GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin? (InquisitorKind v marciadietrich)

[dizzle]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the debate between InquisitorKind and marciadietrich on the perpetual virginity of Mary located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=93648#post93648

Bottles are prohibited, face paint is encouraged.

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[ChristianCreed]

I think InquisitorKind has pulled a fantastic first start.

[spl_cadet]

But we Catholics will win.

We have our ways after all :teeth:

[TheFiveSolas]

spl,

But InquisitorKind has super powers, his alias is The UberProtestant! :rofl: So unless you have SolaSkryptonite the Catholics will be defeated.

[Socrates]

I thought IQ argued very well. He used sound exegesis; the contrary position must resort to eisegesis to defend a preconceived idea and explain away the contrary Biblical evidence.

[Solly]

Is there a definition of what Catholics mean by Perpetual Virginity?

Even if it is the case that Mary had no more children, how does that argue for perpetual virginity, other than the fact that Joseph was such a saint? It seems to be reading into the issue later RCC ideas on chastity and the reclusive orders.

There is also Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?

Despite the fact that it was a society with extended families, yet it is surely significant that these brothers and sisters are mentioned in the same breath with Mary.

James went on to play a leading role in the early church, and it seems that the others are named because they also were known, just as Luke mentioned Alexander and Rufus.

[Socrates]

After the AiG article The Virginal Conception of Christ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4262apol_v2-1994.asp).

Perpetual virginity or Virginitas post partum. This is not asserted before the Protoevangelium of James. Tertullian, despite his ascetic leanings, strongly opposed this doctrine as well.

Roman Catholics justify this doctrine on the basis of Mary’s statement to Gabriel, ‘I know not a man.’ (Lk. 1:34). They interpret this to mean, ‘I have taken a vow never to know a man.’ This eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 394), but there are two difficulties here: first, the verb to know (ginòskò) is in the present active indicative, which should not be read as a future intention, and second, she was already betrothed to Joseph (v. 27).

Mt. 1:25: ‘[Joseph] knew her not until she had borne a son’ also rules out a sexless marriage — deleting the words after ‘not’ would have been the correct way to teach this. And it is totally contrary to any Jewish ideas of betrothal for Mary to have made a vow of chastity while also agreeing to marry someone. I think Solly is right that later ascetics tried to read their ideas into Scripture rather than let Scripture teach them.

[Jin-Roh]

IQ made some incredible points.
I'd really hate to be on the other end of that debate :shy:
I haven't read "who is my Mother" but I plan to sometime in the future.

[Reasonable]

There's no way IQ can beat a Catholic on this subject. (And I'm not Catholic and I agree with IQ's arguments) The fundamental ground work for any debate is to have a foundation on which acceptable arguments can be based. IQ probably believes Sola Scripture or a variant of it while Catholics do not. The only way IQ can really make headway in this debate is to
1.) Prove that our beliefs should be rooted in Scripture alone or
2.) Rename the debate to "Do the Scriptures Say Mary was a Perpetual Virgin?"

Catholics don't have to PROVE that the Bible says Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. All they have to do is have SOME arguments (no matter how unlikely) for saying the Scriptures do not DISPROVE such an idea. IQ's arguments are very good and, based on the Bible alone, there's no serious argument for the Catholic position. But throw in the infallibility of the Pope, Tradition and the authority of the Church and most Catholics will shrug off IQ's arguments because if there is even one millionth of a chance it could mean "step-brothers", "cousins", or anything else, the Catholic position remains possible. After all, a common argument from the RCC is 'it was the Catholic Church that told IQ what Scriptures were inspired in the first place.'

I look forward to seeing Marcia's response. Maybe she has arguments different from what I've seen before.

[spl_cadet]

Go Marcia, Go Marcia, Go Marcia :teeth:
:thumb:

[rogerthomas]

While most use matthew 1:25"and he did not know her until she brought forth her firstborn son." They do not take into account that the original meaning of the word "until" did not imply an eventuality, but rather deliminated time...I would call your attention to 2nd samuel. All of the protestant arguments are easily voided in the same manner.

[Solly]

Today @ 09:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95882#post95882)
rogerthomas:

While most use matthew 1:25"and he did not know her until she brought forth her firstborn son." They do not take into account that the original meaning of the word "until" did not imply an eventuality, but rather deliminated time...I would call your attention to 2nd samuel. All of the protestant arguments are easily voided in the same manner.

heōs
heh'-oce
Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).

This does not imply that they did nothing afterwards, just that nothing happened until, up to the time she brought forth her first born son.

It is difficult to argue from Hebrew to Greek word meanings as well; however, as far as the meaning of the text goes, it says,

(KJV) Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

Which does prove the Protestant point. Until is a time delimiter, which voids the Catholic argument for perpetual virginity; otherwise the text should have said,

And knew her not till she had [died] : and he called his name JESUS

to make the Catholic case much firmer.

And since the RCC can't make a case scripturally or exegetically, I would be interested in knowing why it is so important that Mary should have remined a virgin, other than the infiltration neoPlatonic conceptions about flesh=bad/spirit=good, therefore sex is bad.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 09:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95884#post95884)
Solly:



heōs
heh'-oce
Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).

This does not imply that they did nothing afterwards, just that nothing happened until, up to the time she brought forth her first born son.

It is difficult to argue from Hebrew to Greek word meanings as well; however, as far as the meaning of the text goes, it says,

(KJV) Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

Which does prove the Protestant point. Until is a time delimiter, which voids the Catholic argument for perpetual virginity; otherwise the text should have said,

And knew her not till she had [died] : and he called his name JESUS

to make the Catholic case much firmer.

And since the RCC can't make a case scripturally or exegetically, I would be interested in knowing why it is so important that Mary should have remined a virgin, other than the infiltration neoPlatonic conceptions about flesh=bad/spirit=good, therefore sex is bad.


From your very own suggestion, do you think that she had a baby AFTER she died? Yet, "until" is used.
:cool:

[rogerthomas]

And for some it is not so critical a need, but it is given the benefit of the doubt, per tradition.

[spl_cadet]

We've never though sex was bad, that was a part of the Manichean heresy if I recall.

And our case is quite sound scripturally. And there is the fact that it was a belief held by the ECF's.

[Solly]

Today @ 02:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96002#post96002)
rogerthomas:

From your very own suggestion, do you think that she had a baby AFTER she died? Yet, "until" is used.
:cool:


The text says: Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:

Nothing about not having children. Until delimits the time of her pregnancy, to emphasise that the child was not his because they did not have conjugal relations after getting married, until she brought forth her firstborn son.

And for some it is not so critical a need, but it is given the benefit of the doubt, per tradition.

If it is given the benefit of the doubt, then why is Marcia arguing the case, and spl too, instead of being agnostic about it. It is a cardinal doctrine of the RCC that Mary remained a virgin, despite giving birth, and that she had no more children. That does not seem to be "benefit of the doubt" to me.

[Solly]

Today @ 02:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96007#post96007)
spl_cadet:

And our case is quite sound scripturally.

We are waitng to see it.

And there is the fact that it was a belief held by the ECF's.

You of course know that that carries no weight; if they interpreted the scriptures wrong, we don't follow them. So it is beholden upon you to show why we must follow them.

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 02:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96010#post96010)
Solly:




The text says: Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:

Nothing about not having children. Until delimits the time of her pregnancy, to emphasise that the child was not his because they did not have conjugal relations after getting married, until she brought forth her firstborn son.



If it is given the benefit of the doubt, then why is Marcia arguing the case, and spl too, instead of being agnostic about it. It is a cardinal doctrine of the RCC that Mary remained a virgin, despite giving birth, and that she had no more children. That does not seem to be "benefit of the doubt" to me.


I was referring to your verse that you supplied, that she was without child until she died.....

[Solly]

Today @ 02:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96016#post96016)
rogerthomas:

I was referring to your verse that you supplied, that she was without child until she died.....

Right; you "quoted" the whole post so it wasn't clear.
Still the same though. The time delimited to emphasise an immediate point. In Michal's case, that point ended with her death, in mary's with the birth of Jesus.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 06:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96011#post96011)
Solly:
You of course know that that carries no weight; if they interpreted the scriptures wrong, we don't follow them. So it is beholden upon you to show why we must follow them.

The ECFs were the closest to the apostles, in many cases were students of the Apostles themselves. What they believed would have been what the apostles believed, and if the Apostles believed in the Perpeptual Virginity.


Besides, she's told us herself at her apparitions :tongue:

[Solly]

Today @ 02:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96038#post96038)
spl_cadet:

Besides, she's told us herself at her apparitions :tongue:

>cough, splutter< wipes up coffee off keyboard.:whack:

[Bill the Cat]

There was a thread started where I handled some objections here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=75229#post75229

[rogerthomas]

Yesterday @ 02:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96021#post96021)
Solly:

Right; you &quot;quoted&quot; the whole post so it wasn't clear.
Still the same though. The time delimited to emphasise an immediate point. In Michal's case, that point ended with her death, in mary's with the birth of Jesus.


You are still missing my point. The phrase "was without child until she died" would not indicate that she had a child AFTER she had died, thus not ASSUMING that since the word until was used that she WOULD have a child....

[Socrates]

rogerthomas, who is on record denying the inerrancy of Scripture, prattles:While most use matthew 1:25"and he did not know her until she brought forth her firstborn son." They do not take into account that the original meaning of the word "until" did not imply an eventuality, but rather deliminated time...I would call your attention to 2nd samuel. All of the protestant arguments are easily voided in the same manner.This is just laughable. Why not just stated that they had no sexual relations, period -- if that's what was intended. No, it is contrary to the text, and just unthinkable in a Jewish marriage, as opposed to later monastic presuppositions.

[Solly]

Interestingly, while in my local xtian bookshop, I chanced on a book dealing with this.
Their view?

Since until is used in the context of christ reigning, etc, it is always governed by that use, and therefore means never in the context of mary. :doh:

[Socrates]

spl_cadet:The ECFs were the closest to the apostles, in many cases were students of the Apostles themselves. What they believed would have been what the apostles believed, and if the Apostles believed in the Perpeptual VirginitySorry, not impressed. Who was even closer to the Apostles than the ECFs? Why, the early churches! And guess what --- even though these churches were founded by the Apostles, a large part of Paul's letters and the first part of Revelation was correcting the errors of these churches.

In any case, perpetual virginity was a later tradition, as was the Immaculate Conception. The 2nd century Roman apologist Tertullian opposed perpetual virginity, for example.

[Bill the Cat]

Soc, actually, the ISBE says this:
Perpetual Virginity is not the most ancient view. It has been traced to Tertullian, and has been more fully developed by Belvidius, an obscure writer of the 4th century

:btc:

[rogerthomas]

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97312#post97312)
Solly:

Interestingly, while in my local xtian bookshop, I chanced on a book dealing with this.
Their view?

Since until is used in the context of christ reigning, etc, it is always governed by that use, and therefore means never in the context of mary. :doh:

By chance what book was it? Did you enjoy the reading(catholic styled books to me are very interesting reads, if it was one...and while they may not always be spot on, they are at the least amusing)

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97502#post97502)
rogerthomas:
By chance what book was it? Did you enjoy the reading(catholic styled books to me are very interesting reads, if it was one...and while they may not always be spot on, they are at the least amusing)


It wasn't a Roman Catholic book, but Romanian Orthodox. I dipped into it because the Orthodox Church is broadly amillennial, but turned to that bit with this debate in mind. It formed the mainstay of the exegetical argument.
Can't remember the title, something like "The Truth of our Religion" by Elder Cleopas of Romania.

[Reasonable]

I am still unclear about Marcia’s position regarding the meaning of the Greek terms. Matthew 13:55,56 reads as:
“Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This is the carpenter’s son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers [Greek, a·del·phoi´] James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? His sisters [Greek, a·del·phai´], too, are they not all here with us?”

Does a·del·phoi imply “male relatives” and a·del·phai imply “female relatives”? Today we usually say we are going to see our “relatives” without differentiation of the sexes. Is it being proposed that in Jesus’ day they would say ‘we are going to see our male relatives and our female relatives’? If the term means “cousins” or “relatives”, why was it necessary to differentiate the sexes?

While this is an interesting debate, I believe Marcia is focused more on trying to prove the Bible does not disprove her a priori rather than showing the Bible teaches it. Her arguments for the most part are in line with what I’ve seen of other Catholics using. They don’t really offer anything from the scriptures showing that their position is true, they merely argue that the scriptures do not disallow their position. Of course the scriptures do not disallow space aliens either but…

The only argument FOR Mary being a virgin is Jesus putting John in charge of her. But in light of John 7:5, this does not seem unreasonable considering the value Jesus put on spiritually minded persons verses non-spiritually minded. In fact, that account could simply be a fulfillment of Mark 10:29,30
“Verily I say to you, No one has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the gospel who will not get a hundredfold now in this period of time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, with persecutions, and in the new world, eternal life.”

John may be the “children” Mary receives “in this period of time” since it appears her real children were not yet believers. Thus, the only real argument from the Bible for Mary not having children seems pretty weak. Since the scriptures do use these terms for literal brothers, it seems the onus is on Marcia to explain why we would not take them literal in the verses in question. To do that she must now leave Scripture and resort to tradition to justify why we are obligated to assign a different meaning for how the terms are used.

Note this quote from The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) It states 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.”

So far Marcia has not convinced me why I should ignore the common meaning of the terms showing Jesus had brothers and sisters.

[spl_cadet]

Does a·del·phoi imply “male relatives” and a·del·phai imply “female relatives”? Today we usually say we are going to see our “relatives” without differentiation of the sexes. Is it being proposed that in Jesus’ day they would say ‘we are going to see our male relatives and our female relatives’? If the term means “cousins” or “relatives”, why was it necessary to differentiate the sexes?

Quite a few languages do that. Spanish for example. Masculine and feminine words.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 09:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103506#post103506)
spl_cadet:



Quite a few languages do that. Spanish for example. Masculine and feminine words.

Thanks SPL Cadet. I am aware of masculine and feminine words. That isn't what I was really asking though. To use your Spanish example, would I say in Spanish "I am going to go and visit my cousins" or would I say "I am going to go and visit my male cousins and my female cousins?"

I am not familiar enough with Greek to argue strongly for this point but I know their are feminine and masculine words in Greek. They are not all feminine or masculine because the person spoken of is a boy or a girl. It seems to me the word "cousin" denotes either a boy or a girl. It's gender neutral. The terms "brother" and "sister" are not gender neutral. They specifically identify the sex. I was wondering if anyone knows if this is the case in Greek? Is "cousin" gender neutral? If so, then this appears to be a strike against the terms meaning "cousins".

Additionally, and Marcia noted this, the NT does use the Greek term for "cousin" at Col. 4:10. This too calls into question the 'cultural' custom of using the term commonly associated with "brother" for the term "cousin".

[jjmarkka]

Whee-hee! Three months of spectator sports after registering, and then two posts on the same day. Guess you people finally got me rolling. :smile:

Now, I'm not a catholic, but I have no personal problems with Mary being a perpetual virgin. To me, that won't make one ounce of difference as to whether or not she can save us or is sinless. Maybe somebody can show why it should, or even why it is such a big deal.

To me the issue is a non-issue, really. If Jesus was the only child she had, fine. If he had full-brothers, fine. But nevertheless I think the Bible leaves this open. In fact, if Jesus was Mary's only child, that would explain a few things.

In order for Marcia to defend the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, she must
1) show that the brothers in Luke 8:19-21 are not true brothers and still maintain a clear meaning in the passage,
2) demonstrate that Luke 2:7 does not show that Luke thought Mary had other children after Jesus, and
3) explain the how the Greek construction ewV ou of Matthew 1:25 should be interpreted differently from the thirteen other occurrences that share the same meaning.

Currently, this is what I think about the matter, including the disputed verses. If you want to raise a point, please do so:

1) Joseph had had another wife before Mary; the "brothers and sisters" mentioned were her children. I think I saw the debaters affirm that adelphos need not be stretched to transmit the meaning of a step-brother.

In case somebody wants to make an issue about Jesus teaching that those who do God's will would thus become Jesus' step-brothers, not real brothers: I think it didn't matter in ordinary speech. As far as mothership (:smile:) is considered, the sons of Jacob were mostly step-brothers to each other. Nevertheless, they referred to each other as brothers.


2) About the fact that Luke uses the term "firstborn", not "the only child" in Jesus' birth narrative: I agree with marcia on this. I might add that it would sound strange to state: "And she gave birth to a son, her only son to come, and swaddled him and..." Even though Luke wrote the stuff after the events, why would he want to stress the issue of Jesus having full-siblings? Why not rather pointing out the important fact that this child was, as marcia said, the firstborn, set apart for the Lord?

3) The statement about Joseph not knowing Mary until she had borne Jesus isn't meant to testify that after this, Joe certainly did -- only to stress the fact that Jesus definitely wasn't Joe's son. Even in everyday language, "until" confers a necessary, not a sufficient point. "I won't until you apologize" doesn't mean I will with absolute certainty when you do; only that your apology is necessary to get me even thinking about it.

This scenario would explain:

- the apparent early death of Joseph to some degree. You see, Joseph disappears from the story. By the time of Jesus' crucifixion, only Mary is left. The possible age difference might be a factor even without this scenario, but if Mary was Joe's 2nd wife, it would be considerable.

- the fact that Jesus' brothers looked on him with contempt and constantly questioned his conduct, even with slight ridicule. Jesus wouldn't be the firstborn and heir of Joseph, but their kid brother who wouldn't stay in his appointed mold, making outlandish claims of authority and mission.

- especially the fact that Jesus put John in charge of taking care of Mary at the crucifixion. If I'm correct, it was primarily the task of the firstborn son. If he died, the others would in turn be responsible. But Mary was a widow without sons; she had nobody and had to be given over to John's care.

This would affect:

- no significant Biblical doctrine, as far as I know; it wouldn't even be in contradiction with the Scriptures. If it is, let me know.

I think the stuff above fits the challenge to marcia. Not that it proves that Mary was a virgin forevermore; just that Jesus had no blood siblings.

Feel free to comment. :smile:

[Bill the Cat]

05-23-2003 @ 09:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105455#post105455)
jjmarkka:


1) Joseph had had another wife before Mary; the &quot;brothers and sisters&quot; mentioned were her children. I think I saw the debaters affirm that adelphos need not be stretched to transmit the meaning of a step-brother.

The texts are silent on this matter, so speculation is all we are left with.


2) About the fact that Luke uses the term &quot;firstborn&quot;, not &quot;the only child&quot; in Jesus' birth narrative: I agree with marcia on this. I might add that it would sound strange to state: &quot;And she gave birth to a son, her only son to come, and swaddled him and...&quot; Even though Luke wrote the stuff after the events, why would he want to stress the issue of Jesus having full-siblings? Why not rather pointing out the important fact that this child was, as marcia said, the firstborn, set apart for the Lord?

Because it is plain. Jesus was the eldest brother, and that's why it was HIS to delegate responsibility who took care of Mary. If He was the youngest, then He was wrong to overstep His authority in the family.

3) The statement about Joseph not knowing Mary until she had borne Jesus isn't meant to testify that after this, Joe certainly did -- only to stress the fact that Jesus definitely wasn't Joe's son. Even in everyday language, &quot;until&quot; confers a necessary, not a sufficient point. &quot;I won't until you apologize&quot; doesn't mean I will with absolute certainty when you do; only that your apology is necessary to get me even thinking about it.

Once again, it is silent on this matter. It does not say Joseph never lay with Mary, just that He never lay with her until Jesus was born. Neither does it say that Joseph did lay with her.

This scenario would explain:

- the apparent early death of Joseph to some degree. You see, Joseph disappears from the story. By the time of Jesus' crucifixion, only Mary is left. The possible age difference might be a factor even without this scenario, but if Mary was Joe's 2nd wife, it would be considerable.

Once again, it is silent. The text never says when Joseph died, nor how old he was. I do find it interesting that in Luke's Gospel, it only mentions Mary and Joseph making the trip to be counted in the Census. If Joseph had any more children, they would have had to come too to be counted.

- the fact that Jesus' brothers looked on him with contempt and constantly questioned his conduct, even with slight ridicule. Jesus wouldn't be the firstborn and heir of Joseph, but their kid brother who wouldn't stay in his appointed mold, making outlandish claims of authority and mission.

The fact that their big brother was being hailed as the Messiah would have been sufficient for contempt, the same as those from Nazareth. They merely saw Him as the Carpenter's son.

- especially the fact that Jesus put John in charge of taking care of Mary at the crucifixion. If I'm correct, it was primarily the task of the firstborn son. If he died, the others would in turn be responsible. But Mary was a widow without sons; she had nobody and had to be given over to John's care.

I already explained this one, but I'll be glad to repost the info:


ISBE notes:
When an argument is sought from the fact that Jesus on the cross commended His mother to John, the implication is immediate that she had no sons of her own to whom to turn in her grief and desolation; the answer need not be restricted to the consideration that unknown domestic circumstances may explain the omission of her sons. A more patent explanation is that as they did not understand their brother, they could not understand their mother, whose whole life and interests were bound up in her firstborn. But, on the other hand, no one of the disciples understood Jesus and appreciated His work and treasured up His words as did John. A bond of fellowship had Thus been established between John and Mary that was closer than her nearer blood relationship with her own sons, who, up to this time, had regarded the course of Jesus with disapproval, and had no sympathy with His mission. In the home of John she would find consolation for her loss, as the memories of the wonderful life of her son would be recalled, and she would converse with him who had rested on the bosom of Jesus and whom Jesus loved. Even with the conversion of these brethren within a few days into faithful confessors, before the view of Jesus, provision was made for her deeper spiritual communion with her risen and ascended Son through the testimony of Jesus which John treasured in his deeply contemplative spirit. There was much that was alike in the characters of Mary and John. This may have had its ground in relationship, as many regard Salome his mother, the sister of the mother of Jesus mentioned in Joh_19:25.

[themuzicman]

jjmarkka:

Perpetual virginity is one of the bases for Catholics elevating Mary to the status of "Mother of God", and worthy of prayer.

It's also the foundation of much of the Maryolotry (worship of Mary as an idol) the Catholic church holds to.

Michael