Why do Anti catholics think Mary had other sons?

[God_Seeker_1]

One cannot say “So what?” to the assertion that Mary had other sons.

If Mary had other children then Jesus is not God.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and had one son by her spouse - Jesus. For Mary to have then gone on to have other children make her an adulterer, and that makes Jesus Christ the son of an adulterer. It is not possible that God chose to be born through one who would be an adulterer. God did not design an adulterous mother for himself.

It is not possible for both Jesus to be God and Mary to have had other children. The two are mutually exclusive.

-Tim-

In the first place, there is no sound theological reason to see the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary. First, it is not written in Scripture. Secondly, there is nothing like this even hinted in the early church fathers. Third, I can think of anyone who was applauded in history for arguing along these lines, unless I am simply just ignorant. Fourth, it is clear to me that you are arguing logically within a box that you have set up which is not ordained of God. This box is the belief that Mary having other children than Jesus would have been immoral or in some sense detrimental to her role of bearing the Christ child as well as these other paradigms that you are drawing from such rich symbols as the Holy Spirit marrying and betrothing Mary, and someone Joseph is simply a guardian of the holy family.

Secondly, there is no mention of Joseph being fearful of marrying Mary because of her previous marriage to the Holy Spirit, but rather his fear was in making a public example of her as a fornicator. In other words, Joseph was under the impression Mary had sex with someone, and this, in his mind, was the cause of the pregnancy. This is why the divine revelation in the form of a dream was given to Joseph, to change his mind about this. To say that Joseph already knew about this mystic marriage between the Spirit and Mary and this was the cause of his fear in marrying Mary is to not read what Matthew is saying logically, but rather in a way that suits the box (unless I am mistaken).

Fourthly, if having other children for Mary was immoral or someone how wrong, why was his “cousins” living with Joseph and Mary? Where is their parents? Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us?”- It seems, historically, this eye witness is a greater testimony than later theologians in church history and he sees the family of Mary and Joseph as much larger than just Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. If these brothers and sisters are cousins of Jesus, why mention them? They would have to be living cousins. If this is the case, why not mention their parents? It is more plausible that this man is trying to naturalize the origin of Jesus, whereas Jesus is claiming to be divine, and the best way to prove that Jesus is a natural human being is to point to his siblings and his parents. If it was immoral for Mary to have other children because it would have conflicted with her time to take care of Jesus, then the presence of these 5 (at least) cousins who live in Joseph’s house without their parents has already tied up her duties at home.

Finally, you should realize that the Marian Dogmas (some of them) are late coming into the world. Some doctors, such as Tertullian, did not accept the immaculate conception of Mary. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and Albert the Great OPPOSSED the teaching of the immaculate conception.

 

[Della]

In the first place, there is no sound theological reason to see the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary. First, it is not written in Scripture. Secondly, there is nothing like this even hinted in the early church fathers.

There is plenty of sound theological reasons to see the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary. We have provided some of them. It matters not if anyone outside the Church likes them or not, but they exist just the same, so your assessment is simply false–no personal offense to you. Scripture does tell us this implicitly by telling us that Mary was “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit. If you know anything about the meaning of this expression it is obviously a reference to the overshadowing of the OT tabernacle which was sacred to God alone. The Early Church Fathers didn’t discuss many teachingss, but we believe them just the same. People do not dispute what is generally believed.

Third, I can think of anyone who was applauded in history for arguing along these lines, unless I am simply just ignorant. Fourth, it is clear to me that you are arguing logically within a box that you have set up which is not ordained of God. This box is the belief that Mary having other children than Jesus would have been immoral or in some sense detrimental to her role of bearing the Christ child as well as these other paradigms that you are drawing from such rich symbols as the Holy Spirit marrying and betrothing Mary, and someone Joseph is simply a guardian of the holy family.

It hardly matters if you cannot think of anyone who was “applauded in history” for arguing for this teaching. We Catholics know several who were declared saints. No one is making a circular argument–I refer to your “box” comment. We have laid out a perfectly sound line of reasoning, so this is false, as well.

Secondly, there is no mention of Joseph being fearful of marrying Mary because of her previous marriage to the Holy Spirit, but rather his fear was in making a public example of her as a fornicator. In other words, Joseph was under the impression Mary had sex with someone, and this, in his mind, was the cause of the pregnancy. This is why the divine revelation in the form of a dream was given to Joseph, to change his mind about this. To say that Joseph already knew about this mystic marriage between the Spirit and Mary and this was the cause of his fear in marrying Mary is to not read what Matthew is saying logically, but rather in a way that suits the box (unless I am mistaken).

Your interpretation of Joseph’s motivations are not in Matthew’s account, nor is it implied. He simply did not wish to shame Mary by divorcing her–that’s not the same thing as thinking she’d committed a grave sin by being an adultress. The Angel who told him to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife made no mention of anything of the kind. There was no rebuke by the Angel, as there was with Zacharia, no correction of any false fears. You may wish to reread the passage in question.

Fourthly, if having other children for Mary was immoral or someone how wrong, why was his “cousins” living with Joseph and Mary? Where is their parents? Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us?”- It seems, historically, this eye witness is a greater testimony than later theologians in church history and he sees the family of Mary and Joseph as much larger than just Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. If these brothers and sisters are cousins of Jesus, why mention them? They would have to be living cousins. If this is the case, why not mention their parents? It is more plausible that this man is trying to naturalize the origin of Jesus, whereas Jesus is claiming to be divine, and the best way to prove that Jesus is a natural human being is to point to his siblings and his parents. If it was immoral for Mary to have other children because it would have conflicted with her time to take care of Jesus, then the presence of these 5 (at least) cousins who live in Joseph’s house without their parents has already tied up her duties at home.

The cousins didn’t live with them in the same house, but in the same town. People who were all related to one another most often did live close to one another or with each other right up until our own times. And their parents are mentioned in other passages. Besides this nowhere in the NT is Mary called the mother of anyone other than Jesus. Nowhere.

Finally, you should realize that the Marian Dogmas (some of them) are late coming into the world. Some doctors, such as Tertullian, did not accept the immaculate conception of Mary. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and Albert the Great OPPOSSED the teaching of the immaculate conception.

No, they weren’t opposed to the teaching, rather, as theologians, they were putting forth objections and then seeking for a resolution to the objections. Theologians still do this–it’s part the job of being a theologian. As well, theologians are not the Magisterium. They serve the bishops by their researches, but it is not for them to decide matters of faith and morals, but rather the bishops they serve. The Church has spoken on this matter, that settles it no matter who disagrees for whatever reason.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

The arguments are weak, nonetheless. If I was catholic I would simply appeal to the divinity of the magesterium as the source of reason to believe that, not anything historical or scriptural. Which is still a valid option.

I think the reason Joseph did not want to marry her is pretty clear
Matthew 1:17, 19 DRA

So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen
generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen
generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen
generations. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not
willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

 

[TimothyH]

Not in the eyes of a Protestant. To a Protestant Mary had one spouse and that was Joseph. She became pregnant by the Holy Spirit and was still a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. To them, there wasn’t any reason for Mary to not have other children. That wouldn’t make her an adulterer because she wasn’t married to the Holy Spirit and they didn’t have sex. So yes, in their eyes, Jesus is God and Mary could have other children with her spouse Joseph.

This is a theological mistake based on ignorance of how Jews viewd marriage and spousal relationships under the Levitical law.

It was not possible under the law of Moses (which was given by God) for Mary to have had children by both the Holy Spirit and Joseph while both were alive. Such would have earned her the death penalty by stoning.

Whether she was overshadowed or had sex or was married or not really doesn’t matter. Having one child by your husband and another child which was not by your husband was enough to earn you the title of adulterer and death by stoning. That’s a matter of historical fact, not opinion.

-Tim-

 

[Della]

The arguments are weak, nonetheless. If I was catholic I would simply appeal to the divinity of the magesterium as the source of reason to believe that, not anything historical or scriptural. Which is still a valid option.

As a Catholic I certainly do appeal to the infallibility of the magesterium, but this does not mean I think there is little to no scriptural or historical reasons to believe what the Church teaches. IOW, no Catholic has to go by “blind” faith alone but rather should have some understanding of the issues involved and know why the Church teaches as it does.

I think the reason Joseph did not want to marry her is pretty clear
Matthew 1:17, 19 DRA

So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen
generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen
generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen
generations. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not
willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

Any interpretation of Scripture has to be done within the full context of Sacred Tradition (which is why I referred to the overshadowing in the OT) in order for it to be proper exegesis. Besides this, the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals was given by Christ to the Apostles who, by laying on of hands, passed it on to their successors. This too is a part of Sacred Tradition of which the Bible is a part, but not the whole. The Church doesn’t base its teachings on the Bible, rather the Bible is a witness to the truths taught by Christ’s Church. For Christ founded a Church not a book.

Having said, I must conclude that the Church understands perfectly well what this passage means–the Church having explored its depths for centuries and come to the conclusions that it has.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

What authoratative document shows that the magesterium interprets this passage in that way? Namely that Joseph knew that the holy spirit married Mary and so he needed reassurance to Mary her.

 

[Della]

What authoratative document shows that the magesterium interprets this passage in that way? Namely that Joseph knew that the holy spirit married Mary and so he needed reassurance to Mary her.

The Magisterium doesn’t usually make statements in which interpretation of Sacred Tradition is formally set out except for those it feels needs it. Very few passages of Scripture have a “this is the only interpretation allowed” stamp on them. Rather, the Church teaches these things through its ordinary teaching. Not everything is written in some kind of authoritative document. Rather, such teachings are generally approved and thus are considered “not contrary to the faith”–nil obstat. By giving such approbation, the Church lets us believe what our saints, homilists and theologians have concluded to be true. We have to remember that theology is an ongoing study because the depths of the Faith can never be fully plumbed by men. So, there doesn’t need to be a definitive statement/document as to why we believe what we believe in order for us to say that the Church teaches it. I hope that makes sense.

This can be hard for some of our Protestant brethren to grasp because for many, if they can’t see it for themselves in Scripture or someone they trust hasn’t declared something as truth, they cannot/will not believe it. The Church is more open about such things, allowing us to understand through the oral teachings and practices of the Church that have its approbation. I’m not saying no pope has spoken on this subject or there isn’t some kind of definitive statement(s) about why Mary has been declared Ever Virgin. Others may be able to help you find it/them. Reseraching Church documents is not my forte.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Well, I was born and raised Catholic, so I wouldn’t consider myself someone who would have a hard time grasping catholic distinctives. As to my protestant side, I do not accept sola scriptura, however I do not accept a contemporary infallible teaching which justifies many new teachings which have no source in the apostles. I exist between these two book marks. I have been trying my hardest, with prayer, to be led into the conviction that the Catholic Magesterium is from God, but I am disappointed at times with some of the things which are taught.

I simply cannot look at that Matthew passage and read it any other way. It would be like convincing me 2+2=5.

I really doubt any Catholic scholar or theologian reads it the way you have read it. Grant the “overshadow” meaning, but to say that Joseph knew this to be a marriage and that this is why he refrained at first from marrying her…unbelievably difficult to accept.

 

[Evan]

In Catholic teaching, marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus Mary and Joseph were married, thus it was proper for them to engage in intercourse, thus it was proper for Mary to bear children other than Jesus.

She did not, by her and Joseph’s choice. They did not refrain because it was forbidden, but because it was the better way for the Holy Family.

In a metaphorical or analogical sense, the Holy Spirit is called the spouse of Mary because it is through his overshadowing that the incarnation occurred.

In the same sense a nun will refer to herself as the spouse of Jesus. But if you take this to literally, Jesus is a polygamist, because he is married to many nuns and the Church in general.

All contemplatives (men and women) strive to achieve a spiritual marriage with God.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Well this is more reasonable.

However, to suggest that Mary would have violated her husband the Holy Spirit by having intercourse with Joseph is, in my mind, a far stretch that I couldn’t accept. Unless this reasoning comes from the Magesterium, it should not be accepted. Call the Holy Spirit the spouse of Mary, this is fine, but to then impute the covenant of marriage and it’s violations is quite another thing. The body of Christ is also called the wife of Christ, but this doesn’t mean that we all individually cannot marry.

We need to keep our thinking caps on.

 

[Della]

Well this is more reasonable.

However, to suggest that Mary would have violated her husband the Holy Spirit by having intercourse with Joseph is, in my mind, a far stretch that I couldn’t accept. Unless this reasoning comes from the Magesterium, it should not be accepted. Call the Holy Spirit the spouse of Mary, this is fine, but to then impute the covenant of marriage and it’s violations is quite another thing. The body of Christ is also called the wife of Christ, but this doesn’t mean that we all individually cannot marry.

We need to keep our thinking caps on.

The difference is, of course, that none of us bore the Son of God in our wombs. We are talking about consecration of the total self to God, not about whether or not marriage is right and proper for Christians, which, of course, it is. Mary was set aside for God when she declared her fiat. No man would have had the right to touch her afterwards. That’s what it means to be a spouse, afterall–to be totally given to one other person.

For example, our Catholic priests and religious offer themselves completely to God, even if they may have other family obligations. They live a life of celibacy because of the vows they have taken. There have even been married couples who vowed themselves to sexless marriages in order to serve God. The parents of St. Therese of Liseux had done so until they were released from that vow when they felt called to have children–not just so they could have sex, which is right and normal for married couples, but because they had wanted to live in celibacy within marriage until they discerned that God wanted them to have children. I believe that sort of arrangement is now tacitly discouaged by the Church–as a matter of disciple, but I offer it as an example to show it’s not without precedence.

 

[Evan]

The difference is, of course, that none of us bore the Son of God in our wombs. We are talking about consecration of the total self to God, not about whether or not marriage is right and proper for Christians, which, of course, it is. Mary was set aside for God when she declared her fiat. No man would have had the right to touch her afterwards.

Except St Joseph her most chaste spouse. [Divine Praises: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0284.htm]

For example, our Catholic priests and religious offer themselves completely to God, even if they may have other family obligations. They live a life of celibacy because of the vows they have taken.

Except for those priests who are married and have given themselves, in this world, to their wives.

 

[Della]

Except St Joseph her most chaste spouse. [Divine Praises: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0284.htm]

Except for those priests who are married and have given themselves, in this world, to their wives.

Neither of these are in dispute.

 

[Evan]

Neither of these are in dispute.

That’s odd. From my reading you write:
No man would have had the right to touch her afterwards.
and I write
Except St Joseph

Similarly you write
our Catholic priests and religious offer themselves completely to God
and I write
Except those priests who have given themselves to their wives

You see no dispute? Intresting… I suppose I don’t understand what is being written

 

[God_Seeker_1]

The difference is, of course, that none of us bore the Son of God in our wombs. We are talking about consecration of the total self to God, not about whether or not marriage is right and proper for Christians, which, of course, it is. Mary was set aside for God when she declared her fiat. No man would have had the right to touch her afterwards. That’s what it means to be a spouse, afterall–to be totally given to one other person.

For example, our Catholic priests and religious offer themselves completely to God, even if they may have other family obligations. They live a life of celibacy because of the vows they have taken. There have even been married couples who vowed themselves to sexless marriages in order to serve God. The parents of St. Therese of Liseux had done so until they were released from that vow when they felt called to have children–not just so they could have sex, which is right and normal for married couples, but because they had wanted to live in celibacy within marriage until they discerned that God wanted them to have children. I believe that sort of arrangement is now tacitly discouaged by the Church–as a matter of disciple, but I offer it as an example to show it’s not without precedence.

Ok it seems here that you have gone too far out of the clear, in my honest and reasonable opinion. You are reasoning within a box that is built and measured by your own (and I am assuming others as well) desires. I think if you just get outside of this box and think for a few moments and question the foundation of where you get your ideas, then test the veracity of these claims, then re-enter the box to see if you belong there.

Those people who are single live their lives to God (1 Cor 7), not just because they do not have a sexual partner, but because they do not have a partner at all! In other words, they have no obligations for the well being and desires of another, they are only for God. Well, unless Mary ignored Joseph and kept to herself the WHOLE entire time, I think this really doesn’t even apply to her. Moreover, those who are virgins, according to Paul, and who are unmarried, live their lives to God also because they do not have children. However, Mary had children.

There is no reasonable argument that can convince any thinking person that if Mary spent her time honoring her husband day-to-day and that she went through the whole work of being a Parent, she was somehow inadequate to be the mother of Jesus.

Any argument put foward here is really not going to convince anyone.

Like I said, a simple appeal to the Magesterium at this point would be the only thing to suffice. The reasons you are putting forward, as well as those of TimothyH, are hard to find from an authority in the Catholic church.

 

[Della]

That’s odd. From my reading you write:
No man would have had the right to touch her afterwards.
and I write
Except St Joseph

I’m sorry, I didn’t go to the link. I assumed it was one that simply related that Joseph took Mary as his wife. Shows you that one should never assume. No, Joseph didn’t have a right to touch her simply because he married her. She would have to consent to that and so would he. The Church teaches that neither one of them desired to do so because Mary had been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

Similarly you write
our Catholic priests and religious offer themselves completely to God
and I write
Except those priests who have given themselves to their wives

You see no dispute? Intresting… I suppose I don’t understand what is being written

There are exceptions to the discipline of celibacy within the Catholic Church. I thought you were referring to that. Besides, I used the vow of celibacy in religious life as an example. I was not intending to take the thread off topic to discuss all the exceptions to this discipline. :tiphat:

 

[Evan]

I’m sorry, I didn’t go to the link. I assumed it was one that simply related that Joseph took Mary as his wife. Shows you that one should never assume. No, Joseph didn’t have a right to touch her simply because he married her. She would have to consent to that and so would he. The Church teaches that neither one of them desired to do so because Mary had been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

OK. I think I see where we differ.

In a marriage, it is just the opposite of what is proposed. Each spouse has the right to touch the other. In a Josephite marriage en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_marriage both spouses must consent to the celebate lifestyle. If one should change his mind later, then the other must consent. It remains a spiritual marriage only so long as both consent.

 

[Della]

Ok it seems here that you have gone too far out of the clear, in my honest and reasonable opinion. You are reasoning within a box that is built and measured by your own (and I am assuming others as well) desires. I think if you just get outside of this box and think for a few moments and question the foundation of where you get your ideas, then test the veracity of these claims, then re-enter the box to see if you belong there.

I’m afaid this is simply not the case. What I have written is not my opinions, but the teachings of saints and theologians. I have no opinion on the matter. I’m simply relating what I have learned.

Those people who are single live their lives to God (1 Cor 7), not just because they do not have a sexual partner, but because they do not have a partner at all! In other words, they have no obligations for the well being and desires of another, they are only for God. Well, unless Mary ignored Joseph and kept to herself the WHOLE entire time, I think this really doesn’t even apply to her. Moreover, those who are virgins, according to Paul, and who are unmarried, live their lives to God also because they do not have children. However, Mary had children.

You are assuming things here. Firstly, Mary did all the things any other housewife would do in her marriage to Joseph. He was not deprived because they didn’t have sex together since he accepted her on those terms. Joseph didn’t suffer because of this–it was his gift to Christ and partly why he is a great saint. Mary wouldn’t need to completely ignore Joseph for them to be sexless in marriage. Why would you think that? They loved each other, but that love did not include the marital act, otherwise, they were indeed married. And many a woman can have no children and be married–I’m an example of this. Mary had only one child, Jesus. This has already been discussed and there is ample biblical evidence for it.

There is no reasonable argument that can convince any thinking person that if Mary spent her time honoring her husband day-to-day and that she went through the whole work of being a Parent, she was somehow inadequate to be the mother of Jesus.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Whoever said her being faithful to God alone in continency meant she couldn’t be a good parent? Are you sure you meant to write that?

Any argument put foward here is really not going to convince anyone.

I’m not trying to convince anyone. I’m simply explaining. I’ll let the Holy Spirit do the convincing, if any is needed.

Like I said, a simple appeal to the Magesterium at this point would be the only thing to suffice. The reasons you are putting forward, as well as those of TimothyH, are hard to find from an authority in the Catholic church.

Since you know no Church authority you really can’t say this. However, if you are interested in the topic you are free to research what the Church teaches and why. I have no interest in trying to get you to agree. My only interest is in telling you what I’ve learned about the topic.

 

[Della]

OK. I think I see where we differ.

In a marriage, it is just the opposite of what is proposed. Each spouse has the right to touch the other. In a Josephite marriage en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_marriage both spouses must consent to the celebate lifestyle. If one should change his mind later, then the other must consent. It remains a spiritual marriage only so long as both consent.

Yes, and Mary and Joseph lived the celibate life together all their lives. That’s where the expression “Josephite marriage” comes from.

 

[Evan]

Yes, and Mary and Joseph lived the celibate life together all their lives. That’s where the expression “Josephite marriage” comes from.

Correct. I’m just saying, he had the right to the marriage bed but he chose not to use it. Same for Mary. It is a blessing some couples are blessed with.