Mary & Joseph - Openness to Children

[panevino]

Matthew is writting about the past so the use of till as a linguistic limitation on past events is moot. Matthew, writting after Jesus ascension could have just written Joseph took Mary as his wife but never knew her or respected her vows of chastity to God or something like that. If I tell you my wife and I did not have children till we got married would you conclude we never had children or we had children after we got married?

the analogy is not a clean one, there are more factors involved in Matt 1:25 including context of isa7:14 and then there is matt1:18. Your analogy also ignore that the there is an interpretation of a 2000 year old Greek word to consider

I understand this is part of Matthew emphasizing that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but the use of till limits that action to the time before Jesus birth. …

till is a translation of a Greek word (eos) used in other places of the NT including
1tim4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

We are not asked to neglect the gift after are we?

Referring to psalm 110 a prophecy of jesus, see below

Luke 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Jesus still sits on the right after right?

Both of the use the same Greek word (eos) per Matt 1:25

 

[YADA]

Matthew is writting about the past so the use of till as a linguistic limitation on past events is moot. Matthew, writting after Jesus ascension could have just written Joseph took Mary as his wife but never knew her or respected her vows of chastity to God or something like that. If I tell you my wife and I did not have children till we got married would you conclude we never had children or we had children after we got married? I understand this is part of Matthew emphasizing that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but the use of till limits that action to the time before Jesus birth. Also, if you were broke I would pay for our dinner.

Thanks for the dinner invite! … As for you and yoru wife … if you told me that you did not have children til you married … only tells me that you did not have children before yoru marriage … it remains moot … unless you follow up with additional information … I cannot know that you have children born of your marriage and after the ceremony - that you actually engaged in activities that would result in having a child or having engaged in those activities were unable to conceive a child …Matthew does not follow-up his defence of the virgin birth with a mention of younger siblings adn no where in scripture is there any mention of another child of Mary except for the Disciple at the foot of the Cross to whom Jesus entrusts his mother … though Jesus is called the Carpenter’s Son … and I assume you do not accept that statement of paternity as binding

I understand that, but wouldn’t Mary having a child and everyone assuming she and Joseph broke a vow to God cause them to be ostracized in their community? This, evidently, was not the case since Jesus was circumcised (circumcized?) in the Temple on the eighth day, Joseph and Mary went to the Temple for Passover at least once when Jesus was 12, Jesus publicly proclaimed Himself Messiah at the synagogue in Nazareth so He must have been accepted as clean in order to worship there, and when Jesus ministered in Nazareth the people knew who he was since His family was part of the community.

Here you are assuming that a vow to serve God in this way is a public vow that the community gets to judge … I do not believe that this was the case or should have been the case … Please read Numbers Chapter 30 …

Mary saying she “know not a man” is a statement every Jewish bride would be expected to say (hopefully in all honesty) before her wedding day. Especially one who has been told she will carry God’s son. How it designates a special vow to God or a life-ling pledge to refrain from sex escapes me.

Well you are can reead it that way … But the Angel mentions a future child … and a betrothed woman - especially in the Jewish understanding would expect to have a child … she says this before the Angel describes the 'how’ this will come to pass… or even explicitely when the child will be conceived … IMHO you are reading ahead - imposing an foregone conclusion upon the sacred writings.

I find it interesting that people think that Mary would be somehow diminished if she had sex with her husband and bore other children. Mary was a uniquely blessed woman and, I’m sure, a leader among the early Christian women, whether she was a virgin or had 10 more kids doesn’t make a difference to me. I simply don’t see why Mary’s perpetual virginity is so important.

I do not believed that Mary would be diminished by having other children … in fact - why is it that some people insist that Mary and Joseph had to have had carnal relations and other children? In fact teh implications is that Mary is somehow diminished if she did not do so …

God’s ways are not our ways … Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant - she carried in her womb the Word of God - Incarnate - in the Flesh [the Ark carried the Stone Tablets - Ten Commandments]. Mary carried the High Priest - the Ultimate High Priest [the Ark carried Aaron’s Staff - the symbol of the High Priest]. Marry carried the True Bread from Heaven - the Bread that gives everlasting life and without which we are dead [the Ark carried the Manna] … Why did God come to earth as an infant [Jesus] - born of human flesh [Mary]? Why did Jesus suffer for our sins? Die on the Cross? … God’s plan of salvation … Have to? I am sure that God could have changed His plan in an infinty of ways - He chose this one …

 

[rebeccanew]

Jesus made The Blessed Virgin Mary the mother of us all-open to every single life. Joseph was open to those same lives through his graces as Jesus’ Earthly Father.

 

[wynnejj]

Curious how clear this would be if you omitted these phrases, and how ambiguous yet significant if you leave them in.

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”. Luke 1:34.

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Matthew 1:25.

It is curious that the phrases beginning with “until” and “since” can be interpreted so ambiguously as to being superfluous and having almost no meaning and at the same time to be very important to the historical value. If you find significance in the “since”, then you surmise that Mary must have taken a vow of chastity. If you find significance in the “until”, then you surmise that Mary must have had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Both phrases clearly state that Mary was a virgin prior to Jesus incarnation, but are unclear about afterwards. Neither, of themselves, says one way or the other about afterwards unambiguously. As Catholics, we rely on the oral tradition, whose source of information comes from canonized saints whose many miracles tend toward a heavenly imprimatur. Sola scriptura is clearly insufficient in these matters.

For example, if the Venerable Mother Mary of Jesus of Agreda were canonized a saint, then her “Mystical City of God” would be given great significance to me personally in clarifying scriptures.

 

[wynnejj]

Jesus made The Blessed Virgin Mary the mother of us all-open to every single life. Joseph was open to those same lives through his graces as Jesus’ Earthly Father.

Not sure of your meaning here. Are you saying that the marriage of Mary & Joseph satisfy the injunction of “Be fruitful and multiply” with an openness to children by their connection to the Mystical Body of Christ as embodied in the Catholic Church with Mary being the Our Blessed Mother and Joseph being the Protector of the Catholic Church. Even as I assert that there is such a mystical connection, as a man it still comes off to me as mumbo-jumbo thrown into the mix to distort the historical prefiguration of this mystical body as embodied in the earthly family of Jesus.

That is to say, I agree with your statement completely, as stated, unless you are trying to say that Mary & Joseph satisfied the openness to children aspect of the marriage contract from an earthly perspective of OT Jewish tradition and NT Catholic tradition.

 

[wynnejj]

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”. Luke 1:34.

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Matthew 1:25.

The first statement is a quote of Mary. Mary knows that God knows she has had no relations, so the statement is pointless except as talking out loud to come to grips with the facts as she sees them begging further clarification from the angel. I interpret it as simply asking about the birds & bees when talking about a “relation” with God to bring forth His Son. Saying “since I have no relations with a man”, may simply mean she doesn’t even know how to compare it with mortal “relation(s)” between a man & woman. That is, she is telling the angel that she doesn’t even have a reference point to understand this mystery, so she’s begging the angel to give her an explanation but begging the angel to speak to her as one would explain to a child.

The second statement has to be taken from the context of Matthew as a man of integrity, only stating what he knows for sure and explicitly qualifying his statement as to how much he knows for sure.

Matthew knows for sure that there were no pre-marital relations based on his belief in Jesus as the Messiah due to His Teachings and Miracles, and the fact that OT prophesies stated that the Messiah would be born of Virgin, thus corroborated by the testimony of Mary’s words at the Annunciation. This is important… Mary’s testimony to a Virgin Birth is simply corroborating testimony. Matthew could not in good conscience leave the statement unqualified and felt compelled to explicitly state that he knows nothing beyond Jesus birth about marital relations between Mary & Joseph either one way or the other.

 

[wynnejj]

The basic question of this thread is “Was the marriage of Mary & Joseph truly a marriage in the Catholic sense?”.

Canon 1101.2 basically says that both parties must be capable of performing the marital embrace, but if one or both parties enter the marriage contract with an unwillingness to fulfill a potential request of the marriage embrace regardless of the pre-existing vow of chastity, then you have grounds for annulment and a marriage that can be dissolved.

Here is a modern day scenario that Canon law 1101.2 suggests would be an invalid marriage.

A man & woman have both taken vows of permanent celibacy / virginity to the service of God. They are not associated with a religious order, but do so privately and solemnly. They meet and fall in love. They tell each other about their vows.

They get the idea that they would like to live under the same roof with a legal marriage so that they can adopt children and raise them in a stable two parent family.

Can they be married in the Catholic Church such that their marriage is indissoluble for the sake of the adopted children?

Can they get married by the Justice of the Peace and be in good standing in the Catholic Church if a sacramental marriage cannot be contracted contrary to Canon 1101.2?