Z
zachh
Guest
Since she is a perpetual virgin, does that mean that her marriage to St. Joseph was technically never consummated and thus she technically isn’t married?
Thanks,
Zach
Thanks,
Zach
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yep! Look in Luke 1 & 2…It says that Joseph brought her home to his house…that’s it. Same as in the OT.
L
LilyM
Guest
a) the definition of marriage was somewhat different before the time of Christ - it wasn’t a sacrament.
b) whatever Joseph and Mary did or did not do in the bedroom, the angel called her his wife, as do all the Gospel writers, so clearly they were man and wife in a real sense.
b) whatever Joseph and Mary did or did not do in the bedroom, the angel called her his wife, as do all the Gospel writers, so clearly they were man and wife in a real sense.
Z
zachh
Guest
Cool. Thanks.
B
beckers
Guest
yep. check out what a “Josephite marriage” means
Q: Some of us Catholic have been doing apologetics on an Internet forum and have been successful in explaining that Mary and Joseph did not have conjugal relations. However, I’ve got myself into trouble over the fact that today the Church would say that is not a valid marriage and Scripture does say that Mary and Joseph were married. How do we resolve this?
A: The first of the two premises—that the Church would say Mary and Joseph did not have a valid marriage—is false. This objection has been dealt with a long time ago. Thomas Aquinas considers it in the Summa Theologiae (cf. ST III:29:2). Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is not required for the consent to be valid. Therefore, according to the standard account, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by the parties to be used. There have been parallel cases down through history, and these are known as “Josephite” marriages, after St. Joseph.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0205qq.asp
Q: Some of us Catholic have been doing apologetics on an Internet forum and have been successful in explaining that Mary and Joseph did not have conjugal relations. However, I’ve got myself into trouble over the fact that today the Church would say that is not a valid marriage and Scripture does say that Mary and Joseph were married. How do we resolve this?
A: The first of the two premises—that the Church would say Mary and Joseph did not have a valid marriage—is false. This objection has been dealt with a long time ago. Thomas Aquinas considers it in the Summa Theologiae (cf. ST III:29:2). Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is not required for the consent to be valid. Therefore, according to the standard account, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by the parties to be used. There have been parallel cases down through history, and these are known as “Josephite” marriages, after St. Joseph.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0205qq.asp
- Status
- Not open for further replies.