Teaching of the Catholic Church I am having trouble with...that make me doubt others

[VociMike]

Consider also this verse:

• “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.”* Zech. 12:10

 

[VociMike]

And finally, ask yourself this question. When is it proper for a woman to bear the children of two fathers? One case would be when the first father dies. Another case might be if the first father abandons the mother and child. Did God die? Did He abandon Mary and Jesus? The answers are no and no, of course. So how would it be proper for Mary to bear the children of another father?

 

[Tom]

Numbers 30,4 If a woman vow any thing, and bind herself by an oath, being in her father’s house, and but yet a girl in age: if her father knew the vow that she hath promised, and the oath wherewith she hath bound her soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound by the vow: 5 Whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfill in deed. 6 But if her father, immediately as soon as he heard it, gainsaid it, both her vows and her oaths shall be void, neither shall she be bound to what she promised, because her father hath gainsaid it. 7 If she have a husband, and shall vow any thing, and the word once going out of her mouth shall bind her soul by an oath: 8 The day that her husband shall hear it, and not gainsay it, she shall be bound to the vow, and shall give whatsoever she promised. 9 But if as soon as he heareth he gainsay it, and make her promises and the words wherewith she had bound her soul of no effect: the Lord will forgive her.
Numbers 30,11 If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, 12 If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. 13 But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. 14 If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. 15 But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.
16 But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity. 17 These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house.

 

[SydLake]

VociMike:

Consider also this verse:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Zech. 12:10

To quote any old testament verse as precidence for Jesus ignores the facts that Jesus’ teachings contradicted the OT frequently. IE Lev and stoning.

Also the word “as” doesn’t signify equivalence only similarity.

Peace

 

[steve99]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Matthew 14:55: Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us?

Mark 6:3: Is he not…and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

There is another point here.that hasn’t been mentioned yet.

Matthew says at Calvary – at a distance were Mary, the mother of James and Joseph. Now this is clearly not Jesus’ mother Mary.

Mark says the same – Mary the mother of James the younger and Joset (Joseph).

John says that near the cross stood his mother and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

  Now depending on how you read that it could be Jesus’ mothers’s sister *and* Mary, the wife of Clopas, or that Jesus’ mother’s sister *was* Mary the wife of Clopas, probably the latter or we have a lot of Mary’s at the crucifixion. So Mary, the mother of James and Joseph was probably Mary’s “sister” – but not necessarily her direct blood sister. 

  The important thing though is that James and Joseph were not the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Now in Matthew 13:55 we read “is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? Now unless we have an amazing co-incidence the James and Joseph here are the sons of another Mary and hence not the direct blood brothers of Jesus. And since they are mentioned first neither can Simon and Jude be either.

 

[RCCDefender]

I apologize in advance for my poor knowlege of Chapter and verse.

To the OP, you cite the verse which says that Joseph had no realations with Mary till she bore a son as evidence that he did have relations with her after. However, (and here is where I cannot make the citation) scripture says that Christ will rule till He has put His enemies under His feet. By your implication, this would mean after putting His enemies under His feet, Christ would no longer rule.

Please ask many questions before you further consider leaving the Church! My prayers are with you, and may all of us respond to you in kindness.

Pacem

 

[VociMike]

SydLake:

To quote any old testament verse as precidence for Jesus ignores the facts that Jesus’ teachings contradicted the OT frequently. IE Lev and stoning.

Also the word “as” doesn’t signify equivalence only similarity.

Peace

Which is why I didn’t say “this verse proves”, but only “consider this verse”.

 

[Cath.orProtes]

Tom:

Numbers 30,4 If a woman vow any thing, and bind herself by an oath, being in her father’s house, and but yet a girl in age: if her father knew the vow that she hath promised, and the oath wherewith she hath bound her soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound by the vow: 5 Whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfill in deed. 6 But if her father, immediately as soon as he heard it, gainsaid it, both her vows and her oaths shall be void, neither shall she be bound to what she promised, because her father hath gainsaid it. 7 If she have a husband, and shall vow any thing, and the word once going out of her mouth shall bind her soul by an oath: 8 The day that her husband shall hear it, and not gainsay it, she shall be bound to the vow, and shall give whatsoever she promised. 9 But if as soon as he heareth he gainsay it, and make her promises and the words wherewith she had bound her soul of no effect: the Lord will forgive her.
Numbers 30,11 If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, 12 If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. 13 But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. 14 If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. 15 But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.
16 But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity. 17 These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house.

Thanks to everyone for all your responses.

I am unsure what I am looking for in these verses?

 

[Kendy]

St.Eric:

As far as “he had no relations with her until she bore her first born.” Well, if you look at the sentence, all that is saying is that they did not have intercourse before the birth of Christ and nothing more. It does not imply in any way that they had sex after the birth, only that they did not have sex before the the birth. (I feel strange even writing that Joseph and Mary had sex.)

I don’t understand this attitude? I am not sure how Mary having sex with her husband diminishes her?

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Sherlock:

The other replies have been excellent. I’ll only add that if Mary had other children, Jesus would not have given the care of Mary to John at the foot of the cross. Indeed, if he had, it would have been a great insult to those other children.

Also, you need to understand what it means to be consecrated. The womb of Mary is a consecrated place, set aside by God. She is the Ark of the New Covenant. In the Old Testament, people didn’t use the Ark of the Covenant for everyday chores, like hauling grain or water about. People who touched the Ark of the Covenant were killed outright—do you think that an observant Jew (which St. Jospeh was) would have even wanted to have relations with Mary?? She was consecrated, once and for all.

Maybe, but it’s not obvious to me from scripture that Mary and Joseph fully understood the implications of Jesus’s birth. It would seem natural that he would have then had sex with his wife unless he was specifically instructed not to.

But again, what really baffles me is how does Mary being initimate with her husband make her any less holy?

Kendy

 

[RCCDefender]

Kendy:

I don’t understand this attitude? I am not sure how Mary having sex with her husband diminishes her?

Kendy

It would mean she violated her consecration as a Temple Virgin.

You’ll no doubt flame me for saying that, but that’s all I will say for now.

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

I don’t understand this attitude? I am not sure how Mary having sex with her husband diminishes her?

Kendy

Again, you are not understanding the meaning of consecration. The womb of Mary bore Jesus for nine months: it is Holy Ground. I’ll repeat myself: Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. In the Old Testament, people didn’t use the Ark of the Covenant for everyday chores, like hauling grain or water about. This doesn’t mean that haulijg grain or water around is a bad thing, mind you. But when something is set aside by God for Himself, it is thus consecrated and not used for ordinary things.

 

[Kendy]

RCCDefender:

It would mean she violated her consecration as a Temple Virgin.

You’ll no doubt flame me for saying that, but that’s all I will say for now.

I will not flame you since I don’t really understand what you are talking about. A virgin of what temple? And is this something we can ascertain from the new testament?

Kendy

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

Maybe, but it’s not obvious to me from scripture that Mary and Joseph fully understood the implications of Jesus’s birth. It would seem natural that he would have then had sex with his wife unless he was specifically instructed not to.

Hardly!! As an observant Jew, Jospeh knew what happened to those who touched the Ark of the Covenant. Personally, I would think that it would be very dense indeed to want to have sex with the spouse of the Holy Spirit. It would appear, at the very least, to be pretty casual. I mean, you have these experiences and yet you’re still not so in awe of God that you decide to refrain? Sorry, I just can’t see it.

Kendy:

But again, what really baffles me is how does Mary being initimate with her husband make her any less holy?

Because it’s a violation of consecration. What God sets apart are not used for ordinary things. This is stressed many times in the Old Testament.

 

[Kendy]

Sherlock:

Again, you are not understanding the meaning of consecration. The womb of Mary bore Jesus for nine months: it is Holy Ground. I’ll repeat myself: Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. In the Old Testament, people didn’t use the Ark of the Covenant for everyday chores, like hauling grain or water about. This doesn’t mean that haulijg grain or water around is a bad thing, mind you. But when something is set aside by God for Himself, it is thus consecrated and not used for ordinary things.

Ok…

 

[Alfie]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Hello everyone. In reading my catechism and then my Catholic Bible (The New American Bible) I came across scripture that I cannot reconcile with the Church’s teachings. These then makes other teachings suspect (in my mind).

1. Mary’s Ever Virginity. Yes I read the comments in the Library. To me, it does not clearly reconcile the following:

Matthew 1:25: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. The notes say: The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it. However, from my point (and I realize I am but a mortal with limited knowledge and wisdom) but if there were no relations that need all be said. The verse would look like; "He had no relations with her. (Period) She bore a son and named him Jesus. The “until” serves no purpose (in my mind) unless there was “relations”, as it would serve as clarifying “when” there were relations and that being not until Jesus was born. Does not Jesus say that he is not the author of confusion?

Matthew 13: 46-50: While he…his mother and his brothers appeared outside… someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside…

Matthew 14:55: Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us?

Mark 6:3: Is he not…and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

Luke 8:19-21: Then his mother and his brothers came…“Your mother and your brothers are standing outside…”

John 7:3: So his brothers said to him…and 5: For his brothers did not believe him.

Acts 2:14…and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

Galatians 2:19…, only James the brother of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 9:5…as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Luke 2:7:and she gave birth to her firstborn son…

I guess where I am is, I know the Catholic response…I cannot reconcile it with what I read. And it troubles me.

Here are a few more passages that prove that Mary had other children.

Matthew 13:54-56…"And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

A prophecy about Christ in Psalm 69, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children (vs. 8).

 

[Sherlock]

Kendy:

Ok…

This same understanding of consecration, by the way, is applied in many areas in Catholic life. That is why, for example, the vessels and chalices used in the Eucharist do not do double duty as carrying around water when the church’s flower arrangements need some refreshing.

 

[LSK]

JKirkLVNV:

Do you know how I finally reconciled this, beyond simple submission to the Church’s teaching (which is how I generally and prayerfully attempt to handle anything I don’t understand or with which I may struggle and in the end, my heart is always conformed or by His Grace, being conformed)? Imagine yourself as Joseph for a moment. You’ve had, what, two visitations by the Messenger of the Ancient of Days about this Child and you’ve believed them: that the Baby is the Son of the Most High. You’ve had the Handmaid of the Lord committed to your care. Knowing Who the Baby is and how He came to be born, do you imagine you could make a request for the marital embrace from His Mother? Any sensible man would be afraid to touch Her. Hope that helps.

If this is not one of the most common sense approaches to this issue I have ever read I do not know what is…thank you.

 

[Kendy]

Sherlock:

Hardly!! As an observant Jew, Jospeh knew what happened to those who touched the Ark of the Covenant. Personally, I would think that it would be very dense indeed to want to have sex with the spouse of the Holy Spirit. It would appear, at the very least, to be pretty casual. I mean, you have these experiences and yet you’re still not so in awe of God that you decide to refrain? Sorry, I just can’t see it.

Because it’s a violation of consecration. What God sets apart are not used for ordinary things. This is stressed many times in the Old Testament.

I am sure they were awed. I don’t mean they took the birth of Jesus very lightly. However, I suppose doing the time that Jesus was in her womb it would have been inappropriate, but I am not sure how this works once he is no longer in her body. I am not convinced that she remains permanently the spouse of the Holy Spirit… assuming that it was she was to begin. I hope I am not being antagonistic. I don’t mean to be. I just find it very strange. Marian theology is, for me, the hardest thing to believe in the catholic church.

Kendy

 

[Sherlock]

Alfie:

Here are a few more passages that prove that Mary had other children.

Matthew 13:54-56…"And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?

A prophecy about Christ in Psalm 69, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children (vs. 8).

Have you not read any of this thread? Try backing up a bit and answer the responses to this. It’s not like we haven’ t heard all of this before and responded to it.