Did Mary sleep with Joseph after she had Jesus?

[godisgood77]

It may seem good to you to disregard the instruction of the Almighty, and that is your prerogative. God has made you with free will, and you have the ability to reject His Word. Catholics believe that what has been written in the Scriptures is there for our instruction, and we do not have the liberty to dismiss any of it as “silly tradition”.

God also made us with rational thought and that our knowledge as a society can increase over time. Their is still value in the idea of these traditions, but to take them literally is a bit silly - to stand by my original sentiment. For instance, I wouldn’t read the creation narrative in Genesis literally… would you?

 

[godisgood77]

It is from her that God took flesh.

I think saying this another way is more accurate… It is God who gave her flesh. God first always.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

It is from her that God took flesh.

I think saying this another way is more accurate… It is God who gave her flesh. God first always.

God is the cause of all being, true.

But the point remains that God didn’t create a zygote ex nihilo in Mary’s womb. Jesus received his flesh and human nature from Mary. Given our modern knowledge of fertility it’s fairly safe to assume this means one of Mary’s ovum was used, though the exact mechanics aren’t necessary. What is doctrine is that Jesus’ human body wasn’t just placed there, but was formed from her flesh. This is a very, very stressed point in the ECFs against the gnostics and other heresies.

My original point, however, is only that Joseph and Mary had a unique marriage, and not just because they refrained from intimate relations, but because Mary carried God in her womb. That they refrained from relations suggests a respect for the Incarnation and God’s presence and action.

 

[godisgood77]

That they refrained from relations suggests a respect for the Incarnation and God’s presence and action.

I think that is a non-sequitur… Refraining from could possibly suggest respect, but not necessarily… your statement definitely seems to imply that having relations would somehow defile the Incarnation and God’s presence and action.

Do you believe that if Mary and Joseph had normal relations, that would be an insult to God? I’ll put my cards out there, I don’t…

 

[Sophie111]

???
What are you talking about? A quote would be helpful.
Please moderate your above comment or it will be flagged.

 

[Sophie111]

Would you quote what you are reffering to?
Is it Mary looking after children from her extended family?
Sure its not absolutely certain but is reasonably inferred from a number of NT passages. More reasonably inferred than that Mary had taken vows of virginity.
Its a trivial point re the primary point … that Mary fulfilled a primary purpose of marriage…rearing of children.

 

[yankeesouth]

God also made us with rational thought

Their is still value in the idea of these traditions, but to take them literally is a bit silly

“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”

“If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”

“For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.”

" He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."

What is a rational person to do?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That they refrained from relations suggests a respect for the Incarnation and God’s presence and action.

I think that is a non-sequitur… Refraining from could possibly suggest respect, but not necessarily… your statement definitely seems to imply that having relations would somehow defile the Incarnation and God’s presence and action.

Do you believe that if Mary and Joseph had normal relations, that would be an insult to God? I’ll put my cards out there, I don’t…

Would just anyone knowingly entering the Holy of Holies or touching the Ark of the Covenant be an insult to God?

 

[Sophie111]

Can you just quote at the top of your post like everybody else does…thanks.

 

[goout]

guanophore:

It may seem good to you to disregard the instruction of the Almighty, and that is your prerogative. God has made you with free will, and you have the ability to reject His Word. Catholics believe that what has been written in the Scriptures is there for our instruction, and we do not have the liberty to dismiss any of it as “silly tradition”.

God also made us with rational thought and that our knowledge as a society can increase over time. Their is still value in the idea of these traditions, but to take them literally is a bit silly - to stand by my original sentiment. For instance, I wouldn’t read the creation narrative in Genesis literally… would you?

Church Tradition does not oblige a literalist fundamentalist interp of Genesis anyway, so the analogy doesn’t work.
Tradition, in the capital T sense, is the faith of Christ’s community. At the end of the day what else do you have?
Where did your Christianity come from? A communal Tradition. None of us makes it up as we go.

I will grant you that some of our faith is really hard to accept. First example is the resurrection. We believe a man rose from the dead. So, yeah, it’s not easy. But faith flowers when we are docile to the action of the Holy Spirit, as revealed in the Church. Tradition.

 

[Richca]

The Chuch definitely teaches Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as a dogma…

I find it a bit sad that Mary and Joseph’s marriage isn’t the ‘ideal’ marriage as it’s primary end was not procreation… but if it was so, so be it.

I do not believe that Mary being a virgin added anything to her holiness though… she would have been just as perfect if she and Joseph we together in a married way…If I were to venture a guess, it seems to me that this belief came about during a time when the Church believed that something was dirty and sinful about marital relations and that it was better to be a virgin…

That it was a part of God’s plan that Mary and Joseph should have a child, namely the eternal Son of God in human flesh, not by carnal generation but by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit can hardly be said to make the true marriage of Mary and Joseph less ‘ideal’ than marriages which result in offspring by carnal generation.

Marriage as a sacrament in the Church is a sacred sign of an invisible reality, namely, of Christ’s inseparable union with his body, the Church which is a spiritual union. The marriage of Mary and Joseph which was without carnal sexual relations but which was one of a spiritual union of souls is a perfect sign of Christ’s spiritual union with his bridegroom, the Church.

Sexual relations are not of the essence of marriage. Marriage is entered into by the exchange of the promises between the man and the woman by which they become husband and wife. Sexual relations follow upon the marriage contract. Sexual relations and the procreation of children belong to the second perfection of marriage but not its essential or first perfection which again involves the exchange of the promises between the man and the woman which binds them inseparably to one another in a spiritual union of souls.

It is not unlawful for a man and woman to marry and yet agree together to remain continent or not engage in sexual intercourse as the marriage of Mary and Joseph shows. Indeed, this can be very fruitful which the marriage of Mary and Joseph is the prime example of. In fact, Mary’s virginity was exceedingly more fruitful
than the womb of any other human female for from her virginal womb was the eternal Son of God incarnated and conceived in. Everything about Mary contributed to her holiness and this last fact concerning her infinitely fruitful virginity ought to dispel any notion that Mary’s virginity did not contribute anything to her holiness. I think, godisgood77, that in a certain sense your thinking over these things in a sort of to carnal, fleshly, and earthly a manner when the spirit is more noble than the body and the body is for the spirit and not the other way around. The New Law of Christ is life in the Spirit.

 

[Sophie111]

We simply do not know…mans desire to fill in the gaps with legend and pious archetypal rationalisations subjectively typical of any given age is understandable.
But to turn off critical discerment and forget that we just do not know is to fly in the face of an uncertainty God clearly expects us to bear.

 

[goout]

We simply do not know…mans desire to fill in the gaps with legend and pious archetypal rationalisations subjectively typical of any given age is understandable.
But to turn off critical discerment and forget that we just do not know is to fly in the face of an uncertainty God clearly expects us to bear.

We don’t “know” either way, in a materialist sense.
There is tremendous value in being docile to Church Tradition, even in the midst of uncertainty.

 

[Sophie111]

Lets not guild the lily or indulge our own pious exaggerations or personal religious sentimentalities

The only docility required by Catholics (in the face of “we dont know”) is to hold to what is true and to the Magisterium - not personal, subjective, singular versions of “tradition” or interpretations of Scripture.

And the truth here is … we simply do not know the answer to many issues raised on this thread and we may all therefore loosely hold differing views where the Magisterium is silent.

 

[vz71]

Do you suggest the church is silent concerning the virginity of Mary?

 

[goout]

Lets not guild the lily or indulge our own pious exaggerations or personal religious sentimentalities

The only docility required by Catholics in the face of “we dont know” is to what is true and to the Magisterium not singular versions of “tradition” or interpretations of Scripture.

And the truth here is we simply do not know the answer to many issues raised here and we may therefore loosely hold differing views where the Magisterium is silent.

?
The Church affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary as dogma.
edit, I have not read the whole thread so you may be referring to other issues I am not aware of.

 

[godisgood77]

Do you suggest the church is silent concerning the virginity of Mary?

Not sure who you are asking…

No, the Church is not silent concerning Mary’s virginity. If the Church was, would that materially impact your faith?

To me it is a non-central topic… I’m not denying it, but confess that the idea of a married couple not having relations doesn’t add anything to my faith and if they did, it would not take anything away from my faith.

 

[Sophie111]

we may therefore loosely hold differing views where the Magisterium is silent.

Not sure what your point is in my regard. Perhaps it would be helpful to read my conversations in full before commenting. As just stated:

we may therefore loosely hold differing views where the Magisterium is silent.

I do not understand why you have issues with this.

 

[Sophie111]

Do you suggest the church is silent concerning the virginity of Mary?

??? Why would you say this.
You dont seem to have read the relevant conversations above.

 

[anna]

Rosie, people will keep asking this over and over. I think we can be quite sure that Mary, the Blessed Mother of God was always a Virgin, Just as the Angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife, Joseph then also took Jesus and Mary as His family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph,the Holy family, St. Joseph who looked after Jesus as a Child and Mary as His Mother pray for us. God bless you Rosie