A
aemcpa
Guest
The sacrament of matrimony is confected with the exchange of vows, not with consummation. Joseph’s marriage to Mary was not sacramental because Joseph died before the Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted.
- Status
G
godisgood77
Guest
Yikes… never heard that before. Everything I’ve ever read or been taught has said in no uncertain terms that Mary was Joseph’s wife.
Can you reference a text?
S
snarflemike
Guest
Let’s be clear on one thing: The marriage of Mary and Joseph was totally unique, whether she had other children or not. Saying “marriage is this” or “marriage requires that” simply doesn’t apply, because unlike every other marriage that ever was or ever will be, she conceived of the Holy Spirit.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Got it on the timing of the Sacrament of Matrimony being instituted. Although, never heard that Joseph died before sacramental marriage was instituted. Where did you learn that?
Regardless, the natural law was in place and that would state taht the reason for marriage is the production and rearing of children. Seems like a disconnect…
S
snarflemike
Guest
By that and similar arguments, Jesus was wrong not to marry and have children.
As I pointed out in another post, you simply can’t judge the most unique marriage in all of history with other marriages.
Yes, marriage is, among other things, for the bringing forth and raising of children. Marriage is also supposed to be monogamous, and yet Mary bore the child of one who was not her husband. Do we then fault her for that also? Wouldn’t the penalty for that have been stoning?
S
snarflemike
Guest
To me, suggesting that Mary and Joseph were somehow wrong if they didn’t have other children is like saying Abraham was wrong for attempting to sacrifice his son.
A
aemcpa
Guest
I didn’t say it wasn’t a natural marriage, and this marriage certainly was ordered toward the “production and rearing” of the Divine Child Jesus.
Certainly you are not suggesting that the institution of the Sacraments pre-dates the initiation of the public ministry of Christ.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I don’t want to derail the discussion further… but this statement makes no sense. Jesus didn’t get married so your point is moot. No one said that everyone is required to get married. However, if Jesus did get married with no intention of having children, then yes he would have been wrong.
I’d be really interested in thoughts on why Mary being a perpetual virgin is important. Anyone have thoughts on this??
S
snarflemike
Guest
I’m not the one here insisting that the norm must apply to Mary and Joseph. I’m only pointing out that nobody is upset when Abraham doesn’t follow the norm of child rearing, or when Jesus doesn’t follow the norm:
It’s important because it is true, and God felt that it was worth revealing this truth to his Church. The Church can’t help or control what truths are revealed to it. One reason, presumably, is that it is wrong for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers, unless one has died or divorced her. Did God die or “divorce” (abandon) Mary?
D
Della
Guest
Every Marian teaching has, as its purpose, to enlighten us about some aspect of her Son’s life and mission. So, to put our attention on her without regard to who she conceived and bore in her womb is to disconnect her from the mission God gave to her.
Mary had one child–that child was unique. There will never again be the incarnation of God taking on the flesh of man. She was “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the tabernacle with the Ark of the Covenant in it. IOW, she was set aside for God alone.
She needed a husband to be her protector and a human father for her Son–to help her bring up Jesus and to shelter him. When the Angel Gabriel told Mary she was to conceive a son, she answered, “How can this be since I know not man?” IOW, although betrothed, she did not expect to consummate the marriage in order to have children. Being that she was “full of grace” she no doubt had some idea that God wanted her for some special mission, but until Gabriel came to announce to her who her Son would be, she didn’t know what it would be.
The Scriptures are silent on a good many things we wish the authors had told us. They wrote to people of their own times who understood the culture, laws and expectations of their age. That is why it was left to the Church to delve into these things and explore their fuller meaning. There is ample evidence in Sacred Tradition and Scripture to support all the Marian teachings the Church has given us down through the centuries.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I don’t think that anyone is insisting that the norm apply. It’s more you putting forward a strawman argument. Of course Jesus didn’t follow the norm, but the argument you’re making is that someone is saying that he should have been married with kids… and that is perplexing.
A
aemcpa
Guest
It wouldn’t concern me whether she was or wasn’t. It is simply a fact that she was.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Yes, the argument that Mary and Joseph should have had marital relations since they were married is exactly the argument that the norm for marriage should apply. I’m just pointing out that people who claim one norm should apply don’t claim other norms should also apply.
There, I’ve made the same point about 3 times now, so I think I’ll stop repeating myself.
A
adrift
Guest
You cannot apply todays meaning on the word betrothed. Betrothed was the first part of marriage when the couple was married but did not live together. This first part could be up to a year. It ended with the second part of the marriage with the husband taking his wife into his home.To me, a simple reading, without presupposing perpetual virginity, would be that she assumed that the angel meant that this was something imminent, and meant “since I know not man yet”. If they were in the betrothal phase, and traveling, she would known that the consummation of their marriage was not imminent.
Where do you get that she assumed that the angle meant something imminent? Even if that was the case it would have been a more reasonable assumption to believe that her husband was coming for her. The question she asks the angel is strange for two reasons
- She was married and states she knows not man. Not “Joseph and I will have a baby”
- She doesn’t mention Joseph at all but states a more encompassing response of “man”. So she isn’t stating “I know not Joesph” her husband but I know not “man”.
All other explanations are without logic.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
Here you are talking about not the sacraments, but the sacrament of matrimony. (sacrament of) matrimony was not instituted by the Church, instead the Church made a sacrament of an existing institution. Matrimony is a sacrament of love between two people, it is the two people marrying who are the ministers of marriage - the priest or deacon (or lay person when so delegated) are present as witnesses for the Church. This is the reason that valid marriages are possible with non Catholics or even non Christians…Otherwise you could be suggesting that there were no valid marriages before the existence of the Church.
A
aemcpa
Guest
I am fully aware both of the existence of natural marriages and of how they are different from sacramental ones. The institution of marriage was not established by the Church, but the Sacrament of Matrimony certainly was.
You asserted earlier in the thread (contrary to a defined dogma of the Church, btw) that the evidence points to the conclusion that Joseph and Mary engaged in sexual relations. You argued that were that not the case, their marriage could not be sacramental. All I said was that they could not in any case have a sacramental marriage because the Sacrament of Matrimony had not been instituted yet. My point was actually a side point, although it does expose one of the premises from which you argue to your heretical conclusion as a false premise.
Why would you feel the need to explain to me about natural marriages in support of your premise that Joseph and Mary’s marriage was not merely natural but sacramental?
T
TomFromMD
Guest
I understand that.
Well, of course I wasn’t there. Nor do I know what the angel said in Aramaic. Nor can I read Mary’s mind. But it is reasonable to think that she might have assumed that, if you don’t already accept that she planned to be a virgin forever . You kind of have to assume one or the other.
They were not in the right stage of marriage for that. That would have been shameful.
The vow of which is never mentioned in the Bible. You claim that one can’t logically believe that someone can read the bible, without our tradition, and conclude from this statement alone that Mary wasn’t intending to ever have sex. Yet reading it as "I’m not having sex now is pretty standard reading in Bible-only mainline Protestantism. The Greek “know not a man” is in present tense, as seen here: interlinearbible.org/luke/1-34.htm
Modern translation:
You’re going to have a baby.
Huh? I’m not having sex!
Ah - you must mean by that that you never plan to have sex for the rest of your life!
A
aemcpa
Guest
I think it’s reasonable to assume that a person who is engaged and about to be married would think more like:
You’re going to have a baby.
Oh, cool, I’m going to get pregnant on my wedding night!
/scene
A
adrift
Guest
They weren’t? That is exactly the stage of marriage they were in. Mary was waiting for Joseph to come and take her to his home.That is exactly the problem it is todays mindset. In other words, you are committing a fallacy of anachronism.
You ignore that she just doesn’t say I am not having sex with Joseph. She doesn’t even mention her husband but no sex with anyone. Strange statement from a woman who has a husband that is waiting to be taken to his home. The only way you can explain it is by giving an “modern” interpretation.
- Status