I never read this before, what do you think?

[oneofmany]

catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

This is in the section on here about Mary. I have never read some of the info in here. That Joseph was a widower and had children from his first marriage. That Mary’s mother Ann, had Mary grow up in the Temple and was to remain a virgin her whole life and that was the reason she was betrothed to Joseph who was old and that explained why he had died before the Crucifixion.

All this is new to me. It explains many things though.

 

[Abba]

How could that have been given a nihil obstat!!??!!

Let’s start here:

1. The special motives for which St. Joseph has been proclaimed Patron of the Church, and from which the Church looks for singular benefit from his patronage and protection, are that Joseph was the spouse of Mary and that he was reputed the Father of Jesus Christ. From these sources have sprung his dignity, his holiness, his glory. In truth, the dignity of the Mother of God is so lofty that naught created can rank above it. But as Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures. For marriage is the most intimate of all unions which from its essence imparts a community of gifts between those that by it are joined together. Thus in giving Joseph the Blessed Virgin as spouse, God appointed him to be not only her life’s companion, the witness of her maidenhood, the protector of her honour, but also, by virtue of the conjugal tie, a participator in her sublime dignity. And Joseph shines among all mankind by the most august dignity, since by divine will, he was the guardian of the Son of God and reputed as His father among men. Hence it came about that the Word of God was humbly subject to Joseph, that He obeyed him, and that He rendered to him all those offices that children are bound to render to their parents. From this two-fold dignity flowed the obligation which nature lays upon the head of families, so that Joseph became the guardian, the administrator, and the legal defender of the divine house whose chief he was. And during the whole course of his life he fulfilled those charges and those duties. He set himself to protect with a mighty love and a daily solicitude his spouse and the Divine Infant; regularly by his work he earned what was necessary for the one and the other for nourishment and clothing; he guarded from death the Child threatened by a monarch’s jealousy, and found for Him a refuge; in the miseries of the journey and in the bitternesses of exile he was ever the companion, the assistance, and the upholder of the Virgin and of Jesus. Now the divine house which Joseph ruled with the authority of a father, contained within its limits the scarce-born Church. From the same fact that the most holy Virgin is the mother of Jesus Christ is she the mother of all Christians whom she bore on Mount Calvary amid the supreme throes of the Redemption; Jesus Christ is, in a manner, the first-born of Christians, who by the adoption and Redemption are his brothers. And for such reasons the Blessed Patriarch looks upon the multitude of Christians who make up the Church as confided specially to his trust - this limitless family spread over the earth, over which, because he is the spouse of Mary and the Father of Jesus Christ he holds, as it were, a paternal authority. It is, then, natural and worthy that as the Blessed Joseph ministered to all the needs of the family at Nazareth and girt it about with his protection, he should now cover with the cloak of his heavenly patronage and defend the Church of Jesus Christ. vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15081889_quamquam-pluries_en.html

 

[robwar]

catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin

This is in the section on here about Mary. I have never read some of the info in here. That Joseph was a widower and had children from his first marriage. That Mary’s mother Ann, had Mary grow up in the Temple and was to remain a virgin her whole life and that was the reason she was betrothed to Joseph who was old and that explained why he had died before the Crucifixion.

All this is new to me. It explains many things though.

that is an old theory that Joseph was an older widower but it is not supported or mentioned at all in scripture about the age of Joseph or if he was previously married. The nativity scenes in scripture do not mention step children hanging around them.

 

[Abba]

That article contradicts Catholic teachings and Sacred Scripture.

Here is a nice little analysis:

In considering the marriage of Joseph and Mary it is important to grasp from the outset the Jewish conception of the betrothal as distinguished from the marriage ceremony itself. A betrothal among the Jews was different from an engagement as we know it. The espousals were a solemn contract concerning a marriage; they were made before witnesses, and had for object the union of the parties. According to Jewish legislation, the betrothal established between the bride and the groom a legal bond much closer than with us. The betrothed woman was considered as the wife of the man from the moment of the betrothal (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), although she had not yet entered the habitation of her husband. The husband could not repudiate his betrothed without giving her a bill of divorce; in case of fornication with another man the betrothed was treated as an adulteress…

(read on…)

“Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately” (Matthew 1:19)…" cathtruth.com/catholicbible/holyfam.htm

If Joseph was just an old widow who had been given the responsibility to take care of a young maiden that had been offered to God to serve the Temple - how is it that once the angel informed him that Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit - nothing happened. No scandal. Joseph was satisfied and all was well. The reason is that is would have been Joseph that would have a problem with Mary having had sex with another man as she was betrothed to him.

Matthew: 1:18
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

Peace

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Please note that the 2nd century “Protoevangelium of James” is respected as an early Christian writing, but is not considered doctrinal by the Church. It may be of pious origin, but does not carry the same weight as Scripture.

 

[oneofmany]

Please note that the 2nd century “Protoevangelium of James” is respected as an early Christian writing, but is not considered doctrinal by the Church. It may be of pious origin, but does not carry the same weight as Scripture.

So does this mean we can believe the article or not? Strange it would be on Catholic Answers.
Some of it makes sense since Joseph died before the crucifixion or he would have been there.

I once heard Mother Angelica say Joseph was a young viril man, not an old weak man who could not protect Mary and Jesus. The bible says brothers and we know Mary was always a virgin so step brothers could have been in the family, although cousins were also called brothers in that time.

The bible doesn’t go into much on who was related to who. We read almost nothing about the apostles’ families. But Protestants always want to say Mary had other chldren and if Joseph was a widower than other children could make sense, even though they would not have be Mary’s biological children.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s go gentle here, before anyone gets high blood pressure.

When a bishop grants an Nihil Obstat, he is simply saying that there is nothing in the writing that is contrary to doctrine.

He is not saying that he agrees with the content.

In this case, it is true that there is a Protoevangelium of James. It is true that the Protoevangelium says these things. It is also true that none of this is contrary to dogma. The dogma is that Mary, not Joseph, was a perpetual virgin.

Personally, I don’t believe the widower story. I think it’s mythology. But that’s me. We know very little about St. Joseph to say much one way or the other. All indicators are that “brethren” or “brothers” is more inclusive than just siblings. If you read the call of Abram, it tells you that Abram took his brother’s son Lot with him. It does not say “his nephew”.

We are left to guess whether Lot is a nephew or the son of a relative. If we go forward in John’s Gospel, it speaks of there being a Mary at the foot of the cross who was “His mother’s sister”. This is kind of the same thing. It is very unlikely that this would be Jesus’ aunt. Jews have a very strict tradition. They do not name children after a living relative in the direct line. In other words, I can’t be named after my grandfather unless he’s dead. I can be named after a cousin. Were the two Marys sisters? Probably not. Were they relatives? Yes.

Even Elizabeth’s relationship with Mary is questionable. The word cousin was inserted later. Originally, it said “kinswoman”. Obviously a relative, but what degree is unknown. It is pretty obvious that Jesus and John did not know each other. It is more than likely that the two households were not very intimate with each other. In other words, he and John, even though they were the same age, were not the cousins who played together and attended Hebrew school at the same synagogue.

There is much guess work on the word “brethren”. There is also much historical analysis that still has to be done on the protoevangelium. But it is a fact that the part quoted in the article is not contrary to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary or any other dogma.

There is no dogma about Joseph’s virginity.

 

[TexanKnight]

it would explain James being his “brother” if James was actually his step-brother…

 

[oneofmany]

But if Mary and Elizabeth’s households was not very close to each other it would be strange that Mary went directly to Elizabeth when she found she was with child. Why even go to Elizabeth if you are not close?

 

[Cojuanco]

But if Mary and Elizabeth’s households was not very close to each other it would be strange that Mary went directly to Elizabeth when she found she was with child. Why even go to Elizabeth if you are not close?

Perhaps she was the nearest relative around.

What you have to understand is that before the advent of the contraceptive mentality (may that idiocy one day be extirpated from this Earth), indeed even today, especially in the Middle East, families were concieved as huge, extended families. I, for example, who come from a culture with a similar kin dynamic, have a lot of cousins I don’t particularly know, but I know of them, that they do exist, for example. But if they would come to me for help, traditionally I would consider it a matter of honor to provide at least some help to them, particularly if I was the nearest relative around.

 

[thistle]

it would explain James being his “brother” if James was actually his step-brother…

If Mary had step children then she would have been entrusted to them following the death of Jesus.
Instead Mary was entrusted to John by Jesus.

 

[oneofmany]

This is from Fr. Serpa—

Dear friend,

John 19:26-17 provides a strong argument in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But the strongest argument is the sacredness of her womb which bore the Son of God. Her womb was a living tabernacle. To conceive another child which would have been conceived in original sin, would been to desecrate it. None of this is true of St. Joseph. The Church leaves open the possibility of Joseph being older and a widower with a grown family. Such children could have died or moved away. But it is also possible that he was younger and celibate.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.