin Mary was not only a virgin up until her birth of Christ, but remained a perpetual virgin until her death, but doesn't Matthew 1:25 affirm that Mary and Jospeh did in fact have sexual relations? Matthew 1:25 reads: > And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he > called his name Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 (NIV): > But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. > καὶ (and) οὐκ (not) ἐγίνωσκεν (he knew) αὐτήν (her) ἕως (until) οὗ (she) ἔτεκε (gave birth) υἱόν (a son) καὶ (and) ἐκάλεσεν (he called) τὸ (the) ὄνομα (name) αὐτοῦ (of him) Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) This verse could be read to imply that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after Mary gave birth to Jesus. How do the traditions of the Catholic church interpret this verse? Specifically, I am interested in a teaching of the Catholic church itself (not a Catholic apologist) that explicitly argues against interpreting this verse in that manner, if any exists. I did search before I asked this and I found several questions relating to this verse (unsurprisingly!) but I could not find one that asked this exact question. Even so, I do apologise if this is a duplicate.

I have heard a story about Mary being the "Ever Virgin" and it started out with her parents presenting her at the temple as a virgin and she stayed a virgin for the rest of her life, even after giving birth to Christ. My question: **Did the Herodian Temple have virgins similar to temple dedicated to some of the Greek gods and goddesses?**

Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, even after marrying Joseph. It would seem that Joseph and Mary, at their betrothal, had likely expected to have, and anticipated having marital relations with each other in marriage. So, according to Roman Catholic teaching, when and how did Mary and Joseph learn that marital relations would be denied them? Did they just never desire that, or did they specifically have to battle the temptation? It admittedly seems strange to me that this would be withheld from them. Is it even right to say they were not supposed to have marital relations? Or should it be said that they never even desired that?

## Motivation I have difficulty, personally, believing in the **perpetual virginity of Mary**. I do not begrudge anyone else believing that doctrine; I cannot imagine that it affects a person's salvation either way. But, to the best of my understanding, a straightforward reading of Matthew 1.25 rules it out: >but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. On the other hand, I do respect the authority, indeed the infallibility, of the Ecumenical Councils. I was a bit shocked, then, to read today that the Fifth Ecumenical Council, alias the **Second Council of Constantinople**, made belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary mandatory for anyone calling himself a Christian. I would be grateful, therefore, for any help in resolving my consequent cognitive dissonance. *I would prefer, however, for any given answer to this question to focus on the interpretation of the canons of Second Council of Constantinople, and not my reading (or misreading) of scripture. Matthew 1.25 has been discussed many times elsewhere; the Second Council of Constantinople has not.* ## The Second Council of Constantinople According to this translation , Canon 2 of the Fifth Ecumenical council states: >If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema. After a bit of reflection, I think I understand from this: 1. The bishops who drew up this canon believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. 1. The canon anathematises those who fail to acknowledge Mary as **Mother of God** but it does not anathematise, explicitly at least, anyone failing to acknowledge Mary as Ever-Virgin. Canon 2, on the other hand, does seem to come a bit closer to an explicit anathematisation of those denying Mary the title of Ever-Virgin: >If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. But, again, the anathema, at least to my mind, seems to be aimed at a Christological heresy rather than a Mariological one, at whether, through Mary, God was born of a woman, rather than at whether the Mother of God ever slept with her husband. Although it is also clear that the bishops present at the council did believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. (Mary is also called Ever-Virgin in several other canons, but I do not have anything to say about those canons which I have not said already.) ## Summation I wholeheartedly believe that Mary is the Mother of God in precisely the Christological sense outlined in the canons of the Second Council of Constantinople. Therefore, it seems that, despite not believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I am not liable to any of the anathemas (anathemata?) of said canons. But is that just casuistry and/or wishful thinking on my part? (One final thing: it seems that the text of the canons was not preserved in the original Greek, but only in a single Latin manuscript, which was not rediscovered until the 1980s. Does this have any bearing on the authority of the canons in the form in which we have them today?)

Protestants often used Matthew 1:25 as proof text that Mary did not remain a perpetual virginity after her marriage to Joseph, but did any of the Early Church Fathers interpret or understand this verse as NOT speaking in a sexual sense? therefore perserving her virginity. >And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. [Matthew 1:25 KJV] >And he knew her not, till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. [Matthew 1:25 Douay Rheims] >και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν [Matthew 1:25 TR] >et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum [Matthew 1:25 Vulgate]

Regardless of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary acknowledged as dogma by most Christians, which would necessitate a different interpretation of the words "brother" and "sister", who all is referred to in the Bible as Jesus' brother or sister and how many people would that have been, in total, had they all been children of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary? Does anybody actually claim to be a brother or sister by virtue of being children of either Joseph or Mary?

What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that Mary is holy? Most other denominations don't hold to doctrines like perpetual virginity. They see Mary as special because she was chosen by God but are unlike Catholicism which seems to teach that she is holy in a way that other denominations don't. I don't understand the basis for this. Can you please explain?

According to Catholicism: 1. **When Mary delivered Jesus from her womb, she labored without pain**; see Catholic Answers articles [Was Mary Free from Labor Pain?](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-mary-free-from-labor-pain) and [Evidence for Mary's Painless Childbirth](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evidence-for-marys-painless-childbirth) . 2. **Mary is the Queen of Heaven according to Rev 12:1-6**; see Catholic Answers article [Is Mary the Woman in Revelation 12](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-mary-the-woman-in-revelation-12) . Then how do Catholics explain Rev 12:1-6 which clearly refers to the birth of Jesus with the usual labor pain: > 1 Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 **She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth**. ... 5 **She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod.** And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.

I tried this question earlier and it was closed due to so many other similar questions but, having looked through I didn't find an answer. What, if any, is the **salvific benefit** of the perpetual virginity of Mary? In other words, having been born of a virgin according to prophesy and all other parts of the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and coming again of Christ remaining the same, is our salvation in Christ lessened in some way if Mary has moral and lawful intercourse with her husband?

According to Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, Ezekiel 44:1-2 >And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut is a prophecy of the blessed Virgin Mary. They believe that this is not only a biblical belief but an historical one and claim that St. Augustine believed and taught that Ezekiel 44:1-2 is a prophecy of Mary, therefore confirming the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is this in any way true?

Both Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe that the blessed Virgin Mary remained a virgin not only until she had given birth to the Lord but for her entire life, but most Protestants use Matthew 1:25 as evidence that Mary did have sexual relations with Joseph, but what arguments do Catholics and Orthodox Christians use against Matthew 1:25 disproving the perpetual virginity of Mary? Matthew 1:25 reads: > And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he > called his name Jesus. I would really like to hear this perspective from Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

Catholicism interprets that Ezekiel 44:2 is about the blessed Virgin Mary and shows evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but did any Early Church Fathers believe that Ezekiel 44:2 is about or prophesies Mary? Ezekiel 44:2 reads: > Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be > opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of > Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck, in his *Reformed Dogmatics*, III, §366, briefly deals with Mary's perpetual virginity, and touches on the doctrine's history: > We do not yet find this idea of Mary's continuing virginity during and after the the birth of Jesus in the church fathers before Nicea. Tertullian, Origen, and Irenaeus do not yet attest a virginity in childbirth, and Tertullian also rejects the virginity after the birth. Bavinck seems to discount the Protevangelium of James as not being the work of a church father, and for not mentioning Mary's continued virginity after Jesus' birth. He then goes on to identify a wide variety of post-Nicene authors who teach Mary's virginity both *during* and *after* the birth. This understanding seems to contradict Wikipedia, which cites a Karl Rahner's 2004 *Encyclopedia of theology* when it says: > Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes. In light of this disagreement, **I'd like to know which church father was first to teach the complete doctrine, that is, the virginity of Mary both *during* and *after* the birth of Jesus.** I don't think it will matter, but we can include Tertullian and Origen as church fathers here. And as always, primary sources will be much appreciated.

Protestants and Catholics both share the belief in the virgin birth - that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But many people think the scriptures are also clear scripture that Jesus had brothers, and that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born, meaning that they did have sex later on. Against these views, what is the Biblical Basis for the doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I'm happy to have answers from anyone, but the scriptures should be from the Protestant canon.

Roman Catholics believe that the blessed Mary not only was a virgin up until the birth of Christ but remained a perpetual virgin from then until the moment of her death. What is the biblical basis for this?

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy have the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary . Protestants generally don't have that belief. What are the main arguments Protestants use against the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary? This question is the opposite of this one .

How did St. Jerome defend the Blessed Virgin's virginity *post partum* in light of Matt. 1:25 , which says St. Joseph "knew her not **till** she brought forth her firstborn son"?