Today's Mass Readings (The fall of man / Mary's Yes / Mary wasn't planning on having sex with Joseph after marriage)

[NDfan]

Actually, my point about the ECF was that they do not mention Jesus’s siblings. The whole thing seems strange to me. WHy were they not at the Crucifixion? Why would they give Jesus orders, knowing that he was the eldist and first-born son? Why was Mary’s care given over to John, who would have been YEARS younger than the possible ages you gave?

I will grant you that you do not have to have an opinion. THe only reason Catholics have to accept it is because the Church teaches it.

And these are all fantastic points that I certainly have thought about. But let’s flip it the other way. Why are siblings mentioned in scripture if there were none? Why is the Greek word adelphous used which means from the same womb and also means blood relative when referring to brothers after addressing the mother? Such as saying Jesus mother and brothers. This never means cousin or general relative in the Greek. There are words for relative and cousin in Greek. Why are they not used to make it clear Jesus had no siblings? Also how do we know they weren’t at the crucifixion? Maybe they were but the Gospel writers decided not to tell us. Or maybe they weren’t in which case them not having the decency to come prompted Jesus to entrust Mary to John’s care. Ever think of it that way??

The biggest question is if Mary never had sex and never had any other children then why isn’t scripture completely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the case? If the church is going to create doctrine’s of Faith around this then scripture should be very clear. The fact is it’s not. You have to put a twist to the words and imply the things you are implying to arrive at the Roman Catholic Church’s conclusion.

I think there’s a big difference between saying the Church’s official position on Mary is this and then saying that it’s a required belief. It has no impact on salvation either way and I certainly know plenty of Roman Catholics, myself included that do not believe it.

Anyway it’s all good discussion which I certainly enjoy. Incidentally I noticed you were from Alabama. Would you be a Tide fan or Tiger fan?

GOD Bless

 

[ralphinal]

And these are all fantastic points that I certainly have thought about. But let’s flip it the other way. Why are siblings mentioned in scripture if there were none? Why is the Greek word adelphous used which means from the same womb and also means blood relative when referring to brothers after addressing the mother? Such as saying Jesus mother and brothers. This never means cousin or general relative in the Greek. There are words for relative and cousin in Greek. Why are they not used to make it clear Jesus had no siblings? Also how do we know they weren’t at the crucifixion? Maybe they were but the Gospel writers decided not to tell us. Or maybe they weren’t in which case them not having the decency to come prompted Jesus to entrust Mary to John’s care. Ever think of it that way??

The biggest question is if Mary never had sex and never had any other children then why isn’t scripture completely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the case? If the church is going to create doctrine’s of Faith around this then scripture should be very clear. The fact is it’s not. You have to put a twist to the words and imply the things you are implying to arrive at the Roman Catholic Church’s conclusion.

I think there’s a big difference between saying the Church’s official position on Mary is this and then saying that it’s a required belief. It has no impact on salvation either way and I certainly know plenty of Roman Catholics, myself included that do not believe it.

Anyway it’s all good discussion which I certainly enjoy. Incidentally I noticed you were from Alabama. Would you be a Tide fan or Tiger fan?

GOD Bless

I think the biggest reason it wasn’t discussed outright is that we don’t talk about our mother’s sex life

My dad went to Auburn, so I was raised a TIger fan. I still am one to some extent. I went to UAB, so I am more of a Blazer. My wife went to Alabama, so I had a rough year.

I do like Notre Dame, as I am Catholic

 

[Peter_J]

Hi NDfan,

I’m a wee bit late to this discussion, but I read your conversation with raphinal with much interest.

Yes absolutely the inverse definitely could be true. But the burden then falls to you to prove that by these verses we can deduct that Jesus had no siblings.

I would say rather that we Catholics chose to take up the burden of proof, when we dogmatically defined Mary’s perpetual virginity at the Council of Trent. Prior to that time, the burden of proof could have really gone either way, don’t you think? (Although, nowadays, some Protestants are equally dogmatically in insisting that Mary wasn’t a virgin; so I guess those particular Protestants have put a burden of proof on themselves as well.)

The Gospel writers hardly mention Mary. There are less than 35 or so versus that mention Mary. Now here is Jesus’ mother. We see nothing of her past the upper room in the beginning of Acts and she is never mentioned in another work of official Canon.

She’s mentioned in some of the non-canonical books such as the infancy Gospel of James. But the church never accepted that as inspired or accurate. So one could say that is strange as well.

That doesn’t strike me as strange. I think it just indicates that the early Church wasn’t interested in making facts about Mary into dogmas.

However, the same Church later decided otherwise – in the 5th, 16th, 19th, and 20th centuries, respectively.

The biggest question is if Mary never had sex and never had any other children then why isn’t scripture completely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the case? If the church is going to create doctrine’s of Faith around this then scripture should be very clear.

Same answer.

 

[Peter_J]

Mary wasn’t objecting to the fact of: I’m not ever having sex so how in the world would I get pregnant? She was puzzled because the Angel told her she would conceive using present tense language in the Greek. Given that she was probably 7-8 months away from proceeding with her marriage to Joseph, it would make sense that she would ask this question. Mary is thinking she wouldn’t have children for maybe another year or so yet here’s an Angel proclaiming she’s going to conceive right now.

Interesting argument. I don’t believe I’ve heard it before. Can you back up this claim (that Gabriel words indicate that Mary’s going to conceive right away)?

 

[hadassahjones]

My problem with the original argument, that Mary was astonished by Gabriel’s message that she would concieve because she never intended to have sex…is this.

Why would Mary be betrothed if she never planned to consummate the marriage? This being before she knew she was chosen as the mother of Christ. Nuns don’t marry and deny their husbands conjugal relations. They simply do not marry.

Also—in the Jewish culture of the time, it was the norm to display the bloody sheet from the wedding night to prove the new bride was indeed a virgin. To not do so or to declare the marriage unconsummated would make the marriage invalid, and if Joseph claimed the marriage had been consummated, but refused to show the proof, Mary would then have been believed to have lost her virginity before marriage, she would possibly have been stoned, and Jesus’s claim as the Son of God would have been completely laughable.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ Ralphinal or someone can probably answer this better than I can, but my understanding is that in those days, a women who intended on remaining a Virgin would get married – say to a older widowed man.

 

[ralphinal]

^^ Ralphinal or someone can probably answer this better than I can, but my understanding is that in those days, a women who intended on remaining a Virgin would get married – say to a older widowed man.

It was rare, but it did occure. There were rules whereby a girl could pledge herself a virgin for life, and if her betrothed (father if not engaged) did not protest, it was a solemn vow. There is evidence of this in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

You are right that they would generally marry an older man who would function as a guardian as much as husband.

It was not until society began to claim that humans cannot control sexual urges but must act on them that her Perpetual Virginity came into question. Interestingly, it was also when society starting thinking that homosexuality might be normal, masterbation is expected and needed, and pre-marital sex as logical.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Our Eastern Orthodox brethren are also quite adamant that Holy Mary was ever virgin. Once I raised this with some Orthodox acquaintances, and they insisted the whole history of Theotokos is well preserved from sources of Sacred Tradition outside the Bible. The Orthodox even celebrate Mary’s conception in the womb of St. Anne, they just don’t call it her “Immaculate Conception”. According to their Tradition, Mary’s conception was itself a miracle, because her parents were old and St. Anne was not supposed to be able to conceive anymore. They also maintain that Mary was dedicated to staying virgin and both St. Joseph and Mary agreed on this and this was their initial plan, even before the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary.

Indeed, why should every single thing be in the Bible? There are valid historical sources outside the Bible, and they are called Tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The following is an individual revelation given to Sr. Lucia of Fatima. I know we are not under obligation to believe it, yet I feel compelled to mention it.

June/12/1930, Sr Lucia wrote to her priest confessor answering the question: “Why should it be 5 Saturdays [of reparation] and not 9 or 7 in honor of the Sorrows of our Lady?”

She answered: "… and if I am not mistaken, the following was revealed to me: 'My daughter, the motive is simple: there are 5 ways in which people offend, and blaspheme against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

1. the blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
2. against her Virginity.
3. against her Divine Maternity, refusing at the same time to accept her as the Mother of all mankind.
4. those who try publicly to implant in the children’s hearts indifference, contempt and even hate against this Immaculate Mother.
5. those who insult her directly in her sacred statues.
   Here, my daughter, is the motive why the Immaculate Heart of Mary made me ask for this little act of reparation and due to it move my mercy to forgive those souls who had the misfortune of offending her. As for you, try incessantly with all your prayers and sacrifices to move me into mercifulness toward those poor souls.’"

quote from First Saturdays for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, by Fr. Robert J. Fox, brochure available from Fatima Family Apostolate online and Catholic bookstores.

 

[adstrinity]

Yes you are right in that this is Roman Catholic teaching. But don’t throw a Roman Catholic link at me to try and prove a point. The proof is right in the text plain and simple. Incidentally please show me where scripture states Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Save your time because you won’t find it.

I showed you this link to show you you were incorrect earlier that the ECF did not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. If you saw that link, you will see that they did. My Reagan! Even the Reformers knew Mary was Ever Virgin! I cannot emphasize enough what a very perverse new teaching Her having sex is.

I’ll save my time just because you’re not being Graced like St. Paul was.

 

[SIA]

This is the one glaring thing about Catholicism that I have a serious problem with…possibly the only thing.

The verse says that she hadn’t had relations with a man, not that she never would. Of course she hadn’t! She was betrothed, not married. Consummation didn’t occur until after the marriage ceremony was performed.

I just don’t see how Joseph would agree to give up that aspect of marriage when it would be totally unecessary once Jesus was born and the miracle of the virgin birth completed. More to the point–why would she be married at all if she never planned to consummate it? In every possible society, a marriage is considered invalid if not consummated especially in ancient times through the middle ages. This would make sense to me only if Mary had remained unmarried her whole life and left Joseph free to marry another woman with whom he could have a complete marriage.

Sorry to be so worked up, but this frustrates me, because I see no logical explanation. I know someone will tell me to take it on faith, but I simply am not the sort of person who can do that with something that so glaringly makes no sense whatsoever, especially in the historical context of the time, and especially when most everything else can be explained within that context.

I agree. Scripture does speak on this and I’m not sure where exactly. Paraphrasing, it says that Mary did not have relations with Joseph until the birth of Jesus. Pretty clear.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree. Scripture does speak on this and I’m not sure where exactly. Paraphrasing, it says that Mary did not have relations with Joseph until the birth of Jesus. Pretty clear.

I believe that would be Matthew.

But the issue is whether they had relations after the birth of Christ. I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that they didn’t have relations before the birth of Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

I agree. Scripture does speak on this and I’m not sure where exactly. Paraphrasing, it says that Mary did not have relations with Joseph until the birth of Jesus. Pretty clear.

Does it say that she had them after?

 

[hadassahjones]

It doesn’t specifically say that she did, or that she didn’t, beyond the much debated verse in which someone tells Jesus that his mother and brothers are waiting outside.

I’m willing to accept that a vague Greek word might have been used that could have meant another familial relation besides brother…there are a lot of Greek words like that, from what I understand, and they are the reasons for the supposed “contradictions” in the Bible.

I definitely believe in the Virgin Birth, I accept Mary as the mother of all Christians, and I am perfectly comfortable and happy to honor her as I would my biological mother. Honestly…I really don’t think it is that big of an issue as to whether she had marital relations with her husband or not. It’s not as though we are debating whether or not she sinned. If she was ever virgin, that is perfectly acceptable and honorable and good. If she wasn’t, she was married, so it’s no sin. I just don’t think it is really that big of a deal.

 

[SIA]

Does it say that she had them after?

Well if I said that I couldn’t drive my car until my broken leg heals, what would you say about that? I have a commercial driver’s license so it is quite obvious that I drive. Just as with Mary, she was married to Joseph and there is nothing in the Scriptures to make us doubt that they didn’t have a normal sex life after Jesus was born. In fact there is much more to support the idea that they did have a normal marriage than to attempt to refute it. Ths is what I see clearly.

 

[ralphinal]

Well if I said that I couldn’t drive my car until my broken leg heals, what would you say about that? I have a commercial driver’s license so it is quite obvious that I drive. Just as with Mary, she was married to Joseph and there is nothing in the Scriptures to make us doubt that they didn’t have a normal sex life after Jesus was born. In fact there is much more to support the idea that they did have a normal marriage than to attempt to refute it. Ths is what I see clearly.

However, in the OT, there is a woman that had no children until she died. Did she have them later?

 

[SIA]

However, in the OT, there is a woman that had no children until she died. Did she have them later?

The answer of course is obvious and the point is well accepted. In Mary’s case however, I see much more to support her marriage to Joseph as being a normal with sex as opposed to it not.

 

[ralphinal]

The answer of course is obvious and the point is well accepted. In Mary’s case however, I see much more to support her marriage to Joseph as being a normal with sex as opposed to it not.

I can understand. I just think that there are a few separate issues here. First, is either position SCripturally and Historically possible (or both)? Second, which is the better choice and why? Third, does it matter? Finally, when did it become an issue?

 

[Peter_J]

Well if I said that I couldn’t drive my car until my broken leg heals, what would you say about that?

I’d say that’s not a very good analogy.

A better one would be if you said “I woke up one morning with a broken leg – without having previously fallen out of a tree or done anything else that would account for a broken leg”.

If you said that, should I conclude that you later fell out of a tree?

BTW, Matthew may very well have been assuming that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations, but what does that prove? He certainly didn’t say so in his (infallible) Gospel.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

It may be relevant to talk about St. Joseph’s chastity, too. In one of the litanies in Church, we pray: “Blessed be St. Joseph, the chaste spouse of Mary!”. Also, St. Joseph is usually depicted holding a white lily in his hand, a symbol of virginity. It seems to me I’ve read somewhere that he was also ever virgin, but I don’t have the original source. I guess the sources regarding the lives of St. Mary and St. Joseph should be found within the oral traditions of early Christians and the writings of the Church Fathers. At any rate, it seems a terrible mistake to me to ignore all the oral and written traditions of Chistianity and Church Fathers outside the Bible, and take a Sola Scriptura approach.