Sacramentally Speaking

Preface: To reiterate once more, I am not claiming to be an apologist for the Catholic faith; but rather, I am trying to share the clearest arguments (and counter arguments) that profoundly helped me convert to the faith. Enjoy!

Defense of the Perpetual Virginity of The Virgin Mary

I have found that many Catholics oversimplify many aspects of the faith. This is not meant as a dig but rather as a helpful point of clarity for those who have not had to deconstruct from another faith or tradition. I heard a long time ago on a podcast that I still listen to (and re-listen to) regularly, which stated that Protestants ought not to let any barriers arise between themselves and Christ’s true presence in the Blessed Sacrament. However, this does not take into account the other dogmas of the Church. This was a problem I struggled with during my four years of investigating the claims of the Church: there are many other doctrines (254 to be exact) that must be accepted in order to come into the Church. One of my biggest hurdles was the Marian dogmas. Here, I will specifically address some of my former objections to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and how I eventually came to agree with Rome.

For years, the Church has been unanimous in her belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jean Steinmann, Saint Jerome, [Notre Dame, IN: Fides Publishers, 1959], 119). One of the earliest attacks on this doctrine came from Helvidius in the 4th century, who had a work in which he pointed to verses like Matthew 13:55, which names Christ’s “brothers” as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Helvidius also points to Matthew 1:25, which states that Joseph waited to have relations with Mary “until” she had given birth to our Lord. Finally, Helvidius also points to Christ being named as the “firstborn” in Luke 2:7. Let us take a look at these claims individually and see what can be made of them.

The Brothers of Christ

Let us first turn our attention to Matthew 13:54-56, which reads:

“And He [Jesus] came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, with the result that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did this man acquire this wisdom and these miraculous powers? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is His mother not called Mary, and His brothers, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man acquire all these things?’”

Here, the names of Christ’s brothers are listed plainly. Keeping this in mind, let us look at John 19:25, which, while describing our Lord’s passion, says, “Now beside the cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” It is important for me to list all the relevant scriptures in order to build the argument, so bear with me as we turn now to Matthew 27:56, which, also at the foot of the cross of Christ, says, “Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” Here, one can see two verses of the same scene at the foot of the cross. Notice who is present. I am specifically thinking of His mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Clopas. It appears, when read in the context of Matthew 27:56, that the individuals named as sons of Mary could be cousins of Christ.

Many Catholics who defend the idea of Mary as ever-virgin may incorrectly assert that back at the time the Bible was written, there was no word for “cousin.” This assertion is not correct, as there was a word used to mean cousin in Koine Greek. However, that is not to say that it was at all common or widely known. There is more support for the word “brother” (ἀδελφοί – adelphoi – in Greek) having a deeper or more general meaning in biblical Greek. For example, in Genesis, we know Lot to be the son of Abram’s brother, and yet he is referred to as Abram’s brother four times (Gen 13:8, 11; 14:14, 16).

The three options we have on the table up to this point are that these are either Jesus’ true full brothers, cousins, or spiritual brothers (many times the word ἀδελφοί is used to mean brothers in spirit; however, I admit this argument doesn’t hold water in the context of Matthew 27). There is, however, another option popular among the tradition of the Early Church Fathers, which is that these brothers are the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. This theory draws largely from the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Christian writing that dates to the mid-2nd century. While this text is not part of the canon of scripture, it can help us understand the early views held by Christians who were part of the generation taught by Christ’s apostles. However, a detailed analysis of this argument will have to wait for part 2!