Why was the Blessed Mother betrothed to Joseph?

[Jetlag]

As a consecrated virgin, when Mary reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would have be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would not have marital relations. Hope this helps.

 

[thistle]

Mike O:

You need to carefully read what was written the next time.

I was quoting “LoverofChrist,” not you, and so demanding an apology for an imagined slight is not generally efficacious in that way.

The exact quote was: “I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life if she planned on marrying.”

I certainly think this nears to or falls under the category of blasphemy. Mary clearly planned on marrying being that she was espoused to St. Joseph, so that covers the “if” portion of the statement. We are left with the first part, which reads “I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life.”

That is uncalled for, not in line with Church teaching, and offensive to Our Lady who made a vow of perpetual virginity.

First let me apologise to you. Yes I misread what was in your post because in the box you quoted it had Quote=Thistle so I assumed you were commenting to me.

Just to clarify my position on Mary.

I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
I believe she must have taken a vow of perpetual virginity but I don’t know at which stage that was.
I have always been led to believe the Annunciation was only about the virgin birth of Jesus and not Mary’s perpetual virginity.
What I said in my earlier posts was that I has not heard this other interpretation before (I did not say it was wrong) but was happy to stand corrected if indeed the Church taught that the Annunciation was about both the virgin birth of Jesus and Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity.
I was asking for an official Church view on this and I would then say okay I accept it.
As you have seen in the threads posters interpret this differently.
What is the official Church interpretation?

 

[YADA]

Tom,

I think you and I are the only “nuts” who read Numbers. It is not one of the most interesting pieces of scripture but sometimes the less inviting passages have some deep meanings. In our overly sexed society, we think anyone who would take a vow of chastity is “Crazy” with a capital C.

My ethics professor to the Master’s in Pastoral Ministry Cohort, all older than you average college student and all but one married, said how nice to teach sexuality to a class that understands that even in the married state you spend “far more time not having sex then having it”

Why would the Isrealites have a fairly extensive passage upon vows of abstinance, if it was not practiced? Considering the 2000 years +/- teaching on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother, the early reformers acquiessence, why does an issue questioning this teaching that is from recent times (the last 200 years +/-) cause such a stir? Non catholics say “What does it matter?” If it does not matter, why are you, the Non catholic, trying to change a very early and long standing Christian belief?

 

[Tom]

YADA:

Tom, I think you and I are the only “nuts” who read Numbers. It is not one of the most interesting pieces of scripture but sometimes the less inviting passages have some deep meanings. In our overly sexed society, we think anyone who would take a vow of chastity is “Crazy” with a capital C.

I love Numbers and I find quite a bit of insight into the role of Mary in it. Favorite chapters around 27-30

YADA:

Why would the Isrealites have a fairly extensive passage upon vows of abstinance, if it was not practiced? Considering the 2000 years +/- teaching on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother, the early reformers acquiessence, why does an issue questioning this teaching that is from recent times (the last 200 years +/-) cause such a stir? Non catholics say “What does it matter?” If it does not matter, why are you, the Non catholic, trying to change a very early and long standing Christian belief?

LOL, I agree. Now the Temple virgin theme has a lot of holes in it, as you stated in a earlier post there were dedicated virgins who were not “Temple” virgins. To me, Mary asking how this shall be makes no sense other than it being a statement of her future and perpetual virginity.

 

[YADA]

Tom,

Thats why the other posters ignore or fail to comment directly or coherently to your reasoned defenses They would rather change the subject or place some wierd contortions on Mary, scripture or Jewish practices that conform to their preconcieved notions!

Keep up the great defense

 

[Tom]

YADA:

Tom,

Thats why the other posters ignore or fail to comment directly or coherently to your reasoned defenses They would rather change the subject or place some wierd contortions on Mary, scripture or Jewish practices that conform to their preconcieved notions!

Keep up the great defense

Thanks and right back to you.

 

[thistle]

I contacted a well known priest who is a long time theological educator and asked him about the “vow of virginity”.
Below is what he told me:

QUOTE

The Church teaches Mary’s perpetual virginity, but as far as I know, the Church doesn’t have an official position on whether or when Mary took a vow of virginity. Scholars have different opinions about what her words to the angel actually mean. Perhaps she and God and Joseph had already arranged for a marriage relationship where Joseph was to be the “protector” of her virginity. This would explain his grief when Mary was found to be pregnant.
UNQUOTE

 

[Tom]

How about an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/01541c.htm
The fact of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is related in Luke, i 26-38. The Evangelist tells us that in the sixth month after the conception of St. John the Baptist by Elizabeth, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to the Virgin Mary, at Nazareth, a small town in the mountains of Galilee. Mary was of the house of David, and was espoused (i. e. married) to Joseph, of the same royal family. She had, however, not yet entered the household of her spouse, but was still in her mother’s house, working, perhaps, over her dowry. (Bardenhewer, Maria Verk., 69). And the angel having taken the figure and the form of man, came into the house and said to her: “Hail, full of grace (to whom is given grace, favoured one), the Lord is with thee.” Mary having heard the greeting words did not speak; she was troubled in spirit, since she knew not the angel, nor the cause of his coming, nor the meaning of the salutation. And the angel continued and said: “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” The Virgin understood that there was question of the coming Redeemer. But, why should she be elected from amongst women for the splendid dignity of being the mother of the Messiah, having vowed her virginity to God? (St. Augustine). Therefore, not doubting the word of Godlike Zachary, but filled with fear and astonishment, she said: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
The angel to remove Mary’s anxiety and to assure her that her virginity would be spared, answered: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” In token of the truth of his word he made known to her the conception of St. John, the miraculous pregnancy of her relative now old and sterile: “And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth; she also has conceived a son in herold age, and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: because no word shall be impossible with God.” Mary may not yet have fully understood the meaning of the heavenly message and how the maternity might be reconciled with her vow of virginity, but clinging to the first words of the angel and trusting to the Omnipotence of God she said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word.”

 

[thistle]

Tom:

How about an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia?
Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/01541c.htm
The fact of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is related in Luke, i 26-38. The Evangelist tells us that in the sixth month after the conception of St. John the Baptist by Elizabeth, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to the Virgin Mary, at Nazareth, a small town in the mountains of Galilee. Mary was of the house of David, and was espoused (i. e. married) to Joseph, of the same royal family. She had, however, not yet entered the household of her spouse, but was still in her mother’s house, working, perhaps, over her dowry. (Bardenhewer, Maria Verk., 69). And the angel having taken the figure and the form of man, came into the house and said to her: “Hail, full of grace (to whom is given grace, favoured one), the Lord is with thee.” Mary having heard the greeting words did not speak; she was troubled in spirit, since she knew not the angel, nor the cause of his coming, nor the meaning of the salutation. And the angel continued and said: “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” The Virgin understood that there was question of the coming Redeemer. But, why should she be elected from amongst women for the splendid dignity of being the mother of the Messiah, having vowed her virginity to God? (St. Augustine). Therefore, not doubting the word of Godlike Zachary, but filled with fear and astonishment, she said: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
The angel to remove Mary’s anxiety and to assure her that her virginity would be spared, answered: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” In token of the truth of his word he made known to her the conception of St. John, the miraculous pregnancy of her relative now old and sterile: “And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth; she also has conceived a son in herold age, and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: because no word shall be impossible with God.” Mary may not yet have fully understood the meaning of the heavenly message and how the maternity might be reconciled with her vow of virginity, but clinging to the first words of the angel and trusting to the Omnipotence of God she said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word.”

I don’t think the Catholic Encyclopedea is the official Church teaching on any matter.
Like the priest I asked said many scholars interpret it in the way you do but the Church does NOT have an official position on this.
I have never argued whether your interpretation is right or wrong. To me it doesn’t matter as Mary’s perpetual viginity is unquestionable.
My only objection is that you said your interpretation is the Church teaching and clearly it is not.

 

[aurora77]

OK, this thread has me confused (or just poorly catechized–I’m a product of the '80s, so please forgive me). Mary was a consecrated virgin b/f all of this happened? I’d always assumed that when she told the angel that “I know not man” meant that because she wasn’t married yet, she was still a virgin, so she couldn’t possibly get or be pregnant. The way it’s written makes it sound like present or a recent past, not the future. Then, because she did give birth to Jesus, she would remain a virgin, for that very reason. I’m getting the feeling that I was wrong–she was always intended to be a virgin, her marriage to Joseph wasn’t intended to be the typical, get married and have lots of babies marriage? Can anyone point out any references in the CCC or anything else that I can take a look at?

 

[javelin]

aurora77:

OK, this thread has me confused (or just poorly catechized–I’m a product of the '80s, so please forgive me). Mary was a consecrated virgin b/f all of this happened? I’d always assumed that when she told the angel that “I know not man” meant that because she wasn’t married yet, she was still a virgin, so she couldn’t possibly get or be pregnant. The way it’s written makes it sound like present or a recent past, not the future. Then, because she did give birth to Jesus, she would remain a virgin, for that very reason. I’m getting the feeling that I was wrong–she was always intended to be a virgin, her marriage to Joseph wasn’t intended to be the typical, get married and have lots of babies marriage? Can anyone point out any references in the CCC or anything else that I can take a look at?

The confusion is very understandable.

The only definitive Church position on the matter is that Mary was ever-virgin.

All the rest here is speculation, although that doesn’t mean it is not true. The “consecrated virgin” theory attempts to answer the “why” of her perpetual virginity, in light of her valid marriage to Joseph. It also seems to better explain Mary’s surprise and discomfort over the angel’s initial message.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

aurora77:

OK, this thread has me confused (or just poorly catechized–I’m a product of the '80s, so please forgive me). Mary was a consecrated virgin b/f all of this happened? I’d always assumed that when she told the angel that “I know not man” meant that because she wasn’t married yet, she was still a virgin, so she couldn’t possibly get or be pregnant. The way it’s written makes it sound like present or a recent past, not the future. Then, because she did give birth to Jesus, she would remain a virgin, for that very reason. I’m getting the feeling that I was wrong–she was always intended to be a virgin, her marriage to Joseph wasn’t intended to be the typical, get married and have lots of babies marriage? Can anyone point out any references in the CCC or anything else that I can take a look at?

The argument Tom presents hinges on your statement above. Since she wasn’t married and had not yet had sexual relations, she certainly could not naturally be pregnant. But would it be logical for her to think she could not get pregnant, especially when she was already betrothed, and probably less than a year from being married? The angel said she would conceive (future tense) a child. Why would current virginity make it impossible for Mary to conceive in the future, especailly considering that she was promised in marriage already?

Now look at it with the idea that not only was Mary a virgin, but that she was a consecrated virgin, meaning she had taken a vow of celibacy, as modern priests and nuns do. If Gabriel came to a woman who had promised lifelong celibacy and told that woman that she would conceive a child, there would definitely be confusion. How could I possibly ever conceive? Am I to willingly break my vow? Will a man force himself upon me? How?

It is a good argument in favor of the theroy, I think, and gives more dignity to those today who choose to live single, holy lives dedicated to God and His Church.

Peace,
javelin

 

[RCCDefender]

thistle:

The Church teaching is that Jesus had no siblings (blood or step). Therefore it does not accept what has been written in the Protoevangelium.

Can you cite this Church teaching?
Thanks!

 

[thistle]

RCCDefender:

Can you cite this Church teaching?
Thanks!

I don’t understand. All Catholics know the Church teaches Mary is ever virgin so Jesus had no brothers or sisters.

 

[javelin]

RCCDefender:

Can you cite this Church teaching?
Thanks!

As regards blood-siblings (other children of Mary):

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Catechism of the Catholic Churc #499-507:

** Mary - “ever-virgin”**

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160

Mary’s virginal motherhood in God’s plan

502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.

503 Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161

504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary’s womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ’s humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From “his fullness” as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164

505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165 Participation in the divine life arises “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”.166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit’s gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary’s virginal motherhood.

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt”, and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169

507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170

There is no official Church teaching that I know of on whether Jesus had half brothers and/or sisters. This may have been possible if Joseph was a widower and had children from his previous marriage.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

thistle:

I don’t understand. All Catholics know the Church teaches Mary is ever virgin so Jesus had no brothers or sisters.

You said “blood or step”. Mary could remain a virgin while Jesus had step-brothers/sisters if Joseph had any children from a previous marriage to a woman who passed away.

After looking at it again, I think your “no step siblings” statement is what RCCDefender was questioning.

Peace,
javelin

 

[RCCDefender]

javelin:

After looking at it again, I think your “no step siblings” statement is what RCCDefender was questioning.

Peace,
javelin

Yes, this is what I meant. I’m sorry, I was not very clear on that.

 

[Tom]

aurora77:

OK, this thread has me confused (or just poorly catechized–I’m a product of the '80s, so please forgive me). Mary was a consecrated virgin b/f all of this happened? I’d always assumed that when she told the angel that “I know not man” meant that because she wasn’t married yet, she was still a virgin, so she couldn’t possibly get or be pregnant. The way it’s written makes it sound like present or a recent past, not the future. Then, because she did give birth to Jesus, she would remain a virgin, for that very reason. I’m getting the feeling that I was wrong–she was always intended to be a virgin, her marriage to Joseph wasn’t intended to be the typical, get married and have lots of babies marriage? Can anyone point out any references in the CCC or anything else that I can take a look at?

If you read the annunciation from the perspective of Mary, and not our 21st century understanding you will get a clearer view of what I am saying. Remember we know the outcome because it is in our past, Mary is experiencing it without knowledge of the outcome. There are several things we know about Mary prior to the annunciation. She was a good and pious Jew, she understood the Law. She understood how babies were conceived. She was betrothed to Joseph, which meant she would wed him within the year.
One thing we must find out is if she planned to have a normal sexual relationship with Joseph or if she was a dedicated virgin, (please note I say nothing about any Temple). A review of Numbers chapter 30 shows us that there were those who dedicated their lives to God and vowed virginity and celibacy, although difficult for us to imagine in our sexually oriented society, it was prevalent enough in ancient times to establish Laws to govern them.
Mary had no conception of what the angel would say to her, she had no idea she would be the mother of the king of the Jews, she had no idea the child would be conceived virginally without the “seed” of a male human, she had no idea the Holy Spirit would overshadow her and it would actually be God who was the father of the child. How could she have known, hence her consternation. From this perspective pick up Luke 1, 26:
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb

Here is where the real question arises. If Mary were planning to have a normal sexual relationship with Joseph she would not have been surprised at this would she? Would you? You’re betrothed to Joseph, she’ll be married within a year. Would she think the angel was talking about immediately? Or would she think he was talking about after she was wed to Joseph? Perhaps she forgot she was getting married? Unlikely, but possible. One poster thought she would think the conception was imminemt, and I ask why? What in Scripture would make you feel this? Logically if I were Mary and an Angel told me I was going to conceive a child I would never doubt he was talking about after the wedding and after my husband and I had sexual relations. What would you think?

 

[Tom]

www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 31 and shalt bring forth a son;

This might be a surprise, a pleasant one since male children were desired. I probably would have said, “oh great a boy” but, no, Mary didn’t mention the son part.
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 31 and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

This would have been confusing, God is with us? I definitely would have asked about His name.
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High;

Although it sounds impressive to us, it would not have been “So” impressive since ALL male children around their 12th birthday receive their Bar Mitzvah, which literally means “son of the most high”. This BTW is what prefigures our sacrament of confirmation.
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 32 and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

O.K. WOW here’s a shocker for Mary. Her son is to be the king of the Jews! Keep in mind the Jews were expecting a earthly king to conquer their enemies, not a heavenly king.
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

This is according to prophet, she would have been shocked, imagine how you would have felt. There are so many possible questions here it’s unimaginable, the only thing which should not have been a question for someone betrothed to be married, who planned to have a normal sexual relationship would be “How shall this be done”. Here’s Gabriel standing there saying Mary!!! Wake up!!! How shall you become pregnant? What kind of a question is that? She should have thought the angel was talking about when she and Joseph were wed, wouldn’t you?
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Mary is questioning a future event, the child’s future conception with her future condition. “I am a virgin” a statement of her vow, not of her temporary condition.

 

[Mike_O]

Tom, yours is a great and clear explanation.