Mary and Joseph's marriage

[1ke]

My understanding, however, is that there was in fact an exclusion of intercourse. There was no right to intercourse, at any point, implied at the time of the marriage. This is where I am getting hung up in these explanations.

I think you are overstating your case because you cannot know what was in the mind of either party. NOTHING in any Church writing states what you state.

 

[NSFrame]

This is from the link NeedImprovement posted above:

In other words, although Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had married before the virginal conception of God the Son in Mary’s womb, they did so with full respect for the consecration of Mary’s virginity to God from her youth, the offering of her virginity to God for consecration. In other words, Saint Joseph had married Mary with the intention to honor, throughout their marriage, her consecrated virginity.

 

[1ke]

In other words, although Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had married before the virginal conception of God the Son in Mary’s womb, they did so with full respect for the consecration of Mary’s virginity to God from her youth, the offering of her virginity to God for consecration. In other words, Saint Joseph had married Mary with the intention to honor, throughout their marriage, her consecrated virginity.

The Church **does not **teach that Mary had consecrated her virginity from her youth.

That is from the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal writing of the second century.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Interesting question, OP. One thing glaringly missing here is human nature. As recently as 50 years ago, a child born out of wedlock forfeited quite a bit in his/her life.

I’ve always thought, and there is no official teaching on your question, that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was to keep the Child Jesus from carrying the stigma of being born out of wedlock.

Peace,
B

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve always thought, and there is no official teaching on your question, that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was to keep the Child Jesus from carrying the stigma of being born out of wedlock.

Except they were betrothed prior to the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary, right?

Now, one of the Gospels says that Joseph stuck around because of the message of an angel in a dream, but the marriage had been planned prior to the conception of Jesus!

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Except they were betrothed prior to the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary, right?

Now, one of the Gospels says that Joseph stuck around because of the message of an angel in a dream, but the marriage had been planned prior to the conception of Jesus!

Yes. I’m not sure of your point or how it negates mine since I did not in any way contradict that which you pointed out.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This is from the link NeedImprovement posted above:

In other words, although Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had married before the virginal conception of God the Son in Mary’s womb, they did so with full respect for the consecration of Mary’s virginity to God from her youth, the offering of her virginity to God for consecration. In other words, Saint Joseph had married Mary with the intention to honor, throughout their marriage, her consecrated virginity.

We can deduce this much from the words of Sacred Scripture alone. It is obvious to any reader that the Virgin Mary had already consecrated herself to virginity by her very puzzling question to the Angel Gabriel: “How can this be since I know not man?”

We know for a fact the Mary and Joseph were ALREADY betrothed (in Jewish 2nd Temple law, they were in fact fully married.) So “How can this be” would be completely unnecessary unless there was already a vow of virginity in place. That is the ONLY possible (and plausible) explanation.

We also know, based on Church tradition, and Jewish custom, that the Virgin Mary was probably very young at the time of the Incarnation. Many suppose about 15 years old. That means her vow of virginity was most certainly from her youth, unless someone is prepared to say that a young teen is hardly young or youthful.

Finally, with all this in mind, we MUST further suppose that St. Joseph was fully aware of the Virgin Mary’s intention and vow of virginity, as the marriage would have been invalid without the cooperation of St. Joseph. In fact it is further supposed that they both had perpetual vows of virginity, and was what made their marriage valid under the Law.

One fact presupposes another and so on. It is only a shallow superficial reading that misses all of the content implied by those simple words “How can this be?”

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. I’m not sure of your point or how it negates mine since I did not in any way contradict that which you pointed out.

You stated that Mary & Joseph’s marriage was conditioned upon Jesus’ birth. I pointed out that Mary & Joseph’s marriage was already in process prior to Jesus’ conception. Joseph was thinking about bailing on the marriage upon learning of Mary’s pregnancy… but the marriage was already in the betrothal stage prior to that time.

(Keep in mind that Jewish ‘betrothal’ is significantly different than contemporary ‘engagement’. It’s just shy of full living-together-as-man-and-wife marriage.) So, their marriage wasn’t conditioned upon the Incarnation.

 

[NSFrame]

I’m still stumped, you know. Mary was a consecrated virgin or she wasn’t? I don’t believe it’s in the Catechism or anything but I know I have heard from priests (I believe Go Ask Your Father on Catholic radio) talk about how Mary had been intended to be a virgin from before her marriage. It seems likely she was but I have not heard solid proof one way or the other. If she was - my original question remains. If she wasn’t - then I can accept that she was potentially open to relations at some point during the marriage although they never occurred (it does seem counterintuitive though).

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

You stated that Mary & Joseph’s marriage was conditioned upon Jesus’ birth.

No I didn’t.

Peace,
B

 

[Michael85]

A Jewish marriage involves two parts: Kiddushin (which is commonly translated “betrothal” but is actually more than that, requiring a divorce to break) and Nesuin (the actual marriage).

Here is a Jewish article about marriage in Judaism. Kiddushin and Nesuin are now performed at the same ceremony, but previously they were performed sometimes more than a year apart.

I think that when the the Angel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary, she and St Joseph had undergone the Kiddushin but not the Nesuin.

 

[1ke]

I’m still stumped, you know. Mary was a consecrated virgin or she wasn’t?

Well true, it is a binary condition.

We will never know whether she was or not in this lifetime. Because it is NOT part of the deposit of faith. It is a pious tradition. It’s not relevant!

I don’t believe it’s in the Catechism or anything but I know I have heard from priests (I believe Go Ask Your Father on Catholic radio) talk about how Mary had been intended to be a virgin from before her marriage.

Many people say this. The fact remains, it is not doctrine. It is simply people giving an opinion.

It seems likely she was but I have not heard solid proof one way or the other.

And, you never will.

If she was - my original question remains. If she wasn’t - then I can accept that she was potentially open to relations at some point during the marriage although they never occurred (it does seem counterintuitive though).

I really don’t understand why this is such a problem, or really what the problem is. Perhaps you can articulate it differently.

 

[prodromos]

The Church **does not **teach that Mary had consecrated her virginity from her youth.

That is from the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal writing of the second century.

Mary’s entry into the temple as a child is a feast day in the Church.