Jesus was married? What are your thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brierpatch1974
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am sure that If you asked a Priest he would fully assent to the virginity of Jesus but im not sure that they can necessarily prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it is something probably that would have to been attested to and they probably would seek for theological evidence regarding the subject? but im not sure it might be in the catechism,you could check! i kinda like the catechism!
 
Birdmanman said:
Hi everyone,
I am not trying to start another thread over whether or not Jesus was actually married to a human woman; I see no good evidence that He was, and quite good evidence against. I do not believe He was married to a human woman.

However, is it a matter of our Catholic Faith (a defined dogma or a dogmatic fact, something Sacred Tradition teaches or something that requires assent or some other such thing) that Jesus was not married?

And yes, I understand that The Church is the Bride of Christ, so in a sense He is certainly married; but does this mystical marriage to The Church preclude a non-mystical human marriage?

Thank you for any help you could provide in answering this question.
Click to expand...
This ideeas come from protestants wiling to say any whoohoo to bring the attention and look more inteligent than others…
If you believe Jesus is God then the marriage doesn’t have any sense.
The same with Holy Mary, all the Marian dogmas have sense, and people had a sense of them before they were declared dogmas…
 
Thanks everyone; here’s the different answers I think we’ve gotten so far from this thread:

On the question: **Is it required that we as Catholics believe that Jesus, Our Lord, remained unmarried (in a common human way)?:
**
  1. Yes, with at least Religious Assent (non-infallible), for the Catechism and past writings of members of the Hierarchy refer to Jesus as a model for the celibate or monastic life.
  2. Yes, with Total Assent of Faith (infallible):
    (a) because The Marriage of Christ to His Church is the perfection of marriage that our common, human marriages reflect; making the proposition “Jesus Christ was never married in a common human way” something like a dogmatic fact and/or sententia certa. (I am not an expert on the Catholic Faith, so do not accept this as true unless you yourself know it is true and in accord with Church teaching).
(b) because at least St. Clement spoke against the idea of Christ being married (in a common human sense) and it has been held universally by the faithful that He was unmarried, or at least universally by the bishops, such that if asked they would all teach in unison that He was unmarried (but how can we find proof of this?), making it a matter of ordinary and universal Magisterium. (I am not an expert on the Catholic Faith, so do not accept this as true unless you yourself know it is true and in accord with Church teaching).

Does anyone have anything further to add? Either way, from how it looks, a Catholic layman must, in order to remain a practicing Catholic who fully follows His faith, accept as true the fact that Jesus remained unmarried (in the common, human sense).

Unless anyone knows if what I say in this post is contrary to Church Teaching, and DO NOT ACCEPT AS TRUE WHAT I SAY IN THIS POST UNLESS YOU KNOW IT IS IN ACCORD WITH CHURCH TEACHING, I consider this question answered. 👍
 
Birdmanman said:
However, St. Jerome didn’t say this same thing about the claim that Jesus was married; perhpas it was being taught or assumed in Jerome’s time, and he didn’t feel he had to mention it.
Click to expand...
The only reason for mentioning that heresy was to point out an EXAMPLE of where*** the Church took for granted*** that all of the faithful held a certain belief. The Church acted only when the heresy was promoted in a document.
[What the Gnostics and their fellow travellers said and did doesnt count. After all, the Gnostics had priestesses. What "Roman Catholic Womenpriests" says doesnt count, either. :D]

In the same way,*** the Church takes for granted ***that all of the faithful believe Jesus wasnt married in the normal human sense. Only to His Bride, the Church. Thats infinitely above a normal marriage, so why the speculation?
For Sensus Fidei, do we know if any Early Church Fathers spoke against the claim that Jesus was married? If not, is silence able to make something “sensus fidei”, because that might be taken a little too far. I remember reading that St. Clement spoke against the idea of Jesus’ marriage, so that might count for something.
Again, not as evidence of whether or not Jesus was really married, I’m looking for evidence of ** whether or not The Church teaches Infallibly that Jesus was unmarried ** (which is the only evidence I need).
Click to expand...
Again,*** “taken for granted” is important***. If nothing has been infallibly stated, that`s because the Church has seen ***no need ***to.

A modern day example i gave is the “Mary doesn`t have a biological father” heresy. What Catholic in his right mind would have believed that one???!!! But thanks to a false “mystic” (condemned by the local bishop), more than a few now do believe it. And counting!. i know a couple of them! So some time in the future, that heresy might have to be infallibly condemned. [Mary worship! :eek:]

Where does the Church stop when it comes to defining matters of faith? It`d be >>> infinity!
So, until some heretic starts a dangerous mass-movement which says that Jesus used floats to walk on water, the Church will see no need to infallibly proclaim against it. 😃
 
Battleaxe said:
Thanks for that! Downloaded. 👍
Thats 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.”
Until then, no one (apart from Gnostics etc.) had publicly taught it. It was taken for granted that all members of the Church knew she had only one Child. It was only after that heresy became troublesome that the Church had to formally pronounce the truth.

Its 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.]

Theres 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.

“Sensus fidei”

In one way, heresy is good because it forces the Church to be more precise with her definitions.

Ephesians 5:

Not proof that Jesus wasn`t married, but it reinforces the reality of the Bridegroom/Bride.
Click to expand...
One thing is for sure. If this thing gets too big, eventually the Church will make a pronouncement which will be definitive. 👍.
 
I think “discoveries” like this are good so that we can know how strong our faith is/isn’t 🙂
Many of us probably got really worried about “discoveries” like this, and many just ignored it.
 
I think Jesus’ twin brother was the one who had a wife. Just a mix-up.
 
farpinho said:
Wait, wasn’t that in India? 😉
As far as I know, Jesus trilocated, as He seems to have died in more than one place. 🤷
Click to expand...
Perhaps that’s another brother? I mean, He also went to America didn’t He? :cool:
 
patrick457 said:
But the Lamanites have messed the story up beyond recognition. 😉
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but I stopped reading the wikipedia article when I spotted this: :mad:

“In the Book of Mormon, Lamanites are described as having a “skin of blackness” caused by God’s curse on the descendants of Laman for their wickedness and corruption” :rolleyes:

So now having a dark skin is a curse??? :rolleyes:

Now I remember why exactly I had ditched Mormoanism before… 😊
 
My thoughts? Based on all that I’ve read both in the press and in the Bible: It’s hogwash…
 
Jimmy_B said:
Hi CB Catholic,

Thank you for your post.

There has also been a debate over whether or not Jesus was married. This was the focus of the movie, The last temptation of Christ. These incidents are often used by non-Catholics to try to argue against celibacy in the priesthood, for example. … not a new argument…
Click to expand...
Most Protestants do not believe Jesus was married and do not use that argument against celibacy. Those that do are not in line with traditional Christian thinking and probably are on the fringe of Christianity and Protestantism. I have never heard a real Protestant use that argument, because they are highly Bible-centered and believe exactly what it says–Jesus was an unmarried Jewish male.
 
Richca said:
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!
Click to expand...
Very good. At this point one would say it is at the very least a truth of the Sense of the Faith held by all the Faithful that Jesus was celebite and not married. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Very good. At this point one would say it is at the very least a truth of the Sense of the Faith held by all the Faithful that Jesus was celebite and not married. 👍
Click to expand...
But we don’t know that with 100 percent certainty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top