Must we believe this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Annie_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie_B said:
Hi RosaryFan -
I am not denying the idea that there could never be any children born to Mary after Jesus. However, as we all know (or should know), marital relations do not ALWAYS produce a child! I had one child and never more - that does not mean I never had realtions with my husband again. Apparently it was in God’s plan that I have only one. Could this not have been true for Mary too? (I am not comparing myself to Mary…just pointing out that one child does not automatilcally exclude normal marital relations…)

Annie
Click to expand...
I guess I should have elaborated. If she was to have no children after Jesus, she could not have marital relations because contraception is against God’s will. How would she and Joseph have known whether or not they could produce another child? They would have had to abstain.
 
Annie_B said:
Nor does it exclude it…EXACTLY! So, how does the RCC come up with the infallible teacjing that Mary was “ever” “always” etc. a virgin? To me, if she had marital realtions with Joseph after the birth od Jesus does not change my faith in Jesus.

Another thought, does not the Catholic church teach that a marriage that is not consumated is not a valid marriage?? An un-consumated marriage is grounds for an annulment…

Annie
Click to expand...
They were legally married. They might have been able to GET an annulment, but an annulment not sought doesn’t invalidate a marriage.

If Mother Mary had had “relations” with Joseph that would mean that she had had relations with 2 persons (God the Holy Spirit and Joseph)! That is unchaste behavior, and since Mother Mary never chose to sin, she didn’t do that unchaste behavior.
 
Annie_B said:
Now, THAT argument would make sense to me.🙂 But still, what about the unconsumated marriage/valid marriage issue? Why would -should - could anyone get married when they have no intention of consumating the marriage? This would seem to go against Church teachings…

Annie
Click to expand...
Two things I would like to mention.

First, Jesus gave us the Sacrament of marriage. What might or might not make a marriage valid or invalid does not apply to a marriage contract entered into pre-Jesus. Marriages in old testament times were closer to contracts than Sacraments.

Second, there were many aspects of Jewish law and tradition that were not part of even early Church teaching. Marriage is one of those areas. Another example is divorce, which was permitted under Jewish law but prohibited by Christ. Jesus changed many things. 🙂

Even today, couples can have valid Joshephite marriages.
 
CatsAndDogs said:
They were legally married. They might have been able to GET an annulment, but an annulment not sought doesn’t invalidate a marriage.

If Mother Mary had had “relations” with Joseph that would mean that she had had relations with 2 persons (God the Holy Spirit and Joseph)! That is unchaste behavior, and since Mother Mary never chose to sin, she didn’t do that unchaste behavior.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…I did not realize that Mary “had realtions” with the Holy Spirit…Where is it taught that she “had relations” with the Holy Spirit?:confused:

Annie
 
CatsAndDogs said:
If Mother Mary had had “relations” with Joseph that would mean that she had had relations with 2 persons (God the Holy Spirit and Joseph)! That is unchaste behavior, and since Mother Mary never chose to sin, she didn’t do that unchaste behavior.
Click to expand...
Surely this is heresy. The Holy Spirit does not engage in sexual intercourse. If the word “relations” is not a euphemism for sexual intercourse, then how do “relations with the Holy Spirit” constitute unchaste behavior?

Edwin
 
I know that the perpetual virginity is official Catholic teaching, but I find the issue of “virginitas in partu” very confusing. I’m not being nit-picking–it really bothers me because the idea that Jesus was born in a miraculous way (I mean that He somehow “teleported” out of Mary’s womb “like light through glass”) seems Docetistic. I have huge problems with the idea that Jesus’ body was in any way different from other bodies until after the Resurrection.

The Catechism seems a bit coy here, speaking of Mary’s “virginal integrity.” Is this just code language for the “light through glass” view, or can it be interpreted in some other way?

Edwin
 
Annie_B said:
Hmmmm…I did not realize that Mary “had relations” with the Holy Spirit…Where is it taught that she “had relations” with the Holy Spirit?:confused:

Annie
Click to expand...
(( I just HAD to correct your spelling of “relations” “realations”] above. My deceased english-teacher Grandmother “made me do it!”. 🙂 ))

She didn’t have “physical relations” per se with the Holy Spirit (for obvious reasons), of course, but she was made pregnant by an operation of the Holy Spirit.

That operation made her having an analog of that “operation” with any other person an unchaste act on her part.

See also: Mary, Ever Virgin.

Plus… of course, it’s simply a dogma of the Church that she is ever virgin, which we are obliged to know as a simple truth. 🙂
 
Contarini said:
Surely this is heresy. The Holy Spirit does not engage in sexual intercourse. If the word “relations” is not a euphemism for sexual intercourse, then how do “relations with the Holy Spirit” constitute unchaste behavior?

Edwin
Click to expand...
Do you doubt that through some operation of the Holy Spirit, which is what I mean by “relations”, Mother Mary became pregnant?

What would it mean to have (even potentially) become pregnant by two different persons? (God and Joseph)
 
Contarini said:
Surely this is heresy. The Holy Spirit does not engage in sexual intercourse. If the word “relations” is not a euphemism for sexual intercourse, then how do “relations with the Holy Spirit” constitute unchaste behavior?

Edwin
Click to expand...
This is an important point. The Virgin Birth is not like some kind of pagan god-sleeps-with-earthling story. It is a mystery more than an explanation.
 
Annie_B said:
I was always led to believe that Joseph and Mary did not have marital relations until AFTER the birth of Jesus, with thi information being backed up by the following Bible verse. Correct or not, this is what I have believed all my life, which is why it was a shock to me…
Annie

Matthew 1:25 (Darby Translation)
Darby Translation (DARBY)

** 25and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus**
Click to expand...
There are many things in the Bible that continued “until” some particular event, and then continued on after that, too. In the Bible “until” doesn’t always mean that, then it changed to the opposite condition.

For example, somewhere in the Old Testament, Michal, the wife of King David, had no children “until” she died. Hopefully, nobody thinks she started giving birth after she died. 😉
 
Contarini said:
I know that the perpetual virginity is official Catholic teaching, but I find the issue of “virginitas in partu” very confusing. I’m not being nit-picking–it really bothers me because the idea that Jesus was born in a miraculous way (I mean that He somehow “teleported” out of Mary’s womb “like light through glass”) seems Docetistic. I have huge problems with the idea that Jesus’ body was in any way different from other bodies until after the Resurrection.

The Catechism seems a bit coy here, speaking of Mary’s “virginal integrity.” Is this just code language for the “light through glass” view, or can it be interpreted in some other way?

Edwin
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see… if God could part the Red Sea, would doing a little “painless opening up” be particularly difficult? 🙂

We ARE talkin’ about GOD here, people!?
 
RosaryFan said:
I guess I should have elaborated. If she was to have no children after Jesus, she could not have marital relations because contraception is against God’s will. How would she and Joseph have known whether or not they could produce another child? They would have had to abstain.
Click to expand...
God would know and we do not know all that God revealed to Mary and Joseph…

Annie
 
Annie_B said:
Now, THAT argument would make sense to me.🙂 But still, what about the unconsumated marriage/valid marriage issue? Why would -should - could anyone get married when they have no intention of consumating the marriage? This would seem to go against Church teachings…

Annie
Click to expand...
Annie, I think you might find that these articles will aid you in making the assent of faith to this dogma of the Church:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112frs.asp

catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
 
mercygate said:
Annie B;4234342:
:bigyikes:Gotta be careful with Darby. He founded the Plymouth Brethren and had some very strange ideas (as well as some exceedingly orthodox notions). Stick with mainstream translations, such as the RSV-CE, NAB, Douay-Rheims, Jerusalem . . . 🙂
Click to expand...
I think that I will stick with whatever I feel is right. I only got the quote off Biblegateway.com

Darby or whatever…Is it not more imprtant ot know the Church’s teachings than worry about translation? That is what I am after - to understand the Church’s teachings…

Annie
Click to expand...
 
Annie_B said:
I think that I will stick with whatever I feel is right. I only got the quote off Biblegateway.com

Darby or whatever…Is it not more imprtant ot know the Church’s teachings than worry about translation? That is what I am after - to understand the Church’s teachings…

Annie
Click to expand...
Do yourself the favour of using correctly translated Bibles, too. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top