Replies

The teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not rise or fall on one word, rather, a body of evidence from other sources such as: Mary’s question to the angel as to how a betrothed virgin would conceive; Jesus entrusting Mary to the care of a non-blood relative at this death; and also the long witness of ancient Tradition.

A simple reading of the Word in context will clear this up.

Mary’s question to the angel as to how a betrothed virgin would conceive

26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

The meaning of the Greek in v34 is that Mary had not had not known a man sexually.

097 ginṓskō – properly, to know, especially through personal experience (first-hand acquaintance). 1097 /ginṓskō ("experientially know") is used for example in Lk 1:34, "And Mary [a virgin] said to the angel, 'How will this be since I do not know (1097 /ginṓskō = sexual intimacy) a man?'"Mary understood the birds and the bees.HELPS Word-studies

There is nothing...repeat NOTHING in this passage that ever remotely hints this was a pledge of perpetual virginity. NOTHING.

Jesus entrusting Mary to the care of a non-blood relative at this death

The passage in John where Jesus entrusts Mary to John has nothing to do with the issue of virginity. It is well established in the Word that Joseph and Mary had other children.

Perhaps if the msgr knew his Greek a little better he'd understand this in context.

The appeal to "Tradition" is dismissed. If the catholic is appealing to the protoevangelium of James they are really on very, very thin ground.

Jesus entrusting Mary to the care of a non-blood relative at this death Folks don't seem to consider that The Mother of Jesus AND his siblings came to the house where He was teaching and standing outside called fro Him to come out from the teaching and speak with them. It is a known fact that James, the brother of Jesus, did not believe Jesus was Messiah until AFTER the resurrection.

There is apparently no stretch too far that Catholic teaching will not undertake to maintain the Mariology idolatry.

It is not difficult for me to believe the birth of Jesus happened in such a way as to allow Mary's 'virginity' to remain ... Jesus left the tomb without rolling away the stone, so He could leave the womb and arrive in our spacetime without passing through the birth canal. But to go further in order to fabricate magic status to Mary is altogether a dose of Catholic Magic Thinking too far to go. The Catholic Bible even changes the reading in Genesis to read 'she will bruise your heel'.