Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[LittleDeb]

Mary and Joseph are not a perfect role model for a Catholic marriage. If a couple imitated Mary and Joseph exactly then they would not have any children. There are some religious sects that teach that couples should not have sex, and that sex should not be used for reproduction. I can’t remember which ones.

It appears you are still confused. It wasn’t that Mary and Joseph couldn’t be together. It was that they *chose *not to in response to God’s call.

You are referring to heretical sects known as Gnostics. They believed (and their followers still believe) that anything to do with the body was evil. They believe that the spirit “rides around” in a body and that death is the ultimate because they escape the prison of the body. They believe that sex is evil because it has to do with the body and pleasure.

Catholic theology has always been that sex in marriage is a holy union. But it has also always been that celibacy is *superior *to sex. Not because sex is bad, but because celibates forgo the short pleasure of sex for the kingdom of God. There are saints whose intimate time with the Lord has been referred to as an ecstasy.

Please don’t further confuse celibacy with chastity. They are not the same thing. We are ALL called to chastity. Only those who make a vow to our Lord are called to celibacy.

The OP in this case is projecting his own experience on to Mary and Joseph. It appears you might be doing the same thing. ALL married couples are called to model after Mary and Joseph. ALL married couples are to cooperate with God in His will for our sexual unions. Marriage is **not **a “license to legally fornicate.” Marriage is about having a sexual union with your spouse because God called you there. He called Mary and Joseph to celibacy. He can call any of us to celibacy at any time. The real question is, “Are we ready for His call?”

 

[budgie2]

It appears you are still confused. It wasn’t that Mary and Joseph couldn’t be together. It was that they *chose *not to in response to God’s call.

You are referring to heretical sects known as Gnostics. They believed (and their followers still believe) that anything to do with the body was evil. They believe that the spirit “rides around” in a body and that death is the ultimate because they escape the prison of the body. They believe that sex is evil because it has to do with the body and pleasure.

Catholic theology has always been that sex in marriage is a holy union. But it has also always been that celibacy is *superior *to sex. Not because sex is bad, but because celibates forgo the short pleasure of sex for the kingdom of God. There are saints whose intimate time with the Lord has been referred to as an ecstasy.

Please don’t further confuse celibacy with chastity. They are not the same thing. We are ALL called to chastity. Only those who make a vow to our Lord are called to celibacy.

The OP in this case is projecting his own experience on to Mary and Joseph. It appears you might be doing the same thing. ALL married couples are called to model after Mary and Joseph. ALL married couples are to cooperate with God in His will for our sexual unions. Marriage is **not **a “license to legally fornicate.” Marriage is about having a sexual union with your spouse because God called you there. He called Mary and Joseph to celibacy. He can call any of us to celibacy at any time. The real question is, “Are we ready for His call?”

I think you are very wrong to believe that celibacy is superior to marriage although I have respect for the celibate vocation. I believe the sacrament of marriage is of equal value to the sacrament of ordination. The vocation to be a nun is not even sacramental although they receive the Eucharist and Confession so as a married couple we could even be seen to be higher than this. This means that either the orders of nuns are abolished or that their vows are made sacramental. Currently you could argue they are not bound by God. To say that marriage is lesser than celibacy would be to devalue the creation of new life. We need both in the Church. There are some priests who would disagree with you however the Church does give that impression as more celibates are canonised.

 

[fix]

I am prtestty sure the Church teaches that celibacy is objectively superior to matrimony. That is not saying marriage is bad.

 

[LittleDeb]

I think you are very wrong to believe that celibacy is superior to marriage although I have respect for the celibate vocation. I believe the sacrament of marriage is of equal value to the sacrament of ordination. The vocation to be a nun is not even sacramental although they receive the Eucharist and Confession so as a married couple we could even be seen to be higher than this. This means that either the orders of nuns are abolished or that their vows are made sacramental. Currently you could argue they are not bound by God. To say that marriage is lesser than celibacy would be to devalue the creation of new life. We need both in the Church. There are some priests who would disagree with you however the Church does give that impression as more celibates are canonised.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You are more confused than I thought. Celibacy is a discipline. Not all priests are called to celibacy. Eastern Rite priests are married and have families, as do permanent deacons. This has nothing to do with ordination or the level of a sacramental vow. It has to with the the holy discipline of celibacy.

Celibacy is like giving up ice cream for Lent, but on a much grander scale. Celibate couples have mutually decided that because sex is so incredible and such an integral part of who we are, that they are sacrificing sexual intimacy in order to spend that ecstatic time with our Lord instead. We don’t give up ice cream for Lent because ice cream is bad. But giving up ice cream as a sacrifice is *superior *to indulging in it.

Mary is ever-virgin because she IS the Ark of the Covenant. And she *chose *to accept the role. Joseph lived a celibate marriage by choice, not by force. St. Paul said it would be ideal if we were all called to celibacy. Not because sex is bad, but because sex is something we do living this *earthly *life. When we are ALL called to celibacy, it will be because the kingdom of heaven is at hand!

We married couples live *our *call. We are called to cooperate with God in creating new life. For some couples, the call to celibacy begins during life. For others, it is not until death. Everyone in heaven is celibate. There is no call for sex in heaven! If heaven is our goal, then it is certainly superior to forgo earthly pleasures in preparation for our marriage in heaven as Bride of Christ.

 

[LittleDeb]

I believe the sacrament of marriage is of equal value to the sacrament of ordination.

And to further clarify: the *sacrament *of marriage is not interchangeable with the marriage act. If a couple can no longer participate in the marriage act by reason of injury or illness, they remain sacramentally married. Whether a couple is celibate or not has no effect on the sacramental nature of marriage. Sacramental is determined by the state of baptism. The sacraments just are what they are, “an external expression of interior grace.” The term “equal” belongs more in mathematics and politics than it does in discussions on the Sacraments. It isn’t a contest. We are called where we are called.

Religious sisters and brothers ARE married, to Christ. Priests are married to the Church.

 

[budgie2]

I agree with you that we are called where we are called. However, if I rejected the marriage sacrament because I thought it was lesser than the vocation of celibacy then I would commit a sin and vice versa. In order to be the greatest we should make ourself into the least. A person could receive a true vocation but at the same time a person could enter a celibate order because they think it makes them look holier or great. I’m not discouraging people from entering the priesthood as we are short but I did receive a temptation whilst I was engaged to become a Carmelite as these were so much holier than married laity. I have had visions recently and I’ve had to request two confessors from the local diocese. Don’t judge the sacraments or vocations by appearances.

 

[jcrichton]

If that is the case, then it it more tahn an example of how we should live in marriage, it is also a model of our walk with God, no matter what our vocation is

I cannot agree with you more! The Franciscan Monks from EWTN take on the name of Mary as part of their Priestly Vocation; in many of the old Latin American cultures “Mary” and “Joseph” were two of the most common names–some of the most Marian Catholics would use “Mary” even as a second/third name for their male children… I suspect that the idea was to emulate Jesus’ parents as their models.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Mary and Joseph are not a perfect role model for a Catholic marriage. If a couple imitated Mary and Joseph exactly then they would not have any children. There are some religious sects that teach that couples should not have sex, and that sex should not be used for reproduction. I can’t remember which ones.

I think that we are continuing to miss the point about the Messiah… how many other couples throughout time would be call to the charge of caring for the Incarnate Word?

The fact that not all Catholic marriages are able to produce children does not make their marriage void/null; what makes a marriage void/null is conscious intent to not produce offsprings!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I agree with you that we are called where we are called. However, if I rejected the marriage sacrament because I thought it was lesser than the vocation of celibacy then I would commit a sin and vice versa. In order to be the greatest we should make ourself into the least. A person could receive a true vocation but at the same time a person could enter a celibate order because they think it makes them look holier or great. I’m not discouraging people from entering the priesthood as we are short but I did receive a temptation whilst I was engaged to become a Carmelite as these were so much holier than married laity. I have had visions recently and I’ve had to request two confessors from the local diocese. Don’t judge the sacraments or vocations by appearances.

…yet, here you are speaking of the sin of self (egocentrism); when we believe that we can be holier than others we are acting exactly as those which Jesus warned us not to emulate in their action because they sought man’s approval (praises) rather than God’s. We can become self-absorved in any Vocation or path thereof; I respect many of the non-Catholic Christians commitment to studying the Holy Scriptures, but more often than not I’ve met too many whose attitude is that they are superior to Catholics because ‘the Catholic Church forbids the reading/interpretation of Scriptures by the laity’ These well-meaning non-Catholic Christians are accepting and promoting an anti Catholic propaganda that is so far removed from reality that it can only dwell in self-delision and grandeur.

If we chose our Vocation, whatever it may be, on grounds of becoming “holier than xyz,” we have defeated God’s purpose for us and have achieve nothing more than stifled the Holy Spirit’s Gifts!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was listening to a debate between Gerry Matatics (Catholic) and Eric Svendsen (Reformed) on the topic of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and Svendsen attempted to make a big deal over the use of heos hou (until) in Matthew 1:25: **"**But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." This verse came up extensively earlier in this thread.

Subsequently, I came across some research by John Pacheco which destroys, and I mean DESTROYS, this argument which was advanced by Svendsen and James White in the late 90’s.

Bottom line: THE USE OF HEOS HOU IN MATTHEW 1:25 DOES NOTHING TO DISPROVE THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY.

Read the research for yourself here:

catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

In addition to the powerful research on heos hou referenced above, I offer the following insight into the mind of Joseph:

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Righteous Man

Matthew 1:19
19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Two interpretations attempt to explain why Joseph decided to separate from Mary. They give opposite answers to the question: Who did Joseph think was the unworthy partner in the betrothal?

The Suspicion Theory

This view holds that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered that she was pregnant. The troubling news led him to seek a divorce in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, although he wished to do this secretly to avoid subjecting Mary to the rigorous law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which mandates capital punishment for adulterers. Joseph was a just man inasmuch as he resolved to act (divorce) in accordance with the Mosaic law. This common interpretation suffers from a serious weakness: Joseph’s desire to follow the law for divorce does not square with his willingness to sidestep the law proscribed for adulterers. A truly righteous man would keep God’s law completely, not selectively.

The Reverence Theory

This view holds that Joseph, already informed of the divine miracle within Mary (Matthew 1:18), considered himself unworthy to be part of God’s work in this unusual situation (cf. Lk 5:8; 7:6). His resolve to separate quietly from Mary is thus seen as a reverent and discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. Notably, the expression “to expose her to public disgrace” is weaker in Greek than in the translation: it means that Joseph did not wish to “exhibit” Mary in a public way. The angelic announcement in Matthew 1:20, then, directs Joseph to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Davidic Messiah. This view more aptly aligns Joseph’s righteousness with his intentions. (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Study Bible, 18).

 

[Secret_Square]

To those who argue that Mary and Joseph’s marriage would have been invalid under Church law because it was never consummated and they did not intend to have children of their own: that doesn’t really matter, because Mary and Joseph were not Catholic, they were Jewish Nobody was “Catholic” until after Christ died!

And under JEWISH law and tradition, a “righteous” or “just” man like Joseph could not have sexual relations with a woman who had belonged to anyone else… and Mary, having concieved her Child by the Holy Spirit, in effect belonged to God Himself. So out of respect for that, they both remained virgins (or, if you subscribe to the idea that Joseph was a widower with other children by his first wife as Eastern Christians do, Mary remained a virgin and Joseph respected that decision). However, they loved each other and wanted to give their Child a proper home so they got married, even though it was not going to be a “normal” marriage.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Randy Carson:

The Reverence Theory

This view holds that Joseph, already informed of the divine miracle within Mary (Matthew 1:18), considered himself unworthy to be part of God’s work in this unusual situation (cf. Lk 5:8; 7:6). His resolve to separate quietly from Mary is thus seen as a reverent and discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. Notably, the expression “to expose her to public disgrace” is weaker in Greek than in the translation: it means that Joseph did not wish to “exhibit” Mary in a public way. The angelic announcement in Matthew 1:20, then, directs Joseph to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Davidic Messiah. This view more aptly aligns Joseph’s righteousness with his intentions. (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Study Bible, 18).

The problem with the Reverence Theory is that the Angelic message that is recorded in Scripture becomes the “after thought.” This doesn’t really make sense to me. The Angelic message as recorded in Scripture is obviously giving St. Joseph the details of Mary’s pregnancy, that he did not already possess. There is still another theory that hasn’t been considered: According to Jewish Law, St. Joseph would have to accept this child as his own, to remain married to our Blessed Mother. This put St. Joseph in a very difficult position. He knew the child was not his own, plus he may have been unable to believe that Mary was unfaithful to him, yet the physical reality was contradictory. This contradiction would have been a source of extreme anxiety. We know our Blessed Mother never revealed this to anyone herself (as seen in the Visitation to her kinsman, St. Elizabeth.) We also know that St. Joseph must never have confronted our Blessed Mother with this anxiety of his, as he would have had his answer. We can therefore surmise that this was a tremendous test of Faith upon St. Joseph. It is only after he finally decides (based on Jewish law) that he can not truthfully accept the fatherhood of Mary’s child, that he decides to “put her away quietly.” Then his Angelic messenger comes to the rescue of both Mary and Joseph. This test is not unlike the test of Abraham which was also interrupted at the last minute by the Angelic messenger. This would also explain why St. Joseph was so prompt in believing the Angel’s message. It would have justified his own belief in Mary’s fidelity, and would have resolved the conflict in one stroke.

 

[Jason_1977]

They were betrothed. Nobody stomped on a glass covered in a cloth & said mozzletoff!

 

[catholicsuffer]

The problem with the Reverence Theory is that the Angelic message that is recorded in Scripture becomes the “after thought.” This doesn’t really make sense to me. The Angelic message as recorded in Scripture is obviously giving St. Joseph the details of Mary’s pregnancy, that he did not already possess. There is still another theory that hasn’t been considered: According to Jewish Law, St. Joseph would have to accept this child as his own, to remain married to our Blessed Mother. This put St. Joseph in a very difficult position. He knew the child was not his own, plus he may have been unable to believe that Mary was unfaithful to him, yet the physical reality was contradictory. This contradiction would have been a source of extreme anxiety. We know our Blessed Mother never revealed this to anyone herself (as seen in the Visitation to her kinsman, St. Elizabeth.) We also know that St. Joseph must never have confronted our Blessed Mother with this anxiety of his, as he would have had his answer. We can therefore surmise that this was a tremendous test of Faith upon St. Joseph. It is only after he finally decides (based on Jewish law) that he can not truthfully accept the fatherhood of Mary’s child, that he decides to “put her away quietly.” Then his Angelic messenger comes to the rescue of both Mary and Joseph. This test is not unlike the test of Abraham which was also interrupted at the last minute by the Angelic messenger. This would also explain why St. Joseph was so prompt in believing the Angel’s message. It would have justified his own belief in Mary’s fidelity, and would have resolved the conflict in one stroke.

You certainly seem correct in your response. It has been my personal experience that some things that deals directly with heaven are seal in ones mind and can not be recall until later. Some biblical examples would be the disciples not recalling what Jesus said until after the event had occur. Also, where Saint John in the wonderful book of Revelation mentions that certain things were seal. This could have very well been Saint Joseph experience: He was overwhelm by the pregnancy of Saint Mary and did not recall what the Angel had said until later. Not trying to start a new religion here, just some thoughts in my simple little head.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Randy Carson:

The Suspicion Theory

This view holds that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered that she was pregnant. The troubling news led him to seek a divorce in accordance with Deuteronomy 24:1-4, although he wished to do this secretly to avoid subjecting Mary to the rigorous law of Deuteronomy 22:23-24, which mandates capital punishment for adulterers. Joseph was a just man inasmuch as he resolved to act (divorce) in accordance with the Mosaic law. This common interpretation suffers from a serious weakness: Joseph’s desire to follow the law for divorce does not square with his willingness to sidestep the law proscribed for adulterers. A truly righteous man would keep God’s law completely, not selectively.

The problem with this theory is that 1.) if Joseph really suspected the worst of Mary (which I don’t believe) then why would he have worried about the rigors of the Law? The only explanation for shielding Mary from the rigors of the law would have been if St. Joseph did not think Mary guilty, which brings us to 2.) If Joseph didn’t believe the worst, but supposed some other explanation, such as rape, then, it would be conceivable that St. Joseph would have tried to put her away quietly. However this possibility would be unthinkable as well, since there would be no way Mary would have remained so much as before (her trip to visit her kinsman St. Elizabeth) in quiet holiness (and even more so, as she now carried the Savior of the World!) So that explanation would have seemed implausible to St. Joseph too. Both of these theories, viz. the Suspicion and the Reverence are equally implausible in my view, and the arguments against them bolster still more the alternate theory, that Scripture is completely accurate, and St. Joseph was extremely perplexed by the contradictory nature of the situation. This is exactly how Scripture portrays this dilemma, and how I think it in fact did occur. Not that St. Joseph already knew before the angelic messenger appeared, or that St. Joseph had any suspicion of Mary’s fidelity. (Both of these theories distort and stretch the word of Scripture to the breaking point.)

 

[Secret_Square]

They were betrothed. Nobody stomped on a glass covered in a cloth & said mozzletoff!

I don’t know about that. First of all, in the time of Joseph and Mary, there were two stages to a Jewish marriage. The first was betrothal, in which the formal agreement to marry was drawn up and the groom began preparing a home for his bride. A betrothal was much more legally binding than an “engagement” is today. That’s why Joseph would have had to “put Mary away” (i.e. divorce her) if he decided not to go through with the marriage.

When the couple were ready to move in together, the wedding feast took place. The Gospel says that Joseph “took Mary into his home” after the angel spoke to him; that would have been the actual “wedding.” They would not have “stomped on a glass” because I don’t think glass drinking vessels existed, or were very common, in 1st century Palestine I dunno if the “mazel tov” part was done in those days or not.

Either way, they went through all the steps of a Jewish wedding in those days and therefore were fully married under Jewish law.

 

[catholicsuffer]

They were betrothed. Nobody stomped on a glass covered in a cloth & said mozzletoff!

I don’t know about that. First of all, in the time of Joseph and Mary, there were two stages to a Jewish marriage. The first was betrothal, in which the formal agreement to marry was drawn up and the groom began preparing a home for his bride. A betrothal was much more legally binding than an “engagement” is today. That’s why Joseph would have had to “put Mary away” (i.e. divorce her) if he decided not to go through with the marriage.

When the couple were ready to move in together, the wedding feast took place. The Gospel says that Joseph “took Mary into his home” after the angel spoke to him; that would have been the actual “wedding.” They would not have “stomped on a glass” because I don’t think glass drinking vessels existed, or were very common, in 1st century Palestine I dunno if the “mazel tov” part was done in those days or not.

Either way, they went through all the steps of a Jewish wedding in those days and therefore were fully married under Jewish law.

Mazel tov is kind of yiddish:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazel_tov

Here are some of the vessels that were common in those days:
ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Community/vases.html
ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Community/pottery.html

 

[Secret_Square]

If “mazel tov” is a Yiddish phrase, then Mary and Joseph (or more precisely, the guests at their wedding) would not have said it, since they didn’t speak Yiddish.

The glass breaking is supposed to be in memory of the destruction of the Temple, but I’m not sure which one – Solomon’s Temple, which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC, or Herod’s Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. If it’s the latter, then Mary and Joseph would not have done the glass- or vessel-breaking thing either since the Second Temple was still standing (actually, it was still under construction).

Also, the modern Jewish wedding combines the betrothal ceremony (which involves signing a marriage contract or ketubah) with the marriage feast and welcoming of the bride into the groom’s home (symbolized by the canopy or huppah). In Mary and Joseph’s time, as I noted earlier, these were separate.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem with this theory is that 1.) if Joseph really suspected the worst of Mary (which I don’t believe) then why would he have worried about the rigors of the Law? The only explanation for shielding Mary from the rigors of the law would have been if St. Joseph did not think Mary guilty, which brings us to 2.) If Joseph didn’t believe the worst, but supposed some other explanation, such as rape, then, it would be conceivable that St. Joseph would have tried to put her away quietly. However this possibility would be unthinkable as well, since there would be no way Mary would have remained so much as before (her trip to visit her kinsman St. Elizabeth) in quiet holiness (and even more so, as she now carried the Savior of the World!) So that explanation would have seemed implausible to St. Joseph too. Both of these theories, viz. the Suspicion and the Reverence are equally implausible in my view, and the arguments against them bolster still more the alternate theory, that Scripture is completely accurate, and St. Joseph was extremely perplexed by the contradictory nature of the situation. This is exactly how Scripture portrays this dilemma, and how I think it in fact did occur. Not that St. Joseph already knew before the angelic messenger appeared, or that St. Joseph had any suspicion of Mary’s fidelity. (Both of these theories distort and stretch the word of Scripture to the breaking point.)

Ambrose-

My post (#170) contains an exact quote from the footnotes produced by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch for The Gospel of Matthew in the Ignatius Study Bible. The quote begins with the words “Two interpretations…” and continues to the end of the post. The two theories noted by Hahn and Mitch are commonly held…they are not novelties proposed by me.

I recommend a close reading of the text in question. Matthew 1:18 clearly indicates that Mary was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. The text does NOT say, “Mary was found to be with Child, but Joseph was clueless as to how this ocurred.”

I dunno…Dr. Hahn generally knows his stuff, don’t you think?