Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

[IanGE]

I sometimes idly wonder how many virgins the Angel of the Lord searched for and asked - of their free will - to be miraculously impregnated by God. I envisage several who would justifiably say, “not on your Nellie, mate!” before sweet, trusting, Holy Mary humbly agreed.

 

[zz912]

There is also John 7:5: “For even His own brothers did not believe in Him.” Which would explain their absence at the foot of His cross. But then the apostles voted in Jesus’ brother James as Head of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. Why not Peter? I’ve heard the apologist reply that Christians called each other brother, so why was Peter, a brother of Christ and nominated, apparently, by Jesus, elected to the boss-ship?
According to poor old Bernadette, Mary spoke of herself as “the immaculate conception”. One off? Or was poor old Joseph denied his conjugal rights forever? The Gospels suggest not. From one (absolutely certain) virgin birth, has the celibate church taken to prize virginity and condemn the God-given gift of the sexual conception miracle? I was born in 1936 in India, where infant deaths were common so babies were baptised at eight days old. My mother could not attend my baptism because she had to be “purified” and formally “churched” a month after childbirth. Is that horrid slur on women and childbirth still on the books?
My dear old Irish Catholic Mum told us we were not to sleep with our wives the night before communion. I, too, had this Catholic idea of any sex, marital or not, to be “dirty”. After I was Born Again I saw the sexual act as a precious, beautiful HOLY gift of God and “sleeping around” sullied both God’s Holy gift and the women or men used as chattels outside (or, for that matter, inside) Marriage.
I cannot even think of accepting a concept that Mary, after Jesus’ birth, “dirtied” herself by claiming HER conjugal rights with her patient, loving husband Joseph.

First, to answer the “churching” question: It is not done very much in the Latin Rite from what I gather. But it is a special blessing for wives who have given birth. It resembles the actions of Mary going to the Temple. There doesn’t appear to be any requirement that the mother not attend the baptism. They appear unrelated. It is NOT a slur on women. Here for more info:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=587402&highlight=churching

As to answer why James became bishop of Jerusalem and not Peter, well that’s because God needed Peter elsewhere, specifically to go to Rome and eventually be martyred there. And Christ wanted His vicar to be in Rome.

As to sex, the Church has never taught that sex was anything but a great and holy gift from God, but it also has many dangers connected with it if we misuse this gift. So we must use it properly, within marriage. The teaching your mum gave about sex the night before communion was not to state that sex was dirty, but that it is a way of “fasting” before coming to the Lord and being one with Him. It is a pious tradition that some pursue to deny themselves so that they have their attention focused on the Lord.

(Now if someone taught you that sex was dirty, they were not teaching you from the heart of the Church.)

To Mary and Joseph, actually the Gospels imply that they did NOT have conjugal relations. Look again at the Annunciation, and carefully read Mary’s response. Remember, at the time of the Annunciation, Mary was already MARRIED to Joseph, and had not yet entered his home. She was a married woman. And when the angel tells her that she will bear a child, what does she say? She asks HOW this could be? If she was entered into a normal, conjugal marriage, Mary would have NO doubt HOW she would conceive a child. But she wasn’t. She was in a celibate marriage because she was consecrated to God at her birth, and was marrying Joseph so that he could protect her, and she could take care of him.

Also, to assume that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, you REALLY don’t understand the enormity of the the Incarnation and the majesty of God. You REALLY need to go and re-read about the Ark of the Old Covenant, and read about the gate that the Lord passes through. NO MAN shall pass through the gate that God passes through, and NO MAN may touch the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[zz912]

I sometimes idly wonder how many virgins the Angel of the Lord searched for and asked - of their free will - to be miraculously impregnated by God. I envisage several who would justifiably say, “not on your Nellie, mate!” before sweet, trusting, Holy Mary humbly agreed.

None.

Two reasons: 1. God knows everything, so He would have known their answer before they gave it. 2. The Church explicitly teaches that Mary immaculate conception was a singular grace given.

 

[mangy_dog]

I am completely confident that no amount of worldly speculation, carnal opinions or seared concupiscience will ever change the truth:

-Jesus Chirst is the one, true Lord and God of all.
-Was not married.
-Did not have any other blood brothers or sisters.
-Ascended into heaven and return in glory to judge the living and the dead…etc.etc.

And that the Theotokos:

-Remained a Virgin before, during and after giving birth to Jesus Christ…the one, true Lord and God of all.
-Did not have anymore children born of her Viriginal Womb.
-Is the Immaculate Conception-born without the stain of original sin and remained sinless throughout her earthly life.
-Assumed into heaven body and soul.

Nothing will ever change these (and other) truths. Of that I am certain.
I don’t need any other proof than the 3 pillars of the deposit of faith of the Catholic Church.

To the faithful-no proof is necessary
To the unbelievers-no proof is enough…only God’s grace will bring them to His mercy.

 

[Mystophilus]

No one bangs on the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches for having even greater devotion to Mary than the Catholic.

The Orthodox were too far away to be a threat or a target, and thus escaped the vicious political feud which appeared under the religious label of “Protestant versus Catholic” in the sixteenth century, and so the sort of hostile rhetoric used in that feud was not developed for them. Occasionally, one does see Orthodox being attacked by Protestants who fail to discriminate between Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Irishgal49]

As to answer why James became bishop of Jerusalem and not Peter, well that’s because God needed Peter elsewhere, specifically to go to Rome and eventually be martyred there. And Christ wanted His vicar to be in Rome.

To Mary and Joseph, actually the Gospels imply that they did NOT have conjugal relations. Look again at the Annunciation, and carefully read Mary’s response. Remember, at the time of the Annunciation, Mary was already MARRIED to Joseph, and had not yet entered his home. She was a married woman. And when the angel tells her that she will bear a child, what does she say? She asks HOW this could be? If she was entered into a normal, conjugal marriage, Mary would have NO doubt HOW she would conceive a child. But she wasn’t. She was in a celibate marriage because she was consecrated to God at her birth, and was marrying Joseph so that he could protect her, and she could take care of him.

It has long been tradition that James was Jesus’ brother. Do with that what you will, mix it up, change the language, work it around to suit you I don’t care. James was the brother of Jesus. Whether that was step-brother or brother I don’t care but he was His brother.

You obviously are giving some seriously false information. Joseph and Mary were NOT married. Luke 2–that beautiful nativity story says very clearly that Joseph also went up from Galilee…with Mary his ESPOUSED wife. They were engaged. Now engagement is a legally binding contract in Judaism that’s why he contemplated divorcing her quietly because in order to break an engagement you had to give the women a “get” which is a document breaking your pledge to marry her. Unlike today, engagements were very serious and legally binding. In another Gospel it said that “before they came together” Came together to do what? Play tiddly winks? Before they came together as a married couple Mary was found to be pregnant. It speaks clearly they were engaged.

Now I never give suggestions to those I’m debating but since I’m a Catholic I will. The Catholic Church could argue that the reason they never consummated their marriage was that once a woman was pregnant (and the community would have assumed it was by Joseph) they were ineligible for a Temple marriage. Flat out. My ex-husband is Jewish so I spend 11 years in the Jewish community and I asked all of these things. But, being engaged is still a moral and legally binding contract back then. The modern marriage ceremony merely took the engagement ceremony and the marriage ceremony and rolled them into one. The first half asks if you will, the second half has you make the promises. So they were bound to each other but God, being over all that, spiritually united them in a way that no one else could so earthly matters with marriage are not that vital. But the record is clear, they were considered engaged. And I guess if someone wants to nit pik and say since engagement was legally binding they were married, well it’s 1/2 and 1/2 so you figure it out. All of the Gospels (3 anyway) that talk about the birth of Jesus are clear on the couple’s status. Why would Joseph even consider divorce if Mary was a consecrated virgin? Wouldn’t he have thought of rape or something else? No he was pretty clear she had sex and he wanted out.

The message about sex with regards to Mary merely states “until after Jesus is born”. That’s what Joseph was told. If it was a forever deal it would have been made clear, “do not have relations with her”. I think the wording says it all. They had a sexual marriage after the birth of Jesus.

Whatever the opinion I have the utmost love and admiration for St Joseph. I feel he doesn’t get near enough credit. He loved and fathered his own God. He played with him, talked to him, maybe he taught him to fish, told him jokes, loved him. How amazing.

I don’t think we will ever know the answers to these questions. I just don’t see sexuality in marriage as beneath our Blessed Mother. She is the ultimate wife and mother and putting her beyond the reach or ability of a wife and mother to emulate removes her more and more from us. She is rightly above all humans but yet, she is human. I love her very much and I have a huge statue of her in my living room on a table with flowers. I believe she may have had other children or raised Joseph’s children. She certainly would have embraced and loved them. Why weren’t they at the foot of the cross? Do you know what the mortality rate was then? People died in their 30’s and 40’s. People died of a simple infection or bad cold or flu. Her family could have simply been deceased. Or maybe they moved away. It wasn’t like you could hop a train or plane and be home for the death of Jesus in a few hours! Jesus did what he did not to confirm she wasn’t a biological mother to anyone else, but as a spiritual endowment. He gave her to St John to represent how she would become the mother of the Church. It was symbolic and St John made sure she was loved and cared for in her grief (thankfully 3 days later she was joyous again) at seeing Jesus die the way He did.

That’s my take. Now it’s time for tea and breakfast–blessings to all,

Lorrie

 

[IanGE]

To Mary and Joseph, actually the Gospels imply that they did NOT have conjugal relations. Look again at the Annunciation, and carefully read Mary’s response. Remember, at the time of the Annunciation, Mary was already MARRIED to Joseph, and had not yet entered his home. She was a married woman. And when the angel tells her that she will bear a child, what does she say? She asks HOW this could be? If she was entered into a normal, conjugal marriage, Mary would have NO doubt HOW she would conceive a child. But she wasn’t. She was in a celibate marriage because she was consecrated to God at her birth, and was marrying Joseph so that he could protect her, and she could take care of him.

Also, to assume that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, you REALLY don’t understand the enormity of the the Incarnation and the majesty of God. You REALLY need to go and re-read about the Ark of the Old Covenant, and read about the gate that the Lord passes through. NO MAN shall pass through the gate that God passes through, and NO MAN may touch the Ark of the Covenant.

Odd that both Mark, Peter’s amenuensis, and the beloved John, make no mention of Mary’s virgin birth. Matthew, of course, is considered to have written his Good News to the Jews, hence the geneology of Jesus and the importance of stressing the fulifillment of Isaaiah’s messianic prophecy (Is.7:4); “the virgin will be with child.” Both Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1: 26 describe Mary as Pledged (espoused) to be married to Joseph, not even living with Joseph. Matthew relates (1:18) "but BEFORE they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. It took an angel of the Lord to put him wise and take her home as his wife. Matthew also tells us (1:25): “But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.” During my 45 “good Catholic” years I FEARED God. The last 31 years I LOVE God, the ENORMITY of Almighty God being MY loving Father through Jesus still staggers me!
In fact I tremble at the times when the LORD killed people for touching the ark (seventy people of Beth Shemesh cos they looked in to ensure it was really the Ark being returned by the Philistines (1 Sam 6:17). And 2 Sam 6:6, where Uzzah took hold of the ark because the oxen stumbled and the Lord deaded him. Plus roaring at Moses to take off his sandals cos he’s standing on Holy Ground. THAT was the enormous gulf that God had placed between His People and Himself. It took the sacrifice of His only begotten son to bridge that gap so that He comes and sits on the arm of my sofa and chats.
BTW, so does Mary!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, there may have been many writings about other real brothers and sisters in those other early gospels written in the first three centuries–the ones that were banned and destroyed and not allowed in the canon because the beliefs differed. They were also written by witnesses of the events, the era. Oops, logical fallacy here. First, you ‘assume’ that such writings existed. Second, you assume that those ‘writings’ were banned, destroyed, and ‘not allowed’ because the beliefs’ differered. And again, how can you claim they were ‘written by witnesses’ if IN FACT THEY WERE BANNED AND DESTROYED? Wait, you’re just ‘assuming’ again.

Your ‘there MAY have been’ argument can also be turned on you:

There MAY have been even STRONGER documents which had sworn testimony that Mary was ever Virgin, but they were lost and destroyed, NOT because they ‘differed’ from the canon (and again, is the canon ‘of men’ or of God?" Please answer this; a lot depends on whether you accept the authority of the Church). . .but because things get lost and destroyed for all sorts of reasons. In other words, just because something might have existed and was ‘lost’ doesn’t mean it was DELIBERATELY suppressed. . .

But above all, the ‘proving a negative’ by your ‘may have existed’ is an example of logical fallacy.

But how will we ever know what they said? You mean those imaginary documents? That you ASSUME ‘might have existed’ and claim they MUST have existed because since there is no RECORD of them, it Must be that they were
They were gotten rid of, snuffed out Yep, I knew it. The proof they existed is that they don;t EXIST. . And Christians who followed those books for generations were told to no longer do so and to not pass on their words to the future. And the proof for this assertion is… . that there is no proof! Therefore, it must have happened!!

…
And, of course, after Jesus died and rose again Mary went off somewhere in hiding and kept quiet and out of sight. Or was kept quiet and out of sight. And the proof is that we aren’t reading her ‘gospel of Mary’ because naturally, the only way she could POSSIBLY have communicated with people was by writing things down. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be that she spoke to St Luke (I mean, how did he know she ‘kept these things in her heart’, right?)

And of course, since the apostles were already teaching through Sacred Tradition and Scripture that Mary was a virgin, and there was absolutely no mention of any other children (think about Jesus being lost in the Temple at age 12. Where were all those other kids? Not mentioned. . .) Why would anybody NEED to have what was already accepted rehashed? For example, we know there were 12 apostles. Therefore, there was no need for big discussions over whether the Lord had 15 apostles, and hey, he MIGHT have had, but three of them were ‘wiped out’ because they were WOMEN!!!

Since the teaching of perpetual virginity wasn’t official until the 2nd or 3rd Century, and some “early church fathers” did disagree with it, it leaves space to ponder this question and allow for more information. Again, the 2nd century (and it was ALWAYS Official, it didn’t become official with a rubber stamp! Did Scripture only become 'official" when the canon was proclaimed??? The day before, were not the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John authentic Scripture? How about a week before? A year? A hundred years? Gosh.

Some say we have no evidence she had other children. We don’t have proof that she did not, either. Yes we do, The Holy Spirit has consistently taught through the Church, the apostles, Scripture and Sacred Tradition, that she did NOT. You just don’t want to accept it.
And we do have those words in the gospel about his siblings. Even tho some leap to argue it means “cousin”, those words are tangible and real. And the 21st century DEFINITION is not the same as that of AD 33. And all those people ‘mentioned’ are proved, in Scripture ITSELF, to be CHILDREN OF SOMEBODY ELSE, and NOT MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS>

I would hope Christians would be open to keep learning the truth about their religion and the people who populate it, if more information surfaces or is studied further. We HAVE the truth and we are trying to defend it from PEOPLE WHO ARE MISINFORMED or are trying to CLAIM A FALSEHOOD AS TRUTH.
That one snipped of papyrus in the news a few weeks ago that implied Mary M might have been an apostle, or even-- a wife…caused an uproar.

But if it is true, would you not want to know?what uproar?

Surely, if the church discovered that Mary did indeed have other biological children–which is a possibility-NO IT IS NOT-the Church would promptly change its teaching on the subject.NO
We no longer teach the world is flat.THE CHURCH NEVER TAUGHT THIS, AGAIN, you were MISINFORMED. We are always finding out new information about people and history.

And if it is true, I trust you would not want to oppress or turn away from this truth just because it differs from what you believed 'til now.

Again, I am not the one who is trying to oppress or turn away from truth!!! I’m upholding it!!!

 

[Truthstalker]

I’ve looked at the arguments on both sides regarding the sibling question. I think a fair argument can be made either way, but the Protestant position is simpler and takes less energy to sustain (that, in itself, does not make it right).

It is difficult to discuss this without people thinking either you are deifying Mary or somehow dishonoring her (thus, some of the heat here). The root question is the authority of the Catholic Church. It says certain things. It does not say other things. Would it matter? Yes, because it would change Catholic teaching. But has the perpetual virginity of Mary been infallibly defined? If so, when? Or are Catholics free to believe that Jesus had maternal siblings? Or is it taught as true, yet not as a mortal sin or something if you disbelieve it?

On what basis was the teaching constructed? A primary source for the teaching seems to be a document that was placed on the list of banned books by Pope Gelasius, the ProtoEvangelium of James. What else? What other testimony do we have from back then? The testimony in the Gospels seems to lean towards it being obvious one way or the other, depending on how you read it. To me it is possibly indeterminate on that evidence.

 

[Irishgal49]

The more you have to create or concoct to explain away things or redefine them says a lot to me. “Brothers and sister” really means cousin. Her being engaged was really married even though Luke is positive they were “espoused”–which means engaged. The story gets larger, more astounding, and more unbelievable --almost like a game of spiritual telephone. To me it doesn’t matter at all. Tradition is not in cement, it’s just what was most commonly thought. What insults me is people saying it’s degrading the Blessed Mother to say she was united with Joseph in marriage and had other children. How outrageous and what an insult to all those who are the married faithful. This constant obsession about how virginity is somehow better and superior to marriage flies in the face of JPII in Theology of the Body.

I believe she either raised stepchildren or had children or the Scripture writers wouldn’t have called them siblings. Sing about translations and make up new translations, but it’s there and I choose to think it’s probably got validity.

 

[panevino]

Consider
Abraham/Sarah(in old age. gen 17:16-19) - 1 son Isaac
God/Mary(virgin) - 1 son Jesus

Sarah - mother of nations gen17:15 / isa 51:2
Mary? Mother? - John 19:27, rev12:17, luke1:43, gen3:15
Isaac - covenant gen17:19

Gen21:6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, [so that] all that hear will laugh with me.

Luke1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.48 …behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

significant parallels with these women and thier sons.

 

[zz912]

It has long been tradition that James was Jesus’ brother. Do with that what you will, mix it up, change the language, work it around to suit you I don’t care. James was the brother of Jesus. Whether that was step-brother or brother I don’t care but he was His brother.

You obviously are giving some seriously false information. Joseph and Mary were NOT married. Luke 2–that beautiful nativity story says very clearly that Joseph also went up from Galilee…with Mary his ESPOUSED wife. They were engaged. Now engagement is a legally binding contract in Judaism that’s why he contemplated divorcing her quietly because in order to break an engagement you had to give the women a “get” which is a document breaking your pledge to marry her. Unlike today, engagements were very serious and legally binding. In another Gospel it said that “before they came together” Came together to do what? Play tiddly winks? Before they came together as a married couple Mary was found to be pregnant. It speaks clearly they were engaged.

Now I never give suggestions to those I’m debating but since I’m a Catholic I will. The Catholic Church could argue that the reason they never consummated their marriage was that once a woman was pregnant (and the community would have assumed it was by Joseph) they were ineligible for a Temple marriage. Flat out. My ex-husband is Jewish so I spend 11 years in the Jewish community and I asked all of these things. But, being engaged is still a moral and legally binding contract back then. The modern marriage ceremony merely took the engagement ceremony and the marriage ceremony and rolled them into one. The first half asks if you will, the second half has you make the promises. So they were bound to each other but God, being over all that, spiritually united them in a way that no one else could so earthly matters with marriage are not that vital. But the record is clear, they were considered engaged. And I guess if someone wants to nit pik and say since engagement was legally binding they were married, well it’s 1/2 and 1/2 so you figure it out. All of the Gospels (3 anyway) that talk about the birth of Jesus are clear on the couple’s status. Why would Joseph even consider divorce if Mary was a consecrated virgin? Wouldn’t he have thought of rape or something else? No he was pretty clear she had sex and he wanted out.

The message about sex with regards to Mary merely states “until after Jesus is born”. That’s what Joseph was told. If it was a forever deal it would have been made clear, “do not have relations with her”. I think the wording says it all. They had a sexual marriage after the birth of Jesus.

Whatever the opinion I have the utmost love and admiration for St Joseph. I feel he doesn’t get near enough credit. He loved and fathered his own God. He played with him, talked to him, maybe he taught him to fish, told him jokes, loved him. How amazing.

I don’t think we will ever know the answers to these questions. I just don’t see sexuality in marriage as beneath our Blessed Mother. She is the ultimate wife and mother and putting her beyond the reach or ability of a wife and mother to emulate removes her more and more from us. She is rightly above all humans but yet, she is human. I love her very much and I have a huge statue of her in my living room on a table with flowers. I believe she may have had other children or raised Joseph’s children. She certainly would have embraced and loved them. Why weren’t they at the foot of the cross? Do you know what the mortality rate was then? People died in their 30’s and 40’s. People died of a simple infection or bad cold or flu. Her family could have simply been deceased. Or maybe they moved away. It wasn’t like you could hop a train or plane and be home for the death of Jesus in a few hours! Jesus did what he did not to confirm she wasn’t a biological mother to anyone else, but as a spiritual endowment. He gave her to St John to represent how she would become the mother of the Church. It was symbolic and St John made sure she was loved and cared for in her grief (thankfully 3 days later she was joyous again) at seeing Jesus die the way He did.

That’s my take. Now it’s time for tea and breakfast–blessings to all,

Lorrie

You claim to be “Catholic without the adjectives”, but reject Church teaching? Very strange. What other teachings do you reject?

You obviously missed my point about being married. Mary was CONFUSED by the angel saying that she would conceive a child. But she was legally MARRIED, and was only waiting to enter into Joseph’s house. If someone were to tell me when I was engaged to my wife that I would bear children, I certainly wouldn’t have been surprised or confused.

 

[zz912]

Consider
Abraham/Sarah(in old age. gen 17:16-19) - 1 son Isaac
God/Mary(virgin) - 1 son Jesus

Sarah - mother of nations gen17:15 / isa 51:2
Mary? Mother? - John 19:27, rev12:17, luke1:43, gen3:15
Isaac - covenant gen17:19

Gen21:6 And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, [so that] all that hear will laugh with me.

Luke1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.48 …behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

significant parallels with these women and thier sons.

There are more than that.

Both Jesus and Isaac, only sons, both carried their wood up to the mount for their sacrifice (Isaac was spared though). And some think that the mount Isaac climbed was the same that Jesus was later crucified on.

 

[zz912]

The more you have to create or concoct to explain away things or redefine them says a lot to me. “Brothers and sister” really means cousin. Her being engaged was really married even though Luke is positive they were “espoused”–which means engaged. The story gets larger, more astounding, and more unbelievable --almost like a game of spiritual telephone. To me it doesn’t matter at all. Tradition is not in cement, it’s just what was most commonly thought. What insults me is people saying it’s degrading the Blessed Mother to say she was united with Joseph in marriage and had other children. How outrageous and what an insult to all those who are the married faithful. This constant obsession about how virginity is somehow better and superior to marriage flies in the face of JPII in Theology of the Body.

I believe she either raised stepchildren or had children or the Scripture writers wouldn’t have called them siblings. Sing about translations and make up new translations, but it’s there and I choose to think it’s probably got validity.

Again, why do you reject Church teaching, especially about Tradition changing, which it does not.

And should re-read Scripture again. Both Jesus and St. Paul speak about how giving up the great gifts of sexuality and fertility for God is an even greater good. It doesn’t mean that sexuality is bad, it is a great good. But sacrificing sexuality for the greater glory of God is even better.

 

[zz912]

I’ve looked at the arguments on both sides regarding the sibling question. I think a fair argument can be made either way, but the Protestant position is simpler and takes less energy to sustain (that, in itself, does not make it right).

It is difficult to discuss this without people thinking either you are deifying Mary or somehow dishonoring her (thus, some of the heat here). The root question is the authority of the Catholic Church. It says certain things. It does not say other things. Would it matter? Yes, because it would change Catholic teaching. But has the perpetual virginity of Mary been infallibly defined? If so, when? Or are Catholics free to believe that Jesus had maternal siblings? Or is it taught as true, yet not as a mortal sin or something if you disbelieve it?

On what basis was the teaching constructed? A primary source for the teaching seems to be a document that was placed on the list of banned books by Pope Gelasius, the ProtoEvangelium of James. What else? What other testimony do we have from back then? The testimony in the Gospels seems to lean towards it being obvious one way or the other, depending on how you read it. To me it is possibly indeterminate on that evidence.

Yes it has been infallibly defined. (off the top of my head - Lateran Council of 649, Council of Constantinople III - 680) No, Catholics are not free to believe that Jesus had maternal siblings.

I’m curious, when did your particular denomination change its teaching on this? (All of the first Reformers all believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity)

 

[zz912]

Well, there may have been many writings about other real brothers and sisters in those other early gospels written in the first three centuries–the ones that were banned and destroyed and not allowed in the canon because the beliefs differed. They were also written by witnesses of the events, the era.

But how will we ever know what they said?
They were gotten rid of, snuffed out. And Christians who followed those books for generations were told to no longer do so and to not pass on their words to the future.

This is a baseless point. First, most of the documents we have from the first centuries were written to correct or argue against various heresies. So we know quite a bit from these claimed “destroyed” writings just from these Church Fathers. Second, we have a LOT of these heretical writings. Most weren’t burned. They were kept for posterity so that we would have a record of them and the writings of the Fathers would make sense.

 

[panevino]

… This constant obsession about how virginity is somehow better and superior to marriage flies in the face of JPII in Theology of the Body.
…

But isn’t it implied to be the case for some saints by Jesus.
And I would of thought that being the mother of God would likely place her on that side of the fence.

Mat19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Mat19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Rev14:14

 

[panevino]

There are more than that.

Both Jesus and Isaac, only sons, both carried their wood up to the mount for their sacrifice (Isaac was spared though). And some think that the mount Isaac climbed was the same that Jesus was later crucified on.

It’s amazing isn’t it.
I have more written down, but not with me and its been a while.

 

[Faithdancer]

Which is a greater sign for Israel? A consecrated temple virgin (for life) supernaturally with child or a woman who has had many natural children with her husband but claiming that her first is the Son of God?

Many people want Mary to be more like them. That is why they claim she is a sinner and that she had more children. They can not believe that God would make his mother so special as to have her set apart for himself, unique in history. They prefer to believe she was a sinner like everyone else.

“Ask for a sign from the Lord, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky! … Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”
(Is 7:11-14)

Agree, and there still seem to be many nuns around who practice lifelong chastity. Why is it so hard to believe that Mary could not do the same?

 

[JerryZ]

There is also John 7:5: “For even His own brothers did not believe in Him.” Which would explain their absence at the foot of His cross. But then the apostles voted in Jesus’ brother James as Head of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. Why not Peter? I’ve heard the apologist reply that Christians called each other brother, so why was Peter, a brother of Christ and nominated, apparently, by Jesus, elected to the boss-ship?
According to poor old Bernadette, Mary spoke of herself as “the immaculate conception”. One off? Or was poor old Joseph denied his conjugal rights forever? The Gospels suggest not. From one (absolutely certain) virgin birth, has the celibate church taken to prize virginity and condemn the God-given gift of the sexual conception miracle? I was born in 1936 in India, where infant deaths were common so babies were baptised at eight days old. My mother could not attend my baptism because she had to be “purified” and formally “churched” a month after childbirth. Is that horrid slur on women and childbirth still on the books?
My dear old Irish Catholic Mum told us we were not to sleep with our wives the night before communion. I, too, had this Catholic idea of any sex, marital or not, to be “dirty”. After I was Born Again I saw the sexual act as a precious, beautiful HOLY gift of God and “sleeping around” sullied both God’s Holy gift and the women or men used as chattels outside (or, for that matter, inside) Marriage.
I cannot even think of accepting a concept that Mary, after Jesus’ birth, “dirtied” herself by claiming HER conjugal rights with her patient, loving husband Joseph.

1.- Peter the first apostol was no relation whatsoever to Jesus. His name originally was Simon Bar Jonas literarily Simon the son of Jonas and he was a fisherman.
Jesus changed his name to Peter when he gave him the keys of heaven and promised to build his church on him.

2.- The Immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus birth but rather it is HER conception that was immaculate in the sense that she was preserved from the original sin.
When She replied to Bernadette on who she was at the behest of the bishop the answer she gave was: “I am the immaculate conception”
Why would GOD do this? Consider the ramification she was going to be the vessel that would bring forth the saviour of this world.

3.- As for the hipotesis of Joseph having intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus we can only speculate, but one thing is certain if husband and wife do enter into the marital act with the hope to bring forth life the church teaches that it is not “dirty” it is after all a gift from GOD.
Personally I believe Joseph would have not requested to enforce his marital prerrogatives from Mary because he was well aware of the monumental task he had been assigned by GOD when the angel spoke to him.

4.- Also one very important note to make is that in the ancient hebrew and aramaic languages there are no separate words to describe “brother” and “cousin” they have only one.
Also in their culture the care of the father and mother were of considerable importance and fall squarely on the family, this is what the command requires when it says “Honor your father and mother” If Jesus had blood brothers after his departure from this world it would befall on them to take care of the mother. He was after all the first born.
But what does Jesus do at the cross in Calvary?
He says to John the apostol “Son Behold your Mother” thereby entrusting her to him from that point on. That would have been totally contrary to the law and an affront to the “Brothers” if there were any.
All these little nuggets point to the fact that indeed Jesus was the only son of Mary.