A Question for Catholics

[prodromos]

They are not children of Mary. They are children of Joseph.

 

[prodromos]

Well, you have to assume that Joseph had been married before he married Mary. And if that were the case, such children would not be related to Jesus at all, as their father was Joseph, and their mother the former wife of Joseph that you assume there was, whereas the Father of Jesus is God, and His mother Mary.

As Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, all his children are legally brothers and sisters of Jesus.

 

[Lukaris]

I posted this in another, similar thread:



St. Irenaeus wrote an overall account of the Apostolic preaching in the mid to later 2nd century and attests to the tradition of the Virgin Mary as the new Eve ( chapter 32):


33. And just as through a disobedient virgin man was stricken down and fell into death, so through the Virgin who was obedient to the Word of God man was reanimated and received life.139 For the Lord came to seek again the sheep that 100was lost;140 and man it was that was lost: and for this cause there was not made some other formation,141 but in that same which had its descent from Adam He preserved the likeness of the (first) formation.142 For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin’s intercessor,143 and by a virgin’s obedience undo and put away the disobedience of a virgin.

St. Irenaeus: Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching - Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

www.ccel.org


Later he explains the meaning of Isaiah 11:1-10in that the rod of Jesse is from the Virgin Mary ( chapter 58):


By these words he states that He was born from her who was of the race of David and of Abraham. For Jesse was the descendant of Abraham, and the father of David; (and David’s) descendant the virgin was who conceived Christ. Now (as to) the rod: for this cause also Moses with221 a rod showed the mighty works to Pharaoh: and with other men also the rod is a sign of rule. And by flower he means His flesh;222 for from spirit it budded forth, as we have said before.


It seemed basically understood that Mary is ever Virgin. The chapter numbers I cited were numbered by a printed translation I have but appear one different from the online account.


Update, I didn’t mean to double post but meant for another thread where it seemed convenient for a similar reason. I accidentally double posted.

 

[RileyG]

It would have been obvious to Christians in the early Church who met Mary and any of Jesus' brothers and sisters, that Mary was not old enough to be mother to any of Jesus' siblings. There is no suggestion in early Church writing that Mary was mother to anyone but Jesus and it isn't until 3 centuries later that a guy named Helvidius decided that he knew better than the Church. The Ecumenical Councils only made definitive statements to defend what had always been taught by the Church against false teaching that had been introduced. Although Mary's ever-virginity was not a doctrinal issue, it was still the truth and considered worthy of defense.

amen !!

 

[RileyG]

Mary didn't have any other children. Jesus' brothers and sisters were all children of Joseph by his former wife.
My point on it having no bearing on the Gospel is that the Gospel writers did not record information which had no bearing on the Gospel. You interpret Matthew as doing the contrary.

Yup. Well said.

 

[tall73]

It is clear that the implication is he did not wait after that.

Only according to modern sex-soaked Western culture.

In their own time and culture it would be usual for a betrothed couple to consummate the marriage when the betrothal was at an end. God said that he should not be afraid to take Mary as his wife.

There is no reason to characterize normal marital relations as modern sex-soaked Western culture.

I agree the grammar is not decisive. If you want to argue that Mary's situation was unique we would all agree. But suggesting that it would be sex-crazed to have sex with your spouse when you got married is a poor argument.

 

[prodromos]

There is no reason to characterize normal marital relations as modern sex-soaked Western culture

That isn't my argument. I am saying that the so called "natural reading of the text" being put forward is influenced by the culture we live in.

 

[tall73]

That isn't my argument. I am saying that the so called "natural reading of the text" being put forward is influenced by the culture we live in.

I don't think it is. How is it distinctly modern to consummate a marriage?

 

[tall73]

As Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, all his children are legally brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Is Joseph considered to be married to Mary by the Orthodox Church?

Holy Righteous Joseph the Betrothed

Saint Joseph the Betrothed was of the lineage of King David. He had four sons from his previous marriage: James, Judah, Joses, and Simon (or Symeon), and three daughters: Esther, Martha, and Salome, who was the mother of Saint John the Theologian. After he became a widower, Saint Joseph led a life…

www.oca.org

My understanding is that the Catholic church does accept that they were married, though without consummating the marriage.

 

[prodromos]

Is Joseph considered to be married to Mary by the Orthodox Church?

They were betrothed, not married. Betrothal is still legally binding, to separate would require divorce.

 

[prodromos]

I don't think it is. How is it distinctly modern to consummate a marriage?

It is distinctly modern to not recognise the alternative.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

thank you for your response it was thoughtful and respectful. I agree with you that we need to see it from God's point of view and what things mean to God. That being said, I am not where you are at. The issue of honoring your mother and honoring Mary was not something I ever thought about as a protestant, until recently. Not that I hated Mary, just did not worship Her. I must say I disagree with on too many things in this article. Sex and why it was created is one of them. I don't believe that is God's view of things.

"Can you imagine the howls from hell for all eternity if Mary had other children? "

This is actually a very good argument in your favor. but one could also make the case for it being blaspheme for Mary to be called the new EVE. the seem like incest. I have been wrestling with the Idea that Mary is the wife of God. That seems more constant, but does have problem with Joseph share the same woman as God. That is bizarre and werid at the same time. The whole thing is weird. why would God co-opt someone else bride and then tell Him to take care of her His entire life? Just to weird when you think about it. I am not were you are at. Just don't see it. I thing that all doctrine is suppose to help up glorify God I not sure even after you explanation that honoring Mary does honor God. I see that your view is out of respect for her which you have and abundance of. And maybe as protestants we need to honor her a little more, but I can't go that far without more evidence.

I believe you are wrestling with God my friend.
It seems that I have taken you as far as I can go with arguments from my own understanding
It is not my purpose in life or eternity to subdue you to myself, only to testify of my God and what He has done. I was a most horrible sinner and a lousy Christian when I first started.

God is faithful and true, and He will complete the work He began in you if you let Him. The spiritual battle is a battle of wills. Do we submit to God’s will or insist on our own? I pray you say not my will but thine be done, and wrestle like Jacob. Do not give in to naysayers that say your struggle is imagined. Hold on to the fight and say like Jacob did, “I will not let you go, save thou bless me”.

I understand the thoughts about incest. I look at it as God is triune. He did not marry His daughter in an incestual relationship. Mary is daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. Her relationship to God is pure, not incestual.

The Bible likens Jesus to Adam. It says through one man, Adam, all died and through one man, Christ, all were brought to life
Eve disobeyed and all died. Mary obeyed and she brought forth the Savior. That is the analogy.

There are so many other things from scripture that I could tell you if you are willing. I will pray for you as you seek and wrestle with God

I was once where you are. I wrestled with God for 16 years before He blessed me, but once He did, there was no denial

 

[tall73]

It is distinctly modern to not recognise the alternative.

You mean in regards to the specific case of Mary?

Or that generally people would often be betrothed, not married, and not have sex, in a perpetual state?

 

[prodromos]

You mean in regards to the specific case of Mary?

Or that generally people would often be betrothed, not married, and not have sex, in a perpetual state?

The former.
Mary had God residing in her womb for 9 months and people seem to think that a righteous man like Joseph would not think twice about putting his seed where God had recently made His throne. It reflects a lack a sense of sacredness. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, he was told to remove his sandals because not just the bush, but the earth surrounding the bush was holy ground.
There was nothing normal about their circumstances. They were raising the Son of God in their household, plus if Mary and Joseph went on to have other children, it would weaken the claim in the Gospels that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth.

 

[tall73]

Adventist Heretic said:​

It is clear that the implication is he did not wait after that.

​

prodromos said:​

Only according to modern sex-soaked Western culture.​

​

tall73 said:​

There is no reason to characterize normal marital relations as modern sex-soaked Western culture. I agree the grammar is not decisive. If you want to argue that Mary's situation was unique we would all agree. But suggesting that it would be sex-crazed to have sex with your spouse when you got married is a poor argument.​

prodromos said:

That isn't my argument. I am saying that the so called "natural reading of the text" being put forward is influenced by the culture we live in.​

The former.
Mary had God residing in her womb for 9 months and people seem to think that a righteous man like Joseph would not think twice about putting his seed where God had recently made His throne. It reflects a lack a sense of sacredness. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, he was told to remove his sandals because not just the bush, but the earth surrounding the bush was holy ground.

This is why I wanted to clarify. I don't think it is accurate to say the interpretation of Matthew 1:24, 25 which sees Joseph knowing Mary after the birth of Jesus is based on modern western culture.

Later church fathers who argued for perpetual virginity of Mary had to refer to these statements and have a similar explanation of how they did not necessarily mean that Mary and Joseph had sex later. Which means it was not just modern readers who could take them that way. People in that time had taken them the same way.

However, in post 135 I pointed out that the early church fathers framed it around issues of sacredness:

tall73 said:

The arguments on the part of the church fathers, however, seem to center more around the notion of it being improper for anything to encroach upon the womb that God's Son inhabited. Essentially, that her womb was sacred, dedicated for that holy use, and now set apart from other use.​

And yes, I do think this would have given Joseph pause in this regard.

But I still am not sure it is decisive on the overall question because

a. Neither perpetual virginity, nor Mary's womb being now sacred, were emphasized in Scripture
b. God told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife.
c. The result of the incarnation, and sacrifice of Jesus was to bring about a state where all believers are temples of God's Holy Spirit, and yet, sex with one's spouse is not defiling, but rather disobedience to God's command, including sex outside of marriage:

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body (NKJV)​

That is why I am trying to consider all of the evidence. Certainly Mary was blessed among women to carry the Savior, and to raise Him. She was obedient. And the idea that she could be consecrated, set apart to perpetual virginity, for God's purpose, and Joseph, being righteous, cooperated in this purpose is understandable.

The later statements support this idea. But they do not agree in their particulars. And the Scriptures, written by those who would know the situation best are not clear on the point, and may indicate something else.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Adventist Heretic said:​

It is clear that the implication is he did not wait after that.

​

prodromos said:​

Only according to modern sex-soaked Western culture.​

​

tall73 said:​

There is no reason to characterize normal marital relations as modern sex-soaked Western culture. I agree the grammar is not decisive. If you want to argue that Mary's situation was unique we would all agree. But suggesting that it would be sex-crazed to have sex with your spouse when you got married is a poor argument.​

prodromos said:

That isn't my argument. I am saying that the so called "natural reading of the text" being put forward is influenced by the culture we live in.​

This is why I wanted to clarify. I don't think it is accurate to say the interpretation of Matthew 1:24, 25 which sees Joseph knowing Mary after the birth of Jesus is based on modern western culture.

Later church fathers who argued for perpetual virginity of Mary had to refer to these statements and have a similar explanation of how they did not necessarily mean that Mary and Joseph had sex later. Which means it was not just modern readers who could take them that way. People in that time had taken them the same way.

However, in post 135 I pointed out that the early church fathers framed it around issues of sacredness:

tall73 said:

The arguments on the part of the church fathers, however, seem to center more around the notion of it being improper for anything to encroach upon the womb that God's Son inhabited. Essentially, that her womb was sacred, dedicated for that holy use, and now set apart from other use.​

And yes, I do think this would have given Joseph pause in this regard.

But I still am not sure it is decisive on the overall question because

a. Neither perpetual virginity, nor Mary's womb being now sacred, were emphasized in Scripture
b. God told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife.
c. The result of the incarnation, and sacrifice of Jesus was to bring about a state where all believers are temples of God's Holy Spirit, and yet, sex with one's spouse is not defiling, but rather disobedience to God's command, including sex outside of marriage:

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body (NKJV)​

That is why I am trying to consider all of the evidence. Certainly Mary was blessed among women to carry the Savior, and to raise Him. She was obedient. And the idea that she could be consecrated, set apart to perpetual virginity, for God's purpose, and Joseph, being righteous, cooperated in this purpose is understandable.

The later statements support this idea. But they do not agree in their particulars. And the Scriptures, written by those who would know the situation best are not clear on the point, and may indicate something else.

With all due respect, the position that they are unclear means they do not indicate anything in that regard. One cannot follow an unclear indication because it is oxymoronic

 

[tall73]

Origen writes about those who think that Mary was ever-virgin, and agrees with them, but it does not appear to be a universal teaching.

​

CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on Matthew, Book X (Origen)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

​

And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the Son of Nun. And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) is not this the carpenter's son? Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.​

 

[tall73]

With all due respect, the position that they are unclear means they do not indicate anything in that regard. One cannot follow an unclear indication because it is oxymoronic

I was not suggesting that someone follow the unclear indications. I was noting, as earlier in the thread, the clear assertions of Mary's perpetual virginity appear in extant documents after the NT Scriptures.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I was not suggesting that someone follow the unclear indications. I was noting, as earlier in the thread, the clear assertions of Mary's perpetual virginity appear in extant documents after the NT Scriptures

Nor was I denying that fact. My only point is that if the indication of scripture is unclear, then no indication exists. They do not indicate something else
We use reason when reading scripture to discern Mary’s virginity, not the explicit words of scripture.

Doctrine can develop over time without changing the scriptures to say something contrary to previous Church teaching

Said development being defined as increased clarity, not new modern thought that is against previous thought. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Origen writes about those who think that Mary was ever-virgin, and agrees with them, but it does not appear to be a universal teaching.

​

CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on Matthew, Book X (Origen)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

​

And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the Son of Nun. And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) is not this the carpenter's son? Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.​

There were numerous teachings that were not universal until defined by an ecumenical council to clarify orthodox thought
The Apostles creed developed into the Nicene creed, which we use today, in response to Arianism which was believed by many, but later rejected as false
There are many other heresies that were rejected, yet believed by those that claimed to be Christian at the time. They were not settled by scripture alone, although sola scripturists accept much of orthodox reasoning. Trinity being one of them as well as the hypostatic union.

Orthodox being defined as “straight thinking”, not necesssrily the Easfern Ofthodox. Heresy is free thinking if we define free thinking as ramblings of human reason which is in error, not opposition to forced thought police by a tyrannical Church. We believe all Orthodox Church thought is contained in the Apostolic Church under the chair of St Peter.