Mary- other children

[Angainor]

john ennis:

Lust, we mean, is the attitude that makes sex not a gift to us but an appetite meant only to give us pleasure. It enables us to forget the life-giving nature of it, and the manner in which it echoes the love of the Trinity and Christ’s love for his Church. Life-giving love.

Is that what this is about? Mary is held to be sinless but Joseph is not. Since Joseph is not sinless, it is possible, likely even, that a lustful thought would enter his head at some point, that is, if they had normal relations.

Is that it? Is it intolerable for Catholics to imagine the sinful Joseph with the immaculate Mary?

I think I got it now. This changes everything.

 

[TobyLue]

Here is something to think about. Since I keep reading that the Catholic Church is not scriptural and that Scripture comes before Tradition and refuse to accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary. Just look at these some quotes from some of the Early Fathers. They dont have any thing to say about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Its just to make a point because some say they will not believe unless they are given some scriptural passage, unless it is taught by using the Bible, and the Bible is their only source.

                  **Ignatius of Antioch**"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (*Letter to the Ephesians *1 **[A.D. 110]).**

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.,18:2).

“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (*Letter to the Romans *1 [A.D. 110]).
Aristides"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (*Apology *16 **[A.D. 140]). **
Melito of Sardis"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s *The Guide *13 [A.D. 177]).
Irenaeus"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, **has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, **Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (*Against Heresies *1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
Clement of Alexandria"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (*Exhortation to the Greeks *1:7:1 **[A.D. 190]). **

“Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (ibid., 10:110:1).

How come none of these Early Fathers in their teachings are saying “The Book of so& so chapter such and such says the following”
They instead are quoting what was handed down by the Apostles. (please pay special attention to the letters on** bold**) Do any of these quotes go against Scripture?

 

[john_ennis]

Angainor:

Is that what this is about? Mary is held to be sinless but Joseph is not. Since Joseph is not sinless, it is possible, likely even, that a lustful thought would enter his head at some point, that is, if they had normal relations.

Is that it? Is it intolerable for Catholics to imagine the sinful Joseph with the immaculate Mary?

I think I got it now. This changes everything.

Respectfully, I think you don’t got it now. The answer to your question is no.
The issue is not whether Joseph might ever have considered Mary lustfully; the issue is whether Mary’s “Yes” to the Holy Spirit was an imperfect and incomplete one, which would allow for the Holy Spirit to be her spouse one minute, and Joseph to be so the next.

Her “Fiat,” we believe, was a complete giving of herself for His divine purpose. She was the Ark of the New Covenant; she would not be then used for the ordinary purpose of bearing other children.
Is that tolerable?

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

RehLlits:

Tom your posts amuse me and I want to reply.

This was a really ignorant statement. Scripture gave authority to the church; so how does the church have authority over Scripture?

Sorry to bud in, but your entire faith rests on an assumption that is not scriptural. You assume, as I do, that the collection of books in the Bible, selected by men, are the correct selection from among the numerous letters being argued about since the early centuries.
How do you know they were selected infallibly? Nowhere in the Bible are we told whether, for example, Revelation is Scriptural. (Or Luke or Genesis, for that matter.)

Don’t you see why you accept it? An authority outside of Scripture! What was it…?

Do you want to say it, or shall I?

Peace.
John

 

[MaggieOH]

6

BibleReader:

Hi, Maggie. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. It may be that you are speaking in a roundabout way, to be appropriate on the subject of sex in a public site visited by young folks.

You say that you could “dispute” that there is “nothing… shameful” about having sex with your wife???

I look at my wife. I think, “Wow! She’s sexy! Good lookin’ lady! I’m lucky to have her!” And then, sexually aroused, I engage in marital relations with my wife.

That is not shameful. That is cooperating with God’s plan 100%. He said, “Be fruitful and multiply.”

What are you talking about?

God put a lustful eye in me *so that *I would look lustfully at my wife.

That is not bad. That is being good.

If I don’t do that, and inmstead give my wife a cold, dry relationship, I am cheating her, and violating God’s law.

What the heck are you talking about?

I am talking about the lust that accompanies jealousy, and through jealousy comes suspicion, accusations and wife beatings. It is in lust that a man puts unwelcome demands upon his wife.

What you speak of is normal; but there is a point where it is no longer normal.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

That is about what my understanding was. They were not living together. How common or accepted were relations during the engagment period? Were there vows taken? When?

Were relations after engagement and before marriage a tolerated practice, that is, not the ideal way to go, but no one made a big deal about it? If that were the case, might the more pious choose to wait?

Angainor,

you do not seem to have understood what was being stated. They had taken the vows of husband and wife. You are continuing to look at this through the lens of the 21st century and our western idea of engagement and marriage. It was nothing like that.

This was a period in which marriages were arranged. That means there had to be a settling in period so that the couple could get to know one another. That is why there is a break. It was not always the case, because in the earlier Scriptures they were brought together quite rapidly, but if you look at the story of Jacob, he had to wait a year before claiming Rachel as his wife after she was promised to him.

The fact is, once the couple were betrothed they had a covenant marriage.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

I don’t see it that way.

I see a marriage without marital relations… well… odd. I think it much more likely they had a normal marriage.

I think the party advancing a more unlikely scenario has the higher burden of proof.

I agree that they had a normal loving mutual affection for each other, but due to the circumstances, that is Mary was given to God, no, there was no other intimate relationship between them.

Our society is so hung up on sex that for some it is hard to comprehend that in another age this relationship was not necessary.

Might I suggest that instead of arguing the point about the relationship between Mary and Joseph, that you pray about it and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to the Truth so that you can understand the special nature of the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

We do not have much to go on except that there are no children who are listed as being the other children of Mary in the Scripture. Those who are mentioned are the sons of the other Mary and Alphaeus.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

RehLlits:

So, no where in inspired Scripture does it say Joseph could not touch Mary after the birth of Christ. Inspired Scripture does say intercourse is allowed between a husband and wife. Inspired Scripture does say Christ had brethren in which you deny as being children of the other Mary (which I will look into). The evidence is against it, but like several people have said before, “Catholics need this doctrine to be true.”

You are wrong about saying that Scripture says that Joseph must not touch Mary. Her pregnancy to the Holy Spirit meant that she belonged to the Holy Spirit, even though Joseph acted as her early husband. In the Judaic law (and I still need to refind the reference) if a woman during the betrothal period is made pregnant by another man then her husband is not allowed to touch her.

If Mary made a vow, and Joseph heard about the vow and he did not annul it then according to numbers 30 he is not allowed to make her break that vow.

I will provide the other reference when I find it. We have already provided the reference from the Book of Numbers. So you are wrong when you say that there is nothing in Scripture to prevent normal sexual relations.

Maggie

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

No one is claiming anything of the sort. Our whole argument is based upon the unique situation of the BVM who bore Jesus who is God.

Anyway I could dispute the claim that there is nothing holy or shameful about having marital relations with your spouse. For example if you treat your spouse in a lustful manner then that is sinful. To do so is to tear down the sacredness of the marriage act. The same is true for those who are fornicators.

Heb 13:4 - Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

The argument that you are using is nothing more than an argument that is based upon a false premise as well as a lack of understanding as to the necessity of this doctrine.

My point is exactly that-----Catholics have a necessity for this doctrine thus their theologey is driven by necessity not truth.

Since Mary had the Son of God, Joseph was not allowed to touch her on grounds that are established under Jewish Law covering that particular situation. However, there are other things to consider, such as the vow of virginity that was made by Mary. Since Joseph did not annul the vow after hearing about it, he was held to the vow and would have to answer for it before God, if Mary was forced to break it.

What vow of virginity?

Just because we, in the 20th and 21st centuries have such a hang up with sex that it seems to preoccupy too much of people’s time - especially the tacky shows that are on tv these days - does not mean that such behaviour was the norm at the time of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the Apostles, and his kin through his relationship to both Mary and Joseph.

Maggie

Temple prostitutes, rampant homosexuality, adultary with your stepmother [Corithians]. I think they had their sexual hangups.

 

[Angainor]

john ennis:

Respectfully, I think you don’t got it now. The answer to your question is no.

Alright then, I only thought I had it. I guess the discussion got off track.
john ennis:

The issue is not whether Joseph might ever have considered Mary lustfully; the issue is whether Mary’s “Yes” to the Holy Spirit was an imperfect and incomplete one, which would allow for the Holy Spirit to be her spouse one minute, and Joseph to be so the next.

But Joseph was Mary’s spouse. For real. I don’t know what you are trying to say here.
john ennis:

Her “Fiat,” we believe, was a complete giving of herself for His divine purpose. She was the Ark of the New Covenant; she would not be then used for the ordinary purpose of bearing other children.
Is that tolerable?

Tolerable? I don’t think I’m ever going to get it. I cannot nail it down. If we could start in one place I might be able to grasp it. As it is, I am asked to juggle at least three independant logical arguments: 1) Mary’s vow of chastity 2) Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit 3) Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant above such ordinary things as bearing other childern (or to others on the forum undeserving the irreverance of marital relations).

The argument shifts between these three, before I can ever get a chance to understand one of them. Thanks for trying.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

Please note I have corrected your dreadful spelling error.

I am sorry but what you are saying does not make any sense at all. First of all God did dwell in the Temple of Jersualem. He is the Shekinah in the Old Testament, but the Shekinah departed because of the sins of Israel.

Thank you for correcting my spelling.
Acts7:48, Acts17:24.1King8:27

Second point: being the Ark of the New Covenant does not equate with being Temples of the Holy Spirit. There is a very physical difference. Let me point it out to you so that there can be no mistake in understanding here. I will do this by asking some pertinent questions:

1. Who or what is the New Covenant?

When you respond to this question then I will ask you the next question.

Maggie

2Cor6:16,Rom8:9,8:10,Jn 15:4,Jn17:23,17:26,2Cor13:5,Gal2:20,
Gal 4:19,Col1:271Ptr3:151Jn4:12,1Jn14:15,1Jn4:4

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

You are making a false accusation and you are off topic. If you want to discuss this point open a thread of your own.

Maggie

My accusation is that some Catholics have made Mary an idol, it is neither false nor is off topic.

 

[Xavier]

Benadam:

I’m sorry but unless you can acknowledge that the Ark of the Old Covenant was a type of what was the real Ark of the Covenant to come, that carried God in the Flesh. The only purpose in making that statement is to avoid recognizing the catholic meaning attached to the Ark of the Covenant.

2Cor6:16,Rom8:9,8:10,Jn 15:4,Jn17:23,17:26,2Cor13:5,Gal2:20,
Gal 4:19,Col1:271Ptr3:151Jn4:12,1Jn14:15,1Jn4:4

 

[Benadam]

2Cor6:16,Rom8:9,8:10,Jn 15:4,Jn17:23,17:26,2Cor13:5,Gal2:20,
Gal 4:19,Col1:271Ptr3:151Jn4:12,1Jn14:15,1Jn4:4

I didn’t look up all of these but the first few was telling eneogh. None of them (at least the first few) refer to the Ark of the Covenant. You apparently don’t grasp the meaning of the Ark of the Covenant. First of all it contains the covenant not the Holy Spirit. The passages you referenced here are references to the Spirit indwelling within Christians. Christians participate in the Ark’s function as bearers of the covenant from age to age but only one person in scripture can claim this blessing as theirs from age to age and that is Mary.

The Ark of the Covenant carries within it the ‘establishment’ of the covenant which no individual Christan can do except Mary

On top of the Ark were two Cherebum with wings touching. They are a symbol of the expression ‘age to age’ The symbol is demonstrated in scriptural events. The Ark that Noah built carried the seed of the woman from one age to the next preserving for all humanity the promises of God. One could argue as you do that the body of Noah was the Ark of the Covenant but that would require that Noah be the fullfillment of the prophecy in Genesis.
**Mary’s Song **

46And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me–
holy is his name. 50His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation. 51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. 52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble. 53He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty. 54He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful 55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers.”

So, even though the Ark of the Covenant does represent a human body it primarily represents the body of one individual person’s body. It is an archetypical symbol in that it represents the first woman in Genesis who’s seed will produce the Messiah and the New Eve who’s seed ‘did’ produce the Messiah.

 

[wonkimoto]

I don’t think Mary had other children. The arguments from scriptures about brethren just don’t hold.
Why would the early Christians want to make this claim to begin with?
To argue about it now, a thousand years after after it was accepted as fact seems ridiculous. No, it seems somebody wants the Bible to say something.
St Jerome was pretty clear about this…
I’m mighty glad the Church bothers about dogma and doctrine. There is no end to opinion…

 

[Benadam]

wonkimoto:

I don’t think Mary had other children. The arguments from scriptures about brethren just don’t hold.
Why would the early Christians want to make this claim to begin with?
To argue about it now, a thousand years after after it was accepted as fact seems ridiculous. No, it seems somebody wants the Bible to say something.
St Jerome was pretty clear about this…
I’m mighty glad the Church bothers about dogma and doctrine. There is no end to opinion…

Monkimoto, from you is heard the voice of reason. " Thumbs up"

 

[sfp]

Xavier:

My accusation is that some Catholics have made Mary an idol, it is neither false nor is off topic.

You are absolutely right, Zavier. “Some” Catholics do that, and they are wrong. What’s important is that this is not what the Church TEACHES. The Church has NEVER placed Mary “before” or “above” God. The Church teaches that God created EVERYTHING in the universe. You’re always going to get dissenters in the Church who want to interpret God’s word in whatever way they want.

This is no different than the rest of the heresies that have cropped up throughout the centuries. Why do you think we now have over 30,000 “Christian” denominations?

This is the whole point to the Catholic view…
With no Church authority and obedience, we have thousands of different opinions and viewpoints starting their own heretical “churches.” There is only one Church on earth that even claims to have apostolic succession and CONSTANT doctrinal teaching…unwaivering and unchanged for 2000 years.

Peace.

 

[sfp]

All this ink spilled over such a undisputed fact for so long, people.

Who are YOU or I to say that the entire Christian Church was wrong in their understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity for over 1600 years.

This is a relatively new concept (Mary having other children). How do you respond to that (those of you who believe in your own opinions, rather than what history AND THE BIBLE teaches)?

I truly want to know why you feel that you are “smarter” than those who LIVED WITH THE APOSTLES!

Please, please reply with something that isn’t just based on your opinion.

 

[MaggieOH]

john ennis:

Hope I’m not encouraging this to get too far off topic.
By lust I’m sure she means (though I think you don’t) the kind of attitude and act which is entirely focused on your own thirst for pleasure, and your own attainment of it. You can be aroused with your own wife, and still be treating her as an object.

That is not being good. That is bad.

Lust, we mean, is the attitude that makes sex not a gift to us but an appetite meant only to give us pleasure. It enables us to forget the life-giving nature of it, and the manner in which it echoes the love of the Trinity and Christ’s love for his Church. Life-giving love. To make the marital act a giving act doesn’t make it “cold, dry,” but less so. Isn’t that a little more than, “Wow! I’m aroused!”?
peace,
John

John you have given an excellent response that does in fact echo precisely what I meant to say.

Thank you

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

My accusation is that some Catholics have made Mary an idol, it is neither false nor is off topic.

It is off topic. This topic is about the issue of Perpetual Virginity and its implications in understanding the Human and Divine natures of Christ. By bringing up a false accusation on this thread you are off topic.

If you want to start a thread on this subject then please do so, but do not come and hijack our threads.

MaggieOH