So, were Mary and Joseph married?

[AmbroseSJ]

The movie Mary of Nazareth does a good job showing this.

Back in those days their was a “legal marriage first” called the betrothal where you were legally married. However, the wedding ceremony would not take place until the home was built and ready for the couple to move into it.

The betrothal is sort of a kin to the engagement today (though not exactly). The couple has agreed to marry, but the ceremony hasn’t taken place yet.

Not true.

In fact just the opposite. The betrothal was the legally binding aspect of the Marriage. there wasn’t any sort of necessary ceremony afterwards, just the tradition that you mentioned.

Christian marriage has combined the legally binding aspect WITH the ceremony. However in Second Temple Judaism, the betrothal WAS the legally binding aspect. If a couple were too poor to afford a big celebration (as we might easily assume Joseph and Mary were) then the celebration aspect might have been obviated. It would NOT have changed the fact that Mary and Joseph were husband and wife at the time of the Annunciation.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The Catholic Church has never taught that. Seems he was pretty spry for all the traveling he had to do and the work he did. Carpentry in those days was not an old mans work, I wouldn’t think.God Bless, Memaw

Old in that society could mean early forties or late thirties. Seriously Memaw, most of the Church Fathers hold to this belief about Joseph.

 

[phil19034]

They were legally married and if Joseph would have died, Mary would have inherited whatever was his. The year gave them time too prepare for their home. He the home, she the linens, pottery etc. Nothing “unwed” about it. It’s a shame we try to put our standards on them. Actually, their Marriage was more than a Sacrament, it was SACRED. I wouldn’t dare question the Wisdom of GOD. God Bless, Memaw

No one has said she was an unwed mother. Of course they were legally married in the Jewish law. Jewish weddings have TWO ceremonies (even today), the betrothal (kiddushin) and nuptials (nissuin).

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/313717/jewish/The-Wedding.htm

However, back then, the two wedding ceremonies were not performed on the same day. The nuptials were postponed until the Jewish home was ready.

Here’s the whole article, that also talks about the modern Jewish marriage contract, etc: chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/313718/jewish/The-Day-of-the-Wedding.htm

 

[Memaw]

I am NOT throwing out anything except pointing out what NO ONE can prove. Their tradition is just that, Small t. I am NOT creating a “false dilemma”. It may very well be a false dilemma to say Joseph was old and widowed with NO actual proof. What about the tradition, with a small t, ( or should I say pious legend), that says Joseph’s staff bloomed with white lilies, that is a sign of virginity. Same difference. God Bless, Memaw

 

[phil19034]

Not true.

**In fact just the opposite. The betrothal was the legally binding aspect of the Marriage. there wasn’t any sort of necessary ceremony afterwards, just the tradition that you mentioned. **

Christian marriage has combined the legally binding aspect WITH the ceremony. However in Second Temple Judaism, the betrothal WAS the legally binding aspect. If a couple were too poor to afford a big celebration (as we might easily assume Joseph and Mary were) then the celebration aspect might have been obviated. It would NOT have changed the fact that Mary and Joseph were husband and wife at the time of the Annunciation.

I NEVER said they were not legally marriage. They were.

Jewish weddings have TWO ceremonies (even today). The betrothal and the nuptials. However, back then, the two were not performed on the same day. The nuptials were postponed until the Jewish home was ready. Today, the two ceremonies of the Jewish weddings simply flow into one-another.

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/313717/jewish/The-Wedding.htm

 

[Memaw]

No one has said she was an unwed mother. Of course they were legally married in the Jewish law. Jewish weddings have TWO ceremonies (even today), the betrothal (kiddushin) and nuptials (nissuin).

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/313717/jewish/The-Wedding.htm

However, back then, the two wedding ceremonies were not performed on the same day. The nuptials were postponed until the Jewish home was ready.

Here’s the whole article, that also talks about the modern Jewish marriage contract, etc: chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/313718/jewish/The-Day-of-the-Wedding.htm

I have heard many Catholics refer to Mary as an unwed mother and even a few priest that did the same. One priest at our Church, many years ago when that notion first started spreading around, told us that it was so wrong to believe that and explained the Jewish Marriage ritual. Fr. Mitch Pacwa has explained it on EWTN also. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Not true.

In fact just the opposite. The betrothal was the legally binding aspect of the Marriage. there wasn’t any sort of necessary ceremony afterwards, just the tradition that you mentioned.

Christian marriage has combined the legally binding aspect WITH the ceremony. However in Second Temple Judaism, the betrothal WAS the legally binding aspect. If a couple were too poor to afford a big celebration (as we might easily assume Joseph and Mary were) then the celebration aspect might have been obviated. It would NOT have changed the fact that Mary and Joseph were husband and wife at the time of the Annunciation.

Thank you so much and God Bless, Memaw

 

[phil19034]

I have heard many Catholics refer to Mary as an unwed mother and even a few priest that did the same. One priest at our Church, many years ago when that notion first started spreading around, told us that it was so wrong to believe that and explained the Jewish Marriage ritual. Fr. Mitch Pacwa has explained it on EWTN also. God Bless, Memaw

Yes, it’s because many people view the betrothal to be similar to our engagement. While the modern engagement outwardly resembles the betrothal, they are not the same. Engagement lacks the rights of marriage. While the betrothed enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage, but cannot yet consummate until after their nuptials.

I think the fact that today’s Jews now perform the betrothal and the nuptials on the same confuses Christians. People don’t realize that the modern engagement didn’t exist in the past, it wasn’t really separate from the courtship.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

I am NOT throwing out anything except pointing out what NO ONE can prove. Their tradition is just that, Small t. I am NOT creating a “false dilemma”. It may very well be a false dilemma to say Joseph was old and widowed with NO actual proof. What about the tradition, with a small t, ( or should I say pious legend), that says Joseph’s staff bloomed with white lilies, that is a sign of virginity. Same difference. God Bless, Memaw

It is also a pious legend to say Joseph was younger.

 

[phil19034]

It is also a pious legend to say Joseph was younger.

Yes.

Personally, I believe St. Joseph was “much” older than the Blessed Mother, but most likely just in his 30s at most. Perhaps even in his mid to late 20s. The Blessed Mother was in her teens.

So I agree with the “younger St. Joseph” idea, not that he was a widower.

Dr. Taylor Marshall has a good blog post explaining why he believes in the “young St. Joseph” tradition

taylormarshall.com/2016/03/saint-joseph-old-man-or-young-man-plus-apparitions-of-joseph-and-his-assumption.html

God Bless

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Old in that society could mean early forties or late thirties. Seriously Memaw, most of the Church Fathers hold to this belief about Joseph.

Not so. See here

Although this treatise is directed toward the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph, it also addresses the issue of the “old” St. Joseph, in order to remove all possible threats to the Virginity of Our Blessed Mother, rather than any real evidence. (Taken from the Protoevangelium: a known apocryphal work)

 

[Memaw]

Not so. See here

Although this treatise is directed toward the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph, it also addresses the issue of the “old” St. Joseph, in order to remove all possible threats to the Virginity of Our Blessed Mother, rather than any real evidence. (Taken from the Protoevangelium: a known apocryphal work)

Thank you again AmbroseSJ, I haven’t read it all yet but what I have read is very good. God Bless, Memaw

 

[adrift]

To say there is not teaching either way is a bit silly. The Catholic Church TEACHES. It doesn’t deal in either way stuff. Either it is a teaching or it isn’t. We come up with that idea. The only Tradition the Catholic Church teaches is Sacred Tradition, not lower case traditions. Those are man’s guesswork. God Bless, Memaw.

There are many things that the Church does not have a teaching. There is no teaching of how old Mary or Joseph was. There is no teaching of when Joseph died. When I speak of teachings, I mean official statement from the Church as doctrine. You might find it “silly” but I find the idea that the Church make official rulings on everything silly. In the final analysis there is no teaching on the age of Joseph. You are free to believe with the Eastern Church’s that he was older man who had children or with those that believe he was a young man who was virgin also. As you have acknowledged, this is not a capitol T tradition but a small t tradition. Why so huffy?

Joseph the Betrothed

 

[dans0622]

Are you telling me that Jesus’s parents don’t earn a sacramental marriage in your view?

Hello,

Yes, my “view”, as it was stated in my first post on this thread, is that their marriage was not sacramental…although I would never use the phrase “earn a sacramental marriage.”

Dan

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Not so. See here

Although this treatise is directed toward the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph, it also addresses the issue of the “old” St. Joseph, in order to remove all possible threats to the Virginity of Our Blessed Mother, rather than any real evidence. (Taken from the Protoevangelium: a known apocryphal work)

www.orthodox-church.info/eureka/mp3/didmaryhave.pdf

And here is why I believe the Eastern Tradition.

Disclaimer: I am not Orthodox and I believe in all the Marian dogmas. I however am not inclined to the popular view among Latin Catholics concerning Joseph.

Interestingly the Protoevangelium is the first historical mention that Joseph was a widower and had children before he took the Blessed Mother as his wife. However there are indications in scripture that the brothers of Jesus are children from Joseph’s previous marriage. Luke 2 calls Jesus Mary’s firstborn, however he does not call Him Joseph’s firstborn. In the gospel of Mark Jesus is identified as “the son of Mary” not a son of Mary. But Jesus’ brothers are a whole other issue.

 

[Memaw]

Hello,

Yes, my “view”, as it was stated in my first post on this thread, is that their marriage was not sacramental…although I would never use the phrase “earn a sacramental marriage.”

Dan

There was no such thing as a “Sacramental” Marriage at that time. Their Marriage was instituted by God for a very specific and Holy reason they they fulfilled it completely.God Bless. Memaw

 

[Memaw]

No one has said she was an unwed mother. Of course they were legally married in the Jewish law. Jewish weddings have TWO ceremonies (even today), the betrothal (kiddushin) and nuptials (nissuin).

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/313717/jewish/The-Wedding.htm

However, back then, the two wedding ceremonies were not performed on the same day. The nuptials were postponed until the Jewish home was ready.

Here’s the whole article, that also talks about the modern Jewish marriage contract, etc: chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/313718/jewish/The-Day-of-the-Wedding.htm

I thought that was the topic of this thread!! Read post #1. God Bless, Memaw

 

[phil19034]

I thought that was the topic of this thread!! Read post #1. God Bless, Memaw

I was responding to your initial reply to one of my posts. Your reply to my post make it seem that I was saying they were unwed. I did not. That was the nature of my reply.

The OP is the only place where someone claims Mary & Joseph were unwed. Everyone else disputes that.