The not so virgin Mary

[dianaiad]

No offence but I think many an historian would disagree

In the Bible oral tradition is part of the word of God
St Paul said to hold onto tradition wether written OR spoken
Do we ignore the spoken bit against what the Bible clearly says?
Surely the Holy Spirit does not allow the oral part of word of God to delve into a game of Chinese Whispers

Oral tradition is that which is not written down, y’know. As soon as it is written, it becomes—no longer oral.

Which of course causes a problem.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Oral tradition is that which is not written down, y’know. As soon as it is written, it becomes—no longer oral.

Actually, it becomes an oral tradition that someone has written down at some point in time. But this recording does not invalidate or change the nature of an oral tradition. How would an oral tradition (assuming it is continued as an oral tradition) suddenly become a written tradition if someone writes it down? For example, if I tell my son the story of my family as my father told me, and his father told him, and I tell my son to tell his son the same story, why does the character of this tradition suddenly change if my neighbor happens to record and later transcribe my telling of the story to my son? Does my son’s rendition years hence suddenly lose all meaning, or become invalid? Just what do you mean by suggesting that a written record of an oral tradition changes its character from oral to written?

dianaiad:

Which of course causes a problem.

How does the recording of an oral tradition create a problem? The recording is a “snapshot” of the oral tradition much like a photo of a family birthday party relates to the tradition of raising of a family.

Peace,
Robert

 

[dianaiad]

That’s not entirely the case. Do you mean that you don’t see an express affirmative statement in the bible that supports such a conclusion? As has been pointed out on this forum many times, there is the Tradition of the christian church, which taught uniformly in her earlier history that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ.

Well, there is this problem of…uhmnn…I can see no reason for the Tradition. No basis upon which it was formed. What you are saying is that you believe this is true because 'it’s always been that way…" but why HAS it 'always been that way?" What is there to base that tradition upon? I honestly don’t see it.

I think that in one aspect you are correct in suggesting that the call to married life and motherhood are in no way less than a person called to live a celibate life. However, you are overlooking a significant distinction. This woman called Mary was chosen from all time and eternity to be the mother of God made flesh. She carried, birthed, nursed, bathed and intimately raised God in His humanity. This calling is something beyond raising a family. Assuming that Mary had children other than Jesus, how would they feel about having God as a half-brother? What sort of family dynamic would be at play among the half-siblings of the Son of God? Would this detract from Mary’s role as the Mother of God, or would it somehow add to salvation history?

We aren’t actually dealing with ‘shoulds’ here, but of “what was.” If she was celibate, then she was celibate and that’s fine. If she was not, then she was not and that is also, obviously, fine, since either way things turned out the way they did.

And that’s the thing; she raised Him well. She succeeded in her calling to be the best mother to the Son of God, so the question isn’t whether being a mother to other children would have affected that because if she was, it obviously did not. Or, if she was, perhaps it aided her in her job. (shrug)

And right there is the stopper for me. It’s the screeching halt, the point where you lose me–the begged question. Why would it not have been fitting for Mary to be fully a wife to her husband?

Where is there any indication in any scripture or revelation or…anything…to base this traditional view on? Who came UP with this idea that celibacy in marriage was somehow holier than a full marriage, even for the mother of Jesus?

Ah.

well, that clears it up rather well, if you think about it. It illustrates a fundamental difference in viewpoint. You have (yes, I know you were exaggerating for effect, but the fundamental principle is there) equated sexual intimacy in marriage and the bearing of children with the most degrading thing mentioned in the bible; a pig pen.

So of course it would be a problem for you to think of Mary going on to bear and raise other children; it is a cultural gut level feeling of desecration. It is at too basic a level, I guess, to change.

It is for me, too, I suppose–because to me, her going on and having a full marriage with Joseph and more children would be a celebration of her calling as a mother, especially as the mother of Jesus; for who better to entrust more of God’s precious souls to than the one to whom He entrusted His only Begotten Son? To me there is nothing at all improper or inappropriate in the idea, but rather natural, holy and very proper.

Not, in other words, turning a Temple into a pig pen, but rather continuing to use it for the purpose for which it was built; a holy, nurturing and special place of peace.

For you, the ‘eww’ factor that I have referred to before is very strong; you expressed it very well indeed in your choice of analogies. I wonder if you can understand why I don’t share it, and why I am asking you to look at what put that factor in the thinking of Catholics all through the years?

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, it becomes an oral tradition that someone has written down at some point in time. But this recording does not invalidate or change the nature of an oral tradition. How would an oral tradition (assuming it is continued as an oral tradition) suddenly become a written tradition if someone writes it down?

Because…er…it is written down–and thus frozen in ink, so to speak. Or rather…so to write.

For example, if I tell my son the story of my family as my father told me, and his father told him, and I tell my son to tell his son the same story, why does the character of this tradition suddenly change if my neighbor happens to record and later transcribe my telling of the story to my son? Does my son’s rendition years hence suddenly lose all meaning, or become invalid? Just what do you mean by suggesting that a written record of an oral tradition changes its character from oral to written?

How does the recording of an oral tradition create a problem? The recording is a “snapshot” of the oral tradition much like a photo of a family birthday party relates to the tradition of raising of a family.

Peace,
Robert

Tell me; what oral tradition do you refer to when you speak of the oral tradition of the church? Perhaps a clear definition of terms might be in order here.

 

[GodIsGracious]

You know, Diana, we keep telling you where we get our information from. You keep shoving it away essentially saying, “That’s not good enough. Give me something else.”

At some point you’re going to have to admit that you simply do not accept OUR reasons for US believing what WE believe. Clearly you’re going to believe what you want and even make your own interpretations of the Bible that Catholics gave you, a Mormon.

I really don’t know what your purpose is here in this thread at this point. Are you trying to convince US that we’re wrong? Or are you wanting us to convince you? Because like I just said, you keep taking away and discounting anything that we have to say.

While I recognize that you accept the fact that Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, it seems to me like you’re trying to convince us, or at least those of us following this thread, that 1) we’re wrong, 2) we have no basis for our beliefs (i.e. our oral tradition is not good enough), 3) trying to apply some sort of reason for our belief that we keep telling you is not the case (that “ew she had sex” factor you like to constantly bring up.)

Considering 3, I am beginning to wonder if you have an issue with sex, or have an issue with the idea that a woman would not be willing to bear children - even after she bore the Son of God. There are women who aren’t having babies all over the place, you know. There are also women not having sex. This constant harping on this supposed “ew she had sex” idea is more indicative of you, your world view, and your incorrect view of Catholics that you keep holding on to.

Considering 2, while our teaching in Oral Tradition may not be good enough for you, it IS good enough for us. You’re not Catholic, so what does it matter to you? Accept the fact that Catholics accept this teaching based on oral tradition.

Considering 1, well, you may think we’re wrong (or may not, I know you said that you’re not discounting that Mary “may” have stayed celibate) but we think you’re wrong and that Joseph Smith is wrong. The analogy here to be made is: just because Smith wrote something down doesn’t make it correct. It’s written down. It’s “documented.” So? WE don’t accept Smith’s teachings any more than you accept Catholic teaching.

And lastly. While you may continually try to compare our Blessed Mother to other human beings or even yourself (LOL!) just because you are a mother, doesn’t mean that she would act the same as any other mere human being. She was EXTRA-ORDINARY. Out of the ordinary. First and foremost by the mere fact that she BORE the Son of God. Your comparisons don’t even make sense in that regard. You’d need to find someone just as extraordinary as she is to make a comperable comparison. Sorry, you don’t fit that bill.

Good luck in trying to get this sorted out if this is even an issue for you. And if it’s not, well, what’s the point at this point?

 

[dianaiad]

You know, Diana, we keep telling you where we get our information from. You keep shoving it away essentially saying, “That’s not good enough. Give me something else.”

At some point you’re going to have to admit that you simply do not accept OUR reasons for US believing what WE believe. Clearly you’re going to believe what you want and even make your own interpretations of the Bible that Catholics gave you, a Mormon.

Oh, I get it that you believe this. I understand why. “Tradition.” What I am asking is where the Tradition came from. THAT…you haven’t given me yet.

I really don’t know what your purpose is here in this thread at this point. Are you trying to convince US that we’re wrong? Or are you wanting us to convince you? Because like I just said, you keep taking away and discounting anything that we have to say.

While I recognize that you accept the fact that Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, it seems to me like you’re trying to convince us, or at least those of us following this thread, that 1) we’re wrong, 2) we have no basis for our beliefs (i.e. our oral tradition is not good enough), 3) trying to apply some sort of reason for our belief that we keep telling you is not the case (that “ew she had sex” factor you like to constantly bring up.)

Considering 3, I am beginning to wonder if you have an issue with sex, or have an issue with the idea that a woman would not be willing to bear children - even after she bore the Son of God. There are women who aren’t having babies all over the place, you know. There are also women not having sex. This constant harping on this supposed “ew she had sex” idea is more indicative of you, your world view, and your incorrect view of Catholics that you keep holding on to.

You have that backwards. I’m just sayin’.

Considering 2, while our teaching in Oral Tradition may not be good enough for you, it IS good enough for us. You’re not Catholic, so what does it matter to you? Accept the fact that Catholics accept this teaching based on oral tradition.

I accept that. What I’m having problems with is this idea that you don’t seem to think that this Oral Tradition has to be based on anything. At all. Somebody said it once…you don’t even know who or why, and that’s good enough?

Considering 1, well, you may think we’re wrong (or may not, I know you said that you’re not discounting that Mary “may” have stayed celibate) but we think you’re wrong and that Joseph Smith is wrong. The analogy here to be made is: just because Smith wrote something down doesn’t make it correct. It’s written down. It’s “documented.” So? WE don’t accept Smith’s teachings any more than you accept Catholic teaching.

Not asking you to. I’m asking you to show me where your Oral Tradition began; where it came from. I don’t find it a bit difficult to believe that people have faith in what they are told is true, but y’know, not one of you has mentioned praying about this issue and getting a separate confirmation from the Holy Ghost in regard to this; you simply say that you believe it because people told you…‘oral tradition.’ but don’t seem to believe that this oral tradition actually had to be based on something tangible.

And lastly. While you may continually try to compare our Blessed Mother to other human beings or even yourself (LOL!)

Wow.

I personally would never compare myself to her…except to point out just how completely I fall short.

just because you are a mother, doesn’t mean that she would act the same as any other mere human being. She was EXTRA-ORDINARY.

And does being extra-ordinary mean that she was too good to be a mere mother of mortals? You do realize what you are saying about the role of women in general, and of mothers specifically, right?

Out of the ordinary. First and foremost by the mere fact that she BORE the Son of God. Your comparisons don’t even make sense in that regard. You’d need to find someone just as extraordinary as she is to make a comperable comparison. Sorry, you don’t fit that bill.

Good luck in trying to get this sorted out if this is even an issue for you. And if it’s not, well, what’s the point at this point?

Wow, not just a cheap shot so that you could get an LOL out of it, but you expanded upon it. I see, though. Mary was an extra-ordinary woman, the mother of God, and far too good to participate in that role for which God created women, thus confirming that the role of women is beneath contempt.

For me this entire issue isn’t about Mary so much as it is about the attitude I have seen here, and the one I am really exploring; if she chose to remain celibate and devote her life to Christ, that’s fine; then that is what she did.

The issue for me is this incredibly intense reaction to the idea that she might not have been; as if, by choosing to honor her marriage vows and become a mother to children in addition to Jesus, she would be desecrating herself; turning herself into what another poster vividly likened to a pig pen.

(shrug)

My purpose at first was to simply find out why y’all are so insistant upon this, and I think I have found that out; it’s not the reason you are presenting. Now, I guess my reason is to see if any of you can see it yourselves, and think about it.

What I am SEEING here is a bunch of folk believing that Mary was celibate because, well, she had to be. Because you’ve been told she was–but you don’t know why you were told this.

In other words, from where I sit you are believing this for the wrong reason.

However, why you believe it is actually none of my business, and I’ve been poking at it too much. I think my question has been answered, anyway.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Well, there is this problem of…uhmnn…I can see no reason for the Tradition…

I’m not saying that I believe it because it’s always been that way. I’m saying that a basis for believing it is true is that it was held as true by the early church. I believe it to be true not simply because of this reason, but because, I also accept as true the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Since I accept that authority as divinely protected from error on matters of faith and morals, I have good reason for believing its teachin about Mary as a matter of faith is dependable. Similarly, you would have good reason to accept teaching on matters of doctrine made by your Church’s teaching authority. So, I’m not saying this is the only reason why I believe, nor do I say that I believe just because the early church beleived. But evidence that the early Church believed is one basis for accepting the teaching as being consistent with the apostolic faith.

dianaiad:

And right there is the stopper for me…

Because in one sense she was espoused to the Holy Spirit. Because her womb was used as the sacred manner by which Divinity entered into humanity. Because she was the Ark of the New Covenant - to be set apart as untouched and worthy of all honor for bearing Christ. Because as much as you want to pretend that giving birth to Jesus Christ was just a temporary occupation, the idea of Mary raising the Son of God is a unique situation that would have made the addition of other children in the household problematic.

dianaiad:

Where is there any indication in any scripture… ?

First, please note that I did not suggest celibacy was holier than marriage. However, Jesus was celibate and praised celibacy. (Mt 19:12) Jeremiah was instructed not to take a wife or have children. (Jer 16:1-4) Paul was celibate. (1 Cor 7:8) Paul recommended celibacy for ministers (1 Cor 7:32-35) Widows took pledges of celibacy. (1 Tim 5:9-12) So, please don’t suggest celibacy was just made up. It was admired by Christ and practiced among the Apostles and the other disciples from the beginning.

dianaiad:

…You have … equated sexual intimacy in with the most degrading thing mentioned in the bible; a pig pen.

I most certainly did not! I equated your theory of Mary’s sexual intimacy with Joseph as being akin to Joseph’s defilement of a holy temple. I did not equate sexuality per se with defilement. I hold to quite the contrary.

Marriage is a sacrament, and sex is one of the most beautiful gifts (if not the most beautiful gift) given to humanity by God. My point has NEVER been to suggest that sex is per se defilement. To the contrary, it is a beautiful gift that, within the context of a marriage is a wonderful and life-affirming intimate action. (See JPII’s Theology of the Body for a very detailed discussion of the gift of sexuality)

dianaiad:

So of course it would be a problem for you…; it is a cultural gut level feeling of desecration.

Again, it’s not about sex being bad. It’s about the propriety of MARY and JOSEPH engaging in intimate marital relations - within the context of their particular and HIGHLY UNIQUE situation. For Mary and Joseph to engage in sexual activity after Mary gave birth to God incarnate would be… as I described… an act of defilement directed towards the womb that bore God himself. YOU are making a huge leap to suggest that I (or Catholics holding to perpetual virginity of Mary) believe sexuality is per se defiling. To the contrary - marital intimacy is a sacred and beautiful act that renews the couple and releases grace. It is so precious a gift that the Church guards it carefully in its teaching. Mary and Joseph were given special graces outside of the marital act. They gave it up for something more special… Jesus.

[H]
aving a full marriage with Joseph and more children would be a celebration of her calling …

She gave birth to God incarnate… How would this somehow not be fulfilling enough, so that additional children would be required!!! My goodness dear, she is the most blessed creature ever created - full of grace. Can you seriously believe that her role as the Mother of God is somehow unfulfilling or incomplete unless she has the same kind of marriage you and I may have? Was St. Francis’s life unfullfilling? Pope JP II? Mother Theresa?

dianaiad:

…continuing to use it for the purpose for which it was built…

Mary’s womb was specially “built” for the Incarnation. It was set aside as special and unique for all time. You should not take what is a temple of God and reduce it to a humble human dwelling place, as good as that dwelling place may be for others - a temple should remain sanctified.

I respect the LDS church’s position on the importance of family. And like the LDS Church I too see the family as the fundamental building block of society and a wonderful gift of God. But that does not mean that Mary and Joseph’s situation has to be just like any other family to be holy and appropriate when, in fact, it was VERY holy because it was so special and infinitely unique.

dianaiad:

For you, the ‘eww’ factor that I have referred to before is very strong;

Once again, my objection is not to sexual intimacy within a marriage per se. My comments were directed towards your specific request as to why Catholics see a problem with MARY HAVING OTHER CHILDREN WITH JOSEPH. My analogy was intended to address this unique position - as between Mary and Joseph - ALONE. Please address the point I made, without raising ad hominem attacks based on what you lamely described as the “eww” factor.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Tell me; what oral tradition do you refer to when you speak of the oral tradition of the church? Perhaps a clear definition of terms might be in order here.

You can start here for a clearer understanding of Tradition in the Catholic context.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Because…er…it is written down–and thus frozen in ink, so to speak. Or rather…so to write.

Writing about an oral tradition does not mean it loses its carachter as oral tradition. The various liturgies of the Church are part of the oral tradition of the Church, even though they are written down in different languages, and have been revised throughout the centuries. They are passed down from one generation of christians to the next, faithfully guarded by the Church. This is one example of tradition. Yet the liturgies - while filled with biblical language and text - are not found expressly within the scriptures.

Similarly, the seven sacraments of the Church are supported by scripture, but the various rites and prayers surrounding their implementation are not expressly written down in scripture. They are part of the Tradition of the Church despite the fact that there are written down recordings of how the sacraments are administered.

Another example would be apostolic succession. Not specifically set forth as a rite in the pages of scripture… but the laying on of hands and the giving of blessings comes down from oral tradition from the Apostles to today’s bishops.

It would take many volumes to set forth all of what Tradition encompasses, but as I noted above there is a good article that may clear up some confusion.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Peter_J]

The same Bible commands every Israelite to bring their firstborn son for presentation in the Temple (as happeened with Jesus himself) after 40 days - at the same time the mother went for her purification ritual.

Well said.

 

[Peter_J]

First,last, and only are not mutually exclusive.

Well, if someone is called a couple’s “last born child”, and nothing else is said about it, then I think we could reasonably conclude that “last but not only” is implied.

Not so, however with “first born”. “First born” leaves open the possibility that the couple has had – or will have – additional children, but doesn’t imply it.

 

[Canto]

Oh, What I am asking is where the Tradition came from.

I’m asking you to show me where your Oral Tradition began; where it came from.

2 Thes:2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

1 Cor:11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thes 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

As I’ve said Tradition is part of the word of God

So our Tradition comes from God not man

If the Holy Spirit can protect written tradition (the Bible) from error, why not oral tradition?

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not saying that I believe it because it’s always been that way. I’m saying that a basis for believing it is true is that it was held as true by the early church. I believe it to be true not simply because of this reason, but because, I also accept as true the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Since I accept that authority as divinely protected from error on matters of faith and morals, I have good reason for believing its teachin about Mary as a matter of faith is dependable. Similarly, you would have good reason to accept teaching on matters of doctrine made by your Church’s teaching authority. So, I’m not saying this is the only reason why I believe, nor do I say that I believe just because the early church beleived. But evidence that the early Church believed is one basis for accepting the teaching as being consistent with the apostolic faith.

Because in one sense she was espoused to the Holy Spirit. Because her womb was used as the sacred manner by which Divinity entered into humanity. Because she was the Ark of the New Covenant - to be set apart as untouched and worthy of all honor for bearing Christ. Because as much as you want to pretend that giving birth to Jesus Christ was just a temporary occupation {/quote]

Wait a minute. I did NOT make any such claim, or hint at it. But giving birth is a finite thing; it has an end. You get pregnant, you give birth–the baby makes its entrance into the world, and that’s the end of the process. Not “temporary”, in other words, but “accomplished.” As in, done. finished. Completed.

After the birth comes the part for which Mary was truly chosen, seems to me; the part where she raises Him as His mother.
Robert in SD;5277211:

, the idea of Mary raising the Son of God is a unique situation that would have made the addition of other children in the household problematic.

Why?

First, please note that I did not suggest celibacy was holier than marriage. However, Jesus was celibate and praised celibacy. (Mt 19:12)

Uhmn…while it looks as if He did not condemn it, there’s nothing there that says He commanded it, nor practiced it. In fact, read in context, it is a response to the objection of His apostles regarding His commandment to marry and not divorce; a “man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.” He said, and “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” His disciples thought that was a little harsh, and thought that maybe it would be better for men not to marry in the first place than to have to keep the commitments they make. It is THEN Christ said that they could be right, because “all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” THEN He talks about men making eunuchs of themselves for the sake of heaven…seems to me that this wasn’t something to be preferred, but rather Plan B for the men who wouldn’t be able to keep their promises.

Sorry, one of my pet peeves there.

Jeremiah was instructed not to take a wife or have children. (Jer 16:1-4)

No, sorry…Jeremiah was not told to refrain from taking a wife or having children, period. He was told to refrain from marrying or having children IN THIS PLACE. (Jeremiah 16:12) because the Lord was going to deliver them from where they were. In other words, it wasn’t about celibacy being special…it’s about not setting down roots where he was.

Paul was celibate. (1 Cor 7:8) Paul recommended celibacy for ministers (1 Cor 7:32-35) Widows took pledges of celibacy. (1 Tim 5:9-12)

Huh? That wasn’t about widows taking pledges of celibacy. That was about telling the families of widows to take care of them, and that it was the church’s responsibility to care for widows of 60+ who had no family to care for them. In fact, it is specifically advised that the young women marry and continue to hold house, rear children, and not be ‘busybodies,’ and ‘idlers.’

But that Paul was celibate? Yeah…but then Paul was an interesting case indeed. The rest of the apostles were not. Most of them were very married.

So, please don’t suggest celibacy was just made up. It was admired by Christ and practiced among the Apostles and the other disciples from the beginning.

That wasn’t the question. The question was, was Mary? And how do we know that she was?

I most certainly did not! I equated your theory of Mary’s sexual intimacy with Joseph as being akin to Joseph’s defilement of a holy temple. I did not equate sexuality per se with defilement. I hold to quite the contrary.

Yeah, you did. If you had not, then intimacy with Joseph would not BE such a desecration, would it?

continued…

 

[dianaiad]

continued…

Marriage is a sacrament, and sex is one of the most beautiful gifts (if not the most beautiful gift) given to humanity by God. My point has NEVER been to suggest that sex is per se defilement. To the contrary, it is a beautiful gift that, within the context of a marriage is a wonderful and life-affirming intimate action. (See JPII’s Theology of the Body for a very detailed discussion of the gift of sexuality)

Then why is it such a gaspingly horrific thought for Mary to have engaged in it?

Again, it’s not about sex being bad. It’s about the propriety of MARY and JOSEPH engaging in intimate marital relations - within the context of their particular and HIGHLY UNIQUE situation.

What, that they were married?

For Mary and Joseph to engage in sexual activity after Mary gave birth to God incarnate would be… as I described… an act of defilement directed towards the womb that bore God himself. YOU are making a huge leap to suggest that I (or Catholics holding to perpetual virginity of Mary) believe sexuality is per se defiling.

It follows naturally. If it is not defiling, then it would not be defiling to Mary. If it defiling to her, then it is, by definition, defiling. Something that is as respected as you claim would not defile the God Who created it, nor the mother of His Son when she enters into a marriage.

To the contrary - marital intimacy is a sacred and beautiful act that renews the couple and releases grace. It is so precious a gift that the Church guards it carefully in its teaching. Mary and Joseph were given special graces outside of the marital act. They gave it up for something more special… Jesus.

Begging the question here. DID they 'give it up?"

She gave birth to God incarnate… How would this somehow not be fulfilling enough, so that additional children would be required!!! My goodness dear, she is the most blessed creature ever created - full of grace. Can you seriously believe that her role as the Mother of God is somehow unfulfilling or incomplete unless she has the same kind of marriage you and I may have? Was St. Francis’s life unfullfilling? Pope JP II? Mother Theresa?

Would her life have been made unfulfilling if she had been fully a wife to Joseph and had other children? You can’t have this both ways, dear. Either marriage and sexual intimacy within it is as blessed as you claim, or it is a defilement. If it is blessed, then it cannot be a defilement even to Mary, can it? How could it be?

Mary’s womb was specially “built” for the Incarnation. It was set aside as special and unique for all time. You should not take what is a temple of God and reduce it to a humble human dwelling place, as good as that dwelling place may be for others - a temple should remain sanctified.

Again with the desecration theme; since when is motherhood a desecration?

I respect the LDS church’s position on the importance of family. And like the LDS Church I too see the family as the fundamental building block of society and a wonderful gift of God. But that does not mean that Mary and Joseph’s situation has to be just like any other family to be holy and appropriate when, in fact, it was VERY holy because it was so special and infinitely unique.

It was, and it is. No argument there. However, I fail to see why such a unique marriage MUST have precluded the very intimacy that blesses most marriages. Again, it will not alter my faith in Christ if I found out that Mary was celibate all her life. I just do not see the evidence that she was.

Once again, my objection is not to sexual intimacy within a marriage per se. My comments were directed towards your specific request as to why Catholics see a problem with MARY HAVING OTHER CHILDREN WITH JOSEPH. My analogy was intended to address this unique position - as between Mary and Joseph - ALONE. Please address the point I made, without raising ad hominem attacks based on what you lamely described as the “eww” factor.

Peace,
Robert

Sorry, but if you think that was ad hominem, you have a mistaken idea of what an ad hominem is. Mary and Joseph were MARRIED. Together they had the remarkable and unique calling of raising to maturity the Only Begotten Son of God. The question still remains: why would such a calling require them to live as husband and wife in name only, unless being married in every sense of the word is seen as a desecration? If it is a desecration for THEM, then it is not the blessed state of affairs you are claiming for anybody else, either.

And that is the point, I guess, that I am making. The reason, I believe, that Catholics insist that Mary remain virgin all her life is because women who have sex, even with their husbands, are considered to be sinners; sex as sin, even in marriage.

Women as ‘lesser…’ in order for Mary to be respected as a woman, she isn’t allowed to actually be one.

Interesting.

 

[Good_Fella]

2 Thes:2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

1 Cor:11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thes 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

As I’ve said Tradition is part of the word of God

So our Tradition comes from God not man

If the Holy Spirit can protect written tradition (the Bible) from error, why not oral tradition?

Not to mention Sacred Tradition which precedes the Scriptures. Matthew interpreted Isaiah 7,14 in light of apostolic Tradition.

 

[dianaiad]

2 Thes:2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

1 Cor:11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thes 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

As I’ve said Tradition is part of the word of God

So our Tradition comes from God not man

If the Holy Spirit can protect written tradition (the Bible) from error, why not oral tradition?

That tells you to pay attention to it.

It doesn’t tell you where it comes from.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If we are using the bible to determine if Mary was a virgin all her life or not then we are wasting time.
Lot is called the “brother” of Abraham and he seems to be his nephew instead.
Laban is called the “brother” of Jacob, but it seems he was his uncle.

I have no idea why anyone is using the bible for any accurate information.

 

[LilyM]

Yeah, you did. If you had not, then intimacy with Joseph would not BE such a desecration, would it?

continued…

Put it this way, certainly not a ‘gaspingly horrific thought’ as you said earlier. I wouldn’t be gaspingly horrified if Moses had worn sandals in the presence of the burning bush even when instructed not to by God Himself. Many people disobeyed and disobey God.

However, you and I both recognise that such disobedience would’ve been wrong on the part of Moses. And we infer and conclude, being that Moses was a righteous and faithful servant of God, that he obeyed and took off his sandals - even though (and this is the gaspingly horrific thought - or should be for you) *the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that he did take off his sandals!
*

So - same deal with Mary. She was espoused, in effect, by God Himself. She experienced the union of her soul and body with God, with the Holy Spirit, as Jesus was begotten upon her. The marital act is only a pale shadow and reflection of the soul’s loving union with God.

And having possessed the real gem of this union, to the fullest possible extent, she wouldn’t settle afterwards for the paste jewel of marital sex with Joseph.

 

[dianaiad]

If we are using the bible to determine if Mary was a virgin all her life or not then we are wasting time.
Lot is called the “brother” of Abraham and he seems to be his nephew instead.
Laban is called the “brother” of Jacob, but it seems he was his uncle.

I have no idea why anyone is using the bible for any accurate information.

…because in terms of Christianity, it’s what we have? At least it should trump pretty much everything else. Scripture should, anyway.

Everything else should be solidly based upon it, at least.

It’s not that one cannot develop beliefs, routines, rituals and ideas apart from scripture, but if it cannot be substantiated by scripture, then whatever comes from those separate ideas should be subsumed by scriptural ideas and ideals.

If you aren’t going to do that, then you should acknowledge that this other source of doctrine and beliefs is equivalent to scripture–and if it is equivalent to, then it is scripture.

Yet…well, I think you understand the problem with this approach.

 

[Primox]

2 Thes:2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

1 Cor:11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thes 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

As I’ve said Tradition is part of the word of God

So our Tradition comes from God not man

If the Holy Spirit can protect written tradition (the Bible) from error, why not oral tradition?

This, too, is very refreshing. It really does seem odd, now that I think about it, to feel God is good enough to keep his Word, but not his Church. God, most assuredly, is good enough to maintain both, and both in harmony.