Mary: no relations with Joseph?

[Scott_Waddell]

I also don’t understand your argument relating virginity to the Ark. Mary is the Ark by virtue of the fact that she carried Jesus in her womb, not because she was a virgin.

Yes, but the Ark was holy and pure and remained so because it was hallowed by God. It is perfectly fitting and we are still totally in line with Scripture. (And Tradition as well as Luther, Calvin and probably other Reformers)

I don’t understand. Is it your contention that because “whether or not Mary ever had sex in no way increases or decreases my faith in Christ as Savior and Redeemer”, therefore it is not true?

Scott

 

[Scott_Waddell]

====
Scott, maybe the question troubled him and he believes that it’s wrong to not to blindly accept what we’ve been taught.

ok.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scott Waddell:

I don’t understand. Is it your contention that because “whether or not Mary ever had sex in no way increases or decreases my faith in Christ as Savior and Redeemer”, therefore it is not true?

Dear Scott,

Speaking for myself, that same statement means it doesn’t matter to me whether it is true. As far as I’m concerned, the Church could have decreed that Mary and Joseph did have relations after Jesus’ birth and it would not change anything about my relationship to the person Jesus or to His mother Mary. If an apologist told me today that I’ve been misinformed and that Mary was not ever virgin, I would be no more or less inclined to honor Mary, to say a Rosary, or anything else.

This brings me back to my original point. I do not understand why the Church is so adamant about it. I read your comment about the ark, and I think I’ve heard it before but dismissed it as quite a stretch of poetic license. I’ve also heard your comment about the lineage of David but I forgot it. I see there is some counterpoint, and I’ve also heard that Mary herself was descended from David, so it might be important whether Jesus had bio-brothers, but not whether Mary and Joseph did the marital deed.

There is one reason I can think of that would cause the Church to be this adamant about it, and I’d prefer to think it is not the real reason. That is, that for some reason, once upon a time, we decided that Mary was a virgin based on circumstantial evidence and possibly wishful thinking, and now we can’t back down from it come hell or high water, because it would be a sign of weakness and we have to keep insisting it is true to fulfill the prophecy that the Church doesn’t change her teachings. If this were the case, it is useful to drill this truth into us as often as possible so that we will fend off attacks from Protestants and from dissenting Catholics. I hope you understand I’m not claiming that, even in this scenario, the Church is wrong. Just that she has high stakes in sticking to her guns whether or not the original decision was based on sound principles of truth. After all, keep in mind that when they decided Mary was virgin they also thought the earth was flat.

By the way, thank you for reacting well to my one post from this morning. I wasn’t trying to be vulgar or angry, but I realized it might have sounded that way to an emotional observer.

Alan

 

[Apologia100]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi Apologia,

Yes, I agree and understand. That’s why I also realize that it cannot be interpreted to imply that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Thank You,
Greg

Yes, and if you read my quotes you would have seen that the bible references the word until many times to indicate to state a poticular position up to a particular time, and its inference is that the behavior continues to happen afterwards as well. Take for instance the quote that Jesus must reign until all of his enemy are under his feet. By application of your reasoning, when all of Jesus’ enemies are finally under his feet, Jesus will no longer reign. Does this make any sense to you? The bible is clear that Joseph and Mary had no relations up to the day Jesus was born, but it does NOT say that they had relations afterward. There are many biblical example that show the Jesus was Mary’s only child, but you have to be willing to understand the cultural implications and context in which Jesus and Mary existed. YOu cannot read the bible like a newspaper, the world was a very different place back then, and things that mean one thing to you and I didn’t mean the same thing 2,000 years ago.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

There is one reason I can think of that would cause the Church to be this adamant about it, and I’d prefer to think it is not the real reason. That is, that for some reason, once upon a time, we decided that Mary was a virgin based on circumstantial evidence and possibly wishful thinking, and now we can’t back down from it come hell or high water, because it would be a sign of weakness and we have to keep insisting it is true to fulfill the prophecy that the Church doesn’t change her teachings. If this were the case, it is useful to drill this truth into us as often as possible so that we will fend off attacks from Protestants and from dissenting Catholics. I hope you understand I’m not claiming that, even in this scenario, the Church is wrong. Just that she has high stakes in sticking to her guns whether or not the original decision was based on sound principles of truth. After all, keep in mind that when they decided Mary was virgin they also thought the earth was flat.

Ok, I would suggest that the burden of proof is on the detractor to provide evidence that “we decided that Mary was a virgin based on circumstantial evidence and possibly wishful thinking”. The case lays out like this: Mary as ever-virgin is harmonious with Scripture, attested to in Tradition as early as 120AD (what books belong in Scripture isn’t settled until 397–note that no one is arguing “circumstantial evidence and possibly wishful thinking” on that point.) and is even upheld by many original Reformers as well as some moderns. Look at what the opposition has: random dudes on the internet with pointed-headed wranglings on words like “adelphos” and “heos hou” who thinks this is some kind of Achille’s heel. The choice is easy.

Scott

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Apologia100:

YOu cannot read the bible like a newspaper, the world was a very different place back then, and things that mean one thing to you and I didn’t mean the same thing 2,000 years ago.

Dear Apologia100,

You may be giving newpapers more credit than they deserve.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scott Waddell with indexing added by Alan:

Ok, I would suggest that the burden of proof is on the detractor to provide evidence that “we decided that Mary was a virgin based on circumstantial evidence and possibly wishful thinking”. The case lays out like this: Mary as ever-virgin (1) is harmonious with Scripture, (2) attested to in Tradition as early as 120AD (what books belong in Scripture isn’t settled until 397–(3)note that no one is arguing “circumstantial evidence and possibly wishful thinking” on that point.) and (4)is even upheld by many original Reformers as well as some moderns. Look at what the opposition has: (5)random dudes on the internet with pointed-headed wranglings on words like “adelphos” and “heos hou” who thinks this is some kind of Achille’s heel. (6)The choice is easy.

Dear Scott,

I hope you don’t mind my adding index numbers to your quote.

1. Harmonious in that there are no apparent direct contradictions that can’t be explained away by purported experts, and there are certain hints that may be of importance to the experts on the issue, or at least on the issue of Jesus having bio-brothers but don’t mean much to this backwoods hick Kansan from 21st century U.S.
2. Like I said, they also thought the world was flat, not to mention that they would stone adulteresses. That doesn’t fit this particular case, but they certainly had attitudes back then different than what we have today in the U.S. to the extent that I don’t know what bias they might have had.
3. Noone is arguing that point, yet. Give me time!
4. The fact that it is upheld by bureaucrats, even religious bureaucrats, might help persuade me, but it doesn’t necessarily convince me. (Self-disclosure: I don’t yet accept Church infallibility teachings.)
5. Thankfully I’ve missed these particular wranglings.
6. I agree the choice is easy for many people. It’s easy for those who believe the Church is infallible in her teaching on this. It is not as easy for those skeptical of infallibility and insist on being convinced beyond worldly doubt. It is easy for me, because I simply do not care so I am completely free of the burden of whether I need to believe it or not.

If I were speaking on behalf of the Church, I would proclaim its truth. I can neither affirm or deny its truth on my own behalf, and I’m OK with that.

Which once again gets back to the point of my original puzzlement. Why is it so important to the Church that I, or any other believer, am convinced about the “virgin after Jesus’ birth” teaching? What am I missing in my faith life or how am I risking loss of salvation or more time in purgatory or experiencing more difficulties following Christ because I am not personally in line with this teaching?

This leaves me with a new speculation, since you’ve shot down and we’ve digested my last one.

Perhaps the urgency and importance of this teaching is to see if I will buy into it, thus testing my obedience and possibly purifying me.

Alan

 

[Exporter]

From the age of three Mary was devoted to taking care of the temple with a few other holy girls. When she became a teenager the temple Priests , as was the custom then, brought in several rather elderly men and one was chosen to care for Mary. It was Joseph, he was elderly and had sons and daughters from his first wife who had died. We don’t read about Joseph when Jesus was an adult, why?, Joseph had died…he was much older than Mary.

What did Mary tell the Angel who came to announce that Mary was to have a son? May said “:How can I, I am a virgin?” Mary knew she was a Virgin and always would be a Virgin. How else would she have answered the Angel in such a direct voice.
Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.” As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

Someone asked about Matt1:24-25. To lift that passage out of the Bible and to transliterate into modern English is to ignore everything written before and after those two verses were written. To lift them out of the Bible as if this was the only thing known about Mary is meaningless. If I lifted, ”Jesus wept” from the Bible and nothing after or before then one would conclude that the only thing Jesus did was to weep! Ludicrous! It was a Jewish custom for young girls to have the duty of keeping the Temple in order and clean. As a child Mary was one of those girls. Ann, her mother was told that Mary had a very special duty in life. Also it was common for elderly men to be the keeper of these Temple girls, to give them shelter and food. Before Mary ever saw Joseph she knew her life would be special. Joseph was chosen from several old men one day. They were doing their duty. It is said that a dove flew to Joseph’s head and he was picked, this isn’t Biblical, it is extra-Biblical. It was understood by Joseph that he and Mary would live as brother and sister. The Jewish Priests condoned that. One may say that is unusual, but to be the mother of Jesus is infinitely more unusual!

*Why when Jesus was on the cross did he say, ”Mother, behold your son”? It was Jewish custom for the son’s of a mother to take care of her. She had no other sons. So Jesus gave John the task of caring for Mary. See John XIX:26 – 27. Yes, Jesus said to John, “Son behold your Mother”.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Apologia,

Apologia100:

By application of your reasoning, when all of Jesus’ enemies are finally under his feet, Jesus will no longer reign. Does this make any sense to you? The bible is clear that Joseph and Mary had no relations up to the day Jesus was born, but it does NOT say that they had relations afterward.

My previous post(s) show that I already understand the use of the word “until” as described. I was amicably agreeing with you. I think you saw my initial post(s) but not this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=228845&postcount=30

Thank You,
Greg

 

[Della]

That said, I have to agree with Podromos and Alan: Scripture tells us what we need to know (in this case, that Jesus was incarnated by the Spirit) and leaves the other details to our imagination because they are ultimately unimportant.

In Christ,

Chris

No, not quite. The Bible is not the sum total of what the Church teaches. Indeed, it is a part of Sacred Tradition (which I cited but you overlooked or thought unimportant or something ). And Sacred Tradition is made up of both Sacred Scripture and Oral Teachings of the Church, not Sacred Scripture alone. The Church draws on both of these as well as the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the truth about these teachings, not just on what it would like to be true or what sounds nice.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Exporter:

We don’t read about Joseph when Jesus was an adult, why?, Joseph had died…he was much older than Mary.

He was at least around long enough to find Jesus preaching in the temples, wasn’t he?

May said “:How can I, I am a virgin?” Mary knew she was a Virgin and always would be a Virgin. How else would she have answered the Angel in such a direct voice.

Oooh Nooo. I think you folks actually got me interested in this topic.

Is this kind of like the same thing as the “until,” where when she said “I am a virgin” that she meant forever in the future?

this isn’t Biblical, it is extra-Biblical. It was understood by Joseph that he and Mary would live as brother and sister. The Jewish Priests condoned that. One may say that is unusual, but to be the mother of Jesus is infinitely more unusual!

If it isn’t Biblical, then where does it come from, and why isn’t it Biblical?

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

With modern technology, we don’t even know who was doing what with whom in the White House, even when the president of the United States tells us directly. I wonder how they knew what Mary and Joseph did or didn’t do after Jesus’s birth, and why it mattered even back then?

No response is necessary. I’m just mumbling.

Alan

 

[Scott_Waddell]

1. I agree the choice is easy for many people. It’s easy for those who believe the Church is infallible in her teaching on this. It is not as easy for those skeptical of infallibility and insist on being convinced beyond worldly doubt. It is easy for me, because I simply do not care so I am completely free of the burden of whether I need to believe it or not.

Fair enough. Is it possible we can agree at least that the word “until” (the orginal topic of this post) does not disprove perpetual virginity?

As far as why as it is important, I can only give my own thoughts on this. I believe in divine filiation. That through Christ’s death and resurrection I, as a believer, have a bond of covenantal kinship with Christ. In other words, I am brought into a family. God is my father, Christ is my brother and Mary is my mother . Now some talk as if it’s all Me, Jesus and my Bible, which is partially true, but imagine if I went to propose to my wife saying, “I love you, marry me. But bear in mind I love only you. I don’t want to know anything about where you came from, or where you went to school, and I don’t need to know about your parents and relatives and we certainly don’t need to visit them. It’s just you.” This isn’t love. If I love someone, I want to be bonded to the people she is bonded with. So it is with Christ. I don’t get only a Savior and King, I get a family. And I want to love and know everything about that family, even the details that my logic-chopping mind find hypothetically unecessary. Basically, I would be telling my older (and authoritative) brothers and sisters, the apostles and their successors, that they are full of dingo’s kidneys about our mother on these points. I can’t do that because I love and trust them as I love our brother and King, Jesus Christ.

Scott

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scott Waddell:

Fair enough. Is it possible we can agree at least that the word “until” (the orginal topic of this post) does not disprove perpetual virginity?

That works for me, as long as you don’t try to use the counterexamples of “until” to try to prove it.

If memory serves, I actually bought into that before posting to this particular thread.

As far as why as it is important, I can only give my own thoughts on this.

I appreciate that. Sometimes I want to hear an “official” teaching, but more often I want to hear people’s own thoughts.

And I want to love and know everything about that family, even the details that my logic-chopping mind find hypothetically unecessary.

LOL! Enquiring minds want to know!

Maybe we’re not so different in our beliefs, after all.

Basically, I would be telling my older (and authoritative) brothers and sisters, the apostles and their successors, that they are full of dingo’s kidneys about our mother on these points. I can’t do that because I love and trust them as I love our brother and King, Jesus Christ.

I like that explanation, although it is geared more toward why you won’t counter their belief than why you think it’s important to be convinced in it yourself.

Personally I like to debate with my brother, my children, and my friends, but the only ancestor I liked to debate was my father, who died two years ago. On matters related to Catholic faith, there aren’t too many people out there who are knowledgeable but not condescending or emotional so this forum and this particular thread has been quite a blessing for me.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This morning the Lord brought a miracle to my house; he has opened my eyes to see my ostensibly miserable circumstances for the blessings they were.

I now envy those who truly know poverty, more than I envy the rich. On second thought I don’t envy them at all for they are richly blessed.

That isn’t to say I don’t still want to win the lottery!

My thoughts have been racing 100 miles an hour. If I tried to journal about it in detail it would take a book. There are a million things I want to say but cannot because the more I want to say them the less I can.

Without providing 100 pages of explanation maybe I can get to the point.

OK, so maybe at least a few sentences.

You people are all so beautiful it is amazing. Those who persevere, those who take a shot and run, those who support me, those who insult me, those who quiz and test, and those who listen to me, you are all beautiful.

Maybe there is a good explanation why Mary remained a virgin.

Jesus was everything to her. She didn’t need a husband.

Alan

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Read this :

cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

 

[otm]

Until is the translation for a word that has a slightly different meaning; the implication we get from the word “until” is most often that something happened after the “until”; the word translated does not carry that meaning.

She didn’t have any children until her death, doesn’t mean she had some after…

 

[Thepeug]

Scott Waddell:

I don’t understand. Is it your contention that because “whether or not Mary ever had sex in no way increases or decreases my faith in Christ as Savior and Redeemer”, therefore it is not true?

Scott,

I simply mean that whether or not Mary’s perpetual virginity is a literal reality is peripheral to the basic tenets of the faith, i.e. Christ as Sacrifice and Redeemer.

God bless,

Chris

 

[Thomas2]

Here’s another thought to add to this discussion:

The way we see Mary and Joseph either enhances or hurts our own familial relations. If we refuse to accept that which we are taught by the Church about their special relationship, then we lose the grace that may enhance our own marriages and ways of seeing women in general, or men for that matter. For women who’ve been hurt by men, learning to trust them again takes the help of knowing that Joseph was chaste. Anyone with half an eye on the times, knows that it is a battle ground to remain virginal in one’s person until marriage let alone the ways in which those who remain so all their lives are seen as “abnormal” in some way by many. The fact that these sexually permissive times we are living through have an effect on how we feel and the trouble we have in accepting that which seems to so many as out of reach, i.e. virginity and all the “sacrifice” that it entails, colors they ways in which we relate on a human level to the divine. This includes the denegrating view of the “old maid” in some cirlces, rather than having respect or (even gasp to say it!) honor for those who maintain continence in their lives. Mary was a perpetual virgin and Joseph remained chaste during his time with her. Acceptance of this allows the grace of chastity to grow not only in the mind, but in the heart and will of the person who can accept it. From one person who had a hard time growing spiritually in this regard, once I made my assent to God’s will for me, I can tell you that this is the way to go and opens the door to another level of understanding and healing. I for one, was sick and tired of the sexually saturated “world” I found myself in when my conversion got under way. I’m still pretty upset by what I see happening around me in this regard and make efforts to help those who are weaker in this regard.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

P.S. I can understand those who are on the fence about this and how that spells itself out in the way they reflect on the Holy Family, but trust me on this, once you take the “leap of faith” as regards the conjugal relationship between Mary and Joseph, you might find grace acting in your own life beyond measure! God bless.