Question, perpetual virgin

  • Thread starter Thread starter davia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

davia

Guest
when I went through RCIA we had talked about this subject, and in a thread below it was discussed that legally and biblically a marriage was not considered a marriage unless it is consumated and therefore for example, an impotent man can not every marry. So, my question is if Mary was a life-long virgin, her marriage could not be a true marriage, correct? I am not trying to stir anything up, I just dont’ understand (as did lots of other RCIA candidates then). If it is displeasing to God to abstain from marital relations unless for prayer (and I am just saying abstain temporarily, not complete abstinence), how could they have had a sexless marriage? :confused:
 
davia said:
when I went through RCIA we had talked about this subject, and in a thread below it was discussed that legally and biblically a marriage was not considered a marriage unless it is consumated and therefore for example, an impotent man can not every marry. So, my question is if Mary was a life-long virgin, her marriage could not be a true marriage, correct? I am not trying to stir anything up, I just dont’ understand (as did lots of other RCIA candidates then). If it is displeasing to God to abstain from marital relations unless for prayer (and I am just saying abstain temporarily, not complete abstinence), how could they have had a sexless marriage? :confused:
Click to expand...
I understood the marriage in Biblical times to be official upon the engagement. Hence this Scripture verse:
Matthew 1:20 Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.How could he divorce her if they weren’t married? This despite the fact that she hadn’t even moved in with him yet! 😃
 
Thanks for responding :-). So, is consumation an issue when it comes to marriage? Just curious based on that post I was talking about. If a man and woman are engaged for example and there is an accident the day before, or even immediately after the marriage and he is paralized then the marriage would be void or not even able to take place? How can that be when even what some would call is the best example for a marriage (who better than the parents of Jesus) wasn’t ever consumated?

And that kind of even brings up another question. I mean, if divorce is wrong under almost all circumstances by the church, then how could Joseph seek one from Mary? Some would say he could because it wasn’t consumated, but that would be grounds for an annulment, not divorce. Divorce implies it was a marriage from the start, annulment meaning it wasn’t.
 
davia said:
And that kind of even brings up another question. I mean, if divorce is wrong under almost all circumstances by the church, then how could Joseph seek one from Mary? Some would say he could because it wasn’t consumated, but that would be grounds for an annulment, not divorce. Divorce implies it was a marriage from the start, annulment meaning it wasn’t.
Click to expand...
Ah, I know this one: the Jews were allowed to divorce their wives, which means they probably didn’t bother with having annulment proceedings.
 
BlaineTog said:
Ah, I know this one: the Jews were allowed to divorce their wives, which means they probably didn’t bother with having annulment proceedings.
Click to expand...
That’s correct. Under the old law of Moses (i.e. the Mosaic Law):

Mt 19:8-9 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts* Moses allowed you to divorce your wives**, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."*And of course Jesus is reversing that here. For more on the legality of marriage at the time of betrothal, scroll down to the heading “Betrothal” here at this EWTN page. 🙂
 
davia said:
when I went through RCIA we had talked about this subject, and in a thread below it was discussed that legally and biblically a marriage was not considered a marriage unless it is consumated and therefore for example, an impotent man can not every marry. So, my question is if Mary was a life-long virgin, her marriage could not be a true marriage, correct? I am not trying to stir anything up, I just dont’ understand (as did lots of other RCIA candidates then). If it is displeasing to God to abstain from marital relations unless for prayer (and I am just saying abstain temporarily, not complete abstinence), how could they have had a sexless marriage? :confused:
Click to expand...
I am no expert but I have read on this site that a marriage can be valid, yet not sacramental. To be sacramental both parties must be baptized and consumate.

Mary and Joseph had a valid marriage.
 
Joseph and Mary did not have the Sacrament of Marriage. They did not have a New Testament marriage; they had an Old Testament marriage. Under the old covenant, a betrothed virgin was considered the wife of her husband; after the betrothal, there would be a period of perhaps several months prior to moving in together.

As for Mary, she remained a betrothed virgin, so her marriage was a true marriage, but only under the Old Covenant.
 
fix said:
I am no expert but I have read on this site that a marriage can be valid, yet not sacramental. To be sacramental both parties must be baptized and consumate.
Click to expand...
This is mistaken. A valid marriage cannot exist between baptized persons except it be sacramental. If a marriage is valid, it is valid even before it is consumated.

Consumation does not make a marriage sacramental. Consumation makes a marriage (already valid and sacramental) indissoluble.

tee
 
davia said:
when I went through RCIA we had talked about this subject, and in a thread below it was discussed that legally and biblically a marriage was not considered a marriage unless it is consummated and therefore for example, an impotent man cannot every marry.
Click to expand...
We are mixing issues here lets drop “legal” as that is defined in each and every of the 50 states. There are states of marriage “Natural” and “Sacramental”
So, my question is if Mary was a life-long virgin, her marriage could not be a true marriage, correct?
Click to expand...
Mary’s condition would be “assumed valid” either party could if desiring have the marriage annulled which did not happen
I am not trying to stir anything up, I just don’t’ understand (as did lots of other RCIA candidates then). If it is displeasing to God to abstain from marital relations unless for prayer (and I am just saying abstain temporarily, not complete abstinence), how could they have had a sexless marriage? :confused:
Click to expand...
Couples may abstain for many reasons to include desire. We must not confuse that with avoiding procreation
davia said:
Thanks for responding :-). So, is consummation an issue when it comes to marriage?
Click to expand...
yes
Just curious based on that post I was talking about. If a man and woman are engaged for example and there is an accident the day before, or even immediately after the marriage and he is paralyzed then the marriage would be void or not even able to take place?
Click to expand...
if either party knows there can never be a consummation that voids the “free to marry” however if neither party knows consummation is forever impossible they may marry and live in an assumed marriage state until death or annulment
How can that be when even what some would call is the best example for a marriage (who better than the parents of Jesus) wasn’t ever consummated?
Click to expand...
They are probably referring to discipline. Joseph could have moved on, however he followed God’s desire and performed as a parent and husband in a state of celibacy. I am guessing you may be young however when people age often one losses performance directly as impotence or indirectly as being advised future pregnancies are dangerous.
And that kind of even brings up another question. I mean, if divorce is wrong under almost all circumstances by the church, then how could Joseph seek one from Mary? Some would say he could because it wasn’t consummated, but that would be grounds for an annulment, not divorce. Divorce implies it was a marriage from the start, annulment meaning it wasn’t.
Click to expand...
I think this is Mosaic Law(Jewish Church Law) verses Canon Law (Catholic Church Law). Canon Law did not exist at that time so divorce was the method then simply put the annulment process was not the method of the time.

If that does not clear up the issue please continue to ask
 
tee_eff_em said:
This is mistaken. A valid marriage cannot exist between baptized persons except it be sacramental. If a marriage is valid, it is valid even before it is consumated.

Consumation does not make a marriage sacramental. Consumation makes a marriage (already valid and sacramental) indissoluble.

tee
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks for the correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top