Totally agree.
Hi Roveau, are you saying it is a matter of Catholic Faith to believe Jesus was unmarried because we have no evidence for it, or is it because it is infallibly taught somewhere? I think something can be “not a matter of Faith” without being “against the faith to believe”; for example, Jesus could have eaten stir fry; it doesn’t affect one’s faith to believe or disbelieve that Jesus ate stir fry, so we could say it is okay for a Catholic to hold that belief. It was not mentioned in scripture or in the ECFs that Jesus ate stir fry (I assume…), and a stir fry meal may go against our common understandings of the food of Jesus’ time, but one could hardly call it a matter of Faith to disbelieve that Jesus ate stir fry (unless God reveals otherwise).
Hi R_C, thanks for responding! The way I now understand what you said here is both as a metaphor and as a “mystical marriage”. If I recall, some stories of St. Catherine of Siena have her being “mystically married” to Christ, certainly if this is true then these marriages are not to be understood as common human marriages; which raises the question: Does a mystical marriage to Holy Mother Church preclude any possibility of Jesus being married in a common human sense? Is it a matter of our faith to specifically believe that Christ was not married (in a common human way)? If a Catholic were to teach otherwise, they would be a (formal or material) heretic?
Thanks for that! Downloaded.
s a good piece to meditate on: its a love poem and shows that Truth and Beauty go together.To repeat something said earlier, St Jerome condemned the claim that Mary had other children, calling it “…a novel, wicked and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.”
s the same with the "Jesus was married." claim. Its taken for granted that we all know, without the Churchs having to make a formal declaration. [Maybe she has, but im not aware of it.]s a relative new heresy which says Mary doesnt have a biological father. If that gets out of hand, again, the Church would have to pronounce against it.Not proof that Jesus wasn`t married, but it reinforces the reality of the Bridegroom/Bride.
I worry about historians who “massage data”. Too often they have an agenda and somehow the data is massaged to produce the answer they want to see.
Hi Battleaxe, thanks for responding!
No. There are many gnostic writings that claim all kinds of things about Jesus that have been condemned by the Church. We see in the NT writings the phrase ‘the bride of Christ’, referring to the Church. If Jesus had a wife this phrase would not be appropriate to refer to the Church. Obviously, the NT writers knew Jesus was not married when writing that. In addition, Jesus endorces celibacy when he talks about some having renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom. The people who want that letter to refer to Jesus do not endorse celibacy, contrary to what Jesus taught in the gospel.
I wish to find out more about this I am about to mention, for I only know traces and I may be mistaken. However I recall that the Jewish marriage involved two steps: the kiddushin (betrothal, engagement - the state in which the Blessed Virgin and the Patriarch are at the time of the Annunciation, see Mt 1:18) and the nisuin. We learn that the minimum age for nisuin under Jewish law is 13 for boys, but the kiddushin could take place at an earlier age. We read that “in the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart”.
I cannot find the reference to this which I have slowly put together by gathering single bits of data, therefore I may as well be entirely mistaken without the official seal of the Church, or at least a concordant declaration of some reputable theologian. However, it all makes sense, and the clear vocation of Christ to a mystical marriage appears to be more than just symbolic.
Hi Jerry-Jet, thanks for looking into this thread. I know you are probably referring to society in general, but I see no one on this thread who has supported the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, nor anyone who has said Jesus was married (except for maybe one person on the first page).
There is no single debate among early Christians regarding the married Christ… There is no single councils for opposing such claims… It is only a recent origin. Same like christ myth theory which does not dates back beyond 18nth century. Of course Christ have a bride and that is church.
Jesus is not married to the Church “In a sense” or “mystical”, but rather the human institution of matrimony is an imperfect reflection and copy of the divine covenant relationship between Christ and his bride, the Church. Jesus’ marriage to the Church is more real than human marriage, is superior to human marriage, and encompasses and embodies all that human marriage is and should be.
I think it is a part of Sacred Tradition to believe that Jesus was never married and who was celibate for the sake of the kingdom. If your looking for some kind of document or pronouncement from the church to help you believe that Jesus was celibate during his life, take a look at the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #43, from Vatican II. Here it says talking about religious “The teaching and example of Christ provide the foundation for the evangelical counsels of chaste self-dedication to God, of poverty and of obedience.” From Vatican II, the decree Perfectae Caritatis, #1 " In the constitution, Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), the holy synod has already shown that the pursuit of perfect charity by means of the evangelical counsels traces its origins to the teaching and the example of the Divine Master". The monastic and religious life spans two millenniums in the church. Many men and women have embraced this life believing that they are following the teaching and example of Christ. Does it stand to reason that they were believing and living a lie? That’s absurd!