Mary and her marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lea101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
You seem to be conflating two perspectives: one, held by Christians, and the other, held by Temple authorities.

According to the Protoevangelium, the temple authorities (upon finding Mary pregnant) accused Joseph of already having run off and married Mary. (I suspect that’s because, if he had merely had sex with her, then Mosaic law would compel him to marry her.) So, given that they are not Christians, then their perspective was merely that Joseph should live up to his responsibilities as a Jewish man.

I’m not seeing where this would be ‘scandalous’ to Christian communities, who themselves would have believed that Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary, and therefore, their marriage was not an indication that Joseph was the natural father (and therefore, obligated under Mosaic law to marry Mary).
 
It would have been an impediment to belief in the Incarnation. Jesus as the Son of God. temple authorities were Jew and the Gospel belonged to them. If Joseph broke the vow then Jesus would be the product of tainted will. Will overcome by base desires. Might have stigmatized the, whole family Lowered them in esteem to the community. I read this in another thread
 
Last edited:
If Joseph broke the vow then Jesus would be the product of tainted will.
Hold on a second, though: first you referenced the fact of the marriage, and now you’re referencing the vow of continence. The presence of the former does not imply a transgression of the latter, wouldn’t you say? And therefore, there’s no ‘scandal’ in the marriage.
 
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.
That is such a messed up view of what happens to a woman’s body during pregnancy and labor, I don’t even know where to begin. You might as well argue that while Mary was pregnant, you couldn’t tell because her uterus never grew to accomodate the child Jesus.
 
only perceived scandal true, Anyone not privy to the virgin birth and knew of the vow, to them it would appear to have been broken and Jesus would be the evidence. Also, the Incarnation could only be revealed by a heavenly source. If revealed otherwise it couldn’t be believed.
 
Last edited:
Anyone not privy to the virgin birth and knew of the vow, to them it would appear to have been broken and Jesus would be the evidence.
Right. But, anyone who calls themselves ‘Christian’ would be “privy to the virgin birth,” so… no scandal. 😉
 
exactly, but the scandal would be to the Jews, to whom it would be an impedement’

I’ll post the source that I’m basing this idea on
stpurl2d
What I have heard (and it makes sense) is that in Jewish society, a woman was either under the ‘headship’ of her father, her oldest male relative, her husband, or her son. A woman who had none of the male protection above would find herself out on the street and forced into slavery or prostitution in order to survive.

So if Mary’s father had died before she reached puberty and she had no living male relatives (Elizabeth was her kinswoman, not Zachariah), then it would have been arranged, possibly by her father before he died, or by the temple authorities) for Mary to be betrothed. Her spouse would then be responsible for her.

Now if Mary had made a vow to live as a consecrated virgin, her father, relatives, or husband could do one of two things: they could have her cancel the vow (since they had authority over her) or they could let the vow ‘stand’ (thereby giving the vow ‘their authority’ to proceed).

So if Joseph were requested to be Mary’s responsible party, he could let the vow stand or have her consummate the marriage, even if he had previously said he would let the vow stand. If he DID consummate the marriage he was perfectly within his legal right, but he would be ‘looked down on’ by those who knew that he had originally agreed to something different.

This would explain a lot about the views of the people in Nazareth about Jesus --pride in Him but also a rather contemptuous view of Him and His family --if they thought that Mary had broken her vow, that she and Joseph had let their ‘lusts’ overcome a sacred vow. Jesus would be seen as of course a legitimate child, but a child of ‘profane lust’. They wouldn’t be surprised that He ‘broke out’ years later as a ‘meglomaniac’. And they would be sneering, “That son of Mary”. . .and his ‘ragtag’ family. They also would not have been surprised that Jesus was the ONLY son of Mary, as they would think that Mary and Joseph, after their lapse, would try to ‘make up for it’, although ‘of course’ they’d still be scandalous. The Blessed Virgin very likely had a lot of ‘barbs’ thrown her way by women who looked down on her. . . and Joseph probably had to stand a lot of male chaffing and being looked down on as well. . .and both knowing their innocence but submitting to the slander just as their Son would years later.
 
@benadam Of course Jesus’s conception would have been a stumbling block to those of His day. It’s a stumbling block to those of our own day!

St Paul referred to the Cross in the same way:

“Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” 1 Cor 1:22-24

For those who accept the gift of faith, there is understanding of the relationship of Joseph and Mary, and of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. For those without faith, it utter foolishness.

It’s up to each of us to choose to believe or to reject.
 
yes that’s so true @Gertabella

so very true. If you read the post above yours the last two paragraphs describes the character of the scandal way better than I can.
 
The feast day of St. Anne and St. Joachim, mother and father of blessed virgin in July 25 in the West, and July 26th in the east.

The tradition is based on the apocryphal writing I mentioned before.

The pious legend didnt take hold until between the 4th and 7th century.

Case closed.
Sorry Hereiam, but the feast to honor the parents of Mary is not based upon an apocryphal writing. Unless you don’t really believe that she actually had human parents?

It was believed that Mary had human parents from the day she was born, don’t you think? Perhaps you think that Christmas is also a “pious legend”?
 
It was believed that Mary had human parents from the day she was born, don’t you think? Perhaps you think that Christmas is also a “pious legend”?
LOL. Yeah, I’m sure she had parents…not sure where you could ever derive I doubted that in my post…But thanks for the chuckle!

But, now tell me, what is the earliest source naming her parents? Hint: I’ve given it to you in an earlier post. And, it’s not from canonical texts, so it is tradition based on what could be accurately described as pious legend.
 
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.
Just as traditional Palestinian families are today, a woman must be in the care of her father, brother, or husband.
It would be inappropriate for her to be given to a non-relative without the protection of marriage.
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.
Exactly! Since the Theotokos was free from original sin, she did not suffer the pains of labor.
I do believe in the infallibility of the church. I saw the feast day for the presentation so I thought it was infallible too.
Yes, the Presentation in the Temple is part of the Divine Deposit of faith.
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.
Yes, Jewish law allowed for a husband to accept a vow of celibacy made by a spouse.
For some reason, I’m interested in whether Mary and Joseph loved each other romantically.
It was probably much higher than that, as they both had revelation from God that they were raising the Son of the Most High. They co-operated as His earthly parents.

Joseph respected the womb of Mary as the Holy Temple/Tabernacle of the Most HIgh. To enter that space after the Son of God was harbored there would have been to profane the Temple.
 
40.png
Catholicwife32:
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.
Exactly! Since the Theotokos was free from original sin, she did not suffer the pains of labor.
No, you’re completely missing the point: as per Genesis 3, the sin of Adam and Eve did not create labor pain, it increased it. Therefore, Mary’s immaculate conception doesn’t bring with it the notion that she’s per se exempt from labor pain (although it doesn’t guarantee it, either).
I do believe in the infallibility of the church. I saw the feast day for the presentation so I thought it was infallible too.
Yes, the Presentation in the Temple is part of the Divine Deposit of faith.
Umm… so, you’ve got a citation in Scripture or something in Apostolic Teaching that asserts Mary’s presentation in the temple as doctrine? OK, let’s see it… 🍿
 
I have heard it claimed that both were consecrated virgins, I have also heard that Joseph was an older widower.
So if Joseph were a virgin and a widower, that would mean Joseph didn’t have sex with his first wife either. That sounds odd. How do we know that?
 
40.png
ChunkMonk:
I have heard it claimed that both were consecrated virgins, I have also heard that Joseph was an older widower.
So if Joseph were a virgin and a widower, that would mean Joseph didn’t have sex with his first wife either. That sounds odd. How do we know that?
They’re two distinct claims. Not both/and, but either/or. 😉
 
Just as traditional Palestinian families are today, a woman must be in the care of her father, brother, or husband.

It would be inappropriate for her to be given to a non-relative without the protection of marriage.

Catholicwife32:
Maybe then it could have been more appropriate for Jesus to Give His mother to His father’s son?
 
It was probably much higher than that, as they both had revelation from God that they were raising the Son of the Most High. They co-operated as His earthly parents.
me too, I don’t like that Joseph was chosen by Jewish authorities to protect her. An older guy with other offspring probably older than Mary, more a father figure than a husband, Not choosing Mary but agreeing to take on a task. Not that marital love couldn’t happen and grow under those conditions.
If Joseph was younger, had chosen Mary, was expecting to have children with Mary, their story becomes much more His love for her that much more sacrificial, The decision to divorce Mary in private meant Joseph had to decide to live a celibate life.to keep her off the street so to speak

Edit: I thought I was responding to catholicwife. She wanted to know if their was romance between Mary and Joseph
 
Last edited:
40.png
Gorgias:
They’re two distinct claims. Not both/and, but either/or.
So which is it? And how do we know?
That’s just it: Scripture is silent on the issue. Meantime, the Church has declared Mary’s perpetual virginity dogmatically, without specifying anything regarding whether Jesus had cousins and/or step-siblings. So… we don’t know ‘how’, although we do know that it’s true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top