Mary and her marriage

[Bon_Croix]

I have heard that Joseph prayed a Jewish prayer as a youngster. In the prayer, was some type of intention to remain virgin. He was not the author of the prayer.

 

[Rau]

The Church came to the decision that it was finally time to declare as dogma what had been taught by the whole Church consistently over time,

How did the matter of virginity of Mary come to be a publically know and taught matter?

 

[Gorgias]

How did the matter of virginity of Mary come to be a publically know and taught matter?

I would recommend a few things to you:

• Read Munificentissumus deus
• Look up the history of the Feast of the Presentation of Mary
• Read the Protoevangelium of James and ponder a bit on the fact that, although it was ultimately not chosen for inclusion in the Scriptural Canon, it was nevertheless read and respected by Christians in the early Church
• Read up on the discussions of the question of the virginity of Mary as taught by St Jerome and his contemporaries, as well as other ECFs

 

[Benadam]

I hadn’t thought of that before. I think their may have been more than one or two concerns that were seeking resolution when Mary asked the question. First off a child that wasn’t Joseph’s developing in her womb would present a hurdle impossible to get over in human terms. The Incarnation can only be revealed by heaven. It’s a revelation that can’t come from an earthly source and be believed. But the number of people that heaven did reveal it too was growing. A community of people that believed what was not believable without divine help. A hidden community with a secret they couldn’t tell even if they wanted. Who would believe such a thing? Simon and Anna first,. Then Elizabeth and John in her womb.

 

[Rau]

Do I take it a more direct answer would be too lengthy?

 

[Gorgias]

Do I take it a more direct answer would be too lengthy?

Running on fumes at the moment. Google is your friend…

 

[Catholicwife32]

Actually, that wasn’t quite the implication. In the document, the priests are noting that a girl – who is ‘coming of age’ as a woman – cannot stay in the temple. It wasn’t a question of “providing for herself”, it was a question of ritual purity and keeping the temple free from ritual impurity.

Well, that’s why she couldn’t remain in the Temple. That doesn’t explain why her not being able to remain in the Temple would create a need for her to marry.

Because it implies that Jesus’ birth wasn’t immaculate and pure and painless. (However, the document asserts that the midwife did nothing and left right after the birth. Aquinas sees the mere presence of a midwife as an admission that the birth included normal child-bearing pain.)

That’s utterly ridiculous. Genesis says the woman’s labor pains would increase. It doesn’t say that original sin is the root of all labor pain.

 

[PJM]

Because Mary’s Vow was between Her and Her GOD; NOT even likely known by the Rabbi & and her relationship was likely romantic [in the sense of actually loving Joseph] BUT definitely non-sexual.

 

[Lea101]

I do believe in the infallibility of the church. I saw the feast day for the presentation so I thought it was infallible too.

Which then made me ask why marriage then. Of course it makes sense for her to have male guardianship but then it would mean that Joseph must be aware of that and hence it was probably a platonic relationship.

For some reason, I’m interested in whether Mary and Joseph loved each other romantically.

 

[Benadam]

II think if the initial intent and purpose for Joseph was someone sent by religious authorities to enable Mary to live out a vow, that just impedes the marital love that I would think they had. And Joseph’s presence wasn’t founded on being a husband as much as a guard. The age difference makes him a father figure the relationship was intended to be platonic the intentions didn’t originate on the desire to be husband and wife these things build a view of their relationship as distant and not what I think of the Holiest state of Matrimony produced among man. ok rant over

 

[Benadam]

For some reason, I’m interested in whether Mary and Joseph loved each other romantically.

I like that better since it makes their struggles relevant to the reality of marriage as an experience that is universal

 

[De_Maria]

1ke:

These are pious legends, but not part of the deposit of faith.

Do you have an example?

 

[Lea101]

Me too. It would also make her more “relatable” too.

I remember hearing a talk where the speaker said some people are tempted to describe Joseph as a father to Mary in an attempt to protect Mary’s virginity but honestly, I feel like it is more realistic than them being in love if Mary was planning to be a virgin forever?

 

[Lea101]

I can only speak for myself and for the women I talked to, I don’t really find her relatable because she’s literally perfect. She has no sin, not even original sin. We don’t know much about her personality too and from whatever info we have, she seems rather quiet and ‘meek’, something a lot for us aren’t. She (probably) also didn’t really have labor pains, something that all moms experience. She is also apparently physically attractive too and all of that. So I guess she seems like this impossible ideal. I prefer reading about female saints, if I have to choose a female role model.

There are women who relate to her because Mary is a mom and she probably had her fair share of difficulties (although I would say if she didn’t have labor pains and if she’s raising God…she didn’t have similar experiences). She did experience hardship like being pregnant before marriage, running away to protect Jesus, seeing his son die and all of that. I think they find her relatable bc they either share similar traits or that they experienced similar pains.

 

[Bluebright]

It was merely something that occurred to me one day whilst mediating on the mysteries of the rosary. It’s not from any readings, just that Satan isn’t stupid enough to not have tried to deceive Mary on at least a few occasions in her life and at least attempt to stop her do the will of God. If he attempts to stop us and we are such lesser creatures in the great scheme of things, it stands to reason he would attempt to stop this big ‘fiat’ , fail yes of course we know that. So it just seemed to me Mary might be cautious in her dealings with anything that went or appeared to go against a previous vow to God. Many saints, especially mystics, at first question visions and apparitions to be sure they are God and not Satan. I just thought Mary might do the same as one knows she was very wise. Anyway just a musing.
Yes I agree that there were other concerns for Mary, such as a child that wasn’t Josephs developing in her womb. Of course it was a little later that God saw fit to reveal the involvement of heaven to the other people you mention and Mary had to believe first. Well, Zechariach knew a part but was mute and though Anna and Simeon knew they didn’t know who or where til they saw. Indeed, who would believe such a thing. It’s that wonderous and mysterious way that God works even now… though not so much with the angels

 

[Hereiam]

See post on jaocim and anne

 

[Gorgias]

Well, that’s why she couldn’t remain in the Temple. That doesn’t explain why her not being able to remain in the Temple would create a need for her to marry.

Right: the Protoevangelium is answering the question “why couldn’t Mary stay in the temple?” and the answer – in the culture of the day – was “ritual purity of the temple.” Of course, the culture of the day also was such that a woman could not provide for herself or her family if she was unmarried or widowed. Thus, the need for a husband / protector is an obvious implication of the situation once she leaves the temple.

That’s utterly ridiculous. Genesis says the woman’s labor pains would increase. It doesn’t say that original sin is the root of all labor pain.

You’re barking up the wrong tree, I’m afraid. I agree with your take on the text in Genesis (although there are Catholics who fail to see the word “increase” there and presume it’s saying that labor pains began). However, that’s not what’s in play here: it’s the question of whether the perpetual virginity of Mary implies a miraculous birth that does not have the usual effects of childbirth on a woman’s body. That’s what Aquinas is concerned about in his discussion of the topic.

It’s only as ridiculous as the claim that “virginity” implies a pristine physical condition – which, in fact, it did, back in antiquity.

 

[Gorgias]

She did experience hardship like being pregnant before marriage

Psst… Mary wasn’t “pregnant before marriage.” They were married (and the stage of the marriage was the ‘betrothal’, which simply meant that she and Joseph hadn’t yet begun to live under the same roof). If you read Matthew, Joseph is considering divorce, not breaking an engagement.

When we in the 21st century West read that text, we tend to conflate the 1st century Jewish notion of ‘betrothal’ with the modern Western notion of ‘engagement’. They are definitely not the same thing: Mary and Joseph were already considered married.

So, Mary never experienced “unwed motherhood.”

 

[Gorgias]

I do believe in the infallibility of the church. I saw the feast day for the presentation so I thought it was infallible too.

Yep. Sometimes – maybe because the notion of ‘infallibility’ is part of the context surrounding some of the teachings of the Church – Catholics get the mistaken notion that everything the Church says is “infallible.” It isn’t. Rather, the Church is always authoritative in its teachings (and some teachings, in addition, are also infallible). Liturgical matters are authoritatively declared by the Church, but infallibility doesn’t attach to them. (That’s kind of the reason that the Assumption was explicitly declared a dogma of the Church: it was already believed by Catholics, and was part of our liturgical calendar, but it hadn’t been declared infallibly.)

Which then made me ask why marriage then.

The Gospels don’t tell us that answer. The Protoevangelium of James (which, of course, is not a book of Scripture, but has been read by Christians for ages, and which has not been censured by the Church) explains it as a relationship that was first more a ‘guardianship’ that it implicitly infers became a marriage, once Mary became pregnant.

Of course it makes sense for her to have male guardianship but then it would mean that Joseph must be aware of that and hence it was probably a platonic relationship.

That’s the implication that the Church has always taught: the relationship between Mary and Joseph was not sexual.

However, we have to stop and ask ourselves “what does ‘platonic’ really mean, in this context?”

It doesn’t have to mean “just friends”, which is the connotation that it tends to take on, these days! It could mean intimate and affectionate, but just not physically so, and I think that this would be a good way to look at it: everything that a marriage can be… but without the sexual expression.

 

[Benadam]

my problem

Her vow according to the Protoevangelium of James was known by Temple authorities. If it were intended to be a life long vow then the marriage would cause scandal to the faith, in light of the Incarnation.

Not just scandal to endure for the Holy Family but scandal to faith in the Gospels. To the communities who were given first place. The people the Gospels belonged to. First to the Jews