What kind of marriage

[JRKH]

Perhaps you don’t understand what I am saying.

I think that there is some of this in both directions…

If things were as you say, that she expected a normal marriage than her question is strange.

I don’t agree…

The second part of marriage came when the husband took the wife into his home.

Agreed…

So

1. Mary should have assumed that Joseph would be coming soon.

OK…How soon…According to Scripture, As

1. She doesn’t just say that she does not know Joseph but man indicating a universal abstinence.

That is one reading…Not necessarily the only one…

I don’t believe by pointing out that they were in the first part of the marriage that it answers why she asked such a strange question.

But the thing is that I don’t really care about why she asked the question…

The question shows her intentions. The fact she doesn’t mention Joseph in her answer but the general “man” shows her intention.

Again - that is one reading…not necessarily the only one…

Look - I don’t think this needs to be a big to-do…It really is not that important to me…
The OP asked a question and I asked one back…in order to give the OP something to consider…
I guess I must have touched some kind of nerve given the number of responses to my question…But I remain unconvinced that, at the time they were betrothed Mary (and Joseph) intended the marriage to be celibate…
But - that is just my opinion…

Now if someone can show me a doctrinal statement on the matter, I’m all eyes…If not…I guess that it will just remain one of those things that we are permitted to hold different thoughts on without endangering our souls…

Peace
James

 

[adrift]

I don’t agree…

I have given reasons why it was a strange question to answer with I don’t agree with out a reasoned response is indicative that you don’t have one.

OK…How soon…According to Scripture, As

This incomplete sentence makes it unclear what you mean but that is exactly the question that Mary should have asked instead of the strange one she did ask.

That is one reading…Not necessarily the only one…

And yours would be?

But the thing is that I don’t really care about why she asked the question…

You don’t care but yet you declare that there is no evidence that she had made a vow of virginity.

Again - that is one reading…not necessarily the only one…

Again this is just a statement without any reasoning from you.

Look - I don’t think this needs to be a big to-do…It really is not that important to me…
The OP asked a question and I asked one back…in order to give the OP something to consider…

I answered the question.

I guess I must have touched some kind of nerve given the number of responses to my question…But I remain unconvinced that, at the time they were betrothed Mary (and Joseph) intended the marriage to be celibate…
But - that is just my opinion…

But that is what has been taught

 

[JRKH]

I have given reasons why it was a strange question to answer with I don’t agree with out a reasoned response is indicative that you don’t have one.

If you say so…

This incomplete sentence makes it unclear what you mean but that is exactly the question that Mary should have asked instead of the strange one she did ask.

My apologies i got caught up in replying and did not finish the thought…Now I don’t remember what it was…And frankly I’ve lost interest in it…

And yours would be?

None really -

You don’t care but yet you declare that there is no evidence that she had made a vow of virginity.

So far as I can remember I made no such declaration.

Again this is just a statement without any reasoning from you.

Just can’t get good debaters any more can ya…

I answered the question.

Yes - but I wasn’t really asking you…I was asking the OP…

But that is what has been taught

Well there is a lot on there…does it say that the Church declares definitively that Mary was a consecrated virgin at the time she was betrothed to Joseph?

Peace
James

 

[adrift]

None really -

I am not surprised

So far as I can remember I made no such declaration.

So - my question to the OP remains…Is there reason to believe that it was NOT her intention to have relations with Joseph at the time they became betrothed.
I see none in Scripture…

Just can’t get good debaters any more can ya…

You made me laugh but it also showed me your passive aggressive nature.

Yes - but I wasn’t really asking you…I was asking the OP…

If you want to ask the OP a private question, you should contact him privately. Otherwise this is a public forum and you should expect answer from others.

Well there is a lot on there…does it say that the Church declares definitively that Mary was a consecrated virgin at the time she was betrothed to Joseph?

The Church rarely defines definitively unless there is a controversy. The controversy was over her being a virgin after Jesus was born. The article however does present the same argument about Mary’s statement. You claim that it is one reading yet do not present how it might be read differently. I have asked this question many times of Protestants who dispute that Mary was always a virgin. Like you they give no answer.

 

[JRKH]

I am not surprised

You made me laugh but it also showed me your passive aggressive nature.

Glad I made you laugh…As for passive aggressive comment…I never thought of myself as passive aggressive, if I am, then I guess I have yet another fault to work at overcoming…My apologies.
I was very tired last night when I last posted and - I guess - more than a little frustrated. It seems like such a tempest in a teapot…

If you want to ask the OP a private question, you should contact him privately. Otherwise this is a public forum and you should expect answer from others.

I am aware of this.
Truthfully I think that it is more a matter of being surprised at the number of responses and how adamant they were. If you look back at the first page you will see where the OP asked a question to which I responded with a question with some supporting info. Then TimothyH responded to my question by saying what I had proposed was impossible (See posts 7 and 8). He did not say improbable, or unlikely…He said it was impossible. That comment…Declaring that what I had proposed was impossible is really the germ of the argument…here…
So - you see…I am not the one who made a declarative statement…Someone else did that.

The Church rarely defines definitively unless there is a controversy. The controversy was over her being a virgin after Jesus was born. The article however does present the same argument about Mary’s statement. You claim that it is one reading yet do not present how it might be read differently. I have asked this question many times of Protestants who dispute that Mary was always a virgin. Like you they give no answer.

That is fine…I skimmed the article but found no “argument about Mary’s statement”. Perhaps you could kind of point me to where it is contained…
The article seemed mainly focused on the “virgin birth” and Mary’s perpetual virginity…Neither of which is being questioned here. I fully accept the Churches teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

As for “reading Mary’s Scriptural statement differently”…It is no more complicated than this. The reading that you propose places a great deal of significance on the use of the term “man” instead of the particular “Joseph”. It is a rather deep dissecting (in my opinion) of a rather simple statement of fact.
I never have considered that there is great significance to it…In all of the times I have read this, or heard it read…I never once thought of considered that she meant anything more than what it says…A simplest of readings. “I know not man” = “I am a virgin”…
I prefer simple readings and simple understandings since they fit so much better with our simple faith in God and Christ.

In conclusion…I can only say that the challenge issued in post number 8 - the assertion that my earlier comment is “impossible” has not been proven. That there is evidence that shows I might be wrong I will happily grant. But “might be wrong” is not the same thing as “impossible”. This is why I asked about a doctrinal statement. If one can be provided then I will happily concede that my earlier proposal is impossible. Without either a definitive statement, either in Scripture of from the Magisterium, there seems to be room for various interpretation and views as to what was in Mary’s mind at the time she became betrothed to Joseph.

Please remember that it was not me who set the bar of proof so high…It was someone else.

Peace
James

 

[adrift]

Glad I made you laugh…As for passive aggressive comment…I never thought of myself as passive aggressive, if I am, then I guess I have yet another fault to work at overcoming…My apologies.
I was very tired last night when I last posted and - I guess - more than a little frustrated. It seems like such a tempest in a teapot…

I am sorry. Especially since you are a poster I enjoy reading.

I am aware of this.
Truthfully I think that it is more a matter of being surprised at the number of responses and how adamant they were. If you look back at the first page you will see where the OP asked a question to which I responded with a question with some supporting info. Then TimothyH responded to my question by saying what I had proposed was impossible (See posts 7 and 8). He did not say improbable, or unlikely…He said it was impossible. That comment…Declaring that what I had proposed was impossible is really the germ of the argument…here…
So - you see…I am not the one who made a declarative statement…Someone else did that.

I had not realized the responses to you. I had read them but I have to agree with you on this point. They are not addressing your point. I think they believe you are attacking Mary’s virginity which I know you are not.

That is fine…I skimmed the article but found no “argument about Mary’s statement”. Perhaps you could kind of point me to where it is contained…
The article seemed mainly focused on the “virgin birth” and Mary’s perpetual virginity…Neither of which is being questioned here. I fully accept the Churches teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

You are right it only deals with her perpetual virginity which is not what is being discussed.

As for “reading Mary’s Scriptural statement differently”…It is no more complicated than this. The reading that you propose places a great deal of significance on the use of the term “man” instead of the particular “Joseph”. It is a rather deep dissecting (in my opinion) of a rather simple statement of fact.
I never have considered that there is great significance to it…In all of the times I have read this, or heard it read…I never once thought of considered that she meant anything more than what it says…A simplest of readings. “I know not man” = “I am a virgin”…
I prefer simple readings and simple understandings since they fit so much better with our simple faith in God and Christ.

It is the reading “I am a virgin” that is correct but it isn’t just that simple of a statement. This is a woman who is married saying that she is a virgin. I believe you are reading it with the knowledge of the virgin birth. Why would she mention that she is a virgin? Now I know to you it is unimportant but it does lead to the ever virgin. Protestants ask why would a married woman remain a virgin? What proof is there that she did? I think that is why you hit a nerve because this statement which is more than I am a virgin shows that she took a vow of virginity.
This article does not address what you said it doesn’t give an “official” stance but it does address the issue the OP raises and the vow Mary made.

In conclusion…I can only say that the challenge issued in post number 8 - the assertion that my earlier comment is “impossible” has not been proven. That there is evidence that shows I might be wrong I will happily grant. But “might be wrong” is not the same thing as “impossible”. This is why I asked about a doctrinal statement. If one can be provided then I will happily concede that my earlier proposal is impossible. Without either a definitive statement, either in Scripture of from the Magisterium, there seems to be room for various interpretation and views as to what was in Mary’s mind at the time she became betrothed to Joseph.

Please remember that it was not me who set the bar of proof so high…It was someone else.

Peace
James

I have never seen your particular argument. I am not sure I would say it was impossible. I do believe in the traditional thought that Mary made a vow of virginity. I do think you see that vow in her question. It is Catholic tradition (small t) that Mary took a vow of virginity. This thread has some information but not much

It seems cruel to me that if Joseph had expected a normal marriage that God would ask Mary to be His mother but does not ask Joseph to forgo a regular marriage. However, if he had already agreed to be only a protector there would be no need to get his permission again. That is one problem with your scenario. No where is there any proof that God asked Mary to be ever virgin. It is a hole in your theory.

Now in answering the OP it makes more sense that there was such a vow and that Joseph was chosen as a protector because as I said before women didn’t work outside the home.

 

[JRKH]

I am sorry. Especially since you are a poster I enjoy reading.

No problem. Glad that you enjoy my postings.
Actually you are not the first person to accuse me of “passive aggressive” behavior…But frankly I’ve never been able to truly pin down what that means…I’ve looked at various definitions and such, but can’t get a good handle on it. Kind of tough to work on a fault if you can’t define it……Ultimately though guess I just have to keep holding myself to the Love standard and go from there.

I had not realized the responses to you. I had read them but I have to agree with you on this point. They are not addressing your point. I think they believe you are attacking Mary’s virginity which I know you are not.

hhmmm…OK…I don’t see how they could be thinking that since I never said anything remotely attacking the PV teaching

You are right it only deals with her perpetual virginity which is not what is being discussed.

Thanks.

It is the reading “I am a virgin” that is correct but it isn’t just that simple of a statement. This is a woman who is married saying that she is a virgin. I believe you are reading it with the knowledge of the virgin birth. Why would she mention that she is a virgin? Now I know to you it is unimportant but it does lead to the ever virgin.

One could ask, “Why would she mention that she was a Virgin since the angel would already know that” as well. To me her mentioning this is little more than her incredulity at the Angel’s announcement and her questioning of it.
I agree that it is important to the faith that it be established that she was a virgin at the time…But that really is not the issue in the OP…The question is, what was her intent when she became betrothed? That was the one and the only - single point that I was addressing in my original response.

Protestants ask why would a married woman remain a virgin? What proof is there that she did?

heehee…When I get this question from Protestants…I have one simple answer/challenge to them. Put yourself in Joseph’s sandals. Read the Narratives of the conception and birth…Then I suggest that they ask themselves…If I were in that situation, would I choose to have sex with this woman? The one chosen by God to carry His son???
for any true Christian - any “righteous man” (as Joseph was) - the answer should be simple. Hence the “ever virgin” concept is maybe not “proven” but certainly demonstrated.

I think that is why you hit a nerve because this statement which is more than I am a virgin shows that she took a vow of virginity.

In and of itself, I still disagree…but no matter…

This article does not address what you said it doesn’t give an “official” stance but it does address the issue the OP raises and the vow Mary made.

Yes - the article addresses the matter quite well.

I have never seen your particular argument. I am not sure I would say it was impossible.

Well the sum total of my “argument”, such as it was,is contained in Post number 7. But in truth, it was not so much an argument as a question to the OP allowing for the possibility that Mary was a normal young girl who was preparing to enter into a normal marriage and as such, at the time of her betrothal, intended to enter a “normal” marriage. I relied strictly on what was recorded in the Gospels for my points and I think that my points are completely valid if one sets aside the influence of the Protoevangelium (which of course protestants will do.)

I do believe in the traditional thought that Mary made a vow of virginity. I do think you see that vow in her question. It is Catholic tradition (small t) that Mary took a vow of virginity. This thread has some information but not much

I agree

It seems cruel to me that if Joseph had expected a normal marriage that God would ask Mary to be His mother but does not ask Joseph to forgo a regular marriage. However, if he had already agreed to be only a protector there would be no need to get his permission again. That is one problem with your scenario.

Point taken.

No where is there any proof that God asked Mary to be ever virgin. It is a hole in your theory.

But here is the thing…I have no theory on the matter. Why can’t people understand that? I simply put out a question and some bible verses…and was immediately told "That’s impossible. But nobody has been able to explain how my specific statement is impossible.
Even TimothyH who made the statement “this is impossible” has not responded even though a quick check shows that he has posted 13 times over two days since I responded to his posting.

Now in answering the OP it makes more sense that there was such a vow and that Joseph was chosen as a protector because as I said before women didn’t work outside the home.

I agree. This makes more sense overall - especially since you mention the lack of any evidence of God consulting with Joseph in the matter beforehand…
That said…and this is important to what has gone on here on this thread…“making more sense” does not rise to the level set by TimothyH “This is impossible”…

Have we exhausted this yet???

Peace
James

 

[AbideWithMe]

I have given reasons why it was a strange question to answer with I don’t agree with out a reasoned response is indicative that you don’t have one.

I’m taking this sentence to be meant as “I have given reasons why it was a strange question; to answer with ‘I don’t agree’ without a reasoned response is indicative that you don’t have one.” (I’m not being snarky in trying to clarify the sentence—I just want to be sure I’m reading it rightly, Adrift.)

The statement was made to JRKH, but I often don’t post much of a reasoned response even when I have one because I may be busy with family stuff or work, or tired of all the bickering that sometimes goes on here, or I may be about to get ready to go to sleep or go out somewhere. There are tons of reasons why someone may not post a response even when they have one. Can’t we extend to others the respect for their lives apart from the internet that we give ourselves?

 

[JRKH]

I’m taking this sentence to be meant as “I have given reasons why it was a strange question; to answer with ‘I don’t agree’ without a reasoned response is indicative that you don’t have one.” (I’m not being snarky in trying to clarify the sentence—I just want to be sure I’m reading it rightly, Adrift.)

The statement was made to JRKH, but I often don’t post much of a reasoned response even when I have one because I may be busy with family stuff or work, or tired of all the bickering that sometimes goes on here, or I may be about to get ready to go to sleep or go out somewhere. There are tons of reasons why someone may not post a response even when they have one. Can’t we extend to others the respect for their lives apart from the internet that we give ourselves?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut and support. I think that Adrift and I have this more or less worked out…
I was tired when I made the post and I suspect (given the posting times) that Adrift was tired too. Sometimes we should get off the computer earlier…and go say a rosary or something…probably would save a lot of this sort of thing…

Peace
James

 

[adrift]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut and support. I think that Adrift and I have this more or less worked out…
I was tired when I made the post and I suspect (given the posting times) that Adrift was tired too. Sometimes we should get off the computer earlier…and go say a rosary or something…probably would save a lot of this sort of thing…

Peace
James

[SIGN]Amen[/SIGN]

Actually you are not the first person to accuse me of “passive aggressive” behavior…But frankly I’ve never been able to truly pin down what that means…I’ve looked at various definitions and such, but can’t get a good handle on it. Kind of tough to work on a fault if you can’t define it…Ultimately though guess I just have to keep holding myself to the Love standard and go from there

I am not sure if it is a fault:shrug:

 

[sw85]

Why the Virgin Mary married Joseph if is not her intension to have intimacy with him

Let’s be clear. Chastity means living one’s sexuality according to one’s station in life. For the unmarried and widowed, this normatively means abstinence. For the married, this normatively means intercourse within the bounds of prudence, justice, and charity.

Mary was called both to marriage and abstinence. Because, as it turns out, God can make exceptions to the norms.