J
John337
Guest
I’m trying to understand why Joseph didn’t divorce Mary is it because of the fact that the angel told him that Jesus is the son of God?
- Status
P
pianistclare
Guest
Yes, and they were both consecrated virgins. If she had been found out to be pregnant before marriage she would have been stoned to death. He had already been selected to care for her, and I’m sure he had great affection for her since she was so young. You get visited by an angel who says “don’t worry about it”, then you don’t worry about it. 
J
John337
Guest
@pianistclare thank you.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not necessarily. Mary? Yep. Joseph? The Church doesn’t teach that (although I’ve seen some who have claimed it to be true).
No, the point is that, if she were found pregnant while married – that is, an adulteress – then she would be stoned to death. This is what Joseph is attempting to avoid. After all, they were already betrothed, but Mary hadn’t yet moved in. That would already count as ‘married’, in their day.
So, divorce would be one way for Mary to be able to stay alive, even though pregnant. Joseph wasn’t about to make it public that the baby wasn’t his. (And, inasmuch as it seems Joseph was having a hard time believing the “conceived by the Holy Spirit” story that Mary would have told him, then in his mind, it would mean that he was giving her the opportunity to find and marry her paramour (the father of her child).)
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
The angel commanded him not to do so.
Matt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
B
BabudaVivi
Guest
According to the words of Father Paulo Ricardo:
The Church regards Saint Joseph as the "Chaste Husband", which can be observed both in the western icons and in the oriental images, in which he is always portrayed with a lily, a sign of virginal purity.Even in the litany of St. Joseph, we have the verse: “Chaste guardian of the Virgin” and “Joseph most chaste”.
Moreover, Mary, responding to the angel saying that she did not know how could she have a son “if I do not know any man”, being married (or promissed), implies that she and Joseph had already agreed to keep chaste, otherwise she could answer something like “ah, will he be the son of Joseph?”
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
The question isn’t whether Joseph was chaste in his marriage to Mary – after all, I agree: they were continent in marriage.
The question was whether Joseph was a consecrated virgin. That’s something the Church doesn’t teach (after all, it is “the Virgin Mary and her most chaste spouse Joseph”…
)
Last edited:
H
Hereiam
Guest
Why does it need to be a Church teaching to be true? There are many things the Church is silent on, but it doesn’t make them untrue.
po18guy
Well-known member
From the commentary of the 1941 Confraternity New Testament:
18-25: The Virgin Birth.
18. The origin of Christ: His conception and birth. Betrothed: much
more than our “engaged” but less than “married.” The Jewish marriage ceremony
consisted of two parts: the first was the sealing of the marriage contract whereby the bridegroom gave a certain sum of money, “the purchase price,” to the father of the bride, and the bride received her dowry, usually equal to “the purchase price,”
from her father; the second ceremony, separated by several months (usually a year) from the first, was the solemn, formal induction of the bride into the bridegroom’s house, the blessing of fruitfulness invoked upon the consummation of their union,
and the joyful wedding feast. Between the two ceremonies the bride was said to be betrothed. But since the first ceremony effected a valid, though unconsummated, marriage, even before the second ceremony the bride and bridegroom were spoken of as husband and wife (19 f), and any unfaithfulness on the part of the bride during this period was considered adultery and punishable with death (cf. Deut. 22, 23 f). Before they came together: before the second ceremony had taken place. She was found to be with child: Joseph learned of her pregnancy either by his own observation or by being informed of the fact through Mary or one of her relatives; the peculiar passive construction used by the Evangelist would favor the latter opinion. The words by the Holy Spirit were added by the Evangelist to forestall any wrong ideas on the part of the readers: Joseph himself apparently did not know of the supernatural character of the
conception until the mystery was revealed to him by the angel.
19. A just man: one who conscientiously observed the Law; hence this does not give the reason why he did not wish to expose her to reproach; but his desire to save her from public shame and punishment flowed from his conviction of her innocence. Therefore he was minded, made up his mind, decided, to separate from her legally but quietly, by giving her a bill of divorce (cf. Deut. 24, 1) before two witnesses in private without stating the motive.
20. Joseph, son of David: the angel thus addresses him to recall to him his
dignity and to signify that through him the son of his virginal wife and therefore his son before the law, would also be a son of David. To take one’s wife to oneself was the technical term for the performance of the second part of the marriage ceremony (cf. Deut. 20, 7).
21. He shall save his people from their sins: the angel alludes to the meaning of the name Jesus, “The Lord is salvation.”
(cont.)
18-25: The Virgin Birth.
18. The origin of Christ: His conception and birth. Betrothed: much
more than our “engaged” but less than “married.” The Jewish marriage ceremony
consisted of two parts: the first was the sealing of the marriage contract whereby the bridegroom gave a certain sum of money, “the purchase price,” to the father of the bride, and the bride received her dowry, usually equal to “the purchase price,”
from her father; the second ceremony, separated by several months (usually a year) from the first, was the solemn, formal induction of the bride into the bridegroom’s house, the blessing of fruitfulness invoked upon the consummation of their union,
and the joyful wedding feast. Between the two ceremonies the bride was said to be betrothed. But since the first ceremony effected a valid, though unconsummated, marriage, even before the second ceremony the bride and bridegroom were spoken of as husband and wife (19 f), and any unfaithfulness on the part of the bride during this period was considered adultery and punishable with death (cf. Deut. 22, 23 f). Before they came together: before the second ceremony had taken place. She was found to be with child: Joseph learned of her pregnancy either by his own observation or by being informed of the fact through Mary or one of her relatives; the peculiar passive construction used by the Evangelist would favor the latter opinion. The words by the Holy Spirit were added by the Evangelist to forestall any wrong ideas on the part of the readers: Joseph himself apparently did not know of the supernatural character of the
conception until the mystery was revealed to him by the angel.
19. A just man: one who conscientiously observed the Law; hence this does not give the reason why he did not wish to expose her to reproach; but his desire to save her from public shame and punishment flowed from his conviction of her innocence. Therefore he was minded, made up his mind, decided, to separate from her legally but quietly, by giving her a bill of divorce (cf. Deut. 24, 1) before two witnesses in private without stating the motive.
20. Joseph, son of David: the angel thus addresses him to recall to him his
dignity and to signify that through him the son of his virginal wife and therefore his son before the law, would also be a son of David. To take one’s wife to oneself was the technical term for the performance of the second part of the marriage ceremony (cf. Deut. 20, 7).
21. He shall save his people from their sins: the angel alludes to the meaning of the name Jesus, “The Lord is salvation.”
(cont.)
po18guy
Well-known member
(cont.)
22. The citation of a prophecy fulfilled is one of the characteristics of the First Gospel (see Introduction), and serves to show the intimate connection between the Old and the New Testament. St. Matthew wishes to demonstrate that the facts which he narrates have their cause in the free will of God who, disposing the events according to a pre-established plan, revealed at times to the prophets, thus brought them into actuality. The coincidence, then, between the prophecy which announces the fact and the fulfillment of the same is not by chance but depends on the providential disposition
of God.
23. The prophecy referred to is that of Isa. 7,14, pronounced at a time of calamity for Juda when Achaz, the head of the House of David, refused to ask God for a sign. The Greek translator of the Aramaic Gospel of St. Matthew does not follow the Septuagint
exactly in his version of these words of Isaias, yet both independently render the Hebrew word almah as parthenos, virgin (in the strict sense). And they shall call:
in the Septuagint: “And thou shalt call”; in the Hebrew (according to the Massoretic Text): “And she shall call.” But the meaning of all three variants is substantially the same. Emmanuel; which is, interpreted, “God with us.” The Gospel understands the name as meaning not merely, “God is with us by His aid,” but “God is with us personally by His Incarnation.”
25. On the meaning of this verse see the note to the text. In Luke 1,31 the angel Gabriel tells Mary to call her Son’s name Jesus; here Joseph called his name Jesus: the Old Testament shows that both the father and the mother had the privilege of naming the child.
22. The citation of a prophecy fulfilled is one of the characteristics of the First Gospel (see Introduction), and serves to show the intimate connection between the Old and the New Testament. St. Matthew wishes to demonstrate that the facts which he narrates have their cause in the free will of God who, disposing the events according to a pre-established plan, revealed at times to the prophets, thus brought them into actuality. The coincidence, then, between the prophecy which announces the fact and the fulfillment of the same is not by chance but depends on the providential disposition
of God.
23. The prophecy referred to is that of Isa. 7,14, pronounced at a time of calamity for Juda when Achaz, the head of the House of David, refused to ask God for a sign. The Greek translator of the Aramaic Gospel of St. Matthew does not follow the Septuagint
exactly in his version of these words of Isaias, yet both independently render the Hebrew word almah as parthenos, virgin (in the strict sense). And they shall call:
in the Septuagint: “And thou shalt call”; in the Hebrew (according to the Massoretic Text): “And she shall call.” But the meaning of all three variants is substantially the same. Emmanuel; which is, interpreted, “God with us.” The Gospel understands the name as meaning not merely, “God is with us by His aid,” but “God is with us personally by His Incarnation.”
25. On the meaning of this verse see the note to the text. In Luke 1,31 the angel Gabriel tells Mary to call her Son’s name Jesus; here Joseph called his name Jesus: the Old Testament shows that both the father and the mother had the privilege of naming the child.
B
BabudaVivi
Guest
I got your point now. In this aspect, the images of St. Joseph, always portrayed with a lily, lead us to believe in his virginity.
Add to this some theological considerations which, because they are not dogmas or written in the Catechism, are subject to refutation and contestation, but seem quite reasonable, for example, as I said above:
Considering “Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I have no knowledge of man?’”
Luke, 1:34 - Bíblia Católica Online
Since she was already betrothed to Joseph, and knew that, a priori, they should consummate the marriage, this question would not fit. The son would be Joseph’s after the marriage (or would she have made a vow to devote herself virginally to God without warning the bridegroom, frustrating her expectations?).
But in fact, as Hereiam said, not everything commonplace is a teaching of the Church. There is no dogma yet as to Mary being a co-redemptrix or mediatrix of all graces, as there was not a couple of centuries ago about the Immaculate Conception, nor about the Assumption of Mary.
However, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary became widely known in the Christian world, having already been celebrated in the early fifth century and was already consolidated in the East at the time of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice around 600.
I only emphasize the point that not being dogma does not mean that there is no teaching. And that the Church does not declare itself about something does not imply that it did not occur, only that it is not something relevant to the point of being necessary a positioning.
Moreover, it is a matter of checking what the early church fathers said about the term, since the term “chaste” used at the time may have deeper implications than we presently assume.
St. Peter Damian affirms with the force and the brilliance of a clarion call: “It is the faith of the Church that the one who acted as father was a virgin” [1]. St. Thomas will echo this true tradition [2] and will bring a sublime theological reason: "If the Lord [on the Cross] wanted to entrust to the [disciple] virgin the care of the Virgin, her Mother, how she [ her husband, if he had not always been a virgin? "[3]
Therefore, we can believe, in tune with the Church, the immaculate and holy wife of the Divine Lamb, whom St. Joseph, honored by men with the title of father of Jesus Christ, was a virgin all his life, of an exalted and unique purity in the Church .
The peace of Crist.
[1] “Ecclesiae fides est, ut virgo fuerit et is qui simulatus est pater”. Saint Peter Damian. Epistola VI ad Nicolaum. In PL 145, 384.
[2] St. Thomas affirms the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph, but rejects as doctrine which the Church does not uphold and falsify, to which she attributes the children of another marriage previous to that contracted with Mary. Cf Comm. in Io., c. 2, 1. 2, 1; Ad Gal., C. 1, 1. 5.
[3] “If Dominus Matrem Virginem noluit nisi virgini commendare custodiendam, quomodo sustinuisset sponsus eius, virginem non fuisse, et sic persistisse”. St. Thomas Aquinas. Ad Gal., C. 1, 1. 5.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would say ‘purity’ (i.e., chastity) rather than ‘virginity.’ The images themselves, devoid of Church teaching on the issue, can’t be presumed to be teaching something that the Church hasn’t declared.
True, but it makes them something that we cannot assert with any kind of assurance. We might as well assert that Joseph had blonde hair, or blue eyes, or crooked teeth. We just don’t know.
And the teaching that we have is that Joseph was chaste, not virginal.
I’m confused: neither St Peter Damian nor St Thomas Aquinas are “early church fathers”, which is the claim you’re attempting to make.
I looked up the quote you attribute to St Peter Damian, and although one source claims it to be his statement, Jean Jacques Olier seems to claim it as having come from Anselm.
The quote from Aquinas’ commentary on Galatians is likewise interesting. The translation I found at dhspriory.org (which, one would think, would get Aquinas right in translation, no?
) says instead:“if the Lord did not want as mother anyone but a virgin entrusted to the care of a virgin, how would He have allowed her husband not to be a virgin and still endure it?”
Nevertheless, although we have here Aquinas’ opinion on the subject, we see in context that he’s discussing a variety of opinions that a variety of scholars and churchmen hold on the subject.
Certainly, there are a variety of opinions here. As such, I think it’s fair only to say that “some assert Joseph was a virgin”, and leave it at that…
B
BabudaVivi
Guest
Anyway, I think we had walked too away from the topic.
That point should get his own post in the forums, to continue the talk.
The peace of Christ.
That point should get his own post in the forums, to continue the talk.
The peace of Christ.
- Status