Mary and Joseph's marriage....

[28562]

So this is the kind of wierd thoughts you get when you are on night shift and don’t get off until 3am…someone answer this please.

A marriage is not considered valid by the Catholic Church unless consummated, right?
Mary was ever virgin, right?

SO was the marriage of Mary and Joseph not valid in the eyes of the CC?

OK, back to work now…

 

[catholic_rn]

Hmmm . . . . interesting.

 

[voctor09]

Well since the CC did not exist yet, how could they be bound by its teachings? I’m sure it was valid under the Jewish law of the time.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Not to detract from the previous questions, which are great - but may I add another log to the fire?

Why didn’t Mary and Joseph consummate their marriage after Jesus was born? They obviously stayed together, so why the heck couldn’t they?

Then again if God tried to claim prima nocta on my wife, I’m not sure what I would do either…

 

[voctor09]

Not to detract from the previous questions, which are great - but may I add another log to the fire?

Why didn’t Mary and Joseph consummate their marriage after Jesus was born? They obviously stayed together, so why the heck couldn’t they?

Then again if God tried to claim prima nocta on my wife, I’m not sure what I would do either…

It’s an interesting question. I’ve read somewhere that Mary was a consecrated virgin and intended to live her life as such. One theory is that she was betrothed to Joseph because he was a much older man who was probably a widower (hence why he’s not mentioned later in the Gospels since he probably died during Jesus’ childhood) and that Joseph and Mary were not expected to have children because of his advanced age and her devotion to God.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

It’s an interesting question. I’ve read somewhere that Mary was a consecrated virgin and intended to live her life as such. One theory is that she was betrothed to Joseph because he was a much older man who was probably a widower (hence why he’s not mentioned later in the Gospels since he probably died during Jesus’ childhood) and that Joseph and Mary were not expected to have children because of his advanced age and her devotion to God.

Why would a consecrated virgin marry?

 

[Elizium23]

Untrue. A marriage is considered valid with the exchange of vows. A marriage that remains unconsummated may be dissolved by the Pope; also, lack of consummation is probable grounds for a declaration of nullity.

Joseph considered divorcing Mary but was dissuaded by the appearance of an angel. I can assure you that theirs was a quite valid and holy marriage.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not to detract from the previous questions, which are great - but may I add another log to the fire?

Why didn’t Mary and Joseph consummate their marriage after Jesus was born? They obviously stayed together, so why the heck couldn’t they?

Then again if God tried to claim prima nocta on my wife, I’m not sure what I would do either…

Because Joseph is an older man who probably isn’t interested in sex anymore. And that he was chosen primarily for that reason to be Mary’s guardian to safeguard her virginity rather than a young man who’s interested in a family.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why would a consecrated virgin marry?

She had to leave the temple, they didn’t want women of child bearing age to remain in the temple for fear that they would be defiled.

 

[tee_eff_em]

So this is the kind of wierd thoughts you get when you are on night shift and don’t get off until 3am…someone answer this please.

A marriage is not considered valid by the Catholic Church unless consummated, right?

Wrong.

Dilemma dispensed.

tee

 

[1ke]

A marriage is not considered valid by the Catholic Church unless consummated, right?

No, not correct.

Mary was ever virgin, right?

Yes, correct.

SO was the marriage of Mary and Joseph not valid in the eyes of the CC?

No, not correct.

 

[Gena]

I’ve read somewhere that Mary was a consecrated virgin and intended to live her life as such. One theory is that she was betrothed to Joseph because he was a much older man who was probably a widower (hence why he’s not mentioned later in the Gospels since he probably died during Jesus’ childhood) and that Joseph and Mary were not expected to have children because of his advanced age and her devotion to God.

This is what I was always taught - that Mary had always intended to remain a virgin. Her marriage to Joseph, an older widower, was for her economic and legal protection. (I was also taught that Jesus’ “brothers” in the Gospels were most likely his step-brothers - Joseph’s children by his first marriage.)

It makes a lot of sense, particularly when you think about the Annunciation. Mary was an engaged woman, preparing to enter the household of her future husband, when the Angel Gabriel appears and tells her she will have a son who will be great. And Mary’s response is: “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” Mary doesn’t say, “Well, yeah, I’m getting married soon. Of course we’ll have babies.” (Notice that Gabriel doesn’t say when she will conceive a son.) Mary’s response indicates that she had always intended to remain a virgin.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

So then it was common for consecrated virgins to get married? I’ve never heard of such a thing, I’m surprised.

This has me wondering. Was marrying without the intention of ever consummating permissible under Jewish law at any point? I mean, think about it now… that would mean that the institution of marriage has underwent radical changes since the time of Christ.

I think that was what the original poster should have asked in retrospect: was the marriage between Mary and Joseph valid according to Catholic teaching? Not because of the non-consummation but because Mary and Joseph entered the marriage without the intention of consummating.

 

[KCT]

From Joseph’s perspective:

This woman gave birth to the son of God. Would he want to have relations with her after that?? (and would any other child be ‘worthy’ to be in her womb, where Jesus had grown?)

 

[1ke]

was the marriage between Mary and Joseph valid according to Catholic teaching? Not because of the non-consummation but because Mary and Joseph entered the marriage without the intention of consummating.

And the answer to that question is yes.

The inability to consummate (impotence) is an impediment to valid marriage. A couple may choose not to consummate by mutual consent.

My first thought whenever this question comes up, and it comes up often, is WHY does this matter? Mary and Joseph were not Catholics. They were Jews. Who cares? Who cares if it was valid or not? It has NO bearing at all on the sacrament of marriage or Church teaching.

The purpose of their marriage was unique in all of history: guardianship of the Christ child. They entered into a legal arrangement for that guardianship.

 

[Nec5]

Yeah, this also gets into the weeds because God sent an actual Angel to speak with Mary, and if I recall correctly Joseph too(?), and sort of seal the marriage. That makes this a pretty special case.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

And the answer to that question is yes.

The inability to consummate (impotence) is an impediment to valid marriage. A couple may choose not to consummate by mutual consent.

Part of the rite reads:

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

To which each party must answer in the affirmative.

Now unless I’m missing something, the rite clearly indicates that when entering into a marriage, both husband and wife MUST be open to life. And to be open to life one MUST have sex, correct? Therefore, one MUST be open to having sex when entering into a marriage.

You may be right that they can decide not to consummate the marriage after the fact, but the marriage is clearly invalid if (as proposed by many here) Mary and Joseph were NOT open to life when they were married.

My first thought whenever this question comes up, and it comes up often, is WHY does this matter? Mary and Joseph were not Catholics. They were Jews. Who cares?

I do not understand how, as a Catholic, you can write off Jewish tradition so easily. The prophets were Jews. Jesus was a Jew. We have received the ten commandments and much of our tradition from the Jews. The Jews were God’s chosen people.

Therefore, I do not see how it is irrelevant and frankly, I would find it rather odd if God’s view of marriage has changed so much since the time of the Jews. Please note that if the alleged views are correct that this is not a minor change at all. We are talking about open to life vs. not open to life. Big difference.

Who cares if it was valid or not? It has NO bearing at all on the sacrament of marriage or Church teaching.

They are the mother and the father of our Lord and a model for all Christian couples.

The purpose of their marriage was unique in all of history: guardianship of the Christ child. They entered into a legal arrangement for that guardianship.

How do you figure? Were they not married before God impregnated Mary? That would mean they retroactively entered into that arrangement, which needless to say makes no sense.

 

[1ke]

Part of the rite reads:

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

To which each party must answer in the affirmative.

Now unless I’m missing something, the rite clearly indicates that when entering into a marriage, both husband and wife MUST be open to life. And to be open to life one MUST have sex, correct? Therefore, one MUST be open to having sex when entering into a marriage…

One must be able to have intercourse. One need not exercise the right to the marital debt by mutual consent, for a time or indefinitely.

You may be right that they can decide not to consummate the marriage after the fact, but the marriage is clearly invalid if (as proposed by many here) Mary and Joseph were NOT open to life when they were married.

No, not at all.

Again, one must be **able **to have intercourse. And, one must be **willing **to have intercourse should either spouse ask to assume conjugal relations. One does not have to exercise that right. Each act of intercourse, if the couple chooses to engage in it, must be per se ordered to unity and procreation. There is no invalidity issue here.

We are talking about open to life vs. not open to life.

No we aren’t.

You are misunderstanding “open to life” vis-a-vis sexual faculties.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[Reiterating that Mary and Joseph were **not bound by Catholic law which they pre-dated, but entertaining the questions anyway]
[NB: I cannot speak intelligently about Jewish marriage customs of biblical nor any other times]

Part of the rite reads:

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

To which each party must answer in the affirmative.

Did Mary and Joseph not accept lovingly the child sent them from God?

Now unless I’m missing something, the rite clearly indicates that when entering into a marriage, both husband and wife MUST be open to life.

And to be open to life one MUST have sex

, correct? Therefore, one MUST be open to having sex when entering into a marriage.

So while I am not having sex with my bride (which is: most of the time), I am not being open to life? I believe the highlighted premise is mistaken.

You may be right that they can decide not to consummate the marriage after the fact, but the marriage is clearly invalid if (as proposed by many here) Mary and Joseph were NOT open to life when they were married.

I am not sure anyone except you has proposed this?

tee

 

[gus]

Catholics view Mary as the new Arc of the Covenent and she was the vessel that bore The Christ.

A Jewish man penality for touching the Arc was Death.
Joseph was a devout Jew.
take of modern blinders when thinking about this.