Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

JacktheCatholic · Oct 5, 2009

bbbbbbb said:
I have a close friend who has been "married" for over thirty years. During the entire period his wife has completely refused to engage in sexual intercourse with him. In the Catholic Church that would be grounds for annulment of the marriage. Such a living arrangement would be viewed as, at best, odd, and, at worst, sinful because it is an aberrant form of birth control.

If we apply the same standards of the Catholic Church to their avowed belief concerning the marital status of Mary and Joseph we find that it is not grounds for annulment at all, nor is it in the least bit odd, nor is it the least bit sinful as an aberrant form for birth control.

Your truths are partial and without full understanding.

It is true that a person who gets married and then later reveals they will not have sex or children could be grounds for an annulment. But a couple going into marriage with a mutual understanding of having no sex and thus no children would not necessitate an annulment. I think in areas of Catholicism like this the Novice should keep learning.

As to Mary and Joseph their marriage to not have sex makes most sense when you realize Mary took a vow not to have sex her whole life and that in bearing Jesus she did not break this vow and her body remained virginal. Here it is best to study the writings used at the time that the New Testament was canonized. Knowledge is a good thing.

If you wish to learn about Catholicism the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "an assured teaching norm".

Thekla · Oct 5, 2009

bbbbbbb said:
I have a close friend who has been "married" for over thirty years. During the entire period his wife has completely refused to engage in sexual intercourse with him. In the Catholic Church that would be grounds for annulment of the marriage. Such a living arrangement would be viewed as, at best, odd, and, at worst, sinful because it is an aberrant form of birth control.

If we apply the same standards of the Catholic Church to their avowed belief concerning the marital status of Mary and Joseph we find that it is not grounds for annulment at all, nor is it in the least bit odd, nor is it the least bit sinful as an aberrant form for birth control.

I would think the grounds for annulment would not be absence of sexual intercourse, but a disagreement over the matter (see St. Paul on the matter). There have been numerous chaste marriages over the two millenia of the EO, where this was agreed to by the spouses.

Thekla · Oct 5, 2009

bbbbbbb said:
Let's not forget those pesky brothers and sisters of Jesus, too.

And Lot's brother Abraham who was also his uncle - must be an interesting family tree

Unless, of course, one considers the actual definition of adelphos (tr. brother) ...

Philothei · Oct 5, 2009

Let's not forget those pesky brothers and sisters of Jesus, too.

hmmmm do you mean "imaginary"

lionroar0 · Oct 6, 2009

bbbbbbb said:
Let's not forget those pesky brothers and sisters of Jesus, too.

Every time I read a post saying that. It reminds me how much removed the modern non-apostolic christian are from their roots.

Specially when all of their roots had the faith that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

MamaZ · Oct 6, 2009

I don't see that Mary was ever virgin written in the scriptures. In fact I see layed out that she was the wife of Joseph and that even the towns people knew the family including the brothers and sisters..

Philothei · Oct 6, 2009

lionroar0 said:
Every time I read a post saying that. It reminds me how much removed the modern non-apostolic christian are from their roots.

Specially when all of their roots had the faith that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

And to add to this.... It also reminds us the 'mistranslation" that insists on circulating around for the sake of 'modernity" like the word "brother" in its usage in the Gospel...Again if we beleive that St. Paul was talking to all "his brothers" ONLY and not the congregation he was preaching.....then again Christ had brothers.... Have we already gone this way again? It is a dead end folks.

Thekla · Oct 6, 2009

MamaZ said:
I don't see that Mary was ever virgin written in the scriptures. In fact I see layed out that she was the wife of Joseph and that even the towns people knew the family including the brothers and sisters..

The English translations use wife, but not the Greek. Nor does the Bible mention the marriage, nor describe the birth of other children to marry, nor describe which meaning of adelphos is meant.

Rick Otto · Oct 6, 2009

We can't have Jesus getting His Almighty Self defiled by an ordinary (yuck) womb.
Then He'd be too much like the rest of us & we might actualy begin to think we could like Him. Too risky for the existing authority structure and Anicetus by precedent set that above Apostolic Tradition, so let's just believe what we're told to for peace & safety's sake.

Rick Otto · Oct 6, 2009

quote=lionroar0;Every time I read a post saying that. It reminds me how much removed the modern non-apostolic christian are from their roots.

Oh yeah, my non-apostolic Roman Catholic root. I forgot about all that while eating chocolate bunnies one Spring.

Specially when all of their roots had the faith that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

The "undeveloped" & "undefined" faith, that is.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 6, 2009

Rick Otto said:
Oh yeah, my non-apostolic Roman Catholic root. I forgot about all that while eating chocolate bunnies one Spring.

Beware the leaven of chocolate easter bunnies

Philothei · Oct 6, 2009

LLOJ nice to see your biblical devil getting squashed at your siggy ....hehehe....

The bunny is not part of the church tradition.... so what? so is insence...so is lots of OT practices... what is your point y'all? Then stay home lock ourselves up... and worship no one?? I truly do not get it....

Philothei · Oct 6, 2009

Rick Otto said:
We can't have Jesus getting His Almighty Self defiled by an ordinary (yuck) womb.
Then He'd be too much like the rest of us & we might actualy begin to think we could like Him. Too risky for the existing authority structure and Anicetus by precedent set that above Apostolic Tradition, so let's just believe what we're told to for peace & safety's sake.

Jesus sanctified Mary's womb. You got it backwards oops...
He is like us as he is fully human and fully God. Been born like us in every possible way is not what it is at hand here .... Indeed Christ was.

Philothei · Oct 6, 2009

Rick Otto said:
Oh yeah, my non-apostolic Roman Catholic root. I forgot about all that while eating chocolate bunnies one Spring.

The "undeveloped" & "undefined" faith, that is.

what is the relevance to what it was said? Choco bunnies are a practice not 'dogma' neither part of Tradition with big T.

Thekla · Oct 6, 2009

Rick Otto said:
We can't have Jesus getting His Almighty Self defiled by an ordinary (yuck) womb.
Then He'd be too much like the rest of us & we might actualy begin to think we could like Him. Too risky for the existing authority structure and Anicetus by precedent set that above Apostolic Tradition, so let's just believe what we're told to for peace & safety's sake.

Huh

He precisely did take on flesh in Mary's womb, and the Christian journey is towards becoming Christlike ... Christ's effect on us.

Is everything about human power structure ?
(But wait - insisting Mary couldn't have kept her vow of chastity, because some would find it offensive -- what sort of power structure is that ?)

lionroar0 · Oct 6, 2009

Oh yeah, my non-apostolic Roman Catholic root. I forgot about all that while eating chocolate bunnies one Spring.

Only in those coutries where that is the culture.

MamaZ · Oct 7, 2009

Thekla said:
The Scriptures do not state that they were husband and wife (the English terms "husband and wife" have a different, more narrow meaning than the words used in the Greek). The English vernacular meaning of "take" in this context also has a meaning which is not conclusively confirmed in the Greek. There is no mention in the Holy Scriptures of the content of their relationship beyond betrothal, protection and householding. Further, the western understanding does not include the idea of a chaste marriage; thus, in the English terminology and understanding, one does not consider anything beyond one's immediate typical cultural experience, and the understanding rests on these buried assumptions.

Oh brother.. When Jospeh was told to take Mary as his wife all the blessings and connatations to that relationship are understood. We see from the very beginning Gods plan of man and woman and how they become one flesh or wives or husbands. So when Joseph was told to take Mary as His wife he too understood that Mary was to be His wife. In full detail of the marriage commitment. For God made them male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.. This is why we read that Joseph kept her a virgin until the birth of Christ. For Christ was to be born of a virgin for the fulfillment of Prophecy. Not because Mary was extra special and to be kept a virgin all her life..

Thekla · Oct 7, 2009

MamaZ said:
Oh brother.. When Jospeh was told to take Mary as his wife all the blessings and connatations to that relationship are understood. We see from the very beginning Gods plan of man and woman and how they become one flesh or wives or husbands. So when Joseph was told to take Mary as His wife he too understood that Mary was to be His wife. In full detail of the marriage commitment. For God made them male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.. This is why we read that Joseph kept her a virgin until the birth of Christ. For Christ was to be born of a virgin for the fulfillment of Prophecy. Not because Mary was extra special and to be kept a virgin all her life..

We'll be rehashing old territory ...

- that if fulfillment were only found in marriage, none that remain unmarried can be saved.

- that the Incarnated Christ was indeed the greatest "fruit" ever born to woman.

- that Mary was betrothed; Gabriel spoke of the conception in the future tense, and still Mary questioned the 'how' of the announced future conception.

- that conception by any other than the betrothed is a contract-breaker.

- that there is no record of the marriage of Mary and Joseph in the Holy Scripture (or in prophecy).

- that Mary's statement "I know not a man..." is a statement of condition (not time referent).

- that the English use of until does not semantically demand a reversal of the period of time covered by the "until".

- that the interest of the "until" was to establish the fulfillment of prophecy.

- that until in Greek frequently means "always".

- that Pagan detractors from at least the third century mention that Mary had but one child (Celsus is recorded claiming a Jewish source for his information, and that she was turned out of Joseph's house).

More later if you would like ...

JacktheCatholic · Oct 8, 2009

Thekla said:
We'll be rehashing old territory ...

- that if fulfillment were only found in marriage, none that remain unmarried can be saved.

- that the Incarnated Christ was indeed the greatest "fruit" ever born to woman.

- that Mary was betrothed; Gabriel spoke of the conception in the future tense, and still Mary questioned the 'how' of the announced future conception.

- that conception by any other than the betrothed is a contract-breaker.

- that there is no record of the marriage of Mary and Joseph in the Holy Scripture (or in prophecy).

- that Mary's statement "I know not a man..." is a statement of condition (not time referent).

- that the English use of until does not semantically demand a reversal of the period of time covered by the "until".

- that the interest of the "until" was to establish the fulfillment of prophecy.

- that until in Greek frequently means "always".

- that Pagan detractors from at least the third century mention that Mary had but one child (Celsus is recorded claiming a Jewish source for his information, and that she was turned out of Joseph's house).

More later if you would like ...

Such Pearls as these...

Rick Otto · Oct 12, 2009

Philothei said:
LLOJ nice to see your biblical devil getting squashed at your siggy ....hehehe....

The bunny is not part of the church tradition.... so what? so is insence...so is lots of OT practices... what is your point y'all? Then stay home lock ourselves up... and worship no one?? I truly do not get it....

I'll give it to ya short & sweet:
Worship in spirit & truth, not tradition.
Be at home wherever you are & lock up your heart against all forms of idolatry.
And stop encouraging LiL' Lamb's junking up his signiture (please)! It's common knowledge signatures are a trigger for his OC disorder.

Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Love never fails

Coffee drinker

MamaZ

Guest

Love never fails

Thekla

Guest

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Love never fails

Love never fails

Love never fails

Thekla

Guest

Coffee drinker

MamaZ

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

The Dude Abides

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency