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

[hadassahjones]

I definitely don’t think tradition should be overlooked, the tradition of the Catholic church is beautiful and one of my favorite aspects.

Truthfully, I don’t think it’s an issue. Either way, whether she remained virgin or had marital relations, she did not commit any sin, so it’s not as though anyone is trying to stain the Blessed Mother’s reputation. I think the sexual lives of everyone, including Mary, whether she had one or not, should be left private, truly.

 

[SIA]

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.

??? What?? Way too complex for a simple concept. It’s presented very simply in the Bible too.

 

[Peter_J]

Truthfully, I don’t think it’s an issue. Either way, whether she remained virgin or had marital relations, she did not commit any sin, so it’s not as though anyone is trying to stain the Blessed Mother’s reputation. I think the sexual lives of everyone, including Mary, whether she had one or not, should be left private, truly.

In a way I agree with you; but the thing is, we can’t just pretend that the Council of Trent didn’t happen. (We Catholics, anyways.)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I definitely don’t think tradition should be overlooked, the tradition of the Catholic church is beautiful and one of my favorite aspects.

Truthfully, I don’t think it’s an issue. Either way, whether she remained virgin or had marital relations, she did not commit any sin, so it’s not as though anyone is trying to stain the Blessed Mother’s reputation. I think the sexual lives of everyone, including Mary, whether she had one or not, should be left private, truly.

In an early post you said that the Catholic Church’s teaching on this matter was frustrating and possibly the only real objection you had with her teachings. You shouldn’t dismiss your reservations so easily.

There are very sound reasons for what the Church teaches on the Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity, both Scripturally and Traditionally. They are worth investigating further and questioning further.

Your own objection regarding the “custom” of showing a bloody sheet would not be provable, but merely a supposition based on some antecedent probabilities. But it should be kept in mind that Mary and Joseph were ABJECT POOR. They were not average poor or average middle class. They were not homeless, in Nazareth, it is true. Their poverty was very great however, and it was self imposed by their extraordinary generosity toward others, and their trust in God. There is good reason to suspect that there may never have been the traditional “celebration” following the betrothal, due to their poverty. This can’t be proved any more than your bloody sheet theory.

 

[hadassahjones]

I am definitely going to be investigating further, as I am currently in RCIA and have just passed the Rite of Acceptance. We will be having a lesson on Mary after the first of the year, and I will definitely be discussing this with my priest.

The custom of “proving” one’s bride’s virginity by displaying the “evidence” so to speak, is historically recorded in many books, including the Old Testament, where the father or the groom would bring forward the “tokens” of the woman’s virginity. In some cases, yes, this was done because of doubt, and I would think, in Mary’s case, there would have been some doubt, not among us, of course, but her fellow townspeople.

Nowhere have I read that Mary and Joseph were abjectly poor. They were not well-off, but there is nothing to indicate that they lived below the same standard as most others living in the town of Nazareth at the time. Joseph was a carpenter, meaning he provided a much-needed service, and so he probably did adequately for himself and his family.

 

[adstrinity]

Their poverty was very great however, and it was self imposed by their extraordinary generosity toward others, and their trust in God.

I’m calling you out on this. While it makes sense to me, what do we have in any notation saying this is the case?

I ask because I know when I mention this in the future, and I will, I want a source to back it up when people ask.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m calling you out on this. While it makes sense to me, what do we have in any notation saying this is the case?

I ask because I know when I mention this in the future, and I will, I want a source to back it up when people ask.

Explain to me first, why it makes sense to you.
Are there sources, yes. Are they worthy of human faith, yes. Can they be offered as proof in argumentation, no, as I stated already.

hadassahjones: You have hardly scratched the surface of Catholic literature on the subject, so continue to investigate.

Not everything is forensically provable. Some things are “there” for those who have eyes to see or ears to hear. But not recognizing “them” in no way impedes one’s Divine Faith or Salvation.

 

[distracted]

I would suggest that this is reading beyond that which is implied by the original text…to the best of my knowledge the present active indicative (the form of the verb “to know” used here) speaks to what is currently happening, and here is more literally translated “a man I do not know”.

Mary was planning to marry Joseph. Why would she be surprised at an announcement that she was going to have a baby??? (she wasn’t planning on using birth control, you know… )

 

[distracted]

How old were Jesus’s supposed younger siblings?

he had none… in the Hebrew language, there was no word for cousin… they were all called “brothers”…

 

[distracted]

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.

the Church teaches (and scripture supports ) that there was NO consummation, sexually. You cannot answer the question: Why would Mary be so surprised at the idea of having a baby while she was planning to marry??? You can’t get around this… She was a consecrated temple virgin… and Joseph may have taken a vow of celibacy as well… though as far as I know, no one knows for sure… Even so, he WAS celibate during his marriage to Mary…

I just don’t see how Joseph would agree to give up that aspect of marriage when it would be totally unecessary

I have given up that “aspect” for many, many years… If I can do that, anyone can. You seem to imply that men (humans?) are animals and NEED sex… I am proof that that is NOT the case. I am not going to run off & marry someone just for sex. How crude… If i never find Mr. Right… .i will be celibate/chaste for the rest of my life, which could involve 50+ yrs…

More to the point–why would she be married at all if she never planned to consummate it?

What??? How about Jesus needing a father??? Jesus came to be like us in all ways but sin…

In every possible society, a marriage is considered invalid if not consummated especially in ancient times through the middle ages.

are you saying God should do things according to man’s traditions???

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,

Take it on faith??? What are you talking about… It’s right there in the Scirptures…

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 have found that you non-Catholics, generally speaking, don’t appreciate or believe in (accept) Scirpture as much as you claim…

 

[distracted]

Sorry to break into your conversation adstrinity. But I’d like to comment if that’s Ok

.

Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant… and a far “better” one than the one before in the sense that she carried God himself in her holy womb. Remember what happened to Uzzah when he touched the Ark improperly??

What is holy (set apart for God) is NOT to be touched by human beings… who are impure (sinful). Only God knows how pure any given human is (Joseph)… He is a saint now but no one is declared a saint before the end of his life… meaning Joseph was a sinner like everyone else. Mary was conceived without original sin… (saved by Christ *before *conception, rather than after, as we are… like Eve…)

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Mary was planning to marry Joseph. Why would she be surprised at an announcement that she was going to have a baby??? (she wasn’t planning on using birth control, you know… )

Mary understood the conception as something that would happen in the immediate future, not the distant. Otherwise why would she go to visit Elizabeth right away?

 

[distracted]

But the burden then falls to you to prove that by these verses we can deduct that Jesus had no siblings. The .

and the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Catholic Church is not the one Christ established. If it is not, then i ask: which one is???

If it IS, then we can, logically speaking, trust everything She teaches… The Church teaches Mary was immaculate and a perpetual virgin… I would believe for that reason alone… but i also have Scripture to support me…

You protestants don’t have ONE Church but many… and so you question and question and question until you not only question Scirpture itself… you end up rejecting it… becaue it does not make sense to you personally…

Not a good thing…

 

[distracted]

Mary understood the conception as something that would happen in the immediate future, not the distant. Otherwise why would she go to visit Elizabeth right away?

i never thought of that…

makes sense… Women in those days (without our advanced medical technology) would not risk their health traveling so far when in the early stages of pregnnancie… of course, if you knew God ordained the birth of the child you carried… i guess you could be fairly confident nothing bad would happen…

Anyway… i don’t think God would necessarily wnt her to travel that far in the early stages of pregnancy… (which are not the best stages… ) as far as feeling your best…

 

[Peter_J]

Mary understood the conception as something that would happen in the immediate future, not the distant.

Yes, that’s what I’m asking about. Can you back that claim up?

Otherwise why would she go to visit Elizabeth right away?

Sorry, that just doesn’t work. I don’t doubt that, at the end her conversation with Gabriel (after he explained to her how it would happen), Mary understood the conception as something that would happen in the immediate future.

Let me sum up my argument for you. IF Mary and Joseph were planning on having normal marital relations, then it should have gone like this: Mary hears Gabriel say that she will conceive. Since Gabriel didn’t say when, Mary would naturally (but incorrectly) assume that he means that she and Joseph are going to have a child – after they are married of course. There’d be no cause for Mary to ask “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” Then, after Gabriel explains how it is actually going to happen, would Mary realize that it will happen right away, instead of later after they are married (and decide to go visit Elizabeth right away).

 

[adstrinity]

Explain to me first, why it makes sense to you.

It makes sense to me because…

I feel like this is a bloody essay assignment.

The Holy Family practiced pennance piously because they were all concecrated to God, St. Joseph being a Righteous Man, Mary because She was conceived without Original Sin, and Jesus because He is the Second Person of God. They are the model of what a family should be, they were the perfect family of God. God would want His parents to be the best ever and so He chose His Family. It makes sense, then, that since they were the best, they followed God’s Laws. Gods Laws were numerous and thourough. They dated back to the time of Moses. This brings me to: if Moses and Israelites were made to wander and get Stockholm Syndrome because they needed to be purged to enter the Holy Land, then, though the Holy Family was better, they were also better role models, so their pennance would be executed to give hope and no excuses for the rest of us.

It makes sense because Joseph gave up having a single life to get re-married, and gave up sex in his married state, Mary gave up Her Son, and Jesus gave up His life. Fasting and Almsgiving and extra pennances were secondary only to these.

What are the sources you have?

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Sorry, that just doesn’t work. I don’t doubt that, at the end her conversation with Gabriel (after he explained to her how it would happen), Mary understood the conception as something that would happen in the immediate future.

Why do you say that? I see nothing in the passage that talks about the timing of the event, so on what basis do you explain Marty’s visit to Elizabeth at all? On the other hand, in the Old Testament annunciations are proclamations of imminent conception, so it is quite sensible the Mary, knowing these OT events, would’ve assumed Gabriel was talking about an imminent event here.

 

[ellammcg]

Mary understood the conception as something that would happen in the immediate future, not the distant. Otherwise why would she go to visit Elizabeth right away?

And when she met the six months pregnant Elizabeth, the baby Elizabeth was carrying (i.e. John the Baptist), leaped within her womb (Lk 1:41) and Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of her Lord (Lk 1:42-43). One does not usually refer to a woman as a mother until she has at least conceived a child. One (Protestant) theory I have heard was that the Incarnation took place the moment Mary said yes.

 

[Peter_J]

Why do you say that? I see nothing in the passage that talks about the timing of the event,

My point exactly. Someone claimed earlier that the exactly wording of Gabriel’s statement (usually just translated as “you will conceive” etc.) indicates imminence – thus providing an alternative explanation for why Mary asked “How shall this be, since I do not know man?” That’s argument is fine and dandy, so long as it can be backed up; but it falls apart if Gabriel’s statement is just a plain future tense (as it is usually translated).

so on what basis do you explain Marty’s visit to Elizabeth at all?

I’m not sure how I feel about the familiarity of calling her “Marty” () but what’s to explain? Her kinswoman/cousin was 6 months pregnant.

On the other hand, in the Old Testament annunciations are proclamations of imminent conception, so it is quite sensible the Mary, knowing these OT events, would’ve assumed Gabriel was talking about an imminent event here.

Yes, I suppose that’s true. Nevertheless, that doesn’t seem like much a basis for Mary to say “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”, if it was just a matter of not having had marital relations quite yet.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

I’m not sure how I feel about the familiarity of calling her “Marty” () but what’s to explain? Her kinswoman/cousin was 6 months pregnant.

Yeah, the time limits on editing don’t work so well for my type now, proofread later posting style