So What’s the Problem?

Some believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and some do not. That is a fact that is indisputable. My question for today: what difference does it make to those who do not believe in it that others do? Please note I am not asking nor attempting to answer the reverse question (viz., what difference does it make to those who believe that others do not believe it?)

First, will believing in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary affect the salvation of one’s soul? Will a person who chooses to believe tradition which does not contradict Scripture in any way be condemned for believing in this (or for that matter any other similar) doctrine?

Is this a cardinal belief that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? Is it an article of anyone’s faith that she could not have been such? Do any churches have a point in their Fundamentals of the Faith that reads, “We believe that Mary was not Ever-Virgin and that she had other children after the birth of the Lord Jesus”?

Since this belief in no way denies the Incarnation, the Deity, the sinless life, the Crucifixion or the Resurrection of Jesus, it is hard to believe that it can possibly be a negative reflection on the Lord. He is neither lowered nor besmirched by the idea that His Mother bore no children after His holy birth. One might even say it made him unique as the Only Son of Mary as well as the Only Son of God.

This doctrine does not demean the Lord Jesus Christ. So why fight people who choose to believe it?
This doctrine does not contradict the Word of God (since “brothers” can refer to cousins or other kin—as when Abram refers to his nephew as a brother). This doctrine does not deny any of the cardinal doctrines of the faith. This belief does not divert attention from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This doctrine does not elevate Mary to some special status that she does not deserve. It does not make her a goddess or a goddess like entity.

From the point of view of those who do not believe in this teaching, why can a teaching like this not be accorded the status of other beliefs that are neutral and, thus, allow those who see good reasons to hold this idea to do so without constantly trying to tear this down and “convert” them to your belief? Would not the dictum, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” be rightly and gracefully applicable to this case?

We must ask: why do some people spend so much time fighting this idea when holding to it doesn’t condemn a soul to hell, diminish our Lord and Savior, or contradict the testimony of Scripture? The question is made even more powerful when one realizes that many of the great Christians of the past (most of them actually) have unanimously held to this position. This would include Luther and Calvin as well as, Jerome, St. Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, John Wesley, Heinrich Bullinger and Zwingli.

Since there is NO Scripture that says that Mary had any other children and since it would have been unthinkable for Christ to have committed the care of His Mother to the Apostle John had she had any male offspring, what does it hurt to posit as so many have before us that the Blessed Virgin Mary is actually Ever-Virgin? What is the problem with that piece of conjecture (if you wish to denominate it as such)?

I fail to see what the big fuss is about from the side of those who do not believe that Mary was a Virgin to the day of her decease. It would seem to be a pious opinion (at the worst) that affects no one negatively for holding to it. It does not appear to me that any soul will be damned eternally because they chose to ascribe perpetual virginity to the Mother of the Lord. Again, I must ask, what is the big deal? Why do the non-believers insist on challenging those that believe? Why waste time trying to convince someone to stop believing in this when there are so many substantial challenges to the Faith?