D
Damascus
Guest
If the spirit of the conversation is to entertain heresy, you wont find most of us here entusiastic about it.
- Status
T
tequilamac
Guest
I am sorry. I was responding to this statement of yours:
Boy I wish people would read before responding. The book I read DID NOT question the doctrine. Only explained its origins and how it came to be part of the official church teaching in the 1800’s. In fact, he considered the teaching to be one of the few “infallible” teachings from the pope. My personal questions are being misunderstood as dismissing church teaching on the matter. I do not. I would be lying to say I don’t have some doubt. But that does not make me anything but human. Jesus cut Thomas some slack. I think its safe to say the rest of us will be given some grace for our misunderstandings as well. It would be nice to see some of that spirit in this conversation!
“He did quote the CCC and explained in the book that some traditions like Mary were revealed later.”
I responded by showing how Marian traditions actually do predate the Scriptures in their fullness and suggested he take a history course.
What the rest of your complaint against me is I have absolutely no idea madame. I said nothing about whether you or he accepted Marian doctrines. Why don’t you try a reading class yourself? Or else offer an apology for your obvious defensiveness. I have no opinion one way or the other of your Marian thoughts. I do however, object to your theologian’s concept of Marian history.
V
Valke2
Guest
umm… but betrothed was not marriage, even 2000 years ago. You are confusing betrothal with marriage, which according to Jewish tradition could happen one of the three ways you listed. But a first century Jew who was betrothed had not engaged in sexual relations. If they had, then they wouldn’t be betrothed. They would be married.
I agree that adultry is with another man’s wife. Sex outside of marriage is fornication. But what does this have to do with betrothal? Jews did not (or were not supposed to) engage in sexual relations to their betrothed. If you have some citations that show otherwise, I’d like to see them.
A
adrift
Guest
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm#foot8
Betrothel WAS the first part of marriage. At the time the angel addressed Mary, she was married. Note that the verse says Joseph was her husband and he intended to divorce her.
I would like to see your citations of your assertion:
V
Valke2
Guest
I’ll do better than that. First, I’ll admit that sleeping with a woman with the intent to marry was techincally one way to become betrothed. It was strongly discouraged by the sages. Since it was not common, there’s no reason to assume that Mary stating she was still a virgin after her betrothal is any indication that she intended to stay one.
As for citations, here’s one:
Luke describes Mary as betrothed to Joseph. In first-century Judaism, betrothal was the first step of a two-stage marriage process. At her betrothal Mary would have consented before public witnesses to marry Joseph, and this would have established the couple as husband and wife. As a betrothed wife, however, Mary would have continued to live with her own family, apart from her husband, for up to a year. Only after this period of betrothal would the second stage of marriage take place—the consummation of the marriage and the wife’s moving into the husband’s home.
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1205.asp
Moreover, a betrothal was a contract and could be broken by either party. Although the english word used for Joseph’s intent was “divorce” it could have been meant to break the betrothal contract.
As for citations, here’s one:
Luke describes Mary as betrothed to Joseph. In first-century Judaism, betrothal was the first step of a two-stage marriage process. At her betrothal Mary would have consented before public witnesses to marry Joseph, and this would have established the couple as husband and wife. As a betrothed wife, however, Mary would have continued to live with her own family, apart from her husband, for up to a year. Only after this period of betrothal would the second stage of marriage take place—the consummation of the marriage and the wife’s moving into the husband’s home.
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1205.asp
Moreover, a betrothal was a contract and could be broken by either party. Although the english word used for Joseph’s intent was “divorce” it could have been meant to break the betrothal contract.
A
adrift
Guest
So betrothal was indeed a marriage. Good! we are on the same page.
What you quote as your citation only proves what I stated.
Notice the words
is in the future tense. Since the angel made this a future occurance, why would Mary not assume that this child was to be Josephs?
I do not know why the url I provided was left off but I will try again.
usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm
V
Valke2
Guest
Good point. You are saying that Mary had no intention of ever sleeping with Joseph and this is why she asked the question.
(right?). And from this, it is reasonable to assume that she did not sleep with Joseph ever.
But this raises another question. I understand that Jospeh was told by an angel what was up and that he then agreed to proceed with the marriage (or not divorce Mary). But this means that Joseph originaly believed that he would consummate his marriage with Mary. Why would he think that?
(right?). And from this, it is reasonable to assume that she did not sleep with Joseph ever.
But this raises another question. I understand that Jospeh was told by an angel what was up and that he then agreed to proceed with the marriage (or not divorce Mary). But this means that Joseph originaly believed that he would consummate his marriage with Mary. Why would he think that?
A
adrift
Guest
We have very little knowledge of Joseph. There is nothing in the bible to support either that he intended a normal relationship or he didn’t. Tradition has held that he was an older man chosen to take care of Mary there is also a tradition that he also was an avowed virgin. There is no evidence that Mary had any other children. The evidence that exist supports that she did not.
D
Damascus
Guest
V
Valke2
Guest
Joseph reacted in the only way he knew how—he made immediate plans to divorce Mary and send her away. But the angel visited Joseph as well…
Is this not supported by scripture?
V
Valke2
Guest
Was Mary pregnant when the Angel spoke with her? Of was Gabriel speaking of her becoming pregnant in the future? Why was Joseph set to divorce her? Was it because he was told she was pregnant? OR was he told she was going to get pregnant?
V
Valke2
Guest
A
adrift
Guest
This is scripture but it does not make a case that he intended a normal relationship. He was a righteous man. He was confused by what had happened. According to tradition, he was chosen as a protector to a virgin. He knew she was no longer a virgin so he must have been confused as to what his role must be and the reason why he was to divorce her privately. According to one tradition, Joseph was ninety.
newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes it is supported by Scripture. Still, because Jesus was told 'not to be afraid to take Mary into his home, and because he was told enough to know whose child she was bearing, would it be likely that he would expect ‘normal relations’ from the mother of the Son of God? After all, GOD did not divorce the mother of His son. But since God is a spirit, Joseph would have been a “proxy” for Him. Proxies do not consummate a marriage physically for someone else.
Think about it this way.
God decides to become incarnate.
He picks a nice Jewish girl, who is already betrothed to another man. Not even a girl who is unattached.
Um, isn’t God committing adultery then? At the very least, He is interfering rather unforgiveably with the lives of a man and woman.
But okay, He arranges for Mary to have HIS Son. And then, after the birth, it’s “Okay, Mary and Joseph. Now you can go on with your lives. Forget about the fact that Mary had MY Son and that makes us sacramentally tied, that I am Her Spouse according to the natural law I myself laid out when I said a man and woman would be one flesh etc. I’ll just let Joseph now ‘enjoy marital rights’, without abrogating My role in bringing Jesus to earth. I just ‘used’ Mary, and now that I’m done, she can do whatever she wants.”
It just doesn’t fly that God would do such things, does it?
Think about it this way.
God decides to become incarnate.
He picks a nice Jewish girl, who is already betrothed to another man. Not even a girl who is unattached.
Um, isn’t God committing adultery then? At the very least, He is interfering rather unforgiveably with the lives of a man and woman.
But okay, He arranges for Mary to have HIS Son. And then, after the birth, it’s “Okay, Mary and Joseph. Now you can go on with your lives. Forget about the fact that Mary had MY Son and that makes us sacramentally tied, that I am Her Spouse according to the natural law I myself laid out when I said a man and woman would be one flesh etc. I’ll just let Joseph now ‘enjoy marital rights’, without abrogating My role in bringing Jesus to earth. I just ‘used’ Mary, and now that I’m done, she can do whatever she wants.”
It just doesn’t fly that God would do such things, does it?
A
adrift
Guest
I have already stated that the angel spoke in the future tense. It is thought that when Mary said yes that she became pregnant but she would have not known this. At what stage of her pregnancy, Joseph was going to divorce her is unknown but it was when her pregnancy became obvious. This was at least three months but my own personel opion is more likely at five or six months.
When the angel spoke to Joseph, Mary was already pregnant.
Oops. It looks like you deleted some post but here is the answer to them anyway.
V
Valke2
Guest
well, actually proxies consummated all the time. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham as a proxy.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Just a small point but these little inaccuracies can become big ones. It was not Jesus who was told to not be afraid to take Mary into his home. It was Joseph. Just a minor error in your post but enough to confuse the confused.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
My understanding
BTW Mary and Joseph could not truly be married in the betrothal stage because Mary was ever virgin so her marriage to Joseph was ever consummated in the normal way. It was a valid marriage as God via angels recognized the marriage. Joseph is a canonized Saint for performing these duties.
Depends on which interpretation you use but per my earlier post my understanding is a bill of divorce would be expected since the wife to be was pregnant by other than the husband to be. The angel’s visit to Joseph is one of the reasons we believe it was expected of Joseph to follow the message which was to take Mary to be his wife, even though she would be a celibate bride of God, thus for Joseph this is a work of alms
Depends on which interpretation you use since the conception was immaculate she could not know when it occurred so the interpreters have written it both ways
BTW Mary and Joseph could not truly be married in the betrothal stage because Mary was ever virgin so her marriage to Joseph was ever consummated in the normal way. It was a valid marriage as God via angels recognized the marriage. Joseph is a canonized Saint for performing these duties.
F
FromTheCrossroa
Guest
From my understanding, the Catholic church officially created “pre-marital sex” with the council of Trent. Before that time, a priest and two witnesses was not required for a “valid marriage”.
Betrothal was as binding as marriage except the woman still legally was under the father and not her husband. Show me a citation where jews stopped the tradition. From what I understand, some sects of Judiasm continue the tradition to this day.
C
Cranch
Guest
Huh? Marriage as a particular bond between a man and woman, and conferring a certain status recognized in the wider culture or society, is as old as humanity. Therefore sex outside of marriage is as old as humanity.
As for Catholic marriage, by the mid 9th century, the Greek church was insisting Christian marriages were not valid unless performed and blessed by a priest. This was not the case in the West, however by the 12th century, in various parts of Europe there was an established wedding ceremony, with local variations, performed entirely by the clergy. 400 years later, after Trent, a standardized wedding rite came into use in order to combat abuses.*
Here’s a painting done 100 years before Trent showing a priest officiating at a marriage:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Weyden_Matrimony.jpg
*Joseph Martos, Doors to the Sacred, Revised and Updated Edition, (Ligouri/Triumph, 2001) pp. 351, 371-372
- Status